15-Year-Old Scams YouTube

SurturZ writes "A fifteen year old from Perth, Australia, posed as an employee of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, demanding that YouTube remove hundreds of video clips of 'The Chasers War on Everything.' The amusing part is that The Chaser is a comedy company well known to perpetrate exactly this sort of prank."

YHBT

YHBT (Youtube has been trolled)

First Post takedown

As copyright holder I DEMAND Slashdot remove all first posts from all stories now and in the future.

See your news first! On Slashdot

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230785&cid=187 29299 [slashdot.org]

The teenager has since apologised [smh.com.au].

My thoughts on this: Google simply took down the videos and sent out copyright infringement notices to the users who had put them up, without contacting the ABC to verify the claim. This kid claimed to be representing the ABC, so obviously if Google had contacted him to confirm the claim, they still would have problems, which is why they should have contact the ABC directly.

The copyright is owned by the ABC (or the Chaser crew), but they give permission to use it anywhere and everywhere.

Re:Not the first time this has happened.

In this incident [pbs.org], a non-copyright holder demanded the videos be removed, and they were.

"Dear Member: This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by NBD Television Ltd. claiming that this material is infringing:...

But Squidoo DIDN'T violate the copyright of NBD Television Ltd., because NBD -- a London-based distributor of films about music and musicians -- DOESN'T HOLD THE COPYRIGHT TO TRIUMPH OF THE NERDS. That copyright is owned by Oregon Public Broadcasting, which made the show. I contacted Rebecca Morris, chief counsel at Oregon Public Broadcasting. She had not heard of NBD Television Ltd. and had never been contacted for permission to act on behalf of Oregon Public Broadcasting in this matter. I contacted NBD Television Ltd. And they did not reply.

Re:

This kid claimed to be representing the ABC, so obviously if Google had contacted him to confirm the claim, they still would have problems, which is why they should have contact the ABC directly.

I wonder if this would even have worked...I have a feelin

Re:

I doubt it, the ABC are a pedantic bunch.

Re:

Chaser crew)

Doesn't that sound like a cool job?

Seems pretty funny to me

I'm not usually one to find 'disruptive' pranks funny, but this doesn't seem too far off the kind of things do they on the show [wikipedia.org] (which I've not seen). If companies will put out shows that do just these kind of stunts, and aimed at the teenage/early 20's demographic it's of course no surprise.

This seems largely harmless in the end, and ABC seem to be taking it in good faith (recognising the irony, I assume). I'm happy that it brings attention to how worth while it is to have a system where you make some attempt to verify the authenticity of a claim of ownership when a takedown is issued.

I know with the DMCA you are supposed to take down content when a complaint is made - and not dick around establishing ownership (and you should then put it back up if the origional party claims it's legitimate - and then it's up the two parties to fight it out in court), but are you at least allowed to verify the request was sent by the party that claims to have sent it? If not, it seems like a significant oversight in the process.

If the people who drafted this legislation had any idea about the technology they were dealing with, they could at least have mandated requests be digitally signed with the public key of the content holder (with a certificate that is backed by one of a number of trusted authorities).

Re:Seems pretty funny to me

If not, it seems like a significant oversight in the process.

Of course. That law was written specifically TO cause failure. It was a law wanted by companies that distribute media through traditional outlets so they could disrupt the new media distribution outlets which they couldn't figure out how to profit from, and weren't setup to profit from.

The only logical recourse will be to make serious changes to that law to remove the clear preference for systemic failure, and this will probably only come about after a large amount of civil disobedience (or pranks or exploitation) of the sort described in the summary.

If someone distributes a virus which randomly generates and submits DMCA takedown notices for every video on youtube, then the law says they should follow them all. Does that make sense?

Re:

If someone distributes a virus which randomly generates and submits DMCA takedown notices for every video on youtube, then the law says they should follow them all. Does that make sense?

That is an absolutely brilliant idea! You don't plan to patent that, do you?

Re:

Not only is it brilliant, but in essence it is a form of automated civil disobedience.

Interesting idea. Illegal as hell, but very interesting.

Re:

Exactly. I wouldn't want to be caught writing such a program, but if it became widely spread it could certainly influence media conglomerates like Google and MySpace to use their weight to get these laws changed...

Or what if it specifically didn't target

Re:

Of course. That law was written specifically TO cause failure. It was a law wanted by companies that distribute media through traditional outlets so they could disrupt the new media distribution outlets which they couldn't figure out how to profit from, an

Re:

I guess the irony is that if Google chooses to they can persecute the individual under the same law as it has provisions to punish you for doing this with material you do not own.

