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 lit up Twitter, as tons of people were watching the show via the stream — and suddenly you had folks like sci-fi author Tobias Buckwell, Macworld Editorial Director Jason Snell and many other high profile people complaining about the over-aggressiveness of automated copyright enforcement. What made things even worse was the fact that all clips shown were cleared prior to airing.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: ustream, vobile

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Copyright Enforcement Bots Seek And Destroy Hugo Awards”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
295 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

easy fix ---> three strikes philosophy

On the first and second false takedowns:
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.

Trails (profile) says:

Re: easy fix ---> three strikes philosophy

In the above scenario, who gets the strike? BBC? They didn’t program the bot or issue the takedown. The stream was taken down by a provider for ustream, so they issue strikes against themselves?

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: easy fix ---> three strikes philosophy

skynet is now online… we need a future bot that has been reprogrammed and sent back in time to to find the originators of the flawed DMCA that brought the bots online killing fair and reasonable copyright… this must be done before TPP judgment day when all culture will be destroyed by more potent bots…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

This is censorship in private corporate hands. Plain and simple.

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.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: 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…”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: time to react violently

We just need to start putting some bullets into some people, like the lawyers pushing this shit out, and it will stop after 4 or 5 of them are shot dead.

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.

The Devil's Coachman (profile) says:

Re: Re: time to react violently

Just the sort of comment from the lunatic IP maximalists I’d expect. I hope you don’t mind if I forward this comment to your psychiatrist to see that your paranoia medications are properly adjusted. Or have you just stopped taking them? I mean, thorazine is cheap generic nowadays, so you don’t have a financial excuse.

Sneeje (profile) says:

Re: Re: time to react violently

Calling someone ought for foolish extremist views is certainly warranted. But can you honestly say that you believe that statement represents the entire other side of the argument or even something beyond a sliver of it?

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 time to react violently

“Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t recall any so-called “copyright maximalist” calling for murder.”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 time to react violently

“Or should we go through finding (and linking to) all the “fuck off and die” (among other “beauties”) made by those on your side?”

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.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 time to react violently

Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t recall any so-called “copyright maximalist” calling for murder.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 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.”

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?

SujaOfJauhnral (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 time to react violently

This is completely true! If you don’t believe it just go and challenge copyrestriction on a popular art site like Deviant Art.

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!

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 time to react violently

Ed C., when you disagree with soemone, you have to provide facts with opinions to show why you think this way. This way it’s much more clear and easier to have open dialogue. If you can’t write clearly enough, just provide the links to where you got the information.

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.

Ed C. says:

Re: Re: Re:6 time to react violently

I didn’t really disagree with SujaOfJauhnral. Just the last line, which I should have quoted, “I have NEVER met a more consistently unpleasant group of people than copyrestrictors!” I merely pointed out that I have met many other groups who also wave the banner of freedom and personal liberties while trampling over the rights of others, spewing vitriol and hatred towards anyone who disagrees with them.

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”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 time to react violently

I have never seen such comments threatening you or your family with murder. If it’s true then I agree that it is totally and completely wrong and the people making those threats should be held accountable.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 time to react violently

Deflecting the subject as usual, make as much unrelated noise as possible.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 time to react violently

Masnick claims he’s received death threats and threats of violence against him and his family. I’ve never seen them. I’d appreciate someone pointing them out.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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 ?

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.

DannyB (profile) says:

It seems so easy and sensible that the robot should be only the first step. The purported copyright owner should then have the manually examine the alleged copyright infringement and swear under penalty of perjury that they have determined this to be copyright infringement.

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?

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

This is how the system was supposed to work on paper.
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?

Manabi (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

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.

If it’s valuable, then they should be willing to foot the bill to protect it. If it’d cost more to “protect” than it’s worth, then perhaps it isn’t as valuable as they think it is.

In no case should anyone else pay the bill.

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile) says:

Re: Re:

then why do they claim it is okay to inflict such a process onto the innocent third parties?

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.

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Had they gone with the “paid, ad-free, Pro Broadcasting” service they wouldn’t have gotten nuked by a DRMbot.

