What is Digg?44 Comments
- fatadamblog, on 12/06/2007, -2/+18I predict.....EPIC FAILURE!
- GhostWithToast, on 12/06/2007, -1/+14somebody quick, post a link to a torrent of this copyright software.
- zetec, on 12/06/2007, -4/+16Nielson's a ***** joke. They may have been relevant and accurate 20 years ago, but now they're hoplessly in over their heads trying to control a medium that no longer can be constrained. No wonder they're trying to branch out, although it's quite obvious they're going to fail (quite miserably) at this as well.
Nielson, either make some reliable people-meters and deploy them en masse, or shut the ***** up and get out of the industry. It's their only real option and they seem to keep on ignoring it. - Remmy, on 12/06/2007, -1/+9This is a pipe dream. Seriously. It will take years for something like this to reach maturity and until then, tons of videos will be tagged that infringe on nothing at all causing manual intervention, defeating the purpose of the automated system altogether. Even when it reaches a level of accuracy, circumventions will appear.
This is a war that can not be won by content producers. I'm not saying that it's right, I'm simply saying they are fighting a system that is more advanced then they are. - KewlerKid3, on 12/06/2007, -3/+8Digital Copyrighting is the Oxymoron that won't leave the industry alone.
- patflex, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5Copyright laws have protections built in for legitimate usage and there is tons of gray area that keeps copyright lawyers in business. So, I'm not sure how much an automated system will help beyond just identification.
- FirstDigg, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Well for the moment lets assume they get the detection down 100% with no false positives.
If the networks all state that they do not want their content on youtube, and each video uploaded is scanned and matched to the database, I'd imagine the system would be pretty straight forward. If the network asked for the show not to be uploaded and its detected, it'd be rejected.
That's all that they are doing right now really, except its all a manual process. - vulapine, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3uhm, they are targeting video sharing sites specifically. I fail to see how you missed that.
- Floris, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3http://nielsen.epicfailed.us
- inactive, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3Isnt it free advertising for them if their videos are posted on youtube?
- Murdats, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3LOGIC??? how dare you imply that logic plays any part in the entertainment industry, thats not how it works.
- briancarnell, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2A good analysis of why watermarking is extraordinarily weak for the sort of widespread use Nielsen/Digimark is talking about here: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=981
- treas, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3the criminals with better cars, better weapons, and better planning don't get caught.
The ones who get caught are the ones who lack all of the above. - netdroid9, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2It depends on how they go about it. Most online video hosts have such ***** resolution that there's a good chance it won't be able to detect anything.
- vulapine, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Only partially. Let's say you have a show that you love and you post the full content of every episode on YouTube. You may be costing the source company (and thus the program you love) money if the company offers a commercial version on their site. Even if you leave the commercials in on your version, the advertisers are not paying for that, so the company that delivered the programming to you is not getting a penny.
- Bklynadam, on 12/06/2007, -2/+3At the risk of being flamed, I'm going to point out an inherent dichotomy in the Digger mentality:
how can one support libertarian ideas i.e. Ron Paul, and at the same time question the legitimacy of enforcing copyright? What would you value more: personal autonomy or a public welfare state? Would you be angry if you were a commercial farmer growing wheat, and the population said they were taking over your fields because people are hungry?
As a libertairian and constitutional originalist I believe we should respect the individual property rights that our nation was founded on.
- however, I agree that the entertainment business is built in part on maintaining a public image, so strict enforcement may be detrimental to PR and public sentiment. But, this is a choice that property-rights holders are free to make for themselves. - betterth, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Fail? I mean, it will stop a lot of people. It's simple watermark detection. They control both ends of the spectrum -- they get the leisure of adding a watermark to everything and then just building a simple detector.
I'm sure clever ways of bypassing it will arise, but it's certainly a big step against piracy of television shows. - vulapine, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1I 90% agree. If someone posts a video of a clip from their favorite show on YouTube and says "look how great this is", then they name the show and link to NBC or whatever, I can't see that hurting NBC, and in fact can help. However, posting the whole of a show, without commercials, can potentially harm the source by stagnating viewership, and thus, reducing revenue (think of what the writers' strike is about) .
- Murdats, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1which would be a valid argument if most shows were not full of product placements and mid show ads, you know the ones where they pop up over the show, or they have the image down the bottom or up the top, and then more during credits.
some shows are almost unwatchable because of them. - Thedarklord187, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Its not really a big step twords anything this process already exists except its a maunel process. also even if it does prevent tv shows from appearing on you tube bit torrents will just pick up the slack. Long live the pirates of the world and may they plunder for all time
- inactive, on 12/06/2007, -2/+3I would think that a lot of website owners would want their content used and distributed as long as you reference where the content came from, plus add a back link to their site. I would just have the system check for back links to used content. I have always thought that this was an effective way of free advertising for both sites. As far a downloading videos; the technology is already there to protect from being downloaded so no problem.
- Yage2006, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Good luck with that.
- Bklynadam, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1your logic is backwards. If shows are allowed to be posted online because the advertisers can still make money, it will encourage more product placement and pop-over ads.
- grimward, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Ahahaha, all my points have already been mentioned, so I'm just going do a nelson to nielsen!
*points to them and says HA HA!* - fani, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Haha. Copyright protection for the web. Would this be delivered by specially marked Nielsen trucks on the internet tubes ?
