YouTube Hands Over User Info To Fox

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.'"

Comments

Google

[StaticFish]

Don't be evil

Re:Google

[krotkruton]

RRRRRight. So let's say you see a guy get robbed in the street and can identify the robber. The police find out you witnessed the robbery and subpeona you to appear as a witness. Are you evil for giving up the identity of the robber?

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

[MightyYar]

I agree with you that Google should definitely have handed over information in response to a court order, and that the parent's sarcastic "Don't be evil" comment was not 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

[Yvanhoe]

A guy put some movies someone could already have recorded like ten years ago on a website that only diffuses it in a crappy quality ?

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:Google

[drinkypoo]

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?

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.

Re:Google

[kabocox]

RRRRRight. So let's say you see a guy get robbed in the street and can identify the robber. The police find out you witnessed the robbery and subpeona you to appear as a witness. Are you evil for giving up the identity of the robber?

But, I can't ID anyone else because RFID tagging isn't mainstream and cheap yet!

Re:Google

[pnattress]

It's been said before, but good and evil are not the same as legal and illegal. This guy may have broken the "law" but in reality he didn't actually steal anything, and to argue that no damage was done could be completely fair.

"Don't be evil" does not translate as "comply with the law". If I remember correctly, Google has complied with Chinese laws on censorship and that's earned them a healthy amount of criticism.

Re:Google

[Xanius]

For me the thing isn't that he posted episodes of the simpsons, I think it was more related to posting episodes of 24 before the air date. Which is afaik illegal because it can be argued that the company literally lost money due to people not watching the episode at air time, causing a loss in commercial revenue.

Re:Google

[DaveV1.0]

"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?"

Copyright infringement and mugging share a common moral space in that they are both against the law.

Re:Google

[foobsr]

They say: <>.

Presumably "China" rather formally requested them to surrender.

So, informally, they are still not evil.

CC.

Re:Google

[StalinsNotDead]

"Don't be evil" does not translate as "comply with the law".

Amen! There's always alignments like chaotic good.

Re:Google

[ehrichweiss]

It's been said before, but good and evil are not the same as legal and illegal.
Absolutely, because "illegal" is a sick bird. Now "against the law" is a much deeper subject and then it all depends on where you derive your law; mine personally comes from natural law, not these words written on paper.

Re:Google

[tompaulco]

But you don't really think that copyright infringement and mugging share a common moral space, do you?
Copyright infringement is mugging a whole bunch of people (possibly including yourself) a little amount. Just because you spread out your mugging over more people doesn't make it any better in my opinion.

Re:Google

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy may have broken the "law" but in reality he didn't actually steal anything, and to argue that no damage was done could be completely fair.

Lets follow that thought. I come into your house through an open door. I photograph you and your wife and kids while they sleep. I watch you TV, I look through your stuff, I smoke a cigarette in your house. I didn't "steal" anything according to you. Do you think the police should just let me go ?

Re:Google

[MustardMan]

Morality is defined by law now? Man I guess the religious right has gotten their way after all. Here I thought morality was based on a sense of right or wrong, not what some jackass politician wrote down and got a bunch of other jackass politicians to vote on.

Re:Google

[npsimons]

RRRRRight. So let's say you see a guy get robbed in the street and can identify the robber. The police find out you witnessed the robbery and subpeona you to appear as a witness. Are you evil for giving up the identity of the robber?

Let's look at this from another extreme: say you witness someone committing a crime that is minor (say, jaywalking), but you know they will be severely punished for (say, put to death). Are you evil for giving this person up? You might like to claim "it's not my fault the laws are bad", but if it's wrong for someone to aid a murderer, wouldn't it be wrong to aid a corrupt government?

Re:Google

[krotkruton]

Whoa, I never said anything about how these people should be punished or whether or not they should be punished at all, I was just comparing it to being evidence in a case. Just because the police have an eyewitness to a mugging doesn't mean that the eyewitness is right anymore than YouTube handing over user information means that the person related to the account actually committed the crime. This was about whether or not it is "evil" to hand over information relating to a crime. I'm not sure how you took a comparison between being a witness to a mugging and being a witness to copyright infringement (indirectly through your records) as being in any way related to punishing speeders with the death penalty.

Re:Google

[krotkruton]

Fine. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of that. I think you'll agree, along with most people, that spreading a TV program without the owners consent before that program is scheduled to be aired is and should be illegal. Regardless of whether you believe that or not, Google and YouTube gave information that will help law enforcement track down a suspect (notice a call him a suspect, because he is innocent until proven guilty). Whether or not that information leads to the correct person or the prosecution successfully convicts the man is a different story. With that said, I think that what Google and YouTube did was not evil, and we really didn't have to get into copyright at all.

Re:Google

[krotkruton]

Did you read my post, or just pick out a few key phrases? I never compared the action of the individual to mugging, I compared YouTube's actions to the actions of someone witnessing a mugging. If you see a crime and are given a subpeona to testify about the information you know, are you being evil? I'm not even saying anything about whether or not the guy is guilty of the crime, because that isn't for me to decide.

A guy put some movies someone could already have recorded like ten years ago on a website that only diffuses it in a crappy quality ?

Besides my post, did you even read the summary, much less the article? He posted an unaired episode of 24. I don't care much about the other stuff, but if you are going to put up something that hasn't even been aired on TV yet, that's different.

Re:Google

[krotkruton]

It's been said before, but good and evil are not the same as legal and illegal.

Can you point out the part of my post that said good and evil were the same as legal and illegal? I think that they did the right thing because they handed over information about a suspect. In America, I think that in the vast majority of cases, if you have information pertaining to a crime, handing over that information to the authorities is the good and right thing to do. This might not apply everywhere, but I think the courts are still relatively fair here, and the person will receive a trial that determines his guilt or innocence. The information provided by Google will be information presented in a trial, not information that might result in his disappearence in some other countries.

This guy may have broken the "law" but in reality he didn't actually steal anything, and to argue that no damage was done could be completely fair. And it can also be argued that what he did was completely illegal, which is why we have the court system. Google provided information to the courts that will help in that determination.

If I remember correctly, Google has complied with Chinese laws on censorship and that's earned them a healthy amount of criticism.

If I remember correctly, a healthy amount of criticism does'nt translate to being evil either.

Re:Google

[krotkruton]

Ok, you're giving a hypothetical situation in which many of the same rules do not apply. That's kinda like comparing two different science experiments, but saying that one of them was done in a world where some of the rules of physics are reversed. It kinda ruins the comparison.

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 you want to change more variables, you can find a variety of "correct" answers to the situation but you'll also find that those answers aren't as applicable. If you think that the man will be tried in courts that resemble some totalitarian regime, that's fine, but then we aren't talking about the same thing anymore. To illustrate this point, what if we take your situation, but change it a little so the guy you see jaywalking is actually a mass murdered who you saw kill your family and ten thousand other people but beat the case, are you evil for giving this guy up on the jaywalking charge? I'm not saying I don't agree with your hypothetical situation, I'm just saying that I don't think it is closely related to the subject anymore than my mass murderer scenario is related to yours.

Re:Google

[Brian Gordon]

Oh come on.. copyright is law, but it's evil. Complying with authorities that indend to enforce copyright is assisting the evil. You can't say "the courts are still relatively fair here, and the person will receive a trial that determines his guilt or innocence... Google provided information to the courts that will help in that determination" since the courts (by definition) follow the law, and the law in this case is evil. So in this case "Don't be evil" translates "Don't obey the law." The copyright=evil statement might not be true but surely you can see the reasoning. And the criticism mentioned is criticism for doing evil.. not directly equal to actually being evil but it's a clear relation

Re:Google

[krotkruton]

Can we try not to pick apart speech so much and maybe give people a little benefit of the doubt? MightyYar seemed to be talking about whether the two crimes are equally "bad". Dave seemed to be making the point that regardless of which is worse, they are both against the law. Then you just took his wording as an opportunity to show that you know the definition of morality. I'm sorry, I just don't see how an inability to read between the lines makes you insightful. Seems to me that that's pretty much the opposite.

Re:Google

[krotkruton]

And the criticism mentioned is criticism for doing evil.. not directly equal to actually being evil but it's a clear relation

Exactly, I knew that just as much as the GP should have known that I wasn't equating following the law to doing the morally right thing. That really isn't the point though.

For a different question, can you point out a part in my original post (or my second post with the exception to quoting you and responding to it) where I used the word copyright? I really don't see this as being a copyright issue, and I'm not even sure if the only charge here is copyright infringement. He uploaded an episode of a TV show before it was aired on television. Let's just look at that and forget about anything else he might have done. Do you think what he did is legal? Do you think it is legal to leak an episode of a show before it is broadcast? Do you think that what he did was good? I think that what he did was both wrong and illegal and that opinion has nothing to do with copyright.

since the courts (by definition) follow the law, and the law in this case is evil.

That's really not how it works, and there is no part of the definition of courts that say they must follow the law. Judges are allowed to do a lot of things in a court case, and at many times judges make the law by setting down precedents.

Re:Google

[MightyYar]

Even the bible allows stealing bread to feed your family.

Re:Google

[MightyYar]

Gotcha. (as in I understand)

Re:Google

[MightyYar]

Morality transcends law. Something that is immoral is always immoral, no matter what the law says. Slavery is immoral (in my opinion), even back when it was legal. Copyright infringement was obviously not immoral back before the concept of copyright was invented, so why is it immoral now?

Not to say that this uploader isn't immoral. It is very likely that his motivation for uploading was immoral (by Judeo-Christian standards). He probably uploaded the material either to hurt FOX - be it revenge or some other motive. Or possibly he uploaded it for personal pride, which is also a sin. Someone along the way also violated a contract, which is also probably immoral (assuming that both sides originally were acting in good faith).

In any event, I think it is just fine that Google is relinquishing this information as a result of a court order. Copyright may suck, and I support people's efforts to dismantle the non-commercial aspects of it - but part of civil disobedience is sucking it up and taking your punishment like a man.

Re:Google

[Paradoks]

I, evidently among many others, interpreted "Copyright infringement and mugging share a common moral space in that they are both against the law." as a statement that roughly equates to, "Copyright infringement is wrong because it's against the law.".

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:Google

[krotkruton]

It isn't that you took the person's comment in the way that he or she said it, it's that you failed to take the comment in the context that it was given. I didn't have much trouble understanding the person after reading the comments that led to it, but maybe that's just because what the person said related to my original post so I had a jump on knowing the train of thought. It seemed like you jumped into a thread and commented on one post without taking the context into consideration. Kinda like walking into a room just as someone is saying "so yeah, I had sex with my sister" and then telling them that incest is wrong and they need to get help, when that was actually just a punchline to a dirty joke.

Re:Google

[MustardMan]

No we can't...

"Common moral space in that they are both against the law"

Obeying the law has absolutely zero to do with morals - in fact, obeying an unjust law could easily be argued to be amoral. He did not make a point that they are both against the law, he implied that morality means obeying the law. I don't have an inability to read between the lines, im calling a poster out for a bullshit statement.

Re:Google

[krotkruton]

If you just look at that statement, then you're absolutely right, but you're taking it out of context. The original post (mine) was about comparing the difference between being a witness of one crime or another. The first reply confused this with equating the two crimes to be equal on a moral level (sharing common moral space). Then the "common moral space in that they are both against the law" quote came into play, which in my opinion, was intended to point that the two crimes were being compared because they were both against the law, not because they are equally wrong in people's eyes. I know this is all typed instead of being a conversation, but if you took those comments and made them a spoken conversation, I don't think there would be so much confusion.

Re:Google

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

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?

Skilling was sentenced to 24 years in jail. All he did was cost people a "few" million dollars. Surely this isn't in the same moral space as mugging, is it?

The problem here is that the question is not valid. Don't mistake equal (or harsher) punishment to mean that the nature of the crimes are equivalent. Crimes of different moral nature can certainly be deserving of the same punishment.

Re:Google

[Paradoks]

It isn't that you took the person's comment in the way that he or she said it, it's that you failed to take the comment in the context that it was given. Huh? You made a (justifiably highly-modded)comment about the law of the situation. Person #2 questioned if you thought the law was moral. Person #3 said that stuff that is against the law is inherently immoral.

How is that not in context?

If I missed anything, it was that person #2 assumed that you thought that the current law was moral, and that I ignored that assumption after I got to his question, as I thought the question was valid and vaguely on-topic, regardless of how person #2 (mis)interpreted your meaning.

and then telling them that incest is wrong and they need to get help, when that was actually just a punchline to a dirty joke. I agree that's highly annoying, which is why I very rarely get angry with people over one comment. I believe this situation is different, though, as after you take all the emotional content out of the comments, there is a discussion that started talking about law that tangented into morality. Which is an entirely reasonable way to see the situation.

All this said, I'll admit I may be being nitpicky(though I still think it's reasonably likely that person #3 really did mean what he wrote), and that I almost certainly agree with you -- Google did the right thing, and they really didn't do evil, even if this seems, on its face, to be like Google's following of the laws of China.

Anyway, given how many posts get "yes, no, maybe" as tags, do you think it's unreasonable to have "donoevil" as a tag on a subject where some people think Google has done something bad?

