Thoughts from the Shelf

The BBC iPlayer has been provided with a recent upgrade courtesy of an Adobe Flash upgrade. The upgrade has provided the iPlayer with a reason to encode its video content at a higher bit rate for its popular iPlayer VOD service.

At 800kbps and in H.264 format, the BBC promises better and sharper images which will be ideal for large size, HD ready screens and simultaneously, the BBC will start using AAC+ for audio.

This development also means that both the iTouch and the iPhone will be provided with better quality content via the iPlayer.

The move away from VP6 compression technology is due partly to the fact H.264 and AAC+ are fairly open platforms compared to the aforementioned one which was developed by On2.

Version of the iPlayer that are to be developed in the future will also detect which bit rate to stream automatically, enabling the new iPlayer to cater for a wide range of broadband speeds throughout the country.

“The advantage for the audience will be a noticeable improvement in audio and video quality. Furthermore, it should become easier for the media to simply work across a broader range of devices. While it’s not a magic bullet, it certainly is a significant step in the right direction.” - BBC director of future media and technology Erik Huggers

The Shelf has previous highlighted how Internet Service Providers had suggested that they should not carry sole responsibly for paying for the extra costs that come as a result of the popularity of the iPlayer’s success. (Titled ISPs vs BBC iPlayer)

Well, after this ISPs could be even more miffed, since it means that in effect, the bandwidth consumed by the average iPlayer user could jump by nearly 60 percent overnight piling pressure on them.

As big fans of Ubisoft recent PS3 offering Assassin’s Creed, news of the games manufacturer suing US duplication firm Optical Experts Manufacturing for $10 million after an early PC version leaked onto the internet, was news that certainly interested us.

Ubisoft has claimed that USD was directly responsible for the leak that happened in late February 2008, six weeks prior to the games official release.

According to a report on Gamespot, OEM ignored security protocols which would have prevented the leak. The contract that Ubisoft signed with OEM apparently stipulated that the code for the game would be held in top-level security and that no copies of the game would be allowed to leave the premises without permission. It is thought that an employee of the firm took the game home and uploaded it to internet.

The source of the leak was tracked down to the house of an employee of OEM. An OEM-manufactured copy of the game was later found at the employee’s residence, though the suit doesn’t specify when that copy was found.

Ubisoft has said that the security breach is directly responsible for 700,000 pirates downloads of game, including 25,000 downloads in one day from torrent site Yowzers.

Ubisoft described the breech as “an extraordinary breach of trust and gross negligence”

It also became clear in the report that the copy released was not the finished version of the game, and as a fail safe included a deliberate bug for security reasons causing the game to crash half way through.

As the game was released a short time after the breech it is believed that numerous reviews were written on the pirate version, causing “irreparable harm” to Ubi’s reputation.

As part of the legal action OEM now faces the full wrath of Ubisoft’s legal muscle, and is being sued for breach of contract, negligence and copyright infringement, with damages and legal fees also sought for the three claims to the tune of USD10 million.

Google’s new Street View service was this week given the go ahead in the UK after the service was given the okay forms the privacy watchdog. The service had attracted opposition from civil liberties campaigners concerned that that the service would infringe on individual’s right to privacy and break data protection laws.

The Street View system will take photos of streets at ground level to provide users of Google maps with a ground level view of the location they are viewing.

The information commissioner said in a statement that it was “satisfied” Google had put safeguards in place to avoid risking anyone’s privacy or safety. These safeguards include blurring the faces of people and number plates of vehicles.

The statement read - “Although it is possible that in certain limited circumstances an image may allow the identification of an individual, it is clear that Google are keen to capture images of streets and not individuals.”

It was also reiterated that due to the time delay between picture and update to the web, the service could not be used as a tracking tool.

The Street View tool has already been launched in the US in 2007 with ground views of a selection of major cities. It has since expanded it reach and is now looking to expand the service internationally.

Street View cars have been seen throughout the UK but Google has yet to reveal when pictures will be added to UK maps.

Google said of the ruling - “We’ve always said we will not launch in UK until we are comfortable Street View complies with local law,” they added, “and that we will use technology, like face-blurring, licence plate blurring and operational controls, such as image removal tools, so Street View remains useful and in keeping with local norms wherever it is available.”

It has been announced that internet search giant Google has been ordered by a US court to turn over data on users of its social video site YouTube. The ruling comes as part of Google’s legal battle with Viacom, over allegations that the search giant knowing permitted content to be uploaded across the site that infringed on copyright laws.

The data that will be handed across to Viacom will contain the log in ID’s of users, IP addresses and details of any video clips ever watched.

Digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation called the ruling a “set-back to privacy rights”, whilst others speculated that the ruling was potentially unlawful being that the data contained personally identifiable data.

The Case Details
The billion dollar legal case between Viacom and Google is the biggest case of its kind in history, but is only the latest instance of a company targeting user generated content sites, stating that they are responsible for the content hosted on the site, and subsequent infringement of copyright laws.

Google had consistently denied the allegations that YouTube infringes copyright, saying that it takes down protected videos from the site when asked by content owners, as required by United States law.

Recently EMI also filed a suit against VideoEgg stating similar copyright infringement practices, making the case of Google vs Viacom a landmark ruling, and one that could well have a bearing on how similar disputes are settled in the future.

As part of the legal action Viacom brought against Google, it requested much more than the awarded data on YouTube account holders. For that reason the provision of user data, estimated to total over 12 terabytes, is very much a glass half full/ half empty scenario, with Google scoring a key legal victory keeping all of its trade secrets in tact and Viacom being awarded access to user data.

From a business perspective Google has certainly come out ahead, with Viacom denied access to proprietary code that controls the search facility of both YouTube and Google.com. Viacom had requested access to the code stating it was the only way to truly see if and how Google encourages copyright infringement.

The court denied Viacom’s request for source code stating that the “program’s source code is the product of approximately 50,000 man hours of engineering time and millions of dollars of research and development costs, and maintaining its confidentiality is essential to prevent others from creating competing programs without any equivalent investment”

On the flip side users are the clear losers, with personally identifiable data being handed across to Viacom. This could however have been much worse with access being denied to private video content of YouTube users. This would have entitled Viacom access to videos that can only be viewed by authorised users, video uploaded for personal use, however it was deemed this would be a privacy violation under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

The courts did however award Viacom user data whilst forcing them to respect it, threatening to hold them in contempt of court if it uses that data for anything other than specifically proving the prevalence of piracy on YouTube.

As part of the legal action Viacom were also denied their request for Google to turn over databases with information about each video available on YouTube, including titles, keywords, comments and whether videos had been flagged or not. With this data Viacom wanted to demonstrate that defendants have an ability to control infringements, however their request was denied.

Viacom was also denied Google’s advertising and video content schemas with Google arguing their confidentiality. Viacom had intended to demonstrate how revenues were directly related to infringing content.

On reflection, it therefore seems that Google did in fact score a victory over Viacom, keeping propriety code and advertising schemas in tact, in a move that would certainly have dented their competitive edge. Users too can rest in the knowledge that data on private videos, deleted videos and clip data of each video uploaded to YouTube will remain confidential, and the user data that is to be handed over is bound by legal conditions.

After the ruling Google made a statement saying Viacom was “threatening the way millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment and political and artistic expression.”