Steve Wozniak Sues YouTube Over Twitter-Like Bitcoin Scam (bloomberg.com) 39
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak says YouTube has for months allowed scammers to use his name and likeness as part of a phony bitcoin giveaway similar to the one that was quickly extinguished by Twitter last week. Scammers used images and video of Wozniak, who left Apple in 1985, to convince YouTube users that he was hosting a live giveaway and anyone who sent him bitcoins will get double the number back, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday in state court in San Mateo County, California. "But when users transfer their cryptocurrency, in an irreversible transaction, they receive nothing back," Wozniak said. From a report: The scam also uses the names and images of other tech celebrities, including Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and Tesla Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk, according to the suit. YouTube has been "unresponsive" to Wozniak's repeated requests to take down the fraudulent videos, he said. By contrast, Twitter reacted "that same day" after the accounts of Barack Obama, Joe Biden and high-profile users were hacked last week as part of a similar phony bitcoin giveaway, he said. "YouTube has been unapologetically hosting, promoting, and directly profiting from similar scams." Wozniak sued along with 17 other alleged victims of the scam. They are asking the court to order YouTube and its parent company Alphabet to immediately remove the videos and to warn users about the scam giveaways. They are also seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
punitive damages (Score:1)
yep, that's the only way to make them sit up and listen.
I think YT needs to hold money for videos uploaded for a month, if someone questions the legality of the vid, then it all goes to arbitration and if successful, all the ad money goes to whoever owns whatever copyright is infringed - doesn't help this case where its outright fraud, but for the millions of videos that are someone's songs with "lyrics" added that pretend to be original content, or just plain re-uploads of someone else's content then stopp
Re:punitive damages (Score:5)
Better idea; just completely ban all bitcoin content.
Re: (Score:3)
Better idea; just completely ban all bitcoin content.
Even better idea: The scammers should meet with Amazon [slashdot.org] and let them launched a competing "product".
Re: (Score:3)
Even better; make the executives personally culpable. If they can't control their company, either they are incompetent and unwilling to step aside for someone who isn't or the fundamentals of the business are flawed and it needs to be cut out of society like a cancer.
Re: (Score:1)
Any other content you feel they should ban?
Re: (Score:2)
The bitcoin protocol, tiktok, Microsoft.com (hey, I'm saving civilization here!)
Re: (Score:2)
"Alternative" medicine, religious content, and psychic charlatanism for starters.
Re: (Score:2)
Better idea; just completely ban all bitcoin content.
Precisely.
Re:punitive damages (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize that this screws over the creators as well, right? They already have to deal with copyright strikes on their account because they played 20 seconds of some Beatles song or whatever.
And copyright holders have arrangements - they can get YouTube to remove the video, take the money the video makes if the video is monetized, or monetize the video if it wasn't (some creators don't monetize their videos, so copyright holders may instead choose to make it a monetized video and collect it that way).
It's a very touchy subject and a balance has to be made because creators of legitimate content will get swept up in things like this.
There are already plenty of extortion schemes based on this - where scammers will extort money from legitimate video makers, otherwise they will file all sorts of copyright lawsuits to get the channel completely cancelled and deleted.
Re: (Score:2)
This might explain it better. They suffer massively from copying and facebook doesn't care, because they get paid regardless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
'he just had to add "by a right wing group" to his complaint and it'd be taken down in seconds.'
Perhaps just perhaps companies are not targeting Right wing groups because they disagree with the ideology. But because the flood of Right Wing Content is indeed Racist, Lies, Deceitful, encouraging Cruelty, and manipulative.
If you think that such content is actually an open dialog on an ideology, then you probably have already been brainwashed.
If you are interested in Conservative Ideology, I would recommend tha
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, Youtube's system for copyright ownership has been largely handed over to the scammers. People have had their original content stolen, then reuploaded, then the thief files a copyright violation against the original content creator. If you challenge the copyright claim, Youtube asks the person who stole it, "did you steal it?". They, of course, say no, and get to keep the ad revenue while you get another copyright strike against you.
It's a system designed for abuse and thieves are taking full
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry no. By law, Google does not get a free ride on false advertising. They failed to vet it, in the slightest and showed it anyhow. They should be immediately liable for damages, not a take down request, a criminal penalty.
