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)
Re:Willing and able (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Willing and able (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but "Google Complies With The Law" doesn't make as good a headline...
Re:Willing and able (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Willing and able (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the case of Verizon, a big yes. In the case of YouTube, a big no.
That's pretty subjective. The RIAA wanted to know who was downloading free music (i.e. stealing) while fox wanted to know who was leaking copyrighted videos (i.e. stealing) How is it any different? Because one is google who can do no wrong, while the other is the big bad RIAA?
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 and able (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Willing and able (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I hate the **AA's as much as the next guy, but on this one, fine with me, I hope they get the guy....
Re:Willing and able (Score:5, Insightful)
It was only a matter of time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It was only a matter of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It was only a matter of time (Score:5, Informative)
A previous post [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Now Canter & Siegel, THEY were all over Usenet.
Re: (Score:2)
Willing to identify? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (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
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:Willing to identify? (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay just STOP THERE. You do NOT know what you are talking about.
Media is often distributed to certain individuals before it is aired on TV or released in theaters, as the case may be. Fox has not publicly made the assertion that he stole the discs. He MAY have done this, but there is NO reason to believe that it is the case. And to claim that someone stole the discs from a Fox production facility is just ignorant until Fox tells us that is true. Otherwise, it's safer to assume that someone had them for a legitimate reason, and either allowed them to make a copy, or they are "them" and uploaded it themselves. Telecine releases of movies are often made in the theater where the movie will be shown and most screeners you can download are made from screening copies intentionally distributed for review.
Finally, someone who was in the production facility wouldn't necessarily need to actually take any discs anywhere. They might conceivably have copied them while onsite, one disc at a time (per visit?) with a computer on the site, or one they brought with them. This is almost more likely than stealing it, because stealing the masters or screening duplicates would be detected far more rapidly than copying them.
Yes, for dissemination of private information that does not belong to you. Guess what? It's still not called theft unless you physically remove them from the enterprise. You CAN steal a copy of data. You cannot steal the data without stealing all of the copies.
You could repost the figures, but copying and pasting the data in its entirety, including the presentation (formatting etc) would be a violation of copyright. The first part is because no one owns facts. The second part is because it's not your copyrighted information. Putting information on the web (or in a quarterly report) doesn't revoke its copyright.
All you are doing is speculating wildly. I realize this is a favorite slashbot pastime, but give it up already. You don't know shit about what happened, and neither do the rest of us.
Re: (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
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is the copyright.
And of course the remedy is different: deleting vs penalties for the unauthorized copies.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course the remedy is different: deleting vs penalties for the unauthorized copies.
OK, now pretend goatse is copyrighted. I would bet that youtube would just burry it, and go on. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking like "copyright" is some arbitrary characteristic, like a color in the video's palette. Don't you understand the difference between offending some viewers and property? That the owner complaining has legal force?
Re: (Score:2)
If the copyright holder of a video of goatse man's gaping anus went to the court and got a subpoena, then google would probably do precisely the same thing that they did in this case. If the copyright holder simply complained to them, then they would just remove the offending content
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More importantly (Score:2)
Why in the world would you have this video? I doubt 99% of those familiar with goatse are aware it exists, if it in fact does, and here you are talking about it in open conversation in an unrelated topic.
Just... odd.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Answer:. .
Have you got any other questions you'd like to answer before you pose the question?
Oh, I know how you're going to respond, but I just couldn't resist taking that whack at you; you stuck your head up for it, but. .
The answer is still the same: It's up to the copyright holder how to deal with it. If the copyright holder is content with the content
Re:how does this work? (Score:4, Funny)
Seriously though... (Score:4, Funny)
What's that got to do with 24? (Score:2)
What's that got to do with 24, which is funny only unintentionally?
Re: (Score:2)
Why YouTube? (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupidity sometimes gets what it deserves...
