Exploring The Copyright Ownership Landscape - DLT Introduction

50 %
50 %
Information about Exploring The Copyright Ownership Landscape - DLT Introduction
Science-Technology

Published on April 21, 2019

Author: theotherfruit

Source: authorstream.com

slide 1:    We explore some issues and considerations around the current copyright ownership landscape pertaining to blockchain and new technologys industry integration - This is an extension from the copyright registration service philosophy outlining rationales behind Biosphere service oerings. Media content has been abbreviated to M 1 - Registration of content attributes M to said company’s control or at least registered database. Hosting media itself grants controllers large inuence with possible nancial benet both in respect to user-data pending remuneration percentages and or corporatized control If visible online this may also bestow URL destination popularity for search engine listings and or similar rankings. Highly impactful possible delineations of M for prot too remains murky 132 2 - In place of the more presently ubiquitous text entry reverse-image lookup can be basically compared to using a picture as a search term. Rather than typing ‘sailboat’ into Google Bing or Yahoo one may upload a picture of a sailboat to nd existing appearances or algorithmically related appearances of such This could include analysis of image attached or derived meta-data. As with Google Bing or Yahoo the quality of any search result depends on the size of the searched slide 2: database. In short if someone is unlawfully using ILLEGALM but not indexed on the database or set searched then ILLEGALM cannot be found 3 - Whereas software solutions may potentially include articial intelligence presently some companies specify the presence of a watermark Mw would prohibit successful identication of M as also being Mw Further complications come to mind when considering slight variations of M2 photos taken PM from dierent angles A2M after Photoshop alteration PSDM and so on. Fixation of copyright protections to variations of M may thereby be potentially ruined 133 4 - In data analysis various and intricately complex algorithms exist 134 As evidenced host’s violation notices of digital audio and or video content copyrights are possible. Even in cases of YouTube notices for some 400 hours of video being uploaded every minute 135 i n - h o u s e databases to binary-quantiable sets for immediate cross-comparison e.g. ‘0101’ with ‘0101’ do perform their function. Yet when compared to a human’s natural analysis image recognition is far from equally robust 136 Presently even facial algorithm matching technologies on personal devices can be fooled 137 To date no program may exist that would with assured accuracy be able to conclusively dierentiate a ‘Spanish galleon’ from a ‘sailboat’ tattoo Furthermore the same ‘sailboat’ tattoo placed on dierent body areas may be considered unique. In consideration of visual artwork as a eld and in terms of quantity the problems of quick identication compound exponentially 138 5 - Search requires comparison against a given set or range. The larger the comparison set concurrently the longer time required. Complexity of the search of course further dictating processing speed 139 Over 11 billion websites are indexed 140 with numerous more typically created every second 141 slide 3: Fully analyzing a miraculous 5000 existing websites per-second identication of either an approved or violating appearance of the robustly identied single media-content M would require weeks to complete. When considering a database of thousands the time required could be measured in decades The internet cannot be held as static. Either aforementioned search case then necessitating continued ongoing cycling for identication of recent appearances. This is further omitting the fact of a search potentially being unable to identify if the copyright violator used M o ine in say a print newspaper poster advertisement marketing brochure physical portfolio on merchandise or the like This also does not consider search omitting downloads to personal devices inclusions in say digital media compositions hosted by various sites and or sets of conceivably edited M2 variations in alternate channels alongside transmissions of an encrypted copy of ∑M 6 - Let us imagine that a truly altruistic company hosts M has the most advanced software ever developed to accurately match M with Mw alongside all its possible variations And let us imagine that this futuristic algorithm identies a third party using Mw in violation with the creator’s copyright. Unless the violator has registered with the same company and authorized payments for Mw’s use voiding the need for identication software in the rst place the copyright violation must be pursued using centralized legal systems This violation must also be deemed as legitimately under specic violations of proved ‘rights’ assigned within said central jurisdiction 148 Centralized legal pursuance would rstly entail identifying the violator as an individual say through IP registration. Yet what if Mw’s appearance was from a separate blog posting that was just re-posted Or perhaps Mw was provided to them by another individual who claims to have copyright permission If pursuing the violator as a company could it be argued that Mw’s appearance was known to be a violation denitively proved as implemented for nancial benet without proper media-content source credit listed What if the violator is identied yet unreachable or simply doesn’t respond to the registered mail from the company’s lawyers As proposed by one company an oer of post-license purchase would be made available for the ‘oender’ to purchase so as to deter ‘loss of reputation’ 141 which seems a wholly nominal inducement considering the size of the digital landscape From identication proof of intent international jurisdictions cost valuation or quantication of violation to then actually gaining remuneration there exists a plethora of human-labor intensive and expensive steps 142 Rudimentary cost-benet analysis shows the requirements to complete such tasks do not add up to a sustainable service as may presently be implemented 7 - Staying with fantasy let us say that the same altruistic company hosting M did indeed receive remuneration from a successfully pursued copyright violation. What would be the prot from said remuneration received for media-content that the company itself ‘does not own’ slide 4: Already enacted by lm and music industries in such copyright pursuance mass litigation may be held as the single feasible option 143 Compounding the precarious tenability of the entire endeavor theories of achieved remuneration now entail large-scale identication of violators By denition digital content is perfectly reproducible. In an act of astounding historical blindness when recalling Napster to current bit- torrent le sharing networks 144 roles of media-content ‘gatekeepers’ have thus far been evidenced to oer little more assistance than disorganized digital bounty hunters 145 Decentralized e cacy extends to a securely veriable transactional accounting solution pertaining to transactions that are intended to be securely recorded. This speaks nothing to say out of many other possibilities the use of encryption A perfectly possible blockchain transaction could record the purchase of an encrypted transfer which in reality details an illegally reproduced piece of content being sold for prot in violation of an owner’s intellectual property rights. Despite decentralized purchase recording due to multiple factors no restorative action could be held as imminently pending I N V E R T E D currency P S E U D O anonymity  questions map

Add a comment

Related presentations