Persecute or prosecute? I guess in this context there'd be little differen

Re:

The DMCA becomes an interesting issue when the material isn't American. I'm curious about whose laws apply with regard to a takedown notice coming from outside the domain of the Act. Obviously, IANAL.

Great Stuff

From TFA: "Everyone does dumb stuff when they are fifteen," Ms Gibson told ABC Radio.

Personally I think this is great, not dumb. It's a far cry from the typical prank done by a 15 year old and really shows some ingenuity and humour...

If I were in the position to give the kid a job, I would.

Re:

If I were in the position to give the kid a job, I would.

No offense, but that's probably why you aren't in a position to do so.

And if the kid's behavior is actually an outgrowth of the qualities it seems to suggest, he should be making his own way instea

Low-end jobs.

I know we tend to put burger flipping in the bottom rung of jobs, but that's pretty messed up if you ask me. Do you really want the dregs of the dregs Preparing your food ?

Re:

I agree. Regardless of the teen's motives (whether that be social statement or dumb stunt) it serves as a fine example of how easily ANY random person or organization can abuse the DMCA takedown rule.

Re:

Good point. There's a world of difference between an intelligent prank like this, which is not only funny but makes a serious political point, and the usual 15-year-old prank. "Oh, dude, we totally fuckin' spread dog shit all over the doors of the school!

He might get his own segment...

Brilliant, I look forward to the next Chaser episode - I expect they're going to sing his praises for such a cool stunt... and I'll upload it to YouTube for you too :-)

They do?

The amusing part is that The Chaser is a comedy company well known to perpetrate exactly this sort of prank.

You mean they lie about whether they're authorised to act on behalf of copyright holders _under penalty of perjury_?

In any case, I think the interesting part is this [smh.com.au]:

[ABC TV head of arts, entertainment and comedy] Gibson said the removal of the clips was in direct contrast to ABC's policy on content sharing. "[ABC wishes] to get our content out there on as many platforms as possible, run by as many different operators as possible."

Re:

I can see why you think that part is interesting, then again, it's a public service company so any policy other than "get our content out there on as many platforms as possible" would be absurd. It's the tax payers who pay for it, thus everything produced

It's actually not true.

If you take a look at The Chaser's vodcast page it says the following, which I believe contradicts Ms Gibson's comments:

This video podcast is made available for use by persons located in Australia only. If you are not located in Australia, you are not auth

Re:

Then it's absurd.

This video podcast is made available for use by persons located in Australia only. If you are not located in Australia, you are not authorised to use this podcast.

Not only absurd since it's not public domain, it's also absurd since 1) They

Re:

I agree it's absurd. As far as I know the ABC is a corporation owned by the Australian government. That seems to be how they circumvent the government-stuff-is-public-domain thing.

Ahem.

To be fair to the ABC, their income is neither set in stone, nor reasonable. Our current government has been slowly choking the ABC for years, and excellent shows like the Chaser can make them some desperately needed money in DVD sales (where non-Australi

Re:

I don't think they should make shows with taxpayer money and then charge the taxpayers again if the taxpayers want to watch those shows. It's even worse that they claim to be making "everything available to everyone" when they have a very explicit copyrigh

Re:

The ABC is an underfunded public service - there's a difference between allowing your material to be posted on YouTube, and allowing the entire content of your program to be reused by the rest of the world. I'm an Australian, I pay a LOT of tax, and the A

Re:

I don't think they should make shows with taxpayer money and then charge the taxpayers again if the taxpayers want to watch those shows.

As a taxpayer, I'm funding the transit system they happen to be building outside my living room window right now. Despit

Keep reading, chief

At the end of the legal blurb you'll see that it's a standard form written by people from Screenrights [screenrights.org], a royalty collection company that collects money primarily from schools & colleges using television content in teaching. The ABC, like any starved-f

Re:

People who intend to make "everything" available to "everyone" do not tell people that they do not have permission to distribute parts of "everything".

The kid was right that YouTube and the uploaders did not have permission to use/distribute these works. I

Re:

"You mean they lie about whether they're authorised to act on behalf of copyright holders _under penalty of perjury_?"

And why would an Australian minor care about penalty of perjury of a US court?

