YouTube Hands Over User Info To Fox 396
An anonymous reader writes "Tech Crunch has an article about YouTube identifying and handing over a user's information after a request from Fox. 'Three weeks after receiving a subpoena from the U.S. District Court in Northern California, YouTube has reportedly identified a user accused by 20th Century Fox Television of uploading episodes of the show 24 a week prior to their running on television. That user, named ECOTtotal, is also alleged to have uploaded 12 episodes of The Simpsons, some quite old. Apparently Google and YouTube were willing and able to identify the owner of the username ECOTtotal, according to a report on InternetNews.com.'"
Willing and able (Score:5, Insightful)
It was only a matter of time (Score:2, Insightful)
Willing to identify? (Score:5, Insightful)
how does this work? (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, I post a youtube video of the goatse guy in action.
I guess this dissapears? Haven't tried.
OK, I post simpsons video, and the copyright owner says, stop it, and the video stays up (or down??) and then the user who submitted gets turned over to be turned into the goatse guy?
My point, is why can come content just dissapear w/o a problem, but the other is then escalated into a problem?
Duh (Score:1, Insightful)
Darwin at work. Anyone stupid enough to put their real info and post copyrited stuff deserves to get caught. Anyone expecting any amount of true privacy on the net is just kidding themselves (except for the rare few who really go through the lengths required to do so).
Why YouTube? (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupidity sometimes gets what it deserves...
Summary is very misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how does this work? (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is the copyright.
And of course the remedy is different: deleting vs penalties for the unauthorized copies.
This really is theft (Score:3, Insightful)
However in this case it is truly theft, because the 24 video was never in the public to "copy". This was outright theft of what is basically confidential data.
Got ta say..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how does this work? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Willing and able (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but "Google Complies With The Law" doesn't make as good a headline...
Rich industrialists & charity work (Score:5, Insightful)
> and instead choose to spend it on 747's with waterbeds and other such items.
Sounds like they gave something back then, bet they made friends at Boeing at any rate and kept a few ordinary workers gainfully employed.
Getting involved in charities is something rich industrialists should NOT do until they retire from day to day operations, until then they are performing a far greater service to society by PRODUCING WEALTH. After they tire of working eighty hour weeks creating wealth and start feeling their mortality is the time to use their share of the wealth they created to leave monuments to themselves. And I'm good with that too, after all ya can't take it with you and leaving craploads of cash to your offspring is an almost sure fire way to destroy em.
And this is OK (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It was only a matter of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And this is OK (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This really is theft (Score:3, Insightful)
Your second paragraph shows that you do not understand your first.
It's not theft because nobody has ceased to possess anything. Whether what was being copied was supposed to be secret or not is irrelevant.
Re:Willing to identify? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that the issue at hand is more of a precursor to all the RIAA/MPAA/copyright gobbledygook. This someone was posting shows before they aired. It would be akin to publishing a company's trade secrets before they went public with them (i.e. leaking insider information that would influence the company's stock price).
Yes, the copyright stuff applies in whatever sense that it does, but if I were Fox, that would be taking a back seat to getting someone that was leaking "my" shows before they aired. Of course, once that someone were caught, "I" wouldn't be afraid to add copyright infringement to the list of charges.
Re:Google (Score:5, Insightful)
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that whoever uploaded this video early was breaking some law or another. How is it evil to turn him in, especially if your it states in your privacy policy that you will comply with law enforcement? If they had refused to hand over the information, we'd probably be getting people complaining about how Google is aiding and concealing criminals.
A sarcastic "Don't be evil" is not an insightful (much less thoughtful, intelligent, or unique) response to every single action Google takes for the rest of eternity.
Re:Willing and able (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Willing and able (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Viewed for free (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, after it has aired for "free", i strangely have no interest in these things being protected, as I watch it on VCR, or tivo, or one of many other devices (youtube) that can allow me to skip. There is the case of several ads that still get played while I am distracted with other tasks, or need a break.
Re:Do no evil... (Score:2, Insightful)
Do not evil unless a lawyer subpoenas you.
Why is it "evil" to comply with a court to catch someone who is breaking the law? I hate the RIAA attacks on individuals (I realize this is Fox, not the RIAA), but I certainly don't blame any ISP for complying with a subpoena for information. If I wrote a book and someone posted it to the Internet before I even had a chance to publish it, damn right I'd want to go after that person. It's not the ISP's/YouTube's/Google's job to run interference so someone else can break the law. In fact, I'd say that doing so would be evil.
Re:Google (Score:4, Insightful)
But you don't really think that copyright infringement and mugging share a common moral space, do you? Death penalty for speeders while we're at it?
Re:Willing and able (Score:2, Insightful)
Some do, and some don't. Verizon, for example, went to bat for its customers [eff.org] when the RIAA was launching one of its first full broadsides of subpoenas. They had to go into appeals, but eventually obtained a decision invalidating the subpoenas.
That's the difference between "don't be evil" and "genuinely, honestly don't be evil."
Re:Willing and able (Score:4, Insightful)
In the case of Verizon, a big yes. In the case of YouTube, a big no.
Re:Willing to identify? (Score:3, Insightful)
And if they could get it equated to a trade secret, that would be a nice thing to nail them for.