Re:Google

[MightyYar]

What Skilling did was immoral. He lied. Lying has lots of legal names, like fraud. What he did is immoral, and would be even if there were no SEC. He actively defrauded people of millions of dollars - that is wrong whether or not a law exists. Copying a file is "wrong" only because a law says it is.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing that just because a law is not morals-based that it should be thrown out. We have lots of non-morals-based laws that make sense on some level: speed limits, intellectual property, drug laws, food safety, radio frequency allocation, etc. I think copyright laws are valuable, if currently flawed. I'm just not willing to put a copyright infringer and a mugger on the same moral shelf.

This guy? I think that they should punish him if he turns out to be the leak. If he's just some idiot that re-distributed the file after finding it on some P2P network, then I think the punishment should be much less severe. After all, you shouldn't be punished for disclosing a trade secret if it is already publicly available.

Re:Google

[krotkruton]

Fair enough. Just to explain what the way I saw things one more time: #2 missed my point about being a witness and instead focused on the difference between the two crimes, which I saw as being irrelevant (which isn't always the case, but I didn't think it was important for my example). I saw #3 clarify my point by saying that it wasn't about which crime is more right or wrong, but that they were both crimes so the witness would be doing the right thing by reporting any information about it. Now I see where you were coming from, and I don't disagree with it; I just saw it from a different perspective.

Anyway, given how many posts get "yes, no, maybe" as tags, do you think it's unreasonable to have "donoevil" as a tag on a subject where some people think Google has done something bad?

Now that's a tough one. Normally, I'd say that's completely reasonable. However, with the way people look at the "Do no evil" motto, it seems like everything that has to do with Google would have a "donoevil" tag. I'd bet that if we looked at every story that had to do with Google over the last 6 months, 99% would have a comment about how the story shows Google is doing evil. Furthermore, the vast majority of those Google stories would have a whole argument about whether or not Google is doing evil. I don't follow the tags much, so I'm not sure if that answered your question in relation to the "yes, no, maybe" tags, but I'd be interested to hear your opinion on that question.

Re:Google

[Paradoks]

the vast majority of those Google stories would have a whole argument about whether or not Google is doing evil. I don't follow the tags much, so I'm not sure if that answered your question in relation to the "yes, no, maybe" tags, but I'd be interested to hear your opinion on that question. Honestly, I'm not sure if my question was a fair one; sure, there are lots of useless tags, and it's likely that both the "yes, no, maybe" and "donoevil" tags will continue to be applied to every story possible, but it doesn't make them terribly useful.

The one thing I think tagging does reasonably well is to capture the general Slashdot mood or first response to an issue -- if it's about Google, Slashdotters often think of "Do no evil", and it reminds everyone of how Google has an image to maintain. "Think of the children" pops up whenever politicians talk about kids. "Reality Distortion Field" might pop up whenever there's something about Steve Jobs.

Or, in other words, it's useful in seeing how the community sees an issue -- having "donoevil" as a tag is likely to continue until the point when people stop thinking of that when they hear Google; perhaps then they'll get an "EvilEmpire" tag.

So, I don't know if I'm answering the question either. I doubt tags like "donoevil" are helpful for finding only Google stories where they did something wrong, but perhaps tags can be useful for something without having to depend on Slashdot users to tag responsibly.

Re:Google

[Yvan256]

There's no place like [NOSTALGIC REFERENCE 42 NOT FOUND].

Re:Google

[djimi]

This is the worst thought out and lamest analogy and I've ever read on /.

You're touching people's belongings, obviously leaving residue of your skin, and oils, that DO DAMAGE to the whatever they touch and you're smoking? More damage. You're stealing electricity to watch somebody else's TV? And you're perverted? And trespassing - do you have mud on your shoes? Perhaps you stink as well? Did you leave a big crap in the toilet? Pathetic at every step.

Thanks for playing and winning this round of "How to not convince *ANYONE* of your point with the lamest analogy EVER".

I suppose that's why you're a coward. Maybe a /. needs another checkbox, "Post as Anonymous Dumbshit".

Re:Google

[eMbry00s]

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. You must be new here, etc.

Re:Google

[Benaiah]

Nope. He didnt steal anything.
Stop saying that he did You brainwashed ninkumpoops.

Re:Google

[pipatron]

So timeshifting is fine in one direction but not the other?

Re:Google

[xenobyte]

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?

Exactly what I was going to write! :)

As we all know (or should know): Copyright infringement is NOT theft! - It's about making a copy of someone elses property, not removing it. The only loss involved is the potential (but unlikely) loss of a sale to the person obtaining a copy for free.

So, comparing something less than theft (copyright infringement) with something way above theft (armed robbery) is just incredibly stupid and very much off the point.

No, YouTube shouldn't have complied at all here. Let Fox find out who had access to the shows a week in advance (it can't be that many people) and grill them. After all, they've signed some kind of contract with Fox in order to have that access, so in case of a security breach one of them has to be the one responsible and thus the one Fox wants. No need to involve outside parties at all.

Re:Google

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't be evil" is a corporate motto. Call it advertisement for the gullible. Any real company's real agenda is "make money". Get over it.

Re:Google

[krotkruton]

As I've said a few times now, I never said he stole anything. I was comparing YouTube turning over identifying information for a subpeona to a witness giving testimony about a mugging suspect's identity. Nowhere did I saw that the man stole anything.

Re:Google

[delinear]

Mugging involves violence or the threat of violence against someone. On no level does copyright infringement cause someone to fear for their lives - sure it can hit their pocket, and it might even hit their pocket a hell of a lot more than the average mugging, but you just can't equate the two. If I had to choose between losing everything I own or losing my life it wouldn't even be a choice - maybe you should try being mugged and see if you still think it's on a par with someone uploading 24?

Re:Google

[Linegod]

>"Common moral space in that they are both against the law
>Obeying the law has absolutely zero to do with morals - in fact, obeying an unjust law could easily be argued to be amoral.
>He did not make a point that they are both against the law, he implied that morality means obeying the law. I don't have
>an inability to read between the lines, im calling a poster out for a bullshit statement.

Well, then it's your turn to get called out. Stating that "obeying the law has absolutely zero to do with morals" is bullshit. The only way your argument appears to be correct is by bringing in the strawman argument of "obeying an unjust law".

If obeying and unjust law is amoral, then what is obeying a just law? What about a law that makes sense to you, but you don't like - what drives a person to obey that one? You don't get to pick and choose every single law based on your own personal whim and then get to call it your "moral compass".

Re:Google

[MustardMan]

Ahh spouting off about strawman, the last desperate attempt of a slashdotter trying to argue an idiotic point. Morality and law are not the same thing, period, and you can keep concoting more and more elaborate arguments, but anyone with half a brain realizes the distinction. I'm not going to sit here and nitpick back and forth with you, as this discussion has become boring.

Re:Google

[aonaran]

More to the point, if he had access to the episodes BEFORE they were aired, that means one of 2 things, a) he has an old Ku/C band satellite dish and just taped it (possible) or b) he or someone he knows physically stole something from FOX ...which in my opinion would be far more of an offense than mere copyright infringement.

Re:Google

[AndersOSU]

The religious right will be the first to argue against morality defined by law. Otherwise wouldn't abortion be moral?

Re:Google

[stile99]

Which is afaik illegal because it can be argued that the company literally lost money due to people not watching the episode at air time, causing a loss in commercial revenue. You're right, that could be argued. I accept the offer.

The commercials had already been sold for the airing. "The company" lost nothing. Those buying the already-purchased commercial time can claim they lost money by not getting a return on their investment (they assumed a certain number of eyes would see their ad).

Re:Google

[Kelbear]

Keeping in mind that the legal/illegal does not necessarily indicate whether an action is moral/immoral(as has been relentlessly pointed out over and over throughout this thread), I would nevertheless find this user's action both immoral and illegal.

Though my moral position is highly subjective, my primary reasoning is that while I would enjoy watching an episode for free, watching it before it even airs on TV damages the value of the episode for those who purchased commercial timeslots and funded the creation of the show which I enjoy. This emphasizes a risk in this venue for future investment and increases investor paranoia in funding the shows that I'm watching and would not like to see canceled.

24 is very far off from being canceled from this single incident, but this detail does not justify the action in my eyes. What's going through my mind is:

"What if this had happened to Arrested Development?"

That would have pissed me off.

Re:Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Morality and law are not the same thing, period, and you can keep concoting more and more elaborate arguments, but anyone with half a brain realizes the distinction. On an individual level, maybe, but law refects the moral leadership of a society. And, more likely than not, it'll reflect the morality of your twelve peers that send you to the chair.

Re:Google

[Half-pint HAL]

We have lots of non-morals-based laws that make sense on some level: [...] food safety,

Uuuummmm.... Are you saying it's not immoral to sell mouldy bread? Cooked meats contaminated with E-Coli? Gherkins pickled in Arsenic? I can see why you would argue that speed limits are not morals based, but personally I think it is immoral to knowingly endanger the lives of others unnecessarily. Just because the safe speed can't be determined by morals doesn't mean it's not a moral-based law.

The moral basis for IP law is debatable, but I'd argue it falls squarely under the title of "exploitation of labour". Any valid IP requires some time to create, and taking someone's time for free is what's known in the trade as slavery.

HAL.

Re:Google

[Linegod]

>I'm not going to sit here and nitpick back and forth with you, as this discussion has become boring.

The last desperate attempt of a slashdotter to appear superior instead of admitting to error.

Re:Google

[MightyYar]

LOL, no it's immoral to sell unsafe food. What I mean is, not following the absolute letter of the federal food safety laws may bring fines without actually endangering anyone. For instance, let's say that you accidentally go 1 hour over the limit for how long before a vat needs to be drained and sterilized. You would get a fine or a warning, but it is unlikely that anyone was ever endangered. Or maybe you leave a shipment of milk outside on a cold day for longer than is allowed, even though the milk will stay cold and no one is at risk.

Regarding the speed limit... let me ask you, when the speed limit is posted as 70MPH, do you go 70MPH? The reason I ask is that the speed limit was 55MPH just a few years ago. If simply violating the speed limit were immoral at 55MPH, then how do we justify driving at 70MPH? I have no problem with the idea of speed limits in general, but unless someone is being reckless I don't find violating them to be a moral issue. In fact, going the speed limit in certain areas will actually make you a hazard. The Washington, D.C. beltway comes to mind :)

The moral basis for IP law is debatable, but I'd argue it falls squarely under the title of "exploitation of labour". Any valid IP requires some time to create, and taking someone's time for free is what's known in the trade as slavery. I'm going to have to disagree and call that a bit of a stretch. A musician can stop playing music at any time they like - no one is forcing them to play music. If a musician cannot make a living playing music, then he can go do something else. I'm pretty confident that we will have plenty of good music, with or without copyright. The concept of copyright is far, far newer than music, literature, or most of the other arts. Copying other people's work didn't suddenly become immoral one day just because some businessmen and politicians invented copyright.

Re:Google

[Half-pint HAL]

If a musician cannot make a living playing music, then he can go do something else.

I couldn't make a living playing music, so I went into computing.

I'm pretty confident that we will have plenty of good music, with or without copyright.

After a hard day's graft at the office, I don't write anything. It's too much like work, and I'd rather unwind. Yes, I do still write from time to time, but it just seems unpolished, unpracticed and imperfect.

OK, so if I was good at it I probably would be making a living at it by now. However, I was involved in music because of personal passion and drive (and a desire to get girls), like any other musician. So any other musician forced into a hum-drum job like mine to pay the bills would become similarly jaded, and like me would end up writing dismal ditties about how boring life is.

Furthermore, if we look at traditional music, all the "classics" were written by paid musicians. Some were paid by Lords and other sponsors, others paid by publishers.

Work requires reward -- that much is for certain.

HAL.

Re:Google

[MightyYar]

I'm not a musician, so I can't speak from any experience. However, my former boss and several other co-workers were all in a band together. They practiced in the evenings and played (small) gigs on weekends. They would play whenever we had a company picnic or party. They just liked to play. He even wrote songs and I have several of his mp3s. A close friend of mine is in a band. He works 60 hours a week loading fish, but still plays in a band. We would frequently spend a Saturday night on lawn chairs outside of his garage listening to them. And that's just two examples. My mother is in a band, other co-workers are in bands (one runs a website featuring unsigned bands), and even some of my "non-musician" friends go nuts in Garage Band.

I'm not saying that copyright does not add value or produce a higher quality music. I happen to believe that copyright is a good device (though I would like to see it apply to commercial copying only). I also recognize that it is completely artificial and could disappear tomorrow, but music would not.

Willing and able

[ShaunC]

"Apparently Google and YouTube were willing" ... to comply with a subpoena from a US District Court. I think most companies would do the same thing.

Re:Willing and able

[paranode]

Not only would they, they pretty much have to if they don't want law enforcement just coming in and confiscating all of their hardware.

Re:Willing and able

[Chelloveck]

Yeah, but "Google Complies With The Law" doesn't make as good a headline...

Re:Willing and able

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Google/YouTube should have fought the subpoena in the U.S. District Court? I did not think Google/YouTube had definite knowledge of the real-life identity of the person behind a username/screenname. I have to admit this is news to me. I generally go by AC (post anonymously), so I don't see this as an issue for my own life. But many other people do sign up for things online under a username/screenname and expect to maintain the anonymity promised by the system they sign up with.

