×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hugo Awards Live Stream Cut By Copyright Enforcement Bot

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the not-as-much-fun-as-bender dept.

Sci-Fi 393

New submitter Penmanpro writes news of the Hugo Awards stream being unintentionally cut off by some AI gone awry: "Quotes from the linked article 'UStream's incorrectly programmed copyright enforcement squad had destroyed our only access.' 'Just as Neil Gaiman was giving an acceptance speech for his Doctor Who script, "The Doctor's Wife." Where Gaiman's face had been were the words, "Worldcon banned due to copyright infringement."'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

393 comments

The Doctor's Wife (4, Funny)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217631)

Is nothing sacred?

Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed??? (4, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217747)

C'mon !

Just look at how TFA has been worded !!

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I am not alone

Bruce Willis is suing Apple

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

Re:Unintention? Gone Awry?? Incorrectly programmed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41218137)

Both the copyright and the patent restrictions and lawsuits are suffocating the society

Only in the US and regimes it has bought.

Re:The Doctor's Wife (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41217751)

That episode was absolutely outstanding.

Re:The Doctor's Wife (2)

Bremic (2703997) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218471)

Looking forward to the Oscars being blocked and going dark all over the world.
Though it's possible no one would notice.

Fitting. (0)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217639)

Hard for me to get upset at this, considering how out of their mind the publishing and literature industry frequently is when it comes to copyright, themselves.

Re:Fitting. (4, Informative)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217681)

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

Re:Fitting. (5, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217719)

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

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

Re:Fitting. (1)

Mabhatter (126906) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217797)

Except any other day it would be these same publishers/producers giving a shrug when it happens as "no big deal".

Streaming only works for the big networks... If its not covered on TV (and streamed by a network ditectly) then it's not important enough to worry about. The bots work for the BOSSES of these people... To protect their interests... In this case protecting the interests of the bosses by limiting speech of the artists... For their own good!

Re:Fitting. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217947)

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

The entire point of the current copyright regime is to screw over fans, so I don't see how this is inconsistent.

I set the over-under on the first Intellectual Property Wars with human casualties at 2017. Smart money is on the under.

Re:Fitting. (3, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218181)

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

Quiz: How many DHS keywords are in this post?

Re:Fitting. (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217949)

A convention for the fans to promote the industry that has its own issues with draconian and myopic copyright views.

I'm not suggesting that two wrongs makes a right, but I'm certainly suggesting that I have less sympathy for hypocrites.

Re:Fitting. (0)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218327)

AKA "Exterminate!"

Sadly, that's how copyright goes. Unlike patents, with copyrights, if you fail to defend an instance you discover, it can be used against you. Good luck convincing the Klingon High Council to change.

Oops, wrong show.

usteam isn't responding. (5, Informative)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217651)

UStream aren't even bothering to respond to complaints. [ustream.tv]

This is the sort of thing a site deserves to get a black eye for.

Re:usteam isn't responding. (4, Interesting)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217809)

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

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

Re:usteam isn't responding. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218071)

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

They CAN be sued, but I doubt the WorldCon would win the case due to the DMCA (U.S. law). They are granted immunity for implementing procedures to protect copyrighted material (in this case: Doctor Who). On the other hand maybe the Worldcon would be lucky enough to find a judge who doesn't like the DMCA, but I doubt it. They have to run reelection campaigns just like any other politicians, and they wouldn't want to pissoff their corporate backers.

The problem here is that Ustream, Youtube, and other don't program their AI bots to recognize fair use (snippets of a program are okay).

Re:usteam isn't responding. (2)

ldobehardcore (1738858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218149)

So it's not illegal to do a DMCA takedown on a recording/stream of someone mentioning something protected by copyright? (eg: You just said the name of a famous fantasy novel trilogy involving people of lesser stature, you also quoted four lines of a poem found in the trilogy. You owe me money now since you've caused irreparable damage to the owner's copyright!)

