Copyright content scan for Microsoft Stream

Copyright content scan for Microsoft Stream
 10-04-2017
4 Comments (4 New)
New

Simalar to YouTube's Conten ID database, it would be great to have our company videos scanned for copywritten content (images, videos, music).  Although we can post guidlines and usage policies most employees may not fully understand what content is considered protected. 

0 Upvote
Comment
Comments
Occasional Visitor

If this feature is added, it must be able to be disabled at the tenant and/or uploading-user level.      While this feature would be valuable for organizations that are not in the business of producing copyrighted content themselves, YouTube and other services' copyright controls are a source of constant frustration for videographers, musicians, artists, and others who are themselves the copyright owner and/or have legitimate license to put the content online.    

 

There are also many reasons for content production enterprises and teams of artistic collaborators to share their own copyrighted works with other  within the organization.  In the context of Office 365 as an Intranet, Microsoft Stream provides an indispensable tool for unrestricted collaboration.

Senior Member

If Stream is a closed content delivery service, why does anyone need to enforce DRM?  Its way more headaches than its worth and an added cost of maintenance.   The idea of DRM is to keep people from distributing software and media openly across the web using "open" platforms like Youtube

 

Senior Member

We want to protect against accidental use of content that may require a license. Do not want to put the company at risk for misuse. 

Senior Member

Which company?  The Subscriber or Microsoft.  See, I am not sure Microsoft can be held accountable for what content circulates on stream (especially since its a closed ecosystem that is privately paid for).  At that point, MS is just acting strictly as a Platform, not a publisher like Youtube.  Its not much different than an ISP.  ISPs platforms generally cannot be held accountable because someone uses their network to distributed pirated content.  At that point, the legal responsibility should fall strictly on to the User (subscriber).  They are acting as the publisher.  Laws and Liability are very different between platforms and publishers.  YouTube is a publisher and an open platform.  So the laws get really muddy there.   I could be missing somethings here, but this was my motivation behind my last response.    Don't get me wrong.   I am not against DRM.  In fact, I agree with DRM, especially if a User is trying to strictly protect content from others colleagues, within the same company.  But Bob is right.  Its implementation can be a real headache and expense even with modern A.I.  

There are other safe guards that Stream needs to employ.  Better Administration control and greater administration reach.  Stream is too user oriented right now and very limited in Administration control.  If the platform decides to go open across the web, administration is going to need a separate set of detailed controls for that.  


Similar Ideas
No similar ideas