Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hugo Awards Live Stream Cut By Copyright Enforcement Bot

Posted by Unknown on from the not-as-much-fun-as-bender dept.

New submitter Penmanpro writes news of the Hugo Awards stream being unintentionally cut off by some AI gone awry: "Quotes from the linked article 'UStream's incorrectly programmed copyright enforcement squad had destroyed our only access.' 'Just as Neil Gaiman was giving an acceptance speech for his Doctor Who script, "The Doctor's Wife." Where Gaiman's face had been were the words, "Worldcon banned due to copyright infringement."'"

12 of 393 comments (clear)

  1. usteam isn't responding. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Informative

    UStream aren't even bothering to respond to complaints.

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

    1. Re:usteam isn't responding. by galaad2 · · Score: 4, 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/

      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.

      --
      root@127.0.0.1
  2. Re:Fitting. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Informative

    It was a convention and it was for fans... so I don't agree with you on this.

  3. Re:Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed by TimHunter · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bruce Willis is NOT suing Apple

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

    FTFY

  4. Re:Negative externality. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, 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.

  5. Ustream apology by Anonymous Coward · · 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

  6. Stupid people run Ustream by Skapare · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  7. Re:Google banned my video because of the music by circletimessquare · · 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.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  8. Re:Google banned my video because of the music by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  9. Re:Fitting. by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
  10. Re:Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed by Pseudonym · · 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.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  11. Re: concept of what it means to be human by TarPitt · · Score: 3, Informative

    Umm... sentience requires consciousness, in other words: An awareness of self. Your pets don't have that...

    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