From left: Sandy Lee, Yu Jo-fan, Elliza Tu, Chan Ya-jan, Dong Pei-ling and Michael Mangelson / Photo credit: Conor Stuart

News emerged last month that Chinese third-party online market place Alibaba has rolled out an IP Joint-Force System aimed at improving communication with rights holders to expedite the identification and removal of counterfeit products from the site. It was in the wake of this move that representatives from ISPs and content distributors including Google Taiwan, Fox Networks, KK Box, Chunghwa Telecom and FarEastone came together to discuss how their firms have responded to the threat of digital piracy at a recent conference in Taipei. Although during the course of discussion new and innovative anti-piracy measures were touched upon, the lack of an authentication framework for acting on piracy, like the one proposed by Alibaba, emerged as one of the biggest challenges faced by Taiwanese companies working in this area. Shortly after the conference news emerged that a UK court has ruled that ISPs in that country must remove websites that infringe trademarks as well as copyrighted content.

Dong Pei-ling: I’m from KK Box. Many of you may know that KK Box is a music streaming service and the KK Box Group also launched a TV drama streaming service recently. So we distribute content. However, we do not own the rights to the content. Therefore it is very important for us… it is our day to day job to make sure that the content on the platform, is legitimate and legally licensed. Today, many of the presentations by the speakers concern finding pirate sites, but since we are not the content owners, there is a limit to the things we can do to enforce intellectual property rights. What we can do is to increase the lawful content on our platforms. I think this is the role we must play as a content distributor.

Chan Ya-jan: I think that Chunghwa Telecom needs no introduction to those sitting here today. Chunghwa Telecom, as an ISP, occupies a 70% market share in Taiwan. The main service that we provide is internet transit services. So, all along we've had a principle, whether in terms of our aims for the internet or otherwise, which is to transmit our clients’ content faithfully. One of our major principles is to promote transparency on the internet… We don’t interfere with any of our clients’ content, but we have contracts with clients, which regulate our respective authority.

[…] Although we are an ISP, we are also active as a content provider through our Chunghwa Telecom Video group, which hosts films, TV dramas and other legitimate content. Another thing people will, no doubt, be familiar with is our MOD, which is another content service that our company provides. So our company plays the role of a distributor to some extent. And we also have to allow for transparency on the web, so we want to see a positive cycle of behavior. Our company distributes legitimate content, and takes a role, in making the digital environment in Taiwan more robust, whether this is in the form of advocacy or education.

Elliza Tu: I’m from FarEastone. The representatives from KK Box and Chunghwa Telecom have already talked on this, but my company plays two roles, one as an ISP, providing access to the internet, the as a video platform content provider […] On [the FriDay Video] platform, we offer licensed content like films, TV dramas and anime, with a subscription video on demand (SVOD) business model - subscription-based services. On this platform films take up the majority of operations, TV dramas are only there in limited numbers. One of the reasons we do not provide TV dramas is because there is too much piracy of TV dramas. Our company charges for content, so it’s really hard to compete with pirated versions offered free of charge, so we only really offer film content services. I’m happy that at this seminar today, we can work with the government to see how we can prevent piracy and allow for a better digital environment for legitimate over-the-top content providers, which can hopefully stimulate development in Taiwan’s digital content sector.

Yu Jo-fan: I’m head of Google policy for Taiwan and Hong Kong. I think everyone here is aware of Google’s products, including Google Search and Google Maps; although there are a lot of Google products. Today, I’m mainly going to talk about copyright. This involves products like Google Search and YouTube, as well as Google Play, which most of you have likely used. So what is fundamentally different about these services? On YouTube and on Google Play, we serve as a platform. We allow users and creators to put their content on our platform. Google Search is different, however, as it is more of an index. With websites online that want to be listed on Google Search, we put them in order, or index them, and list them on our site. So there is a difference between our products, therefore they entail different ways of thinking about preventing digital piracy. On YouTube I think everyone’s probably already aware of our Content ID system.

Video 1: The YouTube Content ID system explained; Source YouTube.

The Content ID system is not just another of the more traditional methods of preventing or removing pirated content, it’s a trouble-free and pro-active system, which allows creators to put their content in our databases, and then it functions along the lines of notice and take-down. So if content creators are willing, they can first upload their content to our database, and then when other people upload identical content on to the YouTube platform, then the original creator will be made aware. Another extremely useful aspect of this is that whenever the original creator discovers that their content has been uploaded by someone else, they have several options. Firstly, they can go the traditional route and demand that it get taken down; alternately, they can examine who it is that is using this content. This information can be seen from our data. The third option was quite surprising even to us. This was when people shared their opinions and theories about the creative content of others. As when someone uploads video content, they will perhaps receive some advertising profits. So through the Content ID system, the profits from the content can be shared with the original content creator. We were surprised to find that most copyright holders choose to share the advertising revenue rather than remove the offending content.

