Smart Software and the Cloud, Google, How Is That Working Out?
February 19, 2022
I read “Google Drive Is Flagging Some MacOS Files for Copyright Violation.” The flagging is using Google’s smart software. The copyright violations concern the outfit Google pays a billion or so each year to make Google search the right choice for iPhone users. Yep, the right choice because Google has smart software. Smart software can connect to automated systems which send legal sounding letter which threaten fines and more to alleged offenders.
The write up states:
A disgruntled Reddit user recently reported that a ‘.DS_Store’ file on their Google Drive was flagged by the search giant for violating its copyright infringement policy. Apparently, this isn’t the first time this issue has been encountered as MacOS users also reported experiencing similar problems last month.
This is a small sample and the flagging may have been just some fantasy moment in the metaverse.
I noted this follow on statement:
A similar incident occurred recently when Google Drive accidentally flagged almost empty files containing just a few numbers for violating the company’s copyright infringement files.
Are violators able to call a Googley humanoid to provide input? Sure. Plus Google is working on a fix. A job for an intern? Maybe.
Stephen E Arnold, February 19, 2022
Google CEO Named in Copyright Violation Suit: Travel Plans to India This Week, Mr. Pichai?
January 26, 2022
YouTube, Google, and copyright are a long-term threesome. Reports like “Suneel Darshan Files Complaint, Mumbai Police Books Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Others for Copyright Act Violation” are not likely to be a tweeter meme in the US. However, for the Indian film maker Suneel Darshan, it’s a big deal. Mr. Darshan appears to be unhappy with Google’s smart YouTube copyright violation system powered by Google’s deep diving, snorkel equipped machine learning systems for artificial intelligence.
Mr. Darshan — either for public relations or a desire to amp up his viewpoint — has filed what’s called in India a FIR or First Information Report. Named in the alleged copyright violation is Sundar Pichai and a handful of other Googlers.
So what? Several thoughts from my hollow in rural Kentucky:
- Lawyers will descend on the government offices and the zippy Indian legal system will move forward. In time, something will happen. In the meantime, it’s business as usual for the Google.
- Mr. Darshan captures the attention of television news hawks and tweeters and generates more interest in the allegedly pirate film “Ek Haseena Thi Ek Deewana Tha”.
- Indian authorities put Mr. Pichai and the other Googlers named in the copyright violation matter on a watch list.
Business trips to India could create some unexpected customs and immigration activity for Mr. Pichai and the Googlers identified by the aggrieved Mr. Darshan.
Does Mr. Pichai have upcoming travel plans to India? Compared to the Dark Patterns matter, spending a few extra minutes in the Mumbai International Airport may not make much difference unless the Googlers are hauled off to the Mumbai police headquarters. Take some tchotchkes maybe?
Stephen E Arnold, January 26, 2022
Selective YouTube Upload Filtering or Erratic Smart Software?
May 4, 2021
I received some information about a YouTuber named Aquachiggers. I watched this person’s eight minute video in which Aquachigger explained that his videos had been downloaded from YouTube. Then an individual (whom I shall described as an alleged bad actor) uploaded those Aquachigger videos with a the alleged bad actor’s voice over. I think the technical term for this is a copyright violation taco.
I am not sure who did what in this quite unusual recycling of user content. What’s clear is that YouTube’s mechanism to determine if an uploaded video violates Google rules (who really knows what these are other than the magic algorithms which operate like tireless, non-human Amazon warehouse workers). Allegedly Google’s YouTube digital third grade teacher software can spot copyright violations and give the bad actor a chance to rehabilitate an offending video.
According to Aquachigger, content was appropriated, and then via logic which is crystalline to Googlers, notified Aquachigger that his channel would be terminated for copyright violation. Yep, the “creator” Aquachigger would be banned from YouTube, losing ad revenue and subscriber access, because an alleged bad actor took the Aquachigger content, slapped an audio track over it, and monetized that content. The alleged bad actor is generating revenue by unauthorized appropriation of another person’s content. The key is that the alleged bad actor generates more clicks than the “creator” Aquachigger.
Following this?
I decided to test the YouTube embedded content filtering system. I inserted a 45 second segment from a Carnegie Mellon news release about one of its innovations. I hit the upload button and discovered that after the video was uploaded to YouTube, the Googley system informed me that the video with the Carnegie Mellon news snip required further processing. The Googley system labored for three hours. I decided to see what would happen if I uploaded the test segment to Facebook. Zippity-doo. Facebook accepted my test video.
