whether justified or not I'll leave for the tinfoil hat people to debate, that instead of a suspect becoming more suspect if they googled for e.g. "how to commit murder" after a murder was indeed committed and they were a suspect, the very act of "how to commit murder" MAKES one a suspect.
Oh, absolutely! That's why I use PNG where image quality is absolutely required, even if JPG saves much smaller normally - at the highest quality levels, it actually fares worse!
What I meant was within the context of supporting transparency - PNG supports nice multiple levels of transparency, which was a huge boon over GIF if you have to deal with transparency. Sadly, IE 6 and below didn't support it right, which made it less attractive. So the huge advantage there was basically nixed.
Though, there's no good reason not to use PNG with transparency anyway. There's a few hacks out there, including automatic ones (javascript iterating over all PNG images, replacing them in-line with new ones that use a directx display filter), that are perfecly safe to use. But the damage was already done, I daresay. Hopefully IE7 is slowly changing that, but if MS pushes this format enough.. bleh:|
assuming it's not some flashy UI, that is. In fact, try an average screenshot of slashdot. PNG should be smaller and lack nasty little bits at the edges of lines. The latter being the important part:)
you could store the RAW information in a proper RAW format (e.g. PFM) just fine, and read it out, and parse it with ease, etc. The same can't be said for all the camera manufacturers' proprietary different 'RAW' formats. There's a reason dcraw.c is a fairly big source file:)
That doesn't make it "RAW".. What you are referring to is storing the image sensor data, rather than the demosaic'd Bayer (or whatever) pattern. True enough - but they're still not storing that in a "RAW" format. A "RAW" format might be (say it stores it as 8 bytes *ick*) RGBGRGBGRGBGRGBG GRGBGRGBGRGBGRGB
etc. stored as just a bunch of bytes - and sans the linebreak. Then it's "RAW", so you can read it out with whatever can parse a binary, without having to resort to looking up how that data is stored, how to get it out, decrypting it (SONY), etc.
Don't confuse RAW storage with RAW information, if you will:)
Hasn't been updated in a good while, but contains plenty of nice information. The various bitdepth storages alone make it an 'interesting' format if nothing else - though I'm sticking with EXR.. just a shame that doesn't offer lossy compression much yet - but then.. that's not its' purpose.
"Everyone dissatisfied with JPG is already using RAW"?
I don't know where you're getting that statement from. Everybody dissatisfied with JPG - which I can only imagine stems from the fact that it is lossy compression - is either using: PNG - because it's common, free to use, etc. etc. EXR - because it'll allow you to store whatever the hell you want GIF - because it's ubiquitious and is free to use nowadays (not that too many people cared a few years ago)
'RAW' isn't used by anybody. 'RAW' does not exist. 'RAW' is a collective name for a shitload of formats by a smaller shitload of digital camera companies. And it is never "RAW".. it is never raw data.. it's compressed, stored integratedly or separately, encrypted or not (SONY, among other) and contains a bunch of camera data. The closest thing to a "RAW" format is, say, PFM (portable/pixel float map) or any other format that just stores every color(group) as a bunch of bytes in a long chunk with minimal to zero header/footer information whatsoever that you can only open if you know things like bitdepth and dimension. The closest thing to a unified 'RAW' format for cameras is Adobe's DNG (Digital Negative) - and that's finding slow (no?) adoption as it is. And the closest thing to a unified non-'RAW' format for cameras that isn't lossy compressed is TIFF. None of which you can toss on a website and make viewable in any of the major browsers without plugin installation (if even available!)
That said, I agree with all your other points, especially point 1. Microsoft should be kicked even when down for jumping on the HD bandwagon with a product (or format) that has nothing whatsoever to do with HD.
PNG is a replacement for GIF, if anything. JPG files are much smaller than PNG files for typical photographs (though can be smaller for line art and the like), which will always leave JPG as the favorite much like FLAC isn't replacing MP3 anytime soon. The alpha channel in PNG is absolutely a nice perk, but thanks to the dim people at Microsoft never supporting it right until IE7, there wasn't much benefit over using GIF files. (Even though PNG did bi-level transparency just as fine as GIF files - even better, you didn't lose 1 palette entry - but that as an aside.)
If you want a JPG replacement - a la OGG Vorbis over MP3 - try JPEG2000 or the lurawave stuff based on wavelets.
between: the Red Cross claiming Israel shot a missile into one of their ambulances and U.S. intelligence agencies being adamant about Iraq having WMD's to get enough support to launch an invasion there
I'd say things are just nicely balancing out.