I do wonder: Is the real life person behind the uploading a Fox employee? Was s/he paid by Fox for this publicity stunt? Or is it strictly off the books?

Re:Willing and able

[Dog-Cow]

Outside of privacy-related websites, there are none that promise privacy. At best, they will claim not to give/sell your information to others (read: spammers), but to expect anyone to promise to disobey the law to protect identity is ludicrous.

Re:Willing and able

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

This case is also different because the person put them on YouTube BEFORE they aired, so this is a bit more serious than just uploading the video. Non-Story.

Re:Willing and able

[croddy]

Some do, and some don't. Verizon, for example, went to bat for its customers 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

[rossz]

I disagree. I believe it's more in line with "Does the customer/user deserve us to go to bat for them to defend what they did?"

In the case of Verizon, a big yes. In the case of YouTube, a big no.

Re:Willing and able

[caffeinatedOnline]

They broke the law, (yes, what they did was illegal). See ART act.

Re:Willing and able

[teal_]

I disagree. I believe it's more in line with "Does the customer/user deserve us to go to bat for them to defend what they did?"

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

[rossz]

The difference was the RIAA wants to go on random fishing expeditions, hoping to find "something". Sometimes they don't even bother with that and make random ass, more often wrong that right, guesses.

In the case of Fox and YouTube, they were looking for the one person who uploaded very specific videos.

Re:Willing and able

[anagama]

The subpoenas that got slammed were the ones that were signed by the clerk of the court in the absence of a filed court case. The solution, file a john doe suit and then issue the subpoena because then there is a filed court case.

Re:Willing and able

[Anonymous Coward]

One was a blanket request based on dubious information at best and the other I am guessing (without reading the article) was a request for information they have (if they do) on a user who calls themself X who added X to their site.

Just like search warrants are supposed to be for specific things, I think if one is asked by law for something specific they should give it. Asking for them to go fishing (Verizon) is not in the spirit of the law.

Re:Willing and able

[OnlineAlias]

And I disagree with that. RIAA went after people who were sharing files, for which there can be legitimate and not necessarily infringing use, using questionable legal tactics. Fox is going after someone in the inside who most definitely didn't have the right to distribute and who is causing serious damage, using perfectly legitimate legal means.

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

[teal_]

Hrm, that's a valid point of view actually, I guess I was wrong. Thanks!

Re:Willing and able

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet when Google do exactly the same thing in China, they are demonised for it.

Re:Willing and able

[rossz]

Ah, shit. I was able to convince someone of my point of view on slashdot! That's a sign of the apocalypse! WE'RE DOOMED!!!

Re:Willing and able

[bky1701]

Unless that law is in China...

Re:Willing and able

[networkBoy]

Maybe you should read the privacy policy on my site: http://www.farmersreallysucks.com/privacy.shtml I deal nicely with the problem. If someone has a beef with farmers and wants to post it, I'll conduct the whole exchange through e-mail, then post the page to the internet, unlinked from the website. They say "yes that's what I want to say" then I delete all my correspondence with them and finally link the page into the site.

If I get a subpoena I'll comply with the following statement: Due to standard operating procedure I have no records of who posted that message in question.

Again, it kinda fits with your statement in that I take my submitters privacy very seriously, but I am not a privacy service so to speak.
-nB

Re:Willing and able

[lordsid]

Um... You mean Yahoo right? They are the ones that gave up a dissident reporter that more then likely got him killed. So far the only faux pas that google has committed is in censoring search results. Your welcome, for the free ticket on the clue train. so much for moderating in this thread.

Re:Willing and able

[karnal]

I'd at least give the guy who agreed that your point was valid a couple of -1 idiot posts; come on, you know you're supposed to ARGUE to the dying end around here.

At least that is what it feels like sometimes.

NEVER ADMIT SOMEONE ELSE'S VIEWPOINT IS BETTER should be the theme on Slashdot.....

Re:Willing and able

[MacDork]

Yeah, but "Google Complies With The Law" doesn't make as good a headline...

It works just fine when they are handing over dissidents to Chinese authorities, doesn't it? When it's an American dissident though, it's no longer acceptable. Doublethink. Got it!

Re:Willing and able

[flanktwo]

Maybe this person should be suing Fox for airing the show that he released first, without his permission!

Re:Willing and able

[Aptgetupdate]

Don't worry. Someone saying "I guess I am wrong, I'll have to think about what you said" gets modded +5, Interesting.

Interesting. This human has listened to an argument, and concluded its speaker may have a point. What a crazy world!

Order has been restored.

Re:Willing and able

[tiny-e]

It's a good business model: Allow users to upload copyrighted content (yes I know there's no way to tell if it is or not -until someone complains). Attract a gazillion "normal" users who watch said content. Profit.

OR

Allow users to upload copyrighted content, people watch it, profit --Content "owner" files suit, a zillion people read about it in the press, press precipitates another gazillion hits, profit. Drop dime on uploader, skate.

Re:Willing and able

[alcmaeon]

You do realize that there is such a thing in the law as a Motion to Quash Subpoena, right?

Re:Willing and able

[Anonymous Coward]

Uploading copyrighted material may be dissidence in some books, but it's not like copyright law isn't clearly defined. There are better ways to fight copyright laws then by simply breaking them.

Google complied with a subpoena, and there's nothing wrong with that. This is one of the worst stories to make the slashdot front page in.. hours at least.

Re:Willing and able

[totally bogus dude]

NEVER ADMIT SOMEONE ELSE'S VIEWPOINT IS BETTER should be the theme on Slashdot.....

I'd prefer ponies...

Re:Willing and able

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does that make it "more serious"?

Your thinking is skewed.

Re:Willing and able

[mpe]

This case is also different because the person put them on YouTube BEFORE they aired, so this is a bit more serious than just uploading the video.

It might be serious if the person involved was a Fox insider. If this happened in the USA then it's more likely that the material was simply broadcast prior to the "airdate". It can happen in the US (but generally not in the rest of the world) that TV "Networks" broadcast content several days before with the intention that TV stations record this.

Re:Willing and able

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm talking about complying with the law. Everybody seems to be "oh, it's okay, they were forced to do it because it's the law". That's exactly why Google had their search results censored as well, but nobody accepted that defence back then.

Re:Willing and able

[owlstead]

"...downloading free music (i.e. stealing)"

Has everybody on slashdot certainly got mad, or is it just me? How many times do we have to scream that copyright infringement aint theft? Is the brainwash finally infecting slashdot readers as well? They have probably removed Captain Copyright because he has already succeeded, he's not needed anymore.

Re:Willing and able

[djdavetrouble]

This case is also different because the person put them on YouTube BEFORE they aired, so this is a bit more serious than just uploading the video. Non-Story.

That is on Fox. They released it early themselves. The first four episodes were distributed to critics, et al months before they aired. One second after they were released to critics, Roger Ebert's rip group
released a xvid onto an ftp topsite, and it cascaded down the p2p waterfall, ending up on bittorrent and of course, youtube. I blame society!

Re:Willing and able

[Sfing_ter]

And now the hunt is on for... a Mr. Barney Rubble, 100 Rock Way, Rock Island, Ill. And as soon as we find him... he'll be breakin rocks in the hot sun....

If yer posting shows that haven't aired and you use your real name to register... ahem...

Re:Willing and able

[Tenareth]

It's more serious because it was before it aired, they can state that there were real damages of people not watching it with the advertising that pays for the show.

That's pretty obvious, I don't think anyone can honestly say what he did was at all acceptable, uploading old videos is still copyright, but the amount of damage to the company can be viewed as smaller...

It was only a matter of time

[Bobb Sledd]

I began to wonder why this hasn't already happened.

Re:It was only a matter of time

[President_Camacho]

I began to wonder why this hasn't already happened.

But does it really matter (realistically, not morally)? If this guy was smart, he'd have uploaded this stuff from an open access point anyway (either an unsecured AP locally, or free public wireless).

Re:It was only a matter of time

[GreyPoopon]

If this guy was smart, he'd have uploaded this stuff from an open access point anyway (either an unsecured AP locally, or free public wireless).

Ah, but given the fact that he uploaded episodes of 24 _before_ they aired, the list of suspects is already narrowed significantly. Searching for someone who would have had access to the material prior to the air date and lives near the unsecured AP or free public wireless network will provide a workable list for law enforcement. Unless this turkey is working as an anonymous team member with somebody else (IE, there's no relationship between where the media was acquired and where it was uploaded), he will almost certainly get caught.

Re:It was only a matter of time

[roger6106]

A previous post

The full DVD of the first four episodes was ALL OVER Usenet on the 7th.

Thousands of people DLed that, and one guy encoded it for submission to YouTube.

No insider job here.

Re:It was only a matter of time

[MightyYar]

I've never uploaded anything to YouTube, but couldn't you do it with Tor (veeeerrrrry sllllooooowwwwly)?

Re:It was only a matter of time

[loid_void]

and another thing, Fox should be smart like a fox and stop all this sillyness... wake up, smell the coffee and enjoy the ride;;; uploaded anything increases television viewing of the particular show (most of the time).

Re:It was only a matter of time

[Thuktun]

The full DVD of the first four episodes was ALL OVER Usenet on the 7th. Meaning that someone uploaded a zillion RAR pieces to one of the alt.binaries groups, and there were a flurry of fills as some pieces didn't get delivered to various ends of the net.

Now Canter & Siegel, THEY were all over Usenet.

Re:It was only a matter of time

[Thuktun]

Did they have to call it Tor? I don't want Ed Wood flicks jumping into my head when I hear about it.

Re:It was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Meaning that someone uploaded a zillion RAR pieces to one of the alt.binaries groups, and there were a flurry of fills as some pieces didn't get delivered to various ends of the net.

Isn't that what PAR file are for?

Re:It was only a matter of time

[vertinox]

Unless this turkey is working as an anonymous team member with somebody else (IE, there's no relationship between where the media was acquired and where it was uploaded), he will almost certainly get caught.

Or uses an anonymous proxy server.

Re:It was only a matter of time

[HUADPE]

Did they have to call it Tor? I don't want Ed Wood flicks jumping into my head when I hear about it.

Freakishly enough, Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space is in the public domain, and can legally be uploaded to Google Video. The Google brand YouTube limits videos to 10 minutes.

Then again, no sane person wants to watch Plan 9. It has resided in the psychotically horrible domain since its inception.

The video, for those brave enough to bear watching it: Did they have to call it Tor? I don't want Ed Wood flicks jumping into my head when I hear about it. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-703865610 9656489183&q=plan+9+from+outer+space

Willing to identify?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were subpoenaed, they didn't have much choice. I hate the MPAA/RIAA/Studios as much as the next guy, but neither Fox or YouTube seem unrealistic here.

Re:Willing to identify?

[Radon360]

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:Willing to identify?

[drinkypoo]

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

And if they could get it equated to a trade secret, that would be a nice thing to nail them for.

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.

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:Willing to identify?

[steveo777]

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...

I don't know how the industry works, but as I understand it advertisers flip the whole bill and that's it. If they didn't loose any advertisers, then can they sue for monetary damages?

Though I suppose they if they could prove loss of market share they would have something.

Re:Willing to identify?

[drinkypoo]

I don't know how the industry works, but as I understand it advertisers flip the whole bill and that's it. If they didn't loose any advertisers, then can they sue for monetary damages? Though I suppose they if they could prove loss of market share they would have something.

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:Willing to identify?

[Dilaudid]

I wonder what happens if the Chinese government subpoenas them for the Gmail accounts of pro-democracy protesters, or when the lawyers prosecuting the next Enron ask for the records of what the accused searched for. I think this is a big problem for Google. Shame that America's legal system is trying quite so hard to fuck up America's business interests, for so little benefit.

Re:Willing to identify?

[Radon360]

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 And if they could get it equated to a trade secret, that would be a nice thing to nail them for.

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)

IANAL (obviously) but what laws are being broken here besides copyright infringement?

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?

[drinkypoo]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:Willing to identify?

[Tigwyk]

If whoever copied the data actually worked at one of these production facilities, or was a reviewer, or some sort of media-related employee.... most of the companies that do that sort of thing have their employees sign very harsh NDA's about things because of the fact that they very often come into contact with media before its release date. Even if Fox only has one leg to stand on when attempting to nail this guy, if it goes public... well, he's fucked. Period. Can we all agree on that, at least?

Re:Willing to identify?

[drinkypoo]

Even if Fox only has one leg to stand on when attempting to nail this guy, if it goes public... well, he's fucked. Period. Can we all agree on that, at least?

Absolutely! No matter what, if Fox catches this guy, he's fucked. If he's following this story, he should get his ass and all his assets the hell out of the country yesterday and to someplace that doesn't [yet] extradite to the US.

I'm not arguing that the guy did nothing wrong, or that he's not in legal trouble. Just that it's not theft. This site is supposed to be for nerds. Not jackasses who just spout any bullshit that comes to mind, true or not.

Re:Willing to identify?

[Radon360]

You don't know shit about what happened, and neither do the rest of us. And I would speculate that Fox, at this point in time, doesn't either, thus why they are getting supoenas.

