Hugo Awards Live Stream Cut By Copyright Enforcement Bot 393
New submitter Penmanpro writes news of the Hugo Awards stream being unintentionally cut off by some AI gone awry: "Quotes from the linked article 'UStream's incorrectly programmed copyright enforcement squad had destroyed our only access.' 'Just as Neil Gaiman was giving an acceptance speech for his Doctor Who script, "The Doctor's Wife." Where Gaiman's face had been were the words, "Worldcon banned due to copyright infringement."'"
Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed??? (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mon !
Just look at how TFA has been worded !!
Hugo Awards stream being unintentionally cut off by some AI gone awry
UStream's incorrectly programmed copyright enforcement squad had destroyed our only access
As if the whole copyright thing has NO PROBLEM and has not wreck enough havoc yet
It must be, according to TFA, a case of "incorrectly programmed copyright enforcement squad" that is the culprit, not the application of copyright itself, on so many things around us
If you do not know it yet, that famous " I Have A Dream " speech by Martin Luther King is not permitted to be aired anywhere, unless you can obtain agreement from the copyright owners
Both the copyright and the patent restrictions and lawsuits are suffocating the society and I for one, am TRULY TIRED OF ALL THESE SHITS !!
But I am not alone
Bruce Willis is suing Apple
http://www.dailygossip.org/bruce-willis-sues-apple-to-leave-itunes-library-as-inheritance-4414 [dailygossip.org]
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Negative externality. (Score:4, Insightful)
In business economics, this is known as a negative externality [wikipedia.org], or costs imposed on others through your economic actions- and in modern business, negative externalities are almost something to be maximized, so long as they don't lead to direct consequences.
So yeah, as a modern business, this is exactly what is desired - enact a system that openly screws over everyone, so long as it can have some chance of benefiting your business in some way. Short-term interest is the primary motivation of publicly traded corporations, and indeed folks can and have been sued for not making it the first concern above all others.
From pollution, to overharvesting, to lawsuits, to claims on resources of all kinds - companies will always increase the rate at which they harm others as time goes on.
Ultimately, you need some public, long-term interests expressed as part of the legal/economic/legislative system, otherwise, we'll keep getting crap like this. It's why most of the more developed nations end up being more socially governed than the US has been over time.
Ryan Fenton
+5, wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, mods, I didn't intend for that to be funny. That really is the future of the internet. If we're going to have a free (as in liberty), worldwide, packet switched network, then our only hope lies in software defined radio, 3D printing, and a dozen or so RF engineers brave enough to build us a portable mesh-networking communication package with rapid frequency shifting, ultra wideband transmit/receive, and on the fly encryption. We have to build a new network -- one that doesn't rely on fixed infrastructure.
And we have to do it soon, before our children get the idea that what's going on now is what we intended the future of democracy to look like.
Re:like soviet russia and nazi germany (Score:5, Insightful)
It time to stand up for OUR 1st amendment rights!
The first thing to understand about human rights is it doesn't depend on the law of men to validate them. You have the right to freedom of speech, expression, and religion, regardless of what your government says. You have it regardless of whether the Constitution allows it or not, or even exists. You have it, because you're a human being. That is the definition of a human right: There are some laws higher than those of men.
Stop thinking of this as an American problem, or a legal problem. It's an ethical problem -- and the greatest advances of the 21st century won't be in science or technology, but in expanding the concept of what it means to be human. That, good sir, is your fight. You are not alone.
Re:Calm Down,... (Score:5, Insightful)
They cut off a one time unrepeatable event. Not everyone can "get off their ass" and get to a con for a whole multitude of reasons. It's a pretty god damn bad outcome.
Re:like soviet russia and nazi germany (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, you know, actually limiting human rights to *actual* people, not legal fictions.
Re:Fitting. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, way under... sometime in the last century, or way before that even. If you mean a shooting war, then maybe you're a little closer. But hell, we're still not seeing enough resistance to the war on drugs (the cold, cruel 'eastern front' of the war on people). Defense of our rights will require a multipronged attack on the corrupt state.
Quiz: How many DHS keywords are in this post?
Re:Google banned my video because of the music (Score:4, Insightful)
A minute to file the appeal. Usually a month for the appeal to be acted upon. Sounds like a line to me. And there seems to be no penalty for posting huge numbers of frivolous takedown notices.
OK, not exactly the death knell of Fair Use. But not a molehill either.
Re:usteam isn't responding. (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on that you can shut down any live streaming event with a good old fashioned boom box. Copyright bots beware fun is to be had.
Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
A right which is not enforced by men , is a non existing right. You can spout around that you have the right of free speech, but if the governement decide you do not have it, then *pouf* it is gone. There is not such a thing as "natural right", there is only a things which is recognized as fundemmental right that a culture decide to enforce that right at the expanse of others. But should that culture "decide" as a whole that that right isn't needed or required anymore, be it in limited circumstance or as a whole, then no matter how much an individiual will yell "natural right" it will be gone. If there is no entity enforcing a right, then you do not have it, as simple as that.