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!”

ken (profile) says:

Bogus Take-downs is Theft

Unlike copying that does not deprive the holders of their content bogus take-downs most certainly does. They call the first theft while routinely engage in the latter. They are the true thieves.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

“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.”

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.

Dave Xanatos (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Exactly. We need to drastically reduce instances of copyright infringement by bringing some sanity back into copyright law. If non-commercial and transformative uses were eliminated as copyright violations, copyright infringement would be reduced by several orders of magnitude instantly, and the need for these bots would almost entirely disappear.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Or to paraphrase:

“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…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Dumb paraphrase there Paul, and very much not at all what I said.

“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.

Coyote (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

What world of reality do you live on, might I ask? Isn’t the fact that millions of DMCA notices get issued for false shit a big red flag? Isn’t it an issue that false DMCA takedowns can result in legit content being taken down? It should be a wake up call to you and all of your kind that copyright enforcement does nothing but HARM your image, your business, and overall, harm your consumers — the one’s who actually PURCHASE the products you often make.

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?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Millions of DMCA notices every month, and a few misdirected”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“Citation, or is that your own blind assumption as usual? Where are your figures from?”

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.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

You can search Techdirt for the discussion of Google’s DMCA list… most of them are good, and the number is only increasing.

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.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“You can search Techdirt for the discussion of Google’s DMCA list… most of them are good, and the number is only increasing.”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 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?”

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).

Dave Xanatos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

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.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Yup. You have to go back and identify the problem.

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?

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 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.

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.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

I’m not talking about a “right to be entertained” or a “right to pirate”.

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.

The eejit (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Remember that the next time you watch Mickey Mouse. Shamelessly stolen without credit for the short, Steamboat Willie.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Remember that the next time you watch Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which was shamelessly stolen from the public domain.”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“the occasional misapplications of the cures.” are thus acceptable it seems.

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.

saulgoode (profile) says:

You omit to mention the party most at fault for this takedown: the copyright holders at whose behest the “3rd party automated infringement system” is patrolling the Web… and all members of the MPAA who have been lobbying for this state of affairs.

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.

PaulT (profile) says:

Of course, the extra irony of all of this is that a huge amount of money is being used to kill not only legitimate speech, but also advertising *for the industry’s own products* as well.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

And you know, the Who episode written by Gaiman was by far one of the best of the sixth season. It was fun and you could easily tell it was written by him.

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.)

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’m a few seasons behind on Doctor Who – due partly to time, partly to regional restrictions, I stopped watching at the end of Tennant’s run. Hearing things like this make me want to go and check out Matt Smith’s episodes, and maybe seek out some Gaiman as well (I’ve not read his books so only know of him from movies like Stardust and MirrorMask as well as his online reputation).

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I’ve been a fan since the first season of the New Series, but I highly recommend you check out Matt Smith’s run so far. It’s fun. Tennant was a fan favorite for New Who fans, but once you give Smith a chance you’ll love his take on the Doctor.

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])

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Actually, my first Doctor was Peter Davidson as I’m English and have been watching since I was a kid (although I did give up toward the end of McCoy’s run originally). I’ve liked all the doctors so far to be honest, the writing is what annoyed me during the new series (I liked many of the episodes where Rose was the companion, for example, but the insistence on including soap moments with her family were grating).

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

PaulT, I hope you realize I was being sarcastic about your place of living. I was making a joke, because that’s what I’ve seen some of the ACs attack your for.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I am no coder but....

The problem is that when I post something that is clearly fair use, I can’t get on that ‘whitelist’.

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.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: I am no coder but....

Yep, which is why the constant stupid analogies to child porn, drugs or what have you are especially idiotic. The exact same file can be legal or infringing depending on who uploaded it, what written permission they have, their status within an organisation, the context in which the footage is used and the licence applied to the upload, among many things. The exact footage can be illegal or legal without any change whatsoever.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: I am no coder but....

I do not know about Ustream but the objective of most business is to stay in business and make a profit. Not be sued out of existence.

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.”

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I am no coder but....

…and lose all the legitimate customers whose perfectly legal content is thus deleted because they’re not as powerful as the people making false claims. They can’t profit if their customers don’t use them because takedown demands cause them not to be useful, either.

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.