Yes, you are correct that these shows sometimes get spread all over hell before getting aired, as you pointed out there are numerous vectors for a leak. But rather than wasting a page listing them all, I provided one possibility that had, at the very least, guaranteed plausibility.

And no, I wasn't insinuating that someone walked out the door with something physical in their possesion either. (Warning: more speculation) For all we know, someone could have FTP'd the show to a third-party storage site before putting it on YouTube. The key point is that theft is not always the physical removal of something. Property isn't always a physical entity. What if I steal (copy) your idea? Isn't intellectual property subject to theft? People sue each other silly over things like that every day, sometimes before a patent is even established.

Re:Willing to identify?

[HUADPE]

IANAL (obviously) but what laws are being broken here besides copyright infringement?

Theft. The episode had not aired and thus could only have been obtained through theft. If the uploader worked in the studio and had access to it, I'm sure his contract stated clearly that, without explicit permission, distribution of materials would constitute theft, and in this case, a court would probably agree.

Re:Willing to identify?

[drinkypoo]

IANAL (obviously) but what laws are being broken here besides copyright infringement?

Theft. The episode had not aired and thus could only have been obtained through theft.

This is a specious statement, as even a casual consideration will reveal that it is simply not true. As such, I will pretend you did not make it. Let's see what IS in this comment.

If the uploader worked in the studio and had access to it, I'm sure his contract stated clearly that, without explicit permission, distribution of materials would constitute theft, and in this case, a court would probably agree.

However, that's a big "if" and it is not at all necessary for them to have gotten their hands on the materials in this way. Besides someone else potentially copying them and distributing them - in which case THAT person might get busted for actual theft - there is also the potential that they were a guest in the production facility, and they copied the materials while they were on site.

I'm not ruling out the scenarios you have outlined in your comment. I am only saying that it is foolish to make assumptions when we do not know what actually happened.

For all we know someone accidentally threw out discs with the episodes on them and they were picked out of the trash, which is legal in some places and not in others. We probably won't know for some time yet, and we may never actually know the truth.

Re:Willing to identify?

[LordSnooty]

But then imagine for a second that it's some 14-year-old nerd who picked up the first four eps from Usenet. Then what should happen? Should they seek millions in damages?

Re:Willing to identify?

[drinkypoo]

But then imagine for a second that it's some 14-year-old nerd who picked up the first four eps from Usenet. Then what should happen? Should they seek millions in damages?

Should they? I'm not sure. On one hand that seems like awful retribution. On the other hand, if you're doing something you know is illegal, you're taking your chances, and if you're doing it just for entertainment and not to right a wrong or something, then you're just a fool. Note that I sometimes fit this description, so I'm not perfect or anything either. Some of the things that are illegal are awfully fun.

Anyway, someone had to put those episodes on the internet and that's the person they're looking for, so they can stop the leak, close the hole, whatever metaphor you prefer. Not the person who put them on youtube, although I'm sure they'll pause long enough to make an example of him if he's not the guy who actually released them in the first place.

Re:Willing to identify?

[drinkypoo]

The key point is that theft is not always the physical removal of something. Property isn't always a physical entity. What if I steal (copy) your idea? Isn't intellectual property subject to theft? People sue each other silly over things like that every day, sometimes before a patent is even established.

Yes, some people say "he stole my idea!" Those people have been conditioned to use the word inaccurately by a bunch of other people who were likewise conditioned. It doesn't make it a correct use of the term. In fact, just like copyright infringement, we have laws for trademark infringement and patent infringement that don't involve the use of the word "theft" because - gasp! - they are not theft either. That's why we needed new laws to prosecute people for them - because the law against theft does not apply.

Property may not always be a physical entity, but you can only have actual theft when it is physical. Otherwise it's something else, and again, the language has terms to describe these things because the words for similar concepts simply don't fit. Theft is the removal of an object from the possession of another, thus depriving them of it. Anything else isn't theft. Period. It's really not that complicated. Don't give in to the temptation to use a word incorrectly because other people are doing it. I mean, like your mom said, if all the other kids jumped off a bridge...

Re:Willing to identify?

[LordSnooty]

Well by reading these comments I learned that a DVD came out soon after airing and they appeared in other places before Youtube. One gets the impression that this was really a standard scene job, yet FOX seemingly has no desire (or capability) to go after the real leaker. Unless they're not cracking on. But if the above is correct, I don't know what would be worse - FOX going after Usenet and what have you, or FOX going after some teenage kid who stumbled on the eps like many others did, but decided he wanted a bit of kudos by putting it on YT. I suppose all this would teach people is to stick to the right networks (and not the TV type)

Re:Willing to identify?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were subpoenaed, they didn't have much choice.

Google doesn't have to cave just because they get a subpoena. They've fought subpoenas before.

Re:Willing to identify?

[Anonymous Coward]

I despise the RIAA as much as the next guy, but arguing that copying media is not the same as theft is silly. You're simply arguing semantics and sidestepping the issue itself.

Re:Willing to identify?

[mpe]

IANAL (obviously) but what laws are being broken here besides copyright infringement?

The details matter a lot here. e.g. if the origin was a broadcast intended for US TV stations picked up by a Canadian (in Canada) then it is possible that no laws have been broken.
It's rather hard for a broadcast intended for all of the Continental US not to cover parts of Canada (Canadian laws on "overspill broadcasts" being quite clear) as well as parts of the sea considered international waters (even more so if Alaska is intended to be included). Thus the applicable copyright law would be that of a ship's flag, indeed this could be a real "pirate video".

Re:Willing to identify?

[mpe]

Media is often distributed to certain individuals before it is aired on TV or released in theaters, as the case may be.

Distribution of media does not even need to be involved. One way to distribute TV to many terrestrial stations is via DBS. One thing fairly unique to the US is to have this broadcast take place several days before the intended "airdate" (as opposed to a few milliseconds...)

Re:Willing to identify?

[LMacG]

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.

I won't argue about the meaning of "theft," but you sure murdered the grammar of that sentence.

Re:Willing to identify?

[Kjella]

How about lost revenue due to reduced ad revenue, resulting from reduced viewership?

Unaired show: +5, Insightful
Claiming the same about post-air downloads: -1, Troll

I'm sure someone is about to claim they used it to catch their one missed episode and watched the rest on TV. That doesn't make up for the masses that use it as their subscription-free, ad-free video recorder and DVD replacement. I know they're getting less than they should. But if you have a slightly international group of friends, then you don't wait for local TV. Dr Who airs first in UK? Stargate airs first in US, or sometimes Canada? It isn't just the big international companies that do global sourcing - we do too. Movies have this figured out, I watch the premiere, they watch the premiere, we can talk about it. I don't care how pissed local TV stations get, once you've aired it somewhere then offer me a downloadable stream with local ads. Local TV is bitching about a customer they'll never get anyway.

Re:Willing to identify?

[KingOfSnake]

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.

Actually, I'm fairly certain that copyright infringement IS all that they have to charge him with, unless they start getting creative. If I remember correctly, these episodes showed up on bit torrent and the usenet groups around 2 weeks before they aired. A day following their airing they released dvds of the eps for sale and rental.

I don't know for certain what the situation was in this instance, but what I can tell you is that many retail and rental outlets can get these discs anywhere from 2-3 weeks prior to their release, so chances are that's how they were obtained, and probably from several sources. HE probably just got them off of bit torrent and uploaded them to youtube because apparently that's the cool thing to do.

Even if he was the one that actually released the material, I think the most you could charge him with is C.I. (if it was a rental item he ripped it from) or Theft from whatever store he works for if he took something out of the stock room and had to open it in order to do this. Either way it's a sensationalist headline, YouTube's just following the law. Even if there was some room for argument, they're already on the edge of being smashed by lawsuits... why would they want to provoke something based on this fairly straightforward case? When you're in their situation you've got to pick your battles, and this isn't one of them.

Do no evil...

[Anonymous Coward]

...unless a lawyer subpoenas you.

Really, when is this Slashdot love for Google going to die? This is a company whose founders contribute very little back of their wealth to charitable causes and instead choose to spend it on 747's with waterbeds and other such items.

Re:Do no evil...

[letxa2000]

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:Do no evil...

[avxo]

This is a company whose founders contribute very little back of their wealth to charitable causes and instead choose to spend it on 747's with waterbeds and other such items.

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 bills as kindling for the next "Google Company BBQ' they should be able to do just that.

Re:Do no evil...

[molarmass192]

You ASSUME they contribute very little back. Did it ever occur to you that they might be donating anonymously rather than very publicly like some foundations we know? The Google guys aren't in deep need of good PR like some other company heads.

Re:Do no evil...

[Anonymous Coward]

f they want to buy a 747 or use $50 bills as kindling for the next "Google Company BBQ' they should be able to do just that.

Actually defacing/destroying money is illegal. :)

Re:Do no evil...

[geekoid]

Now this topis specifically, but sometimes gpind along with a law or court order is the evil thing.

There are many examples of this throughout history.

Re:Do no evil...

[avxo]

I wasn't aware that's the case in the United States. Hmm...

how does this work?

[hackstraw]

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:how does this work?

[Rob T Firefly]

Because Goatse guy isn't a multi-billion dollar corporation with squadrons of rabid lawyers waiting to strike.

At least, as far as I know he isn't.

Re:how does this work?

[Doc Ruby]

There's a difference between the problems of showing a disgusting video that isn't protected by copyright, and a funny one that is protected by copyright.

The difference is the copyright.

And of course the remedy is different: deleting vs penalties for the unauthorized copies.

Re:how does this work?

[Otter]

This guy was uploading content before it was televised. That's why Fox is going so heavy on him.

Re:how does this work?

[amRadioHed]

He looks more like he was on the receiving end of a squadron of rabid lawyers.

Re:how does this work?

[Ogive17]

I think the real problem deals with the episode of '24' being put on youtube prior to the actual airing. The 'Simpsons' videos were just other stuff also uploaded by the same user.

Had it just been 'Simpsons' episodes, they probably just would've been removed and maybe the user banned (unless they were previously unseen episodes).

Re:how does this work?

[hackstraw]

The difference is the copyright.

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:how does this work?

[AP2k]

showing a disgusting video I'm glad someone agrees with me regarding the new Simpsons episodes.

Re:how does this work?

[Nykon]

Copyrighted videos are all over YouTube and typically they ONLY take them down without legal action. The reason this one has escalated is because the user in question uploaded a video of 24 BEFORE it was aired. Fox noticed, and had a court subpoenas the information. Typically it's not like Google or YouTube to go after a user, they just remove the content. But if a court subpoenas the information Google/YouTube really has no choice but to comply.

Re:how does this work?

[Doc Ruby]

Why would you pretend that, if the goatse copyright owner complained to YouTube?

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:how does this work?

[Joebert]

One can only imagine what FOX would do if the person had uploaded content before FOX ripped it off from another network.

Re:how does this work?

[drinkypoo]

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?

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 - presumably what they would have done in this case as well. Fox chose to go the court route because instead of just devaluing the DVDs slightly, prereleasing episodes of a serial show devalues the entire franchise.

It's worth mentioning here that any media of any kind is covered by copyright unless the copyright holder explicitly gives up that right by placing the work in the public domain, by default, so this whole line of conversation is stupid anyway.

Re:how does this work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to be pedantic the first 4 episodes of 24 were also on a bunch of torrent sites, newsgroups, etc, before YouTube. Someone had stolen or otherwise obtained the special DVD that Fox released/was planning on releasing late January.

Re:how does this work?

[kfg]

Question:. . .why can come content just dissapear w/o a problem, but the other is then escalated into a problem?

Answer:. . .the copyright owner says, stop it. . .

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 being taken down then that's as far as it will go. If they want a bit of blood, they will demand it.

Why are they asking for a bit of blood in this case, but not others? Because the source was not just some random punk who ripped something from the TV and uploaded it; it was one of their own. Someone who by virtue of being employed by them or one of their agents to look after their interests went against them.

They were happy enough to take Caesar's coin, but then rendered unto someone else. That is a hanging offense.

KFG

Re:how does this work?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying FOX has already televised video of the goatse guy in action?

Re:how does this work?

[Nimey]

Yes, it's called "When Anuses Attack".

Re:how does this work?

[Doc Ruby]

It's a stupid line of conversation, but the demonstrated lack of an author asserting copyright in a complaint about unauthorized duplication of goatse makes it less protected than the Simpsons video.

There are real mechanics in copyright conflicts. No copyright owner/controller says anything, the difference with public domain is moot.

Re:how does this work?

[aoism]

Good point. Hell, there was a video of a cat in a 'Cat Spa' -- pretty much a giant feline washing machine, on YouTube. Funny as hell :) After some people complaing about it to the SPCA, the video mysteriously disspeared within days. Regardless if the video is copywritten, YouTube allows these users' activites to become press fodder for the big, bad media networks by not removing it with the same expediency as it does offensive videos. I'm thinking it has a lot to do with the fact that if YouTube allows pornographic material on their site, THEY are liable in most countries if some underage person sees it, where as if someone uploads a non offensive, copywritten video, the user is (the "We can't control what users post on our site" defense). It is illegal, and the user is an idiot for doing it. I just think that YouTube/Google, and the media networks are in bed together and they decided to make an example out of this guy. I wonder what happened to 'Do no evil'.