Only shame is that Shame it's a balance of lies rather than truths. Welcome to the status quo of the world since 'civilization' started, though.
If a crime had been committed through their fault, rest assured that they -would- have been criminally liable. As it is, they have professional liability to worry about if this guy's tinkering did actually crash the plane or otherwise caused irrepairable damage or harm to any one person.
should the programmers be held 'liable' over an entertainment system going down? no should the guy be held 'liable'? no should he be slapped around because he full well knew something might happen and in his infinite curiosity, tried it, then sat back and smiled to himself? yes should the programmers fix the damn bug? hell yes
...by your findings - all it does is erase itself? Oh no! the shock and horror!
"But what if a user placed some important documents in that folder?" rofl.
People. Come on. This is a $17 app. Yes, deleting files (even if they're the pirated files in question) might be questionable or downright illegal - but copyright infringement is illegal, period. Copyright infringement on a $17 shareware application.. well.
Maybe the author could detect the bad keys and instead of just going nuts from the get-go, make the application display: " You are about to attempt to register this product using a pirated key. Please note that if you continue, not only will this application remain unregistered, but it will delete itself from your system and various details about your computer submitted to the [company name] servers for further review. You must read and agree to the above terms to continue. [ ] I have read the above terms. [ ] I agree to the above terms. Continue? [Yes] [No] "
If the pirate in question is not only silly but downright stupid and marks the checkbox and hits Yes, I'd say carry on.
shhh... quit confusing the conspiracy theorists with things that are logical.
It wouldn't surprise me if a similar policy exists for sites that are put entirely behind passwords, such as the site involved here: www.iowaconsumercase.org .
sure, it wasn't critical - and I'd hate to have him get on a no-fly list or get fined or be banned from that airline.. or whatever.
But this isn't just some kid accidentally hitting that remote, changing things to 5, then playing.. or then realizing they can hit up a few more times.. and then playing.
This guy actually knew, in his mind, what was going on.. Not only that... at the point where things would go wrong, he actually paused, sat back, made the change that might make things go wrong and enjoyed the half-expected result.
That's intent, right there. If nothing else, he should be slapped around for making the rest of the cabin annoyed because their in-flight entertainment was interrupted for no good reason whatsoever - causing a flight attendant to be occupied with a task he/she should not have been occupied with, etc. etc.
If this guy wants to have fun with mucking about with systems, have him get his own in-flight entertainment system, or apply for a job at a place that makes these things / the software:P
That said.. yay that he found the bug.. I hope they fixed it now.
I sure hope that the 'interesting' moderation is because 'funny' doesn't get you karma. There's nothing interesting about a google fight between a product that supposedly has been available for years but has gotten little attention, and a product that got more press coverage than the O.J. case relatively recently.
Here's a much simpler solution: Did anybody use the term iPhone for a product in the voice telecommunications business before? If so - let them have it. If they didn't file for it. Fine - nobody gets the trademark. And everybody still gets to use it if they so wish.. they just don't get to add a fancy ^tm or (R) next to it and "iPhone is a (registered) trademark of..." at the bottom of all their advertising crap.
what's so awesome? read their terms
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"To comply with any applicable laws, government rules or requirements, subpoenas, court orders or requests of law enforcement" If they really wanted, they could probably subpoena this registrant for the information.. to the next one in the chain.
As the sibling poster points out - a grand jury can't convict you... a grand jury is only there to see if there even -is- enough evidence available to go to trial. Sure, it sucks.. sure, in most cases it is a mere formality (getting a preliminary hearing is much more useful, imho), but in the end it is not the trial, it's not the same jury that would be at the trial, etc.
aw shoot. Why does posting in "Plain Old Text" cause stuff between that thing that points to the left and that thing that points to the right get eaten?
What I meant all over the place there was... <illegal stuff>
( pst. Slashdot. parsing < and > is NOT plain old text! If I wanted that, I'd pick "HTML Formatted"! )
...as well. You know, that whole disclosing one's evidence in the case to the other party so that they have time to review it, etc. etc. often exploited in TV series and movies by the prosecution/defense suddenly coming up with new evidence and the other party going "Objection! Your honor, we were not made aware of this new evidence" and the first party going "we only just got it - the other party is welcome to review it now." after which the other party either backs down or goes for it and the judge calls for a 5 minute recess blablabla.
