Slashdot Mirror
Hugo Awards Live Stream Cut By Copyright Enforcement Bot
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."'"
Is nothing sacred?
Hard for me to get upset at this, considering how out of their mind the publishing and literature industry frequently is when it comes to copyright, themselves.
UStream aren't even bothering to respond to complaints.
This is the sort of thing a site deserves to get a black eye for.
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.]
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The AI is a fan of Community, and pretty bitter over Remedial Chaos Theory's loss.
This copyright systems are like soviet russia and nazi germany.
It time to stand up for OUR 1st amendment rights!
Falsely claiming copyright is fraud. Since copyright owners sue, why not have the copyright owners sue this outfit for fraud?
Then what do you think you should stop viewing /. with?
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.
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
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
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.
In business economics, this is known as a negative externality, 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
forgotten.
It looks ok on mine, perhaps you could be more specific.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/03/bruce-willis-itunes-music-library/
FTFY
You're supposed to wipe the dogshit off when you take the Macbook out of the box.
Maybe this demonstrates how the copyright mafia is actually destroying culture. Well, I guess UStream is out for anything now and should die.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
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.
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.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
most of us dont care to see goatse at super high resolution thank u very much
DRM is your friend
I'm sorry Dave... I can't do that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkyUMmNl4hk
After so many YEARS discussing patents (which they aren't) and copyrights (more like copy impediments), it's beginning to down on me this situation is beyond the reasoning capability of the people in these English-speaking countries -- not to mention the distributor associations (*AAs), who seem to love to practice target shooting at their own feet.
Even dumb as I am, I'm beginning to see I need to learn another language... perhaps Hindi or whatever, because 1st world people are stuck on a vicious cycle and don't seem to be able to get free, like in the old The Prisoner series.
Or, alternatively, any solution will have to evolve outside, without the participation of the various *AA entities, much like Linux evolved out of the grasp of proprietary software companies.
We need to support indie authors and make sure those authors, writers, composers who distribute through normal channels have no audience in Free Media: a kind of GPL for Arts, so as to say -- having restricted works? Then, NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE, you're excluded from this site or show.
After all we tried, it's time to make a statement about Freedom and not buying from these leeches anymore.
If ever there was a justifiable time for a class action law suit... This is it!!!
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.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
They're probably not in the office.
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?
Well aren't you a special fucking snowflake.
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.
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
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
..., 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..."
The graphics are all pixelated. The text is fine, but it's such a stark contrast
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
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
well, wouldn't it get more pixelated and therefore less repugnant? unless you are talking about the pics themselves being high-res, which are non-existant...
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
Both the copyright and the patent restrictions and lawsuits are suffocating the society
Only in the US and regimes it has bought.
It is screwed up laws.
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.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I'm not one to sue at the drop of a hat, but this seems to a perfect case. If they incorrectly take down your YouTube video, it is hard for to sue with any "teath", since you usuall can't prove financial lose, and have probably signed away your rights as part of using YouTube. But in this case it was a commercial venture and the case could be made for financial damages. There is a certain expectation of service. Imagine if CNN was broacasting news live from another country and their ISP cut their feed? You don't think there would be hell to pay?
There are no laws at all except those made by humans (there are no known higher lifeforms than humans); and there are no rights whatsoever other than those that have the power of some human or humans willing to put force behind the idea of said rights. Without that force, all you have is wishful thinking. What you are saying here is incoherent, invalid philosophical rambling with absolutely no relationship to reality.
... 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.
But how am I going to eat my cow-burger or chicken-sandwich if they are granted personhood and rights? :-(
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
It's easy to do stuff at the rate needed by model airplanes. The cell phone algorithms are all patented up the wazoo.
The butcher might have to ask permission very nicely, promise financial reparations to next-of-kin, and perform appropriate religious rites before he does the deed?
"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.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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.
Cats and dogs aren't sentient. Neither is wildlife. Extraterrestrials don't exist, and neither do cyborgs. Artificial intelligences are too primitive to date. However, I'm going to depart from my previous statement that human rights belong to everyone... they belong to everyone except you.
You are clearly too stupid to be trusted with them.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
... and let root sort them out.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
How much was World Science Fiction Society, the presenter of the Hugo Awards, paying Ustream to carry the feed? If nothing, then there was ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. Otherwise, what warranty provision is in that contract?
How much was World Science Fiction Society, the presenter of the Hugo Awards, paying Ustream to carry the feed? If nothing, then there was ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. Otherwise, what warranty provision is in that contract?