Re:how does this work?

[kimvette]

Works are copyrighted automagically, including goatse, your post, my post, etc.

The difference is: if you were the goatse guy, would you really want to claim ownership of that "work?"

Re:how does this work?

[MightyMartian]

Fox should be thanking the guy for keeping up interest in a TV series that's completely collapsed into unwatchable inanity.

Re:how does this work?

[xouumalperxe]

Possibly because the former is a matter of policy, and the second is a matter of law?

Re:how does this work?

[jo42]

It's only part of the planned slide into Idiocracy. The other brain damaging shows being Lost, Monster Garage, Pimp My Truck and all the other "Huh! Huh!" shows on Discovery.

If you were Fox you'd want this too

[Sneakernets]

I see nothing bad about this. Obviously the Youtuber in question must have secret access to something! It very well could be someone in the company that did this...

Re:If you were Fox you'd want this too

[Joebert]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it was a SONY rootkit on a FOX officials computer which in turn was hijacked by the goatsee that official was watching that caused this.

Re:If you were Fox you'd want this too

[Aqua_boy17]

Youtuber in question...

Is that like an internet version of a couch potato?

Re:If you were Fox you'd want this too

[Anonymous Coward]

see nothing bad about this. Obviously the Youtuber in question must have secret access to something! It very well could be someone in the company that did this...

In fact, I think Fox handled this in a rather liberal manner. Normally, I'd expect Fox management to haul their entire staff into the secret basement interrogation center and beat the crap out of them until each and every staff member confessed to the misdeed. OTOH, if it was O'Reilly that did it, they'd finger some gurly-kid at the convenience store down the street.

Instead they called lawyers. Far worse than "Wait until your Daddy comes home!"

yeah -- good luck...

[mdm-adph]

...trying to prove who the hell "ECOTtotal" is. Maybe it's changed, but I'm pretty sure an IP still doesn't equal a person.

Re:yeah -- good luck...

[drinkypoo]

If the user's ISP cooperates - which they will if they have a subpoena sent to their legal department or equivalent - then they will be able to determine who had that IP at what time. Easy peasy. Hope this doesn't come as a surprise to you.

Re:yeah -- good luck...

[zappepcs]

I'm with you on this one, and quite interested to see how this works out....

Re:yeah -- good luck...

[mdm-adph]

aye... and if the guy had an unprotected wireless router? What then?

Re:yeah -- good luck...

[StarvingSE]

If someone steals your registered gun and murders someone with it, leaving the gun at the scene, guess who's going to be knocking on YOUR door... I'm not saying that a good lawyer couldn't get you out of it in court, but the fact is they will still drag you in as a suspect.

Same thing if you leave your wireless connection on unprotected and someone uses it for something illegal.

Re:yeah -- good luck...

[Radon360]

I guess then he would learn his lesson to upload it from a free wi-fi hotspot or an unsecured one in his neighborhood next time. But then again, perhaps he already did this?

Re:yeah -- good luck...

[GreyPoopon]

aye... and if the guy had an unprotected wireless router? What then?

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:yeah -- good luck...

[drinkypoo]

aye... and if the guy had an unprotected wireless router? What then?

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:yeah -- good luck...

[mdm-adph]

However, to be completely accurate, in this case your "gun" can be used to murder someone without it ever leaving your property or possession, and can be used in this fashion by many people, simultaneously.

But, I'll agree with you -- I don't doubt they'll soon drag someone in. I'd be surprised if it's an open and shut case, though.

Re:yeah -- good luck...

[mdm-adph]

Well, if he wasn't already doing this, I'd almost say the dumbass deserves to be caught.

Re:yeah -- good luck...

[russint]

The episodes had already been all over the internet for a couple of days when this happened. This guy was hardly the original source.

Re:yeah -- good luck...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet you're the type of person who gets all miffed when someone in authority does not 'get' the internet and can't seem to figure out how to interpret existing rules and laws within that context. And then here you go lawyering the shit out of the GP's analogy to make sure it does not fit.

Re:yeah -- good luck...

[mdm-adph]

Well, you apparently have that internet thing down pat, Mr. Anonymity. *Golf clap*

Re:yeah -- good luck...

[pla]

If the user's ISP cooperates - which they will if they have a subpoena sent to their legal department or equivalent - then they will be able to determine who had that IP at what time. Easy peasy. Hope this doesn't come as a surprise to you.

No, not at all surprising.

It would, however, surprise me if someone intent on uploading prerelease content to YouTube did it from any machine directly tied to him. Library computer, Starbucks WiFi, even a hotel's link under a fake name. But as himself?

Doubtful.

Re:yeah -- good luck...

[drinkypoo]

It would, however, surprise me if someone intent on uploading prerelease content to YouTube did it from any machine directly tied to him. Library computer, Starbucks WiFi, even a hotel's link under a fake name. But as himself?

I agree that is what a smart person would do. But did this person do that? We don't yet know if they are smart.

Also, if it's a Starbuck's Wifi you need to authenticate to use it. If you bought your latte with a credit card or if the surveillance tape hasn't yet been erased, you could get busted anyway. Just thought I'd throw that in there. A lot of people are insufficiently cautious when they think they're taking proper measures.

Using some poor bastard's open AP is the best solution for maintaining your anonymity :P

Seriously though...

[pembo13]

Fox shows aren't important enough to be uploaded. The funny ones will air on other channels.

Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the rest will stop linking their personal information to accounts used in illicit activities. Privacy experts report that it's the simple things that get most people burned.

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).

Re:Duh

[Applekid]

I wonder if YouTube handed over historic IP logs of that user's activity. While IP doesn't necessarily equal a person, it's probably just a bridge for the next request of information from an ISP.

Why YouTube?

[15Bit]

Of all the places you *could* post an illegal copy of a copyrighted TV program, why YouTube? It's pretty much guaranteed you're going to get caught.

Stupidity sometimes gets what it deserves...

Re:Why YouTube?

[Rob T Firefly]

Because it's easy enough to be idiot-proof. YouTube is full of pirated TV shows and even full movies (chopped into 9:59 segments) put there by Average Joe Sixpack who finds creating, uploading, and seeding a .torrent or posting to a newsgroup just too gosh-darn computer-nerdy. Anyone can chop up an ill-gotten DIVX clip with the barebones movie-maker that comes with Windows, and Youtube pretty much holds your hand for the uploading process.

Re:Why YouTube?

[maxume]

This strikes me as an excellent example of 'you are using the wrong definition of easy'. Taking the 10 hours our whatever it takes to drool through the process of figuring out bittorrent, and gaining the ability to watch movies in reasonable lengths would seem to be worth it.

Re:Why YouTube?

[British]

You're right. They should have uploaded it to myspace. They are busy with other crackdowns on myspace, that copyrighted tv shows, etc seem to fly under the radar. Heck, they even had the full movie "Creepshow" on it. Yay! No 10 minute limit!

And once myspace's copyrighted video material disappears, 20 other video sharing sites can mirror it.

Re:Why YouTube?

[kirun]

Given that Myspace and FOX are both owned by News Corp, wouldn't that save all the tedious business with lawyers and they'd just go look at the details you signed up with?

Re:Why YouTube?

[Slaughter'em]

Exactly. Besides, who in their right mind would sit in front of their PC and watch a YouTube video for almost an hour?

Summary is very misleading...

[msauve]

Providing information in response to a court subpeona is very different than doing so "after a request from Fox."

This really is theft

[SuperKendall]

People like to say all the time that downloading movies is not theft; it's copyright infringement. And that is true.

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:This really is theft

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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).

But the only way you'd get me to even consider calling something information-y "theft" is if he *erased* fox's copy of the data. The "theft" aspect of "theft" hinges on that - fox wouldn't have the data anymore.

Re:This really is theft

[LainTouko]

People like to say all the time that downloading movies is not theft; it's copyright infringement. And that is true.

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.

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

[flanksteak]

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:This really is theft

[roman_mir]

and how do you know that the person in question did not actually steal physical data carriers with data on them? Of-course this is irrelevant, because whatever you want to call this, what was done is quite illegal and can and should be punished to the fullest extent that the law allows.

Re:This really is theft

[drinkypoo]

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.

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.

Re:This really is theft

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, he should get off easy.

Re:This really is theft

[SydShamino]

No, in this case you are wrong. Until the information has been made public, it could be claimed (and a jury would likely agree) that the material is a Fox trade secret. It contains plot twists and other elements that are confidential until their air date, so that their impact has not been diluted by pre-emptive copies. Imagine if a writer for a soap opera saw a plot twist on a pre-release version of 24, then wrote that same twist into his or her soap to air before the 24 air date.

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:This really is theft

[TiredOfCrap]

Can we, once and for all, determine the meaning of the word theft?

In English law it is defined as "The unlawful taking and removing of personal property with intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner".

I believe in American law it is: "The felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."

Consequently, this cannot be deemed as theft as the owner still has the property.

Re:This really is theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox has lost viewership for the program, which affects their advertising revenues.

If I take $10 from your desk drawer w/o your permission, is that theft? After all, you probably have a job, money is replaceable, and $10 isn't all that much to begin with. Possibly you won't even notice it. What this guy did cost Fox a lot more than $10. It's theft.

Re:This really is theft

[Scudsucker]

and how do you know that the person in question did not actually steal physical data carriers with data on them?

Then prosecute him for theft of the data carriers. He still didn't "steal" the episode.

Of-course this is irrelevant, because whatever you want to call this, what was done is quite illegal and can and should be punished to the fullest extent that the law allows.

Well, duh. Just because people don't call rape cannibalism doesn't mean people don't take rape seriously.

Re:This really is theft

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... and how do you know that the person in question did not actually steal physical data carriers with data on them?

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.

That issue was the improper obtaining and publishing of the CONTENT of the data carrier, which is not "theft", but a crime of another name.

Re:This really is theft

[Scudsucker]

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.

I don't know, do you think it's possible for crimes to be called things other than "theft" and still be taken seriously? If you are getting SSN's, you are likely to be guilty of trespassing at the least. And if you use them for your own financial gain, that is fraud.

Re:This really is theft

[HTH NE1]

Fox no longer possessed the ability to be the first to display the content to the general public.

Is that supposed to be tangible?

Meanwhile, this ECOTtotal wasn't the one who made first disclosure, so he wasn't the one "thieving" this ability from Fox.

All evidence points to someone getting the premiere-DVD ripped before it was to be made available on store shelves, or a leak in the production chain. Hell, I've received pre-ordered DVDs from Amazon.com a day before they were supposed to be made available on more than one occasion!

Here's a couple pertinent questions: was the YouTube video widescreen (16:9)? and is the DVD widescreen (or anamorphic) or full-screen?

Re:This really is theft

[DerekLyons]

It's not theft because nobody has ceased to possess anything.

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. (And those that rated him +5.)

Re:This really is theft

[Anonymous Coward]

How do the bits that make up an episode of 24 having been "confidential" make this any more or less of a copyright violation? If anything, I am in the school of thought that says prior to publication a work's author does not enjoy a cause of action for copyright infringement because prior to publication the bargain of publication in return for a government-enforced "right" (monopoly) on copying has not occurred. Worse, currently copyright law (you know, the stuff bought and paid for by corporations like Fox) makes unpublished works enjoy a longer copyright term than published works. Talk about the devil being in charge.

Re:This really is theft

[91degrees]

Lets suppose we call it cooking instead. Does that make it right? What if we call it murder? Is it suddenly worse? If I call my car a Ferrarri, will it go faster?

Quite clearly, unless you have an extremely strong view that copryright is evil, what the guy did was wrong. For many reasons. But what we call it is just a name.

Re:This really is theft

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet you're real fun at parties.

"My boss stole my idea and presented it to the regional VP as his own"

"Well, actually he did not steal anything as there was nothing tangible ..."

Who am I kidding, the closest you've been to a party is probably being in your mother's basement, by yourself, with a hentai bukakke movie. That you STOLE from some P2P site.

Re:This really is theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Federal law does prohibit stealing of trade secrets, and it is classified as "theft"

The law doesn't define what theft is. Just because murder is legal in texas and described as "capital punishment" doesn't make it not murder. Similarly, just because certain evil forces in the USA have written laws to define something that isn't JUST ISN'T THEFT as "theft" doesn't magically make it theft.

Re:This really is theft

[susano_otter]

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.

How does rules-lawyering a natural language add anything at all to the debate?

We all understand what we're talking about. Why not take a moment to enjoy the flexibility and power of the English language?

Re:This really is theft

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's what the law actually says, that's... too dumb for words. Describing MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS as theft may or may not be the fashion in the USA, it may suit the lawyerocracy over there, but it is simply wrong. The legal system itself is broken, the foxes are designing the henhouse. You can't use a broken legal system's blurring of two distinct concepts as a justification for that blurring - it's circular. If we're arguing that a correct legal system shouldn't ever treat it as theft, saying that it currently does is a complete non-argument.

With your sort of attitude, it would have been impossible to free the slaves, because they'd be property under the law. The law is not perfect, can never be perfect. If the law is wrong, it's time to break and/or change the law.

Tell me, if Chinese law started describing having more than two children as "theft", would that make it "theft"? Hell no.