Anyway. Point is - the defense, whoever that would be, would be able to show all those other parts of the video or the entire viewo or the parts of they video that THEY think will help their case best. If both parties do that - or, better yet, the entire video is shown - then I see nothing wrong with this whatsoever except that the human mind is fickle and negative first impression may stick around more than whatever the defense would be able to show to shed a new light on the events shown. But that's the jury/judge's human shortcomings that they are supposed to ignore and shouldn't have anything to do with the presentation of evidence.
Let's say you repair a guy's computer and you notice that there's on there. Not only is there on there, you can tell that it's on there because he's using it to seed his distribution network. Not only that, but you realize that he has a fair amount of subscribers and gets a good portion of revenue from having said . Now you strike a deal with him - you'll tell him that if he purchases that shiny new server, he can serve even more customers... and you'll take, say, 1%.
You knew about the , and you knowingly, willingly, wantingly helped with the in order to increase your own revenue.
The question is whether -that- is something you should be held accountable for.
Obviously, if you didn't know about , and just told him to get a new server because his current one is hopelessly outdated, and still take that 1%, then that's just business as usual.
Obviously your scenario is not comparable because you don't get to take %'s of revenue from your customers just for repairing their machine, which makes me wonder why you even proffered it - but there you go;)
So... the real question is.. did Google know that the sites were primarily, of not exclusively, for ? If they did, and still assigned that manager (or that manager found out, etc.), and still told them how to increase their ad revenue for the obvious reason that it would increase Google's revenue, then Google deserves to be slapped around a bit with a large trout.. and possibly fines/lawsuits, depending on jurisdiction, applicable laws, etc.
"It remains to be seen whether Netscape will reverse the disastrous decision to include the Internet Explorer rendering engine as an alternative to Gecko" Hold on... what exactly whas so disastrous about that? If I'm not mistaken, you got the choice of using either the Gecko or the IE rendering engine. What exactly is so disastrous about that? I thought we were supposed to be all -for- choice?
"a version of their browser that enhances the awesomeness of Firefox, rather than distracts from it?" I'm not sure if the poster really meant "distracts" there.. it is quite apt, given what a gizmo-ridden POS Netscape is these days.. but I suspect they meant "detract".
"His poor judgement was telling a bully his fly was open and not thinking the bully would blame him for it."
Except that said analogy is more wrong than car analogies. But seeing as you created it...
This was more along the lines of this guy taking a piss into said bully's open fly. Then the bully obviously realizes that there's piss in his underpants, and he sure didn't put it there, so he ponders what went on.. realizes his fly was open, then traces back past events until he realizes that it was a kid who pissed through his open fly. Then once the bully zipped up his fly, the kid added insult to injury by disclosing exactly how it was done to the world.
Suddenly, the bully doesn't sound like much of a bully anymore, does he?
...the moderators are on crack and think that if a company makes a product that is easy to copy (and most intangible things are), then they shouldn't complain when users do exactly that. Put differently.. they are confusing the fact that it -is- easy to copy with the company having the -intent- of having users copy it. There is no such intent - so yes, they are completely right to complain when people do so. Whether that is wise or not is a completely different discussion.
1. take down a video when a copyright holder asks them to 2. slap the user who uploaded it around a bit 3. make sure that the same exact video can't be uploaded again 4. at least attempt to make sure that the same video, but say at a different resolution, slightly different compression, whatever... can't be uploaded again.
As it is now, videos are automatically placed on YouTube.. this is a zero effort issue. However, to have it removed, you have to fill in their forms, you have to contact them directly in case they're not being very responsive. Then 2 hours later, you get to do it all over again because the user simply re-uploaded it - and 2 hours later again because another user uploaded it, and 4 hours later again because somebody uploaded a slightly different version of it.
If Google can't 'police them' where appropriate, then Google should not be in the business of free-for-all video uploads while claiming that they can.
Slashdot Mirror
whether justified or not I'll leave for the tinfoil hat people to debate, that instead of a suspect becoming more suspect if they googled for e.g. "how to commit murder" after a murder was indeed committed and they were a suspect, the very act of "how to commit murder" MAKES one a suspect.
3 62637
E.g. like this poster, wondering if googling about explosives will get him some extra attention at the border : http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=226677&cid=18
Oh, absolutely! That's why I use PNG where image quality is absolutely required, even if JPG saves much smaller normally - at the highest quality levels, it actually fares worse!
