Copyright Enforcement Bots Seek And Destroy Hugo Awards
from the welcome-your-robot-overlords dept
We have talked repeatedly of automated copyright enforcement, and how it often goes too far. Recently, we wrote about over enforcement-by-bot when Google's ContentID flagged coverage of the Curiosity landing on Mars. And then there was that time when a recording of some birds got flagged as the content of Rumblefish. These are just a few examples; these stories happen all the time.One thing that sets these examples apart from the following story is that most if not all of those videos were taken down after they were recorded. What happened just recently is a whole new category of insane. These automated copyright enforcement bots are now flagging and taking down live content. Not surprisingly, you have the same folks as usual to blame for this: an over-aggressive US government, at the behest of the legacy entertainment industry. A few years ago, after various sports leagues complained to the feds, Congress held hearings designed to put the fear of Congress into live streaming startups like Ustream and Justin.tv. In response, despite having strong DMCA compliance records (and the associated safe harbors), those companies are going above and beyond what the law requires to try to keep copyright holders (and the government) happy.
But, as with the over-aggressive automated takedowns on recorded content, the live streaming takedowns can be similarly troublesome -- and that situation can be made even worse when people are relying on an official live stream via one of these sites. That is what happened to the Hugo Awards when it tried to live stream the awards ceremonies on Ustream. After airing footage of Neil Gaiman's award winning episode of Doctor Who, the show was flagged for infringement and pulled from the live stream -- right before Gaiman got to speak. Suddenly, everyone watching the official livestream online saw:
This was, of course, absurd. First of all, the clips had been provided by the studios to be shown during the award ceremony. The Hugo Awards had explicit permission to broadcast them. But even if they hadn't, it is absolutely fair use to broadcast clips of copyrighted material during an award ceremony. Unfortunately, the digital restriction management (DRM) robots on UStream had not been programmed with these basic contours of copyright law.io9 has it absolutely right. Even if the clips were not cleared, they still likely fell under fair use. This is one of the major weaknesses of automated enforcement which we have repeatedly warned about. Such tools are completely incapable of determining fair use and proper licensing, yet many sites continue to use and promote their use -- often because the government and the entertainment industry insist that they must. As io9 laments in the passing of the Hugo awards:
And with that, the broadcast was officially cut off. Dumb robots, programmed to kill any broadcast containing copyrighted material, had destroyed the only live broadcast of the Hugo Awards. Sure, we could read what was happening on Twitter, or get the official winner announcement on the Hugo website, but that is hardly the same. We wanted to see our heroes and friends on that stage, and share the event with them. In the world of science fiction writing, the Hugo Awards are kind of like the Academy Awards. Careers are made; people get dressed up and give speeches; and celebrities rub shoulders with (admittedly geeky) paparazzi. You want to see and hear it if you can.By killing the broadcast of the show, Ustream's bots ruined a very special occasion for a number of creative individuals. It blocked access fans of science fiction had to see their favorite writers receive the awards their craft had made possible. Such award shows are something to celebrate, but because of over enforcement, this show has become nothing but another casualty in the war on copyright infringement. Another life snuffed out in the name of "the artists." Tell me, what artist wants her name used as the reason behind an award show being snuffed out? What artist wants to be known as the reason why thousands of fans didn't get to hear Neil Gaiman's speech or the speeches of other writers as they accepted their awards?
But UStream's incorrectly programmed copyright enforcement squad had destroyed our only accesss. It was like a Cory Doctorow story crossed with RoboCop 2, with DRM robots going crazy and shooting indiscriminately into a crowd of perfectly innocent broadcasts.
The point is, our ability to broadcast was entirely dependent on poorly-programmed bots. And once those bots had made their incorrect decision, there was absolutely nothing we could do to restart the signal, as it were. In case anyone still believes that copyright rules can't stop free speech or snuff out a community, the automated censorship of the Hugo Awards is a case in point.Welcome your new robot overlords internet. The robots have spoken. Copyright is the almighty mainframe from which these robots take orders. They kill indiscriminately. They kill without feeling, without remorse. Even free speech and communities are not safe. This is the world asked for by the copyright maximalists. They have set up a world in which no speech is safe as long as it contains copyrighted content, authorized or not, fair use or not.
Yet, all this is ignoring the harm that Ustream has now done to its own reputation. After this incident, why would any show or event willingly use Ustream's services to live-stream? Knowing that your show could be taken down midstream at any moment will not breed confidence in the service.
Of course, Ustream has come out with an apology for this unfortunate event. However, this may be too little, too late for some people.
On Sunday night, The Hugo Awards were streaming live on Ustream (The Hugo’s are like the Academy Awards for science fiction). Very unfortunately at 7:43 p.m. Pacific time, the channel was automatically banned in the middle of an acceptance speech by author Neil Gaiman due to “copyright infringement.” This occurred because our 3rd party automated infringement system, Vobile, detected content in the stream that it deemed to be copyrighted. Vobile is a system that rights holders upload their content for review on many video sites around the web. The video clips shown prior to Neil’s speech automatically triggered the 3rd party system at the behest of the copyright holder.It may be Vobile's fault, but it was Ustream's decision -- even if under pressure -- to use Vobile in the first place. It seems that they should have recognized the weaknesses of such an aggressive system.
Our editorial team and content monitors almost immediately noticed a flood of livid Twitter messages about the ban and attempted to restore the broadcast. Unfortunately, we were not able to lift the ban before the broadcast ended. We had many unhappy viewers as a result, and for that I am truly sorry.This is what frustrates users the most. While it only takes moments, seconds maybe, to really screw up a user, it can takes days if not weeks to make things right. Again, it is great that Ustream took notice of the problem, but without proper plans in place to fix the problem right away, then what point is in even trying? At the time of this writing, there is still no indication that the account streaming the Hugo awards is back. If you're going to set up a system that can snuff out a stream in an instant, it seems only reasonable that you should be able to turn that stream back on.
Ustream has said that it has turned off Vobile for the time being, which is the right move. But perhaps it can use this as an explanation for why such solutions are overkill the next time the entertainment industry or the government come calling.
Hopefully, this serves as yet another example to lawmakers, policy makers, the entertainment industry and online service providers: as much as some of them think that automated copyright enforcement is a panacea, it can often create even more problems. Snuffing out a broadcast like this doesn't help make anyone respect copyright any more. It makes them think it's pointless and obsolete.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: automated enforcement, copyright, fair use, hugo awards, licensed, live streaming, neil gaiman
Companies: ustream, vobile
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
easy fix ---> three strikes philosophy
You receive a polite and formal warning that your coproration has just used up their first strike. And that the original IP is back up and further immune to your takedowns.
Third strike:
if you own the IP but didn't create it, the IP you've claimed goes back to the original creator, for free.
If it's the creator himself who makes a false claim IP goes to public domain, forever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If the dinosaurs claim that a process of manual review is too costly, then why do they claim it is okay to inflict such a process onto the innocent third parties?
If the dinosaurs review their takedowns, then there should be at least some penalty for a false takedown that is later found to be merely fair use.