BY law Google should be required to check all ads prior to broadcasting them to verify the accuracy of those ads and to avoid any glaring falsities. Google should ace a criminal penalty for not checking the ad properly they got paid to broadcast, there is no reason they should not be f
47 USC 230? (Score:2)
Re:47 USC 230? (Score:5, Informative)
The safe harbour provisions are only provided so long as the provider takes reasonable action to remove or block illegal content. Taking absolutely no action after repeated notifications is clearly not doing that.
Re: (Score:3)
Unresponsive can mean a lot of things. Before I believe that literally the same video stayed online, I want to see a quote to that respect. What seems far more likely is that the fraudsters just kept uploading new versions tweaked to avoid filters and then using social media and email spam to promote them.
Taking back ownership of a twitter account is once and done. An anonymous free speech platform will allow never ending abuse ... but that's the price for free speech. Wozniak seems to desire the impossible
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a 'free speech platform', it is a business. It is YouTube's, and only YouTube's, problem if they can't figure out how to stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's both.
Although you have to be quick to catch the speech.
Re: (Score:1)
The jury may have to decide if it's "reasonable" to have humans inspect each video.
Further, each inspector may have to be informed of and remember thousands of potential crimes going on to recognize problem videos. I'm sure Woz's case was not the only suspicious activity going on at the time. Checking a database of thousands of possible crime entities or patterns is probably better suited for a machine anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
He's not getting around it. You're thinking of the "Treatment of publisher or speaker" and civil liability provisions of 230(c).
But 230(e) says: [cornell.edu]
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property."
The intellectual property side has the DMCA safe harbor. But the DMCA safe harbor [cornell.edu] is limited to copyright issues, and
I Know You're Not Supposed to Blame the Victim (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately (Score:2)
These companies have gotten so large that fines no longer deter bad behavior. The balance of power has shifted to the company. It's like the agreement consumers have to sign for services like telecommunications. It's really not possible to function in most socket without any telecommunication services, so you agree to whatever terms they offer
Swap it (Score:2)
Swap out Bitcoin for USD in this story. Now discuss.
Noticed it (Score:2)
I came across a linux channel, beginning of 2020, supposedly promoting a Linus Torvalds interview
but all the video showed was this Send us x Bitcoin and we will send you x0 bitcoin back.
Reported it.
checked back a week later, channel was still there. forgot about it, checked it again today. it's gone.
So they are doing something about it. It just takes them a lot of time to react.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it a scam if they tell you up front that they won't be sending any bitcoin back?
blood boiling (Score:2)
the thing that gets my goat is that legitimate educational channels on youtube have their videos or whole channels cancelled temporarily or sometimes permanently due to unexplained transgressions against youtube's content policy with absolutely no recourse or appeal process. meanwhile scams like this go unchallenged, presumably because they're still bringing in the big ad bucks. if those content producers were employed by youtube, this behavior wouldn't be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
I takes a lot to piss off Woz. (Score:2)
If you did, the chances are *very* high that you are in the jerk-seat.
I hope he manages to sue them into next Wednesday,
Not that he needs the money, but to make a statement.
I'm rooting for him.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, he doesn't need the money.
So let's give him the parent company instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Mail two people $1 (Score:2)
And I'll have 10 people mail you $1 back. The easy way to make 5X profit. Do it as many times as you want to build your own fortune!
</scam>
It's sad how many people have fallen for this kind of stuff over the past 100 years.
Idiots will be idiots (Score:2)
I used to have some sympathy for the victims of these scams, but they've been told hundreds perhaps thousands of times that this sort of thing is a scam but their greed take over. They are idiots to fall for this.
Steve Wozniak never left Apple (Score:2)
Wozniak, who left Apple in 1985
According to Stave Wozniak himself [woz.org], he never le Apple employee list
Re: (Score:2)
Google is anti-people (Score:2)
Good luck talking to an actual human at Google. Every now and then you'll get to talk to a human who works for Google, but even that human will have no clue how to talk to someone who can actually do any real thing at Google.
Do their email servers use HELO / EHLO names which don't exist in DNS? Nobody blames Google - it HAS to be the fault of everyone but Google. Trying to tell them? Impossible.
The only reasonably certain way to get any response from Google is to get something spread widely in the media, or
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they exists in Google's DNS, why use 3rd party global public DNS system when you have your own :)