Sandy Lee: I’m very happy today that we’ve heard from representatives from FarEastone, Chunghwa Telecom and Google […] I think that the title of today’s conference is good, although the Chinese and English are slightly different. I think that the Chinese title is good, because it emphasizes “new ways of thinking and new methods”. I think that listening from this morning up until now, I have indeed heard about new ways of thinking and new methods […] At previous conferences, if there was something we were unable to deal with, we would go through a list of things the government and the judiciary should do. Of course this is in the context of private enterprises having exhausted all the methods currently at their disposal, so we were eager to see more pro-active and clearer attempt to offer legal protections. But today I’ve heard different ways of thinking . Today I’ve not just heard from content providers, but also from platform partners and about revenue sharing interactions. I think that as technology advances, the relationship between content providers, platforms, service providers and advertisers has gotten closer. There’s a chain reaction, in that piracy affects them all. We know that the advertising revenue from traditional cable has gone down over recent years. And why is this? It is, of course, not just because of the “new generation”, which isn’t really that new anymore, but it’s also that the way we view content has changed, along with our lifestyles. We don’t have as much time, so we make choices. We make use of the limited time we have by narrowing down the things we watch. And we generally go for the most convenient way. So technological innovations have changed the way we view content. One ramification of this change is the effect on traditional profit streams for companies. Actually, we are in negotiations with FarEastone on certain application deals. We're not currently working with KK Box, although this is a possibility. With Chunghwa Telecom, we already work extremely closely on multimedia on demand (MOD) and video on demand (VOD) services. I’m working for Fox Networks, which was previously Fox International Channels. Our company structure has changed, but content services in Taiwan have remained largely the same. So channels you see on cable, such as Fox, National Geographic Channel, Star, are all channel services provided under Fox in Taiwan. As well as this, we also create some of our own content, like TV dramas and variety shows. These are the only programs that we hold the sole rights to, whereas with other programs we’re just a channel provider. We’re part of an association called the Satellite Television Broadcasting Association (STBA) R.O.C. Although it was originally just for satellite providers, in reality it now includes providers who use a variety of methods for transmission, including fiber optic cable. The term satellite is still used because the sector has developed so quickly that the laws and regulations of the National Communications Commission (NCC) are often unable to keep up. In Taiwan, 21st Century Fox mainly deals with films, while Fox Networks is mainly responsible for channels and both are under the 21st Century Fox Group.

Dong Pei-ling (KK Box): For us, from whenever KK Box started operating, we decided it would be a legitimate platform and that all of the songs on our platform would be legal. Of course, the most important task in this was to get licenses for the songs. The problem is… Ms. Yu from Google said it well... the most important thing for the rights holder is not to take the content down, but rather to find ways to profit from it. In terms of the current legislation, the way we go about licensing is to seek out the rights holder and then sign a licensing agreement with them and then we put the song on our platform. This can be very hit or miss. One song has more than just one rights holder, with different rights holders for recording and the lyrics etc. If we’re missing just one of these we can’t put the track out. This means that we have a lot of indie music, or songs that have been around so long the details of their origins are unclear, that we can’t put on our platform. This means that our platform loses its diversity. We wanted to build a platform that is different from other platforms, as there are lots of free music streaming services online. And if our content is the same as everyone else’s, then there’s no real way to show ourselves as unique. So the biggest challenge for us has been how to find the rights holders who are more difficult to find.

Chan Ya-jan (Chunghwa Telecom): I think the biggest challenge facing Chunghwa Telecom is the same one facing internet firms all over the world: bandwidth. Whether its legal providers like Netflix or illegal over-the-top (OTT) providers, the bandwidth problem is a really big challenge for everyone. The challenge is tied in with an opportunity, as we’ve launched content delivery network services. As well as the copyright issue, this also involves other issues, for example, consumer protection is a huge issue in Taiwan. So parent groups and copyright associations will target certain websites and OTTs and decry them as inappropriate or illegal and they bring all these problems to Chunghwa Telecom to deal with. So with these different sorts of websites we face a challenge in that we need to know what government body will affirm our authority or an injunction that we issue. This is problematic in that the kind of issue that people have with the website in question will require us to deal with a different government body. What we lack at the minute is a standard operating procedure (SOP) to give ISPs a way to do this. So as a content distribution network, other parties often request that we cooperate with investigations, but as I just mentioned, in the context of a free and transparent internet, we can’t control how one piece of content moves from one interchange of the superhighway to another. So it’s harder and harder for us to investigate this kind of thing as technology advances.