You seem to be confusing "consideration in a negotiated contract" with "right to distrubte that every copyright holder has under the law".
If you think the latter is invalid then please tell us why. But you replied to somebody who was NOT talking about the former.
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
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
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.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Back to PETA forums, idiot !
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It must be, according to TFA, a case of "incorrectly programmed copyright enforcement squad" that is the culprit
Because that was the reason. If you want to make a political statement, go ahead, but that doesn't change the factual basis for the error.
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
Thank you for correctly quoting Neil Armstrong.
Stop using UStream, and make sure to tell everyone you know not to use it.
A fuckup like this is unacceptable.
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...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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.
You are clearly so less sentient that I can't see you as anything but food. You're food, you don't have rights.
Tosser.
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
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
DMCA would seem to require a good faith belief in the merit of a copyright claim. I'm not sure an "AI" bot meets that standard.
> 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."
Well you *can* air the I Have A Dream speech if you want, you'll just probably be sued. You might win. As I understand it, it's sort of a dubious claim.
Sentience (and consciousness) isn't boolean (in practice, very few things are). "Simpler" animals, like rats, have less sentience than smarter animals like apes, but they still do have some. Or would you argue that a gorilla is as sentient as a rock?
Extraterrestrials don't exist
Prove it.
You are clearly too stupid to be trusted with [human rights].
A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members. Even if he said something stupid he deserves basic rights (and I don't think he did, it isn't unthinkable that in a few centures we can, for instance, create new intelligent species, who wouldn't be human but should have the same rights). We're in the 21th century, I shouldn't have to argue that human beings should have a few rights.
Thank you for correctly quoting Neil Armstrong.
And thank YOU for entirely quoting two previous posts so as to add one line of comment.
Say, do you use Google Groups perchance?
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.
That's because what Nasa does is PD by default because it's the public that paid for it. Now, that's to a point. For instance, you could make an add showing an astronaut holding your product, but you can't use their faces, since that would be an implied endorsement - and those require approaching the person or their estate with a deal (as you should).
Specifically, you could have an astronaut from one of the Nasa photos (with the visor down) holding a jar of "Tang".
You could NOT shout "Neil Armstong loves to roll around in Tang like a rabid weasel" in the headline with a picture of Neil Armstrong's face.
The solution to this is simple: Don't ever use UStream for anything again. Destroy Ustream. Perhaps others will take the hint and be a little more careful with their DRM implementations.
I have 4 cats and they are all individual little people with different personalities. :)
An awareness of self. Your pets don't have that...
I am not so convinced of that..
Copyright on IHAD expires, as best I can work out, at the end of 2013 in the UK. It's got a couple of decades to go in the US after that.
I, though, am in the UK. I am also an exclusively British citizen. I have a website hosted in the UK, by a UK company, paid for via a UK bank. And I promose you this: Before January 2013 is out, IHAD is going to be on that website - and it is going to be accessible to the world.
Martin Luther King's family quarreling over his heritage and estate is no less functional and quite similar to many other families feuding over the heritage and estate of their only ever famous late member.
I have five: one cat and four Consequences. (I took in a skinny stray, kept her indoors. How was I to know the growing bulge was four little 'pre-existing' embryos and not just a consequence of being well-fed?) Each is unique, though they have all learned some perceptions or behaviors from me (I raised them from birth). There were at least two fathers involved, and the two long-hairs share certain behavioral traits that the short-hairs do not; much about those "personalities" is hard-wired by the father's epigenetics, according to what I've read. Still, I am routinely amazed by how much they behave like hairy little one-year-old nonverbal autistic children. Do they lack self-awareness, as some homo-centric people like GiT claim? I'm not so sure we have the proper tests to disprove it.
"has not wreck enough havoc yet"
Shouldn't havoc be wrecked? It's not like we want havoc, do we?
He didn't correctly quote Neil Armstrong, he correctly quoted Neil Armstrong's script. He fluffed his lines when he actually stepped onto the moon. Which, come to think of it, is pretty convincing evidence that it wasn't faked: on a sound stage you'd just go back for a second take...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
According to the linked essay, "Ustream's CEO Brad Hunstable has finally made a public apology about the incident", available here (http://www.ustream.tv/blog/2012/09/03/hugo-awards-an-apology-and-explanation/)
The only part (apart from the header) that looks like an apology in any way is
We had many unhappy viewers as a result, and for that I am truly sorry.
