
Facebook Rights Manager - 6stringmerc
https://rightsmanager.fb.com/
======
jaryd
For those of you, like me, who didn't know what "freebooting" is:

"the dubious practice where Business Pages and celebs can rip videos from
elsewhere, repost the content on Facebook and grow their brands while robbing
the content creators of views." (From the article)

~~~
rsync
"the dubious practice where Business Pages and celebs can rip videos from
elsewhere, repost the content on Facebook and grow their brands while robbing
the content creators of views."

So ... that is the definition of freebooting ...

But what is the definition of "believing that freebooting, and things like it,
work at all ?"

~~~
Buge
What do you mean? The evidence seems to show that it does work, although I
guess it depends on what you are trying to achieve.

Although hopefully this update will stop it working.

~~~
sbuttgereit
Whether or not it works for the bad guy in this situation is an open question
(maybe someone has researched it); there's certainly a perception that it does
since it keeps happening.

But the commentary from those that are the victims indicate that this sort of
thing could be very problematic for them. So I do hope that this and this sort
of thing helps lock the bad actors out.

------
tomclancy
Ripped content - It's what made YouTube grow and what made FB Video grow. FB
is taking steps to crack down on copyright theft now that the video platform
is large enough (just like what YouTube did).

~~~
samstave
So... Hypocrisy?

~~~
untothebreach
yes, but in this context it's called "capitalism"

~~~
TheLogothete
Nobody said capitalism is without faults. It's just the only realistic option.

------
iamleppert
Is it just me or are there others who think the only one who wins here is
Facebook? They are literally sucking up all original content, everywhere. They
want you to upload your entire IP library to them so they can check and see if
its being used "for you".

~~~
dmoy
I dunno, it sounds to me like it's just a clone of youtube ContentID. In that
sense, they're maybe doing it at their lawyers' behest to try and stop looming
lawsuits.

------
tomtoise
So.. how is 'freebooting' different to posting on reddit/HN/imgur/$site ?

You're growing your 'brand' as a poster of interesting/funny things (as seen
via Karma), I suppose that as long as these entities don't attempt to claim
this media as 'original content', I don't really have a problem.

If anything, attributing to the original creator is as simple as pressing
'share status' on facebook, instead of posting a direct url to the content in
question.

edit - I fundamentally misunderstood the term freebooting. Will leave comment
intact so replies still make sense, but thank you to child posters for
clearing up my misconception.

~~~
ihuman
Freebooting is not posting a link to someone's original content. It is when
you reupload the content to your page/channel/website, and then link that. The
views (and ad revenue) go to the reuploader instead of the original creator.

~~~
wlesieutre
90% of content on the default subreddits has been ripped from its original
source and rehosted on imgur or gfycat. The remaining 10% are links to
YouTube.

The people doing it aren't profiting from ads like they would by doing it on
Facebook, but they're still taking away the pageviews from the original
creator.

~~~
Systemic33
However, that rehosting is usually not to steal traffic, but because most of
the webpages that host the original, would experience what is called the hug
of death, when thousands of viewers suddenly flock to their website. So
linking to the original content, is best done as a addendum to the rehosted
content, to still allow for viewers to check out the original creator.

~~~
overcast
Yes, I'm sure all the freebooters are just doing this to avoid the hug of
death. 99% of the time I see no mention of the original content creator in any
imgur link. Often times, someone further down in the comments will dig it up
and tell people.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Another reason is that half of the time the original source has slow and
shitty webpage. Standardized, mostly bullshit-free interface is what made
imgur and gyfcat win.

~~~
overcast
That's fine, but it still doesn't solve the problem here. People have their
work ripped off, without any mention of it.

~~~
TeMPOraL
This does however suggest something. The problem here seems similar to the
problem of piracy in general, in that people choose content delivery format
that sucks the least, and then delivery platform that they understand.

Consider the case of movie piracy (and for simplification let's exclude people
pirating because they don't have money): people often torrent movies because
they want to get a decent-quality mp4 file instead of a half-assed player and
a third of an operating system that together deliver half an hour of
unskippable ads and piracy warnings. Consider the case of videogames - when
Steam showed up, piracy went from something everyone does to something
shameful among gamers.

Or just today at work we're talking about a streaming site that serves soccer
league games. One of my cow-orkers pointed out that this is about the only
reasonable way to watch soccer games, because otherwise you'd have to buy
subscription to half a dozen cable services - as different leagues have deals
with different companies.

Now imgur is a no-bullshit source of images. People know and understand it.
It's no surprise people prefer it, and for non-imgur sources you can often
find requests to reupload the image to that site.

As for solutions - I don't have one. I don't believe reuploads themselves are
a problem. Lack of culture that would encourage attribution is though. But the
expectation that you can make money by posting content on the Internet is a
bigger problem, IMO. Smart content creators know their work _will_ be copied,
reuploaded, shared without attribution, etc. and so they don't base their
livelihood on posting stuff on the Internet. Those less smart end up
complaining about unfairness, but that IMO makes as much sense as complaining
that gravity is unfair. Digital works are inherently copyable, it is in their
nature.

------
falcolas
I'll be curious to see how they will handle "strikes" against an account -
will it be similar to YouTube, where 3 strikes shuts you down, or will it be
more lenient?

I notice there's no recovery mechanism mentioned when it's not a DMCA
takedown, other than "We'll tell you".

