The Algorithmic Copyright Cops: Streaming Video's Robotic Overlords

He's a she by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-06 12:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Geeta Dayal is a she. Just sayin'.

Re:He's a she by Havenwar · 2012-09-06 17:19 · Score: 1

Uhm, how was this modded flamebait? It's accurate. The summary uses the pronoun "he", while the author bio on TFA uses the pronoun "she".

Geeta Dayal is female by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-06 12:06 · Score: 5, Informative

Might want to double check your pronouns.

Re:Geeta Dayal is female by formfeed · 2012-09-06 14:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

female or legitimate female?

'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by djnanite · 2012-09-06 12:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

We have repeated cases of people going to court to dispute 'fair use', which shows that it is not well defined enough for humans to get right, let alone automated bots.

Lay down specific rules for 'fair use' and then you can write an algorithm to respect those rules.

(Just don't let RIAA/MPAA dictate the rules.)

Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-06 12:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

But the RIAA/MPAA has already dictated the terms of fair use: Any use that brings us revenue is fair, and all others are not :)
Reason I think we should stuff a hot poker up their asses and make copyright a flat 18 years for individuals and 5 years for corporations, with not extensions and a one year loss in term for each transferral of copyright (be it selling the copyright or merging/wholly owning the company).
That would solve the current issues with it, provide revenue over the primary useful life of the material, cut into residuals sadly, but result in more long term innovation since not producing new material will result in bankruptcy rather than an endless stream of relicensing/remaking old material. If all actors/actresses got flat pay (same as 'staff') however it'd be no different than any modern non-IP related job.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by FirephoxRising · 2012-09-06 12:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

I agree, they shouldn't be allowed to run these bots until they have a perfect algorithm, which will be never. These high profile examples should be enough to allow the EFF to do something? The bots should at the very least have to "request" a violation check, not an immediate take-down.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by Frosty+Piss · 2012-09-06 12:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

We have repeated cases of people going to court to dispute 'fair use', which shows that it is not well defined enough for humans to get right...
Pretty much bullshit, "fair use" is indeed well defined.
But the bigger issue *is not* the "bots", it's the media outlets that accept "take down notices" from bots.
In other words, I'm questioning the legality of machine generated "take downs" that have no human interaction. I'm suggesting that it is not strictly legal and media outlets could certainly make an argument that such automated "take downs" constitute an unfair burden and so are invalid.
Seriously.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-06 12:51 · Score: 3, Informative

A lot of people (especially online) have a big misunderstanding of what "fair use" is.
The misconception is that there's a set of rights that we have to use copyrighted material, and when the copyright holder doesn't respect those rights he's just being a jerk.
Actually, "fair use" is just a defense you can use when sued for copyright infringement.
And it's almost entirely up to the discretion of the court to decide whether or not you'll get off with that defense.
There's no actual set of rules, and that's the way the law is written.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by cheesecake23 · 2012-09-06 12:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

But the RIAA/MPAA has already dictated the terms of fair use: Any use that brings us revenue is fair, and all others are not :)
Funny, but unfortunately the RIAA/MPAA aren't that clever. If they were, they wouldn't issue takedown notices to all the free advertising they get in fan videos on Youtube of movie scenes and teens dancing to pop songs, which would be deemed fair use in any sane legal universe.
Also, definitely not fair use but still remarkable: it's astonishing how they happily piss money away in their idiotic war on pirated films and music - imagine what this word-of-mouth marketing would cost them if they actually had to PAY for it.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by KingMotley · 2012-09-06 13:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

They should be allowed to run them, however, the consequence of them being wrong should place a large enough deterrent that they should not WANT to if it isn't extremely accurate.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by symbolset · 2012-09-06 14:04 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually, Viacom sued google for distributing on youtube content uploaded by their own employees, both from their own offices and the employees homes.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by mark-t · 2012-09-06 14:29 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, "fair use" is just a defense you can use when sued for copyright infringement.
In Canada, the equivalent concept is not a defense for infringement, the equivalent concept creates an exemption to infringement in the first place. So, if your usage was fair, as determined by law, then your defense if you should happen to get sued for infringement would simply be that you didn't infringe on copyright in the first place.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by tqk · 2012-09-06 14:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

Reason I think we should stuff a hot poker up their asses and make copyright a flat 18 years for individuals and 5 years for corporations ...
Nope, too generous. They're both flawed concepts, and too easily gamed. Zero years for both. Compete on your merits, damnit! Don't expect us to help you with legislative crutches. These are the rules the rest of us are expected to go by. Welcome to reality. Suck it up.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by jthill · 2012-09-06 15:19 · Score: 5, Informative

PP is, in every relevant way false.
Fair use is, by statute declaration, not copyright infringement at all. Copyright holders have no authority at all to forbid any fair use.
PP might as well have said a lot of people have a big misunderstanding of what "innocence" is, that "innocence" is just a defense you can use.
The criteria for fair use are laid out in statute law and have decades of case law to back them. Courts have the same discretion in finding the boundaries of fair use as they have in finding the boundaries of any other law, and the same responsibility. There's nothing at all remarkable about that discretion, it's why they're called "Judge".

--
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by Mr.+Shotgun · 2012-09-06 15:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

Unfortunately the example from the summary are not fair use cases, more like original producers vs hangers on. The content publishers are using bot's without checking the results. They need to have some guy checking the flags and using sanity testing to verify if the flag is correct. I mean come on, NASA vs some newspaper in Cincinnati, who in the fuck is more likely to have produced footage from the curiosity rover on Mars. Or DNC coverage, who has the copyright, the DNC or a news organization rebroadcasting what the DNC made? Some types of people accept what a program says as the gospel truth, which leads to fuckups like the content flagging and Knight Capital. Computers are tools, not overlords as someone else said.

--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by epyT-R · 2012-09-06 16:01 · Score: 2

noo thanks.. I don't want to live in a police state so people can prop up false scarcity.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by curunir · 2012-09-06 16:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

The problem with your argument is that fair use is not a right. Instead, it's a defense against infringement. Even if something is within the boundaries of fair use, no one is required to respect that...it only protects you from being liable for infringement. So when someone (or some machine) denies that fair use, there's nothing legally wrong with doing so.
The problem isn't (yet) with the definition of fair use, it's with the lack of protection of fair use as a right. For the purpose it serves, fair use is defined well enough...it describes enough to explain the intent and purposefully leaves the interpretation to judges and juries. To protect against cases like the one in the story, we need to first make it against the law to deny fair use...then we can worry about more explicitly defining what is and isn't fair use.

--
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by Gerzel · 2012-09-06 17:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Figure out what the algorithms are looking for and troll them with false positives.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by KingMotley · 2012-09-06 17:47 · Score: 2

Well it should be something like $8 per view * the number of people on the internet (who missed to opportunity to watch it) * 100 for punitive damages for each occurrence of a false take down notice.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by Kim0 · 2012-09-06 18:11 · Score: 2

Lawyers and lawmakers earn more on unspecific, complicated or vague rules.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-06 18:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

So they can do something and then sue someone else for it? That sounds like the perfect business model!
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by symbolset · 2012-09-06 18:57 · Score: 1

A reasonable court would find that representatives of the copyright holder publishing the material under the YouTube terms is a license grant. But a court had to weigh in on this anyway, and Google had to pay lawyers money to say "but they said....".

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-06 20:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

In Canada, the equivalent concept is not a defense for infringement, the equivalent concept creates an exemption to infringement in the first place. So, if your usage was fair, as determined by law, then your defense if you should happen to get sued for infringement would simply be that you didn't infringe on copyright in the first place.
That's the case in the United States, too, according to the language of the copyright law (Title 17) itself. If something is Fair Use then by definition it is an exclusion to the scope of the artificial monopoly, and by definition there can be no infringement.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by ByronHope · 2012-09-06 22:19 · Score: 1

"make copyright a flat 18 years for individuals and 5 years for corporations, with not extensions and a one year loss in term for each transferral of copyright (be it selling the copyright or merging/wholly owning the company)", that is the most sensible copyright suggestion I have ever seen. If I could mod up I would.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by JosKarith · 2012-09-06 22:43 · Score: 2

So the real winners of this snafu of a legal system are the lawyers who created it in the first place? Whodathoughtthatwouldhappen?