:|
What I meant was within the context of supporting transparency - PNG supports nice multiple levels of transparency, which was a huge boon over GIF if you have to deal with transparency. Sadly, IE 6 and below didn't support it right, which made it less attractive. So the huge advantage there was basically nixed.
Though, there's no good reason not to use PNG with transparency anyway. There's a few hacks out there, including automatic ones (javascript iterating over all PNG images, replacing them in-line with new ones that use a directx display filter), that are perfecly safe to use. But the damage was already done, I daresay. Hopefully IE7 is slowly changing that, but if MS pushes this format enough.. bleh
assuming it's not some flashy UI, that is. In fact, try an average screenshot of slashdot. PNG should be smaller and lack nasty little bits at the edges of lines. The latter being the important part :)
you could store the RAW information in a proper RAW format (e.g. PFM) just fine, and read it out, and parse it with ease, etc. The same can't be said for all the camera manufacturers' proprietary different 'RAW' formats. There's a reason dcraw.c is a fairly big source file :)
That doesn't make it "RAW".. What you are referring to is storing the image sensor data, rather than the demosaic'd Bayer (or whatever) pattern. True enough - but they're still not storing that in a "RAW" format. A "RAW" format might be (say it stores it as 8 bytes *ick*)
:)
RGBGRGBGRGBGRGBG
GRGBGRGBGRGBGRGB
etc. stored as just a bunch of bytes - and sans the linebreak. Then it's "RAW", so you can read it out with whatever can parse a binary, without having to resort to looking up how that data is stored, how to get it out, decrypting it (SONY), etc.
Don't confuse RAW storage with RAW information, if you will
For more information on 'HD Photo' (damn I hate that name), check the blog at:
http://blogs.msdn.com/billcrow/
Hasn't been updated in a good while, but contains plenty of nice information. The various bitdepth storages alone make it an 'interesting' format if nothing else - though I'm sticking with EXR.. just a shame that doesn't offer lossy compression much yet - but then.. that's not its' purpose.
"Everyone dissatisfied with JPG is already using RAW"?
I don't know where you're getting that statement from. Everybody dissatisfied with JPG - which I can only imagine stems from the fact that it is lossy compression - is either using:
PNG - because it's common, free to use, etc. etc.
EXR - because it'll allow you to store whatever the hell you want
GIF - because it's ubiquitious and is free to use nowadays (not that too many people cared a few years ago)
'RAW' isn't used by anybody. 'RAW' does not exist. 'RAW' is a collective name for a shitload of formats by a smaller shitload of digital camera companies. And it is never "RAW".. it is never raw data.. it's compressed, stored integratedly or separately, encrypted or not (SONY, among other) and contains a bunch of camera data. The closest thing to a "RAW" format is, say, PFM (portable/pixel float map) or any other format that just stores every color(group) as a bunch of bytes in a long chunk with minimal to zero header/footer information whatsoever that you can only open if you know things like bitdepth and dimension. The closest thing to a unified 'RAW' format for cameras is Adobe's DNG (Digital Negative) - and that's finding slow (no?) adoption as it is. And the closest thing to a unified non-'RAW' format for cameras that isn't lossy compressed is TIFF. None of which you can toss on a website and make viewable in any of the major browsers without plugin installation (if even available!)
That said, I agree with all your other points, especially point 1. Microsoft should be kicked even when down for jumping on the HD bandwagon with a product (or format) that has nothing whatsoever to do with HD.
PNG is a replacement for GIF, if anything. JPG files are much smaller than PNG files for typical photographs (though can be smaller for line art and the like), which will always leave JPG as the favorite much like FLAC isn't replacing MP3 anytime soon. The alpha channel in PNG is absolutely a nice perk, but thanks to the dim people at Microsoft never supporting it right until IE7, there wasn't much benefit over using GIF files. (Even though PNG did bi-level transparency just as fine as GIF files - even better, you didn't lose 1 palette entry - but that as an aside.)
If you want a JPG replacement - a la OGG Vorbis over MP3 - try JPEG2000 or the lurawave stuff based on wavelets.
between:
the Red Cross claiming Israel shot a missile into one of their ambulances
and
U.S. intelligence agencies being adamant about Iraq having WMD's to get enough support to launch an invasion there
I'd say things are just nicely balancing out.
Only shame is that Shame it's a balance of lies rather than truths. Welcome to the status quo of the world since 'civilization' started, though.
