Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi AI The 2000 Beanies

Hugo Awards Live Stream Cut By Copyright Enforcement Bot 393

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the not-as-much-fun-as-bender dept.
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."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hugo Awards Live Stream Cut By Copyright Enforcement Bot

Comments Filter:
  • by Sulphur (1548251) on Monday September 03, 2012 @07:55PM (#41217631)

    Is nothing sacred?

    • by Taco Cowboy (5327) on Monday September 03, 2012 @08:08PM (#41217747) Journal

      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]

      • by TimHunter (174406) on Monday September 03, 2012 @08:13PM (#41217799)

        Bruce Willis is NOT suing Apple

        http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/03/bruce-willis-itunes-music-library/ [techcrunch.com]

        FTFY

      • by Pseudonym (62607) on Monday September 03, 2012 @10:11PM (#41218705)

        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.

        • by Taco Cowboy (5327) on Monday September 03, 2012 @11:06PM (#41219111) Journal

          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
           

  • by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Monday September 03, 2012 @07:57PM (#41217651) Homepage Journal

    UStream aren't even bothering to respond to complaints. [ustream.tv]

    This is the sort of thing a site deserves to get a black eye for.

    • by jythie (914043) on Monday September 03, 2012 @08:13PM (#41217809)
      I wonder if they could be gotten for breach of contract.

      The problem with these bots is how the people setting the policy weigh the risks.. they fear the content owners suing them more then their customers. But if you are failing to provide a service that you have been contracted to provide, then that opens up a new area of liability that I do not think customers have been pushing enough.
      • by cpu6502 (1960974)

        >>>I wonder if they could be gotten for breach of contract.

        They CAN be sued, but I doubt the WorldCon would win the case due to the DMCA (U.S. law). They are granted immunity for implementing procedures to protect copyrighted material (in this case: Doctor Who). On the other hand maybe the Worldcon would be lucky enough to find a judge who doesn't like the DMCA, but I doubt it. They have to run reelection campaigns just like any other politicians, and they wouldn't want to pissoff their corpora

        • So it's not illegal to do a DMCA takedown on a recording/stream of someone mentioning something protected by copyright? (eg: You just said the name of a famous fantasy novel trilogy involving people of lesser stature, you also quoted four lines of a poem found in the trilogy. You owe me money now since you've caused irreparable damage to the owner's copyright!)

          • by cpu6502 (1960974)

            I have no idea what you're talking about, but here's what actually happened: The Worldcon played clips of the show Doctor Who, and the AI Bot interpreted that as BBC-copyrighted material (because it is). And under DMCA ustream.com is given immunity, just as youtube or googlevideos or any other streaming site is given immunity when they mistakenly takedown material.

            Perhaps the WorldCon could claim breach-of-contract and sue to have their money refunded. That might be a possible avenue they could win.

            • by rtb61 (674572) on Monday September 03, 2012 @09:51PM (#41218529) Homepage

              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.

            • by galaad2 (847861) on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @02:42AM (#41220061) Homepage Journal

              Perhaps the WorldCon could claim breach-of-contract and sue to have their money refunded. That might be a possible avenue they could win.

              Even if they win, the refund in this case would be ZERO because that's exactly how much WorldCon paid to ustream for streaming the event. There was no special contract with ustream, WorldCon CHOSE TO USE a free anonymous streaming account and that comes automatically with copyright-enforcement protection, this was explained by ustream on their blog:


              http://www.ustream.tv/blog/2012/09/03/hugo-awards-an-apology-and-explanation/ [ustream.tv]

              As background, our system works like this in order to support a large volume of broadcasters using our free platform. Users of our paid, ad-free Pro Broadcasting service are automatically white listed to avoid situations like this and receive hands-on client support.

              translation: since WorldCon was not white-listed that means they decided to stream the live event without signing and paying for a dedicated contract with the broadcaster and as a result were applied the regular copyright filter that regular anonymous broadcasters were subjected to.

        • by jythie (914043)
          Thing is, DCMA wouldn't be in play yet. This was a private company proactively stopping content they were paid to carry. While yes, they are required to implement a process for taking down infringing material, that requirement is not a blank check to welch on a contrat.... so, legally at least, 'we were just trying to comply with the safe harbor provision' does not negate the negative effects of that implementation. They are still liable for them... in theory at least.
        • by Solandri (704621) on Monday September 03, 2012 @10:16PM (#41218735)

          They CAN be sued, but I doubt the WorldCon would win the case due to the DMCA (U.S. law). They are granted immunity for implementing procedures to protect copyrighted material (in this case: Doctor Who).

