On april 30th, in beijing, yang guangchang (journalist wang si wan) reported that the search for foxes and the charges against him were recently launchedHeadline todayInternet copyright tort and claim at high prices. Today's headlines counter-claim. The headline of the search fox ceo dynasty bombarded with the use of “mutilation of large ip abuses with short video stream” to raise concern. The events were followed by new trends in the new media content industry and a debate over the ethical definition of the industry. A hot, attitudeful financial column, vision: today's headlines are “kyoto’s treasures”。
4. 26 on world intellectual property day, a “content war” broke out in the area of mobile phone news clients. The search for foxes and the subsequent calls have been made against today's headline copyright infringement, with a high price claim. The headlines today immediately denied and counter-claimed. Another portal is easy to access and is known to be watching. It is not new that there are a lot of lawsuits and ripples about copyright infringement each year。
Today's head-flow reverses zhang's "small video castration copyright"
Behind the traditional door of the great war is the flow of today's headlines. The integration of data from the integrated third-party data platform, which combines thousands of sails, erie's consultation and quest mobile, today's headlines now exceed several traditional portals in terms of traffic, users and dynamism。
The traditional portal prosecuted today's headline for a new violation of the fox ceo's “explosion” headlines。
“in the age of fragmentation of people's time, short video popular, today's headlines use a large number of short video streams to castrate other platforms' big ip abuses”. Other content sites, such as " man of the dick " , " the name of the people " , and self-financed or purchased video copyrights of the video portal, are heavily cut by registered users on the front page to be uploaded into short video for a few minutes, thus receiving flows, market shares and advertising revenues, which are not fair。
Is the headline platform's operating principles, flow-realization logic, and the existing knowledge-based “safe haven principle” effective behind zhang chongyang's call for “the use of short video castration for piracy? Where is the legal boundary of the content platform of this “poaching model”
Behind the headline of the traditional war today is the content of the "kyoto war"
The headline and portal wars are more like the early “brushing model” of the pk “kyodong model”: today's headline is like the early “brushing” model, which does not produce content and is reproduced in registered users and in third-party cooperative media; and the client and traditional news media, such as edicts, fox searches, cybernetics, etc., are similar, with graphics, videos, etc. Being produced mainly by their own teams, as in the case of the “self-employment model” of kyoto。
In such cases, the “poaching model” provides a high level of content, low production costs, and a relatively high level of content clearance and flexibility. As a result, the headlines were quickly completed in two years as a “flow reversal”. According to data previously published in the headline, three- and four-line cities experienced exponential growth in flows。
The headlines today are at the top of the industry in terms of the number of users, the level of activity and the number of start-ups, according to the glare, iri and qm data. At the end of last year, the headline looked at the “short video” and invested a billion yuan to launch the “short video support programme”, which is exactly the trigger for the “blasting” of the sun. Over the years, there have been two rounds of litigation in the area of internet video。
(text: data sources are easily visible)
The first round was the emergence of online dramas in 2009, with a large number of television dramas featuring millions of "character" rights. The video site was heavily larceny; the second round was a “flash event” starting in 2014。
The common denominator of these two rounds of litigation is that the rights-holders consider that they have purchased or produced copyrights at great cost, that the infringers use them and that the rights-holders come to say, “this is an upload, not a platform act, of users and friends”. As a result, “user friends” once became a blatant pirate base。
In the area of video, this year there has been more competition for video sites such as the earth, the achilles, the queue and the fox search, and a rise in the volume of big ip copyrights. In the name of the people, for example, hunan watched 220 million and transferred billions of dollars to the video platform; many users uploaded three-and-a-five-minute videos of the popular play:
The dissemination of information and the fragmentation of time, and the lack of time for people to watch the whole set of television dramas, are very popular, as are small videos. There are a lot of big videos, and the flow, user and activity of the assembly-forming content platform, and the corresponding market share and advertising revenues. In such cases, the traditional portal would of course consider it “not in line with fair competition laws”。
Short video “flow realization” logic: “embedded” advertising streams within information streams
Distinguished from traditional video site headlines, the advertising director is charged a fee per number of times. The way to play mobile short video is to embed "advertising stream" in "content stream". For example, in the vertical channel column of the news client, a horizontal content consists of a drop-down menu, and in each case, an advertisement is promoted, resulting in the receipt of advertising revenues and the realization of traffic。
The logic of several traditional clients accusing the headlines is that it's not fair that i spend a lot of money making plays, buying play copyrights, and using a lot of user clippings at zero cost. Is that true
(text: advertising streams hidden in information streams)
Status: in the era of overloading of information, the firewalls of known “safe havens” failed
The principle of intellectual protection, which is common in existing laws, is the safe haven principle: when a platform provides only cyberspace services and does not produce content, it is exonerated by timely deletion upon notice of infringement by the copyrighting party。
This principle is effective for the traditional publishing industry; in the years when information is heavily overloaded on the internet, it is widely uploaded, fast and replicative. It would be too costly for the copyrighter to follow up with the upload user by simply removing user information and deleting one and 10 uploads. Objectively, the “safe haven principle” lapses。
Today's headline ceo zhang responded to this. The core view is that: (1) today's headlines are the result of the natural evolution of internet information dissemination, and users need to be personalized; and (2) technologies do not have “values” per se, but only feed all platform content and do not represent headline positions. But objectively, a large number of short video violations exist objectively
Video-ai screening techniques are not yet mature to call for industry to “mutually promote”
Overseas, it is “difficult” to identify and verify violations using ai artificial intelligence technology. According to magazines such as connect, there have been cases where advertisements have been embedded in irregularities such as “war, racial violence” on websites such as yotube and google。
In response, google and yooutube attempted to study artificial intelligence robots with manual review to “identify and shield” non-compliance, but this was largely ineffective. Google’s chief commercial officer, schindler, has even said that filtering irregular videos should not be left to humans. This situation led to the evacuation of some google and youtube advertisers, as in some areas abroad, advertisements were “jointly liable” mainly for embedded irregularities。
Of course, that does not happen in china. Because many chinese internet companies have an original, occasional model, and the law is lagging behind, the content platform is in a state of disarray: short videos are objectively suspected of abuse, but they appear to be in a situation where existing laws and technologies are inadequate. It is therefore difficult to draw conclusions about the success of the platform of “poaching” content, such as the headline, whether it is a success of a business model or a success of a misalignment-painted speculative model. This issue has been debated and inconclusive in the industry。
In this state of affairs, we leave three thoughts behind:
(1) how can industry equity be maintained? In terms of trends, major internet industry data, copyrights, etc. Are moving towards integration and sharing. However, this is not a zero-cost sharing and requires a reasonable market pricing mechanism。
(2) it is also not a bad thing for the new media and the news industry at this time that local contradictions promote integration. In the same year, the “battlehunts versus the kyoto model” ended up “learning from each other”, and the treasures were derived from the “satcats”; kyoto also opened its platform and business opportunities to a large number of third parties. In fact, such a moustache has emerged on the content platform, influenced by today's headlines. Shortly ago, the network launched the new media partner scheme, which opens voice to third-party independent media people and individuals。
(3) how to advance legal evolution. Unlike traditional commerce, the business logic of the internet exists in multilateral cross-markets such as traffic, services, advertising and so forth, and business models can hardly be regulated by previous “unilateral commercial laws”. In addition, there is a deep shortage of people who know the law and the internet, a slow process that will allow them to work: it is likely that more needs to be done to clarify the business ethics and legal boundaries of the 3q war。
There is a long way to go。
