最近最歡樂 (?) 的 DMCA Takedown...

最近最歡樂的 DMCA Takedown 消息,FoxFamily Guy (蓋酷家庭) 的劇情裡引用了一段從 YouTube 上的遊戲影片 (Double Dribble - NES - Automatic Shot),然後節目播出後 Fox 發 DMCA Takedown 下架掉這個影片:「Fox 'Stole' a Game Clip, Used it in Family Guy & DMCA'd the Original」。

Family Guy 那段片段在「Family Guy Double Dribble」這邊可以看到。

只要在沒有嚴格的懲罰機制 (懲罰「偽造版權擁有人」的行為),這種大公司侵犯小市民權利的現象只會愈來愈嚴重...

音樂著作的授權架構

TorrentFreak 上看到「YouTube Copyright Complaint Kills Harvard Professor's Copyright Lecture (Update)」這篇文章提到了 YouTube 下架了「William Fisher, CopyrightX: Lecture 3.3, The Subject Matter of Copyright: Music」這部影片。

有兩件事情吸引我,第一件是,這是哈佛法學院的教授 William Fisher 的課程在說明音樂產業的著作權以及授權架構的線上影片,被 SME (i.e. Sony) 透過 YouTube 的 ContentID 以侵犯版權給下架了... XDDD (瞬間把板凳給拉出來坐著等)

第二件事情是在這個影片恢復後跑去看而發現的,發現描述音樂產業的授權模式講的相當清楚 (以美國的觀點),尤其當你身在這個產業裡 (yeah yeah),要因為這些授權架構不斷的改變,去修改現有的資料庫設計以配合授權架構,就會更有感覺了。

這個影片另外一個值得讀的地方在於他有手工翻譯的英文字幕可以看,有興趣看這個產業裡的各種複雜的授權架構的人,絕對值得觀看這 24 分鐘的影片:

YouTube 支援 Loop 功能 (重複播放)

在「YouTube Loop」這邊看到 YouTube 支援 Loop 了,在影片上按右鍵:

而且作者也有提到,在外嵌的影片也支援:

It also works for embedded videos.

以前要找外掛或是某些網站幫你,官方支援後省不少事 XD

第九巡迴上訴法院:DMCA takedown notification 必須先確認是否為合理使用 (Fair Use)

出自 EFF 的「Takedown Senders Must Consider Fair Use, Ninth Circuit Rules」這篇,案件可以參考「Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.」這篇,或是 EFF 整理的「Lenz v. Universal」這篇,由 EFF 發起訴訟控告環球侵犯合理使用權:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit against Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG) asking a federal court to protect the fair use and free speech rights of a mother who posted a short video of her toddler son dancing to a Prince song on the Internet.

起因在於 Stephanie Lenz 上傳了一段 29 秒的影片,背景有 Let's Go Crazy 這首歌的音樂,而被環球發 DMCA takedown notification 下架:

Stephanie Lenz's 29-second recording shows her son bouncing along to the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy " which is heard playing in the background. Lenz uploaded the home video to YouTube in February to share it with her family and friends.

後來 Stephanie Lenz 發出 counter notification 並且控告環球濫用 DMCA notification:

In late June 2007, Lenz sent YouTube a counter-notification, claiming fair use and requesting the video be reposted. Six weeks later, YouTube reposted the video. In July 2007, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA and sought a declaration from the court that her use of the copyrighted song was non-infringing. According to the DMCA 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v), the copyright holder must consider whether use of the material was allowed by the copyright owner or the law.

而環球直接挑明不在意 fair use:

In September 2007, Prince released statements that he intended to "reclaim his art on the internet." In October 2007, Universal released a statement amounting to the fact that Prince and Universal intended to remove all user-generated content involving Prince from the internet as a matter of principle.

於是雙方就從 2007 年開始一路打官司,首先的判決是地方法院認為 DMCA takedown 必須確認侵權事實才能發,這包括了要確認 fair use:

The district court held that copyright owners must consider fair use before issuing DMCA takedown notices. Thus, the district court denied Universal's motion to dismiss Lenz's claims, and declined to dismiss Lenz's misrepresentation claim as a matter of law.

同時認為環球濫用 DMCA takedown notification:

The district court believed that Universal's concerns over the burden of considering fair use were overstated, as mere good faith consideration of fair use, not necessarily an in-depth investigation, is sufficient defense against misrepresentation. The court also explained that liability for misrepresentation is crucial in an important part of the balance in the DMCA.

然後就是一路往上打,打到前幾天第九巡迴上訴法院宣佈維持原來判決定案。這是官方放出的 PDF:「UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (PDF)」。Summary 的部份提到這次判決的結論:

The panel held that the DMCA requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, and that failure to do so raises a triable issue as to whether the copyright holder formed a subjective good faith belief that the use was not authorized by law.

這個判決使得目前使用機器自動無條件送 takedown notification 的程式也會受到規範,後續看 EFF 怎麼出招了...