What I learned from my statistically insignificant test that I could formulate some tentative questions; for example:
- If YouTube could “block” my upload of the video PR snippet, would YouTube be able to block the Aquachigger bad actor’s recycled Aquachigger content?
- Why would YouTube block a snippet of a news release video from a university touting its technical innovation?
- Why would YouTube, create the perception that Aquachigger be “terminated”?
- Would YouTube be allowing the unauthorized use of Aquachigger content in order to derive more revenue from that content on the much smaller Aquachigger follower base?
Interesting questions. I don’t have answers, but this Aquachigger incident and my test indicate that consistency is the hobgoblin of some smart software. That’s why I laughed when I navigated to Jigsaw, a Google service, and learned that Google is committed to “protecting voices in conversation.” Furthermore:
Online abuse and toxicity stops people from engaging in conversation and, in extreme cases, forces people offline. We’re finding new ways to reduce toxicity, and ensure everyone can safely participate in online conversations.
I also learned:
Much of the world’s internet users experience digital censorship that restricts access to news, information, and messaging apps. We’re [Google] building tools to help people access the global internet.
Like I said, “Consistency.” Ho ho ho.
Stephen E Arnold, May 4, 2021
Twitter Adulting: Copyright and the President of the United States
July 21, 2020
Imagine. Twitter has procedures which automate a portion of its copyright vigilance. (DarkCyber is not so sure about Twitter’s hiring practices and the internal security of its system, but the copyright function may be working.)
“Twitter Disables Trump Tweet over Copyright Complaint” presents as accurate and “real” news this statement:
Twitter removed the video, which Trump had retweeted from White House social media director Dan Scavino, after it received a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice from Machine Shop Entertainment, according to a notice posted on the Lumen Database which collects requests for removal of online materials. Machine Shop is a management company owned by the rock band Linkin Park, according to its LinkedIn page.
DarkCyber hopes that Twitter will bring similar diligence to its security, management, and governance of a firm which occupies an interesting, if not secure, place in the pantheon of social media luminaries.
As Linkin Park sang:
Go, stop the show
Choppy words…
Indeed, but the DarkCyber team would substitute the word “tweety” for choppy. But we are not song writers or exceptional tweeters.
Stephen E Arnold, July 21, 2020
Oracle: A Gentle, Dulcet Reminder of What It Takes to Survive in the Digital Jungle
March 12, 2020
“Before It Sued Google for Copying from Java, Oracle Got Rich Copying IBM’s SQL” is a deerskin moccasin stroll through a dark, dangerous thicket. A company with a penchant for oatmeal container architecture and renaming roadways should serve as a flashing yellow light.
The write up uses phrases like those favored by DarkCyber; for example:
Oracle’s history highlights a possible downside to its stance on API copyrights.
Yeah, but history is a consequence of bright individuals who seize on a particular molecule from the event stream. History does not highlight anything. Humans like lawyers, analysts, and writers do. The “possible downside” is a hedge against a former Marine who can be — ah, what is the word, — “frisky”.
The write-up says:
Oracle got its start in the 1970s selling a database product based on the then-new structured query language (SQL). SQL was invented by IBM. And Oracle doesn’t seem to have gotten a license to use it.
Yikes. What’s this mean? DarkCyber turns to the article for guidance:
Oracle got its start copying IBM’s software interface.
Yes, that’s clear.
Plus, there’s a molecule from the event stream; specifically:
Around 1977, Larry Ellison and his co-founders spotted an opportunity. They had recently started a software consulting company called Software Development Laboratories, but they wanted to transition to selling a software product. Ellison realized there was enough detail in IBM’s white papers to clone IBM’s database technology. He also realized that it would provide a credibility boost if he could say that their new Oracle database was fully compatible with IBM’s SQL standard. According to one of SQL’s designers, Donald Chamberlin, Ellison was so determined to achieve compatibility with IBM’s technology that he called Chamberlin in 1978 seeking more details about IBM’s implementation of SQL.
The digital equivalent of the two largest blocks in the former Soviet union sat down to talk turkey about Java. Oracle “owned” it; Google had some Sun Microsystems’ employees who had a bit of experience with the “write once, run anywhere” methods.
The write up states:
Google claims that “negotiations broke down over issues unrelated to money.” Google says Sun sought more control over the evolution of the Android platform than Google was willing to offer. So Google decided to build its own version of Java without a license from Sun.
The river flowed, and the rushing waters are behaving with the oddball physics of fluid dynamics. Oracle was thrashed; Google was cyclonic.