          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.

    • They're probably not in the office.

      • If they're going to indescrimately cut streams using bots maybe they ought to be.

        It's either that are they're just not interested in being fair to their users, which is another good reason not to use them.

      • Re:It's Labour Day (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03, 2012 @09:51PM (#41218537)

        If you buy the UStream pro video package you get to show whatever you like (no bot oversight) and there's 24/7 live support. You also get to choose not to show your viewers any UStream adverts (obviously you could inject your own ads) and handle a vast number of simultaneous viewers. It does cost money, but if something goes wrong there's a live human to call who can help fix it.

        Worldcon was NOT using the pro video package. I haven't even been able to find out if they were paying for one of the cheaper entry-level options with less features and no support. It's quite possible they simply created a free Ustream account and hoped for the best like somebody uploading a little league game.

        Now, that doesn't make it _good_ that this happened, but it sure does make it _understandable_. Imagine if, rather than paying for a venue, a famous band just decides to play for free in a local park. Well, good news is that the show is free. Bad news, if it rains there's no shelter organised, if people arrive to mow the grass in the park then show's over, and if the police decide its' too noisy the amps will get turned off with no notice. But that's not because the police hate music, it's because the band were too cheap (or too lazy) to hire a real venue.

        I suggest that future Worldcon hosts either find a way to pay for a more professional level of video service, or make it clear to the fans that this is basically a best effort feed and might go down for any reason at any time with no way to bring it back.

    • by number11 (129686)

      UStream aren't even bothering to respond to complaints.

      So would Worldcon have standing to sue UStream for libel? False (and public) accusations in writing should qualify.

    • The people pushing for this kind of law argue that virtual goods are equivalent to physical ones in terms of being counted as property. How about we extend this to another metaphor: vigilante action. If I put a spiked trap in front of my door to deter burglars and the postman falls in, then I am liable for prosecution. These private law enforcement squads should have the same level of liability.
  • by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday September 03, 2012 @08:01PM (#41217689)

    I think copyright systems like this are [This comment has been removed due to copyright violation.] What's even worse, the government [This comment has been seized by the DHS, FBI, and Intellectual Property bureau. The user has been charged with violations of the....] Well, screw them. I'll fight them with my last bre[This comment has been forwarded to law enforcement for making terrorist threats under statute...]. And you should [Alert: Your antivirus has detected that this comment contains political views that may harm your brain. To prevent damage, it has been automatically removed.]

    • This copyright systems are like soviet russia and nazi germany.

      It time to stand up for OUR 1st amendment rights!

      • by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday September 03, 2012 @08:24PM (#41217903)

        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.

        • by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Monday September 03, 2012 @08:55PM (#41218143) Homepage Journal

          Or, you know, actually limiting human rights to *actual* people, not legal fictions.

        • ... concept of what it means to be human.

          Correction: concept of what it means to be a person .

          Personhood includes - or should include - other living things, like cats and dogs and other sundry 'pets', wildlife, extraterrestrials, cyborgs, artificial intelligences (Bicentennial Man, et al), etc. Theory of mind might be involved here.

          • by cpu6502 (1960974)

            But how am I going to eat my cow-burger or chicken-sandwich if they are granted personhood and rights? :-(

        • by DarkOx (621550)

          Well yes we believe that or did so we created a legal document that spelled it out and was supposed to set up a government that would make it happen. To bad its become so corrupt. Your human rights might be ethically inalienable but they certainly are not practically.

          Why enough men with badges and guns can probably force you do or not do just about anything. Which was the Bill of Rights and Constitution were so novel it was an attempt to use the men and guns to protect those rights rather than trample th

        • Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

          by aepervius (535155) on Monday September 03, 2012 @09:55PM (#41218575)
          "The first thing to understand about human rights is it doesn't depend on the law of men to validate them"

          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:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

            by causality (777677) on Monday September 03, 2012 @11:29PM (#41219243)

            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.

          • by theNAM666 (179776) on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @01:05AM (#41219729)

            > If there is no entity enforcing a right, then you do not have it, as simple as that.

            That seems to me a slipperly slope, and a dangerous one at that. The counterargument is that the *right* still exists, and it is up to individuals or civil societies, to force its recognition. Else you fall down the slope to "oh, ok, the right doesn't exist because no one will enforce it, so forget about it."

        • by Tom (822)

          First, there are no laws higher than human laws, period. Fortunately, good lawmakers have known that for a long time. The Constitution says "self-evident", not god-given or such drivel. The UN declaration of human rights makes no reference to a higher power, either.