--
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by crystal_rose · 2012-09-06 23:28 · Score: 1

> They should be allowed to run them, however, the consequence of them being wrong should place a large enough deterrent
> that they should not WANT to if it isn't extremely accurate.
Falsely accusing anyone of violating the copyright on X results in X being released to the public domain. Problem solved! By the way, punitive fines in the order of $22k per "lost" page-view* has a pleasing kind of symmetry.
* Everybody knows a "lost" page-view == a lost sale for whoever might be advertising on that page, right?
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-09-07 00:10 · Score: 1

...and sue every kid that ever quotes from a book or uses a video clip for a class.
Sounds good... ?
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-09-07 00:17 · Score: 1

Fair use ought not only be a right, it ought to be defined as any use that doesn't cause monetary loss for the rights holders.
Using on YouTube doesn't cause loss. Making a parody video or review actually causes a gain. Despite what corpro-bots think, making a fan web site causes a BIG gain.
I think others have said that every non-commercial use (not making money for the user) should be legal.
Obviously you have to get the definitions precise, but basically there is no practical definition of fair use except "I know it when I see it," which isn't a definition at all when a judge has a lot of corporates influencing him to see things differently.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by slacka · 2012-09-07 00:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Agreed. Something has to be done. Censorship and wrongful take downs are just one aspect of the many problems with our copyright laws. My biggest issue with them is that they prevent young artists from remixing anything from their generation. This needs to be fixed by repealing the DCMA and reforming these draconian copyright laws.
Before Disney, copyright granted authors protection for 28 years. I’m fine with that. The problem is it’s pushing 100 years now. This stifles our culture and innovation.
For example, Star Wars was released in 1978, so it should have gone into the public domain by 2005. With existing laws, George Lucas retains exclusive rights to butcher the SW universe until 2072!!!! 95 YEARS! Imagine what new aspiring authors could do with his work, instead of the sterile Jar Jar crap that Lucas served us, recently? Thank you, copyright.
Do you think your favorite authors would not have created their material, if it was not protected for 70 years after their death? The copyright system is designed make companies, like Disney and RIAA, rich at the expense of our freedom.
The irony is Disney made its fortune by ripping off the great works of others. Walt Disney was a master of this. At its origins, Mickey Mouse was a parody of the Buster Keaton film Steamboat Bill Jr. And almost all of their great work since then has continued this tradition of copying. Just to name a few: Pinocchio, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Jungle Book, Sleep Hollow, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid,
With the RIAA, SOPA and Courtney Love’s excellent essay on how they screw over artists should give you an idea of how this industry works. http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
If you want to know more, Kirby Ferguson's series "Everything is a Remix" at
http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
is a great watch!
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by cygnwolf · 2012-09-07 00:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

So you'd be perfectly fine with big corporations, with the big advertising budget, publishing a tiny indy band's music, claiming it was performed by one of their own? With their ability to advertise the crap out of it, the budget to claim that the tiny band was the one copying the work, and without copyright to back them up, the little guys are screwed. This isn't the same as a patent and claiming 'they stole my idea'. Copyright actually protects the creative work itself. Sure, it's a flawed system, but it is a very important one. TGP, however, does have some good points about there being an appropriate duration on the copyright.

--
Free Pie! The Pie is Also Evil!
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-09-07 01:52 · Score: 1

The problem with your argument is that fair use is not a right.
I think that this would fall under those "self-evident" rights. You start with rights to use everything, then the constituion gives rights to writers and inventors to their works and inventions, for a limited time. (Real property rights are left to the states, except that the government can't take things from you without paying for them)

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
After those rights expire, all use is fair.

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by bws111 · 2012-09-07 02:12 · Score: 1

Well, you'll be happy to know that this is already in place. Everytime YouTube or UStream gets one of these 'false takedown notices', they send a bill for that amount to whoever decided that the content should be taken down. Of course, since it is they themselves that are running these algorithms and making that determination, the net result is no money changes hands.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by Ed+Bugg · 2012-09-07 02:16 · Score: 1

The problem with your argument is that fair use is not a right. Instead, it's a defense against infringement. Even if something is within the boundaries of fair use, no one is required to respect that...it only protects you from being liable for infringement. So when someone (or some machine) denies that fair use, there's nothing legally wrong with doing so.
The problem isn't (yet) with the definition of fair use, it's with the lack of protection of fair use as a right. For the purpose it serves, fair use is defined well enough...it describes enough to explain the intent and purposefully leaves the interpretation to judges and juries. To protect against cases like the one in the story, we need to first make it against the law to deny fair use...then we can worry about more explicitly defining what is and isn't fair use.
Disclaimer, I am not an expert on law nor do I even play someone on TV that is an expert on law. This is nothing more than my opinion, how ever misguided and wrong they might be.
On the surface what you're saying sounds right but there's something nagging me that says it's wrong. Copyright is suppose to be a right, but with limitations. Fair use is one of those limitations. The protection is already there and inherently so because it's a limitation. So to say that there's nothing legally wrong in not respecting fair use doesn't sound right (not that there isn't precedence where something that is taken to an extreme nature that it's lost it's meaning).
The protection of fair use is in that the entity is projecting a copyright where they don't have a copyright (i.e. past the limits of copyright). It's no different than if someone off the street tried to sue Disney for copyright infringement on the use of Mickey Mouse. They don't have the copyright and therefor have no right to sue.

--
-- Ed Bugg --You have freedom of choice, but not of consequences.--
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by bws111 · 2012-09-07 02:23 · Score: 1

Which has nothing at all to do with fair use. The rights have not expired in a fair use case. So no, it is in no way a 'self-evident' right, as the constitution (as you pointed out) gives EXCLUSIVE right to the authors and inventors, therefore you have NO right to their work. 'Fair use' is an EXCEPTION to the their exclusive right, which is not self-evident at all.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-09-07 02:55 · Score: 1

It's a "self evident" right, because without that clause in the constitution, authors and inventors wouldn't have "exclusive" rights at all. The default state is everyone can use an invention or writing. Then, a clause was added to the constitution that gives congress the power to make copyright and patent law. Congress then is supposed to make a limited law that promotes the Arts and Sciences. They're not suppose to make a law to maximize a company's profits or control of creative works, they're suppose to promote progress.

I'm sure the framers of the constitution considered it "self evident" that after you bought a book, you could read it, without specific permission from the author, even if he had "exclusive" rights. You could even talk about the book to a friend, and even point out a passage, all without permission. They expected congress to be reasonable when writing copyright law. (That may have been wishful thinking on their part)

The main "self evident" rights, Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness are only hinted at in the constitution, they're not supposed to be enumerated nor is the constituion suppose to list all your rights. You have rights not written down anywhere.

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by bws111 · 2012-09-07 03:51 · Score: 1

The copyright holders are not doing these so-called 'takedowns', the HOSTING companies are. And the HOSTING companies are free to host/not host content based on whatever criteria they want, including 'looks like maybe it infringes someone else's copyright'.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by bws111 · 2012-09-07 04:04 · Score: 1

No, the problem with his argument is that this has nothing at all to do with fair use. Fair use is a defense against an accusation of copyright infringement, not an offense that can be used to force a provider to host your content.
IF the situation was that someone was being sued for copyright infringement, THEN they could raise fair use as a defense. But that is not the situation here at all. Here, the situation is that a hosting provider has decided, maybe incorrectly, that a particular piece of content infringes on someone else's copyright, and they decline to host that content. That is their right, they can use any criteria at all to decide what they will and will not host.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by drkstr1 · 2012-09-07 04:12 · Score: 2

We could get rid of copyright and just make plagiarism illegal instead.