The roaring river of legal fees has reached the Supreme Court. Will the legal dam of the copyright crowd hold, or will the “let the digital water flow” of the Google crowd prevail?
The write up creeps quietly away, offering this statement:
…fair use is a notoriously complex and subjective legal standard. Any company wanting to make its software interoperable with a competitor’s product would have to worry that the competitor could sue, arguing that this use wasn’t as fair as Google’s use of Java. Most software companies don’t have Google’s legal resources or staying power, so the prospect of a lawsuit—even one they’re likely to win—could be a major deterrent to building interoperable software.
The shadow of no or reduced interoperability falls. On the other hand, consultants, integrators, resellers, and innovators see a new dawn rising.
Go with history. The sun comes up every day, at least so far.
Stephen E Arnold, March 12, 2020
Server Obfuscation Explained
January 28, 2020
An online information service published an article about copyright enforcement: “Patreon Can’t Solve Its P#rn Pirate Problem.” Why can’t a service block its customers who are allegedly violating copyright?
Here’s the legal explanation:
Despite its gung-ho statement to Kotaku two years ago, Patreon now says its terms of service effectively tie its hands. “We can’t do anything,” says Colin Sullivan, Patreon’s head of legal. “We don’t enforce [copyright] because we don’t have a license to the content.” In other words, it’s legally on Patreon’s creators to enforce copyright on their own work.
Here’s a technical explanation about how Yiff Party remains difficult to pin down:
Yiff.Party’s backend is a bit of a chimera by design. Dozes employs a bit of tech called a “reverse proxy.” A typical proxy obfuscates the identity of the user accessing a server; a reverse proxy hides the identity of the server the client accesses. Between Yiff.Party’s server and the Yiff.party website sits another server. “Yiff.party’s main server stays hidden because the ‘real’ IP address isn’t being exposed since traffic is routed through a proxy,” says Dozes. Reverse proxies aren’t uncommon; large sites might use one to help them run faster. “It’s essentially a VPN, but for a website,” Dozes says. “If our real hosting provider found out they hosted the site, we would be at risk of losing all our data.”
Interesting, particularly the idea of “creators.”
Stephen E Arnold, January 28, 2020
Libraries Fight Publishers In Ebook Limitations
October 17, 2019
Public libraries are an equalizing tool for people who do not have access to technology, books, and other materials that come with higher incomes. Unlike academic and textbook publishers, popular book publishers have had working relationships with libraries for decades. One of the biggest publishing houses in the United States might bring that to an end if they instill limitations on ebooks. The Stranger shares one library’s story against publisher in, “Seattle Public Library ‘Denounces’ Publisher’s New E-Book Policy.”
Come November 1, 2019, Macmillan plans to only sell one digital copy of newly released ebooks for half price. Libraries will also be forced to wait two months before they can buy more copies and that will be at the full retail price. Digital ebooks sell for $60, but are $30 for many libraries due to their non-profit status.
Macmillan CEO John Sargent’s reasoning makes sense from a company trying to make a profit:
“The rationale behind this move, according to a draft of a memo to authors written by Macmillan CEO John Sargent, is “to balance the great importance of libraries with the value of [an author’s] work.” Sargent argues that library lending is “cannibalizing sales” of e-books. He thinks the embargo will help the e-books sell better online, and claims to have data proving that the publisher makes far less on “library reads” than they they do on “retail reads.””
Librarians speak the truth about the issue, because they are in the trenches where the action takes place. Libraries act as free PR for publishers and assist them in selling books with the profits going directly to the publishers, not libraries. Libraries also pay for ebooks than physical copies, despite it being cheaper to release ebooks.
This is going to hurt people with lower incomes, because they use libraries to get books they otherwise would not be able to afford.
The libraries, as always, will bear the brunt of this decision, because the general public does not understand or know about lending agreements between libraries and publishers. Authors could get bad reputations as well.
The number of people using ebooks and audiobooks has dramatically increased not only for the Seattle Public Library, but for libraries across the nation. Libraries have collected data that proves their circulating collections, physical and digital, do increase sales and boosts readership.
Libraries will also spend money, because of the products and services they offer people. If the price of ebooks go up, they will be forced to limit their collection’s holdings which will decrease circulation and the amount of people who visit. It would also lead to a decrease in readership and even book sales.
With an ever increasing cost of living, increasing the price for luxury goods like books will do more damage than boost sales. As a public institution, libraries have a good reputation and will give Macmillan a run for their pages.