Re: (Score:2)
Summary is very misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (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:This really is theft (Score:5, Informative)
Federal law does prohibit stealing of trade secrets, and it is classified as "theft". See for example the recent conviction of a Coca-Cola ex-secretary, who attempted to sell formula information to Pepsi-Cola. Copying the data and providing it to Pepsi did not cause Coke to lose possession of their formula, but it did potentially deprive them of a trade secret.
Before you respond, please read through and understand Title 18, United States Code, Section 1832(a)(1-3).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to let lawmakers define your worldview, that's fine, but don't assume that I do.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but that's nonsense. If you take something that belongs legally to someone else, it's theft under the law. Period.
To forestall the inevitable carping - no, it's not the MPAA/RIAA/whoever trying to redefine terms. Terms like 'theft' and 'piracy' for IP infractions go back over a century (and in some cases nearly half a millenia). The people trying to redefine terms and playing sophmoric semantic games are people like the OP. (A
Remedial law (Score:2)
How public is public? (Score:3, Interesting)
That may depend on whether or not you consider an unencrypted satellite uplink transmission "in the public". First-run syndicated programming is often like this. Hell, I saw the first episode of Viper on my cable, without commercials, well before its premiere and well before I'd even heard of the show. I've even seen rough storyboarded commercials
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, still not theft. Some people may still think it wrong, and I'd agree it's different to copying alread-published data (but not that it's hugely wrong - in fact, since it hurts a corporation, I'd consider it right - I disagree with limitation of liability and corporate personhood in general).
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but by this definition you wouldn't consider copying of personal information theft until some other action more criminal happened with the content. So if I'm copying SSN data and giving it to someone else who then commits identity theft, I'd be innocent since I stole the data from a business and didn't deny them the right to it.
Re: (Score:2)
What he's saying is that it's not theft, regardless of what some stupid people might call it. In fact, misuse of SSNs are their own special violation of law. If enough people are involved you might even get busted for conspiracy.
It's a matter of definiton. (Score:2)
What he's getting at is the definition of "theft".
Theft has two elements:
- The bad guy gains the McGuffin.
- The owner loses the McGuffin. He doesn't have it any more.
There are other crimes where the bad guy improperly obtains something without the owner losing it. They are not "theft", because depriving the owner of his property has not occurred.
(Depriving the owner of much or all of the VALUE of his property may have occurred - which is typically why
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If he did, that would be "theft" - but of the data carrier. That might be an included crime - as bank robbery may include assault, battery, false imprisonment, and a host of other crimes that are secondary to the WAY the robbery was committed. But "data carriers" are cheap: Such an included crime would no doubt be petty rather than grand - a very minor element compared to the major issue.
Th
Got ta say..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I am all about copyrights (and copylefts). The same rights that protect new Simpsons episodes also apply to protecting f.e. GPL-ed code (from license violations).
It is also sad that editors running this site are retarded to post things like that
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your brain apparently revolted against the nonsense you were spewing and caused you to misspell the offending word.
Copyright infringement is NOT THEFT. It is copyright infringement. We have a name for it for a reason, and that reason is to distinguish it from theft, in which you deprive another of the thing which you are taking. When you make a copy of something you are NOT taking it. You are copying it. Note too that copying and taking are not the same thing, which is why
Re: (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: (Score:3, Funny)
Times are changing. Today I copied someone else's lunch from the fridge at work.
What's Google/YouTube doing with PID anyway? (Score:3, Interesting)
How/why would Google/YouTube have personally identifying information about a user anyway? (Or was the user stupid enough to not anonymize himself before trying this?)
