Ustream has rained on the science fiction world’s big event, with its copyright enforcement bots unplugging the Hugo awards for showing winners’ clips. We’ll never know just how many award-winners planned to commit “fair use” by accepting their awards in front of screenings of snippets of their work, because a brainless pre- …
Bum? Meet Bite. He just came back.
Re: Film Studios
Indeed, they brought this upon themselves.
Maybe now they'll reconsider their position.
Re: Film Studios
Only if there's money in doing so
Re: Film Studios
The Film Studios (and Andrew Orlowski) will say, see it works! Lets make everyone use the automatic censor bots. A few faults positives is a small price to pay (since they pay nothing) to protect jobs, and creators bla bla bla...
They will just look at you funny if you say this is a bad thing.
First they came for the Sci-Fi fans....
Just like what happened to NASA recently with news agencies pulling NASAs own footage, something needs to be done. The law should be written that if you want to pull something down, a human being needs to be see the content in question, and if you make a mistake you get fined!
Memo to Pentagon
Maybe rethink that "strictly adheres to specifications" M61 Vulcan-toting autonomous killbot thing, because, y'know, shit does happen.
Let me get this straight. Vobile is fed (allegedly---remember NASA) copyrighted materials, and it's able to, in real time, determine whether a random video stream replicates some snatch of said vast store of materials?
a) that's the most impressive capability I've read about, Google's setup not withstanding, and
b) our cheerful belief that the NSA couldn't possibly deal with its gargantuan data feed in such a way as to worry the average Joe is probably blown to Hell.
All Your Base Are Belong To Us
Ha. Ha. Ha.
Why does that event use "ustream" (and what is that and what is it good for?)
Do I invite Mullah Omar to show clips of a late-night party? No. So here.
If I were the Hugo award organisers I'd stop paying them as they're not providing the streaming service they claim to be providing.
I'm sure there are other streaming video providers who would be happy for the good publicity if the Hugos switched to them.
I note on that IO9 article that uStream's CEO has said they're turning off the automatic ban functionality until they can "recalibrate" it - but of course recalibrated autoban bots can be as wrong as the originals. Why take the chance in trusting they'll get it right next time?
you get what you pay for
A very valid point. Until this contretemps I'd never even heard of this mob. A bit like booking an overseas jaunt with some no-name cheapo airline and then complaining when the flight is cancelled.
Hopefully someone will slip a dragon into their data networks and scare all the bots away.
(A bit deep, but a few SciFi fans should get it).
(OK, Its VERY DEEP, you need to have read a particular short story by a famous author)
Anything to do with Prime?
I love the skin suits.
More of this high visibility FUBAR is needed.
He who lives by the automatic take down bot, dies by the automatic take down bot
It was complaints by these TV and movie producing companies that caused these automatic take-down bots to be created, and to be set to monitor for copyrighted material.
If they industry hadn't fought so hard to prohibit fair usage they would not have had this problem, which they created.
So let me try to understand this... For a live presentation event, some dickhead decided to stream content down from the Internet somewhere rather than download everything in advance, checking that it all works, is high quality video and audio, the audio balanced to the correct levels and without adverts or anything else unwanted in the streams?
Yes. Because that is pretty much what 'Live' means.
However if you're able to download a whole live event from beginning to end, check it then re-transmit it in realtime with the actual event in this spacetime then Google would dearly love to talk with you.
I took it that the video was just a background behind projected various folk being given awards.
Or was it that it was the entire award ceremony itself that was being streamed and then blocked?
the only way to present a LIVE event is to stream it to the people who want to watch it and can't be there. The awards at the convention proper probably went off without a hitch.
Fail for a complete failure to understand plain English (and in this instance it really doesn't matter WHICH side of the pond you are on).
Some of the inappropriate up/down votes above are mine. After first read of the article i assumed that someone came to try and 'present' a clip off ustream during a live event only to find it and been removed by the bot. As the OP said, that seemed like bad planning on their part.
After i read the follow-up comments i realised i'd completely missed the point as a live feed was actually cut mid-transmission.
WTF? The reason that entered my head as it makes no sense. Do they really have bots like this watching these feeds? Why does ustream or anyone else have copyright bots watching live feeds anyway? Do they have a major problem with people live streaming their recordings of lost (of whatever)?
I've learnt something today - didnt know anyone did this sort of monitoring on live streams, i thought it was all bots running over uploaded content
On the plus side it meant that no one saw Neil Gaiman telling the world how great he is and how he's mates with loads of famous people, etc, etc, etc. Like your work Neil, hate your smug, self aggrandising, pompous attitude.
Kneel Gay Man
Is that even a real name ? I thought it was a stunt name .. like Bigus Dickus ...
"hate your smug, self aggrandising, pompous attitude."
Clue meter reading: 0
Irony meter: exploded
Download in advance (Re: Huh?) / Film of film assumed to be ripoff?
It's not the streams of video being shown in the background at the event that were shut off, I agree they would be downloaded &c in advance.
It's the live stream to a worldwide audience of the event itself that was shut off, because it had other video in the background. Isn't it? For "Copyright reasons"?
So, what caused this? Is it because the live stream, with some people talking a bit and video in the background, kind-of resembles a ripped off video of a current movie that someone recorded with their phone in the cinema? Do we think they detect video of a projected film sort of thing by whatever artefacts you get, and *assume* that's a copyright violation? Looks like it to me. Arses.
We're all pirates now.
Fair use of clips?
That's a paddling.
Would that be the io9 whose columnists steal material from commentors' posts and then ban the commentors from the forum to remove evidence of the posts? I have no sympathy.
Is this not merely yet more evidence to the effect
that it's about time that copyright law was modified in accordance with a famous (here slightly paraphrased) document : «... whenever any Law becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Law, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness» ? The present situation is more than reasonably absurd....
Re: Is this not merely yet more evidence to the effect
The problem of course is that in the current situation, the rewrite would be done by the same people who gave us the current situation. Only this time, without the hinderence of historical precedents.
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Chromecast video on UK, Euro TVs hertz so badly it makes us judder – but Google 'won't fix'