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."'"

51 of 393 comments (clear)

  1. The Doctor's Wife by Sulphur · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is nothing sacred?

  2. 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 jythie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder if they could be gotten for breach of contract.

      The problem with these bots is how the people setting the policy weigh the risks.. they fear the content owners suing them more then their customers. But if you are failing to provide a service that you have been contracted to provide, then that opens up a new area of liability that I do not think customers have been pushing enough.

    2. Re:usteam isn't responding. by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Based on that you can shut down any live streaming event with a good old fashioned boom box. Copyright bots beware fun is to be had.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:usteam isn't responding. by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They CAN be sued, but I doubt the WorldCon would win the case due to the DMCA (U.S. law). They are granted immunity for implementing procedures to protect copyrighted material (in this case: Doctor Who).

      Since when? DMCA doesn't require you to run bots which instantly take down content which the AI thinks is infringing. DMCA only requires you to take down in a timely manner content in response to violation claims by a copyright holder. There's no requirement that this be a bot. It can be a guy reading emails listing video ID numbers and manually disabling them. So long as he completes the task in a timely manner.

      If you decide to let the media companies run bots on your servers for their convenience, that's entirely your own decision. And the liability for any screwups by said bots rest entirely with you.

    4. 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
  3. 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.

  4. Future of the internet. by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think copyright systems like this are [This comment has been removed due to copyright violation.] What's even worse, the government [This comment has been seized by the DHS, FBI, and Intellectual Property bureau. The user has been charged with violations of the....] Well, screw them. I'll fight them with my last bre[This comment has been forwarded to law enforcement for making terrorist threats under statute...]. And you should [Alert: Your antivirus has detected that this comment contains political views that may harm your brain. To prevent damage, it has been automatically removed.]

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  5. Re:Fitting. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    DRM is all about fucking over the fans.
    The sooner they learn that, the better.
    You can't buy targetted "advertising" as good as this.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  6. Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed??? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    C'mon !

    Just look at how TFA has been worded !!

    Hugo Awards stream being unintentionally cut off by some AI gone awry

    UStream's incorrectly programmed copyright enforcement squad had destroyed our only access

    As if the whole copyright thing has NO PROBLEM and has not wreck enough havoc yet

    It must be, according to TFA, a case of "incorrectly programmed copyright enforcement squad" that is the culprit, not the application of copyright itself, on so many things around us

    If you do not know it yet, that famous " I Have A Dream " speech by Martin Luther King is not permitted to be aired anywhere, unless you can obtain agreement from the copyright owners

    Both the copyright and the patent restrictions and lawsuits are suffocating the society and I for one, am TRULY TIRED OF ALL THESE SHITS !!

    But I am not alone

    Bruce Willis is suing Apple

    http://www.dailygossip.org/bruce-willis-sues-apple-to-leave-itunes-library-as-inheritance-4414

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  7. Good by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Good by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Harlan is right. He does deserve to be paid for his work..... right up til he dies.

      Gotta disagree here. Should be 14 yrs with option for an additional 14 yrs if the author/copyright owner pays a hefty fee prior to the original copyright expiration date. Whether or not the author is dead or alive.

      Otherwise, Harlan needs to get off his ass and write another book if he wants another payday. Writing a popular/successful novel, song, etc etc was never meant to be an entitlement to a forever-minus-a-day gravy train.

      That was why copyrights were created...to encourage the creation of more works. If it lasts until they die, why would an author/creator publish a second novel if their first one does extremely well and they're now rich with no need, financially, to create more works if they don't happen to be possessed by a burning need to endure the publishing process? Why not just retire to someplace like Tahiti and be done with all the publisher/editor/marketer madness and stress?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:Good by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gotta disagree here. Should be 14 yrs with option for an additional 14 yrs if the author/copyright owner pays a hefty fee prior to the original copyright expiration date. Whether or not the author is dead or alive.......why not just retire to someplace like Tahiti and be done with all the publisher/editor/marketer madness and stress?