If the dinosaurs review their takedowns, then there should be a very severe penalty, and three strikes, for a false takedown that is bogus for various reasons including, lack of ownership / standing, lack of authority to take it down, lack of any actual infringement, etc.
Maybe they also need some fear of congress?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bogus Take-downs is Theft
This will not stop until there are severe penalties. If the government does not act victims of bogus take-downs need to start suing for damages.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I bring up the claim on the 'bird song' by a rightsholder.
The person who uploaded it fought the first claim, and the rightholder doubled down and said yep we had our human check this is and its totally our property.
Then they were wishy washy about all sorts of excuses for how this happened and it was an isolated incident.
The damn form says penalty of perjury, and until that is actually enforced people will keep ignoring copyright.
It is now completely 1 sided and makes no sense, just to allow rightsholders who don't want to actually put the work into "protecting" their valuable IP and shift those costs and issues onto everyone else. The system believes only corporations can have copyright and anyone claiming to have copyright who isn't a corporation is treated like a lair, while the corporations are given a smooth ride while steamrolling over all sorts of things they don't actually own.
Why is it if I infringe on a copyright I get threatened in court with $150,000 fines... but when a corporation does the same damn thing plus claims ownership nothing happens except a PR statement if you can get enough people to make noise. Infringement and copyfraud are "serious" crimes, so when does the other side have to pay penalties?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Actually, what it proves is that there is so much stuff out their violating copyright, that they need bots to start with. Let's address the real issue, not the occasional misapplications of the cures.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In the alternative Ustream could have donated the "paid, ad-free, Pro-Broadcasting" as a community service in the first place.
Now they look like idiots, who are quick to blame everyone else for their failings, and ignore the fail whale landed squarely on them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Excellent!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: time to react violently
Probably by Apple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I am personally pleased to see this have happened. As far as I'm concerned Hollywood and the music industry are not welcome on the Internet (if they ever were) and the Internet should be left to thrive without them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
For example, if it was the Doctor Who episode clips that triggered the shutdown, some of the people watching who were only casually familiar with Gaiman or Who might have been unaware that Gaiman wrote an episode for the show (for the record, I didn't, but I'm more of a horror fan than sci-fi so I'm behind on that genre). This lead-up might have led some Gaiman fans to seek out the episode and perhaps become inspired to watch other season they missed, while Who fans who liked the episode might be inspired to go and check out other Gaiman work.
It's the best kind of advertising - free or at low cost to the owners of the content if it wasn't the Hugo people who paid for rights anyway - and with absolutely ZERO risk of losing viewers/buyers of the original content. Nobody's going to watch a short clip of a TV show they want to watch and decide to avoid it completely based on that clip - well not anything remotely good enough to be on an awards show anyway!
But, we now have a major clusterfuck. Nobody wins here. Fans have been screwed over, while uStream potentially lose revenue and customers. Vobile have lost customer for their product (though that's not necessarily a bad thing), while Who's producers, Gaiman's publishers and Hugo's organisers have possibly lost the revenue they would have gained through the advertising here. Everybody standing to benefit from the value or revenue generated has been screwed.
I'm not going to claim absolute knowledge like the troll contingent here, but I fail to see how the supposed money "lost" through "piracy" can outweigh the costs of these stupid and counter-productive attempts to fight it. Like the millions being funnelled into buying laws and politicians instead of actually adapting to reality, the money's been wasted and has achieved nothing.
As ever, the solution would be offering legal solutions and content - imagine people watching these awards being offered free/low cost streams of the films & episodes featured or links to buy Gaiman's books, all region and DRM free and able to be easily obtained while the urge to view them is fresh. Sadly, companies are more concerned with control and chasing maximum profit than they are in giving their customer what they want, which is why they are still failing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I am no coder but....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: easy fix ---> three strikes philosophy
False takedown? Game over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"It's OK to raid every building based on anonymous tips and shoot whoever we see inside, because there's a lot of bad people round here. The police are overworked, so who cares which innocent people get hit?"
I bet you're stupid enough to believe that too.
"occasional misapplications of the cures"
If only the cures worked, and the misapplications were occasional, then this conversation wouldn't be happening. That this kind of action does sod all to stop piracy, and is apparently prevalent enough to hit world famous events is cause for concern, no?
Oh, sorry, this wasn't a major corporation so carry on screwing everyone, right? So much easier than addressing what causes people to pirate in the first place...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I am no coder but....
There is no automated way to police copyright without having cases like this happen. The EXACT SAME content is both legal and illegal - depending on the context. Therefore the simply presence of the content does not indicate anything.
Yet the 'bots only check for existence and then kill it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vobile
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"If only the cures worked, and the misapplications were occasional, then this conversation wouldn't be happening. "
Millions of DMCA notices every month, and a few misdirected that get highlighted here with a laser sharpness that blinds you to everything else going on. It's really too bad that you are missing reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I am no coder but....
Anyone who claims it's trivial for a program to check such things is a moron, or at least takes the moronic stance of assuming that anyone outside of the **AAs must be a pirate until proven innocent. That this is now being applied to streaming, live, footage that cannot be defended in any way before a takedown is extremely troubling for non-idiots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Remember that the next time you watch Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which was shamelessly stolen from the public domain.
Remember that, the next time someone sues the label for shamelessly stealing from artists using creative accounting methods which are tantamount to fraud.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: easy fix ---> three strikes philosophy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Imagine if the same happened if government was taking down a live news feed. Would we accept any apology ? heads would and should roll...
We the public must demand an audit on what those groups have claimed is theirs too, and expose all the abuse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So it's that much more disheartening to see that potential viewers were unable to see it because it was blocked/taken down by a false notice.
Could've easily led Who fans to become interested in Gaiman (who's a great writer). And could've easily led Gaiman fans to become interested in Who (which is a great show).
At the end of the day, it's a loss for both. Potential new fans (or better said, potential spenders of money on products associated with both... because that's the way they view us, not as fans but as walking, talking, breathing ATMs) are sadly unable to enjoy something truly remarkable. (And I say that meaning a bit of that episode, which IMO was the best of the season. The TARDIS was given an actual body and persona and it was a treat to watch her, because she was put in a female body, interact with the Doctor. Noting that he didn't steal her, but she stole him.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: time to react violently
Just the sort of comment from the lunatic freeloaders I'd expect. Murdering people responsible for thwarting your ability to get free movies and songs. This is perhaps the most telling example of how crazy people on your side of the debate are. I hope you don't mind if I forward this comment to the FBI to see that it is properly investigated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I am no coder but....
In order to do this the rule is applied "If it could be infringing, if status is in doubt of non infringement, or if it is to difficult to ascertain the status, be safe delete it."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Show me five cases where DMCA takedowns were legitimately good takedowns that resulted in increased revenue and profits without taking down legitimate content from creators themselves and made it all the better for the 'artist', and I can show you up to ten, twenty, thirty cases where the opposite is true. Prove how that's justifiable in any society. Prove it to all of the consumers who lose legitimate content because of a bogus takedown. Prove it to the consumers and the artists, those who are often burned by the copyright maximalists. Prove it to me right here and now why ip enforcement is good, why any of it is viable, and not worthless nonsense.
