Dreamforce Official Livestream... Shut Down By 'Content' Bots
from the and-here-we-go-again dept
This is becoming a regular thing. While some insist that copyright isn't limiting free speech, there has recently been a string of situations involving official livestreams being taken down due to copyright bots. There was the Hugo Awards livestream and the DNC livestream... and now it appears that Salesforce's big event, Dreamforce, is having the same issue. Brian Walsh sent over the following image as he tried to watch the official live stream:
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: content bots, copyright, dreamforce, livestreams
Companies: salesforce
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Easy to tell legit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy to tell legit?
While I understand your concern about the removal of the video/image/blog in question, you have to understand that the piece is infringing/illegal/counterfeit which helps pirates/counterfeiters/child pornographers steal billions of dollars from american music/movie/car/corn industries, with devastating losses to music/movies/cars/popcorn. Please, think about the children/Americans/victims. We cannot let the terrorists/Chinese/pirates/horses win.
--Blogbot (see, bots are that easy!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy to tell legit?
- Anonymous Coward
- Inspector Fox of the Light Entertainment Police, Comedy Division, Special Flying Squad
- He who shall not be named
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Easy to tell legit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy to tell legit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy to tell legit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy to tell legit?
Yup - and nobody here seems to consider that perhaps, maybe, the people sending the feed only wanted to show it in certain countries.
Fast to claim blocking, short on real info. Keep going, you will be a Techdirt staff member in no time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy to tell legit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Easy to tell legit?
That is their right. Suck it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy to tell legit?
You really suck at this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy to tell legit?
Ill explain AC cuz I know you have no idea.
You chastise mike for speculating about the blockage, but you then go on to speculate about the content owner wanting it blocked without an ounce of proof to back up your claim.
Funny funny little troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy to tell legit?
Perhaps if you were a little less rude people wouldn't assume the worst about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy to tell legit?
Short on real info indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From Dreamforce
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From Dreamforce
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/s =P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm
This form of damage mitigation isn't a substitute for fixing the problem, but would do two things: highlight the obsurdity of the system in the first place, and get feeds restored in time for their actual airing, so people can watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
C-Span
Nah, that wouldn't work, they (Congress) would applaud.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the lie continues. Mossoff did not say that copyright doesn't "limit free speech." In fact, I pointed you to where he explains: "Actually, copyright does limit online speech..." http://truthonthemarket.com/2012/09/17/copyright-does-not-violate-the-right-to-free-speech/
Mosso ff hasn't claimed otherwise. What he has claimed is that copyright "is not a violation of the right to free speech." So you are purposefully misrepresenting what he said. As is your typical pattern, you state a lie in one article, and then in another article you link back to the first lie and build another lie on top. And then all you have are lies built on lies.
So please explain to me how this article shows copyright actually violating someone's free speech rights. You can't (hence the need to lie).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, AJ, just how do you justify taking down a live event? The ones that have been reported here previously have all had cleared in advance IP involved. There is no mention of outside IP in this stream, and I have a hard time believing there was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is where you said it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's a hint: Legitimate speech was blocked because of copyright claims.
Your pedantry knows no bounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right, except the truth is the exact opposite of that. Legitimate speech being blocked by a DMCA takedown, illegitimate or otherwise is a violation of that entity's free speech rights. Speech is communication. Audio, video, it is all communication. Cases like these are just exploiting the loophole in the DMCA which allows for consequence-less illegitimate takedown notices to be filed and served.
It's private action on a private website.
And that's the problem which really lies at the heart of the matter. Internet takedowns should really take place in court. It's the only way to make sure this gets handled fairly. Currently, as Mike repeatedly asserts, the law operates on a 'guilty until proven innocent' basis, which as you know is contrary to the entirety of American law.
America's about fairness, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The recipient service provider relies on the notice to know whether they should take down the material. If they don't, they are potentially liable thereafter as a contributory or vicarious infringer. The notice requirements mean that a service provider doesn't have to second-guess about whether it's liable for content on its service.
The notice and takedown system is a compromise. It gives service providers certainty in their legal exposure for operating systems that are used to infringe. And it gives copyright owners a way to get infringements taken down.
Most of the time, a person who uploaded infringing content faces no liability. The takedown notice takes the content down, and the copyright owner doesn't then go after them. So the system actually keeps a lot of infringers out of hot water.
It's not perfect, but it's a good balancing. If you only look at one aspect of it, as Mike usually does with these sorts of things, then you're missing the bigger picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Beyond that, there's no liability. So the end result is rights holders are allowed to hire third parties to spam out DMCA notices and not face repercussions and hosting companies are pressured into using shitty filtering. So now we have DMCA notices flying fast and furious, and we're seeing real consequences.
