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?
UStream aren't even bothering to respond to complaints.
This is the sort of thing a site deserves to get a black eye for.
It was a convention and it was for fans... so I don't agree with you on this.
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.
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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!
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
UStream did not falsely claim to own the rights, they just claimed that infringement occurred. It's wrong, but it's not fraud.
It looks ok on mine, perhaps you could be more specific.
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!
http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/03/bruce-willis-itunes-music-library/
FTFY
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
DRM is your friend
I'm sorry Dave... I can't do that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkyUMmNl4hk
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.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
A convention for the fans to promote the industry that has its own issues with draconian and myopic copyright views.
I'm not suggesting that two wrongs makes a right, but I'm certainly suggesting that I have less sympathy for hypocrites.
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 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 !
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.
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
isn't falsely claiming infringement illegal? if not, it definitely should be.
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?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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?
... 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"
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?
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
Technically Mr. Not-Noel Coward is correct... technically. The Law of the Jungle is: there are no laws at all. Anything goes if you can get away with it and survive to try it again another day. Nature has no ethics, unless entropy is an ethic.
However... nature and the Law of the Jungle are DEscriptive of the "way things are". Ethics are PREscriptive, defining behaviors that should (|not) be followed. GirlInTraining is referring to a prescriptive ideal. Is it HER ideal alone? Maybe, but probably not. If it is just her ideal alone, then if she tries to impose it on an unwilling universe it would wind up smelling a lot like tyranny. More importantly, then, is it a unanimous or universal ideal? Probably not... YET. We might be getting there eventually. Ethics can be learned, in fact they MUST be learned because nature knows nothing of them. Ethics must be taught, and frankly we're only doing a passable but not especially awesome job of it yet. We screw up and backpedal a lot. I for one am glad that GirlInTraining is here doing a bit of that teaching.
"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
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.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
... 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});
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.
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
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.
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.
Could you cite statute or precedent or applicable common law or such to back that up? Counter a tort claim?
I didn't think so. But thanks for playing.
According to OO.o, there are 85 words in this post, all of which are DHS keywords. Some of these words are duplicated, so, if I were you, I'd expect a knock on the door pretty soon.
1.Netcraft confirms:In Soviet Russia all your base welcomes a beowolf cluster of CowboyNeal overlords. 2.? 3.Profit!!1!
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.
Given that the U.S. civil war started in 1861 that would be a really safe assumption.
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.
That you can sue doesn't mean you should. This is the same fundementaly amoral behaviour used by the MAFIAA when suing people in the US for imaginary damages to imaginary property. Attempting to hurt them with the same tatic isn't going to help anyone, it just legitimises the legal crap shoot. Barring any disputed service level agreement Hugo signed up for, the only reason I can see for Hugo to sue would be for the publicity, and they already have as much of that as they will ever get over this issue.
Speaking of Dr Who, the ABC/BBC have a common sense solution to a 21st century problem. I was one of those who watched it on iView, I hope other Aussie fans will do likewise and put their eyballs where their mouth is. For those Aussies on a capped ISP line, most ISP don't meter iView but best to check first.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
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."
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 with a knife, you can fight back with a knife. If they come at you with their hands, you fight back with your hands.
So I say they should definitely consider suing if their legal team says they have grounds. Smacking the nose of the opposition and making them have to think twice about how heavyhanded they are in protecting their copyrights would be beneficial to everyone... and yes, they would indeed think twice: we all know how much they love money and how much they'd hate to leave themselves open for massive losses.
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.
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
How are Ustream bullies? They're merely following a CYA approach in case the real bullies (the copyright holders) come knocking. And considering that the convention were usign a Free account, why shouldn't they?
Dilbert RSS feed
Well, let's see... Bully A, let's call him Steve, goes and tells innocent bystander B, let's call him Doofus, to go give the victim, let's call him icebraining, a wedgie. Doofus is so scared of Steve, that he not only wedgies icebraining, but gives him an atomic wedgie and locks him in his locker, and to top it off, fills it with shaving foam.
Steve is a horrible bully, no denying... but Doofus is still bullying icebraining, doing wrong, ethically, morally, totally.
So, while I agree that there isn't likely to be a case here since they were using a free account, my point still holds - it isn't morally wrong to hit back with the same tactics. Ideally against Steve, but you can't reach Steve... so hitting Doofus back hard enough that he stops thinking it's a good idea to go above and beyond in his running errands for Steve, well, that'll still have a positive effect overall.
So, by your assertion that there are no laws at all except those made by humans, you assert the foundation of the USA is incoherent, wishful philosophy.
The phrase is, "Nonsense upon stilts".
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
Except nobody is giving anyone "wedgies". They're simply stop doing a favor to the Worldcon, and they have every right to do so.
If Worldcon doesn't like to rely on favors, maybe they should've paid and become a customer.
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.
In this particular case I agree, but like I said I was arguing the morality of the action, not the specific case. It's still possible they have grounds for legal action, that depends on the terms of service associated with the free service. (A contract is a contract even if the price of the product is zero.) But I doubt it, and I leave that judgement entirely up to their legal team, it's beyond my expertise.