Elliza Tu (FarEastone): In terms of our role as an ISP, occasionally we’ll receive letters from publishers stating that a pirated version of their content has appeared on a certain website and requesting take-down. First of all, we’re not in position to judge this and as well as this, the question of how you go about blocking this content is problematic for us. So we’re also hoping for a standardized system or standard procedure by which ISPs can go about judging this and to then deal with it in a legal and reasonable way. This is something that ISPs are hoping for and would be very willing to take part in. The second thing I want to talk about is from the perspective of content operations. We also go through legal means to attain a license from the original video producer. Of course, sometimes we’ll get letters from people challenging us on the rights and stating that we’ve not attained a direct license from them. But given the different layers of ownership in content, this kind of thing occurring is unavoidable. The most important thing for me is how we go about helping content providers whose content is being pirated, to allow us to operate more effectively.

Yu Jo-fan (Google): I think that the biggest challenge is how the internet has changed our industries. Traditionally YouTube has been dominated by creative firms, but now, more and more, we find individual users. Perhaps everyone is familiar with Tsai A-Ka in Taiwan, who is even more influential than most of the singers here, as he’s expanded this kind of viewership… and he has over a million subscribers. People might also know of a Swedish YouTuber called PewDiePie.

Video 2: A PewDiePie video with over 6 million view on YouTube.

Yu Jo-fan (Google): His popularity has already reached a global level. As of 2016, he has over 45 million subscribers. It’s clear from this that the way this industry is developing is quite different from traditional models because of the internet. Another factor we need to consider is the form in which this new content appears. How do these individuals present their content? They create content together or sometimes base their content on other people’s creative output. So how can we differentiate this from piracy? And how should copyright be applied in this context. The development of the industry has given Google some food for thought in terms of how we go about preventing piracy. So this presents quite a big challenge for us. So in one sense we have to prevent piracy, but at the same time we have to be sure that we don’t go overboard in interpreting copyright infringement leading to some forms of content no longer being able to continue developing. This is something that we’re always thinking about, in terms of balancing interests in society. I want to share a successful example of dealing with piracy. This example involved Disney. Disney released an animated film called Frozen, which was extremely famous. So, in the wake of this success, a lot of people uploaded the theme song to the internet. These were pirated versions. So how should we have dealt with them? Traditionally we would have removed them. But we saw that Disney adopted a different approach. They went to see who it was that was uploading this content and found that it was Disney fans who really liked this song. So instead they continued to allow them to leave these videos online and even encouraged them to share them and form a community to help them promote the film. I think that this presents us an opportunity to reconsider how we go about dealing with piracy. So we’ll work together with content providers on this.

Video 3: The Frozen theme uploaded to YouTube by Disney UK.

Sandy Lee (FOX): I want to address a few infringement problems. Normally when we discover that, for example, the content of an entire channel is available on a website, the first step we take is to attempt to identify the location of the IP address. This is because of a very practical concern, in that the IP has to be in Taiwan if you want to use Taiwanese law to deal with it. If the IP address is not in Taiwan, like some appear to be in China or in the US or small island nations... If the IP address is not in Taiwan, we’ll hand things over to our L.A. piracy compliance team to deal with. Regarding what the representative from Google has just stated, we have used the Content ID system that she mentioned. Like with the National Geographic Channel, for example, we have more locally produced content. So first we’ll upload this to YouTube’s Content ID database, which detects if anyone later uploads identical content. Another situation is when we don’t have the ownership rights, or copyright to content, but we’ve got exclusive rights – the OTT rights for a certain period of time. In that situation, when we discover the content on YouTube, unless we don’t have exclusive rights, we’ll request that it be taken down. It can be trickier to deal with in this situation, because it involves a second layer of judgment on rights, you can’t just produce proof that you produced it yourself, so if you’ve been licensed the content, it’s harder for third parties to judge. At first we would still ask for the content to be removed, and this led, on the whole, to successful outcomes for us. But there is another situation, in which the person pirating the video re-uploads it, and this requires us to deploy manpower. Today he might use account A to upload infringing content and when that account gets blocked he’ll create account A1 to upload the same infringing content. And because this is not our main business, we can’t expend a lot of manpower on infringement. I think that something very interesting was brought up in regard to revenue sharing on content uploaded by others, as this involves several strategic considerations. The example just raised was a short piece of footage, just used for promotional or marketing purposes, but if it is a longer piece, you may have a lot of revenue through the revenue sharing model. But if you want to put it on cable TV or through MOD, or IPTV etc., and you want your profit to come through those channels, then you wouldn’t look so lightly on YouTube infringement, despite the revenue. As this affects our contracts with licensees and we don’t want this to replace our opportunities to license the content to others. […] Some content is also only relevant for a certain window of time. For example with sport matches, by the time you pursue someone for infringing on a sports match, the match is already over. So pursuing them won’t change anything. […] Free content may seem good in the short-term, but from a long-term perspective, it is not good, because, imagine I’m an employee of a non-Taiwanese channel. If there’s not a lot of revenue from content made in Taiwan, why would the boss of the channel be willing to invest more money here? If money comes in that means that Taiwanese local productions have to earn money.