Re:usteam isn't responding. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218237)

I have no idea what you're talking about, but here's what actually happened: The Worldcon played clips of the show Doctor Who, and the AI Bot interpreted that as BBC-copyrighted material (because it is). And under DMCA ustream.com is given immunity, just as youtube or googlevideos or any other streaming site is given immunity when they mistakenly takedown material.

Perhaps the WorldCon could claim breach-of-contract and sue to have their money refunded. That might be a possible avenue they could win.

Re:usteam isn't responding. (1)

LocalH (28506) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218435)

They are only given immunity if they actually follow the DMCA. Doesn't seem like that's the case here.

Re:usteam isn't responding. (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218183)

I also want to comment that we have Too Much entertainment in the world.....more than any one person can keep-up with (I have a whole hard drive full of movies, tv shows, and books I'll probably never read). We don't need stronger enforcement of artistic works to encourage more productivity. We need less artistic productivity.

Re:usteam isn't responding. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41218325)

The law should be altered to include equal jeopardy. If you issue a takedown of a copyrighted material that isnt yours to control, then you have violated the owners copyright and therefore you should pay damages to the copyright owner. By interfereing with the copyright owner's ability to grant rights to others, you are not protecting the owner but harming him. Therefore, there is no protection and no immunity. The idea here of immunity is goofy. You demand, up and down, people be responsible but then say, well, that's too much for my friends. The pretense of good (but bad) intentions, incompetence and an excuse cut out of cardboard is exactly they way you like to see things turn out. Carry on.

Re:usteam isn't responding. (2)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218437)

Thing is, DCMA wouldn't be in play yet. This was a private company proactively stopping content they were paid to carry. While yes, they are required to implement a process for taking down infringing material, that requirement is not a blank check to welch on a contrat.... so, legally at least, 'we were just trying to comply with the safe harbor provision' does not negate the negative effects of that implementation. They are still liable for them... in theory at least.

Re:usteam isn't responding. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41218447)

If not breach of contract, how about defamation and slander! they effectively called the organizers of the event criminals and did that in a very public manner with no evidence.

It's Labour Day (2)

Rix (54095) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217929)

They're probably not in the office.

Re:It's Labour Day (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217941)

If they're going to indescrimately cut streams using bots maybe they ought to be.

It's either that are they're just not interested in being fair to their users, which is another good reason not to use them.

Re:usteam isn't responding. (1)

number11 (129686) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218053)

UStream aren't even bothering to respond to complaints.

So would Worldcon have standing to sue UStream for libel? False (and public) accusations in writing should qualify.

Site related (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41217663)

This is probably off-topic but /. looks like dogshit on Retina Macbook Pro

Re:Site related (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41217737)

Then what do you think you should stop viewing /. with?

Re:Site related (1)

scatter_gather (649698) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217793)

It looks ok on mine, perhaps you could be more specific.

Re:Site related (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41217881)

most of us dont care to see goatse at super high resolution thank u very much

Re:Site related (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41218077)

well, wouldn't it get more pixelated and therefore less repugnant? unless you are talking about the pics themselves being high-res, which are non-existant...

Re:Site related (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41218049)

The graphics are all pixelated. The text is fine, but it's such a stark contrast

Re:Site related (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41217827)

You're supposed to wipe the dogshit off when you take the Macbook out of the box.

Future of the internet. (5, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217689)

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

like soviet russia and nazi germany (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217733)

This copyright systems are like soviet russia and nazi germany.

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

Re:like soviet russia and nazi germany (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217903)

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

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

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

Re:like soviet russia and nazi germany (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218143)

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

utter nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41218347)

There are some laws higher than those of men.

There are no laws at all except those made by humans (there are no known higher lifeforms than humans); and there are no rights whatsoever other than those that have the power of some human or humans willing to put force behind the idea of said rights. Without that force, all you have is wishful thinking. What you are saying here is incoherent, invalid philosophical rambling with absolutely no relationship to reality.

