Should Scratch have a "Content ID" of its own?

customhacker

Abstract- wrote:
No Support.
People should learn to give credit before they get sued for it at age 25.

Zro716

iamunknown2 wrote:
You shouldn't have used the phrase “content ID”…

Content ID is over-sensitive and has bad effects….

Yes yes yes, I know. I've read a dozen scholarly articles about content ID, it's benefits and issues, and I know it how extremely bad it is. I used its name because of the database of copyrighted content it uses to identify things. I made the distinction that I do not want it to do the exact same thing as it (taking down projects that have copyrighted content), but modify it so that it instead it acts as to aid with giving credit. If it can identify content well, that can be used in a more positive way than it is now.

Linking content ID to Scratch would open Scratch up to companies like NOMCO, where they would employ bots to scan and get projects DMCA'd (which would be way worse than a lone lawyer being mean to a single Scratcher). Sure, not as bad as suing the whole of Scratch, but still pretty bad.

Employing bots on another site to issue takedowns sounds like a breach of ethics and a violation of our terms of use (no bots). Should this escalate to the court of law, Scratch still has plenty of defense, such as Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.

I would employ another automatic moderation system like this:
…
The advantage of the system above is that if a bunch of spambots decide to group together and spam upvotes whatever spam they had, 1) they would need to gain reputation/weight first, which would take a long time, 2) if they gradually gained weight before gradually turning spam-mode, the anomalies would

I'm confused. How would appeal reports get in? Other users don't know if a project was reported or not, so they won't be able to counter a report they aren't aware of.

Last edited by Zro716 (May 12, 2016 12:50:24)

IgDegOo

No support. Scratch is not a place to worry about copyrights and Steven Hillenburg getting very angry at you.

Zro716

IgDegOo wrote:
Scratch is not a place to worry about copyrights

Well, when we have a lot of copyrighted content being tossed around carelessly, we're basically taunting big scary corporations. Besides two infamous incidents of interdiction, there are tens of thousands of DCMA takedown notices pointed at Scratch. There's basically a huge legal nuke looming over a school. Is that not something to worry about?

I figured the “content ID” (or just the database part) would help identify missing pieces of attribution so that the project creator is less liable for copyright infringement / plagiarism.

IgDegOo

Zro716 wrote:
IgDegOo wrote:
Scratch is not a place to worry about copyrights
Well, when we have a lot of copyrighted content being tossed around carelessly, we're basically taunting big scary corporations. Besides two infamous incidents of interdiction, there are tens of thousands of DCMA takedown notices pointed at Scratch. There's basically a huge legal nuke looming over a school. Is that not something to worry about?

I figured the “content ID” (or just the database part) would help identify missing pieces of attribution so that the project creator is less liable for copyright infringement / plagiarism.

Whilst we're having a chat, let's go IP Ban (removed by moderator - please don't name and shame) ! He doesn't give credit when he uses video game OST (well, he didn't use to).

sorry mods

Last edited by IgDegOo (May 12, 2016 17:36:44)

Zro716

IgDegOo wrote:
Zro716 wrote:
IgDegOo wrote:
Scratch is not a place to worry about copyrights
Well, when we have a lot of copyrighted content being tossed around carelessly, we're basically taunting big scary corporations. Besides two infamous incidents of interdiction, there are tens of thousands of DCMA takedown notices pointed at Scratch. There's basically a huge legal nuke looming over a school. Is that not something to worry about?

I figured the “content ID” (or just the database part) would help identify missing pieces of attribution so that the project creator is less liable for copyright infringement / plagiarism.
Whilst we're having a chat, let's go IP Ban (removed by moderator - please don't name and shame)! He doesn't give credit when he uses video game OST (well, he didn't use to).

Erm, slippery slope? I never said “content ID” was supposed to issue punishment nor were we gonna hunt down plagiarizers like criminals. In the first post, I said we will still handle things as normal by nicely asking users to give credit for the things they use.

Last edited by Paddle2See (May 12, 2016 15:50:40)

IgDegOo

Zro716 wrote:
IgDegOo wrote:
Zro716 wrote:
IgDegOo wrote:
Scratch is not a place to worry about copyrights
Well, when we have a lot of copyrighted content being tossed around carelessly, we're basically taunting big scary corporations. Besides two infamous incidents of interdiction, there are tens of thousands of DCMA takedown notices pointed at Scratch. There's basically a huge legal nuke looming over a school. Is that not something to worry about?