      I have no problem with a living author reaping the benefits of writing a bestseller for his entire natural life, and his descendants for another 14 after that. If you have written a bunch of bestsellers when you were in your 40s and 50s, then should the income just cut off when you reach 70 and need the money, maybe not capable of writing any more even if you want to, while the books continue to sell and readers are enjoying them? The publishers are still making money from selling the books, but now they don't need to share the income with the author -- is that moral?

      There are very few books that remain popular so long anyway. Look at a bestsellers' list from 20 years ago and see if you recognise any of them.

      A more important reform would be some form of compulsory licensing, so if a book, (or movie, song, etc.) is out of print but still in copyright that there is some way to get the right to publish it, at a reasonable rate.

    3. Re:Good by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have no problem with a living author reaping the benefits of writing a bestseller for his entire natural life, and his descendants for another 14 after that. If you have written a bunch of bestsellers when you were in your 40s and 50s, then should the income just cut off when you reach 70 and need the money, maybe not capable of writing any more even if you want to, while the books continue to sell and readers are enjoying them? The publishers are still making money from selling the books, but now they don't need to share the income with the author -- is that moral?

      There are very few books that remain popular so long anyway. Look at a bestsellers' list from 20 years ago and see if you recognise any of them.

      A more important reform would be some form of compulsory licensing, so if a book, (or movie, song, etc.) is out of print but still in copyright that there is some way to get the right to publish it, at a reasonable rate.

      Why are authors, artists, movie studios, etc different from anyone else? Why is it they should get special protections beyond what was originally already provided for in law, and at a time when it took longer to make money as distribution was slower than it is today (no radio/TV/internet)?

      So they might run out of money because they are sick/injured/whatever and be unable to work...how is that different than the same risks we all take of that happening?

      I design and build custom vacuum-tube guitar amplifiers for pro/semi-pro guitarists. It's as much or more of an art form as it is engineering, as many times what sounds best isn't what is from an engineering standpoint 'correct'. It's as much a musical instrument as the guitar that's plugged into it. Even down to small details like the precise routing and positioning of wiring, the type/gauge, insulation type, combinations of electronic component brands,.etc etc. Learned skills and techniques that aren't patentable, unless an artist's brush stroke technique and similar are.

      Should I get paid every time they use "my" custom guitar amplifier on a paying gig, and should I get a cut from royalties from recordings done with the amp until I die?

      There's nothing special about copyright holders that entitles them to lifetime income from one work.

      Copyright was *only* enacted to make sure *more* works were created, not to ensure non-production was rewarded. Rewarding them for *not* producing more works is completely contrary to the purpose for which copyright was created in the first place.

      If you believe certain people should receive lifetime incomes for their work, then pass a law or amendment.

      Don't attempt to warp copyright. You'll break it. Then we all lose.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  8. Negative externality. by RyanFenton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    1. 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.

  9. Re:Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed by TimHunter · · Score: 5, Informative
  10. Pretty funny by gweihir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  11. Re:Bender sez: by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Funny

    Given that this happened during a speech about a Doctor Who episode, the proper reference is:

    EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE COPYRIGHT BOTS!!!!

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  12. +5, wait what? by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uh, mods, I didn't intend for that to be funny. That really is the future of the internet. If we're going to have a free (as in liberty), worldwide, packet switched network, then our only hope lies in software defined radio, 3D printing, and a dozen or so RF engineers brave enough to build us a portable mesh-networking communication package with rapid frequency shifting, ultra wideband transmit/receive, and on the fly encryption. We have to build a new network -- one that doesn't rely on fixed infrastructure.