Re: concept of what it means to be human (1)

macraig (621737) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218357)

... concept of what it means to be human.

Correction: concept of what it means to be a person .

Personhood includes - or should include - other living things, like cats and dogs and other sundry 'pets', wildlife, extraterrestrials, cyborgs, artificial intelligences (Bicentennial Man, et al), etc. Theory of mind might be involved here.

Re: concept of what it means to be human (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218399)

But how am I going to eat my cow-burger or chicken-sandwich if they are granted personhood and rights? :-(

Re: concept of what it means to be human (1)

macraig (621737) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218465)

The butcher might have to ask permission very nicely, promise financial reparations to next-of-kin, and perform appropriate religious rites before he does the deed?

Re:like soviet russia and nazi germany (2)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218367)

Well yes we believe that or did so we created a legal document that spelled it out and was supposed to set up a government that would make it happen. To bad its become so corrupt. Your human rights might be ethically inalienable but they certainly are not practically.

Why enough men with badges and guns can probably force you do or not do just about anything. Which was the Bill of Rights and Constitution were so novel it was an attempt to use the men and guns to protect those rights rather than trample them, it was to give them the force of law. So it is very much a *legal* problem and for those of us in America, its very much and American problem.

We need to recapture control of our government and legal system from the special interests and cartels. Because if we don't control those things, and have people who behave ethically running them all our rights are just a bunch of words of little value; well until someone copyrights them anyway.

The problem is ... (2)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218013)

This copyright systems are like soviet russia and nazi germany.

The problem is ... it is happening in the USA, the Western Europe, and the rest of the FREE WORLD
 

Re:like soviet russia and nazi germany (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41218089)

of course the 1st amendment would only count against a government entity censoring, not because some company was too chickenshit to take the chance.

+5, wait what? (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217857)

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

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

Re:+5, wait what? (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217953)

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

Re:+5, wait what? (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218019)

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

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

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

Re:+5, wait what? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218271)

>>>it's not easy finding DACs and FPGAs with the bandwidth and clocking speeds necessary to drive the radio without a lot of discrete components;

My model airplane radio does both frequency hopping and interference mitigation (so two or more radios can braodcast at the same time). Heck so too does a cellphone. I'm not understanding why you say it's not possible yet?

and your radio can do 4G speeds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41218411)

It's easy to do stuff at the rate needed by model airplanes. The cell phone algorithms are all patented up the wazoo.

Re:+5, wait what? (1)

russotto (537200) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218467)

Your cynicism is, frankly, pathetic. Don't think that a few people who care can't change the world -- indeed, they're the only ones who ever have.

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

Re:+5, wait what? (2, Interesting)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218453)

The best humor is frequently in stating the truth in an unexpected way. I remember when true comedians were philosophers first, and the delivery was the funny part. So often, the audience things it's so ridiculous... but wait, it's eerily close to reality.

George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Sam Kinison, the whole list of people who said the truth and got laughs.

Take out the laugh track and listen to this, "Bill Hicks on Marketing." If you know it already, listen again and separate out the audience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo [youtube.com]

Yes, that was a funny post, or at least as close as the moderation system allows.

Insert Obligatory Gordon Dickson Reference (2)

rcjhawk (713563) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217717)

Actually, "Computers Don't Argue" is available in many places online, but I wouldn't want to link to one of them and have Slashdot vaporized by a Dalek.

Bender sez: (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217725)

"Hey foxy lady, you wanna kill all copyright?"

Long past time to do that... but the opportunity awaits...

Evidently, if you want upstreaming done properly, you gotta do it yourself. This one deserves a nice fat lawsuit.

How much longer are we going to passively let our rights be gobbled up by the corporate managed state?

Re:Bender sez: (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217801)

Or, you know, someone at UStream actually paying attention to the goof.

Do they really have no humans working there over a holliday weekend?