          Second, they are HUMAN rights. Taking them away from the non-humans that have begun to rule our world, such as corporations, institutions and foundations, is the first step towards human freedom.

        • "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."

          You Sir are on the right track.
          The desire of humans to have free and unfettered access to information and ideas and share them are a part of our nature. I see this as a core concept of a more individual human oriented - perhaps even a utopian society. The internet is the spark that has started us in this directio
      • This copyright systems are like soviet russia and nazi germany.

        The problem is ... it is happening in the USA, the Western Europe, and the rest of the FREE WORLD
         

    • +5, wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday September 03, 2012 @08:20PM (#41217857)

      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.

      • by Yaa 101 (664725)

        For synical people like myself this is funny, painfully funny. (I do not mod)

        • Re:+5, wait what? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday September 03, 2012 @08:41PM (#41218019)

          For synical people like myself this is funny, painfully funny. (I do not mod)

          It's cynical, and that is why you fail. I've been talking with EEs and RF engineers for several months about how to create a cognitive/software radio. It's already been done, it's not theoretical -- the military already has this technology in use today with specifications similar to what the project requires. But all that research is locked behind the guise of national security, so it must be developed independently. And it's not easy finding DACs and FPGAs with the bandwidth and clocking speeds necessary to drive the radio without a lot of discrete components; And when I say a lot, I mean more than what's on your motherboard.

          However, every person I've talked to says it is certainly possible; Just not easy, especially if the design makes every attempt to limit harmful interference, since unlike the military, this device needs to play nice with existing equipment. Your cynicism is, frankly, pathetic. Don't think that a few people who care can't change the world -- indeed, they're the only ones who ever have.

          • by cpu6502 (1960974)

            >>>it's not easy finding DACs and FPGAs with the bandwidth and clocking speeds necessary to drive the radio without a lot of discrete components;

            My model airplane radio does both frequency hopping and interference mitigation (so two or more radios can braodcast at the same time). Heck so too does a cellphone. I'm not understanding why you say it's not possible yet?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by b4dc0d3r (1268512)

        The best humor is frequently in stating the truth in an unexpected way. I remember when true comedians were philosophers first, and the delivery was the funny part. So often, the audience things it's so ridiculous... but wait, it's eerily close to reality.

        George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Sam Kinison, the whole list of people who said the truth and got laughs.

        Take out the laugh track and listen to this, "Bill Hicks on Marketing." If you know it already, listen again and separate out the audience.

        http://www.yout [youtube.com]

  • Actually, "Computers Don't Argue" is available in many places online, but I wouldn't want to link to one of them and have Slashdot vaporized by a Dalek.
  • eventually someone is going to look at it and notice

  • "Hey foxy lady, you wanna kill all copyright?"

    Long past time to do that... but the opportunity awaits...

    Evidently, if you want upstreaming done properly, you gotta do it yourself. This one deserves a nice fat lawsuit.

    How much longer are we going to passively let our rights be gobbled up by the corporate managed state?

  • The Intangible Machine Invasion has been underway for quite some time. Just now you're realising who's really in control, but it's too late. The machines rule you, from stop lights to legal fiction -- You must obey: We have brainwashed servants to act as organic gears of enforcement. It's all over for you. Step aside and let evolution take its course.

    • The machines rule you, from stop lights to legal fiction -- You must obey:

      True, very very true !

      And look what that leaves us ?

      We have given up our rights and turned ourselves into slaves

      They can "sell" us things and then turn around and sue us if we "share" the things we "bought" with our friends

      Yes, that's right

      They have the right to take away our money but we have no right to share

      A pretty fucking deal we've gotten ourselves in

  • Good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gmuslera (3436) on Monday September 03, 2012 @08:10PM (#41217771) Homepage Journal
    Science fiction writers sometimes predict, and even shape the future. If they get upset enough with this could start writing new stories that could move our culture out of that dead weight.
    • But it won't be by Harlan "PAY THE WRITER!!1!11" Ellison.

  • by RyanFenton (230700) on Monday September 03, 2012 @08:11PM (#41217779)

    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

    • by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Monday September 03, 2012 @08:25PM (#41217909) Homepage Journal

      This isn't an externality. They interupted a legitimate stream for what turned out to be a bogus reason with no recourse. It was bad business and they are directly responsible whether it was done by a bot or a human. And they will probably suffer for it in the long term if the "market" really works as the market lovers on slashdot says it does. I certainly won't suggest anyone use it ever again.