Chan Ya-jan (Chunghwa Telecom): I think that we actually have different methods for the different services we provide. I think the one that most people are familiar with is notice and take-down. We have an enforcement protocol which we use consistently across all of our platforms, including the cloud, e-commerce platforms as well as CHTVideo, which I just mentioned and even MODs. When it comes to disputed content or content that is reported as illegal or unlicensed, we’ll attempt to serve as a neutral arbitrator by temporarily suspending the content. When we talk about “removing” content, it’s normally just temporarily suspending access to the content for our clients. We give both parties a bit of time to deal with the situation and if the alleged infringer does not launch a counter-complaint, then we’ll go about removing the content more permanently. This is one of the methods we use on our platforms. Returning to issues for ISPs, we receive many reports in this respect too. Many of these reports are from international manufacturers, who report websites on which products infringing their trademark or copyright are sold, hoping for us to block them. This puts us in an awkward position, because we have no authority to judge, even if the infringement is flagrant, as we’re just a business. So when we receive a report against a business, we’ll refer it on. We’ll pass on information to the content uploader, without taking any action, in the hope that they’ll respond in some way. Actually, normally, at this point, the infringer will get in touch with the party that reported the content. In most cases this is to come clean. They’ll sometimes say that the disputed content doesn’t belong to them, but was uploaded by one particular user at a certain level of their organization, and that they were unaware of this. So at this point, all we can really do is facilitate this process, but we’re not opposed to the injunctions that were just mentioned. In the case of a pornographic site, for example, some people will think that it violates local moral norms, whether just the breasts are exposed, or it involves full frontal nudity, but who should be responsible for judging this? We’ve always said that we just need a body to make this judgment, whether it be the court, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the National Communications Commission (NCC) or the Intellectual Property Office, and to provide us with administrative or legal recourse. We provided three potential technological options for blocking before to the NCC. These three options had different effects, which we would have been happy to implement. But we need a standard operating procedure for this.

Yu Jo-fan (Google): […] As well as the Content ID system on YouTube, we also have notice and take down for our Search business. We receive 1 million of these requests per week globally. So after receiving the request, we take down within 6 hours. Another situation is when we receive a large quantity of reports about one site, we put that website to a place further back in the search results, so not as many people will discover it. We also try to use the follow the money approach. So we work with the authorities to attempt to see how we can cut off revenue streams for pirate websites, to stop them from getting funding to continue. But we also consider that another more effective tool against piracy could be to think of it from a demand point of view. Why do consumers still turn to pirated content? We discovered that this is because they like the content. So from this we thought of what we can do in this respect. So we strive to allow creators, those that want to go through our platform, to use our platform to access their target consumers or users with more ease. And allow these users to access the legal content they want more easily with the device that they want to use, like their mobile phone or computer for instance. […] I’m not sure of the details about how injunctions would function alongside the notice and takedown system. For us the problem is often when only some of the content on a website is pirated, how much does it have to constitute of the entire website for it to be removed? The other issue is that launching a website is quite easy, so when one goes down another one springs up in its place. […]

The above discussion was translated from the original Chinese and edited for brevity, any citations should reflect this.

Author: Conor Stuart Current Post: Senior Editor, IP Observer Education: MA Taiwanese Literature, National Taiwan University BA Chinese and Spanish, Leeds University, UK Experience: Translator/Editor, Want China Times Editor, Erenlai Magazine

Facebook Follow the IP Observer on our FB Page