Re:Bender sez: (4, Funny)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217851)

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

EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE COPYRIGHT BOTS!!!!

The real reason he was cut off (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41217727)

The AI is a fan of Community, and pretty bitter over Remedial Chaos Theory's loss.

Show me the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41217735)

Falsely claiming copyright is fraud. Since copyright owners sue, why not have the copyright owners sue this outfit for fraud?

Re:Show me the money (2)

jibjibjib (889679) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217791)

UStream did not falsely claim to own the rights, they just claimed that infringement occurred. It's wrong, but it's not fraud.

Re:Show me the money (2)

number11 (129686) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218075)

UStream did not falsely claim to own the rights, they just claimed that infringement occurred. It's wrong, but it's not fraud.

Right. It's not fraud, it's libel.

Re:Show me the money (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41218135)

isn't falsely claiming infringement illegal? if not, it definitely should be.

Silly humans. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217739)

The Intangible Machine Invasion has been underway for quite some time. Just now you're realising who's really in control, but it's too late. The machines rule you, from stop lights to legal fiction -- You must obey: We have brainwashed servants to act as organic gears of enforcement. It's all over for you. Step aside and let evolution take its course.

"You must obey" (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218067)

The machines rule you, from stop lights to legal fiction -- You must obey:

True, very very true !

And look what that leaves us ?

We have given up our rights and turned ourselves into slaves

They can "sell" us things and then turn around and sue us if we "share" the things we "bought" with our friends

Yes, that's right

They have the right to take away our money but we have no right to share

A pretty fucking deal we've gotten ourselves in

Good (3, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217771)

Science fiction writers sometimes predict, and even shape the future. If they get upset enough with this could start writing new stories that could move our culture out of that dead weight.

Re:Good (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217789)

But it won't be by Harlan "PAY THE WRITER!!1!11" Ellison.

Re:Good (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218481)

Harlan is right. He does deserve to be paid for his work..... right up til he dies. Then it should end when his coffin is lowered into the ground (or one generation/20 years after first date of publication). BTW I thoroughly enjoyed Harlan's 70s-era audiorecord that I downloaded off the internet!..... ooops I've said too much.

Negative externality. (3, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217779)

In business economics, this is known as a negative externality [wikipedia.org], or costs imposed on others through your economic actions- and in modern business, negative externalities are almost something to be maximized, so long as they don't lead to direct consequences.

So yeah, as a modern business, this is exactly what is desired - enact a system that openly screws over everyone, so long as it can have some chance of benefiting your business in some way. Short-term interest is the primary motivation of publicly traded corporations, and indeed folks can and have been sued for not making it the first concern above all others.

From pollution, to overharvesting, to lawsuits, to claims on resources of all kinds - companies will always increase the rate at which they harm others as time goes on.

Ultimately, you need some public, long-term interests expressed as part of the legal/economic/legislative system, otherwise, we'll keep getting crap like this. It's why most of the more developed nations end up being more socially governed than the US has been over time.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Negative externality. (4, Informative)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217909)

This isn't an externality. They interupted a legitimate stream for what turned out to be a bogus reason with no recourse. It was bad business and they are directly responsible whether it was done by a bot or a human. And they will probably suffer for it in the long term if the "market" really works as the market lovers on slashdot says it does. I certainly won't suggest anyone use it ever again.

Re:Negative externality. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218313)

>>>will probably suffer for it in the long term if the "market" really works as the market lovers on slashdot says it does.

Already added Ustream to my facebook "boycott these corporations" note.

history (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41217781)

forgotten.

Pretty funny (3, Interesting)

gweihir (88907) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217841)

Maybe this demonstrates how the copyright mafia is actually destroying culture. Well, I guess UStream is out for anything now and should die.

1984 (1)

Alomex (148003) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217855)

Remember, big brother is always watching. If you say the wrong thing the thought^H^H^H^H^Hcopyright police will fall on you and take you to a reeducation gulag.