    And we have to do it soon, before our children get the idea that what's going on now is what we intended the future of democracy to look like.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:+5, wait what? by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

      For synical people like myself this is funny, painfully funny. (I do not mod)

      It's cynical, and that is why you fail. I've been talking with EEs and RF engineers for several months about how to create a cognitive/software radio. It's already been done, it's not theoretical -- the military already has this technology in use today with specifications similar to what the project requires. But all that research is locked behind the guise of national security, so it must be developed independently. And it's not easy finding DACs and FPGAs with the bandwidth and clocking speeds necessary to drive the radio without a lot of discrete components; And when I say a lot, I mean more than what's on your motherboard.

      However, every person I've talked to says it is certainly possible; Just not easy, especially if the design makes every attempt to limit harmful interference, since unlike the military, this device needs to play nice with existing equipment. Your cynicism is, frankly, pathetic. Don't think that a few people who care can't change the world -- indeed, they're the only ones who ever have.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:+5, wait what? by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some groups of a few people who care have changed the world. A far larger number of groups of a few people who cared have found the world unyielding to their efforts.

      If you only ever do things that statistics favor, you're going to lead a most boring and undistinguished life. Life has always existed despite the odds, vibrant life doubly so. I choose to believe I am of consequence to the universe... and since you believe you are not of consequence to the universe, you are... of no consequence at all.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  13. Re:like soviet russia and nazi germany by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It time to stand up for OUR 1st amendment rights!

    The first thing to understand about human rights is it doesn't depend on the law of men to validate them. You have the right to freedom of speech, expression, and religion, regardless of what your government says. You have it regardless of whether the Constitution allows it or not, or even exists. You have it, because you're a human being. That is the definition of a human right: There are some laws higher than those of men.

    Stop thinking of this as an American problem, or a legal problem. It's an ethical problem -- and the greatest advances of the 21st century won't be in science or technology, but in expanding the concept of what it means to be human. That, good sir, is your fight. You are not alone.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  14. Google banned my video because of the music by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It was our national anthem, and it was copyright free, I made sure I got the track from a royalty free collection.

    Nevertheless, the AI thought it sounded like someone else's recording of the national anthem, so I was tried and convicted. Oh sure, there was an appeal's process, but it is up to me to wait in line to be absolved of the sin I never committed. Guilty until proven innocent.

    And we are talking about our national anthem. You know, freedom and all that. Irony.

    All hail the great God filthy lucre.

    Eventually, the people are going to be fed up, and not put up with this crap any more.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:Google banned my video because of the music by fm6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A minute to file the appeal. Usually a month for the appeal to be acted upon. Sounds like a line to me. And there seems to be no penalty for posting huge numbers of frivolous takedown notices.

      OK, not exactly the death knell of Fair Use. But not a molehill either.

    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. Re:Google banned my video because of the music by Tom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As many others, I. Can confirm this. I posted a number of videos to YouTube recently, all with the same background music licensed under a CC license. All were automatically (within seconds of posting) tagged, I disputed the claims immediately, I am still waiting for the issue to be resolved including any comment.

      What angers me most is that I have apparently no way of finding out WHO the claimant is. They are accusing me of copyright infringement, i.e. a crime. Where I live, that is a serious accusation.

      Anyone had any luck with this whole scam in the past? I want to know who is making the claim so I can contact the music author and support him in suing them. Because THIS is what "stealing music" looks like - making a copyright claim to someone else's work.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  15. Re:Calm Down,... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They cut off a one time unrepeatable event. Not everyone can "get off their ass" and get to a con for a whole multitude of reasons. It's a pretty god damn bad outcome.

  16. And this, kiddies... by SternisheFan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ..., 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..."

    1. Re:And this, kiddies... by SternisheFan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All right, though I should know better by now not to get into replying to ac's. I used 9/11 as a reference point in history because it seems to me before then there was a different, more innocent, public mindset, more hopeful. 9/11 was like America's collective concious getting it's virginity taken, we all were permanently changed. And perhaps it is just my perspective, I'm pushing mid 50's now, so I figure maybe I'll get to see how the nexr 30 years unfold, God willing. I'll always be hopeful for the human race, it's just that I've seen a lot of freedoms that I guess we took for granted seem to just disappear from view over the last decade. This story is another quirky side-effect of that. Really, this might be your kids future being determined by these times, and their kids, etc. Someone here posted a reminder about "forgetting history". And those who forget history ARE doomed to repeat it. And it doesn't have to be that way.