IANAL (obviously) but what laws are being broken here besides copyright infringement? I don't see any. However, Fox is entitled to damages, right? I imagine the damages from preempting a big chunk of storyline of one of a major network's most popular shows could be considered to be pretty high...
Re:Google (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not claiming that Google did anything wrong - I don't think they did - but I could make an argument for it.
The argument goes like this: Copyright is an evil institution that punishes creativity by making it possible for the major media conglomerates to operate. Thus violating copyright is not wrong. Thus, turning over someone's identifying information when they have violated copyright and will get in trouble for it is also wrong.
I don't know if I really believe that (although I think copyright terms should be cut down to ten years or less, I'm not sure if I would really eradicate the concept entirely) but I think it's a worthwhile argument. Of course, it won't carry any weight in a court of law, but we're not in court.
Everyone is missing the obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Google (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Willing and able (Score:5, Insightful)
In the case of Fox and YouTube, they were looking for the one person who uploaded very specific videos.
Re:Willing to identify? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, here in the real world, they probably don't have to prove anything, just make the assertion. I mean, it works for the RIAA and MPAA.
It's true that advertisers buy in advance. But all they have to do is show (or bullshit) that the perceived value of the show is or even was reduced during the time period when the shows were out early, and they can probably successfully sue this guy for more than he will make in his lifetime :P
Re:Google (Score:2, Insightful)
Amen! There's always alignments like chaotic good.
Re:Got ta say..... (Score:3, Insightful)
At the moment I publish the book, the situation changes. After that, if you make unauthorized copies, it is merely a copyright infringement, and only if the copies you make are not covered by fair use.
Re:Willing and able (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Willing to identify? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about lost revenue due to reduced ad revenue, resulting from reduced viewership? If people know ahead of time what is going to happen in the next cliffhanger, they would be less apt to make arrangements to watch it. Draw a parallel to all the reality TV series for a moment. How interesting does the show series become when you know who is going to win in the last episode? Why do you think they sign the participants to "hush agreements" with stiff penalties? If people lose interest in a show, it becomes harder to demand higher ad revenue for placement during the show airtimes since the ratings would show that less people would be watching. (higher ratings = higher price commanded for ad airtime)
How about simple theft? The shows in question weren't broadcast or otherwise distributed to the general public in some fashion by Fox. If these shows were posted to YouTube after they aired, then copyright infringement would be pretty much all that Fox would have as legal ammunition. However, someone illegally removed (stole) these shows from one of the production facilities. What if I were to grab a copy of my company's quarterly results before they were published/publically released and spread them all over the internet? Obviously, there would be hell to pay. However, if I did the same thing after the company published its results, there really wouldn't be any harm that would come from it.
Re:Google (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Got ta say..... (Score:2, Insightful)
As for the rest, I wasn't aware that screeners existed for television shows, especially mid-season. Your point about shows having to be rated is an interesting one, but in my experience it is exceedingly rare (especially when compared to the frequency that it happens with films) for television shows to become available online before they are aired. I think a good analogy would be if a film were released online before it was even shown in theaters.
My main point was only that this case of copyright infringement is rather different from the usual cases during which the "it's not theft it's copyright infringement, you insensitive clod!" line is inevitably brought out, and subsequently may warrant some additional thought.
Re:Choose your battles (Score:4, Insightful)
In the U.S., we have the right to the pursuit of happiness. This means we can chase our dreams, it does not mean we are entitled to obtaining our dreams. We do not have a right to CDs or software at whatever price we decide. If you can't afford it, do without it. I can't afford a new car. That doesn't mean I should go steal one because no one will sell me a new car at the price I wish to pay. It means I have to do without or change what I am willing to pay.
People who steal, be it software, CDs, cars, or personal possessions raise the cost of living for those of us who abide by the law. I have had bikes stolen out of my yard. Perhaps I should have chained them up, right? Well, that is an extra expense that I have to pay because other people choose not to obey the law or respect ownership rights. Perhaps I could not afford both a bike and a chain. Now, the criminal has a bike, and I have none because I can't afford to buy one and stealing someone else's would be illegal and morally wrong.
One of the shopkeepers I do business with was murdered in his store for a few hundred dollars in cash. His family had to invest in video cameras, pay his hospital and funeral expenses, and will have to pay for their share of the incarceration of the guy who was, thankfully, caught.
These are extreme examples, but they illustrate the point. People who choose to disobey the law, whether it be murder, or uploading copyrighted material, cause material damage to those of us who choose to obey the law.
Re:Willing and able (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OT (Score:5, Insightful)
They both made mistakes, I think. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, that point is dumb, but I'm not about to assume that the poster made the intelligent insight of "regardless of which is worse, they are both against the law"; if he had intended to make that point, he should have said that, or "Morality aside, it's still illegal.".
Or, in other words, I reserve the right to take something the way the person said it.
Especially when they haven't gotten around to apologizing for being unclear, and they've said something that I've heard before.
All that said, of COURSE Google should turn him in; I'd rather have a neat service that uses fair use to the utmost than a neat service that gets shut down because it doesn't bother to follow court orders.
And people should already know to expect to get sued when they touch something made by Fox.
Re:This really is theft (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to let lawmakers define your worldview, that's fine, but don't assume that I do.
Re:Google (Score:4, Insightful)