Or have you missed the part where this points out the sillin

Re:

He might start caring if the USA asked for his extradition, or if he ends up on a list that guarantees that he can never get a visa. Piss off the wrong people and they will do their best to return the favor.

Re:

or if he ends up on a list that guarantees that he can never get a visa.

I'm confused... why would he care if he can't get a visa to visit a country he probably has no interest in visiting?

Re:

Heck... This 15 year old's stunt got it on slashdot and made me go to Youtube to look them up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2veTZlmaUJI [youtube.com]

Pretty funny stuff.

Re:They do? Yes -- it's public broadcasting

The ABC is, in fact, Australia's equivalent of the BBC or CBC: a crown corporation that acts as a national and international broadcaster. There is no direct equivalent in the United States, where it would be dismissed as "state-run television".

Re:They do? Yes -- it's public broadcasting

Strangely enough, the Howard government dismisses it for exactly that reason, and prefers to use the commercial media to get their spin out.

That's simply because the commercial television media here doesn't have much as of a budget for news and tends to take everything in the press releases on trust.

Re:

Mod parent down. It's comparable to the BBC in the sense that its run by the state and has a large budget. It's nothing like PBS.

The BBC is expressly *NOT* run by the state. They have a (published) charter _agreed_ with the state but that is most definate

The ironic part to this

The ironic part to this is that the ABC releases episodes of The Chaser for free, in video podcast form. Also when they announced the video podcast last year, they plugged BitTorrent for helping distributing the show! In fact, the first BitTorrent release of the show was released by one of the hosts... So it dosn't seem like The Chaser are against piracy, only the ABC.

If you live in Australia and haven't seen The Chaser it's one of the funniest shows that we've got (9pm on ABC 1). If you don't live here, you can download every episode, legally at http://www.abc.net.au/tv/chaser/war/vodcast/ [abc.net.au].

Re:

So it dosn't seem like The Chaser are against piracy, only the ABC.

Where did the ABC state that they are opposed to piracy? That aside, you're at least on the money about Chaser being one of our best shows.

Death to Naomi Robson [wikipedia.org].

Re:

If you live in Australia and haven't seen The Chaser it's one of the funniest shows that we've got

That's only because everything else is so fucking dismal. If banal immature humour is your thing, then...

Oh wait. This is Slashdot...

I look forward to the

"Piracy?"

So it dosn't seem like The Chaser are against piracy, only the ABC.

Gotta point out that if the legal copyright owner gives permission for free use of its material, it's got nothing to do with "piracy."

It actually creeps me out a little whenever I see "pi

Uhhh, he didn't really "scam" them

This is one of the major faults with the DMCA. If someone claiming to be the copyright holder contacts you with a takedown notice, you don't really have any recourse but to comply. The only situation in which you don't is if you know that you own the copyright. However there's not really a way to verify if the person contacting you is legit or not, you just have to assume they are, or risk trouble.

I've dealt with several where I work. We get the e-mail (that's how they arrive) forwarded to us. I then go and see if the computer they said actually has the files they claimed. If so, I take it down. Now in our case it's always been clear cut, things like a student's system got hacked and it is acting as an XDCC bot serving up movies, but I have no way of knowing if the complainant is actually the copyright holder or not. I have to act on the complaint anyhow.

So it's not really a scam, it is companies doing what they must to comply with a bad law.

Re:

Someone willing to write an online takedown letter generator? Sure, besides perhaps aiding the "MAFIAA", it would perhaps illustrate the problems with the DMCA better if these things came into wider use. :-p

Good Response..

The head of the comedy department didn't fly off the handle saying we're suing the kid. The police didn't show up at his door to take them away in hand cuffs. There response was "Everyone does dumb stuff when they're 15." What happened to that attitude in America?

Re:

It was never there in the US.

"Scams"? Shouldn't that be "pranks"?

To say he scammed them seems a bit harsh. He didn't do this for any personal gain, which is implied when you call it a scam. It was silly and he shouldn't have done it, but it wasn't as serious as a scam. No harm done, except maybe a little time lost and some advertisment money. On the other hand, Youtube has learned a lesson.

Re:

It was silly and he shouldn't have done it,

I disagree, he should have done it, I'm glad he did, and I only wish I'd have thought of it first. Though nobody seems to have thought to ask him why he sent the fake take-down notice, I suspect he did it to help

Thank you!

I have to thank that kid for his act. Because YouTube/Google usually is *far* too zealous in removing content someone complains about.

They really, really, need to think more about the legal support and verification before they do these things.

So -- thanks