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."'"
The Doctor's Wife (Score:5, Funny)
Is nothing sacred?
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]
Re:Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed (Score:5, Informative)
http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/03/bruce-willis-itunes-music-library/ [techcrunch.com]
FTFY
Re:Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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:Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed (Score:5, Funny)
FTFY
Re:Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed (Score:4, Funny)
Ah... but what if they anticipated that argument?
Re: (Score:3)
Ohh I'm sure NASA would if they could -- but considering the fact that they are a TAX PAYER FUNDED PUBLIC AGENCY, anything and everything written or recorded is subject to the FOIA.
Moon rocks however, being tangible assets are the sole property of the US Government and owning one, no matter where or how you claim to have procured it can lead to jail time. So don't be so quick to applaud NASA.
Well, they are the ones who went up and got them. If you want your own moon rock, feel free to go over and pick some for yourself.
Re:Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a family. Of course it's mostly dysfunctional. .
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt this was a technical error; rather, it's a design error, caused by the current legal system. Service providers design their take-down bots to take down everything that looks like copyright infringement to be on the safe side and avoid being sued. Respecting the end user's fair use rights barely registers, because they are unlikely to sue, can't claim much damages, and the service provider can disown their responsibility against the end-user in the service agreement.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There simply aren't enough facepalm.jpg's on the entire internet for this story, and Ustream in particular... but this one [facepalmbook.org] comes pretty close!
usteam isn't responding. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:usteam isn't responding. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>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
Re: (Score:3)
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!)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
Re:usteam isn't responding. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
It's Labour Day (Score:3)
They're probably not in the office.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Future of the internet. (Score:5, Funny)
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.]
like soviet russia and nazi germany (Score:2)
This copyright systems are like soviet russia and nazi germany.
It time to stand up for OUR 1st amendment rights!
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:like soviet russia and nazi germany (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, you know, actually limiting human rights to *actual* people, not legal fictions.
Re: concept of what it means to be human (Score:2)
... 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.
Re: (Score:2)
But how am I going to eat my cow-burger or chicken-sandwich if they are granted personhood and rights? :-(
Re: (Score:3)
Cats and dogs aren't sentient. Neither is wildlife.
They aren't sapient. But they are definitely sentient. They have feeligs. They have likes and dislikes. If they are in pain they cry out, just like we do.
Reason is what we can do that they cannot. It's one of our very most human qualities. I wish it were more widely appreciated as such. Reason would never lead you to harm another or violate another's rights, at least not without some damned solid provocation.
Re: (Score:3)
They aren't sapient. But they are definitely sentient. They have feeligs. They have likes and dislikes. If they are in pain they cry out, just like we do.
Umm... sentience requires consciousness, in other words: An awareness of self. Your pets don't have that...
Re: concept of what it means to be human (Score:4, Informative)
Can't speak for cats, but dogs do have a basic "theory of mind" as do other intelligent social animals.
Horowitz, A. (2009). Attention to attention in domestic dog (Canis familiaris) dyadic play. Animal Cognition, 12, 107-118., cited in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#cite_note-69 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
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.
Do rights exist without institutional recognition? (Score:4)
> 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."
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
The problem is ... (Score:3)
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)
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: (Score:2)
For synical people like myself this is funny, painfully funny. (I do not mod)
Re:+5, wait what? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>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:+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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
In an agape kind of spirit, I really wish you well, especially after reading what you wrote. In other words: fuck yeah. You're in that zone today where the important things are self-evident AND you can articulate them. What a wonderful state to represent!
Except I wouldn't say he's of no consequence at all. I would say he's not yet aware of his own significance, of just how much we're in all of this together. *
While I definitely believe it is going to work out, because that is inherently in the nat
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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]
Insert Obligatory Gordon Dickson Reference (Score:2)
let them shit in their beds (Score:2)
eventually someone is going to look at it and notice
Bender sez: (Score:2)
"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?
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, someone at UStream actually paying attention to the goof.
Do they really have no humans working there over a holliday weekend?
Re:Bender sez: (Score:5, Funny)
Given that this happened during a speech about a Doctor Who episode, the proper reference is:
EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE COPYRIGHT BOTS!!!!
Silly humans. (Score:2)
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.
"You must obey" (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
But it won't be by Harlan "PAY THE WRITER!!1!11" Ellison.
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: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: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: (Score:3)
But why is it apples & oranges? That's part of the point.
Why should copyright holders be paid for their entire lives for one work? Why are they so different from any other creative people as a class?
Also, once I sell the amp, anyone can build a copy and I have no right to prevent it, unlike authors.
You also failed to address any of my oth
Re: (Score:3)
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?