Yes Brad. We understand you are sorry everyone is mad at you. Nobody likes others hating them, even when it is well deserved and appropriate, such as in this case. Nobody likes losing business. Still, an apology looks like "I'm sorry I stole, I will never do it again" and not like "I'm sorry I got caught stealing, you won't catch me doing it again."
So, this piece of history is officially lost forever?
But hopefully the rumour spread some awareness. Everyone I know is talking about buying the music from Apple, not renting, and they are damn sure they own the music. Even if it's not a big problem it's good to have the actual facts. And it's both very impractical and kind of creepy to keep your father's zombie account around for generations. ;)
Of course, the same might go for Steam, Google Play and any other with a similar business model - I haven't checked. iTunes just happens to be the high profile one where the devote users talk a lot (and loud) about how they BUY their music (as opposed to "STEALING" [sic] it).
Funny how it's property that can be stolen on one hand, and non-property that can only be licensed on the other. At the very least we should demand either or and be consequent about it.
Artificial intelligences are too primitive to date.
I've dated some fairly primitive humans, so I'm not so sure about this. Stick Eliza in a Real Doll and that'd do me.
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of extra terrestrials.
Not because it's a government secret, but because I honestly don't have a fucking clue one way or the other.
It is not something that can be proven or disproven conclusively. There is supposedly a large part of the universe that is beyond the point at which the metric expansion of space exceeds the speed of light relative to our present location, which means any information from them will never reach us.
What if there were extra terrestrials beyond that boundary? We would never know.
So next time don't use a free (as a beer) account. If you're broadcasting something important either read the fine print before or use a nice Telstar, Eutelsat or Astra satellite.
Why 2013? From what I can tell, the term in the UK at the time was life + 50 (from the Copyright Act 1911), so that should be 2018, no?
Dilbert RSS feed
Nobody as a right under the law to use Ustream's network. Barring contracts, they can cut them off for any reason they want.
Dilbert RSS feed
Parent said "have it", not exist.
A right is a concept. An idea. In that sense they still exist. Whether that's helpful or not is a different issue.
Dilbert RSS feed
Ah... but what if they anticipated that argument?
Given that, would it be possible to sue the maker of an incorrect DMCA claim for copyright infringement with per-copy statutory damages for the destroyed copies? The DMCA does make provisions for false take-down notices....
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
1.Netcraft confirms:In Soviet Russia all your base welcomes a beowolf cluster of CowboyNeal overlords. 2.? 3.Profit!!1!
You forgot to mention the raspberry pi and bitcoins.
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.
Real intelligence makes mistake everyday. AI is no different. Welcome to the future.
I hope everyone gets to see the speech sometime.
.. my microeconomics professor argues: " You want artists not to be paid?".. I just went back to school and in my first class I have to argue with a teacher who on a daily basis affects people's opinions. Then again, maybe I am being too optimistic. I mean, who listens to the teacher...
This post is provided without warranty as to reliability, accuracy or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose.
"Sentience" is one of those words everybody seems to be using different definitions for. You're defining it as "self-awareness"; the GP seems to be defining it as "the capacity to experience" (which is probably closer to the original meaning).
If you can get your ass sued for infringing, shouldn't they get sued for censoring something that is not infringing? After all, that infringes on our rights.
You seem to be confusing "consideration in a negotiated contract" with "right to distrubte that every copyright holder has under the law".
If you think the latter is invalid then please tell us why.
Without knowledge of the precise facts of the case, I can only suggest the most likely reasons why Ustream couldn't rely on the BBC's government-granted power to prevent others from distributing to justify pulling the stream: A. a performance licence from the BBC in return for allowing the BBC to submit the work for nomination, and B. a plausible fair use defense to identify the works for which an award was granted.
Here is further proof that locking up ideas as property is no less a form of censorship than suppressing them.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
? The OP made two mistakes in an eleven word quote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Armstrong#First_Moon_walk
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Nailed 'em!
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
A copyright holder does not have the "right to distribute" by hooking up a projector to a power outlet in my house, putting the projector in my yard, and projecting their video onto the side of my house. I can simply pull the plug, call the police, or whatever.
If they've entered into an agreement with me then sure they might be able to sue me for not living up to my end if I pull that plug.
Similarly Ustream is free to block any video they are streaming at a whim, unless they've entered into some kind of contract saying they won't in which case sue away.
It can be trivially proven, just find an example. Disproving is impossible with our current level of technology and completely impossible if our current understanding of physics is close to correct.