Re:This really is theft

[LordSnooty]

Imagine if a writer for a soap opera saw a plot twist on a pre-release version of 24, then wrote that same twist into his or her soap to air before the 24 air date.

Yeah, imagine... 'Susan turns to Karl and tells him that their marriage is over... because she's about to prime the nuclear bomb'

Re:This really is theft

[Anonymous Coward]

If you take something that belongs legally to someone else, it's theft under the law

You just haven't taken it. At most, you may have made a copy of it. This isn't mere quibbling, it strikes to the core of the debate. Are two physically separate copies of some macroscopic classical information pattern (and remember, information conveyed is as much a function of the receiver as the medium) one thing? Trivially, indisputably, NO THEY ARE NOT: destroy one, and the other still exists. That's it, game over. The law may disagree, but it's as idiotic as legislating that Pi shall be equal to 3 or that the earth is flat. It's a denial of reality. Now, humans are good at that, so the situation may not even be remedied in my lifetime, but as far as I'm concerned, it's past time to stop pandering to the information flat-earthers and start fighting them we have not yet begun to fight, really, and lucky us, the universe is on our side!

*in order* to actually take something from someone, that someone has to be left without it! If they still have it, you haven't taken it. If you say "ah, but MY definition of theft uses a wider definition", then I'll just ask you "well, mine doesn't. What word do you use to mean 'removing something from someone else's possession while assuming possession of it yourself'?" in a polite effort to reach mutual ontological understanding, and politely inform you that I condider any argument invalid if it uses your definition - it's impossible to debate unless there is mutual ontological commitment, and that cannot happen while one side assumes the result by describing the act being debated as "theft". Both sides agreeing to call it a nonce term e.g. "veeblefrozzing" would be a path to allowing the debate to proceed if both sides were interested in honest reasoned debate.

Re:This really is theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Terms like 'theft' and 'piracy' for IP infractions go back over a century (and in some cases nearly half a millenia).

And? Evil organisations akin to the RIAA/MPAA/whoever go back over a century (and in at least one case well over half a millenium), so there's a long history of people abusing language for their propaganda aims. In fact the USA pretty much got started by rebelling against one such entity - the British Crown.

I'll agree to call it "theft" when you agree to call it "liberation". One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Re:This really is theft

[DMaster0]

Just because a law exists with a definition, does not make it correct.

If Congress passes a law tomorrow that defines the internet as a series of tubes, solely because the Congress is made up primarily of technologically ignorant people, and the bill contains enough pet projects, pork and other personal/special interests to actually pass both bodies of legislature, does that suddenly make it true?

I'm sorry, but our Government is not necessarily looking out for anything except the lobbyists and whatever their definitions and qualifications for protecting themselves happens to be. If you can call something an understandable term enough that people who don't understand fundamental differences can object to, it has the potential to be a law. It doesn't have to also be correct at the same time, since the Government is made up primarily of old people who are scared of computers.

The average age of a Senator is 60. The average House member, 55.

Think of your parents or grandparents. Think of their understanding of IP laws, computers in general, copyright and anything else that we have very poor definitions for based on 19th century concepts that have been drastically outdated by modern technology. Are these the people you trust to tell you both what things are legally defined as, and to set the laws governing them?

I sure hope not. Unfortunately that's what we're stuck with.

Re:This really is theft

[SonicSpike]

Classifying it as a "trade secret" would be a severe stretch in my opinion. Why not just slam the guy for copyright infringement because he violated the copyright holder's right to exclusive distribution? That would be a slam dunk in court if they could prove the person was responsible for the action.

Re:This really is theft

[DGolden]

But what we call it is just a name.

And names do matter, or "rape" and "dogfish" wouldn't now be called "canola" and "rock salmon" (at least in the USA). "Framing" is a very old dirty debating trick.

"Words come with conceptual frames, imposing an understanding on a situation." - George Lakoff.

Re:This really is theft

[kimvette]

It is more akin to "stealing" trade secrets than typical copyright infringement. As much as I think copyright is abused to the point where "they" want us to believe Fair Use does not exist and we cannot legally trade timeshifted content with one another, I think Fox is 100% in the right on this. They have not yet received advertising revenue the airing generates, and if 24 addicts get their fix a week early from advert-free episodes, the advertising value for 24's timeslot has been diluted. So, in effect, that user HAS stolen from Fox because the potential advertising value is now lower.

Re:This really is theft

[LainTouko]

No, you see, you're talking about what some group of people lobbied some other group of people to write on a piece of paper, leading to its enforcement by threat of violence. Whereas I'm talking about a concept which has existed for as long as property has existed.

If you want to let lawmakers define your worldview, that's fine, but don't assume that I do.

Re:This really is theft

[DerekLyons]

Just because a law exists with a definition, does not make it correct.

When the law defines a legal term - it is by definition correct. Don't confuse the lay meaning of a term with it's legal meaning.
 
 

If Congress passes a law tomorrow that defines the internet as a series of tubes, solely because the Congress is made up primarily of technologically ignorant people, and the bill contains enough pet projects, pork and other personal/special interests to actually pass both bodies of legislature, does that suddenly make it true?

So why, precisely, is it any better when a bunch of Slashdotters, pundits, and activists seek to redefine a legal term? As you point out it's bad for technologically ignorant people to define technology terms - the same should hold true of legally ignorant people and legal terms. (And, as I said in my original message, this usage is not a modern creation. It dates back centuries.)
 
 

Think of your parents or grandparents. Think of their understanding of IP laws, computers in general, copyright and anything else that we have very poor definitions for based on 19th century concepts that have been drastically outdated by modern technology.

That's just the problem - the basic concepts haven't been outdated at all. Creators of IP still have rights, just as they did in the 19th century.
 
 

Are these the people you trust to tell you both what things are legally defined as, and to set the laws governing them?

Frankly, I trust them more than I do the average Slashdot hypocrite - who whines when a F/OSS license is broken, but cheers when copyright law is broken.

Re:This really is theft

[Anonymous Coward]

When the law defines a legal term - it is by definition correct. Don't confuse the lay meaning of a term with it's legal meaning.

Rubbish. Don't confuse the current legal meaning of a term with the legal meaning it should have.

the same should hold true of legally ignorant people and legal terms.

We're NOT legally ignorant, the problem is that at the moment the legal system itself is the enemy, and its terminology has been carefully framed by the supporters of Infofascism.

the basic concepts haven't been outdated at all. Creators of IP still have rights, just as they did in the 19th century.

Slave owners still have rights, just as they did in the 16th century. Sorry, but the basic concepts ARE outdated.

Frankly, I trust them more than I do the average Slashdot hypocrite - who whines when a F/OSS license is broken, but cheers when copyright law is broken.

You understand that in reality, *different people* post to slashdot, right? Your "average slashdot hypocrite" is a straw man. Personally, I'm quite happy for Free licenses to be broken - so long as the person doing the breaking is in a position to agree to never enforcing copyright themselves. "Without copyright, the GPL would be unenforceable. It would also be unnecessary".

Re:This really is theft

[Jeff DeMaagd]

In the last discussion about this topic, someone mentioned that it could have been transferred over a free-to-air C-Band channel, which is one way networks distribute videos to their affiliates before it airs. Fox does have several channels that they can use to do this. Finding a feed working is the hard part, but often those feeds are unencrypted and open to recording to anyone that finds the channel.

Re:This really is theft

[SydShamino]

Well, I used soap opera as an example because it's the only form of drama that can write, film, and air a script in less than a week.

I suppose "Survivor" or another "reality" TV show would have been an equally valid example.
"This week, the survivors have to locate destroy each of the 17 drug and weapon stockpiles on the island, then breach the command center and shut down the communications link. The losing team has to send one member home, and the other members get shot."

Got ta say.....

[edwardpickman]

This is an obvious case of thieft and they have every right to plug the leak at their end. Posting episodes before they air has to be coming from their end so they have the right to locate and fire/prosecute the source. It has nothing to do with fair use it has to do with protecting their work. Advertisers can potentially cut funding and kill the series if they don't defend it. Youtube really has no choice since they'd be protecting the thief. Supporting the people involved harms those supporting fair use since it appears they are supporting outright thieft. A line has to be drawn and they crossed it in this case.

Re:Got ta say.....

[kosmosik]

Totally agree with you. What is sad that maniacs posting stuff like this will get associated with general Linux/Free/Open/Software community and build the opinion that such users don't give a shit about stealing (well this is not exactly theft - copyright violation).

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:Got ta say.....

[drinkypoo]

This is an obvious case of thieft

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 we have different words for them.

Every time you equate copyright infringement to theft, a RIAA or MPAA lawyer gets his horns, tail and pitchfork.

Re:Got ta say.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? There is nothing to associate this guys posting of some 24 episodes with open/free/whatever software. He doesn't give anyone a bad name but himself. It's the assholes here who respond to articles about "infringement" with "ompf riaa nazi wtf" and "geeursodumb its not stealing its infringing" that give the "movement" a bad name. Really, I'd take open source a lot more seriously if I didn't think I'd have to spend tons of time interacting with your typical slashbot left of stalin dumbfuckiod. It's one thing to play around on a message board, but another thing entirely to have to actually be in the same room as these moss mouthed basement dwelling pear shaped uc berk bearded morons.

Re:Got ta say.....

[lahvak]

If I understand the situation in this case, it was not copyright infringement, it was a theft. The point is that the show was not released yet. If you break into my house and steal a manuscript of a book that I am writing, its a theft. Even if you just make a copy a leave the original manuscript behind.

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:Got ta say.....

[IronChef]

Note too that copying and taking are not the same thing, which is why we have different words for them.

Times are changing. Today I copied someone else's lunch from the fridge at work.

Re:Got ta say.....

[noidentity]

No, it was theft, because that episode of 24 didn't air.

Oh wait, it did. I guess the thief returned it in time for broadcast...

Re:Got ta say.....

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

No, that is burglary AND copyright infringement. Not theft!

Where do you get off MAKING UP their own definitions to words? It boggles my mind!

Re:Got ta say.....

[drinkypoo]

If I understand the situation in this case, it was not copyright infringement, it was a theft. The point is that the show was not released yet. If you break into my house and steal a manuscript of a book that I am writing, its a theft. Even if you just make a copy a leave the original manuscript behind.

You are displaying your abject ignorance of the law. You should just quit before you get further behind.

I am certainly no lawyer but I have orders of magnitude more understanding of this issue than you do.

If I break into your house and make a copy of a manuscript, I am not committing theft. I am Breaking and Entering, I may be Trespassing (depending on where you live) and I am certainly committing Copyright Infringement. If I did damage getting in, I'm even going to be convicted of Vandalism. But unless I take the book out of your house, I am not committing theft. What you seem to be missing is that these are legal definitions and they simply do not just mean whatever you want them to mean. They have specific legal definitions. Period. The end.

Now, he could maybe be cited for release of trade secrets or something. God knows. But nothing he has done is theft, unless he actually stole the discs that the media was on from someone. Since that assertion hasn't even been made, claiming that he is guilty of theft is utterly without basis. But then, since you don't apparently understand the difference between copyright infringement and theft (I didn't think it was that complicated, but I guess we're not all created identical, just "equal") your opinion is useless and uninteresting anyway.

Re:Got ta say.....

[tompaulco]

Did he also return the advertising revenue resulting from the reduced viewership?

Re:Got ta say.....

[drinkypoo]

Did he also return the advertising revenue resulting from the reduced viewership?

Causing someone to lose ad revenue isn't theft either. We call that damages and if they result from an illegal action, you may be liable for them.

I don't know why so many people have so much trouble with these definitions.

Re:Got ta say.....

[Withen]

In this one very specific (and very rare) instance, theft may actually be the correct term for what happened. The fact that the episode was released on YouTube a week prior to it's airing may indicate that something WAS stolen (read: more than copyright infringement). I'm no industry insider, but I would expect unaired television shows to be under pretty strict lock and key. I'm actually very curious to find out how it was obtained. How this story unfolds should be pretty interesting.

Re:Got ta say.....

[drinkypoo]

The fact that the episode was released on YouTube a week prior to it's airing may indicate that something WAS stolen (read: more than copyright infringement).

It may suggest it, and you may have inferred it from what you have read, but it does not suggest it. I wish you people would look up these words whose meaning you clearly don't understand before using them.

I'm no industry insider, but I would expect unaired television shows to be under pretty strict lock and key.

And I would have expected feature movies to be under pretty strict lock and key before screeners started appearing all over the place before movies came out. Hell, the first Lord of the Rings movie was readily available what, two weeks before the movie came out? And that was literally one of the most eagerly-awaited movies of all time.

TV shows have to be rated. This involves them leaving the building. During the production of the show, dozens of people probably have ready access to the data. It only takes one of them to make a copy and then no theft need actually have occurred.

Theft may very well have occurred here! But there is no particular reason to believe that it has, given the lack of evidence with which we have not been presented.

Re:Got ta say.....

[tompaulco]

I don't know why so many people have so much trouble with these definitions.
Well, my own definitions don't necessarily correspond with the legal definitions of theft. But frankly, I see every immoral act as an act of theft. Putting up the 24 episodes on Youtube was a theft of advertisement revenue. Murder is the theft of life. Stealing is theft of goods. Lying is theft of truth. Some immoral acts are thefts of multiple things: Rape for example physically steals sex, but also steals peace of mind, since of self-image and more.
Obviously, my views don't hold up in court. But in my own little world, everything bad is a theft of something or somethings.

