zlacker

Anyone can send a take down notice to anything for any reason -- the burden of proof is on the creator (and nobody seems to care whether or not you're the copyright holder when you file). In this case, it was probably copyright violations in descriptions and/or photos. Once they remove the offending content, they can go back up.

I'm still waiting for someone to send a take-down notice to ToS's on major platforms. That'll be entertaining.

>>within+(OP)
Yeah, copyrighting the descriptions seems fair to me. It's not an identifier but rather a creative description of the talk. (I feel like most speakers would want their abstracts distributed far and wide, but obviously AWS feels differently.)

I suppose at the end of the day, everyone receiving nastygrams could have a contract with AWS that prohibits disclosing the names of talks at their conference. That is a shitty condition to attach to a cloud service and should not be legal, but it probably is. (I wonder what speech conditions I agree to for receiving electricity at my house. I've never checked.)

>>jrockw+nJ
The tools could also invite the speakers to submit a description on their site (I assume contact information for speakers is available). If they have to submit the same description a bunch of times, they’d probably advocate for them to AWS.