Should you get fired from your cashiers job just because you got fined for speeding?
sure, kidnapping is a more serious event, but the two are just as much unrelated.
That said... I'm pretty sure that NASA doesn't allow anybody with a criminal record on their astronaut staff, and so wouldn't have a choice.
If a crime had been committed through their fault, rest assured that they -would- have been criminally liable. As it is, they have professional liability to worry about if this guy's tinkering did actually crash the plane or otherwise caused irrepairable damage or harm to any one person.
should the programmers be held 'liable' over an entertainment system going down? no
should the guy be held 'liable'? no
should he be slapped around because he full well knew something might happen and in his infinite curiosity, tried it, then sat back and smiled to himself? yes
should the programmers fix the damn bug? hell yes
...by your findings - all it does is erase itself? Oh no! the shock and horror!
"But what if a user placed some important documents in that folder?"
rofl.
People. Come on. This is a $17 app. Yes, deleting files (even if they're the pirated files in question) might be questionable or downright illegal - but copyright infringement is illegal, period. Copyright infringement on a $17 shareware application.. well.
Maybe the author could detect the bad keys and instead of just going nuts from the get-go, make the application display:
"
You are about to attempt to register this product using a pirated key. Please note that if you continue, not only will this application remain unregistered, but it will delete itself from your system and various details about your computer submitted to the [company name] servers for further review.
You must read and agree to the above terms to continue.
[ ] I have read the above terms.
[ ] I agree to the above terms.
Continue? [Yes] [No]
"
If the pirate in question is not only silly but downright stupid and marks the checkbox and hits Yes, I'd say carry on.
shhh... quit confusing the conspiracy theorists with things that are logical.
It wouldn't surprise me if a similar policy exists for sites that are put entirely behind passwords, such as the site involved here: www.iowaconsumercase.org .
sure, it wasn't critical - and I'd hate to have him get on a no-fly list or get fined or be banned from that airline.. or whatever.
:P
But this isn't just some kid accidentally hitting that remote, changing things to 5, then playing.. or then realizing they can hit up a few more times.. and then playing.
This guy actually knew, in his mind, what was going on.. Not only that... at the point where things would go wrong, he actually paused, sat back, made the change that might make things go wrong and enjoyed the half-expected result.
That's intent, right there. If nothing else, he should be slapped around for making the rest of the cabin annoyed because their in-flight entertainment was interrupted for no good reason whatsoever - causing a flight attendant to be occupied with a task he/she should not have been occupied with, etc. etc.
If this guy wants to have fun with mucking about with systems, have him get his own in-flight entertainment system, or apply for a job at a place that makes these things / the software
That said.. yay that he found the bug.. I hope they fixed it now.
I sure hope that the 'interesting' moderation is because 'funny' doesn't get you karma. There's nothing interesting about a google fight between a product that supposedly has been available for years but has gotten little attention, and a product that got more press coverage than the O.J. case relatively recently.
..." at the bottom of all their advertising crap.
Here's a much simpler solution:
Did anybody use the term iPhone for a product in the voice telecommunications business before? If so - let them have it. If they didn't file for it. Fine - nobody gets the trademark. And everybody still gets to use it if they so wish.. they just don't get to add a fancy ^tm or (R) next to it and "iPhone is a (registered) trademark of
"To comply with any applicable laws, government rules or requirements, subpoenas, court orders or requests of law enforcement"
If they really wanted, they could probably subpoena this registrant for the information.. to the next one in the chain.
As the sibling poster points out - a grand jury can't convict you... a grand jury is only there to see if there even -is- enough evidence available to go to trial. Sure, it sucks.. sure, in most cases it is a mere formality (getting a preliminary hearing is much more useful, imho), but in the end it is not the trial, it's not the same jury that would be at the trial, etc.
aw shoot. Why does posting in "Plain Old Text" cause stuff between that thing that points to the left and that thing that points to the right get eaten?
What I meant all over the place there was...
<illegal stuff>
( pst. Slashdot. parsing < and > is NOT plain old text! If I wanted that, I'd pick "HTML Formatted"! )
...as well. You know, that whole disclosing one's evidence in the case to the other party so that they have time to review it, etc. etc. often exploited in TV series and movies by the prosecution/defense suddenly coming up with new evidence and the other party going "Objection! Your honor, we were not made aware of this new evidence" and the first party going "we only just got it - the other party is welcome to review it now." after which the other party either backs down or goes for it and the judge calls for a 5 minute recess blablabla.