Actually, we must thank the US constitution for that, as it prevents a government agency (like NASA) from creating copyrighted works.
GP is presumably referring to copyright in the sound recording which is 50 years from the time of recording. Copyright in the underlying work (i.e. the text of the speech) is longer.
"Yes, Virginia, there is a Great Cthulhu..."
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
He died in 1968 I believe. So that would make it 44 years after his death. It's bad enough already, no need to exaggerate.
At first I thought: "Well, they should have bought UStream's Pro service in order to whitelist their broadcast, but an update to the founder's apology says that Ustream will whitelist free streams as well:
http://www.ustream.tv/blog/2012/09/03/hugo-awards-an-apology-and-explanation//
PS: How are free streams supported? Do they have ads inserted into them, or what?
...you should be treated just like any other copyright infringer, subject to the huge damages claimed for file sharing. I bet the bots would be a bit more precise if you were charged a hundred grand every time you tried to take down a youtube video you had no rights to.
Whether history is cyclical or not, whether dictator or tyrant come and go, and whatever the founding father had in mind do not matter. At any time, a right which is not enforced and protected by a culture is a right you do not have. Heck one of the example is the recognition that free speech is an an absolute right and can be limited in some case. See for example yelling "fire!" in crowded theater, libel laws, limitation by the government to which category of people some speech type can be distributed (pornography) down to limiting downright some speech type (child pornography even in crayon/picture form). And if tomorrow the US went tyrannical and trampled everybody which pretended to speak freely, the free speech right would be lost (until and IF what replace the tyranny enforce that free speech right). heck if free speech was a natural right, why is it not existing for most of the history and most of the people ? Answer : it isn't. natural right are non existent. Only right given and enforced by government can be used. In the case of free speech it is an inclusive and self limit on the government.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Somebody has to determine the context even if Google can't!
I major in a hard science. I have not paid for a single book in all my 3 years in University. All of them were downloaded for free from torrents, etc.
Annalee Newitz is a douchebag.
I suspect they were talking about how long they would be able to assert copyright control over an important historical public speech.
Although I think they changed it a couple years ago to 90 years after death so mickey mouse - steamboat willie wouldn't fall out of copyright.
"This is one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind You should kill us all on sight "
FTFY
Ethical behaviour should not be tied to the concept of personhood, but to the concept of producing suffering directly or indirectly. Personhood Games have been played ever since somebody figured out their god is mightier than the god of their neighbors, intensifying to the shade of skin and other external appearances, like financial and property conditions as the determining factor.
We must eat what we must eat, defend those in need of defending when we have to and continue living. Still our actions can be ethical in the sense of avoiding the production of suffering as we are able to see it. The responsibility of others is to interfere when we produce suffering without realizing it. This way the definition of ethics is contradictory form the point of the individual, and noncontradictory from the point of the society.
Not necessarily. There can be an implied contract or warranty for service. If Ustream only streamed contracted events or programs you would be right. But if they stream as a public accommodation, source of self promotion, philanthropy, or any other reason and claim they will stream something as part of that, then an implied contract can be inferred without an actual contract existing. The difficulty lies within being able to enforce it without a written agreement. Sometimes it is obvious and there is not problem, sometimes it is less obvious and the case needs to be made.
They are US government agency. Do we have to thank them for following USA laws on copyrights?
Of course my pets are conscious, other than the pet rock. This is how they're able to have desires and interact with their environment.
Don't mistake a lack of higher-level reasoning for a lack of consciousness.
And one week later you will be extradited to the USA to answer for your "crimes".
Huh. Hence all the takedown notices from companies nobody ever heard of. So even the media companies are getting ripped off.
They're pretty stupid that way. I heard an NPR piece once (I forget the details) about an indie record label that was approached by a big media company and offered a bucket of cash to license one of their albums. They took the cash, and refrained from telling the media company that they already owned the songs on the album, which had been licensed from them in the first place.
Then there's the issue of fair use in documentaries. If you do news or documentary film, any content you happen to pick up in the background is fair use, because it's part of the story. I heard one lawyer say that a freshman law student would flunk out if they didn't know that. Of course, any music you dub in as theme or background has to be properly licensed.
Now, if you make a documentary, you probably get financial backing from a big media company, which makes you buy clearance insurance to protect against any claims for unlicensed content. And apparently the insurance companies are really stupid about the difference between fiction and documentary, because they'll insist that you obtain clearance for all the music that appears. The producers of Mad Hot Ballroom spent huge sums licensing the music that plays in the background. In some cases when they thought it didn't affect the story (like a scene where some kids are playing a video game), they dubbed over the music to save money.