  17. 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

    1. Re:Ustream apology by skywire · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ustream knew full when they put the bot in place that it would occasionally do this kind of thing. Their 'apology' (read "damage control") reveals a significant bit of evidence about their claimed concern for balancing the interests of copright holders and others: you can pay them to be ignored by the bot.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    2. Re:Ustream apology by wienerschnizzel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From the 'apology':

      ur editorial team and content monitors almost immediately noticed a flood of livid Twitter messages about the ban and attempted to restore the broadcast. Unfortunately, we were not able to lift the ban before the broadcast ended.

      Come again?! You were 'not able to lift the ban'? It's your f&*%# website! You can do as you please!

      Let me go on a wild speculation and say you were not WILLING to lift the ban because you like to pander to the big media overlords. And now when you reap the hate of the general public you are suddenly sorry. Well tough for you! The dent in your reputation is well deserved.

  18. Re:like soviet russia and nazi germany by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or, you know, actually limiting human rights to *actual* people, not legal fictions.

  19. Re:Fitting. by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, way under... sometime in the last century, or way before that even. If you mean a shooting war, then maybe you're a little closer. But hell, we're still not seeing enough resistance to the war on drugs (the cold, cruel 'eastern front' of the war on people). Defense of our rights will require a multipronged attack on the corrupt state.

    Quiz: How many DHS keywords are in this post?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  20. 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
  21. Re:It's Labour Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you buy the UStream pro video package you get to show whatever you like (no bot oversight) and there's 24/7 live support. You also get to choose not to show your viewers any UStream adverts (obviously you could inject your own ads) and handle a vast number of simultaneous viewers. It does cost money, but if something goes wrong there's a live human to call who can help fix it.

    Worldcon was NOT using the pro video package. I haven't even been able to find out if they were paying for one of the cheaper entry-level options with less features and no support. It's quite possible they simply created a free Ustream account and hoped for the best like somebody uploading a little league game.

    Now, that doesn't make it _good_ that this happened, but it sure does make it _understandable_. Imagine if, rather than paying for a venue, a famous band just decides to play for free in a local park. Well, good news is that the show is free. Bad news, if it rains there's no shelter organised, if people arrive to mow the grass in the park then show's over, and if the police decide its' too noisy the amps will get turned off with no notice. But that's not because the police hate music, it's because the band were too cheap (or too lazy) to hire a real venue.

    I suggest that future Worldcon hosts either find a way to pay for a more professional level of video service, or make it clear to the fans that this is basically a best effort feed and might go down for any reason at any time with no way to bring it back.

  22. 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
  23. Wrong by aepervius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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
    1. Re:Wrong by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A right which is not enforced by men , is a non existing right. You can spout around that you have the right of free speech, but if the governement decide you do not have it, then *pouf* it is gone. There is not such a thing as "natural right"

      What was unique about the Founding Fathers is that they didn't see what you point out and say "oh no, it's not a guarantee, we're so screwed!" No, they saw what you point out and responded with "then it's clearly up to us, and we'll do whatever it takes to have them". The rose to the occasion and gave their counter-answer to what you pose. To them it was a cyclical process in which liberty ebbs and flows. It's not terribly different from the water cycle, or the carbon cycle, or the nitrogen cycle. It's simply one of nature's patterns, patterns of which men are not entirely exempt.

      A "right" which is not enforced by an entity is a right you lost or do not have. Only when an enforcing entity help applying that right you got it. There is not such a thing as natural right, as natural law is the law of the strongest, and the only right you got then is the one which you can enforce yourself.

      Some entities are more just than others, and that tree is known by it fruit.