So, can you? Can you prove any of it at all? Or would you rather repeat the arguments corporatists repeat ad infineum?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
To them, there are no innocent third parties.
Also, they're third parties, so they don't care what mind boggling batshit insane things someone else has to do to, so long as no one goes within a lightyear of even thinking about possibly using copyrighted content without prior authorization, signed in triplicate by the CEO of a huge multinational conglomerate that owns the content, with an attached copy of a letter from their 2nd grade teacher saying that even when they were 6 they knew what copyright was and would never violate it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am no coder but....
See the problem? Especially in real time, where if uStream are to bow to the will of the corporations who can sue them out of existence, they can't allow their customers any defence before the content is deleted?
Why do you people always consider that the **AA's profits are the ones that need to be protected instead of perfectly legal platform providers, anyway? Seems a weak excuse to claim that these dinosaurs are the only ones entitled to profit, especially since they've had the best part of 2 decades to adapt to reality now and the reason these platforms exist is that they refuse to provide them themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now you get private industry agreements. Stop whining- you are the authors of the new paradigm. You should have thought about this while you were claiming that Justin Bieber would head to prison and the internet would break.
And good luck getting any law passed to change things. As you have seen, its a lot harder to get a law passed than you realize. The Dem's don't care and the R's love delegating government's role to industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Can't wait for the copyright maximalists to jump on Ustream now:
"They're offering a service where someone can pay to bypass the restrictionbots? Load up the choppers with a SWAT team, its time they stopped profiting off our work!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But, in general, the destruction of the Hugo Awards transmission is the copyright protection system working as designed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am no coder but....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Tired argument. Is the public domain public or not? Their VERSION is copyright, but you can go back to the same public domain sources as them and do the same thing they did.
Your other two arguments have been debunked often enough as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Fine with me.
The real issue is that copyright is batshit insane, as we've been pointing out for years.
Time to wipe it out completely.
Since this is a sci-fi themed story, I feel no guilt in using this:
"Nuke the entire (law) from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Vobile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I wonder if you see why you're labelled a troll, or if you really are this utterly moronic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Excellent. The more cumbersome the copyright madness gets, the more people will grow sick of it.
Keep shooting yourselves in the foot copyright holders.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I'm an American and considering how much my own Government is currently bought out by the very organizations that demand such restrictions, there isnt much difference. We would need to start a revolution in the US....or find a third party candidate that has Polio and gets us into contract programs to boost the economy rather than cutting everything or spending more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am no coder but....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Vobile
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Can you show definitively that the other millions of notices and takedowns are legit?
There's no telling how many more are completely bogus, because even the worst are rarely challenged.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Becaus ethat's the same argument made there. And it holds no weight in that sphere either. Stop victim-blaming and realise that you're killing off actual job-creators.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Citation, or is that your own blind assumption as usual? Where are your figures from?
I notice you also ignore my last point, since as per normal you're incapable of thinking about more than one part of the issue at a time. Don't you think that listening to why people pirate in the first place (no, it's not just because it's "free") would help reduce the number of DMCA notices?
On top of that, don't the huge number DMCA notices show that the "cure" is in fact not working as per my original assertion? I know you'd rather scrap fair use and assume that anything not funded by your overlords must be illegal, but sadly this is reality, not that strange alternate world you post about here as if it existed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: time to react violently
I don't see how you can maintain intellectual honesty if your response is yes. Any reasonable person reading this site and others criticizing SOPA and copyright would not draw the same conclusions.
Fringers are just that...fringers, and guess what? They exist on your side of the argument too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: time to react violently
Do you believe such private censorship should continue to be allowed and is an acceptable collaterol of automated copyright vigilance ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
who should take note and action
it's a perfect example for them to use in stories of what the future might turn into.
and their fans will read these stories and better understand "unintended consqequences"..
I see it as a jumping off point for 'atlas logged off the internet' ;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Who's side are you arguing?
Even some of the maximalists realize they're the ones burning the rainforest. They just don't care.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's not entirely FUD at all. ContentID turned out to be nothing more than bots searching for "infringement" and it's not narrowly focused as a human would be as far as judgement is considered. So we have a poorly programmed bot or web crawler that acts just like it's malware counterparts that give you spam advertisments.
"And good luck getting any law passed to change things. As you have seen, its a lot harder to get a law passed than you realize. The Dem's don't care and the R's love delegating government's role to industry."
This is actually where I agree. Both parties are involved with the issues at hand. No, we won't get it passed in a day, but maybe we could at least give them a wake up call and send notices to government websites :-) Note I do think you me Politician Dem's and Republicans, I know many US citizens from all parties who feel the same....We're fucked this coming 4 year term no matter which of the two partie get power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
+1 funny. Billions of copies of movies, game, software and songs stolen every year and you are the victim and jobs creator? You are parasites and freeloaders and your lot in life is only going to get worse. Enjoy!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Sadly, the industry's more interested in doing things like this rather than remove the barriers that would allow me to do so legally. So I don't. It's ridiculous all round, with very little likelihood that this has had any positive effect on the problem it was supposed to tackle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for bringing some reality to the discussion. Millions of DMCA notices every month... Wow. You are absolutely right that people are focused on the wrong issues. The problem isn't the small percentage of dmca notices that are incorrect, but that we now have a system where Millions of DMCA notices every month are sent out to be handled by the unfortunate service providers. And these Millions of DMCA notices are the valid ones. How can they possibly be expected to handle those properly without significant and disproportionate resources allocated to the problem. No wonder we get situations like this.
We need to properly codify 3rd party immunity, and change the notice and take-down system to a notice and forward system. That would fix most of these types of issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can search Techdirt for the discussion of Google's DMCA list... most of them are good, and the number is only increasing.
"I notice you also ignore my last point, since as per normal you're incapable of thinking about more than one part of the issue at a time. Don't you think that listening to why people pirate in the first place (no, it's not just because it's "free") would help reduce the number of DMCA notices?"
Umm, yeah... but it's really hard to have a discussion about crime, while the criminals keep on doing it and nobody seems to care. It's pretty simple really, rampant piracy leads to some misdirected attempts to control it. Stop pirating for a while, and things go back to normal.
Stop trying to blame the victims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: who should take note and action
In my world it's "Unforeseen Consequences".....
Sorry, Black Mesa Source comes out on the 14th
They are making the Xen world as a seperate episode.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What twisted societal values finds it acceptable accepting ANY censorship from this new breed of private vigilantes.
Has "it will break the business model of our industry" the new sesame that can pervert any law and allow any unchecked behavior such as this ?
I prefer a world without copyright if it comes with the cost of allowing censorship from private companies or self-censorship to prevent such actions.