Ed C. says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I am no coder but....

So if I create something from the same public domain work as another work published by a large corporation, my work should be destroyed, simply because it would be too “difficult to ascertain the status”? The big publishers can afford more lawyers than I can, so, just to be on the safe side, it’s better to abolish MY rights and destroy MY property?

Anonymous Coward says:

unfortunately, lawmakers, policy makers and online service providers will take absolutely no notice of what happened and even if they do, will do nothing so it doesn’t happen again. the reason being that everyone is bending over backwards to try to please an overly aggressive entertainment industry that is never satisfied with what services try to do to appease them. what should happen, should have happened years ago is that the entertainment industries should have been fought against from day one and stopped from being the only industry that is important and definitely stopped from bribing law makers, law enforcement and politicians. as important as the industry is, it is not the most important industry and as much as, according to what Mike, during a debate he was involved in recently, the copyright maximalists kept saying they ‘have rights’, they need to remember that so too does everyone else!!!

Anonymous Coward says:

This is largely a function of you crazies whipping up the masses with FUD and hysteria to oppose any laws to slow digital theft. There was room for reasonable restrictions and judicial oversight but you decided scorched earth was the better alternative.

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.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Ah, I wondered when the true idiots would turn up. Yes, this is our fault. We didn’t lie down and take the raping the first time you attempted it, so now it’s all our fault that you decided to use roofies and handcuffs to do it instead. We should just accept that perfectly legal content get removed, destroyed and made unavailable because somewhere, somehow, your attacks on our freedoms might mean someone lost a few bucks for the corporations your worship.

I wonder if you see why you’re labelled a troll, or if you really are this utterly moronic.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Paul, your side engaged in a scorched earth campaign. You succeeded in killing SOPA. You offered no compromise, no alternative, nothing at all. And stupidly you believed that was the end of it. Well, this is what you have in its place. And you have only yourselves to blame. This is what happens when you play the all-or-nothing game. Sometime you think you’re getting it all and end up with nothing. And it will only get worse from here.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

The pirate sites have ZERO production costs for the product they monetize. It takes millions to produce a movie. It’s a lot easier to make money on a product when your sunk costs are zero. Pirates bear only the cost of digital distribution. Legitimate sources bear the costs of digital distribution AND the underlying cost of the product.

It’s really hard to believe that you are this dense or disingenuous.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“It’s really hard to believe that you are this dense or disingenuous.”

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.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Do you seriously not think that market share of legal services would not be eroded by the existence of the same offering for a fraction of the price? Why would someone pay $1.99 when they could get it free on an ad supported site or for a $25 month all-you-can-eat pirate site? The pirates don’t pay license fees nor do they have any production costs. Their economic model can ignore those enormous costs and they can undercut legitimate companies. You must be really slow or something.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

You assume everyone would want from the pirate site. Why? In what world do you live in where people wouldn’t want legitimate content from legal sites?

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!

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

He’s referring to legit services that people don’t find any problem paying for. As I said before, Netflix without artificial restrictions would reduce my movie downloading habits to zero or near zero. And yet…

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).

SujaOfJauhnral (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Repeat after me:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

No need to refer to lobbying language:
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 ?

Tim K (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You mean any and all amendments made to clarify language that were shot down. Amendments that just explicitly said what your side claimed it was supposed to do? What reason is there to not pass an amendment where your side says in the bill it means X, and the amendment says right out X, yet it still cannot get passed. Let alone the amendments that were proposed to make it slightly less shitty. The few reps who were against it had every single amendment they proposed shot down, so to say we offered no compromise is complete bs.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

That is simply untrue. Google’s consultant Marvin Ammori was the author of almost all of the unprecedented 75 amendments offered at the SOPA markup. Some actually passed, but the entire purpose was to buy time- delay the markup until after the Christmas break in order to rally the masses. There was absolutely no good faith behind those amendments. And they fulfilled their intended purpose.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yeah, stopping SOPA after literally decades of bending over backwards to give copyright maximialists everything they wanted is totally ‘scorched earth all-or-nothing.’ Why should anyone deal with the industry you apparently represent as if it were an adult if it’s reaction to not getting exactly what it wants to throw a tantrum and lash out at legal content like a petulant child?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Stop victim-blaming and realise that you’re killing off actual job-creators.