People talk about greedy media companies. But really, all the incidents we're talking about here — the Ustream shutdown, the Youtube takedown notices, etc. — are not about greed. They're about stupidity.
Been shouting that at the TV for a few days, at least I thought I did.
NASA can't apply copyright. As a government agency, anything they produce is automatically in Public Domain.
It's a family. Of course it's mostly dysfunctional. .
FTFY
Very close. Actually, UK copyright law would probably (IANAL) consider it a broadcast, rather than a sound recording. Different classification, but the term is fifty years either way. The text would go public domain here in 2038 (Baring any extensions passing before that date, which is entirely possible) - except that I just can't figure out if the text constitutes a seperate infringement, or if it is considered an inherent part of the broadcast. I really can't. I've searched, and - being Not A Lawyer - I just can't work it out.
Copyright Act 1965, actually. But the term for a television broadcast isn't dated from the death of the author, but from the end of the calander year in which the broadcast occurs. Fifty years from then. The only real question is if broadcasting the spoken words would infringe on the text of the speech, which I can't figure out... but I think, and I do want that I am not entirely sure, that the spoken words would be considered a part of the broadcast.
sorry, 1956, not 65. That was a typo.
It will keep being increased to protect Disney and its idiotic mascots. For this reason are the rest of us oppressed by draconian copyright legislation and oppressive DRM schemes enforced by government institutions for the benefit of private corporations, to protect fucking Micky Mouse...
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
And of course Natalie Portman and hot grits, equally important, if slightly older memes for this website
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
We do not need to thank NASA for not claiming copyright of the moon landing. It has no such option. All works by the federal government are automatically in the public domain.
And that's why MTV made such heavy use of the footage in its early advertising. It was free and iconic.
then perhaps the proper version of the service to use was the paid version? you want free, you get to deal with the inconveniences that make it free.
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.
Technically speaking, sentience is different from self awareness. Pets have the ability to feel things, therefore they are sentient. It is admittedly an easy issue to get confused about since fiction has adopted the term in an incorrect form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience#Philosophy_and_sentience
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
As I was reading through these threads listening to BBC Radio 4 in Norway the stream was cut off and replaced by...'Due to rights restrictions this part of the program is unavailable' over and over and over again. Is this the future of public service broadcasting. Services already paid for, production costs covered by public funding, unavailable to the people who want to access them. And where is the benefit? How can this possibly be a sane and rational model for anything apart from pissing off listeners?
The A/V of the moon missions were works created by the US government and therefore public domain by law.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The difficulty lies within being able to enforce [an implied warranty] without a written agreement.
Which is why the written agreements on these providers of purely ad-supported services tend to spell out that there is ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. (All caps because the law requires disclaimers of warranty to be conspicuous, and there is case law that all caps make something conspicuous.)
I believe the only *decent* solution is to expand fair use rights to all non-commercial use of copyrighted material.
:-)
Yeah I'm totally trying to start a movement, my blog is in my sig.
expandfairuse.org
You cannot really absolve yourself from intentional acts that result in the dismissal of implied services. For instance,you cannot claim you will dig a trench to install a new water main for my home, then knowing that the code says it needs to be 42 inches deep, dig a 6 inch to 12 inch deep trench and say your terms disclaimed any warranty. Another instance, I cannot claim to offer a babysitting service, have you use my service and run out after 4 hours claiming absolutely no warranty when I was supposed to watch your kids for the 8 you were at work. Alternatively, in both situations, I can get hurt and require medical attention and get out of the obligations by a necessity outside my direct actions even if the impairing injury is a result of my own actions.
But let me explain this a little closer to how this situation folds out. Suppose you wanted to use my barn to host an event for one of your clubs. I give you access to it including parking on Friday from 4pm to 11 pm. You come in, set up, all your guests and members show up by 6pm, then the power goes out and you cannot put on your event or even serve the dinner that came with it. Now a no warranty disclaimer would absolve me from liability if the power outage was the result of something outside my control like a neighbor cut a tree down and it landed on the power lines or a car had an accident and took out a telephone pole. But it would not absolve me from liability had I scheduled an electrician to work on something and they disconnected the power to the barn to do it. It would not absolve me if I turned the power off as a joke. It would not absolve me if I turned the power off because I incorrectly thought you were doing something illegal and you weren't.