This is a horrible future we're seeing implemented right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If WorldCon/Hugo Awards would have tried to do so prior to the live event (or bothered to read the broadcasting contract) they would have found out that the FREE broadcasting accounts were subject to copyright restrictions.
Also, the bolded context where the clips where used is important because the BROADCASTER had no way to know what kind of content was going to be delivered and the importance of the event because WorldCon decided to use a FREE (and mostly ANONYMOUS) broadcasting account for the live event.Again, this is because WorldCon/Hugo Awards themselves had not bothered to correctly program the DRM robots by at least having a chat with the ustream support about their service.
Also,ustream says this on their UPDATED blog post: http://www.ustream.tv/blog/2012/09/03/hugo-awards-an-apology-and-explanation/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I knew he was perfect in his first episode when near the end where he tells the "villain" to look into Earth's history and see if it's protected. And follows it up with, after they've checked, "Hello, I'm the Doctor. Basically, run."
As for Gaiman, check out "Anansi Boys" and "American Gods" and "Good Omens" and well... basically, everything he's written. He's a great writer. A praise I personally don't just heap upon any writer. Not too mention Sandman, which was an excellent (and highly praised) comic/graphic novel.
Unfortunately, yes, you're correct. The industries would rather place artificial restrictions on content than actually make money from those who want to give it to them but sadly can't. People like yourself. Then they have the nerve to complain about piracy while not offering legal alternatives to people like yourself.
Because at the end of the day, PaulT, it's your fault for living in Spain! /s (Which sadly is something that has been said to you by a few of the troll/shill type ACs on here. Which is stupid as f*ck. You want to be a legitimate consumer, but due to where you live you can't be and somehow that's your fault. Not theirs or their restrictions. Yours. [mind explodes at the sheer madness and gall of that kind of thinking])
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That a broadcast service would actually give up that much control, is breathtaking.
Since fear of Congress and being sued has the controlling interest in Ustream maybe tax
dollars and corp financing should fund them? They can ban everybody and still make payroll. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
Absent any sanctioned, meaningful judicial process I have no problem with this. Private industry has no duty of free speech protection. You don't want laws, you get industry agreements. You set this in motion and now it's too late.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
O rly? Citation needed.
Umm, yeah... but it's really hard to have a discussion about crime, while the criminals keep on doing it and nobody seems to care.
Because it's not seen as a crime or even objectionable.
It's pretty simple really, rampant piracy leads to some misdirected attempts to control it. Stop pirating for a while, and things go back to normal.
Right. Netflix, Spotify and the likes slashed deep into piracy. And yet the MAFIAA is trying to strangle them. Riiight.
Stop trying to blame the victims.
We never placed the blame in the people or the artists themselves. We always placed the blame in the true villains: the MAFIAA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IF THE DAMN PIRATE SITES MAKE THAT MUCH MONEY WHY AREN'T YOU LEARNING WITH THEM?
Ahem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall any so-called "copyright maximalist" calling for murder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: time to react violently
It wasn't us that put 16,000 people to death for copying in France.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Vobile
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, no citation of any overall figures, just a report from Google which lists the ones that this single company has received? A company that circumvents DMCA notification in many cases with ContentID and so is unlikely to give accurate figures to extrapolate into the "millions" you claim since that system stops them from receiving many in the first place?
Yeah, as I thought, just an assumption.
Funny how Google's word is good enough for you in cases like this, yet you attack them whenever they're on the "wrong" side of things, huh?
"Umm, yeah... but it's really hard to have a discussion about crime, while the criminals keep on doing it and nobody seems to care."
I care. That's why I don't do it. Unfortunately, people like you won't even offer me legal solutions while some other people out there are doing those things, which your tactics so far have been hopeless at even slowing, let alone stopping. There's a huge world out there of opportunity, yet all you care about is pretending it's 1995 and whining about piracy without attempting to service the demand the pirates are happily servicing within the vacuum you've insisted on making.
Try not ignorning the real opinions of people like me, it helps you understand reality.
"Stop pirating for a while, and things go back to normal."
Stop falsely accusing me of piracy, and maybe you'll stop acting like a twat and understand my position for a change. Stop lying, then maybe you'll hear the truth.
"Stop trying to blame the victims."
I'm blaming people who are trying to destroy my freedom, my access to media, my choice and my rights in an attempt to protect profits that may no longer exist in the first place. If that's being a "victim", I suggest you remove your head from your rear end and listen to reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The irony HURTS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's about time you stopped with the steal mantra. It isn't even funny anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: easy fix ---> three strikes philosophy
While this certainly sucked, there might be a bit of a silver lining here (I hope). The negative attention on Ustream as a result of this might push them to build "re-enablement" into their product.
It doesn't answer the question of "how do you program in fair use into these bots?"
Other thing I'd consider doing is contacting my congressperson, were I an American, and lambast congress as whole for pushing this nonsense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
You're wrong.
Or should we go through finding (and linking to) all the "fuck off and die" (among other "beauties") made by those on your side?
Yeah, for every one comment like the one up above (which you're referring to), which I personally reported, there are AT LEAST five times as many from someone on your side. Ditto ad hom comments. Actually no, for every one from someone on my side, I'd say there are at least ten from someone on your side.
So before you go wagging your finger, make sure you pay attention to those comments that end up flagged by the community. They're usually flagged for a reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Compensation due?
It would seem a pretty legitimate case here for some or all of the affected parties to seek to be compensated right?
If more folks were to follow that route, it would be working within the system and provide precedent one way or another on the limits of such robot enforcement. Some here is libel for damages caused it would seem.
Not a big fan of the legal whip but it seems a good choice in this case to influence future. Sauce for the goose as it were.
Mike
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The wind is never going to stop blowing though, no matter how many bots you make. Best solution is to stop trying to control it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
PS The vast majority of the infringement being taken down by DMCA notices is not criminal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's really hard to believe that you are this dense or disingenuous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Compensation due?
Not enough coffee this morning!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Stuff like this is tossing nukes on an inferno.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
Actually happens QUITE frequently on this site. My own life and the lives of my family have been threatened by "your side" repeatedly. The comment your complaining about is over the top and I notice that it -- like many idiotic comments -- have resulted in it being minimized by the community. Most people here agree that comments like that are completely out of line.
Only you pretend that's a "standard" view on one side. There have been MANY, MANY more "violent" comments from your side of the debate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will definitely give both Smith and Gaiman a shot, time and legal availability are my stumbling blocks right now, but I'm sure they will clear in time. In any case, thanks for the recommendations!
...
Well, apart from your idiotic attack on my lifestyle, of course - I can only quite frankly say screw you to that. I point out that huge numbers of people are left with no legal option. Your response is to attack those people, rather than accept that it's the 21st century and the world's population is no longer within a single country's border for their entire lives? Yeah, people should just stop moving to where their careers and home life take them because it's inconvenient for a media industry's outdated business models. What an astounding rebuttal.