How can it be that we have so many obviously false positives? Clearly there is something wrong with the process.
There's really no denying that this was an illegitimate takedown; more of a glaring example of a broken system. Balance? I think I just broke a rib from laughing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's liability for making misrepresentations in the notice.
And I'm not sure where you get the idea that there's a huge problem with bad notices. Techdirt highlights the outliers. It ignores completely the millions of notices that are rightfully sent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there is a consistent flaw being exploited, would you not agree that the flaw should be corrected, rather than continuing to antagtonise people, possibly to the point of ignoring the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
in response to below-average joe-
when the position is one you agree with, no facts are even necessary...
when the position is in opposition to yours, NO AMOUNT of facts will convince you otherwise...
*THAT* is the pattern you demonstrate...
i despise authoritarians...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
art guerrilla at windstream dot net
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's you justifying it right there. By saying a take down of a live event is not a violation of free speech rights, you're justifying it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
when the position is one you agree with, no facts are even necessary...
when the position is in opposition to yours, NO AMOUNT of facts will convince you otherwise...
*THAT* is the pattern you demonstrate...
i despise authoritarians...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
art guerrilla at windstream dot net
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, you need to replace "below average joe" with whatever you name is. Actually you could put Mike's name there too.
Don't you understand how Techdirt works? Mike narrowly selects stories that support his point of view, while pointedly ignore those that don't. When those are brought up, he ignores the story and insults the poster instead.
As an example, there was a good story this past weekend on Wired, an interview with William Gibson (look him up if you need to). He basically says that perhaps all this instant infinite distribution is in fact hurting musical trends, because they become worldwide instantly (think Psy). As he says, the old system of things getting dragged around and introduced to people in intimate settings (friends show friends, etc) maybe made for a "richer sauce". Instead, today we seem to be doomed to nothing more than a series of flash fads, meme jokes, and wash, rinse, repeat.
Mike doesn't like to look at stories like that, because it is clearly someone with experience, with knowledge, and with intelligence raising the issues of the negative implications of all that goes on. He questions if this in the end will produce more and better music, or just more. In simple terms, the "just more" doesn't appear to advance the arts, which in turn makes it a good argument why destroying copyright to allow flash fad musical knock offs may not be a good thing.
So see, when you come to Techdirt, Mike has careful removed almost all of the negative thoughts, almost all of the non-conforming data points, and has carefully hidden the implications of what he supports.
If the only facts you see support your point of view, then you will always think he is right.
It's also a feedback loop. Mike tends to toss the occasional questionable story out there, and waits to see the reaction. If you guys are all over it saying "hell yeah" then it often becomes part of the deal. If you guys get even slightly negative on it, it goes away and never comes back. Filtered facts, making for a perfect universe. It's so strong that you guys go off on anyone who dares to post an opposing view.
I despise people who hide the truth.
I despise people who think it is okay.
They usually hide it behind cries for free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I may be a tad off base here but, ah, isn't the trend of music now mostly dependent upon those that listen to it? Listen to whatever they want? Whenever? Wherever?
Despising people that hide the truth? You sure despise a lot of people do you not? A healthy dose of self-loathing to boot?
Perhaps, if you will perchance give it a moments thought, you should consider why one guy's thoughts on music trends should matter, even a little, with regard to the current state of this mess?
Quite simply, as a commenter, you can link to this mind blowing insight from some guy all you like and let the interest ensue. Not entirely unlike this: This guy had interesting things to say. What say you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, he was comment on the fact that your exact line of logic shows a weird trend towards things burning out quickly, being almost a meme rather than a trend, flash and gone.
It's rather like coffee - freeze dried stuff is fast and instant, but tasteless and horrible. Real coffee takes time to brew and is delicious. His concern is that perhaps the internet and instant communication and worldwide overnight flash trends are turning music into freeze dried instant crap. Some things take time to brew, the internet gives no time to brew.
IMHO, that is why you have things like Psy, Chocolate Rain, Fridays, and junk like that, because it's more flash trend than anything real. It's amusing for a second, forgotten in a few moments by most.
"Quite simply, as a commenter, you can link to this mind blowing insight from some guy all you like and let the interest ensue. Not entirely unlike this: This guy had interesting things to say. What say you?"
He had plenty of things to say, none of them relevant to the discussion at hand. if you go onto PoetDirt.com or Ancientcrap.com, you might be more in place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
in response to below-average joe-
when the position is one you agree with, no facts are even necessary...
when the position is in opposition to yours, NO AMOUNT of facts will convince you otherwise...