A very good example of this are area where governemental force are gone, lawless as they are, the rights of the people living locally are decided by the whim of the local warlord. People can then yell they have rights , the one given by the gone governement, but then the local warlord can laugh all the way while trampling the right the locals think they have.
A "right" which is not enforced by an entity is a right you lost or do not have. Only when an enforcing entity help applying that right you got it. There is not such a thing as natural right, as natural law is the law of the strongest, and the only right you got then is the one which you can enforce yourself.
Re:+5, wait what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Some groups of a few people who care have changed the world. A far larger number of groups of a few people who cared have found the world unyielding to their efforts.
If you only ever do things that statistics favor, you're going to lead a most boring and undistinguished life. Life has always existed despite the odds, vibrant life doubly so. I choose to believe I am of consequence to the universe... and since you believe you are not of consequence to the universe, you are... of no consequence at all.
Re:usteam isn't responding. (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when? DMCA doesn't require you to run bots which instantly take down content which the AI thinks is infringing. DMCA only requires you to take down in a timely manner content in response to violation claims by a copyright holder. There's no requirement that this be a bot. It can be a guy reading emails listing video ID numbers and manually disabling them. So long as he completes the task in a timely manner.
If you decide to let the media companies run bots on your servers for their convenience, that's entirely your own decision. And the liability for any screwups by said bots rest entirely with you.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Harlan is right. He does deserve to be paid for his work..... right up til he dies.
Gotta disagree here. Should be 14 yrs with option for an additional 14 yrs if the author/copyright owner pays a hefty fee prior to the original copyright expiration date. Whether or not the author is dead or alive.
Otherwise, Harlan needs to get off his ass and write another book if he wants another payday. Writing a popular/successful novel, song, etc etc was never meant to be an entitlement to a forever-minus-a-day gravy train.
That was why copyrights were created...to encourage the creation of more works. If it lasts until they die, why would an author/creator publish a second novel if their first one does extremely well and they're now rich with no need, financially, to create more works if they don't happen to be possessed by a burning need to endure the publishing process? Why not just retire to someplace like Tahiti and be done with all the publisher/editor/marketer madness and stress?
Strat
Re:Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed (Score:5, Insightful)
If you do not know it yet, that famous " I Have A Dream " speech by Martin Luther King is not permitted to be aired anywhere, unless you can obtain agreement from the copyright owners
Just to be clear on one point.
That this historically important speech can be effectively banned (except for fair use) is disturbing. That it is effectively banned is almost entirely due to his highly dysfunctional family.
Talking about historical clip - we must thank NASA for not filing any copyright claim over (the late) Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon - or none of us could get to enjoy the " This is one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind " moment.
Back to Mr. King's famous speech -
Whether Mr. King's family is "highly dysfunctional" or not, it should have no effect on the airing of the historical clip, if not for the copyright laws
Right now, as it is, they - the "highly dysfunctional family" can keep acting out their "highly dysfunctional" behavior for a whooping 75 years after Mr. King's death because, according to the way the copyright laws are written, they have the whole right over that damn thing
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Gotta disagree here. Should be 14 yrs with option for an additional 14 yrs if the author/copyright owner pays a hefty fee prior to the original copyright expiration date. Whether or not the author is dead or alive.......why not just retire to someplace like Tahiti and be done with all the publisher/editor/marketer madness and stress?
I have no problem with a living author reaping the benefits of writing a bestseller for his entire natural life, and his descendants for another 14 after that. If you have written a bunch of bestsellers when you were in your 40s and 50s, then should the income just cut off when you reach 70 and need the money, maybe not capable of writing any more even if you want to, while the books continue to sell and readers are enjoying them? The publishers are still making money from selling the books, but now they don't need to share the income with the author -- is that moral?
There are very few books that remain popular so long anyway. Look at a bestsellers' list from 20 years ago and see if you recognise any of them.
A more important reform would be some form of compulsory licensing, so if a book, (or movie, song, etc.) is out of print but still in copyright that there is some way to get the right to publish it, at a reasonable rate.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
A right which is not enforced by men , is a non existing right. You can spout around that you have the right of free speech, but if the governement decide you do not have it, then *pouf* it is gone. There is not such a thing as "natural right"
What was unique about the Founding Fathers is that they didn't see what you point out and say "oh no, it's not a guarantee, we're so screwed!" No, they saw what you point out and responded with "then it's clearly up to us, and we'll do whatever it takes to have them". The rose to the occasion and gave their counter-answer to what you pose. To them it was a cyclical process in which liberty ebbs and flows. It's not terribly different from the water cycle, or the carbon cycle, or the nitrogen cycle. It's simply one of nature's patterns, patterns of which men are not entirely exempt.
A "right" which is not enforced by an entity is a right you lost or do not have. Only when an enforcing entity help applying that right you got it. There is not such a thing as natural right, as natural law is the law of the strongest, and the only right you got then is the one which you can enforce yourself.
Some entities are more just than others, and that tree is known by it fruit.
The fact is that every empire and every dictatorship which became decadent and tyrannical (that is, all of them) has collapsed. It is an inherently unstable form. It is self-defeating. No free nation would ever collapse. It has to become tyrannical first. Then and only then can it collapse.