+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!

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I got 500Gb of games in my external HDD for Wii. Do you really think I’d spend over six thousand dollars on wii games alone when that’s over a quarter of my annual income? Also, do you really think I play all that? Some games are so bad I’d go kick the ‘creators’ in the nuts if I had actually spent 50 dollars on those.

It’s about time you stopped with the steal mantra. It isn’t even funny anymore.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Perfect, you acknowledge your unjust and unlawful enrichment by stealing the creative output of those game producers and admit it’s because you can’t afford it. You’re pretty much the poster boy of freeloaders. You think you’re owed entertainment because you are an economic failure.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“you are an economic failure”
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 ?

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

you acknowledge your unjust and unlawful enrichment

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 ๐Ÿ˜‰

The eejit (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I pay for as much as my budget allows. And I spend it on things that have longevity. The rest, I TiVo. I don’t freeload, except when it’s permitted. I only rack things that are broken upon purchase (see: Assassin’s Creed: Revelations, Batman – Arkham Asylum GotY).

So, remind me again: am I a parasite for paying people for content?

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“This is largely a function of you crazies whipping up the masses with FUD and hysteria to oppose any laws to slow digital theft. There was room for reasonable restrictions and judicial oversight but you decided scorched earth was the better alternative. “

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 ๐Ÿ™‚ 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Hahaha. “So this is our own fault”.

“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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

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.

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.

nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

So Anonymous Coward, or can I just call you Coward for short?

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

“This lit up Twitter, as tons of people were watching the show via the stream — and suddenly you had folks like sci-fi author Tobias Buckwell, Macworld Editorial Director Jason Snell and many other high profile people complaining about the over-aggressiveness of automated copyright enforcement. What made things even worse was the fact that all clips shown were cleared prior to airing. “

Excellent. The more cumbersome the copyright madness gets, the more people will grow sick of it.

Keep shooting yourselves in the foot copyright holders.

bob says:

who should take note and action

I think this is great fodder for the sci-fi writers.
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’ ๐Ÿ˜‰

Anonymous Coward says:

[…]all clips shown were cleared prior to airing.
[…] 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.

i call bullsh*t on that. Maybe the Hugo Awards organizers themselves (WorldCon) had cleared the clips but they obviously had not even bothered to inform their BROADCASTING SERVICE PROVIDER about this, and thus the broadcasting company did not know about the permission being granted.

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.

[…]Unfortunately, the digital restriction management (DRM) robots on UStream had not been programmed with these basic contours of copyright law.[…]

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/

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Two things:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

yes, but the media content producers (RIAA/MAFIAA/BBC/etc) are the ones that are pushing for the implied insane liability issues but they (and their licensors) are calling foul in this case?

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“Also,ustream says this on their UPDATED blog post: http://www.ustream.tv/blog/2012/09/03/hugo-awards-an-apology-and-explanation/
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

The Artist (profile) says:

Implementing Vobile without understanding how to use it undermines their credibility.
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. ๐Ÿ˜‰

MikeC (profile) says:

Compensation due?

Assuming there is monetary value to the stream of this event, namely the HUGO Awards organization, any advertises, the award recipients, etc. why can’t they seem compensation due to the errors on the broadcast stream supplier?

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

AndyD273 (profile) says:

Kill Vobile The Robot

I was going to ask if the Hugo people, or the authors who were giving the speech if they could sue Vobile or Ustream to have all robots removed from the site, make them drop the ban hammer by hand, not automatically.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: UPDATE

not removed, just temporarily suspended/parked/put into safe mode until they “recalibrate” it.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: UPDATE

“suspended” not removed. This is PR Damage control… same as what our pet-AC is doing here, disrupting much needed discussions as much as possible on a serious censorship matter.

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” ๐Ÿ˜€

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: "Copyright" = Censorship

The foundations of free speech were built on the rights of individuals to freely speak their minds. Not on the rights of people to appropriate the creative output of others for their own benefit without compensating the rights holder. Your perverted idea of free speech dishonors the genuine concept.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: "Copyright" = Censorship

Josh,

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.