--
Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by currently_awake · 2012-09-07 07:27 · Score: 1

The USA bill of rights only grants/recognizes copyright to the original author. (securing for limited Times to Authors). There is no mention of transfer, or copyright to others. Has anyone ever fought that in court?
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by tqk · 2012-09-07 08:43 · Score: 1

Actually, Viacom sued google for distributing on youtube content uploaded by their own employees, both from their own offices and the employees homes.
In an arms folded, head nodding kind of way, we should all be very happy that the *AAs are doing what they do. After all, that is pretty much the funniest joke of all time, isn't it? "Take it down! Infringing!!!" "Er, you put it up." "Take it down, damn you! We'll sue!!!!!!!" "We took it down, and you just put it up again!"
It's a make work for lawyers Ponzi scheme. Madoff would be proud.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by tqk · 2012-09-07 08:59 · Score: 1

The bots should at the very least have to "request" a violation check, not an immediate take-down.
Meaning Google/YouTube have to hire a human to vet the requests? If it's a flawed takedown request, can G/YT bill the requester? In a perfect world, ...
I spent some (gap job) time as an "Alarm Agent". Customers get three chances. If those three are false alarms, you get put on the "we'll look into it sometime" list. I think that concept would be appropriate here.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by rastoboy29 · 2012-09-07 09:01 · Score: 1

I don't think that's sufficient. People must be free to transfer data as they please. Expand fair use to cover all non-commercial use and I'd be happy.

--
expandfairuse.org
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by rastoboy29 · 2012-09-07 09:04 · Score: 1

I think the only decent solution is to expand fair use rights to cover all non-commercial use. If nothing else, that would reduce the target profile only to those who actually use copyrighted material to make money without authorization, which I think most people feel is innately wrong.

--
expandfairuse.org
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by rastoboy29 · 2012-09-07 09:07 · Score: 1

I hadn't considered this. Well said.

--
expandfairuse.org
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by tqk · 2012-09-07 09:15 · Score: 1

We have repeated cases of people going to court to dispute 'fair use', which shows that it is not well defined enough for humans to get right...
Pretty much bullshit, "fair use" is indeed well defined.
I'll call BS on you for that. "I'd like to live in theory. Everything works in theory." There's a revolving door between The MafiAA and the US gov't, meaning MafiAA lobbyists are getting placed into position as judges on these cases. One court goes one way, another court goes the opposite, the Supremes decline to sort out the difference, lawyers get rich, people get destroyed financially, Hollywood gets to "Lalalalala..." (fingers in ears) interminably, and we just sit back and let this !@#$ go on and on and on ...
Why? This show's getting really old. Moldy even.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by tqk · 2012-09-07 10:12 · Score: 1

So do away with fair use.
Want to use something copyrighted? Pay the rights holder what is due for the amount of the copyrighted content to be used.
How's about I just steal a copy instead? Every blank CD/DVD sold in Canada includes tax to compensate for assumed piracy on buyers' part.
Bite my shiney ...

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:'Fair Use' is not sufficiently well defined by tqk · 2012-09-07 17:51 · Score: 1

The US definition of fair use is the best in the world ...
The US' definition of fair use is irrelevant as long as the US' courts choose to ignore it, which they do. There's a lot of things that we grew up believing that we thought the US stood for which are no longer the case. This's just one in a long line of them.
The US today needs a Mickey Spillane/Mike Hammer to seriously kick some ass. It's in the business of making itself look foolish these days. Very sad.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

The Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-06 12:10 · Score: 1

Sue them into oblivion when they screw up.

Re:The Solution by nurb432 · 2012-09-06 13:38 · Score: 1, Troll

No. The solution involves C4

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:The Solution by mark-t · 2012-09-06 14:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

The problem could also be partially solved by simply instituting legal fines to corporations that falsely accuse somebody of infringing on copyright. There'd be no particular benefit to anyone who was wrongly accused, but if the fines are heavy enough, there could plenty of disincentive for companies to do that to people in the first place.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:The Solution by kahless62003 · 2012-09-06 19:24 · Score: 1

Nuking from orbit, it's the only way to be sure...
Re:The Solution by grahamm · 2012-09-07 02:00 · Score: 1

And have even severe penalties for corporations which falsely claim to own the copyright, as in the case of the media companies which claimed copyright on the NASA video and Obama speech.
Re:The Solution by bws111 · 2012-09-07 03:29 · Score: 1

Except that no media companies made such claims. The hosting companies decided for themselves not to carry that content, because they thought it may infringe on someone's copyright. Their decision making may be flawed, but is not illegal in any way. They can decide what content to accept or reject based on any (legal) criteria they want. Illegal criteria would be the usual, such a based on the submitters race.
Re:The Solution by tqk · 2012-09-07 18:03 · Score: 1

Sue them into oblivion when they screw up.
No. The solution involves C4
I like the way you think. Please sign me up for your newsletter/mailing list/whatever. I don't suppose you've any you could spare (*blink* *blink*)?
I really wish I owned a Warp Core that I could eject. Every problem can be solved by ejecting a Warp Core, yes? Next best thing to ningas, always. :-|

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:The Solution by nurb432 · 2012-09-08 01:16 · Score: 1

Sorry, just because i may have made the suggestion that its a solution does not mean I'm going to take action. No more than does Steven King prepare for mass murder after he writes a book about it.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Obama, repeal the DMCA! by Nirvelli · 2012-09-06 12:12 · Score: 4, Funny

President Obama,

The DMCA has deleted your wife from the internet! You must repeal it immediately!

Sincerely,
A Concerned Internet Citizen

Re:Obama, repeal the DMCA! by Mashiki · 2012-09-06 12:15 · Score: 1, Funny

In Soviet America, bot deletes wife!

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Obama, repeal the DMCA! by fm6 · 2012-09-06 12:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm sure he'll get right on it. All he has to do is get repeal past the Republican majority in the House and the permanent Republican fillibuster in the Senate.
Re:Obama, repeal the DMCA! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-06 12:33 · Score: 1

LOL, you still think there is a difference in the political parties, cute.
Re:Obama, repeal the DMCA! by clarkkent09 · 2012-09-06 13:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

What makes you think that Obama wants to repeal the DMCA? With the amount of support and money he is getting from Hollywood it is not surprising he is not mentioning copyright at all.

--
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Re:Obama, repeal the DMCA! by fm6 · 2012-09-06 13:58 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, I can't always remember to use a smiley when I make a joke.
Re:Obama, repeal the DMCA! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-06 16:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's also because he's friendly with the Clintons. When he was President, Bill Clinton did a lot of work deregulating media monopoly/ownership laws. The big 5 or whatnot owe their current situation to that camp, so that's probably why major media tries to always downplay his mistakes, ridicule his critics, and hype up his successes.
It's kind of a scary "special interest" when you really think about it. It's almost like legalized blackmail, if you look at it from that angle. The sad thing is that American culture as a whole will continue to degrade and stagnate, as the government continues to outlaw competition and innovation via grossly distorted Copyright legislation.
Re:Obama, repeal the DMCA! by AliasMarlowe · 2012-09-06 20:15 · Score: 1

President Obama,
The DMCA has deleted your wife from the internet! You must repeal it immediately!
Sincerely,
A Concerned Internet Citizen
The president would then propose repealing the internet... just like any normal greasy politician. After all, the internet is not a direct result of lobbyist-promoted legislation so it must be the cause of the problem, not that fine well-lobbied DMCA piece of legislation which can clearly only cause good things.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Re:Obama, repeal the DMCA! by grahamm · 2012-09-07 02:15 · Score: 1

But what he (or his wife) could do is sue the pants off the company which claimed to own the copyright in the speech which his wife was giving and caused the takedown.

And why is the technology to blame? by c0lo · 2012-09-06 12:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

the trigger was a brief clip from the Doctor Who episode itself

In itself, the tech has shown an impressive quality if a brief clip was recognized in realtime.

Would anyone blame the hammer because it's an excellent tool to drive nails under one's... well... nails?

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.

