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 w

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.)