Violated (profile) says:

The Dogs

I am not surprised by this. These automated bots are nothing more than content rapists. Like going down a dark alley to be met by a dozen males with a gun.

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.

nasch (profile) says:

bots

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.

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.

Ben S (profile) says:

Re:

Didn’t “our side” (Ron Wyden) submit an alternative in the form of OPEN, that would require a trial to prove a site was willfully infringing copyrights, and outside US jurisdiction, in order for blocking to be done against it. There was an alternative, your side decided that anything that doesn’t work “instantly” and preserved the rights of the accused was not good enough.

Dirkmaster (profile) says:

Is there no way to program Vobile?

IANAP, but it would seem to me that there should be a setting that if “infringement” is less than a minute long, it’s probably a clip, and so okay. If Vobile doesn’t have the ability to set a setting like that, then it truly is a POS and should be dropped. Is it possible that Ustream or whoever installed Vobile just didn’t set it up properly?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

The examples you cite are total bullshit. In the case of goods or services that are offered for payment, I either pay or do without. None of the things you mentioned require payment. They have been monetized indirectly or the creator has simply ceded his innovation to the public- which he is free to do or not. Given your pedigree as one of the slimier, parasitic piracy apologists- I have a hard time believing that you yourself have paid for any of the above either. The difference between you and I is that if those services required payment, I’d pay and you’d steal. You should be embarrassed at this weak argument and I doubt that you’ll be getting your anticipated head pat as you have again revealed how flawed and desperate your side’s arguments have become.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

inadequate doesn’t mean non-existing.

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

Wally (profile) says:

time to react violently

Never meant any offense Ed C.

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. ๐Ÿ™‚

Anonymous Coward says:

"Copyright" = Censorship

Are you talking about government censorship or are you trying to suggest a comparison between the Chinese government and US corporations. If so, this is even more retarded than your usual drivel. Is a private black university obliged to allow the KKK to speak on campus regarding their lawful (albeit twisted) views on African-Americans?

Spaceman Spiff (profile) says:

Make em pay!

There should be incredibly huge fines for boneheads that improperly take down content – and they should be required by law to prove they have the right to do so first before the content is removed from a site. If every time they were to take down content that they had no right to that they were to be fined, let’s say $100,000 USD at a minimum, there would be a LOT less of this crud going on! So, taking down 20 clips improperly – that would nick their bottom line to the tune of $2M. A nice, tidy sum!

E. Zachary Knight (profile) says:

Put some pressure in the other direction

Question: Why are you so hell bent on turning the discussion from the false shut down of a legal and legit award show stream into a rant about copyright infringers? This story is not about copyright infringers at all. It is about the over reach of copyright enforcement and the negative impact it has on free speech. Stop trying to derail the discussion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Put some pressure in the other direction

You should be grateful that your trivial story morphed into a broader examination of copyright enforcement. If the discussion were limited to the Nerd Awards, you’d get your 10-15 comments all saying the same thing or agreeing with each other and your piece would have the significance, relevance and import of a Step2 case study.

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.

Dave Xanatos (profile) says:

Re:

“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?

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.

Dave Xanatos (profile) says:

Re:

if you need to perform surgery and have a chainsaw but no scalpel, you are left to do your best with what you’ve got.

/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’.

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile) says:

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.

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.

Dave Xanatos (profile) says:

Re:

/ot: I’m going to chalk up all the ad-homs you’ve been spewing as an indicator of a lack of mental stability. Seek treatment.

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.

Rekrul says:

While I think the best thing would be for companies to drop these types of automated systems, I have to wonder why nobody thought to include a “Do not scan” flag into the system, so that authorized streams can be excluded from being scanned. Not only would it protect them from false positives, it would also reduce the load on the system if it knew that some streams shouldn’t be scanned.

DandonTRJ (profile) says:

I only just now thought of this, but...