It's not just a smorgasbord of equally valid options that happen to all be equally viable. No. Some are inherently stronger, more sustainable, and more virtuous and tend to do a better job of promoting prosperity and well-being. When it's the law of the jungle, the average life-span is much shorter and quality of life is lower. According to any human standard, they are not interchangable options. The lust for power is always short-term gain at the expense of sustainability. It always fails.
i've heard this ignorant statement before (Score:4, Insightful)
i live in a country, the usa, that believes that the free market should supply what the government does not. ok, but first we must admit that we aren't talking about the free market, we are talking about monopolies and oligopolies that dominate a market space just as much as a government in a communist country does. there is no competition. there are entrenched massive players and a few marginal pipsqueaks. enough with the lies about the fantasy of a fair marketplace, especially as the largest players collude with the government and warp the rules to entrench their position
a statement like yours presupposes that i have a free choice to shop somewhere else. therefore i have no right to demand anything from a capitalist corporation. i should simply choose another capitalist corporation to serve my needs. when of course the truth is that youtube dominates it's space, and to post my video somewhere else automatically dooms me to less views
therefore, if we are going to go with this delusion that the market will provide what the government should not, then we are going to hold to the marketplace behemoths demands that otherwise we could only hold against the government, such as conforming to certain rules of fairness, since i live in a country that abdicates to the "free market" what the government otherwise would provide
where do these ignorant twits who believe in the immaculate fair marketplace that never existed and never will come from exactly? it's like a demented pseudoreligion, whose adherents cling to their nonsense in spite of all overwhelming economic fact and historical evidence like a creationist or a ufo cultist
no: if the market is dominated by a monopoly or oligopoly, the people can and should demand of them rights and protections since it is not possible to simply shop somewhere else and get anywhere near the same service. youtube provides, in effect, a public service. so you can, and should, hold it to standards of conduct on the same level as a government entity
you can't have it both ways. either the government provides the service, and then you demand a certain level of service, or the government abdicates to the monopoly, and then you have no right to demand any level of service? bullshit
Re:Ustream apology (Score:4, Insightful)
Ustream knew full when they put the bot in place that it would occasionally do this kind of thing. Their 'apology' (read "damage control") reveals a significant bit of evidence about their claimed concern for balancing the interests of copright holders and others: you can pay them to be ignored by the bot.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no problem with a living author reaping the benefits of writing a bestseller for his entire natural life, and his descendants for another 14 after that. If you have written a bunch of bestsellers when you were in your 40s and 50s, then should the income just cut off when you reach 70 and need the money, maybe not capable of writing any more even if you want to, while the books continue to sell and readers are enjoying them? The publishers are still making money from selling the books, but now they don't need to share the income with the author -- is that moral?
There are very few books that remain popular so long anyway. Look at a bestsellers' list from 20 years ago and see if you recognise any of them.
A more important reform would be some form of compulsory licensing, so if a book, (or movie, song, etc.) is out of print but still in copyright that there is some way to get the right to publish it, at a reasonable rate.
Why are authors, artists, movie studios, etc different from anyone else? Why is it they should get special protections beyond what was originally already provided for in law, and at a time when it took longer to make money as distribution was slower than it is today (no radio/TV/internet)?
So they might run out of money because they are sick/injured/whatever and be unable to work...how is that different than the same risks we all take of that happening?
I design and build custom vacuum-tube guitar amplifiers for pro/semi-pro guitarists. It's as much or more of an art form as it is engineering, as many times what sounds best isn't what is from an engineering standpoint 'correct'. It's as much a musical instrument as the guitar that's plugged into it. Even down to small details like the precise routing and positioning of wiring, the type/gauge, insulation type, combinations of electronic component brands,.etc etc. Learned skills and techniques that aren't patentable, unless an artist's brush stroke technique and similar are.
Should I get paid every time they use "my" custom guitar amplifier on a paying gig, and should I get a cut from royalties from recordings done with the amp until I die?
There's nothing special about copyright holders that entitles them to lifetime income from one work.
Copyright was *only* enacted to make sure *more* works were created, not to ensure non-production was rewarded. Rewarding them for *not* producing more works is completely contrary to the purpose for which copyright was created in the first place.
If you believe certain people should receive lifetime incomes for their work, then pass a law or amendment.
Don't attempt to warp copyright. You'll break it. Then we all lose.
Strat
Re:Ustream apology (Score:5, Insightful)
From the 'apology':
ur editorial team and content monitors almost immediately noticed a flood of livid Twitter messages about the ban and attempted to restore the broadcast. Unfortunately, we were not able to lift the ban before the broadcast ended.
Come again?! You were 'not able to lift the ban'? It's your f&*%# website! You can do as you please!
Let me go on a wild speculation and say you were not WILLING to lift the ban because you like to pander to the big media overlords. And now when you reap the hate of the general public you are suddenly sorry. Well tough for you! The dent in your reputation is well deserved.
Re:Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a family. Of course it's mostly dysfunctional. .
FTFY