LOL. Pipe dreams, Nielsen. Pipe dreams. - vulapine, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1So let's not try at all?
- Bklynadam, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Thats a good point. Maybe being an originalist also means being a hypocrite, such as when certain founding fathers wrote in the declaration of independence "all men are created equal" when they owned slaves.
But wasn't the focus of not respecting the rights of foreign countries rooted in the culture of racism/xenophobia and the fact the country had been at war with england? - andergriff, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Controlled broadcast or cable content is probably over. The survivors are going to have to move their content onto the net in some type of encrypted format if they want to hang on to their material, somewhat in the same manner that Audible handles audio content now. Even that is not 100% secure, but better than having your stuff hijacked from the normal media and showing up gratis on YouTube.
- captmorgan555, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Nielsen was just bought by an Indian company. They fired over 300 call center workers here in Tampa Bay and left only 20 or so (this is all hearsay). So basically, ***** Nielsen.
- ObeseSnake, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1So if they use a torrent client and start downloading (and uploading) their client's content aren't they simultaneously sharing the same content they are trying to scan?
- Chirp08, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1They will fail, sure, but not before they are paid ;)
- djgump35, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Is there such a thing as copyright insurance? I think I would like to sell that. Then I could contract all of the copyrighters out there, and when something gets hacked I could suit them out of everything like the RIAA tries, and then every company that claims to save someone from copyright would go out of business and I would be rich.
Now I just need someone else to do it,as the YOU Stole our crap associations of the world would take all of my money before I could do it. - aliengoods, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Most crimes aren't solved. The rate of felonies that aren't solved is 50-60%, and petty thefts and misdemeanors are rarely solved if someone isn't apprehended on the spot. So you can make the argument and conclude the police, like the content industry, is losing horribly.
- ArtificialAnus, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1The problem is that it kind of works for cell phones, and all the other content guys are salivating because of this one half-success. Cell phones are a special case, though, and vastly different from PCs, which are designed from the bottom-up to be open.
- simongzster, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Maybe because diggers think for themselves, evaluates each issue individually, and don't blindly follow party lines like a drooling idiot.
- briancarnell, on 12/06/2007, -0/+0"As a libertairian and constitutional originalist I believe we should respect the individual property rights that our nation was founded on."
But, of course, the early United States was a notorious copyright rogue state, refusing, for example, to honor copyrights for foreign works, etc. See, for example: http://transiting.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/ninetee ... - DirtySnachez, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2uhm, unless theyr'e scanning & deleting every single torrent magically somehow, I fail to see how this will work.
- SteveTheSultan, on 12/06/2007, -0/+0I predict with in 1 week of this post that there is a hack available that will kill this feature.
- briancarnell, on 12/06/2007, -0/+0I'm sure there wasn't much sympathy for the British, but in both cases -- today and then -- copyright seems to be dictated by business interests rather than any overarching principle. Back then, it was book retailers who were predominant in that industry and successfully opposed changes to recognize foreign copyrights. Today it is publishers who are predominant and are able to impose draconian limits on copyright.
- capnfrog, on 12/07/2007, -0/+0Did you read the comment he's replying to, not involving the websites article ?
I guess you're all for having a corp tell you what you can and can't post online.. - leetninja, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1the company behind the software knows what they are doing, neilsen is just giving them the money to protect things. unfortunately pirating had to come to an end sometime ... looks like this might be it ...
- vulapine, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1"they are fighting a system that is more advanced then they are."
You can make the same argument regarding law enforcement. The criminals have better cars, better weapons, better planning, yet still many get caught. - cliffzdude, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1How it Nielson a "***** joke"? Your strongly stated opinion has really back-fired, sure your comment will get mass Diggs as the "I am hax0r, you suck" mentality mob rules supreme on Digg, but you sound really silly. Nielson has its hands in many industries, those you are familiar with are but a sprinkling of their business. Think of AC Nielson as a marketing research company, with its hands branching out many, many different directions. If their TV Ratings system died a horrible death tomorrow, there would be something there to build a metric and measure who is watching what, and when. More than likely if TV moves to totally IP, they'll be there too. Its what they do, and like them or not they do it well. To take a "I hate those *****" against a company, because they are implementing a technology to help copyright owners protect the ***** they produce is a bit illogical. It may fail, it may suck, but the fact is zetec is just hoping and praying it does fail and does suck, thus the oddly aggressive stance against a marketing research company.
- OpaqueMurdock, on 12/06/2007, -1/+0I wish that in these arguments people would consider all content creators, not just big studios/record companies. As a self published photographer, musician, and short film maker, it seems like no people don't stop to think about the new "creative middle class". People just want digital content to be free even if it means hobbling someone who relies on a modest income from digital works.
I know that the model is to "set it free" and hope for a return... but I only see that working on a very large scale. For example, if I made a well produced instructional video for a rarely used art technique and the 5000 people in the world who where interested in using it could either pay me a modest $10 or download a hijacked version of it... I hate to say it but the number of people that would choose to just snag it for free would most likely make the project not worth doing and thus a valuable bit of fairly priced content would never be made. If you are a well established and famous band with a very devoted fan base you may be able to get a minority portion of them to pay a modest price for your works and that would be OK because of the scale. The rest of us... good luck with that.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is