Google Chrome 會 bypass Adblock 的問題

新版的 Google Chrome 使得 YouTube 可以繞過 Adblock 類軟體的阻擋限制 (像是 uBlock Origin),導致這些使用者會需要「看完完整的廣告影片 (無法 skip)」才能看本篇:「Google Chrome reportedly bypassing Adblock, forces users to watch full-length video ads」。

目前確認這是在修正 CVE-2015-1297 時產生的 bug:

Update: We have been contacted by Rob Wu, a developer on the Chromium project - the open-source foundation for the Chrome browser - who has informed us that this change was not intentional but, rather, an unintended result of fixing a previous security issue (CVE-2015-1297). He confirmed that the issue will only be seen if the YouTube app is installed and that, at the moment, apart from disabling AdBlock or whitelisting YouTube, the only solution, as described above, is to uninstall the app. The problem is expected to be patched in the upcoming weeks or, at least, when Chrome 46 is released.

目前的暫時解法是移除掉 YouTube 這隻 app,或是將 YouTube 放到白名單網站。

Google 的 QUIC 擴大實驗

QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections) 是 Google 發明的協定,主要是希望改善 TCP + TLS 的反應速度,目前是用來加速 Google Chrome 與 Google server 之間的連線。

與 SPDY 或 HTTP/2 不同的地方在於使用了 UDP,這降低了 TCP packet loss 造成的壅塞現象,以及 TCP 3-way handshake 的成本,而這兩點在行動平台上都特別明顯。

依照最新的說法,目前 Google Chrome 連到 Google server 大約有一半的連線會走 QUIC:「A QUIC update on Google’s experimental transport」。

Today, roughly half of all requests from Chrome to Google servers are served over QUIC and we’re continuing to ramp up QUIC traffic, eventually making it the default transport from Google clients — both Chrome and mobile apps — to Google servers.

而在 YouTube 的改善也很大:

These benefits are even more apparent for video services like YouTube. Users report 30% fewer rebuffers when watching videos over QUIC. This means less time spent staring at the spinner and more time watching videos.

由於效果不錯,他們打算要換更多...

HiNet 讓 YouTube 變快的方法:擋掉 210.71.222.0/24

在「How to stop TWC ISPs sucking at Youtube」這篇看到作者 (在美國) 抱怨時代華納 (Time Warner Cable,TWC) 連 YouTube 看影片的速度很慢,然後發現擋掉某個網段就快很多了...

看了 Hacker News 上的討論以及以前得知的架構,這些 IP 有可能是:

  • YouTube 自己的 CDN 伺服器,以 appliance 的形式放到 TWC 內。
  • TWC 買 YouTube cache solution 丟自己機房。

如果要猜的話,我會猜前者...

然後同樣問題也在 HiNet 發生,實際測試後就找到 210.71.222.x 這個網段。

Linux 下是使用 iptables 擋,其他作業系統可以在原文裡找到說明:(我自己的 Linux 是放到 /etc/rc.local 裡)

/sbin/iptables -A OUTPUT -d 210.71.222.0/24 -j REJECT

補充 Windows 的方法:

在「開始」選「執行」,輸入 cmd,然後跳出黑色視窗後輸入:

netsh advfirewall firewall add rule name="BLOCKSLOWYOUTUBE" dir=in action=block remoteip=210.71.222.0/24 enable=yes

設定完後可以回到瀏覽器找影片測試 YouTube 的速度。

擋掉後會把流量導到國外 (測了幾個都是美國的機房),而連到國外機房可以跑到 8Mbps (速度會飄動,不過都超過 4Mbps),反而比國內 HiNet 機房內的速度快太多...

看起來是 YouTube 的 flash player 會先偵測位於 ISP 的伺服器,有問題時會使用備用方案 (在這邊是美國機房),只是使用備用方案比 ISP 的伺服器快多了。

YouTube (Google) 允許環球唱片 (Universal Music Group,UMG) 直接移除非 UMG 所擁有版權的影片

依照環球唱片 (Universal Music Group,UMG) 提供給法院的文件中,YouTube (也就是 Google) 允許 UMG 透過 YouTube 的 CMS (Content Management System) 移除「不屬於 UMG 的影片」:「Google Deal Allegedly Lets UMG Wipe YouTube Videos It Doesn't Own」,文件 (PDF) 在:「gov.uscourts.cand.248875.14.0.pdf」這邊可以下載取得。

重點在於這份文件中第四頁的這段:

The UMG-YouTube agreement grants UMG rights to effect the removal of user-posted videos through YouTube’s Content Management System (“CMS”), based on a number of contractually specified criteria that are not limited to the infringements of copyrights owned or controlled by UMG. Klaus Decl., Ex. 4 (Klaus to Kavanaugh letter, Dec. 14, 2011). Dotcom speculates in his declaration that Universal must have sent a so-called “DMCA notification form,” such as the one he printed and attached at Ex. E to his declaration, to YouTube. Doctcom Decl. ¶ 11. But UMG (which interacts with YouTube) does not use that form when requesting the removal of material pursuant to UMG’s contract with YouTube. UMG uses YouTube’s automated CMS system.

繼續來看後續吧...