Re:Got ta say.....

[Trogre]

And yet you (/. collectively) were the first to get up in arms about Timbaland "stealing" from the demoscene.

And before you start, it isn't any different. While one is copyright infringement and the other fraud, they're both still intellectual property issues, not dealing with any kind of physical property.

Re:Got ta say.....

[drinkypoo]

I don't know why so many people have so much trouble with these definitions.

Well, my own definitions don't necessarily correspond with the legal definitions of theft.

No one but you is interested in your definitions, and they are utterly unwelcome in a conversation about legal realities.

Obviously, my views don't hold up in court. But in my own little world, everything bad is a theft of something or somethings.

Why don't you come join us in this world? All you're accomplishing is making yourself one of the masses of those in denial, which is not a river in Egypt. You can be a part of the solution, or part of the precipitate. Right now you're in serious danger of dropping out, making yourself irrelevant by not participating in the reality that the rest of us live in.

Denial starts with telling yourself one little lie and moving on from there.

Put another way, when you start redefining words, you lose your ability to meaningfully communicate with others. If we had this conversation in meatspace, it would take a lot more effort and attention to converse with you, and I would already have written you off as some kind of idiot space cadet likely to end up pushing a shopping cart, and walked away.

Re:Got ta say.....

[RESPAWN]

I don't know if this is the method that the user used to obtain the episode of 24 or if Fox even still does this, but about 10 - 15 years ago most networks would uplink the latest episode of a particular series to a C-Band satellite at a specific time so that their afiliates around the country could obtain it for the following week's broadcast. Note that they would do this without encoding the episode. I know for a fact that Fox and CBS both did this with their shows, as I can remember watching the Simpsons and Star Trek: TNG via these affiliate broadcasts before any of my friends could watch them. (Fox also used this method to broadcast the NHL games at the time. It was great being able to watch the Pittsburg Penguins play via satellite when my local affiliate was showing the Dallas Stars game.)

I would think it likely that Fox and other networks still use this method to distribute episodes to their local affiliates, and that this is how the uploader managed to obtain the episode before it was officially aired. Not having a C-Band satellite dish anymore, however, I can't verify this theory. Anybody out there actually still have a C-Band satellite dish? That's actually hooked up and usable?

Re:Got ta say.....

[Withen]

It may suggest it, and you may have inferred it from what you have read, but it does not suggest it. I wish you people would look up these words whose meaning you clearly don't understand before using them. The contradiction of that first sentence aside, I never used the word "suggest", and I don't particularly appreciate being criticized for the misuse of a word that I never in fact used. If you're going to quibble over semantics, especially if you're going to be condescending about it, please make sure the word in question was actually part of the conversation.

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:Got ta say.....

[tompaulco]

I'm not the one redefining words. Theft was theft long before there was a legal definition. The people changing the definition are the people who are affecting the bottom line of corporations, and the people who invest in them, but then declare that they are not doing wrong because they didn't take something physical. They may be a "copyright infringer" in the eyes of the law, but morally they are a thief.

Re:Got ta say.....

[ovideon]

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 we have different words for them. I could be off-base here, but it seems that the worth 'theft' is almost justified here... After all, he is depriving Fox of the chance to be the first to publicly release the material.

Re:Got ta say.....

[LordSnooty]

Knocking Slashdot posters on the head with a log, is that theft? Definitely immoral, in most cases.

Re:Got ta say.....

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

Look up the meaning of the word. You can't just add a new meaning because you feel like it.

Re:Got ta say.....

[Scudsucker]

I'm not the one redefining words.

Yes, you are.

The people changing the definition are the people who are affecting the bottom line of corporations

We aren't changing the definition, corporate stooges are. Is a crime only a crime when it's theft? Are rape and arson any less reprehensible because we call them rape and arson rather than theft? Get a clue.

Theft was theft long before there was a legal definition.

Okay, go back in a time machine with Mr. Poo. He looks at some goods from a street vendor, goes home and duplicates them using his own tools. Then you come over to the street vendor and explain that he's just been the victim of theft. The street vendor surveys his wares, sees nothing is missing, and realizes that you have no idea of what you're talking about. Because if there is no transfer of possession, there is no theft. Period.

Re:Got ta say.....

[mpe]

I would think it likely that Fox and other networks still use this method to distribute episodes to their local affiliates, and that this is how the uploader managed to obtain the episode before it was officially aired. Not having a C-Band satellite dish anymore, however, I can't verify this theory. Anybody out there actually still have a C-Band satellite dish? That's actually hooked up and usable?

The method here is that of a broadcast. The exact details of that, including the frequency used and any encryption which might be added, matter rather less than that signal is being sent to a sizable part of the Earth's surface. Which includes quite a bit which is outside of the US.

Re:Got ta say.....

[noidentity]

"But frankly, I see every immoral act as an act of theft. [...] Lying is theft of truth."

Your concept is a theft of meaning from the word "theft".

What's Google/YouTube doing with PID anyway?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Apparently Google and YouTube were willing and able to identify the owner of the username ECOTtotal...

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:What's Google/YouTube doing with PID anyway?

[bunions]

The ISP will likely match up an IP with an actual human, unless the poster went to more trouble to hide his tracks than most do.

Re:What's Google/YouTube doing with PID anyway?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Well, it is perfectly possible for the uploader to have gmail id and used google check out to buy a gps system and got it delivered to his home. Never over estimate the average human intelligence. Now if I am really clever, and if I have a grouse against my employer or ex, I would create a google id in his/her name, get gps delivered to his/her home and use the same id to upload content that is sure to draw the attention of mpaa and then stand at the sidewalk and watch the fun. But sadly I am too smart for that ;-)

Re:What's Google/YouTube doing with PID anyway?

[vic-traill]

Well, I was able to subscribe through an anonymizer service. The youtube sign-up requires a valid e-mail address that a confirmation message can be sent to. Sending the confirmation uri through the anonymizer service failed - I can't see the internals of the service enough to understand where the failure occurred (tamper data showed everything ok from my browser's perspective).

Based on this, a youtube account *may* require direct session between your client and youtube for successful sign-up, which would guarantee that they get your IP at sign-up time. And if they get it, they keep it - of that I have no doubt.

Re:What's Google/YouTube doing with PID anyway?

[maxume]

The field is a bit bigger in this case. The dvd of the show went on sale the day after it aired. There's lots of steps between manufacturing and store shelves where a disc or two could get misplaced.

Re:What's Google/YouTube doing with PID anyway?

[Splab]

Perhaps you got a flagged exit route to youtube? If you are using TOR it changes route every now and then, so you could have been talking through a host not banned first and then through one that is banned.

Good!

[joto]

Just because your username can be different from your real name doesn't mean that your actions are completely without consequences. Not that I have a lot of sympathies for either Fox, ECOTtotal, Fox viewers, viewers of the TV-show 24, people who upload copyrighted stuff to youtube, people who watch copyrighted stuff from youtube, or even people in general. But I do enjoy myself when corporate greed wins over stupid people.

Re:Good!

[sfjoe]

But I do enjoy myself when corporate greed wins over stupid people.

I'm just the opposite: I like to see stupid people beating corporate greed. Actually, I like to see anyone beating corporate greed.

Re:Good!

[linguizic]

I'm more fond of when stupid people win over corporate greed. It's much more entertaining!

Rich industrialists & charity work

[jmorris42]

> This is a company whose founders contribute very little back of their wealth to charitable causes
> 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:Rich industrialists & charity work

[Lithdren]

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. Im perfectly willing to test this theory. I can virtually guarentee a billion dollars wont destroy me. Honest, im willing to prove it. Please?

Re:Rich industrialists & charity work

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, and this is for your own good, we have to say no.

Re:Rich industrialists & charity work

[ShinmaWa]

> bet they made friends at Boeing at any rate and kept a few ordinary workers gainfully employed.

Not really. They bought a used 767 (not 747) from Qantas Airlines. Oh yeah, and they are in a massive lawsuit with the refurbishers to boot.

Re:Rich industrialists & charity work

[SonicSpike]

Exactly.
  Not only that, even if they simply park their money in a bank account somewhere, it is still working in the economy. Money in the back gets used as investments for loans and such. The only way these guys would be taking money OUT of the economy would be to liquidate it and then stuff the cash in a vault or under their bed or something. That would be dumb because then not only does it NOT grow, but they are losing about 4% in inflation each year on it.

Re:Rich industrialists & charity work

[Half-pint HAL]

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.

I think you're confusing corporate and personal capital. Corporate capital goes into improving the business, which (hopefully) increases prosperity. Personal capital can be reinvested, but that means buying shares, not airliners.

Furthermore, responsible charity can also increase prosperity -- note that the major charities now all focus on setting up co-ops and providing training in trades and business skills.

Finally, you can't produce wealth without producing poverty. Don't believe me? I'm not rich in a national sense: I can't afford to buy much more than many of my local peers can. I'm rich in an international sense: I can afford to buy more than most of my global peers. Locally it appears as though wealth has been generated, as everyone in my country has more possessions than they did a generation ago. However, on the global scale, we can see people poisoning themselves in the factories that produce our cheap consumer goods for a pitiful bread-line wage of a few pennies per week, where 200 years ago their ancestors lived in productive, self-sufficient communities. We claim urbanisation is good and cite health-care and education as examples of why, yet people are no healthier, and their education isn't getting them out of the factories.

HAL.

They're gonna be disappointed...

[Geek_3.3]

...when the name "ljrllkjlfjdals lkjaldsji3oj" at email address uolikjalj@lkjdfljks.com shows up on their use logs... (or some other random confluence of characters at account creation)

Re:They're gonna be disappointed...

[tlacuache]

That's my e-mail address, you insensitive clod!

More importantly

[gerf]

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.

And this is OK

[kosmosik]

It is not OK to take some licensed media and just upload if to Youtube. You fucking (/. editors) hypocrits will cry loud when GPL is violated but when somebody evidently pirates a copy of copyright protected Simpsons episode it is OK?

Re:And this is OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, we believe that content should be freely distributable ala GPL or Creative Commons. Therefore, there is no hypocrisy because we would defend FOX if they used a freer license.

Re:And this is OK

[Anonymous Coward]

...when somebody evidently pirates a copy of copyright protected Simpsons episode...

Pirate: Yar, me hearty!
Simpsons episode: Doh!
Pirate: Stand and deliver!
Simpsons episode: Eat my shorts!
Pirate: Prepare to be boarded, matey!
Simpsons episode: Ok, ok, don't have a cow, man!

Re:And this is OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shut up. The shows are broadcast for free on regular television. Why does it matter if they are viewable for free on a different video medium?

I know that this particular case is actual theft, due to the episode in question being released on the internet before it was released on TV, but I'm not talking about this one, and according to your choice of words, neither are you.

By the way, GPL is somewhat respectable, unlike other... Things...

Re:And this is OK

[radarjd]

Actually, we believe that content should be freely distributable ala GPL or Creative Commons.

I'm not certain what meaning the GPL has in the media content field. It provides for protection of a "Program" and it's fairly clear from the text of the license that it's talking about a computer program. The GPL does not require that the Program be given away for free (as in beer) -- it does impose certain requirements on the distributor / copier, but those say nothing about price. For reference, here's the gpl v2.

Creative Commons provides a series of form clauses which may or may not allow the free (as in beer) distribution of a work. It is certainly appropriate for media content (as opposed to software), but does not require that the author give up his or her or its rights, whether those rights be to distribution, derivative works, etc. You might want to look at their license list

. Both of these licenses rely on an effective and enforceable copyright law. I suppose if all current and future copyrighted works fell into the public domain, there may be no need for the licenses, though I would argue that the GPL has a larger intent than simply putting works into the public domain. In any case, Fox is enforcing its rights under the same copyright law that the Creative Commons licenses and the GPL rely upon.

Therefore, there is no hypocrisy because we would defend FOX if they used a freer license.

What exactly are you looking for? Free Simpsons episodes on Youtube? This wasn't the case of a creative remix or mashup. This wasn't about using clips from the Simpsons in an otherwise creative work. This was the wholesale copy and distribution of Simpsons episodes.

Re:And this is OK

[tompaulco]

I think you are missing the point of how FOX makes its money.
If you take somebody's money and burn it, instead of using it to buy things for yourself, it is still illegal.

Re:And this is OK

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right up there with "you Americans didn't want the British government ... and so you set up your own government?".

Re:And this is OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, perhaps that's exactly what fox deserves.

Viewed for free

[idleprocess]

So, 24 and the Simpsons are on FOX. I have an antenna on my roof to get local channels. I've paid nothing to watch these shows.

So why is it a problem to provide a copy of something that was already given away for free?

I suppose advertising gets stripped but what the hell? Oh and thanks google for not being evil.

Re:Viewed for free

[berashith]

The problem lies in the fact that it had not been given away for free _yet_ . There are people that pay fox to give away the content so that people watching the content will see the commercials of those paying. Now, if half of the people who would have watched the show decide not to because they already saw it 12 days before it aired, then those people paying probably wouldnt. FOX stands to lose enough from this scenario that they will be coming after this person hard. The fact that it will be an inside source makes this more important for them to stop it as it will continue indefinitely, and all those advertisers will be chased off.

