In AI copyright case, Zuckerberg turns to YouTube for his defense; TechCrunch, January 15, 2025

 

Kyle Wiggers

Maxwell Zeff

, TechCrunch ; In AI copyright case, Zuckerberg turns to YouTube for his defense

"Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears to have used YouTube’s battle to remove pirated content to defend his own company’s use of a data set containing copyrighted e-books, reveals newly released snippets of a deposition he gave late last year.

The deposition, which was part of a complaint submitted to the court by plaintiffs’ attorneys, is related to the AI copyright case Kadrey v. Meta. It’s one of many such cases winding through the U.S. court system that’s pitting AI companies against authors and other IP holders. For the most part, the defendants in these cases – AI companies – claim that training on copyrighted content is “fair use.” Many copyright holders disagree."

Election Falsehoods Take Off on YouTube as It Looks the Other Way; The New York Times, October 31, 2024

Nico Grant , The New York Times; Election Falsehoods Take Off on YouTube as It Looks the Other Way

"From May through August, researchers at Media Matters tracked 30 of the most popular YouTube channels they identified as persistently spreading election misinformation, to analyze the narratives they shared in the run-up to November’s election.

The 30 conservative channels posted 286 videos containing election misinformation, which racked up more than 47 million views. YouTube generated revenue from more than a third of those videos by placing ads before or during them, researchers found. Some commentators also made money from those videos and other monetized features available to members of the YouTube Partner Program...

Mr. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, posted more false electoral claims to YouTube than any other major commentator in the research group, the analysis concluded...

YouTube, which is owned by Google, has prided itself on connecting viewers with “authoritative information” about elections. But in this presidential contest, it acted as a megaphone for conspiracy theories."

A UPenn Student Started a YouTube Channel. Her Face Was Stolen in China; Business Insider, March 25, 2024

Matthew Loh , Business Insider; A UPenn Student Started a YouTube Channel. Her Face Was Stolen in China

YouTube to offer option to flag AI-generated songs that mimic artists’ voices; The Guardian, November 14, 2023

Dan Milmo , The Guardian; YouTube to offer option to flag AI-generated songs that mimic artists’ voices

"Record companies can request the removal of songs that use artificial intelligence-generated versions of artists’ voices under new guidelines issued by YouTube.

The video platform is introducing a tool that will allow music labels and distributors to flag content that mimics an artist’s “unique singing or rapping voice”.

Fake AI-generated music has been one of the side-effects of leaps forward this year in generative AI – the term for technology that can produce highly convincing text, images and voice from human prompts.

One of the most high-profile examples is Heart on My Sleeve, a song featuring AI-made vocals purporting to be Drake and the Weeknd. It was pulled from streaming services after Universal Music Group, the record company for both artists, criticised the song for “infringing content created with generative AI”. However, the song can still be accessed by listeners on YouTube."

California police department investigates officers blaring Disney music; The Guardian, April 15, 2022

 Maya Yang , The Guardian; California police department investigates officers blaring Disney music

"A California police department has launched an investigation into its own officers who were filmed blaring copyrighted Disney music in attempts to prevent residents from recording them...

The incident reflects an apparently growing trend in which police officers play copyrighted music in order to prevent videos of them from being posted on to social media platforms such as YouTube and Instagram, which can remove content that includes unauthorized content."

Sandy Hook review: anatomy of an American tragedy – and the obscenity of social media; The Guardian, March 13, 2022

Charles Kaiser , The Guardian; Sandy Hook review: anatomy of an American tragedy – and the obscenity of social media

"Those recommendations are the result of the infernal algorithms which are at the heart of the business models of Facebook and YouTube and are probably more responsible for the breakdown in civil society in the US and the world than anything else invented.

“We thought the internet would give us this accelerated society of science and information,” says Lenny Pozner, whose son Noah was one of the Sandy Hook victims. But “really, we’ve gone back to flat earth”."

YouTube’s algorithms could be harming users looking for health information; Fast Company, July 15, 2020

ANJANA SUSARLA, Fast Company; 

YouTube’s algorithms could be harming users looking for health information

"A significant fraction of the U.S. population is estimated to have limited health literacy, or the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information, such as the ability to read and comprehend prescription bottles, appointment slips, or discharge instructions from health clinics.

Studies of health literacy, such as the National Assessment of Adult Literacy conducted in 2003, estimated that only 12% of adults had proficient health literacy skills. This has been corroborated in subsequent studies.

I’m a professor of information systems, and my own research has examined how social media platforms such as YouTube widen such health literacy disparities by steering users toward questionable content."