Whitney Grace, MLS, October 17, 2019
YouTube and Copyright: Changes Made
September 11, 2019
Finally YouTube Changes Its Horrible Copyright System
YouTubers love and hate their platform of choice. They love that they have the freedom to make videos, but they hate YouTube’s unfair copyright infringement system. If you are unfamiliar with YouTube’s copyright infringement system, then read Gizmodo’s article, “YouTube Announces Some Changes To Its Infamously Awful Copyright Infringement System.”
The opening paragraph says it all:
“The number of issues plaguing YouTube at any one time boggles the mind, and range from accusations it promotes extremist content to reports its nightmare algorithm recommended home videos of children to the pedophiles infesting its comments sections. One of the less overtly alarming but still widespread issues has been the shoddy state of its copyright infringement claims system, which report after report have repeatedly indicated is trivially abused to file false claims, extort creators, and generally make YouTubers’ lives hell.”
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki announced in July 2019 that there would be numerous changers to the copyright claim system. The copyright claim system is different from the copyright infringement system, because the former is manual. Anyone who files a claim through the copyright claim system will need to input exact timestamps of the violation, instead of flagging an entire video.
Before YouTubers were not told how one of their videos violated a copyright claim. The new timestamp system will highlight the video’s section that is under scrutiny. YouTube will also promote more of its tools to make a video copyright compliant, such as muting sound or deleting a segment. These tools were available before, but YouTubers were unaware of where in their videos the problem was.
Problems still exist for content creators using copyrighted material for reviews, education, research, or news. Many YouTubers who make these types of videos claim their content falls under fair use guidelines.
Maybe the suffering of some YouTubers will lessen. Maybe.
Whitney Grace, September 11, 2019
Professional Publishers, Release the Legal Eagles
July 19, 2019
Most people don’t pay any attention to professional publishing. There are some folks who live and breathe the world of academics who write, fame loving lawyers who write essays about the “law”, and bright individuals who just want to share what graduate students have discovered. There’s also wonky papers cooked up so that the “authors” can attend a conference in Las Vegas, where some dreams can become reality.
Nature published “The Plan to Mine the World’s Research Papers.” The subtitle asks the question, “A giant data store quietly being built in India could free vast swathes of science for computer analysis — but is it legal?”
The answer may be, “Sure, the project is in India, a country which has taken an interesting approach to production of name brand pharmaceuticals.”
The write up is very long: Here’s a summary.
Copy journal, technical, and professional papers. Extract the text and images. Tag the content. Make the data available for data mining.
Simple enough.
DarkCyber noted this statement in the write up:
When Nature contacted 15 publishers about the JNU data depot, the six who responded said that this was the first time they had heard of the project, and that they couldn’t comment on its legality without further information. But all six — Elsevier, BMJ, the American Chemical Society, Springer Nature, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences and the US National Academy of Sciences — stated that researchers looking to mine their papers needed their authorization. (Springer Nature publishes this journal; Nature’s news team is editorially independent of its publisher.)
How many universities, researchers, and editors working at professional publishing companies would find a use for this information when it is free?
Enough to tip over the classy, little understood worlds of:
- Tenure track processes
- Library budgets
- Professional publishing companies themselves.
Worth watching? Yes, indeed.
Stephen E Arnold, July 19, 2019
Starz Confuses Inconvenient for Infringing
June 4, 2019
Surely, Starz sees its actions as simply cracking down in illegal content access, but TorrentFreak tells a different story in, “Starz Doesn’t Like News About Leaked TV-Shows, Takes Down TorrentFreak Tweet.” As it is wont to do, TorrentFreak reported a recent leak of several shows, including Starz’ “American Gods,” and auto-tweeted a link to the article. Soon, though, the tweet could no longer be seen; Starz had requested it be withheld as “infringing.” Writer Ernesto relates:
“According to the takedown notice, Starz argues that the tweet is infringing because it links to an article where people can see ‘images of the unreleased episodes’ and find more information about their illegal availability.’ For the record, our article only includes a single identifiable frame from a leaked ‘American Gods’ episode, to show the screener watermarks, which are central to the story. That’s just 0.001% of the episode in question, without audio, which is generally seen as fair use, especially in a news context.
As for the claim that the article includes information about the shows’ ‘illegal availability’, we only mention that they are being shared on pirate sites, without giving any names or links. That’s no ground for a takedown request.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s senior staff attorney agreed, and the write-up declares TorrentFreak’s intention to pursue the matter. As of this writing, it seems they persuaded Starz to see things their way, because the tweet is back in place.
Cynthia Murrell, June 4, 2019
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