      The fact is that every empire and every dictatorship which became decadent and tyrannical (that is, all of them) has collapsed. It is an inherently unstable form. It is self-defeating. No free nation would ever collapse. It has to become tyrannical first. Then and only then can it collapse.

      It's not just a smorgasbord of equally valid options that happen to all be equally viable. No. Some are inherently stronger, more sustainable, and more virtuous and tend to do a better job of promoting prosperity and well-being. When it's the law of the jungle, the average life-span is much shorter and quality of life is lower. According to any human standard, they are not interchangable options. The lust for power is always short-term gain at the expense of sustainability. It always fails.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  24. Re:Fitting. by budgenator · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The point should be that the Hugo Awards hold the copyright to their awards ceremony, which includes distribution rights; by the erroneous blocking of the stream, Hugo's right to distribute was grievously infringed. That infringement like any other infringement should by remedied by the assessment of considerable monetary penalties.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  25. 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});
  26. Re:Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you do not know it yet, that famous " I Have A Dream " speech by Martin Luther King is not permitted to be aired anywhere, unless you can obtain agreement from the copyright owners

    Just to be clear on one point.

    That this historically important speech can be effectively banned (except for fair use) is disturbing. That it is effectively banned is almost entirely due to his highly dysfunctional family.

    Talking about historical clip - we must thank NASA for not filing any copyright claim over (the late) Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon - or none of us could get to enjoy the " This is one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind " moment.
     
    Back to Mr. King's famous speech -
     
    Whether Mr. King's family is "highly dysfunctional" or not, it should have no effect on the airing of the historical clip, if not for the copyright laws
     
    Right now, as it is, they - the "highly dysfunctional family" can keep acting out their "highly dysfunctional" behavior for a whooping 75 years after Mr. King's death because, according to the way the copyright laws are written, they have the whole right over that damn thing
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  27. i've heard this ignorant statement before by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i live in a country, the usa, that believes that the free market should supply what the government does not. ok, but first we must admit that we aren't talking about the free market, we are talking about monopolies and oligopolies that dominate a market space just as much as a government in a communist country does. there is no competition. there are entrenched massive players and a few marginal pipsqueaks. enough with the lies about the fantasy of a fair marketplace, especially as the largest players collude with the government and warp the rules to entrench their position

    a statement like yours presupposes that i have a free choice to shop somewhere else. therefore i have no right to demand anything from a capitalist corporation. i should simply choose another capitalist corporation to serve my needs. when of course the truth is that youtube dominates it's space, and to post my video somewhere else automatically dooms me to less views

    therefore, if we are going to go with this delusion that the market will provide what the government should not, then we are going to hold to the marketplace behemoths demands that otherwise we could only hold against the government, such as conforming to certain rules of fairness, since i live in a country that abdicates to the "free market" what the government otherwise would provide

    where do these ignorant twits who believe in the immaculate fair marketplace that never existed and never will come from exactly? it's like a demented pseudoreligion, whose adherents cling to their nonsense in spite of all overwhelming economic fact and historical evidence like a creationist or a ufo cultist

    no: if the market is dominated by a monopoly or oligopoly, the people can and should demand of them rights and protections since it is not possible to simply shop somewhere else and get anywhere near the same service. youtube provides, in effect, a public service. so you can, and should, hold it to standards of conduct on the same level as a government entity

    you can't have it both ways. either the government provides the service, and then you demand a certain level of service, or the government abdicates to the monopoly, and then you have no right to demand any level of service? bullshit

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  28. Libel by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If UStream actually used the words "Worldcon banned due to copyright infringement", Worldcon can sue for libel. They were falsely and publicly accused of a criminal act.

  29. 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
  30. Do rights exist without institutional recognition? by theNAM666 · · Score: 3

    > 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."

  31. Re:Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed by metacell · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ah... but what if they anticipated that argument?

  32. Re:Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Funny

    "This is one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind You should kill us all on sight "

    FTFY

  33. Re:Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed by desdinova+216 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a family. Of course it's mostly dysfunctional. .

    FTFY