My situation is shared by millions who were born here, as well as Americans and other foreigners I regularly encounter who need ways to bypass regional restrictions even on content they've legally bought (which they happily do). If your only answer to this is "well don't ever move anywhere", then screw you, your mentality is the reason why the industry is still pretending that 1980's business models still apply. For people with lower modern standards, the pirates are doing a perfectly good job of supplying the market that you've chosen to ignore because it's inconvenient.
I'd love to access Hulu and other services in the same way as Americans as well, and even pay a premium to do so, but I'm on the wrong patch of dirt for 100 or so weeks every 2 years (although I can happily access is whenever I've in the US). Am I to blame for not residing on US soil now, or is it a problem the industry should be addressing? You're a fool if you think that the former is any way to address piracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kill Vobile The Robot
I supposed you could still have Vobile do the search, but instead of having ban privileges just give it flag privileges and then have a human review it if it applies.
But it also sounds like the Hugo people didn't read the fine print, so maybe it wouldn't go through.
Also, you can sue for things other than money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Back at you. Also, note the ad hom you went straight for.
But basically, regardless, you're saying the copyright holders can't make money online, correct?
So they're already producing said content and paying for production cost. And they can't put it online for easy distribution and legal access and monetize it in some way? Only the pirates can?
Yeah, so who's the dense/disingenuous one now? (I'm referring to you, just fyi.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
Oh please. Can you show me where that has happened? I am a loyal reader and I have never seen a death threat on here.
I notice this came up in another thread as a sort of "talking point". What's the deal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copying =/= Stealing
Copying =/= Stealing
Copying =/= Stealing
Copying =/= Stealing
Copying =/= Stealing
Copying =/= Stealing
Copying =/= Stealing
Copying =/= Stealing
Copying =/= Stealing
Copying =/= Stealing
Copying =/= Stealing
Copying =/= Stealing
Copying =/= Stealing
Copying =/= Stealing
Copying =/= Stealing
Copying =/= Stealing
Repeat this 5 times a day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So much for free speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah! Use this one instead:
Copying =/= Stealing
Copying =/= Stealing
Copying =/= Stealing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
You take "fuck off and die" as a death threat? Are you kidding?
That isn't a death threat. That's a get lost and go away message... That's isn't anyone suggesting violence.
Guess what? We all die in the end. There is no suggestion of violence in telling someone to FOAD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There are no valid copyright restirctions on this content so it doesn't matter that "FREE broadcasting accounts were subject to copyright restrictions" because there are no applicable copyright restrictions
The point of fair use and public domain is that you don't have to ask for permission to do it. They even got permission to use it from the copyright holders, why in the flying fuck is it ok to add another hoop to jump through by asking ustream for permission too?
The broadcasting service provider only has to get involved because of the insane implied third party liability issues that shouldn't exist in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Now you get private industry agreements. Stop whining-"
Some of us are very determined to stop the madness. We are seeing the nefarious consequences were you don't.
Your argument in itself is obvious broken logic, as always. The public never asked for any off those laws. Law making is so enslaved to corporate interests that they just failed to protect the people against their over-assertivness.
You seem so happy of the mess. Just wait till it bites you, and your children. And then remember you were among the people who promoted this, and continueously do so. For money. There'll be no excuse accepted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, it was an "accident". I think someone was trying to send a message.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I personally understand your situation and I too agree that it's ridiculous. Heck, there's stuff I want from across the pond that I can't legally get here. And to have it shipped from places like the U.K. would cost me an arm and a leg, nor can I access things that are only available in Ireland and a few other countries. As much as I wish to. Heck, I'd gladly pay (even a premium as you mention) but because I'm in the U.S. those handful of offerings aren't available to me.
As you and myself and others have pointed out before, it makes no sense. These regional restrictions that is. They (the industries and a few ACs) complain about piracy yet they do nothing to legitimately curtail it. Meaning they restrict legal offerings or outright not have any to begin with, then complain that some have the gall to not do without. In my opinion, you can't cry over spilled milk when you weren't even trying to sell said milk in the first place to someone.
But it comes down to one interesting point, if the pirates can offer all this stuff in one manner or another, why can't the industries? And people would gladly pay for it. So it's even more head scratching that they don't do it. And to remark upon that is to give them an opportunity to call people like us "pirates" or "piracy apologists" and so on and so forth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sharing is a natural function and fundamental right
Sharing is a natural function and fundamental right
Sharing is a natural function and fundamental right
Sharing is a natural function and fundamental right
Sharing is a natural function and fundamental right
Sharing is a natural function and fundamental right
Sharing is a natural function and fundamental right
...
Doesn't it feel much more... natural ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What ever happened to Issa/Wyden's OPEN Act? As soon as SOPA was killed off, that was the last anyone heard of the so-called compromise measure.
Google has sold out because they want to play in the content game. Other internet ecosystem players realize that if they want to make money on content, they have to take part in protecting it. There is NO appetite in Congress for any sort of copyright legislation. So all roads go through private industry agreements. Good luck changing that with your theatrics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Umm, Google receives more than a million a month.
Stop talking out of your ass Paul, you are just getting yourself deeper and deeper in the shit (again).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
The amount of rude, contemptuous, insulting and over-the-top replies you will get is ridiculous. If you argue back you will see some of the slimiest, twisted and downright dirty manipulative tactics ever employed to counter you.
I have NEVER met a more consistently unpleasant group of people than copyrestrictors!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
UPDATE
http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/4/3290746/ustream-vobile-hugo-awards-takedown
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I pay for my stuff. I have cable TV with all of the premium channels, Netflix, a Kindle and an iTunes account. If they don't have what I want (so far never happened) I will watch/listen/read something else. You won't hear any excuses from me, that's the exclusive province of you piracy apologists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Couldn't help but see the irony in that statement.
We're getting nerveous, aren't we, so very busy attacking everyone. Your damage-control shill job on a more than unfortunate illustration of why corporate copyright vigilantism is wrong.
Do your clients require paper-printouts of you job to justify your paycheck ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
- the colaterals -
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
=/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
You fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Holy shit. Ironic bomb!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
The overheated rhetoric is a big problem. And given the divisiveness of the debate and the intransigence of both sides, I doubt it gets better.
No matter how strenuously I disagree with you, I am sorry that someone who shares my views threatened you and your family. There is simply no place for that in a civilized world, and I condemn it. If I see it in the future, I will post a response condemning it and click the report button myself.
Here's hoping to continue a spirited debate without resorting to threats of violence over something as trivial as access to entertainment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's ironic that you can't see it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Since it's the very same media companies that want the insane control over this, any copyright clearance for live broadcasting cases like these that they grant should be cleared AND MANAGED by the content producers all the way up on the broadcasting/distribution chain, including any DRM monitoring services.
They can't have their cake and eat it at the same time too.