I figured the “content ID” (or just the database part) would help identify missing pieces of attribution so that the project creator is less liable for copyright infringement / plagiarism.
Whilst we're having a chat, let's go IP Ban (removed by moderator - please don't name and shame)! He doesn't give credit when he uses video game OST (well, he didn't use to).
Erm, slippery slope? I never said “content ID” was supposed to issue punishment nor were we gonna hunt down plagiarizers like criminals. In the first post, I said we will still handle things as normal by nicely asking users to give credit for the things they use.

Right. Also, can't this be worked around by just cutting 0.01 seconds off the sound, or changing one pixel of the image?

Last edited by Paddle2See (May 12, 2016 15:51:03)

Tymewalk

IgDegOo wrote:
Zro716 wrote:
IgDegOo wrote:
Zro716 wrote:
IgDegOo wrote:
Scratch is not a place to worry about copyrights
Well, when we have a lot of copyrighted content being tossed around carelessly, we're basically taunting big scary corporations. Besides two infamous incidents of interdiction, there are tens of thousands of DCMA takedown notices pointed at Scratch. There's basically a huge legal nuke looming over a school. Is that not something to worry about?

I figured the “content ID” (or just the database part) would help identify missing pieces of attribution so that the project creator is less liable for copyright infringement / plagiarism.
Whilst we're having a chat, let's go IP Ban (removed by moderator - please don't name and shame)! He doesn't give credit when he uses video game OST (well, he didn't use to).
Erm, slippery slope? I never said “content ID” was supposed to issue punishment nor were we gonna hunt down plagiarizers like criminals. In the first post, I said we will still handle things as normal by nicely asking users to give credit for the things they use.
Right. Also, can't this be worked around by just cutting 0.01 seconds off the sound, or changing one pixel of the image?

Quick note - this is what people on YouTube do to avoid being flagged (usually they pitch the sound so Content ID can't tell).

Last edited by Paddle2See (May 12, 2016 15:51:30)

Zro716

IgDegOo wrote:
Right. Also, can't this be worked around by just cutting 0.01 seconds off the sound, or changing one pixel of the image?

Nope, Content ID is way smarter than that. Also, not everything gets taken down: copyright owners could display ads to generate revenue or they could just disable revenue from those videos.

Of course, I'm not saying Scratch should do this. I'm saying we should utilize the Content ID database to find instances of copyrighted material and credit the authors where necessary.

IgDegOo

Zro716 wrote:
IgDegOo wrote:
Right. Also, can't this be worked around by just cutting 0.01 seconds off the sound, or changing one pixel of the image?
copyright owners could display ads to generate revenue or they could just disable revenue from those videos

um
isn't scratch non-profit

Birdlegs

IgDegOo wrote:
Zro716 wrote:
IgDegOo wrote:
Right. Also, can't this be worked around by just cutting 0.01 seconds off the sound, or changing one pixel of the image?
copyright owners could display ads to generate revenue or they could just disable revenue from those videos
um
isn't scratch non-profit

Yeah, but I think they're talking about YouTube

Tymewalk

IgDegOo wrote:
Zro716 wrote:
IgDegOo wrote:
Right. Also, can't this be worked around by just cutting 0.01 seconds off the sound, or changing one pixel of the image?
copyright owners could display ads to generate revenue or they could just disable revenue from those videos
um
isn't scratch non-profit

Yes, which means AFAIK as long as you don't sell your project, it qualifies as fair use.
See the DMCA page:

In assessing whether or not a Scratch user has violated your copyrights, please keep in mind that Scratch is an educational and not-for-profit initiative, seeking to aid children’s learning by providing the tools for them to learn and express themselves using digital technology. Please also keep in mind the “Fair Use” doctrine incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107.

That “Fair Use” doctrine says:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

I've also heard personal use and parody are also accepted.

Breaking that down:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

I wouldn't say some of the uses are educational, but certainly not for-profit or commercial.

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

I assume this means what type it is. The main copyrighted materials used are resources from video games and TV/movie/song clips.