*THAT* is the pattern you demonstrate...
i despise authoritarians...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
art guerrilla at windstream dot net
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike said "While some insist that copyright isn't limiting free speech" with a link back to the earlier article about Mossoff.
Mossoff did not "insist that copyright isn't limiting free speech," he said it's not VIOLATING free speech rights.
Why must Mike misrepresent what Mossoff actually said?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Some fuse went out AJ, you need to replace your brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What, pray tell, is the explicit difference there? Remember, I said explicit, so I expect a very detailed answer.
...
Where'd you go???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What if David Lowery decided he wanted to censor Techdirt content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree that if Mike chooses to block someone of his own free will, without undue pressure being applied by the government, that is not a violation of free speech.
But that isn't what happened here or in other DMCA takedowns or automated content bots mishaps.
Do you think that Google/Youtube/Facebook or other sites wanted to takedown the legal content? Of course they didn't. They were compelled to take it down or implement the bots under threat of liability from a third party holding a copyright.
The government is involved here in two ways:
1) The DMCA is a law that lays out specific steps for a service provider to avoid liability from what the users of their service use it for (something no one with a bit of common sense would think they were liable for in the first place), and those steps say to take the content down first - before it is determined to be infringing.
2) Copyright is a government granted monopoly over an expression.
If the government gets to hand out monopolies over expressions, there is a duty to insure that those monopolies are not being used to censor protected speech - and writing a law to encourage them to be used to do so (often by unwilling parties) is not the right way to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FYI when you are arrested by mistake you can usually sue for damages. And I doubt it happens as frequently as censoring speech with copyright (accidentally or not), at least in America.
Oh have I mentioned you missed the point again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Here...there is no court, just the silencing of the individual(s). They're not told they can continue to speak and possibly infringe and that what they say will be used in the court-room...they're just silenced outright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Alright, Mike may or may not have misquoted Mossoff in the previous article - this article focuses AGAIN on how bots are preventing people from speaking, having invoked that authority from the government, a power that conflicts with free speech rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/9/d46dedfd045d5d6a1de11a9d6d4bf83d/l.jpg
Wasn' t there a famous lawsuit over a tattoo on an actor's face in the movie "Hangover 2"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bloody pirates !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your intent on conflating semantic bullshit with the actual issues is old, pathetic and not helping in the least to correct the issue that copyright, in its present state, is much more harmful than helpful to all those with any interest whatsoever up to and inclusive of those that currently benefit the most - large media conglomerates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your intent on conflating semantic bullshit with the actual issues is old, pathetic and not helping in the least to correct the issue that copyright, in its present state, is much more harmful than helpful to all those with any interest whatsoever up to and inclusive of those that currently benefit the most - large media conglomerates.
Do you actually have a specific, concrete argument, or is it just generalizations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
My argument... is thus: To what do you claim as right? Were I to be wronged by your right then to whom do I sow my disdain? For with you it is that I must sow the seeds for a remorseful bounty such that you may reap what becomes you. Abject hilarity and a conspicuous slight to those whom are affected by your concepts of right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I had to use the dictionary to read your comment. Well played, dear sir. And I agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are an advanced distributor of fine quality, carefully crafted and filtered male bovine fecal matter.
Yup. Bullshitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your humour is frequently puerile, and yet you bemoan a future full of cat videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Semantic bullshit. That was your queue only you've done yourself an injustice by mangling the contention to suit the needs of your advance.
This is open ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike's idol Lessig took these arguments for a walk, and the entire justice system laughed at him. I think it was a 9 nothing defeat, or something along those lines. It was insane. Mike doesn't talk much about 1st amendment issues and copyright anymore, because for the most part, he knows it's already a dead subject.
He seems to bring it back every so often in case you have forgotten about it, so he can drive some more page views from ranters like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mike doesn't talk much about 1st amendment issues and copyright anymore, because for the most part, he knows it's already a dead subject.
I suggest you browse techdirt for the last few weeks and you'll see it's pretty much a live and hot subject. And those articles usually get a lot of attention and comments. And he's not the only one questioning. If by any chance you just arrived from Mars you should also check the protests around the world. 15M in Spain, Egypt, Occupy Wall Street and its offsprings all over the world, protests against SOPA/PIPA/ACTA and recently TPP, the real estate protests in Israel, protests in Portugal against not the Government but the system itself...
Must be nice to be out of touch in the end, what the eyes don't (or refuse to) see the heart doesn't feel, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents are well on their way into nuclear destruction too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Takedown of takedown notices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“when the position is one you agree with, no facts are even necessary...
when the position is in opposition to yours, NO AMOUNT of facts will convince you otherwise...
*THAT* is the pattern you demonstrate...
i despise authoritarians...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
art guerrilla at windstream dot net
eof