Since BBC in this case (owner of Dr Who copyrights) decided to make use of ustream's automated copyright infringement monitoring service, the ultimate fault here is BBC's because it only cared to collect the fees for the copyright release but it didn't bother to actually mark as clear for broadcasting by WorldCon/Hugo Awards/ those clips in Ustream's copyright management interface
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: time to react violently
Ha ha ha what a pussy. I am sure the FBI will want to investigate a random threat, to unknown people, on the internet. What a little pussy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UPDATE
Not sure what's there to recalibrate, unfortunately the system functioned as the MAFIAA intended in this case, it blocked a broadcast of an anonymous user(at that time) that it had not been informed about having broadcasting rights in the content it (almost)correctly identified as infringing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmm. I can illegally download something, or I can buy from iTunes (if available). The majority of people WOULD AND DO choose the iTunes route.
Why?
Simple. Easy to access. Congregated content. Etc.
But no, only in your mind should iTunes be a failure because somewhere someone somehow has put up a site with the same things for free. Which is why as is evident, iTunes is such a huge failure and no longer exist. /s
No, the one who is slow here is yourself. And those who think as retardedly as you appear to.
But see, it falls right back to "but... but... pirates". So rather than attempt to create a new revenue stream, you would rather stamp your feet and cry about piracy, that about sum it up? To hell with trying to offer legal alternatives!
Sheesh. And you wonder why people pirate? Because of that attitude. No, we won't offer you legal alternatives! So get lost!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, remind me again: am I a parasite for paying people for content?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It only takes seconds...
I think the quote you're looking for is "It takes months to gain a customer-- and seconds to lose one."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UPDATE
Vote up if you think we need a bot on TC to detect and change him automatically from "Anonymous Coward" to "His Master's Voice" :D
Just joking. That wouldn't be acceptable in my eyes. As a proud Volterian son, I'd fight for him to be continue being able to continue his counter-productive paid-for propaganda.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Um, dismissed without evidence to the contrary is not "debunked".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: UPDATE
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is a generation that wants everything now, won't wait for anything, and won't respect anyone's rights to decide when and where to sell their products.
DMCA notices are an outcrop of "people don't care".
"We need to properly codify 3rd party immunity, and change the notice and take-down system to a notice and forward system."
It won't work in a system where ISPs and "service providers" are allowed to take anonymous submissions. Who are they suppose to notify?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
In no case should anyone else pay the bill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: UPDATE
RECALIBRATE!
RECALIBRATE!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hope it happens during the DNC
-CF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
Yes the poster was an overeacting bigmouth dumbass. His been flagged by this community. You've got enough "evidence" lines to go pretend that this site's infested with pirate murders.
Now "go fuck off and die" ? Kidding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
Hence should neither have had this right granted...
Thanks for making the point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am no coder but....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
Hence should neither have had this unchecked private censorship right granted...
Thanks for making the point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: easy fix ---> three strikes philosophy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
nothing
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2012/03/01/public-advocacy-group-proposes-5-alternati ves-to-s
at
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/alternative-sopa-open-process-befitting-open-int ernet
all
http://www.amazon.com/How-Fix-Copyright-William-Patry/dp/0199760098
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
However, particularly during the SOPA debate, I saw numerous threats along these lines made against SOPA proponents. Based on my firsthand knowledge, I'd say the violent lunatics are all on your side of the debate- though I'd certainly like to see citations where these kinds of threats came from people on my side of the debate. Whichever side they come from, they are about as wrong as it gets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, the problem is that there are a handful of major corporations that believe that their legally-granted privileges are so much more important than the rights of everyday, law-abiding human beings that they don't even see (let alone care about) the deep injustice of their actions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: UPDATE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQLbwOGT8eM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: UPDATE
In other words, they plan to re-activate Vobile as-is, without any modifications, as soon as this whole thing blows over in a few days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would they pay $25 a month to a pirate site when they can torrent shit for free?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Copyright" = Censorship
You can't have "freedom of speech" and "copyright" as they are antithetical.
Idea's are not scarce and are therefore not a form of property.
We must stop this madness, otherwise, soon we'll need State licenses to speak.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
To form an opinion inside your head without facts to draw your own conclusions is just derping. You have to draw your own conclusions from facts to form opinions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: UPDATE
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The rights I'm talking about are more basic things like free speech, privacy, and property rights, etc, for everybody -- even theoretical people who do not ever look at or listen to content of any sort.
The legislation and private industry agreements that have been contemplated 9and enacted) so far have involved infringement on these basic rights to one degree or another.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There's out problem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "Copyright" = Censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There's out problem
Ummm, I think you're lost. The criminal courtroom is next door.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
those users who notify Ustream in advance they have rights permissions [...] are automatically white listed to avoid situations like this and receive hands-on client support."
You left this part from Ustream, boy...
Ustream’s messaging to our broadcaster community how this process works is inadequate.
We are resolving this now
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "Copyright" = Censorship
You owe Gene Roddenberry's estate for appropriating the Klingon Code of Honor in your sentence.
You have dishonored yourself by using others' concepts without payment in your so-called "free speech", boy!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Dogs
Copyright enforcement is totally one sided and NASA lost their Curiosity landing video because YouTube's content ID system is ultra retarded and does not even know what Public Domain is or that no one can actually copyright it. If YouTube can't even figure out that easy one then the on-line content streaming world is doomed.
Now in this Hugo Awards Ceremony case you of course have both prior approval and fair use. There simply should be no system in place even pondering taking down this stream.
What is most sad here is that this problem could be easily fixed by adding an automatic fine to a false take-down. So if they want to nuke the Hugo Awards again they get an automatic fine of $10,000, $20,000 or $50,000. Sure enough if UStream gets a fine like that they would sh*t bricks and forever more their system would not even try to remove content unless they were completely certain.
The main problem is that content rights are still stuck in the 19th century. There was no way these Hugo Awards could flag online their prior consent to use these clips. Neither could they flag an even larger Awards Ceremony setting granting a fair use status.
So all that can happen is that you, myself, or an automated bot can look at the video and draw our own conclusions without a single scrap of proof to back it up.
I would even go as far to say the whole content protection system including the DMCA should be taken down until such a time that it is technically worthy to be on the Internet. I would add content hashes, public domain, creative commons, fair use, approval token trading, and yes FINES for improper settings and take-down abuse.
This content match system is the dog's bollocks. If that is the best these rights owners can come up with leading to a content bombing campaign then it is no surprise that the file sharing community runs technical rings around them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: There's out problem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: There's out problem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, if the pirates make that much money why aren't you ppl learning with them? Please note that despite your "production costs" whining it's irrelevant, there are many other ways to monetize, including selling plastic discs for the affectionate fans (that most likely are also pirates).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "Copyright" = Censorship
Who are you to determine what is and is not acceptable speech?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
How much did you pay Pirate Mike for the privilege of commenting at Techdirt? For using Techdirt's bandwidth and storage space with your vexatious rants?
Come to think of it... how much have you paid the creators of html, php, css and the browser you are using to access, read and comment on the web?
Did you seek out Tim Berners Lee or any of the creators of the technologies that make up the internet to see if you required a license to use and access it?
Oh you may think you don't need a license - you're too ignorant to even realise how much you rely on patent-free, open source, goodness provided by people far more intelligent and inventive than you, but have you ever saved or shared a gif file (chances are yes)? Did you pay the license to use the gif format at that time (pre-2004)?