Re:And why is the technology to blame? by Required+Snark · 2012-09-06 12:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

This technology was designed to find infringement. It was not designed to find cute images of puppies. There is nothing in the code to recognize fair use. The technology is intrinsically broken. Perhaps it could be fixed, but there is no incentive to make it work fairly.
A lot of technology is like OxyContin: it is very easy to abuse. The manufacturers/deployers make money and never suffer the negative effects. It's disingenuous to say that the technology is neutral and does not embody an business/political agenda. In this case allowing fair use would make the system much more complex, and might render it useless. For example if there were meaningful fines for false positives then those using this technology would have to act differently. Hell will freeze over before that happens.

--
Why is Snark Required?
Re:And why is the technology to blame? by Skapare · 2012-09-06 13:39 · Score: 2

Whether something is infringing or NOT infringing, cannot be determined by matching content alone. Anything that only looks for matching content is intrinsically and fundamentally broken. Anyone who would design it that way and claim it to be correct is a liar and a fraud.
A hammer is not expected to detect if the target happens to be a screw. Claiming something merely detects that some content matches some other content is fine. Jumping to the conclusion that because it matches, it must therefore be infringing is stretching truth beyond the breaking point. I am not impressed by it at all because it clearly is a failure to determine whether content is, or is not, actually infringing.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:And why is the technology to blame? by Skapare · 2012-09-06 13:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

This technology was designed to find infringement.
I seriously doubt that. I think it was designed to find matching content and CLAIM it to be infringement while really having no means whatsoever to determine that.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:And why is the technology to blame? by c0lo · 2012-09-06 13:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

This technology was designed to find infringement. It was not designed to find cute images of puppies. There is nothing in the code to recognize fair use. The technology is intrinsically broken.
Correction: as demonstrated, the technology is excellent (in its recognition capabilities). Also as demonstrated, the use of the technology for certain purposes (police copyright infringement) is broken.
It doesn't mean that for other purposes (finding images of cute puppies included) the same technology cannot be excellent.
My point: don't blame the "robots", blame those who use them as "overlords". Otherwise, you'd be only adopting the same position to those who would very much like to ban/criminalize a technology (e.g. encryption? The use of Tor?) only because they can be used for copyright infringement or drug trafficking.

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:And why is the technology to blame? by c0lo · 2012-09-06 14:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Whether something is infringing or NOT infringing, cannot be determined by matching content alone. Anything that only looks for matching content is intrinsically and fundamentally broken. Anyone who would design it that way and claim it to be correct is a liar and a fraud.
Correct. But that's exactly my point: the anyone who would etc is to blame and the reason for the blame is not because they designed the technology, but the way they use it (or claim it can be used) - is the second part of the logical conjunction that renders them liars.

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:And why is the technology to blame? by c0lo · 2012-09-06 15:29 · Score: 2

the trigger was a brief clip from the Doctor Who episode itself
In itself, the tech has shown an impressive quality if a brief clip was recognized in realtime...
I suppose you define "impressive" a bit differently than I do. I see nothing but overzealous idiots drunk on power and control abusing the shit out of any system that can react THAT fast...(sorry, it's a rather nasty side effect of being overexposed to Government abuse)
There are two aspects of this (the "technology" and "the (ab)use of the technology") and both of them can be categorized on the "impressive" dimension/axis.
It just happens that I'd classify both of them as "impressive" in their absolute value, but... when I add also the "sign for the value", the things change into:
1. the technology - has a large positive value - to detect a short clip in realtime while streaming is a feat in my opinion
2. the use of the technology - has a large but negative value, like in "I'm exceptionally but unpleasantly impressed by the stupidity of using a powerful technology under the absolutely moronic assumption that any detection of a copyrighted sequence in a stream constitutes a copyright violation and must be terminated".
Last, but important enough to repeat myself: it is crucial to make the distinction between a technology and a particular use of the technology: fail to make this distinction and you will "terminate" a technology instead of "terminate an immoral/illegitimate use of the technology".
E.g.Internet is the main technology used nowadays for infringing copyright; how about banning Internet in all its uses? What about encryption/Tor?

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:And why is the technology to blame? by harlows_monkeys · 2012-09-06 17:54 · Score: 2

It was designed to find potential infringement on consumer-oriented sharing services where people can sign up and post or stream video without any screening beforehand. On such services, the fast majority of videos that get caught will in fact be blatant infringement, not fair use.
There are two ways to stream on UStream and avoid the risk of a false positive. First, you can use the paid service, instead of the ad-supported service. They assume that people who are actually paying are probably not pirates, and disable the automated copyright checking. Second, if you are using the ad-supported service you can notify them in advance of broadcasts of this kind and they will disable the checking. The organizers of the Hugo ceremony did not do this.
Re:And why is the technology to blame? by azalin · 2012-09-06 19:27 · Score: 3, Funny

Shifting the blame by the use of facts, away from "big media" companies to (dumb) festival organizers, is not allowed around here. It relies on common sense, complete fact checking and considering both sides. Therefore it must not be tolerated and opposes groupthink. Sorry about that. /sarcasm
Let's check facts first before we start ranting. Otherwise we (and our legitimate issues) look silly.
Re:And why is the technology to blame? by azalin · 2012-09-06 19:37 · Score: 2

While I mostly agree, the negative value of point two is somewhat lessened (in absolute value) by the fact that it is used only in their free service. Additionally they do have a method to tell them in advance that copyrighted material will be used in a legal way. The festival organizers on the other hand, neither paid, nor bothered to read the f*ing manual.
The idiots who where responsible for claiming the NASA feed on the other hand, should be forced to pay the amount necessary, to bring a working and transmitting camera to mars.

penalties required by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-06 12:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

The solution is to implement penalties for false takedown requests. Say, $25 per user per stream.

Re:penalties required by Drishmung · 2012-09-06 12:48 · Score: 3, Interesting
The problem with that is that the *IAA don't, strictly, make a takedown request. This is a proactive service that Google/Ustream et al offer well above the DMCA requirements. So, there is no way to penalise them for what they will claim they didn't do.
Instead, make the takedown request cost up front. It costs Google/Ustream etc. to implement the bots. It seems reasonable that those benefiting from them should pay.
I suggest something like:
- You put $x up front into our account, @$y per implemented block, sufficient to process n takedowns. (n = $x/$y).
- Any takedowns in excess of 'n' will not be processed.
- At the end of the month, you will be rebated m x $y where 'm' is the number of undisputed takedowns.
- Disputed takedowns will not be reblocked. You must file a DMCA takedown f you wish to dispute the case.
  Still not perfect, but if the studios don't like it there is always the DCMA.
  (What Google get out of this is essentially the interest on the money for a month---not much but enough to compensate them somewhat).
--
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
Re:penalties required by PPH · 2012-09-06 13:35 · Score: 2

$25? Too cheap.
If an unauthorized download can cost someone from $20,000 to as high as $80,000 per song, lets make the false takedown requests cost the requester the same thing.
Have Google/YouTube and others require requestors to post a bond for the amount prior to honoring it. If the request proves to be in error, the poster or actual copyright holder gets the proceeds. If not, the requestor gets the bond back.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Outrage!??? by kamapuaa · 2012-09-06 12:21 · Score: 1

Well, right now the #1 Google search result for "youtube" is the Michelle Obama story is youtube, so there is some outrage. But realistically, the video is perfectly watchable now, a couple days later. The video was on TV, the video was probably available from numerous other online sources, so it's considered an accident that didn't really affect anybody. Who really cares if one particular video stream goes down temporarily, for no malicious purpose?

And with the UStream video, perhaps it was seen as karmic vengeance for the committee passing up Community's "Remedial Chaos Theory."

--
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.

Hugo Weeps by fm6 · 2012-09-06 12:25 · Score: 1, Troll

The Hugo Awards, he said, were not using the paid “pro” version of Ustream’s live streaming service. The paid version of Ustream does not use Vobile.

“The Hugo Awards were using the free ad-supported capability,” Hunstable said. “And unfortunately Ustream was not contacted ahead of the time about their use of the platform.”

I think the lesson we should take from that is this: if you're broadcasting copyrighted material, you need to contact the streaming vendor and work with them to make sure there's no interruption.