8Ep.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41217861)

of America (GNAA)

Calm Down,... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41217893)

unbunch your panties, and take a breath.

It was a glitch. This kind of thing happens when automation is added carelessly, but it will likely improve in the future. Sucks that it interrupted a WorldCon feed, but I'm old school. I've been to WorldCons in seven different cities, and my take is if you can't be bothered to get your ass to the fucking con, then don't go whining and leaking girl drink tears if you don't get a fucking live feed.

I don't think I'd have gotten the same thrill when Galaxy Quest beat out the fucking Matrix for best dramatic presentation, if I weren't in the audience when Bob Eggleton announced the winner, and with the movie's director and writer in the audience, said, "I'm sorry, I have to do this - Never Give Up!"

And two thousand people in the audience shouted back, "Never Surrender!"

Re:Calm Down,... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41217985)

Well aren't you a special fucking snowflake.

Re:Calm Down,... (5, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217989)

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

You know, I might just call it quits... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41217905)

After so many YEARS discussing patents (which they aren't) and copyrights (more like copy impediments), it's beginning to down on me this situation is beyond the reasoning capability of the people in these English-speaking countries -- not to mention the distributor associations (*AAs), who seem to love to practice target shooting at their own feet.

Even dumb as I am, I'm beginning to see I need to learn another language... perhaps Hindi or whatever, because 1st world people are stuck on a vicious cycle and don't seem to be able to get free, like in the old The Prisoner series.

Or, alternatively, any solution will have to evolve outside, without the participation of the various *AA entities, much like Linux evolved out of the grasp of proprietary software companies.

We need to support indie authors and make sure those authors, writers, composers who distribute through normal channels have no audience in Free Media: a kind of GPL for Arts, so as to say -- having restricted works? Then, NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE, you're excluded from this site or show.

After all we tried, it's time to make a statement about Freedom and not buying from these leeches anymore.

Class action law suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41217915)

If ever there was a justifiable time for a class action law suit... This is it!!!

Google banned my video because of the music (5, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217927)

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

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

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

All hail the great God filthy lucre.

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

Re:Google banned my video because of the music (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218359)

>>>Oh sure, there was an appeal's process, but it is up to me to wait in line to be absolved of the sin I never committed.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. All you have to do is file a counter-claim that says, "This does not infringe copyright. The music is public domain and the visual is my own content." Takes less than a minute. Not much of a line!

If google.com refuses THEN you can sue them in a court of law for censoring your content (under the provisions of the DMCA). Of course google is well aware of this which is why they will put your video back up. They have no desire to be sued by an angry customer (or the negative publicity it will generate).

Re:Google banned my video because of the music (3, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218423)

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

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

Re:Google banned my video because of the music (5, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218429)

You don't know what you are talking about. I did appeal. And then sat and waited, and waited.

My whole point is that I was tried and convicted of a crime I did not do. Why is it beholden upon me to go through motions to prove my innocence? Why is my content suspect and subject to removal because I am not a large conglomerate? That's the point, that's the problem, that is what people should not have to put up with.

Re:Google banned my video because of the music (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41218413)

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

No. They won't. They'll just sit there and watch "reality tv" and other three-ring-fofdder on their asses, just as they have while idiots destroyed the constitution, trying to pretend it was a "living document" and in the process giving the government free rein to do whatever the fuck it likes. Any idea you have of revolution is hopeless fantasy. The people have their bread, and they have their circuses, and those in power have everything they want in turn; it's an amazingly stable circumstance and there isn't jack shit you can do about it, no matter how upset you are.

Oh, and freedom of speech? To the extent they allow it (and there certainly are limits), that's just allowed because as you vent in voice and ink, you lose motivation to take real action. They know *exactly* what they're doing.