People like you make me sick. You stand on the shoulders of intellectual giants, who provided the platform you use royalty free because they understand the benefits of sharing knowledge and work - and you rail against them and their ideology all the while benefiting from it.
When you pay for your internet browser, when you pay a license to access and run html, php, css, xml, javascript... please come here and comment (after paying for the privelege) and let us know. Then we'll talk. Until then STFU and GTFO.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Put some pressure in the other direction
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "Copyright" = Censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bots
They don't feel fear. They don't feel pain. They can't be bargained with, they can't be reasoned with. And they absolutely will not stop until your content is dead.
Quoted from memory, might be a little off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I'm so rich with my 8 billion ipod. I even bought an island these days, spent something like 5k mp3 on it.
it's because you can't afford it
Actually, nowadays, it's because I simply don't have time to use all that. So even if I could afford buying every single game in the world it doesn't matter, I don't have time to play them so I wouldn't buy anyway. The loss is zero.
You're pretty much the poster boy of freeloaders.
I didn't know the term freeloaders applied to people that buy stuff like me. I'll be adopting the label then.
You think you're owed entertainment because you are an economic failure.
Says the economic wise man that can't make money without enacting draconian laws ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
I didn't go into details because many of those issues are personal and completely off topic.
To form an opinion inside your head without facts to draw your own conclusions is just derping. You have to draw your own conclusions from facts to form opinions.
Well, ain't that rich. You don't have any facts to back up your claims that I did any such thing, yet that didn't stop you from stating opinions from "inside your head without facts to draw your own conclusions".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "Copyright" = Censorship
all I'm saying is that your right to criticize your government, advocate and publicize your opinion is different than having your access to copyright-violating movies curtailed.
It's no wonder responsible people laugh out loud when you cry 'free speech' when pirate sites are shuttered. People fought and died for your right to express your opinion, not so that you can avoid paying to watch "Avatar". Loser.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: There's out problem
Really? Tell that to Queen Phara, the O'Dwyer kid, Fat Bastard and all of the others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Put some pressure in the other direction
Why don't you do something..... other than talk?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The answer is that it was pure theater, not a good faith effort. They've done nothing to forward it whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is there no way to program Vobile?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Copyright" = Censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The problem is the copyright holders that wants to control everything, won't give up anything and won't respect anyone and treats them like criminals, despite the fact that they NEED those same people more than those people need them."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The features are there, but the fact that white-listing can also be turned on for free accounts on request was known and acknowledged both in some of the messages i've seen on their forums and in other places.
Sometimes they even whitelist long-time popular channels without being asked, e.g.:
https://twitter.com/Signalnoise/status/35526569510449152
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
I extrapolate my opinions from various sources I have either read long ago, or learned from experience. I can't very well pull sources out of my head from what I learned as common forward thinking knowledge from years past can I? My point is to make sure you're informed well enough to draw conclusions from the facts that you've learned.
You have my respect Ed C. :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Copyright" = Censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Make em pay!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "Copyright" = Censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can't shut it off
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Put some pressure in the other direction
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Copyright" = Censorship
Of course not. What is your point? I'm not being snotty, I really don't know where you're going with this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Put some pressure in the other direction
Feel free to reengage with further hankie-twisting and moaning. I'm sure you'll be able to squeeze a few more posts out of your flock of parrots before their eyes glaze over and roll back in their heads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
I guess that's like calling the fat girl "Tiny" or referring to Marcus as "Einstein", huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
W&I: "Here, we have gone to the trouble to produce this improved proposal that fixes the problems in your original."
*AA: "Now do the work to get the proposal passed for us."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Put some pressure in the other direction
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Can't shut it off
Skynet has noted your comment and has now upgraded you to "to-be-terminated" status. Please stand-by for further instructions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It won't work in a system where ISPs and "service providers" are allowed to take anonymous submissions. Who are they suppose to notify?
Excellent point! In that case, I believe the copyright holder would file a lawsuit against a 'doe', have the court determine if the use is infringing, and if so produce a court order to take it down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Put some pressure in the other direction
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
/mind boggled
/stunned amazement
/wtf
Really. It is better to perform surgery with a chain saw than not at all. You believe that.
/emergency anti-head-explosion protection measures engaged
Obvious precision problems with a chainsaw aside... You have a damn scalpel. You can file a lawsuit and take it to the courts. Your problem is that you think using a scalpel takes too long.
Back to the chainsaw. The fact that you are willing to use a 'chainsaw' to perform 'surgery' explains why the MPAA and RIAA are 'dying'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put some pressure in the other direction
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: who should take note and action
Did bob just make a valid comment on this site? As in, one that makes sense, is well thought out and responds to the article in question?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now you're catching on Derpsley. By the time a case winds through the courts, how widespread is the infringing file. Millions, billions?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is a legacy industry that will not adapt to that generation (their customers and the market).
That generation damn well knows how easy it is to provide the things they want, without waiting, and won't respect stupid reasons for not supplying what they want.
If two guys writing code in a garage and paying for servers and bandwidth with couch cushion money can destroy your business model, then we know two things: The two guys aren't the problem. And your business model sucks.
This generation will line up for blocks to get the latest gizmo on release day. This generation will sell out the 12:01 AM showing of the summer blockbuster, and wait at the bookstore at midnight to get the latest book in a beloved series. This generation will pre-order the latest online game or expansion pack and then flood the servers the second they open. This generation is breaking down the doors to get at that content, yet you somehow think you can make money by building walls between them and it. If you cannot make money off a generation this rabid for your product, you are a moron.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Copyright" = Censorship
Which still puts GoreHound and myself several levels above you, boy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In the meantime, though, I believe I see why you have deteriorating mental health. You are trying to hold in your head the idea that it is possible to curb copyright infringement by passing more laws. This delusion is compounded by your absolute refusal to entertain evidence to the contradicts your views and further by insisting that these measures are necessary in spite of evidence to the contrary.
The only way to effectively eliminate copyright infringement: repeal copyright. Any other laws you pass will be as effective as chasing down all the feathers from a burst pillow in a hurricane. Or turning back a tsunami by drinking a full 64 oz. water. Or chopping down the largest tree in the forest with an herring. It can't be done. Save your sanity and accelerate your recovery by accepting it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Copyright" = Censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
but then again, most of the "newest, latest and Greatest" is crap I read years ago..
can't wait till another AC calls me a thief, I got a lawyer that works on commission, and he is hungry as hell
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I only just now thought of this, but...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
really?
At the same time, I can't help equating most of the authors involved in this ceremony with the sort of kamikaze copyright maximalism we see so routinely in publishing and broadcasting.