Which is not to defend the interruption. It seems pretty unfair to automatically take down a live stream just because it might have unauthorized content. Though one can't really complain about it when you're using a free ad-supported version of the service. Next time, the Hugo people will presumably do their homework, maybe spend a little money, and avoid this kind of glitch.

Re:Hugo Weeps by rtb61 · 2012-09-06 12:32 · Score: 1

Ahh so the new rule is you must pay the copyright overloards to ensure the content you create isn't taken down by default, something really, really stinks in that statement.
It stinks like the existing publishers are trying to enforce a system which necessitates paying them a percentage of your revenue else like protection racket organised crime your content will suffer an accident. If you do not see the criminality implicit in your statement then you deserve to be arrested, ignorance of the law is no excuse. The rest of use of course are now seeing what is really happening, a direct attempt at extortion by the existing content cartel, pay us or have your content disrupted.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Hugo Weeps by fm6 · 2012-09-06 12:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

You're not paying the copyright overlords. You're paying the video distribution system. If you're using the system for free, you can't expect them to take the lawsuit risk for you, so you shouldn't complain if they impose a stupid filter robot. So pay a fee (which probably gets rid of those ads people love to complain about) and show them you have permission to use the material you're broadcasting, so they can safely turn off the filter.
This is nothing new. "Clearance" has always been a major part of making movies and TV shows. (You know why the little kid in E.T. ate Reese's Pieces? They couldn't get permission to use Skittles.) Creative people have to work with the system, in part because it's the same system that allows them to profit from their work.
Mind you, I'm not defending the copyright overlords, with the legal sledgehammers and retroactive copyright extensions. But as fucked up as the system is, it's the one we've got, and the problems of dealing with it are nothing new.
Re:Hugo Weeps by rtb61 · 2012-09-06 13:32 · Score: 2

Do you not understand how organisation like the Mafia implement a protection racket. The Don or Boss doesn't go out roughing people up, nor does the Consigliere, even the Caporegime doesn't go out and rarely do the soldiers pay a visit (they tend to visit latter in the piece), it's associates who go out and do the dirty work, those with the least links bank to the Capo. Now that holds true for them all whether it be the Triads, Yakuza or the RIAA/MPAA. Something else interesting all of them at various times have had direct ties to government, just as the RIAA/MPAA does now.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Hugo Weeps by fm6 · 2012-09-06 13:58 · Score: 2

So, anybody who tries to get money out of somebody else for any purpose is a gangster? As the anarchists used to say, Property is Theft? Whatever. I don't think that's a concept that's going to catch on.
Re:Hugo Weeps by bws111 · 2012-09-06 15:06 · Score: 1

News flash: YouTube, UStream, et al are not 'the core of our communication systems'. They are commercial entities who's current business model is allowing users to post/stream stuff for free. They are no different than a store that makes a choice on what kinds of items and what brands it wants to carry. They are not 'censoring' anything, they are simply deciding what they will and will not provide. You are perfectly free to take your hosting elsewhere or host it yourself.
Believe it or not, 'censor' does not mean 'makes it a little more difficult ot expensive than I would like'.
Re:Hugo Weeps by FrangoAssado · 2012-09-06 15:21 · Score: 1

There are no (repeat: NO) exceptions being built into these bots, just the "FLICK THE SWITCH NOW" code.
Where did you get this information? Because it completely contradicts what UStream said a few days ago:

Users of our paid, ad-free Pro Broadcasting service “NOTE: UPDATED CLARIFICATION” ‘and those free broadcasters who notify Ustream in advance they have copyrights permissions (Ustream’s messaging to our broadcaster community how this process works is inadequate. We are resolving this now)’ are automatically white listed to avoid situations like this and receive hands-on client support.
Re:Hugo Weeps by TapeCutter · 2012-09-06 17:53 · Score: 2

If they remove content that was already there, that is censorship. You might believe it's perfectly acceptable for them to do, but it's still censorship.
No it's not! You have no more right to force others to publish what you like, than you have to stop others from publishing what you don't like. Censorship is something imposed by the authorities (ie: government, or in the case of a theocracy the church). Private entities can be said to "self-censor" but that is an entirely different thing, and yes, as a legal principle self-censorship is a perfectly acceptable concept because it keeps government out of the bussiness of policing what people choose to, (or choose not to), publish.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Hugo Weeps by Woeful+Countenance · 2012-09-09 05:51 · Score: 1

"Clearance" has always been a major part of making movies and TV shows. (You know why the little kid in E.T. ate Reese's Pieces? They couldn't get permission to use Skittles.)
Actually, it was M&M's, not Skittles. It is true that, now, the process of clearing rights to use materials or products that may be copyrighted or trademarked is a big part of making movies and TV shows. (Whether this has "always" been true, I don't know.) One problem is that most producers have given up on the concept of fair use: rather than risking complaints from copyright or trademark holders, the producers arrange clearance or make product-placement deals. This dilutes the concept of "fair use", because no one ever claims fair use any more.
Example: a documentary which included a cell phone ring-tone using the theme from the movie "Rocky". The film-maker ended up paying 2500 US dollars to include the "Rocky" ring-tone in the movie, even though from a legal perspective it was clearly fair use, because paying the money was less of a hassle than fighting. (From the radio program "On the Media".)
And this is one way rights get lost. Lawrence Lessig has written extensively on this topic.
Re:Hugo Weeps by fm6 · 2012-09-09 06:17 · Score: 1

I often link that OTM story too. Notice that the producer wasn't anxious to spend all that money on clearance. She only did so because her clearance insurance provider insisted. So it's really yet another case of corporate stupidity enforcing IP rights when none are being violated.

Re:Outrage!??? by fustakrakich · 2012-09-06 12:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

Make no mistake, takedowns are always malicious, by their very nature. And the law that permits/demands it is even more so. I still hold on to the hope that someday our communications systems (internet, telephone, broadcast, etc) become robust enough to make all censorship impossible. Must destroy central control. That is our obligation.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Its not just the AI by wbr1 · 2012-09-06 12:36 · Score: 1

However the content is removed, be it by an AI skimmer, a human, or a copyright holder or troll sending takedown notices, we keep missing one key part of the equation.
That part is the fact that there is little to no recourse for those that have legitimate content taken down. In this case apparently uStream was silent and ignored things. How hard would it have been to get a human to look at the stream? Shouldn't your NOC have a few people on hand to do this at all times?
Another case, takedowns on youtube. One troll can issue unlimited bogus takedown requests with no fear of any punishment or reprisal, even though they are clearly in the wrong. An individual youtube channel however does not fare so well, to many takedowns, legit or not, and you are suspended or removed.
There are no real checks and balances in the system. Those in power, with money and lobbyists and pet politicians sit at the top of the hill, and the shit rolls downhill to the common man.
Technology has and is making it easier and easier for the common man to produce content. This we know, and it scares the behemoths as they see people slowly fleeing. This type of behavior is grasping, saying mine, mine min, when you already have more than enough, and also another barrier to entry for competition, which poorly replaces the old barrier of content production and distribution, which was high cost.

--
Silence is a state of mime.

