They do video fingerprinting with Vobile, which probably found a match and triggered an automated takedown.<p>Ustream is incompetent, but Vobile is the villain here.<p><a href="http://www.ustream.tv/blog/2010/07/16/launch-of-improved-measures-to-protect-copyright-holders-and-vobile-integration/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ustream.tv/blog/2010/07/16/launch-of-improved-mea...</a><p><a href="http://www.vobileinc.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.vobileinc.com/</a>
Lots of people are saying that this is not evidence that copyright is evil; only overreaching enforcement is.<p>I'd submit that, increasingly, these two ideas are indistinguishable.<p>I'm very much in favor of copyright (after all, I make a living by creating protected works) but as automated and over-reaching enforcement like this becomes the norm, it is increasingly difficult for me to defend this position.<p>Unfortunately, I don't know what the "next best alternative" to copyright protection is. That is, what kind of system would one need to protect us from these kinds of incidents?
Definitely ridiculous. But this creates a case for hosting your own stream, instead of relying on a capricious 3rd party who is too scared of media cartels to serve its customers properly. It might be a little more work to set up, but that's the price you pay in today's hyper-litigious copyright-mad world.
Copyright enforcement didn't kill the broadcast. Choosing an incompetent streamer killed the broadcast. The streamer still hasn't even responded to the users and organizers.<p>There are a lot of streaming providers that want your business. Choose better next time.
It is way cheaper to ban everything in sight than have the copyright holders' lawyers banging at your door for infringement. All the rest is just bad support, but ustream are covered by their terms: "[...] we also reserve the right to terminate the Site, Services or your access thereto at any time and for any reason". Using this kind of service as your unique way to broadcast is not the way to go. Next time you are using a free service with such terms, google for all the other similar services and use them as well. "Always have backups" applies everywhere.
It's easy for the author to say that "dumb robots, programmed to kill any broadcast containing copyrighted material, had destroyed the only live broadcast of the Hugo Awards".<p>What he ignores, though, is how easy it is for them to get sued about copyright infringement.<p>That's what copyright law creates: fear, uncertainty and overly complex, confusing DRM systems.
It seems to me that the basic problem was that the Hugo awards decided to broadcast using a service provider without a contractual arrangement. Is the Hugo really that low-rent?<p>If you're doing something big, always draw up a contract. Otherwise you're subject to terms like...<p><a href="https://www.ustream.tv/terms-popup" rel="nofollow">https://www.ustream.tv/terms-popup</a>
[see sections 11, 12, and 13]
Automated copyright enforcement like what Ustream has and Youtube's ContentID are horrible. Imagine what would happen if the rightholders cartel manage to pass a treaty like ACTA, where ISP's are responsible for user's watching behavior. It doesn't seem too far off to think that they will implement an automated system like this, too, and then you'll find yourself banned from visiting a large portion of the Internet.
Someday, somehow, someone will take down the Super Bowl or the World Cup final off "network television". I don't know how it will happen exactly -- maybe part of the network stream will go over the internet on it's way to/from a satellite feed, or something.<p>That day, the shit will hit the fan.
Maybe <a href="http://www.tapin.tv/" rel="nofollow">http://www.tapin.tv/</a> could have filled in when the official stream went down. Crowdsource the stream?