That isn't what happens. Even if the books were out of copyright he would still earn money from them by virtue of being the author. People will be interested in what he has to say, will value signed copies, may be interested in new work based on the quality of his past novels and so forth. He can give the books away for free on a web site and take donations.
Of course he could always just live off a pension like the rest of us too. If he writes a successful novel and fails to put any money away for your reti
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely. That's what everybody else has to do to secure their retirement.
Btw, I write a lot in my spare time, but I don't expect to automatically get paid, not even if a lot of people read it. It's up to me to find a way to turn readers into profit.
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
Re:Negative externality. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>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)
Maybe this demonstrates how the copyright mafia is actually destroying culture. Well, I guess UStream is out for anything now and should die.
1984 (Score:2)
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.
Google banned my video because of the music (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Google banned my video because of the music (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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:Google banned my video because of the music (Score:5, Informative)
You don't know what you are talking about. I did appeal. And then sat and waited, and waited.
My whole point is that I was tried and convicted of a crime I did not do. Why is it beholden upon me to go through motions to prove my innocence? Why is my content suspect and subject to removal because I am not a large conglomerate? That's the point, that's the problem, that is what people should not have to put up with.
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:Google banned my video because of the music (Score:4, Informative)
(under the provisions of the DMCA)
YouTube doesn't use the DMCA for the big guys anymore. They have automated takedown based on signatures that does not require an affidavit and they do not restore videos upon counter-filing like the law allows under the DMCA. YouTube is doing it voluntarily, going beyond the requirements of the DMCA, because they make a lot of money through Vimeo and they do not give a damn about what is right.
Re: (Score:3)
http://freemusicarchive.org/music/The_United_States_Army_Old_Guard_Fife_and_Drum_Corps/Celebrating_50_Years/02_1942 [freemusicarchive.org]
you can apologize for calling me an idiot
The "AI Cops" have got to go (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
It's only hurting the "little people," so good luck getting it fixed.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Ustream apology (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
so it is clear that they are taking the negative publicity surrounding the incident seriously.
FTFY.
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: (Score:3)
Too little too late. Fuck their apology, damage is done.
What? You became a member of the US Pirate Party [pirate-party.us]? Otherwise there is little to no damage done to the real perpetrators of this crime. Canadians go here [pirateparty.ca].
Stupid people run Ustream (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:Fitting. (Score:5, Informative)
It was a convention and it was for fans... so I don't agree with you on this.
Re:Fitting. (Score:5, Interesting)
It was a convention and it was for fans... so I don't agree with you on this.
DRM is all about fucking over the fans.
The sooner they learn that, the better.
You can't buy targetted "advertising" as good as this.
Re: (Score:2)
Except any other day it would be these same publishers/producers giving a shrug when it happens as "no big deal".
Streaming only works for the big networks... If its not covered on TV (and streamed by a network ditectly) then it's not important enough to worry about. The bots work for the BOSSES of these people... To protect their interests... In this case protecting the interests of the bosses by limiting speech of the artists... For their own good!
Re:Fitting. (Score:5, Interesting)
The point should be that the Hugo Awards hold the copyright to their awards ceremony, which includes distribution rights; by the erroneous blocking of the stream, Hugo's right to distribute was grievously infringed. That infringement like any other infringement should by remedied by the assessment of considerable monetary penalties.
Re: (Score:3)
Well yes, but sometimes the bullies are too dumb to realize they shouldn't hit people until someone actually hits back. It's really that simple, and saying it isn't going to help anyone is making a rather gross assumption based on moral values that aren't shared by the people on the other side of the argument. There's nothing amoral about self-defence, and in most of the world you are legally and socially allowed to fight back with an equal amount of force that you're being fought with: if they come at you
Re: (Score:2)
The entire point of the current copyright regime is to screw over fans, so I don't see how this is inconsistent.
I set the over-under on the first Intellectual Property Wars with human casualties at 2017. Smart money is on the under.
Re: (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: (Score:3)
It was a convention and it was for fans... so I don't agree with you on this.
Oh, I agree.
The more often this kind of thing occurs, the higher profile the victims are... the better.
Eventually, I can hope that a tipping point will be reached. When it happens to enough people in positions of influence, maybe we will start to see change.
Re:Fitting. (Score:5, Informative)
Erm copyright has no requirement to defend it. Not going after someone that infringes copyright won't hurt any future cases either. Trademark is the only 'IP' type that requires you defend it or it hurts your standing in court.
Re: (Score:3)
UStream did not falsely claim to own the rights, they just claimed that infringement occurred. It's wrong, but it's not fraud.
Re: (Score:3)
UStream did not falsely claim to own the rights, they just claimed that infringement occurred. It's wrong, but it's not fraud.
Right. It's not fraud, it's libel.
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.