Regulators Fine Google $170 Million for Violating Children’s Privacy on YouTube; The New York Times, September 4, 2019

Natasha Singer and Kate Conger, The New York Times;

Regulators Fine Google $170 Million for Violating Children’s Privacy on YouTube

 

"Google on Wednesday agreed to pay a record $170 million fine and to make changes to protect children’s privacy on YouTube, as regulators said the video site had knowingly and illegally harvested personal information from youngsters and used that data to profit by targeting them with ads.

The measures were part of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission and New York’s attorney general. They said YouTube had violated a federal children’s privacy law known as the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA."

What is QAnon? Explaining the bizarre rightwing conspiracy theory; The Guardian, July 30, 2018

Julia Carrie Wong, The Guardian; What is QAnon? Explaining the bizarre rightwing conspiracy theory

"Meet Q

On 28 October 2017, “Q” emerged from the primordial swamp of the internet on the message board 4chan. In a thread called “Calm Before the Storm”, and in subsequent posts, Q established his legend as a government insider with top security clearance who knew the truth about a secret struggle for power involving Donald Trump, the “deep state”, Robert Mueller, the Clintons, pedophile rings, and other stuff.

Since then, Q has continued to drop “breadcrumbs” on 4chan and 8chan, fostering a “QAnon” community devoted to decoding Q’s messages and understanding the real truth about, well, everything...

Imagine a mix of Pizzagate, InfoWars and the Satanic Panic of the 1980s, multiplied by the power of the internet...

For years now, YouTube has been a quagmire of conspiracy theories, the more outrageous and thinly sourced the better. Under pressure from the mainstream media for the platform’s tendency to promote inflammatory and false information in the aftermath of mass shootings and other breaking news events, YouTube has introduced reforms that it claims will promote more “authoritative” news sources.

A YouTube spokesperson provided a statement that did not directly address the Guardian’s questions about the Hanks videos, but noted that the company’s work to “better surface and promote news and authoritative sources” is “still in its early stages”."

The Shape of Mis- and Disinformation; Slate, July 26, 2018

[Podcast] April Glaser and Will Oremus, Slate; The Shape of Mis- and Disinformation

"In recent weeks, Facebook and YouTube have strained to explain why they won’t ban Alex Jones’ Infowars, which has used its verified accounts to spread false news and dangerous conspiracy theories on the platforms. Meanwhile, the midterms are approaching, and Facebook won’t say definitively whether the company has found any efforts by foreign actors to disrupt the elections. Facebook did recently say that it will start to remove misinformation if it may lead to violence, a response to worrisome trends in Myanmar, India, other countries. The social media platforms are being called on to explain how they deal with information that is wrong—a question made even more complicated because the problem takes so many forms.

To understand the many forms of misinformation and disinformation on social media, we recently spoke with Claire Wardle, the executive director of First Draft, a nonprofit news-literacy and fact-checking outfit based at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, for Slate’s tech podcast If Then. We discussed how fake news spreads on different platforms, where it’s coming from, and how journalists might think—or rethink—their role in covering it"

Shadow Politics: Meet the Digital Sleuth Exposing Fake News; Wired, 7/18/18

Issie Lapowsky, Wired; Shadow Politics: Meet the Digital Sleuth Exposing Fake News

"After about 36 hours of work, during which his software crashed dozens of times under the weight of  all that data, he was able to map out these links, transforming the list into an impossibly intricate data visualization. “It was a picture of the entire ecosystem of misinformation a few days after the election,” Albright says, still in awe of his discovery. “I saw these insights I’d never thought of.”

And smack in the center of the monstrous web, was a giant node labeled YouTube."

YouTube should be fined billions for illegally collecting children's data, privacy groups claim; CNBC, April 9, 2018

Sam Meredith, CNBC; YouTube should be fined billions for illegally collecting children's data, privacy groups claim

"YouTube, one of the world's most popular websites, has been accused of improperly collecting the personal data of young children.

In a complaint filed to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Monday, a coalition of more than 20 advocacy, consumer and privacy groups claim that Google's video platform is violating U.S. child protection laws by collecting personal data on users aged less than 13 years old.

The coalition is calling for Google to change how it manages content for younger audiences and wants YouTube to pay a fine worth billions of dollars for allegedly profiting off children's viewing habits."

One of Google’s highest-ranking women has answered that controversial memo with a very personal essay; Washington Post, August 9, 2017

Jena McGregor, Washington Post; One of Google’s highest-ranking women has answered that controversial memo with a very personal essay

"Like many Google leaders, Susan Wojcicki probably faced some difficult questions from employees this week about the controversial employee memo that exploded on social media. But the most personal question may have come from her daughter.

