Paul Walsh, the Irish Opportunist

It’s time to change the copyright law.

According to Jemima Kiss

Viacom’s $1bn lawsuit against popular video sharing site YouTube has escalated further, with parent company Google filing court papers in the US claiming the case could threaten the free exchange of online information.

Read more about what Jemima thinks on her blog.

I say ‘bullshit’ to Google. The only thing the lawsuit threatens is Google’s advertising revenue. Google is an advertising company, generating revenue from placing advertisements around other people’s content. Search results contain the title and description of each Web site. None of that content belongs to Google. Google doesn’t particularly care about search, per say. It cares about generating revenue by selling search keywords to the highest bidder. Ok, there’s a little intelligence in there to ensure some relevance is considered - but not a lot. Certainly not enough to make search trustworthy or relevant.

So, it came as no surprise to me, that Satan would do the same with YouTube. Viacom has every right to sue Google. It’s about time it got a taste of what Microsoft has to live with every year.

For a slightly less anger-led opinion, I’ve published below, a post I wrote on Segala’s blog on March 19th, 2007.

After writing the post below, the project coordinator for ACAP left the following comment

ACAP is entirely committed to the principle that we will not reinvent anything unnecessarily. On the other hand, until we have completed our requirements work, it would be entirely inappropriate for us to commit to use any particular technical solution. POWDER was already on our radar, and will continue to be so.

I met them shortly afterwards and felt like they were going to do what Google told them to do, irrespective of the fact that current technologies may provide the right solution. Yes. It sounds dumb to me too. It really frustrates me to hear about technologies and standards being introduced on the back of what one company wants, just because of its size.

Original post, dated March 19th, 2007

I received an email from Paul Miller of Talis yesterday (he obviously doesn’t stop working either!), bringing to my attention, an article in the Independent about the saga between Viacom and Google. Paul has written a blog post about this also.

Viacom, owner of Paramount, studios and MTV says that Google has breached its copyright 1.5 billion times by allowing YouTube users to share video clips. And the outcome of the $1bn lawsuit may have a knock on effect for newspapers and blogs. So, newspapers such as the Guardian and Independent and bloggers such as TechCrunch, Robert Scoble, ReadWrite/Web and Vecosys better watch the outcome of this lawsuit.

Make sure you read beyond the quote as I go on to talk about *the* solution to this problem.

According to the Independent (original article)

The case, which accuses Google’s YouTube video-sharing site of building “a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others’ creative works”, has the potential to redefine how content is used on the internet. “If it goes to court, this will be the biggest case since Napster [the music-sharing website shut down by litigation in 2002],” says Edgar Forbes, senior lecturer in media law and intellectual property at Bournemouth University.

[snip]

Bloggers and websites increasingly use newspaper articles to attract users, provoke debate and sell advertising on their sites. “This is a big issue,” says Larry Kilman of the World Association of Newspapers. “If a company like Google is using content and selling advertisements around it, that is of concern to many newspapers and publishers.” The association, with partners including the global news agency Agence France-Presse (AFP), Macmillan Publishers and Independent News & Media (parent group of The Independent on Sunday), is working to create an international protocol to regulate online use of newspaper content.

The Automated Content Access Protocol (Acap) would let owners of published content communicate permission information automatically in a form recognised by internet search engines. This would allow legitimate online users to comply easily and quickly with copyright law. Lawyers say such an international standard would be immensely useful. But making it work requires absolute clarity about what is protected by copyright and how it can be enforced.

Paul M. brought this to my attention because of the ACAP (Automated Content Access Protocol) connection. What ACAP is looking to achieve is exactly the type of use case that we have in mind for Content Labels .

In fact, I discussed this particular use case with Philip Hallam-Baker, Chief Scientist at VeriSign over dinner last year. Philip told me of their proposed (and very propritary) solution with Microsoft before the launch of IE7. I remember saying that what VeriSign could do to combat Phishing for $800 per certificate, Segala could do for $8 using Content Labels <g>

Jemima Kiss wrote an article about Content Labels, covering some of the major use cases in the Guardian today. Perhaps Jemima will write about Segala’s proposed solution for ACAP soon…

According to Acap’s homepage

ACAP will enable the providers of all types of content published on the World Wide Web to communicate permissions information (relating to access and use of that content) in a form that can be automatically recognized and interpreted, so that business partners can systematically comply with the publishers’ policies. In the first instance, ACAP will provide a framework that will allow any publisher, large or small, to express access and use policies in a language that search engines’ robot “spiders” can be taught to understand. It is anticipated that, in future, the scope of ACAP will be extended to other business relationships and other media types.

As a result, it will be possible for publishers to make more content available to users through the search engines, and to continue to innovate in the development of business models for network publishing.

I hope they’re not spending too much time and money on developing a new ’standard’ for which there is a solution already, a solution that is going to be the standard for labelling content on the Web (and potentially for mobile and TV). In short, Content Labels does exactly what ACAP want to achieve.

Known within the W3C as POWDER (Protocol for Web Description Resources), Content Labels is moving onto a full recommendation track. This means our Content Labels are set to become the standard method for content classification on the Web. The W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) is responsible for creating standards such as HTML and WAI Guidelines. This helps to ensure that our method of labelling content is (beyond) scalable and importantly free or low in cost.

Furthermore, Content Labels (I mean POWDER, sorry, I can’t get used to the new name), will be proposed as a replacement for PICS. PICS is the old/out dated W3C recommendation still in use by Internet Explorer for Site Advisor.

I came up with the idea of contentlabel.org to help organisations like ACAP adopt a system for its own code of conduct almost immediately and seamlessly. It also helps industry create new codes of conduct for which Content Labels will be created, as reported by the Guardian.

There are too many proprietary technologies and so-called standards looking to achieve the same goal. I’m not saying for a second that this is what ACAP is trying to do, but let’s not create another standard if it’s not necessary please. In fact, I’ve already been introduced (by email) to ACAP’s project coordinator and technical project manager and look forward to hearing from them.

I’ll write a separate post which looks at all the current attempts at enabling more trust on the Web using ‘a’ standard. For now, I must catch a train into an Internet People event.