While I'm sure there were any number of bright, understanding, non-maximalists in the audience (were you out there, Cory Doctorow?)I really don't believe anything as well established as the Hugos or the World Science Fiction Convention could take place without the approval of copyright scum. And it's always mildly amusing to watch the biter get bitten.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please cite actual examples so we can all look at it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am no coder but....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's what I thought. "Just give us more ways to mess everything up and then we will stop messing anything up." Yeah, right!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: who should take note and action
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
From what ustream knew the broadcast could have equally happened from inside a cage for a guinea pig because WorldCon/Hugo Awards didn't even bother to at least make sure that their broadcaster knew who they were and what was the purpose of the stream they were setting up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Copyright" = Censorship
People fought and died for my right to express my opinion, yes. I am grateful to them, and I want to make sure they didn't die in vain. That anyone can post anything to the internet, including copyrighted content, insures that other expression is not being censored. If the government keeps overreaching and taking away individual rights for the benefit of private businesses, there's going to be another revolution, and more people are going to die needlessly. (This is not some threat or manifesto. I'm not stockpiling guns or building a bunker. Just an observation of history.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...of which exactly what proportion is false and/or fraudulent? You won't back that part up, will you, nor consider other companies for some reason.
Like I said, assumptions.
I do truly love the fact that you're now berating me for not looking at the figures provided by Google and Techdirt (which I have to search for myself, for some reason, so I can't even be sure I'm looking at the same figures you're thinking of). Every other thread, you're attacking Google, coming up with wild conspiracy theories as to how they're not trusted and attacking everyone who uses a Techdirt story as a citation as a shill. That's you're now attacking me for NOT doing so only highlights how full of crap you really are.
Go on, provide the link that states the evidence for your assertion that Google receives millions of DMCA notices AND that false/fraudulent/misdirected notices are no larger than the number talked about here. It's your assertion, I'm not doing the legwork for you because you can't be arsed to back up your own claim.
Not least because I know from experience that when I do look at it and cite why you're full of shit, you'll just pretend it was a different set of data you were talking about. We've played this game before, you're always defeated, and you always disappear when asked to back up your own claims - or simply proven incorreect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But yeah, it's tiring to hear that as an excuse to wave away my real suggestions and pointing out the real problems - as if having stayed in the UK would make the problem go away for Spaniards or remove the regional restrictions I had to put up with while in the UK. I'd still have the same problems with Hulu, Pandora, turntable.fm, etc. in the UK as I do here, only I'd actually be allowed to access Netflix, iPlayer and Lovefilm. An improvement, but not worth moving for! Of course, I could just pirate or use a proxy to access the content, but I prefer to be paying those who want to offer a product I can pay for rather than trying to trick those who won't into accepting it.
Like the "you're all pirates" and "you just want things for free" rubbish, it's just an excuse to not deal with reality and realise that it's the very way they choose to do business is the root of most of their problems.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At a guess, it's a list supplied by one of your cronies, containing false information, and your ego won't let you admit that the guy on "your side" might have been providing false allegations.
Perhaps not, but I wish you'd answer my request for knowing what the fuck you're blathering on again this time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which will, of course, never work and will end up killing the patient in gruesome ways, but hey better than a scalpel you might have to risk humiliation or change of attitude to obtain!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 4th, 2012 @ 7:11am
And watch yourself exsanguinate from all the bullet holes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
Yes, and TD comments is the only possible way to get a message to Mike...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't actually make it true, it just shows you're either not too smart or batshit crazy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Copyright" = Censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Copyright" = Censorship
Thinking of it, maybe copyright exception should be modified to not be transferable to corporations who can't help abuse it and don't have or feel any accountability legal or otherwise in protecting free speech and democracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, imagine the money the entertainment industry could make if it tried to genuinely satisfy all those potential customers. See a need, fill a need (no copyright infringement intended).
"DMCA notices are an outcrop of "people don't care"."
Correct, most people don't care about copyright any more. People absolutely love what technology now allows them to do, and nothing short of global Armageddon is going to force people to change back to the old ways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wikipedia.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put some pressure in the other direction
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right, no new tools were offered that would fix "the problem" of it not being 1990 again. Sorry for that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, no, no... if they did *that* then they'd lose the excuses they give their shareholders! This way it's perfect. If they succeed doing things they way they want to then they cash in. If they fail, then it's those damn customers trying to dictate to them how, when and where they want to buy the product, and they're evil for choosing not to! Win/win, and by the time everything collapses or someone chooses to do things right, those currently in charge will have retired with a nice fat payoff.
Actually accepting that they have to change to supply the customers demand would involve accepting that they've been pissing in the wind and actively alienating those customers for the last 2 decades, which means also accepting blame for shareholder losses - and you can't have that!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And it's funny you think not spending a quarter of your income on games makes you an "economic failure". Most people would call that prudent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No surprise there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean those, they stole from the fairytales?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: easy fix ---> three strikes philosophy
To quote from the above article:
Congress held hearings designed to put the fear of Congress into live streaming startups like Ustream and Justin.tv. In response, despite having strong DMCA compliance records (and the associated safe harbors), those companies are going above and beyond what the law requires to try to keep copyright holders (and the government) happy.
These companies are going "above and beyond" because the "fear of Congress" is very real. Congress can and will bow to the "people" (read large corporate entities and ultrarich elites) who fund their campaigns.
By contrast, "contacting your congressperson" is meant to offset that forces by putting the "fear of the people" into congresspeople. Except it does no such thing, because their are NO negative consequences for repeated bad behavior. Congress is full of people who consistently go against the will of the public and yet get elected term after term after term, because people are too busy "contacting their congresspersons" to do anything about it.
If people spent even half the time finding better alternatives to the current "representatives" as the did "contacting their congresspersons" perhaps things would actually improve. Because as it stands now, politics is become more of a case of not who is best, but a case of "any cost" (as in "we're voting for Romney because we can't allow Obama another term at any cost", or "we're voting for Obama because we can't allow Romney into the oval office at any cost.")
The only time I ever "contact my congressperson" is when/if I give them my vote so they can continue to keep their job (and trust me, any politician worthy of retaining his/her job is going to know well in advance if what they are doing is going against the will of the people without the people having to go knocking on their door to tell them).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: time to react violently
However, I have seen many, many comments from the "maximalist" that anyone who doesn't agree with their way of doing things should essentially be incarcerated for long periods of time among other harsh punishments, including the occasional "they should all be round up and shot" (and while much rarer, I HAVE seen such statements made).
As someone who used to be a very strong supporter of copyright, I can say one of the many reasons I switched sides was in part because I saw far a lot more copyright supporters being far more dishonest and unwilling to concede to reasonable discussions on the matter, but also because I saw a lot more copyright "maximalists" suggesting solutions to the "problem" (often based on their own dishonest and inaccurate data) that were often far more drastic and draconian than solutions suggested by "pirates".
When you threaten a large enough body of people with imprisonment (perhaps even up to the level of creating a "slave" class) or more rarely even the possibility of death (among other potential punishments), some of those people are naturally going to suggest you should have a bullet put in your head instead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bots v. Verified Infringement Enforcement
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Man of Science!
Man of Action!
Man of Bad Puns!
The ideal Doctor!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: terms and definitions
Of course the more PC-minded pirates may prefer the term "redistributively challenged".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vobile
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]