I feel like we need a two-tiered system within the DMCA to handle situations like this one: a notice-and-takedown system for third parties who use a service anonymously (your garden variety lay-streamer), and a notice-and-notice system for third parties who preemptively provide a service with information sufficient to identify them in case of alleged infringement (like, say, an authorized event broadcaster). Couple that with harsh penalties for any unsuccessful infringement claims and you have a system that allows rights-holders to combat whack-a-mole infringement (since the infringing user will not likely challenge the claim), but also allows anyone responsibly utilizing copyrighted content to maintain that use with safety valves on both sides [the ability to identify them if the use isn’t proper and a severe disincentive for rights-holders to pursue anything but the most blatant infringement]. I’m sure it’s not perfect, but it seems like it could be a lot better than what we have now.

bshock (profile) says:

really?

I have a difficult time becoming upset about this. Don’t get me wrong — I’ve been a big science fiction fan for the last five decades, and I’ve always found the Hugo Awards a relatively fun ceremony.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

who should take note and action

I know , right? I read it and thought to myself that is very reasonable. Then I went back and read it again and realized he just didn’t quite make his point clear. When he wrote “unintended consequences” in quotes he was trying to make a dig. Nice try bob. The meat is in realizing the Ann Rand reference for what it is.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

because “the awards show” didn’t give ANY CLUE to ustream that the FREE almost-ANONYMOUS ACCOUNT they signed up for would be used in such a manner.

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.

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile) says:

"Copyright" = Censorship

Your ad hominem attacks are old and tired. Yet bizarrely you call yourself responsible. Seriously, grow up. Also – never pirated Avatar. Saw it in the theaters, twice. And the collector’s edition is sitting on my shelf. Try again.

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.)

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

“Umm, Google receives more than a million a month.”

…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.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

Ah sorry if I took you the wrong way, I obviously didn’t read the last line!

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.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

That’s another link I’ve asked you for numerous times, since I must have been away when this “list” was published and the “whining” happened. I’ve asked for a link to the story many times, but you always ignore me. Why will you never provide it?

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.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

While an extremely crappy analogy on many levels, the thing you’re missing is that the “scalpel” is being offered to you be the very people you’re attacking. You just choose not to listen because they mentioned words like “free” and “high quality” when describing the place to get the scalpel – so you decide to use the chainsaw instead.

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!

Anonymous Coward says:

"Copyright" = Censorship

And you are fighting for the people responsible for implementing all means of censorship, with an noticeable innovation on corporation censorship on society.

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.

JMT says:

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.”

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.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

“Wow, imagine the money the entertainment industry could make if it tried to genuinely satisfy all those potential customers.”

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!

JMT says:

Re:

I know the air might be a bit thin up there on your high horse, but if someone consumes content that would never have paid for, who exactly is harmed? If the choice is between ‘no money for the creator’ (piracy) and ‘no money for the creator’ (don’t play game), how is the creator financially worse off?

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.

Loki says:

easy fix ---> three strikes philosophy

I hear lots of dumb ideas all the time, but the older I get the more I believe that “contact your congressperson” has to be among the stupid ideas people, especially Americans, cling too.

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).

Loki says:

time to react violently

I will agree with this statement.

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.

David Hardy says:

Bots v. Verified Infringement Enforcement

This demonstrates the problem with the total automated bot approach to copyright protection online – it’s carpetbombing. And it’s why you need automated algorithmic searches backed up by “eyes-on” human verification. This is how DMCA Solutions approaches it. http://www.dmcasolutions.com. There is an effective and fair way to manage online piracy.

beltorak says:

terms and definitions

That’s a fantastic idea but it’s a bit unwieldy. How about “copycapped”? It has the same short and sweet ring of “copyright”, connotations deriving from “capping” or limiting the copyable nature, and it serves as a wonderful portmanteau of “copying” and “handicapped”. Perhaps “copycapped” should be limited to artifacts that are actually crippled with DRM.

Of course the more PC-minded pirates may prefer the term “redistributively challenged”.

Rufus says:

Vobile

It’s common practice for video sites to maintain and operate a whitelist of users or channels who have cleared their copyrights. It seems that this could have been avoided if the user who used Ustream to broadcast the Hugo Awards would have informed Ustream before the show that they had the clearance from the copyright owners. If Ustream had updated their whitelist the blockage would not have happened. Only Ustream can decide to shut down or reinstate a stream, not any other 3rd party software vendors.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...