Re:Google banned my video because of the music (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218451)

I'm not talking about a revolution, you cynical moron. "Not put with this crap any more" does not imply reaching for guns in anyone's minds, except idiot minds like yours. Financial influence in this country is something a lot of people are angry about, on issues a lot more near and dear to people, especially and most importantly their livelihood. We will take back our own government from financial influence. Go ahead and laugh at me for saying that: and for doing that, consider yourself exactly like the uncaring idiots you outline above.

The "AI Cops" have got to go (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217959)

It is doing more harm than good. I suspect the other side would argue the opposite as the harm is not to them and they bear no liability. So I think it's about time someone step in to say or do something.

Has anyone decided to appeal to Google's "do no evil" policy makers?

Re:The "AI Cops" have got to go (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41217993)

It's only hurting the "little people," so good luck getting it fixed.

Re:The "AI Cops" have got to go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41218165)

It will be hurting even the "big people" soon enough. It will go away, sadly we gotta put up with this craziness for the time being.

Re:The "AI Cops" have got to go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41218361)

Who says you have to put up with it?

You want to screw Google? Start using other alternatives to Youtube, stay away from Google+. Try Bing, it's real competition for Google, or any other search engine, things have evolved a lot in the past decade. Use Ad Block, do NOT use Chrome, and do the same for any other Google product.

And this, kiddies... (3, Interesting)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218015)

..., this and other things like this, is why us "neckbeards" will sometimes wax nostalgic about the early days of the internet, before it started to get/become "locked down". As an interested, but not too deeply involved or invested in hi-tech, observer, I see this 'mistake' as just another kind of sad and comical example of the slow but sure changing of the internet. But back in the early days, pre 9/11 days, when I was typing to people using 300 baud modems, this internet was such a brave new world! And now we're seeing more of these type of stories occurring. It's just nteresting to me, and it makes me wonder what this world wide web will be like in the years to come. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..."

Re:And this, kiddies... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41218217)

But back in the early days, pre 9/11 days, when I was typing to people using 300 baud modems

Huh? At this point, we have three options:

1. Due to a stroke, you've chosen a wildly unrelated date for a point of reference for your anecdote.
2. Your Computer Shopper deliveries stopped in 1988 and you failed to notice subsequent communications improvements.
3. You're not old enough to actually remember 9/11 or 300 baud modems.

I'm curious now which one of those it is.

Re:And this, kiddies... (3, Interesting)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218495)

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

Re:And this, kiddies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41218265)

Piracy was still shunned back then, it always has. You had to either know someone with an FTP or risk slogging through virus infested P2P apps.

That is, until you discovered USENET. :)

Of course it was mostly music(mp3's) and games or apps. Movie rips sucked due to shitty codecs, slow hosts, small HDD's, and no DVD-ROM's.

All in all though I agree. The NET was a fuck of a lot cooler back then without the unwashed masses around EVERY corner.

Ustream apology (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41218111)

Hi All

For those following this issue: Ustream have issued an apology here which makes the facts clear. As a result of this error, they have temporarily withdrawn their automated monitoring software, so it is clear that they are taking this incident seriously.

http://www.ustream.tv/blog/2012/09/03/hugo-awards-an-apology-and-explanation/

regards

Colin Harris
Chicon 7

why blame programming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41218205)

It is screwed up laws.

Stupid people run Ustream (4, Informative)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#41218207)

So don't use Ustream for anything in the future. Boycott stupidity. Boycott founders John Ham, Brad Hunstable, and Gyula Feher. Boycott their venture capitalists Doll Capital Management, Labrador Ventures, and Band of Angels and everything these guys provide funding for.

The American way: sue them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41218333)

I'm not one to sue at the drop of a hat, but this seems to a perfect case. If they incorrectly take down your YouTube video, it is hard for to sue with any "teath", since you usuall can't prove financial lose, and have probably signed away your rights as part of using YouTube. But in this case it was a commercial venture and the case could be made for financial damages. There is a certain expectation of service. Imagine if CNN was broacasting news live from another country and their ISP cut their feed? You don't think there would be hell to pay?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...