I'll bet this turns out to be the cousin/friend/lover of a TV critic; they have access to advance copies that aren't supposed to get spread around. (Yes, it's happened before.) Something tells me the average Fox employee isn't bright enough to fire up his/her own browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just the opposite: I like to see stupid people beating corporate greed. Actually, I like to see anyone beating corporate greed.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is OK (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Falsely Believing You are Anonymous... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Falsely Believing You are Anonymous... (Score:4, Informative)
A mistrial is simply a do over, to allow the defense to prepare based on the new material available to the prosecution. This prevents the highly dramatic, yet complete fantasy, occurrence of the prosecution discovering a key witness or piece of evidence and unveiling it during the final moments of the trial, catching the defense totally off-guard, leading to a swift conviction.
Everyone is missing the obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Only goes to show ..... (Score:3, Informative)
Always use made-up names, addresses and other personal details when registering for an account with any on-line service -- and don't use the same details twice. If you're looking for an address, there's at least one Catholic church in almost every city in the world.
Remember: Nobody needs to know where you live unless they want to visit you. Nobody needs to know your e-mail address unless they want to send you e-mail. Nobody needs to know when you were born unless they want to send you a birthday card. Nobody needs to know how much you earn unless they are going to lend you money and want to know how soon you can pay it back. Nobody needs to know what is between your legs unless they want to shag you. Nobody needs to know if you are a vegetarian unless they are going to invite you for dinner. In fact, to give you service down a wire, the only thing anyone needs to know is your IP address; and if they managed to send you the form requesting your valuable data, they already know that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same thing if you leave your wireless connection on unprotected and someone uses it for something illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Law enforcement looks for people living or working near the unsecured router and that either would have had access to the media prior to airtime, or have established relationships with people that would have had access. If the FBI gets involved, I guarantee they'll at least figure out who the guy is before they lose the laptop with all the details of the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Then as part of dragging him into court, his computer will be seized and analyzed.
Even if he's not guilty it's a huge headache.
Allowing free access through your hotspot may be a bad idea. At the very least you should be logging connections and making an effort to capture identifying information so that you have a plausible claim that any illegal activity carried out on the connection didn't originate from inside.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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 c
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're a troll. But what the hell. I haven't posted in a while.
Let's say it's true that they contribute very little back. I don't see the problem; charity is, by definition, not an obligation and they should be able to enjoy the wealth they created as they see fit within the confines of the law. If they want to buy a 747 or use $50
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: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:Google (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Google (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not? If you accept, at face value (ha!), their price for a CD then why can they not accept, at face value, that people have the technology to copy and share music?
Metallica, Madonna, Nirvana, and Michael Jackson made it big because their fans could freely share their work by dubbing cassette tapes. In today's networked world the major media companies flood us with "sharing is bad" but, at the same time, the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And I definitely believe the fact that some people who pay too much for software encourages software companies to keep prices high. But what we believe may or may not be the truth.
I diagree with Microsoft's pricing of certain products. Office is a big issue IMHO for home users. Works is priced on a home user level, but Works doesn't really work, not to read other people
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Does he claim to be the author ? Does he get a profit by this action ?
Does he deprive Fox of any revenue ?
Can you say it is legal for Fox to forbid users to time-shift their programs ?
If this is mugging, Fox is surely making forced sales...
Re: (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 vio
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This happened in the US and presumably the man will be tried here, so I was running under the assumption that it will be under a relatively fair court. I took a situation and changed a couple variables to illustrate a point. If
Re:OT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OT (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And unlike your experience on slashdot, talking like a big-shot always works!
Were you the torturer, or the torturee?
Re:Did Cheney torture them for it, Frist? (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, neihter reading Tom Clancy nor playing his games qualify as real, counter-terrorism ops.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the fact that they like to sell DVDs, this is a case where the episodes hadn't actually aired yet. This is something that wasn't already given away for free. The really sad part is that you don't even have to RTFA to find this out, the summary tells you. Therefore I have concluded that you are a big idiot. But then I see you have foe'd me, so I will now return the favor so I don't even see your stupidity next
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If that's so:
- They still have to go after the actual posters. Publishing it widely is far more of an issue than merely getting hold of a copy and watching it or showing it to a few friends.
- Going after the poster ma