Re:Its not just the AI by James+McGuigan · 2012-09-06 14:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

We live in an economic system based primarily on the concept of scarcity. Money is valuable because nobody ever seems to have quite enough of it, just like diamonds and gold. The law of supply and demand, there is more demand than supply.
The internet and the information age changes all that, its economics that is based on abundance. For the cost of a broadband connection we can give every human child access to the entire digitized archive of the collected works of the human race. The cost of doing this even 100 years ago would have been astronomical and beyond the reach of even the richest philanthropists. The old business models based upon everybody getting a percentage of the production costs break down then the production costs become zero. We have so thoroughly eliminated the nature of scarcity with information that our scarcity based economics, upon which we all depend for our basic survival, has deemed everything that abundance touches to be worthless. Rather than creating "utilitarian" value, it is seen as destroying "valuable" scarcity.
If you want economics based on abundance/gist-culture to actually work, then content effectively needs to be paid for in advance, with the risk of not-recieving, rather than our debt based culture of buy now pay later, where we only buy the hits after they have proven popular.
Copyright is about trying to maintain the concept of artificial scarcity in an environment where it doesn't naturally exist. But assuming that copyright has its place, there are checks and balances, but they don't all operate at the cost level and the speed we are used to in internet time.
The old school system of checks and balances are the courts and the legal system, You can spend a huge quantity of time, energy and money to argue your case and get a ruling from a professional judge. This works well when you have a small number of large, rich corporations with known fixed addresses and assets. Under the old school system, for things like copyright, most private individual use tended to simply fly under the radar and nobody made a big fuss about it regardless of the technicalities of the law. So disregarding morals, we are now down to game theory.
Now Mr Joe Blogs with his modern broadband connection could easily broadcast more copyrighted music than half a dozen fully funded commercial radio stations from a decade ago. Mr Joe Blogs has very little in sue-able assets beyond a bankruptcy order and by the time the cogs in the legal system have turned, he has managed to transfer more data than could fit on a supercomputer from 25 years ago. Joe blogs wasn't as issue when all he had was a mix tape and 5 friends, now he has a mix computer and 5 billion friends. Plus there are now a hundred million Joe Blogs on the internet doing exactly the same thing. So we have innocent until proven guilty, with a very high cost and high standard of proof required to enforce copyright, with the burden resting fully on the copyright holders.
So the copyright holders go to the politicians and say they cannot effectively enforce their business model, so they ask for the risk model of the checks and balances to be changed. Hence the DMCA, we want to be able to just send a letter and then shift the burden of proof onto Joe Blogs to argue his case, plus we want legal liability to rest with registered companies with static address who have something to lose if we have to take them to court. Guilty until proven innocent, but at least with the right of appeal.
But still the DMCA only works at the speed of the postal system, and requires human interaction, which is still orders of magnitude slower and more costly than "internet speed" which we all now mostly take for granted. Hence the advent of AI copyright bots that can at least operate at "internet speed", but the people who create them are on the payroll of the copyright holders and their definition of "failsafe" is to block content first and ask questions later. The checks and balances then start to operate, but they can only proceed a
Re:Its not just the AI by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-09-06 16:09 · Score: 1

Neil Gaiman, did create that content it was what he was being given the reward for. Obviously being the creator is not enough to be protected from take down of your own content. the system is broken. It needs rebooted, put our original copyright terms back with added explicit fair use rights, and painful penalties for erroneous takedowns.

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Re:Its not just the AI by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-06 20:35 · Score: 1

The internet and the information age changes all that, its economics that is based on abundance.
What makes you think it was the Internet that changed all that? The transition from hand-written documents to ones printed on the printing press was every bit as important. There were fights over artificial monopolies back then, too. If you look at Thomas Jefferson's letter to Isaac McPherson re: patents, it's clear that he understood the difference between economics based on scarcity and economics based on abundance, even if he didn't use the specific technical language that we would use to describe the situation today.
Re:Its not just the AI by confuscan · 2012-09-07 00:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is a perfect example of an arms race where one side has no governor (my hat tip to the earlier Jefferson reference). James succinctly described the rationale and process by which DCMA laws came into being. However, the fatal flaw is that DCMA enforces no penalty for excessive false positives. Consequently, as a content owner, it is in my best interest to take down first and ask (actually, they never ask) questions later. Businesses are driven to maximize the value of their product. Creating scarcity is a straightforward and easily understood concept. DCMA is just one more tool by which a business can achieve this goal.

That said, creating a monopoly was and is to a degree, another time-honoured tradition of creating scarcity and maximizing value. However, that was legislated as illegal. Likewise, there is an opportunity to amend DCMA and create a governor that addresses egregious false positive offenders. The penalties could be administrative, lose their privilege to use automated take downs (e.g., take away their toys) or even financial. Effectively, you would create a new line to quote James that balances the process.

Will this happen? Unlikely unless organizations with influence and money are consistently impacted by the current law. Other than the rare case as we've seen here, that has not happened and the status quo is likely to remain.

Unfortunately by NoobixCube · 2012-09-06 12:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unfortunately, this has only agitated people who already were against automated copyright filtering and DRM. It's like telling eskimos snow is cold. No, we'll have to wait until the MTV music awards are knocked offline by copyright bots before anybody who didn't already know about them gets wind of it.

--
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll

Re:Unfortunately by Chrontius · 2012-09-06 12:50 · Score: 1

Go post your idea (as a hypothetical, not a suggestion!) on 4chan. Then when 30,000 /b/tards, working independently, report the MTV music video awards as copyright infringement and it's automatically pulled by the googlebot
Re:Unfortunately by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-09-06 16:12 · Score: 1

or hypothetically file take downs for ALL political speeches for the rest of the election season, then it will hurt those in power. Those people WILL fix it then.

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.

Re:Use BitTorrent (with encryption) by HornWumpus · 2012-09-06 12:57 · Score: 1

PornTube.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

I'm waiting for Amanda Palmer to write a song by Drishmung · 2012-09-06 13:00 · Score: 1

I'm waiting for Amanda MacKinnon Gaiman Palmer to write a song about the incident. That would be cool. (I am assuming that Brad Hunstable, who by the way has deleted all the comments on his blog (at least one of them was vaguely supportive). would be less happy to have her turning her attention to him).

--
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.

Business Solution is Required by confuscan · 2012-09-06 13:04 · Score: 2

The fundamental problem with the current situation is that there is no "pain" (e.g., financial penalty) for these erroneous takedowns and that's the problem with DMCA. I wonder what the online world would look like if there was an equivalent "3 strikes" rule for false takedowns. After that, the escalating financial penalties kicked in, with damages going to the aggrieved party. Business understands money. Frame action and inaction in that context and business tends to behave in a predicable fashion, most of the time.

Re:Business Solution is Required by bws111 · 2012-09-06 14:27 · Score: 1

Surely the contract you signed with whoever is hosting your content states the penalties for failing to host your content, doesn't it? What's that, no contract? Well, maybe you can try a warrantee claim, and at least get back the money you paid them to host your content. What's that, you didn't pay them anything? And you actually expect them to somehow owe YOU something?? That is a good one.
The problem is not the DMCA, or that there is no "pain", the problem is that some people actually think they are entitiled to literally get something for nothing.
Yes, business understands money. And if you actually PAY them money for a service, they understand you better.

Law Enforcement Will Be Doing This Next by IonOtter · 2012-09-06 13:06 · Score: 1

Law enforcement in cities where protests are expected to take place, will pull out some of their internal training videos, then put them up on big screens around areas where they expect a protest.

Then, when a LiveStreamer catches some of that training video, the bots will automagically shut off the protester's live feed.

--
[End Of Line]

Re:Outrage!??? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-06 13:16 · Score: 1

Even if its child porn, they should first prove that they own the video before its taken down.

Lenz v. Universal by tepples · 2012-09-06 13:19 · Score: 4, Informative

media outlets could certainly make an argument that such automated "take downs" constitute an unfair burden and so are invalid.

And the legal theory on this could develop from Lenz v. Universal: a copyright owner's representative must consider fair use and other defenses in good faith before filing a notice of claimed infringement under OCILLA.

Re:Lenz v. Universal by tqk · 2012-09-07 09:57 · Score: 1

media outlets could certainly make an argument that such automated "take downs" constitute an unfair burden and so are invalid.
And the legal theory on this could develop from Lenz v. Universal: a copyright owner's representative must consider fair use and other defenses in good faith before filing a notice of claimed infringement under OCILLA.
I don't recognize "OCILLA" (sorry, I'm Canuckian), but I do have to point out this's the 21st Century. "Shoot first, ask questions later" is SOP. This century, everything works like accountants and bankers work. Allow anything, no matter how brain dead or stupid, then roll it back when/if the error's discovered later.
Just a "heads up." I don't make the rules. I tend not to even bother following them, and YMMV.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Re:Outrage!??? by Skapare · 2012-09-06 13:32 · Score: 2

The people who think THESE things are so important (and there should be a LOT of such people) need to do EVERYTHING they can to be sure the system works ABSOLUTELY CORRECTLY from here on out. Otherwise the internet WILL work around the flaw of these misprogrammed incompetent bots, and then their goals of blocking things like child porn will not be able to succeed. This is the dire warning they need to heed, and join in the effort to fix the seriously broken copyright enforcement system. ANY one of them that does not shout out against the RIAA and MPAA and others that are ruining things loses any right to expect the changes in the internet to consider their needs.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

Don't Fight the DMCA, Countersue by Carcass666 · 2012-09-06 13:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

The DMCA will probably never be overturned in the US, there is too much industry money behind it, and we know what feeds the political machine in the US.