~~~
jlgaddis
> _It 's our policy to disable the accounts and Pages of people who repeatedly
> infringe others’ intellectual property rights when appropriate._

~~~
6stringmerc
I wonder if "when appropriate" could be further clarified. Nasty email? Letter
from a lawyer? Hm.

------
superzamp
Relevant explanation of the issue from In a Nutshell:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7tA3NNKF0Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7tA3NNKF0Q)

~~~
felipesabino
Smarter Every Day has a good take on it as well:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6A1Lt0kvMA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6A1Lt0kvMA)

------
6stringmerc
Found via this article:

[http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/7333040/facebook-
tackl...](http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/7333040/facebook-tackles-
freebooting-with-rights-manager-tool)

------
shardo
If this works as intended, then it is a step in the right direction.

I wonder why it took them so long though.

~~~
6stringmerc
From a content creator standpoint, I believe Facebook is trying to "sprawl"
into media-type endeavors and hosting. As in they'd rather have the super-
cool-viral-video in their ecosystem instead of linking out to YouTube. This
creates a lot of friction - the notion of enforcement at the potential cost of
market growth. I agree it's a good thing they're doing this.

------
dbot
>Do I own the copyright to something that I filmed from television or a live
concert or sporting event on my own camcorder or phone? ... Just because you
recorded a live event or publicly broadcasted show onto your own recording
device, doesn’t necessarily mean that you aren’t infringing the rights of the
person or company that owns the copyright to the television show or
performance.

This is an area of copyright I have the biggest problem with. If I'm at a
venue, copyright holders should not be able to exercise copyright claims over
what I see/hear while attending, unless the ticket itself puts a restriction
on recordation. In the latter case, that becomes a function of license
enforcement that cannot be effected thru the DMCA.

Imagine you record a video with friends - the band is playing in the
background. Copyright law allows the band to takedown the clip.

~~~
fluxquanta
>unless the ticket itself puts a restriction on recordation

They almost always do (at least in my experience), it's just rarely enforced.

------
dexwiz
Does this only work if you also upload to Facebook? If so, this forces you to
use Facebook if you want to be "protected" by Facebook.

~~~
tokenizerrr
Would you expect Facebook to contact third parties on your behalf?

~~~
DanBC
I understood dexwiz to be saying:

Ann is a content creator. She doesn't use facebook.

Bob is a freebooter, and steals Ann's content, and posts it to his facebook
page, grabbing views and ad revenue.

Is Ann protected by this new thing from Facebook? Or does Ann need to become a
Facebook user to become protected by this thing?

------
astazangasta
Again, the world where our main priority is assuring 'compensation' and
'rights' for our 'content' is the same one where rent-seeking assholes exploit
artists.

Steve Miller's rant was only yesterday. The harder we let corporations ossify
the notion that all knowledge should be owned and paid for every time it is
used, the more we will suffer.

Finally, you can't steal what is given away free. It's time for a paradigm
shift, humanity. Slay this dragon.

~~~
kayoone
Not a native speaker so i might not get the point, but most if this content is
free anyway but the creators are getting robbed from views an increasing their
own reach while others directly benefit from that. So many dubious facebook
"celebrities" that use this to extend their audience which they can then sell
ads to, it is really sickening.

~~~
astazangasta
To be clear: to hell with 'views' and attaching ad revenue to art.

------
thomseddon
Why would they choose to host this on Wordpress VIP?

~~~
arich
I'm actually wondering the same thing. Have you seen the hosting cost?
$10,000/month avg. Clearly they can handle traffic themselves. What's the
advantage here?

~~~
aembleton
Probably a different department and/or it takes too long to get sign off for
deployment into their own data centre.

------
gadders
I wish they'd crack down on "Like Farmers" first

(EG Picture of injured dog with "Like if you are against animal cruelty")

~~~
milkey_mouse
But that's not blatantly illegal. Annoying, but not illegal.

------
dreamdu5t
someone should randomly generate images and copyright every combination of
pixels possible.