In an essay published by Fortune on Wednesday, the chief executive of YouTube, which is owned by Google, wrote that her daughter asked her about the memo, which raised questions about Google's diversity efforts and included statements about gender differences. It was written by a company engineer who was fired earlier this week in its aftermath. “Mom,” her daughter asked her, “is it true that there are biological reasons why there are fewer women in tech and leadership?”

Before revealing how she answered her daughter, Wojcicki said the question has been “pervasive,” based on her experience. “That question, whether it's been asked outright, whispered quietly, or simply lingered in the back of someone's mind, has weighed heavily on me throughout my career in technology.”"

When a Public Family Is Publicly Attacked; New York Times, 2/5/16

KJ Dell'Antonia, New York Times; When a Public Family Is Publicly Attacked:

"While Ms. Howerton and her supporters report Twitter accounts for abuse, she is also asking YouTube to take down the video commentary that makes use of her video and other family images. She has filed a privacy complaint, which YouTube rejected, and is waiting for it to respond to her new complaint, alleging copyright violation. Neil Richards, a law professor at Washington University and author of “Intellectual Privacy: Rethinking Civil Liberties in the Digital Age,” said he thinks Ms. Howerton’s belief that she can regain control of the footage may be overly optimistic.

“The use of home video and family images for political debate is something that has real consequences,” he said. “She has made her life choices, her experiences, her children’ experiences, a matter for public debate. When people do this they do expose themselves to criticism and attacks and some of them are quite unpleasant.”

Eric Goldman, a professor of law and director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law, agreed that because Ms. Howerton herself used family video as part of a political discussion, she may have little legal recourse when that video is used as part of a larger video engaged in social commentary on the same topic. In many situations, videos or pictures posted online can become “fair game” for critics to use in online attacks against the poster’s position or for other undesirable political or social statements, Mr. Goldman said in an email."

Facebook's video plan? Grow like hell, deal with copyright later; Forbes, 7/10/15

Jeff John Roberts, Forbes; Facebook's video plan? Grow like hell, deal with copyright later:

"The challenge of chasing down copyright infringers has led content owners, in general, to claim the safe harbor rules are too lax, and that platforms like YouTube should do more to take down unauthorized videos. Studios have filed a spate of lawsuits to argue that more websites should be liable under a “red flag” provision in the copyright law, which can strip a site’s legal immunity in the event they obviously should have known about the infringement, or if they are directly making money from it.

But so far those lawsuits, including a long-running one against YouTube, have not really changed websites’ responsibilities when it comes to copyright, according to Lothar Determann, a copyright lawyer with Baker & McKenzie in San Francisco. He added more broadly that the law’s larger goal of protecting tech platforms still applies, and courts will not order websites to conduct copyright investigations.

The freebooter issue for Facebook, then, appears to be less of a legal problem than a moral one. Video owners may come to blame Facebook – safe harbors notwithstanding – for using their content to get rich while flouting their copyright concerns. Such claims, whether fair or not, have dogged Google and YouTube for years, and led to legal and political headaches."

Google Wins Copyright And Speech Case Over 'Innocence Of Muslims' Video; NPR, 5/18/15

Bill Chappell, NPR; Google Wins Copyright And Speech Case Over 'Innocence Of Muslims' Video:

"In a complicated legal battle that touches on questions of free speech, copyright law and personal safety, a federal appeals court has overturned an order that had forced the Google-owned YouTube to remove an anti-Muslim video from its website last year.

Both of the recent decisions about the controversial "Innocence Of Muslims" video originated with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Last year, a three-judge panel agreed with actress Cindy Lee Garcia's request to have the film taken down from YouTube on the basis of a copyright claim. But Monday, the full en banc court rejected Garcia's claim.

"The appeal teaches a simple lesson — a weak copyright claim cannot justify censorship in the guise of authorship," Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote in the court's opinion."

Free Speech in the Age of YouTube; New York Times, 9/22/12

Somini Sengupta, New York Times; Free Speech in the Age of YouTube: "COMPANIES are usually accountable to no one but their shareholders. Internet companies are a different breed. Because they traffic in speech — rather than, say, corn syrup or warplanes — they make decisions every day about what kind of expression is allowed where. And occasionally they come under pressure to explain how they decide, on whose laws and values they rely, and how they distinguish between toxic speech that must be taken down and that which can remain. The storm over an incendiary anti-Islamic video posted on YouTube has stirred fresh debate on these issues. Google, which owns YouTube, restricted access to the video in Egypt and Libya, after the killing of a United States ambassador and three other Americans. Then, it pulled the plug on the video in five other countries, where the content violated local laws."