The moral side on the other hand, isn't, so I can indeed argue that if they do have grounds to sue according to said legal team, then they would be within their moral rights to do so.
If you wish to further debate the existence or not of a legal case, go find a lawyer.
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.
My whole point is about the morality, not the legality. I think your analogy is completely flawed.
The only thing Ustream did was to decide they didn't want to do a favor that potentially exposed them to being sued. I think they have every moral right to do so, and Worldcon has no one to blame except themselves.
Would I prefer if Ustream continued to stream? Absolutely. But I don't think they were in any way morally required to do so, and in fact I find that line of reasoning extremely dangerous.
Dilbert RSS feed
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.
I bet you're one of those people who believes Elvis is dead too.
.. 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.
Morally they were required to choose between acting out of fear for the bully or respect for their customer. I come from a socialist country, so perhaps it's not so strange that I argue they should have sided with the customers. I find it morally reprehensible that they choose not only to do what they are legally required to do - remove streams AFTER legitimate complaints - but to preempt the situation by means that have the risk of cutting off legitimate streams such as this. Going above and beyond was the choice of ustream, to as you put it, cover their ass.
On one hand covering your own ass isn't necessarily morally wrong... to bully the end user on behalf of the *AA is not necessarily morally wrong, because they have little choice about it. But they do have a choice in how far they go... and then it becomes wrong, when they go further than they have to.
I'd like to point out that ustream agrees with this point, to the degree that in their CYA-apology they point out they've stopped using the third party service that caused this until such a time that they can re-calibrate it to make sure this doesn't happen again.
If not, lets abuse it till this whole copyright and patent shit drops dead!
"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.
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.
Nonsense. Nobody else distributed their show, so their rights were not violated. They don't have any rights to use UStream's service for their distribution, only an agreement and I'm sure the free service says they can stop any stream for any reason at any time.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
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..."
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?
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 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
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.
I think he is one of those ron paulians or99% 'ers who thinks there will be another civil war in a few years because the Egyptians and Libyans did it and the Syrians are trying.
I've heard the claims of up coming civil wars from several distinct sources of people. It's generally the extreme libertarians who think the government has too much control and is too invasive in every day life and doesn't do the will of the people and the extreme socialist who think the government needs to provide more and doesn't listen to the people. The interesting thing is their point of agreement seems to be the government not listening to the people but what they want them to listen to seems to be completely at odds. At the risk of being modded down, I would liken this to Dumb and Dumber playing cowboys and Indians on the school yard by one group acting like bulls and the other group acting like tech support call centers you cannot understand..
They are US government agency. Do we have to thank them for following USA laws on copyrights?
And one week later you will be extradited to the USA to answer for your "crimes".
There is no right to force others to publish your free speech. You can't sue me if I don't put your video on my server.
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.
The only thing Ustream did was to decide they didn't want to do a favor that potentially exposed them to being sued. I think they have every moral right to do so, and Worldcon has no one to blame except themselves.
No actually they (they as is 3rd party programs installed at the *IAA request or under threat of legal action for refusal) stopped the program in mid-stream, then threw up a banner stated the stream was blocked due to copyright infringement. Which was not only untrue, it was libelous and infringed on distribution rights.
I don't mind that the *IAA's protect their member's rights, but they claim damages on others, yet are held unaccountable for their errors, which I find morally reprehensible.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It's a family. Of course it's mostly dysfunctional. .
FTFY
How does it infringe on distribution rights? Distribution rights don't give you the right to distribute the content over other people's networks, if the owners of such networks don't want you to.
Sure, I can agree that the banner words were incorrect, and they were wrong for using such language in an automated scanner.
I don't mind that the *IAA's protect their member's rights, but they claim damages on others, yet are held unaccountable for their errors, which I find morally reprehensible.
Sure, you won't find me defending the RIAA or MPAA actions. I was talking about Ustream here.
Dilbert RSS feed
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
I would've thought the tipping point would've been a few weeks ago when this http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/08/06/1613211/nasas-own-video-of-curiosity-landing-crashes-into-a-dmca-takedown happened
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
Just as a point of information, it is my understanding that the World Science Fiction Society normally maintains this Ustream account in the free Trial mode because they are normally not streaming anything. However, it was upgraded for the month of September to Starter level because of the Hugo Awards ceremony so they were paying a small amount.
Donald Eastlake
They were still showing ads on the free tier. It''s not like they weren't making money off of it (though probably not a lot).
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
posting to undo bad moderation
-I'm just sayin
How does it infringe on distribution rights? Distribution rights don't give you the right to distribute the content over other people's networks, if the owners of such networks don't want you to.
See that's the whole Point, Ustream wanted the distribution over it's network; it was blocked by 3rd party software, installed at the insistence of the *IAAs
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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
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.
No but if you had a speech, arranged with a publish for publication, and then I as a third party stopped your publisher from completing the printing after it started by falsely claiming I owned rights to insignificant portions, you would certainly think that I had infringed on your rights.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Hugo's right to distribute was grievously infringed.
Uhhhh, what?
While there might have been a breach of contract between Hugo and Ustream, UStream is under no obligation to distribute anything from anyone.
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.
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
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.