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.
"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!”
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.
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.
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
It time to stand up for OUR 1st amendment rights!
The first thing to understand about human rights is it doesn't depend on the law of men to validate them. You have the right to freedom of speech, expression, and religion, regardless of what your government says. You have it regardless of whether the Constitution allows it or not, or even exists. You have it, because you're a human being. That is the definition of a human right: There are some laws higher than those of men.
Stop thinking of this as an American problem, or a legal problem. It's an ethical problem -- and the greatest advances of the 21st century won't be in science or technology, but in expanding the concept of what it means to be human. That, good sir, is your fight. You are not alone.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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.
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..."
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
Or, you know, actually limiting human rights to *actual* people, not legal fictions.
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
Well yes we believe that or did so we created a legal document that spelled it out and was supposed to set up a government that would make it happen. To bad its become so corrupt. Your human rights might be ethically inalienable but they certainly are not practically.
Why enough men with badges and guns can probably force you do or not do just about anything. Which was the Bill of Rights and Constitution were so novel it was an attempt to use the men and guns to protect those rights rather than trample them, it was to give them the force of law. So it is very much a *legal* problem and for those of us in America, its very much and American problem.
We need to recapture control of our government and legal system from the special interests and cartels. Because if we don't control those things, and have people who behave ethically running them all our rights are just a bunch of words of little value; well until someone copyrights them anyway.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
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
"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
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
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.
First, there are no laws higher than human laws, period. Fortunately, good lawmakers have known that for a long time. The Constitution says "self-evident", not god-given or such drivel. The UN declaration of human rights makes no reference to a higher power, either.
Second, they are HUMAN rights. Taking them away from the non-humans that have begun to rule our world, such as corporations, institutions and foundations, is the first step towards human freedom.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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
> 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."
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?
"and the greatest advances of the 21st century won't be in science or technology, but in expanding the concept of what it means to be human. That, good sir, is your fight. You are not alone."
You Sir are on the right track.
The desire of humans to have free and unfettered access to information and ideas and share them are a part of our nature. I see this as a core concept of a more individual human oriented - perhaps even a utopian society. The internet is the spark that has started us in this direction. It is the first real platform for thees sort of human advancements. It is this reason why the internet , as a whole, scares so many in power. They see this "spark" too and need to destroy it. They need to control everything and everyone for the the bottom line - profit and power. So our government(s) gives out monopolies (copyrights and patents) on that which should be as free as the air we breathe - information and ideas. But the genie is out of the bottle and people are starting to (hopefully) get a good whiff of the shit that's being shoveled on us , and how bad it stinks...
http://harmful.cat-v.org/economics/intellectual_property/
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.
Ah... but what if they anticipated that argument?
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.
"This is one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind You should kill us all on sight "
FTFY
It's a family. Of course it's mostly dysfunctional. .
FTFY
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.
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.