What if you said (and wrote down), "you can use my barn for free, but beware because I might want to shut down the light at any time during your event"? Because Worldcon had to agree with those terms to use the service.
Dilbert RSS feed
Never let facts interfere with a good rant! When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, did some know-it-all chime in with the idea that it was the Japanese?
This story doesn't mention that Ustream is bad for another reason even
when it does "work": because it requires viewers to run nonfree
software.
If a con or any event is going to do streaming, the organizers should
contact me; I can put them in touch with people who can show them how
to stream it themselves with free software. One secondary advantage
is that no company can censor the transmission.
- rms
If the agreement to use the barn included a provision that electricity would not be available, then that provision and not a warranty disclaimer would protect you.
I haven't read the terms worldcon offered but I suspect that they say something about infringement of a copyright instead of randomly refusing to complete service. However, this is more complicated then that because there are two separate yet distinct problems here. If the AI bot was under the control of the streaming provider, the actual claim of a false report could supersede any disclaimer for warranty of service.
Think of it as there being two separate and distinct acts here. In fact, lets assume there are two companies involved on the streaming and ending of the streaming part of this. First there is company A who provided the service. Then there is company B who files a complaint on copyright violations who got the service discontinued in the middle of it. They can technically be the same company but would be treated separate to show how the termination of service is two distinct separate pieces. First, company A has to receive a good faith complaint from company B (company B is actually the agent for the copyright holder). Company A then removed access to the claimed infringing content. The law gives company A immunity from liability for the acts associated with removing access if the procedures were set out and followed (there is no certainty of if they were or weren't). Company B is completely liable for any damages inured from issuing it's take down notice. There is absolutely no legal immunity or defense from that other then actually owning the copyright or being an agent of the owner and the accused being in violation of it. Company B cannot disclaim liability or issue a warranty disclaimer to get around that even when company A and company B are the same companies.
Now the important part here is that company B was performing a separate function then company A. Company B was acting as the agent of a third party- not the customer of company A's services and they made a legal claim that a customer of company A's service did not have a right to some of the copyrighted materials that customer used. So even though the two companies are actually the same company, the loss of services was the result of the company acting on the behalf of another entity and no agreement between the user of services can negate that. Can you imagine a salesman at an investment firm selling you lake front property with a vacation rentals as an investment when there is no lake or vacation houses to rent on the property and trying to release himself from any liability through warranty disclaimers and such when he is the agent of the seller too? It simply wouldn't work.
I would claim that any use of that speech could be judged fair use.
Mr Gorsky did.
Via Sweden.
It's high time to just stop recognizing copyright altogether until the big media corporations finally get their heads out of their asses and finally accept the big picture. If they decide to fight instead, then it'll mean WAR.
And if it's a bot, then it is NOT to the best of their knowledge a true claim of copyright infringement.
Therefore the DMCA takedown notice has been fraudulently issued.
Issuing a legal notice like that IS a liable offence.
It was my understanding that the missing "a" was not Neil's goof but a hiccup in the transmission going back to earth. Now of course if you were trying to fake such a thing adding random dropouts and static would make it seem more believable...
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
This may be true, however, many of these moon rocks were originally given to people/governments. If said people wish to transfer ownership, for compensation or otherwise why should NASA entitled the right to confiscate them?
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
The same way we're granted the right to eat liver with fava beans and a nice chianti.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
This story doesn't mention that Ustream is bad for another reason even
when it does "work": because it requires viewers to run nonfree
software.
If a con or any event is going to do streaming, the organizers should
contact me; I can put them in touch with people who can show them how
to stream it themselves with free software. One secondary advantage
is that no company can censor the transmission.
You can read more about the GNU project at http://www.gnu.org/.
Obviously they were only given a non-transferable license to use them.
Maybe Bruce Willis will sue. Bastards are probably trying to claim those asteroid fragments are non-transferable as well.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Wow, that's a mighty serious claim right there. Care to explain where you're getting the idea that the pet has no sense of self?
Content created by the US Government or its agencies is automatically public domain. I see no need to thank NASA for following US law, though feel free to thank them for landing on the moon. (Note, the US Government and its agencies are not prohibited from holding copyright on content: the copyright to any content created by contractors is generally assigned to the contracting entity. The government is no exception, though realistically should be. Also, though you have the right to use the source code to any government-created software, the government has no obligation to provide you with that source code.)
I hate grammar Nazi's.