Anyway. Point is - the defense, whoever that would be, would be able to show all those other parts of the video or the entire viewo or the parts of they video that THEY think will help their case best. If both parties do that - or, better yet, the entire video is shown - then I see nothing wrong with this whatsoever except that the human mind is fickle and negative first impression may stick around more than whatever the defense would be able to show to shed a new light on the events shown. But that's the jury/judge's human shortcomings that they are supposed to ignore and shouldn't have anything to do with the presentation of evidence.
Kick Vote: BlueCollarCamel
:P
Vote by: Animaether
Reason: rofl he's gay!
Hit F10 to kick, F11 to ignore
*watches the crowd hit F10 in knee-jerk reaction to any vote, or simply because they agree that you're gay*
Yeah... those vote kick/ban mechanisms work *so* well.
Seriously, they would need meta-moderation of not only those who suggest the kick, but also those who hit F10 on anything.
* note: Not saying you're gay, but that seems to be a wildly popular reason in most online games where there's a kick vote mechanism
To put it to your business...
;)
Let's say you repair a guy's computer and you notice that there's on there. Not only is there on there, you can tell that it's on there because he's using it to seed his distribution network. Not only that, but you realize that he has a fair amount of subscribers and gets a good portion of revenue from having said . Now you strike a deal with him - you'll tell him that if he purchases that shiny new server, he can serve even more customers... and you'll take, say, 1%.
You knew about the , and you knowingly, willingly, wantingly helped with the in order to increase your own revenue.
The question is whether -that- is something you should be held accountable for.
Obviously, if you didn't know about , and just told him to get a new server because his current one is hopelessly outdated, and still take that 1%, then that's just business as usual.
Obviously your scenario is not comparable because you don't get to take %'s of revenue from your customers just for repairing their machine, which makes me wonder why you even proffered it - but there you go
So... the real question is.. did Google know that the sites were primarily, of not exclusively, for ? If they did, and still assigned that manager (or that manager found out, etc.), and still told them how to increase their ad revenue for the obvious reason that it would increase Google's revenue, then Google deserves to be slapped around a bit with a large trout.. and possibly fines/lawsuits, depending on jurisdiction, applicable laws, etc.
"It remains to be seen whether Netscape will reverse the disastrous decision to include the Internet Explorer rendering engine as an alternative to Gecko"
Hold on... what exactly whas so disastrous about that? If I'm not mistaken, you got the choice of using either the Gecko or the IE rendering engine. What exactly is so disastrous about that? I thought we were supposed to be all -for- choice?
"a version of their browser that enhances the awesomeness of Firefox, rather than distracts from it?"
I'm not sure if the poster really meant "distracts" there.. it is quite apt, given what a gizmo-ridden POS Netscape is these days.. but I suspect they meant "detract".
"His poor judgement was telling a bully his fly was open and not thinking the bully would blame him for it."
Except that said analogy is more wrong than car analogies. But seeing as you created it...
This was more along the lines of this guy taking a piss into said bully's open fly. Then the bully obviously realizes that there's piss in his underpants, and he sure didn't put it there, so he ponders what went on.. realizes his fly was open, then traces back past events until he realizes that it was a kid who pissed through his open fly. Then once the bully zipped up his fly, the kid added insult to injury by disclosing exactly how it was done to the world.
Suddenly, the bully doesn't sound like much of a bully anymore, does he?
...the moderators are on crack and think that if a company makes a product that is easy to copy (and most intangible things are), then they shouldn't complain when users do exactly that. Put differently.. they are confusing the fact that it -is- easy to copy with the company having the -intent- of having users copy it. There is no such intent - so yes, they are completely right to complain when people do so. Whether that is wise or not is a completely different discussion.
Note: supposed to, not required by law...
1. take down a video when a copyright holder asks them to
2. slap the user who uploaded it around a bit
3. make sure that the same exact video can't be uploaded again
4. at least attempt to make sure that the same video, but say at a different resolution, slightly different compression, whatever... can't be uploaded again.
As it is now, videos are automatically placed on YouTube.. this is a zero effort issue. However, to have it removed, you have to fill in their forms, you have to contact them directly in case they're not being very responsive. Then 2 hours later, you get to do it all over again because the user simply re-uploaded it - and 2 hours later again because another user uploaded it, and 4 hours later again because somebody uploaded a slightly different version of it.
If Google can't 'police them' where appropriate, then Google should not be in the business of free-for-all video uploads while claiming that they can.