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

Sometimes people use the whole thing, but I've never seen anything like an entire TV show or movie recreated in Scratch. (Hint hint, project makers

)
Most clips from movies/TV are one funny moment someone either re-animates in Scratch or clips together as part of a larger project.

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I would assume this means “what will happen when this hits consumers”. In that case I don't think there is any effect.
Again, I'm assuming nobody is selling the copyrighted work. It's like YouTube (without monetizing for ads), anyone can just see it.
First, Scratch is a small community, and second, there's no real bad effect.
If someone was desperate they could only listen to music through Scratch, but since Scratch compresses the sound it's better to look up the actual music through something like VEVO on YouTube.

IgDegOo

Tymewalk wrote:
See the DMCA page:

i don't want to, copyright law is boring

BookOwl

IgDegOo wrote:
Tymewalk wrote:
See the DMCA page:
i don't want to, copyright law is boring

You shouldn't debate about things that you don't know.

Full support, but I would actually go a bit farther and make it so that if the system detects that has not credited say, 5 times in a 30 day period, it would send them an alert reminding them to give credit. This alert would not be a banning or muting alert, just a reminder to give credit.

Last edited by BookOwl (May 12, 2016 20:04:03)

PrincessPanda_test_

Ahem, no support. Content ID is very sensitive and can go against what's known as Fair Use, using copyrighted media in a very creative way. If that ever happens, I'll say this famous line.

Also, we should let kids learn about copyright, not get shoved in the face with a copyright strike.

Last edited by PrincessPanda_test_ (May 12, 2016 20:54:19)

Abstract-

Zro716 wrote:
Abstract- wrote:
No Support.
People should learn to give credit before they get sued for it at age 25.
Alright, tell us how we can get people to give credit.

I mean, we have the Community Guidelines, the Terms of Use, etc.. but are these effective?

Alerts and banning exist for a reason.

Zro716

IgDegOo wrote:
Zro716 wrote:
IgDegOo wrote:
Right. Also, can't this be worked around by just cutting 0.01 seconds off the sound, or changing one pixel of the image?
copyright owners could display ads to generate revenue or they could just disable revenue from those videos
um
isn't scratch non-profit

I was referring to YouTube. If you read what I said immediately after that, I say that we're not using content ID for the same purpose.

PrincessPanda_test_ wrote:
Ahem, no support. Content ID is very sensitive and can go against what's known as Fair Use, using copyrighted media in a very creative way. If that ever happens, I'll say this famous line.

Also, we should let kids learn about copyright, not get shoved in the face with a copyright strike.

I'll say it again, I'm not insisting on implementing the same protocol as YouTube's content ID. Meaning no ad revenue, no DMCA takedowns, nothing like that. I just want to utilize searching the copyright database for matches to material on Scratch so that, as explained in the first post, it can auto-generate credit where needed and when appropriate.

PrincessPanda_test_

Oh.

Support then, however we should still enforce Scratchers to give credit.

Last edited by PrincessPanda_test_ (May 13, 2016 00:44:02)

Jonathan50

IgDegOo wrote:
No support. Scratch is not a place to worry about copyrights and Steven Hillenburg getting very angry at you.

I don't support either, but that's wrong. You should still respect copyright laws.

iamunknown2

Zro716 wrote:
Linking content ID to Scratch would open Scratch up to companies like NOMCO, where they would employ bots to scan and get projects DMCA'd (which would be way worse than a lone lawyer being mean to a single Scratcher). Sure, not as bad as suing the whole of Scratch, but still pretty bad.
Employing bots on another site to issue takedowns sounds like a breach of ethics and a violation of our terms of use (no bots). Should this escalate to the court of law, Scratch still has plenty of defense, such as Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.

I guess that they don't exist…
https://transparency.automattic.com/2015/04/09/automated-dmca-fail-when-bots-go-bad/
http://www.extremetech.com/internet/135529-out-of-control-copyright-bots-are-making-a-mockery-of-the-dmca
Oh wait…

Should this escalate to the court of law, Scratch still has plenty of defense

Except that 1) the companies always have gotten their way in the past and 2) Scratch has never taken a case like this to the court.

Last edited by iamunknown2 (May 13, 2016 03:29:51)

Discuss Scratch