If some third-party copyright trollbot interferes with the legitimate viewing of a webcast event, there has to be a law firm somewhere that, for the notoriety alone, would be willing to file a class action suit alleging damages of inconvenience and anguish on the behalf of thousands of viewers. Moreover, the broadcaster could sue for the costs of their broadcast that was interfered with. It costs real money to do a good quality webcast, trolls should be on the hook for diluting the value of a broadcaster's investment.

Re:Don't Fight the DMCA, Countersue by wbr1 · 2012-09-06 15:04 · Score: 1

Not when there is a one way facing no class-action arbitration clause in the terms of service we so blithely click on.

--
Silence is a state of mime.
Re:Don't Fight the DMCA, Countersue by denelson83 · 2012-09-06 19:16 · Score: 1

Which will provoke a violent revolution against the monolithic companies behind those trollbots.

Re:Outrage!??? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-06 13:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Takedowns have a legitimate purpose.

No, they seem to be abused time and time again. Go through the courts if you have an issue. You can't take shortcuts.

As an extreme example, what if it's child porn?

I like how people mention this as if it's self-evident. Honestly, not everyone has an irrational, insatiable desire to go after people who look at images or websites hosting them; some people would rather the actual perpetrators get caught.

But what does this have to do with takedown notices?

What if it's a bootleg of your favorite movie that just came out on DVD?

Why did you even mention this? Why would I care? Incidentally, ask a judge to order the content removed.

Not just fair use... by jnork · 2012-09-06 13:47 · Score: 1

Not just fair use, but they sought and received permission to use the clips. The use was specifically authorized.

--
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.

Re:Not just fair use... by azalin · 2012-09-06 19:49 · Score: 1

But they did kindly forget to tell ustream about that. Somewhat akin to getting license plates for your car and complaining the cops stopped you - even though you had the plates safely stored in the trunk.

The real news here is ... by imp · 2012-09-06 14:13 · Score: 1, Interesting

... skynet lives and it is testing its metal...

Re:The real news here is ... by IsmailAbuUgman · 2012-09-06 17:11 · Score: 1

in the case of skynet, I think that "testing it's metal" is an acceptable pun.

A.I. Taking matters into it's own digital hands by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-06 14:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is just a part of a much bigger problem, and that is who is responsible for the behaviour of rouge A.I.? Soon we'll have to face this problem head-on. With the military drones and robots being more and more autonomous, it's only a matter of time before DARPA comes up with the Terminator(TM), capable of autonomously deciding on the killshot. Then it's a matter of time before this machine makes a mistake killing a civilian or a war journalist and we'll find ourselves in the deepest legal shit humanity has faced since the Nuremberg Trials. You can't send a robot to prison, you can't charge it's maker, you can't lock up the author of the software. Yes, you CAN demand damages from the government/military but the crime still goes unpunished. So, should we grant the owners of such A.I.s a license to kill/threaten/arrest in autonomous nature and hope it doesn't turn ugly? And when it does, do we just say "shit happens, here's some money to make you feel better"?

I propose we make the people up-top personally responsible for such events. And there shall be peace on earth...

Accept only human-verified take-down requests? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-06 14:37 · Score: 1

Can companies legitimately accept only human made take-down requests?

Automated reply to takedown request ...
"We received this takedown request. Please call this number to vouch for its validity."

or

"We received this takedown request. Please go to this URL and enter the captcha requested to vouch for its validity."

Re:Accept only human-verified take-down requests? by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-09-06 16:16 · Score: 1

they would simply have some mechanical turk or equivalent call the number or read the captcha.

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.

The text on these takedowns by Punto · 2012-09-06 15:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

If I remember correctly, these take down notices have a section where the issuer of the notice swears "under penalty of perjury" that the information on the notice is correct. When it turns out to be incorrect (or even when it isn't but no human ever checks the results from the bot), is that actionable? In a civil court? What is "penalty of perjury" exactly?

--

--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

Re:The text on these takedowns by GrumblyStuff · 2012-09-06 18:03 · Score: 2

That's for corporations and rich people so they can lawyer bomb any peons who dare to use the system against them to highlight the ease of abuse of the DMCA.
Re:The text on these takedowns by MimeticLie · 2012-09-06 22:36 · Score: 1

At least one of them wasn't a takedown, though. The Hugo award thing was an automatic response during a streaming event. It's a thing Ustream does of its own initiative (probably requested/extorted by content holders, but still) to cut down on copyright infringement on its service. It would be hard to argue against it in court as well, considering this automatic filtering only applies to customers using the free version of Ustream's service. The only reasonable solution I see is for people to let Ustream know that this isn't okay and to stop using their service and anyone else who uses Vobile (justin.tv also does).
Re:The text on these takedowns by gl4ss · 2012-09-07 01:00 · Score: 1

At least one of them wasn't a takedown, though. The Hugo award thing was an automatic response during a streaming event. It's a thing Ustream does of its own initiative (probably requested/extorted by content holders, but still) to cut down on copyright infringement on its service. It would be hard to argue against it in court as well, considering this automatic filtering only applies to customers using the free version of Ustream's service. The only reasonable solution I see is for people to let Ustream know that this isn't okay and to stop using their service and anyone else who uses Vobile (justin.tv also does).
it would be very easy for hugo awards to sue ustream for libel though. they flat out said that the stream was copyright infringing.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:The text on these takedowns by bws111 · 2012-09-07 02:03 · Score: 1

There are no takedown notices involved. What is so hard to understand about that? These are services used by the hosting providers (YouTube, UStream, et al) themselves to help them determine what content they will and will not host. And guess what! They can refuse to host your content for any legal reason at all (including 'we just don't want to').
All of this babble about 'takedown noticies' and 'fair use' and such is just distraction. These actions have nothing to do with that, and are simply a business deciding what it will and will not offer.
Now, why would they do that? Well, most obviously, it shields them from the massive legal headaches and workload of dealing with copyrighted works. Probably equally important to them is it prevents anyone from making a claim that they have become a 'commons', and therefore have lost the ability to restrict what they host. This way that can show that they have rejected thousands and thousands of things over the years, for a variety of reasons (porn, copyrighted, etc) and thus are in no way a commons.
Re:The text on these takedowns by GuB-42 · 2012-09-07 02:08 · Score: 1

What is "penalty of perjury" exactly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
This notice means that if you lie, you are committing a crime, like for witnesses in court.

Not so bad by bigdavex · 2012-09-06 15:05 · Score: 1

I would support my son taking an iPhone-building internship. Foxconn conditions might suck, but I'm not fundamentally opposed to students doing physical work.

--
-Dave

Re:Not so bad by azalin · 2012-09-06 19:51 · Score: 1

wrong thread? http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/09/06/224253/chinese-students-say-they-are-being-forced-to-build-your-next-iphone

Re:Outrage!??? by fustakrakich · 2012-09-06 15:16 · Score: 2

People choose not to implement this robustness...

And that is exactly what we need to circumvent... We have to remove control from these people who think they know best. We have to create the proverbial 'dumb pipe' that remains transparent to all content, no matter how offensive one may feel about it. You don't control kiddie porn by censorship, you do it by treating the desire. Allowing people to have normal, healthy sex would be a good first step.Censorship has the opposite effect. Sexual depravity is usually a consequence of the puritan rules created principally by powerful religious groups and their subservient governments. Sexual deprivation will make people crazy, literally, and the the only result can be sexual perversion. Censorship is always evil and against our better interests. Takedowns have no legitimate purpose of any kind. There is no benefit to the society. Only its elites with their mad desire for domination can benefit.