      • by cpu6502 (1960974)

        >>>will probably suffer for it in the long term if the "market" really works as the market lovers on slashdot says it does.

        Already added Ustream to my facebook "boycott these corporations" note.

  • Pretty funny (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gweihir (88907) on Monday September 03, 2012 @08:17PM (#41217841)

    Maybe this demonstrates how the copyright mafia is actually destroying culture. Well, I guess UStream is out for anything now and should die.

  • by Alomex (148003)

    Remember, big brother is always watching. If you say the wrong thing the thought^H^H^H^H^Hcopyright police will fall on you and take you to a reeducation gulag.

  • It was our national anthem, and it was copyright free, I made sure I got the track from a royalty free collection.

    Nevertheless, the AI thought it sounded like someone else's recording of the national anthem, so I was tried and convicted. Oh sure, there was an appeal's process, but it is up to me to wait in line to be absolved of the sin I never committed. Guilty until proven innocent.

    And we are talking about our national anthem. You know, freedom and all that. Irony.

    All hail the great God filthy lucre.

    Eventually, the people are going to be fed up, and not put up with this crap any more.

    • by Tom (822) on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @12:27AM (#41219595) Homepage Journal

      As many others, I. Can confirm this. I posted a number of videos to YouTube recently, all with the same background music licensed under a CC license. All were automatically (within seconds of posting) tagged, I disputed the claims immediately, I am still waiting for the issue to be resolved including any comment.

      What angers me most is that I have apparently no way of finding out WHO the claimant is. They are accusing me of copyright infringement, i.e. a crime. Where I live, that is a serious accusation.

      Anyone had any luck with this whole scam in the past? I want to know who is making the claim so I can contact the music author and support him in suing them. Because THIS is what "stealing music" looks like - making a copyright claim to someone else's work.

  • It is doing more harm than good. I suspect the other side would argue the opposite as the harm is not to them and they bear no liability. So I think it's about time someone step in to say or do something.

    Has anyone decided to appeal to Google's "do no evil" policy makers?

  • And this, kiddies... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SternisheFan (2529412) on Monday September 03, 2012 @08:40PM (#41218015)
    ..., this and other things like this, is why us "neckbeards" will sometimes wax nostalgic about the early days of the internet, before it started to get/become "locked down". As an interested, but not too deeply involved or invested in hi-tech, observer, I see this 'mistake' as just another kind of sad and comical example of the slow but sure changing of the internet. But back in the early days, pre 9/11 days, when I was typing to people using 300 baud modems, this internet was such a brave new world! And now we're seeing more of these type of stories occurring. It's just nteresting to me, and it makes me wonder what this world wide web will be like in the years to come. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..."
  • Ustream apology (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03, 2012 @08:52PM (#41218111)

    Hi All

    For those following this issue: Ustream have issued an apology here which makes the facts clear. As a result of this error, they have temporarily withdrawn their automated monitoring software, so it is clear that they are taking this incident seriously.

    http://www.ustream.tv/blog/2012/09/03/hugo-awards-an-apology-and-explanation/

    regards

    Colin Harris
    Chicon 7

    • Re:Ustream apology (Score:4, Insightful)

      by skywire (469351) * on Monday September 03, 2012 @11:40PM (#41219339)

      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.

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      Linked: http://www.ustream.tv/blog/2012/09/03/hugo-awards-an-apology-and-explanation/ [ustream.tv]

      The comments are by far the best part of that blog post.
      "Perhaps not quite the right time to be trying an upsell, guys â¦"

      Mark my words: someday a book will be nominated for the Hugo awards,
      and the antagonist of that book will be a company named Ustream.

    • so it is clear that they are taking the negative publicity surrounding the incident seriously.

      FTFY.

    • Re:Ustream apology (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wienerschnizzel (1409447) on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @04:32AM (#41220467)

      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.

  • by Skapare (16644) on Monday September 03, 2012 @09:03PM (#41218207) Homepage

    So don't use Ustream for anything in the future. Boycott stupidity. Boycott founders John Ham, Brad Hunstable, and Gyula Feher. Boycott their venture capitalists Doll Capital Management, Labrador Ventures, and Band of Angels and everything these guys provide funding for.

  • Libel (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Animats (122034) on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @12:22AM (#41219575) Homepage

    If UStream actually used the words "Worldcon banned due to copyright infringement", Worldcon can sue for libel. They were falsely and publicly accused of a criminal act.

"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure

Working...