Would you check user uploaded videos against a copyrighted "do not use" list if you could?

but many affiliates do, with the owners permission, to make promo video clips they upload to tubes.

Then simply put the owner of that content should not put it on a db of 'not authorised content'.

Sorry, I didn't answer this second part at the time as I got caught up in something else....

Yes, indeed, but this would be the cms author's job, not mine. I have my own cms in the works, which is interested only in secure streaming and won't touch user-uploads. It is for a different market niche, so things like this would need to be added by those that cater to the tube cms market.

But, first thing's first - if I can get this idea off the ground it will be a giant leap in the right direction, but trying to move this lot is like trying to drive a Prosche out of wet concrete

Right, but you'd be returning the codes so I thought it could be an improvement if you returned more than just a yes or no. Factors like if pixel size matched, byte size matched, fingerprint matched, or whatever kind of variables are worth taking into consideration for the cms or developer to find useful.

This is kind of what k0nr4d was alluding to higher up - trust me, a match is pretty much a match. The only variable that comes into play is query movie length. A match can be made on anything > 10 seconds. But match a 10 second clip to a db of hundreds of thousands of 30minute movies and your false positive rate goes up *ONLY* if the real movie is not in the db. If it's in there, the real movie will *always* come out on top.

When the query clip though is unique and not in the db, and the query clip is small (< 1 min), *then* there is the chance of false positives. It must be said, anything > a few minutes will not generate a false positive (in my tests), but to be 100% sure, and to add a scoring system to the results, I would need a db of true negatives to make the script learn from. For this, the true negative db needs to be at least 1% the size of the positive db. I have a negative dataset, but it's from youtube and so it's pretty pathetic in a real world of pron vids, but the capability is there so yes, I'll look at it. Shit, if needs be, I can just use the tubes db and randomly pick out some to use for training. Suffice it to say, the bigger the negative dataset, the higher the confidence ;)

--edit and to add to that 'suffice it to say', throw a positive into that sea of negatives and the whole thing crumbles (hence why I used youtube for my negative dataset in testing)

All stuff for me to worry about, not you guys


--edit x2
To be clear, the only thing being sent is the fingerprint, so only that can match... the fingerprint contains all the info to match along with video metadata.

you can't TOS away legal liabilities (ie anti discrimination, censorship etc).

ask eharmony about that (http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/...22132120070531)


youtube automated process is insured, if a bogus takedown happens, the insurance covers the liablity.


If your solution is not insured, just trust me it will be ok,

then you would have to be a world class moron to give up the 100% safety of safe harbor for this solution.

yes you can..

i can just see the headlines now..

" man awarded millions because his home videos of himself jerking off were not allowed on a popular adult video site"

so why did eharmony lose their case then

if you can simply tos away legal liabilities they could have simply put in their tos we don't support same sex dating and they would have won.





the whole arguement of the case is that they DIDN't follow the takedown process.

Which is exactly what using this type of service would be.

Http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid

The megaupload principals would not be in jail today if they had used something like this. Safe harbor simply isn't anything like 100%. If it were, youtube wouldn't have developed and be using a similar system. We can agree the folks at youtube know what they are doing, right? They are paying the cost to run their system (and the cost to insure it) because checking the "do not post" list protects them.

Come to think of it, has there been a case yet that safe safe harbor, designed for ISPs, applies to tubes at all? A tube site's lawyer would certainly argue that it SHOULD apply, but has any court ruled that it DOES? Youtube doesn't appear to be confident that it does.

How this hurts safe harbour I really don't see to be honest. It's still user uploads, it's still not manually inspected (and if the TOS on a site states that you can only upload if you are the IP owner or have rights to do so, then the site is assuming the users are not violating the terms of service), and you are applying a filter to look for copyrighted content. This could probably even be used as a defense that you made the best effort possible to filter content.

Have you looked at phash?

of course, but that's images...

from DMCA safe harbor (thanks Allison):

The tube software author and tube owner can cover 1A+B

I think this thread (tube users) and the other thread (content owners) cover 2A,

This being a free service covers 2B

and the agreed hosting provider for the service will cover 2C

all bases covered no?

I would agree, this wouldn't open you up to any liability as long as it was automated. If this was actually brought to court it would show a good faith effort to follow the spirit of the law which is the opposite of what Gideon usually argues, that being following the letter of the law but knowingly violating the spirit of it.

But why would a false positive even result in legal action? A user doesn't have a civil right that entitles them to have their uploaded porn video displayed on a privately owned tube. Nothing in the original post talks about taking legal action when a video is flagged. So false positives have no place in this discussion.

This is NOT a censorship issue. Not allowing a user uploaded video to be displayed on a privately owned tube is not a free speech, censorship, or discrimination issue. You can use the TOS to say that anyone agreeing to use the tube understands their video is subject to automated approval before being displayed or not.

There is no liability for false positives and the eHarmony suit has no relevance here. Sexual orientation is a protected class in many states, that's why eHarmony choosing to refuse gays or lesbians was violation of state law and not something they could legally deny via a TOS.