As for the movies... fuck them. That discussion has already been hashed out.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Outrage!??? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-06 15:17 · Score: 1

How is child porn remotely relevant to copyright law? If you think it is then you are suggesting that creators of child porn should be able to enforce their copyright with takedown notices. I don't think that's very logical.

Border crossing has a similar problem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-06 15:30 · Score: 1

To cross some borders I need a visa for my wife. She has the right under EU law to cross the border, but the form you have to fill in online is restricted to very narrow conditions that prevent her ever submitting the application.

You can write or ring, but the letter is returned, with the reply that you must fill in the online form.

If you deliberately miss complete the form in order to get to the next page of it, then that is grounds to reject the visa! Thus by a simple algorithm on the form server, the computer defines your rights as narrower than they really are.

This is your future too, today you don't need a visa, but you certainly will need some form of ID, for which some online form will be required, for which a set of rules on valid entries into the fields will be defined, for which some rules will be laid down. Those rules will be your rights, regardless of what the law says.

Re:Use BitTorrent (with encryption) by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-09-06 15:37 · Score: 1

yeah I'm sure thats what the Hugo Awards want to associate themselves with, besides I think that even they have limits on what type of content is posted so as to insure that people find what they want there, aka porn only. The Hugo's would be best off hosting the stream on their own site on maybe something along the lines of a amazon ec2 instance so it can handel all of the requests.

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.

Re:Outrage!??? by 1u3hr · 2012-09-06 15:57 · Score: 2

Takedowns have a legitimate purpose. As an extreme example, what if it's child porn? What if it's a bootleg of your favorite movie that just came out on DVD?

The first case is nothing about copyright at all. It shouldn't be the same mechanism. Only a complete idiot would even try to put child porn on the open Internet now. It'd be like walking into an airport with a bomb vest. To suggest that it's somehow in the same category as streaming a Hollywood movie is really stupid and inflammatory, though I'm sure politicians and media companies would do so without blinking.

In any case, both cases would clearly be criminal acts so they should not be "taken down" by a bot but the relevant agency (probably FBI) should track down the source and prosecute, and blocking it might make that harder.

What's needed here by Logger · 2012-09-06 15:58 · Score: 1

What's needed here is to turn this technology against those who are currently wielding it.

Since newspapers are making false claims of copyright ownership over material, we need to somehow submit false claims. Primarily on political material. We need to politicians to be greatly inconvenienced by this. There's nothing like self interest to create change. But if you can take down all the videos on YouTube that have adds with this method, that might get some favorable change as well.

Geeta by King75 · 2012-09-06 18:03 · Score: 1

The DMCA will probably never be overturned in the US, there is too much industry money behind it, and we know what feeds the political machine in the US. If some third-party copyright trollbot interferes with the legitimate viewing of a webcast event, there has to be a law firm somewhere that, for the notoriety alone, would be willing to file a class action suit alleging damages of inconvenience and anguish on the behalf of thousands of viewers. Moreover, the broadcaster could sue for the costs of their broadcast that was interfered with. It costs real money to do a good quality webcast, trolls should be on the hook for diluting the value of a broadcaster's investment. http://www.bollywudfunda.com/2012/09/adaalat-kdpathak-fights-case-for-senior.html

Re:Outrage!??? by denelson83 · 2012-09-06 19:12 · Score: 1

Hasn't big media read Gilmore? "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it!"

Use spam bots to takedown everything by schwit1 · 2012-09-07 00:13 · Score: 1

How about if take-down notices from grandmas infected machine went to youtube for everything posted, legal or otherwise. Youtube either ignores all take-downs, complies with all of them or gets the law changed to make incorrect take-downs cost real money.

The other option is to only accept take-downs delivered by certified mail.

English needs a gender neutral pronoun. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-09-07 00:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

English language has shown remarkable tolerance in accepting foreign words. When the scripts agree it even accepts foreign words as spelled in the source language even if it messes up the pronunciation rules of English. Rendezvous, San Jose, are examples.

But why is there no attempt to borrow sentence construction and syntax from other languages when there is a clear benefit? So many languages have a gender neutral third person singular pronouns. For example Tamil has /avan/aval/avar/athu/ to mean /he/she/he or she/it/. Being Indian, I know Geeta is a typical Indian female name. But I cant tell a male first name from a female first name in many European, South American, Chinese and African cultures. And there are names used by both males and females in all languages. Gone with the wind had Ashley as a man's name. Agatha Christie wrote a whole mystery based on the idea Evelyn is a name used by both males and females. I think it was "Why didn't they ask Evans?" or Evil under the sun. Cant remember. There was an Indian MP by the name Kumari Anandan. Kumari with a short a is his home town used as first name. But with a long a, his first name translates as "Miss" in Hindi! He was assigned quarters along with female MPs and got routinely placed in railway sleeper coaches reserved for women!

English desperately needs a gender neutral third person singular pronoun. Time to coin a new word, something like "ce" to mean he or she. It could pronounced "see" half way between he and she.

Wish there is a bugzilla to file a ModReq on the English language.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact

Re:English needs a gender neutral pronoun. by tehcyder · 2012-09-07 01:47 · Score: 1

You can generally use "they" as a gender neutral pronoun.

e.g. "if someone wants to perform fellatio on me, they are welcome to as I'm not fussy" as opposed to "if someone wants to perform fellatio on me he, she, or it is welcome to as I'm not fussy".

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:English needs a gender neutral pronoun. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-09-07 02:42 · Score: 1

I looked up in Wiki. Looks like there have been many suggestions for a singular version of they. Thon (that one), ze, e, etc have been proposed in the past along with emasculating he to make it gender neutral.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact

Dem's get a taste of their own medicine by slacka · 2012-09-07 00:50 · Score: 1

Love it! Our leader's message blocked by a DCMA takedown, reminds me of a quote:
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."
-Abraham Lincoln

Cybermen by Jason+Levine · 2012-09-07 01:23 · Score: 1

Apparently the trigger was a brief clip from the Doctor Who episode itself

Having just watched the ending of Season 2 of Doctor Who ("Army of Ghosts" and "Doomsday"), it's clear who is behind these copyright bots: Cybermen!

"Copyright violation found! Delete! Delete! Delete!"

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.

Life imitates "Outer Limits" by seven+of+five · 2012-09-07 02:22 · Score: 1

We will control the horizontal.
We will control the vertical.

Re:A simple and effective solution by bws111 · 2012-09-07 03:17 · Score: 1

Oh get off your high horse. Vobile, Ustream, YouTube, et al are not copyright holders. They are not issuing 'false' anything. They are not making accusations. They are not breaking the law, or acting unethically. They are simply making business decisions on what content they want to host. That is their right. They don't need to explain their decisions to anyone. If you don't like the decisions they make, take the big bucks you are paying them to host your content elsewhere. Oh wait...

Re:A simple and effective solution by Travelsonic · 2012-09-07 10:50 · Score: 1

By allowing these bots to run as flawed as they are now, they're accessories, no way around it.

--
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot

Re:Outrage!??? by tqk · 2012-09-07 18:30 · Score: 1

Why the F do these 'bots' have the power to block this stuff in the first place?

Money. Moneeeeeeeeyy! MONEY!!!111

Is everyone so beaten to death by the Copyright Industry that this is all acceptable collateral damage without need for immediate and harsh punishment?

No. I boycott the crap out of everything related to this stuff. However, kind of like stirring entrails, I remain fascinated by the whole ugly, disgusting business. Making popcorn. :-)

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Re:Outrage!??? by tqk · 2012-09-07 18:51 · Score: 1

Who really cares if one particular video stream goes down temporarily ...

Scripps Howard does.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Slashdot Mirror

The Algorithmic Copyright Cops: Streaming Video's Robotic Overlords

145 of 194 comments (clear)