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:Viewed for free

[drinkypoo]

So why is it a problem to provide a copy of something that was already given away for free?

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 time. HTH, HAND. Next time read the summary, bozo.

Let the retributive moderation from your homies commence!

Re:Viewed for free

[Anonymous Coward]

because, you moron, the advertising is "paying" for the episode to be broadcast to you.

it's being paid for - just not directly by you.

Re:Viewed for free

[idleprocess]

drinknpoo,

Ah, I see, 24 was indeed un-aired, however;

That user, named ECOTtotal, is also alleged to have uploaded 12 episodes of The Simpsons, some quite old.

I'm not sure why I foe'd you, but i'm sure it was appropriate.

Re:Viewed for free

[Ungrounded Lightning]

So why is it a problem to provide a copy of something that was already given away for free?

Two reasons:

  - Shows like The Simpsons are payment to people like you for renting your eyeball time, to be sold to the sponsors. This is what pays for their creation and distribution. Showing it to you without the content owner's consent deprives the content owner of part of the value of his content.

  - The first run of an ongoing cliffhanger-serial derives additional value from being a scarce resource - making it a bigger eyeball-draw. People actually go out of their way to avoid missing an episode, raising the ratings significantly. The commercials can be priced accordingly. Posting the episode in advance of the first showing reduces the legitimate showing to a rerun. (Some watch the posting and skip the air show. Others are aware it's available and skip the air show, confident that they can pick up what they missed from the net.) That kills the additional draw, reducing the audience, the ratings, and thus the money paid by the sponsors.

For something like "24" that's potentially a LOT of lost bucks.

Re:Viewed for free

[Ungrounded Lightning]

(Some watch the posting and skip the air show. Others are aware it's available and skip the air show, confident that they can pick up what they missed from the net.)

Still others watch the feed AND the air show - but watch the air show with less attention since they've already seen it before. Less commercials get watched (as they take less care to be back in front of the screen before the show restarts after a break), and those that are watched are watched with less excitement/attention (since the show raises less adrenaline when the surprises and plot twists are already known). This also reduces the value of the commercial slots to the sponsors, which may again map back to less money for the network and studio.

Re:Viewed for free

[geekoid]

Except there is no evidince to support that.
In fact, many items released before there scheduled release time to BETTER at the release time.
I know it's counter intuative, but there you go.

Example:
EmmnEmms biggest release weekend was the same album that had been downloadable from the new for a month before the sceduled release date.
There are many examples like that.

Re:Viewed for free

[zakezuke]

So, 24 and the Simpsons are on FOX. I have an antenna on my roof to get local channels. I've paid nothing to watch these shows.

So why is it a problem to provide a copy of something that was already given away for free?

It's not given away exactly. It is aired prime time when commercial ad time is at it's highest. That's what pays for the show you can watch for free off the air. Here we are, the cost paid for by your friendly sponcers for a 30 second spot. The show is 42min, leaving room for 36 spots which were sold for close to $300,000 each in 2003. That works out to be about 10 million. I don't know what the present value is, or how much the network affiliates charge for their local commercials, but it's big money.

Given it's a fact that the value of showing an episode for the first time results millions of dollars revenue, those who take the show and release it early, that seriously affects viewership, and affects the value of the ad-time.

"after" it's aired, the value of ad-time does go down, and one can argue that copies floting around encourage people to watch a show during prime time, which would increase the value of these spots. But taking it before it's aired, without a doubt, does do the networks, producers, and advertisers harm.

Falsely Believing You are Anonymous...

[CompMD]

...on the Internet can lead to very bad or unexpected things for you or those around you. Just this week someone "anonymously" posting on a local newspaper online forum caused a mistrial in a multiple first degree murder and aggravated arson case where I live.

Re:Falsely Believing You are Anonymous...

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard that you encourage setting fire to people in order to keep them warm.

--Anonymous Coward

Re:Falsely Believing You are Anonymous...

[MrWa]

Your summary of the stories seems to imply that the anonymous posting caused the mistrial, which is not quite accurate. The discovery of a new witness for the prosecution during the trial itself was the reason for the mistrial - the anonymous posting was just the means by which this witness was discovered. It would make as much sense as blaming coffee shops for the mistrial if the witness was found drinking a latte that morning.

Mistrials in cases where a new witness surfaces late in the trial process are not unusual, District Judge Robert Fairchild said, especially when the testimony presented would affect the case considerably.

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.

Re:Falsely Believing You are Anonymous...

[CompMD]

Of course, in the courtroom it was the discovery of a new witness and the state's desire to put said witness on the stand which was the defendant's grounds to move for a mistrial. But had the comment not been discovered, the witness would not have been discovered. Had the witness not been discovered, the trial would have gone on. However, since the witness was discovered _because_ the comment was discovered, is it not reasonable to say the comment caused the mistrial by setting in motion events that led to the mistrial?

Why not go after the REAL source.

[Anonymous Coward]

The episodes were probably rips of the season premiere DVD that leaked before it aired (and were probably already on bit torrent and the newsgroups long before they were uploaded to YouTube). Why isn't FOX trying to go after the original hole on their end with this much effort?

Re:Why not go after the REAL source.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The episodes were probably rips of the season premiere DVD that leaked before it aired (and were probably already on bit torrent and the newsgroups long before they were uploaded to YouTube). Why isn't FOX trying to go after the original hole on their end with this much effort?

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 may be part of chasing down the leak.

Re:Why not go after the REAL source.

[geekoid]

TO the best of my knowledge they have never gone after people who just downloaded, but people who upload. Distribution is where the crime is.

If the company who made your TV did so illegally, they don't go after you.

Re:Did Cheney torture them for it, Frist?

[drinkypoo]

After all, it was 24, and on that show, unlike my actual experience in real counter-terrorism ops, torture always works.

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?

[winkydink]

unlike my actual experience in real counter-terrorism ops

Sorry, neihter reading Tom Clancy nor playing his games qualify as real, counter-terrorism ops.

What's that got to do with 24?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Fox shows aren't important enough to be uploaded. The funny ones will air on other channels.

What's that got to do with 24, which is funny only unintentionally?

Re:What's that got to do with 24?

[Dorceon]

What's that got to do with 24, which is funny only unintentionally?

Tell me about it. Chloe spends 12 hours of every day reconfiguring uplinks. Write a damn shell script!

Re:What's that got to do with 24?

[karnal]

She did, but the Phoenix Firewall kept blocking her.

Some of the stuff they come up with......

YRO??

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this YRO? You don't have any right to upload copywrited shows without permission.

Re:YRO??

[mschuyler]

or copyrighted ones, either.

Re:YRO??

[Travelsonic]

No, copyrighted and being distributed WITHOUT PERMISSION is correct. People make stuff that is copyrighted yet legally free/sharable.

Re:YRO??

[mschuyler]

Hey there travelsonic, you missed it big time.

Is it "copywrited" or "copyrighted"? I really don't think we're talking about writing advertisements here, but you be sure and jump in here and correct me if I'm wrong--just like you did last time without understanding the point.

Re:YRO??

[Travelsonic]

Awww shit, it was a long day... sorry. :P

How public is public?

[HTH NE1]

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.

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 before they were finalized, in 10, 15, 20, and 30 second versions. (That may have been before our local CableVision become Time Warner Cable. I'd have to research the dates.)

I wouldn't expect network programming to be in the clear on satellite like that however. But then I don't have the hardware to pick up those signals.

However, reading the article (and the article linked to by the article), it appears to only be the first four episodes of 24 that were made available in advance, again pointing to someone getting ahold of the DVDs of the first four episodes prior to their street date (the day after the two-day premiere).

And this "ECOTtotal" probably wasn't even the ripper nor could identify who was. As reported, the episodes were available elsewhere before they were available on YouTube. So if they do succeed in tracking him down, he's screwed.

As others have pointed out, rental stores also got them early and some Blockbuster employees were permitted to rent them before they were made available to customers. So how public is public? A privileged group had access early, but who had the privilege was not under control of Fox. It just wasn't broadcast-televised.

(Huh, my Firefox installation's dictionary didn't include the word "ahold".)

Re:How public is public?

[kaen]

As others have pointed out, rental stores also got them early and some Blockbuster employees were permitted to rent them before they were made available to customers

Actually, the Blockbuster here encouraged employees to borrow (not rent) new movies before their release so they could be informed when customers asked questions about the movies.

YouTube built a business based on infringing

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube built much if its business and traffic by allowing copyrighted material to be posted. They provided the tools. The user is obviously at fault. At the same time, it feels severely twisted that the YouTube founders are walking away with several $100M. This would not have happened if it wasn't for the gazillion users that posted copyrighted material. Face it, YouTube had little if any interest in preventing videos like this from being posted.

Time zone

[KoldKompress]

The Uploader must be in a different time-zone to Washington DC so that 24 happens an hour earlier...

Reruns are cool. Pre-runs are not.

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm sure there are many pro-media people out there who will disagree with me, I think being able to go back and see an episode of "whatever" that you missed or something like that is cool. But come on! Sharing out an episode prior to public broadcast? That's direct bread-and-butter for those people who sell advertising. Sure it may be cool to have access to an episode prior to air date and all, but GEEZ! Have a *little* respect eh?

no

[Scudsucker]

This is an obvious case of copyright infringment.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently at this point in time /. mods value truthiness as opposed to truth. They feel it is theft, therefore it is theft. Damn those definitions... Damn them to hell!

It's a matter of definiton.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I'm not sure what you're getting at...

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 these non-theft crimes are similar enough to be confused with actual theft.)

Re:It's a matter of definiton.

[flanksteak]

(Depriving the owner of much or all of the VALUE of his property may have occurred - which is typically why these non-theft crimes are similar enough to be confused with actual theft.) Which should qualify as a theft of a trade secret.

I can see where identity theft can be broken down into trespassing (obtaining personal data) and fraud (applying for credit cards you have no intention of paying off), since the victim is not denied use of their identity. It just has less value. But this seems like splitting hairs in support of file sharing.

Re:It's a matter of definiton.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Which should qualify as a theft of a trade secret.

I can see where identity theft can be broken down ... since the victim is not denied use of their identity.

In the case of theft of trade secret the criminal deprives the victim of the information's secrecy.

But I agree that both terms, though recognized, are misnomers. Like "piracy" being used for illegal copying of entertainment, rather than theft of ships and cargo on the open ocean, generally with the murder of the crew and any passengers in an effort by the pirates to avoid identification and capture.

But this seems like splitting hairs in support of file sharing.

Using language properly, rather than letting the words drift into uselessness, is just such "splitting" of "hairs".

But I agree that hair-splitting is going on here.

As for supporting file sharing (by which I presume you mean "file sharing without the permission of the owner of the file's content" - another hair splitting in the interests of clarity), as you'll notice from my other postings in this discussion I don't support such copyright violation. I was just attempting to clarify a previous poster's meaning, in the face of confusion by followup posters.

Re:It's a matter of definiton.

[flanksteak]

I was just attempting to clarify a previous poster's meaning, in the face of confusion by followup posters.

Understood.

Wow, did I just have a polite and mutually educational conversation on slashdot? I think I better go lie down...

Re:OT

[FunkyELF]

Clue for you all: 127.0.0.1 != "home". Stop embarrassing yourselves. Try "There's no place like ~", for example.

Actually, ~ != home either. ~ in my case is /home/FunkyELF/....I think what you're looking for is...

There's no place like ~/..

Re:Did Cheney torture them for it, Frist?

[WillAffleckUW]

I spent seven years in the Army, and was a Sergeant. Now go back to your video games.

Remedial law

[edwardpickman]

Why is it only thieft if they stole a physical disk or tape? The information is the same. It's more symantics than law. If he brought his own disk it isn't thieft but if stole one of theirs it's thieft? Well here's a brain bender, what if he did steal one of their disks? How the information was removed isn't known. People don't have the rights to everything, that isn't the law. If I make a video you don't have the rights to it the moment it's shot. In the case of 24 no one is asking you to buy anything. Put yourself out and actually flip on the TV. If it doesn't match your precious schedule buy a TiVo. There are options other than midnight raids on TV networks.

Re:Did Cheney torture them for it, Frist?

[WillAffleckUW]

I'm sorry, but you're not cleared to know that.

Everyone is missing the obvious

[MindStalker]

Everyone seems to ignore the fact that he was releasing the episodes weeks before broadcast. Meaning he wasn't just breaking copyright, but trade secret and probably contract requirements as well.

Taddletale!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Nobody likes a snitch.

Copyright infringement, not theft

[mandelbr0t]

All these responses and we're still just arguing English semantics. The legalese is apparently quite clear. Pre-air distribution (besides being a breach of the Right to Distribute) is also a breach of the Right to Perform. Details at Bitlaw. Since the infraction is copyright infringement, it is not theft.

From an ethical standpoint and specific to the copyrighted material being discussed, the infringement on the Right to Perform is damaging to the copyright holder (FOX). It translates directly to a very real loss in advertising revenue. I don't see any issue with FOX going after this infringement, and I don't see how YouTube's refusal to cooperate would have been a good PR move. I fully support this guy being busted for pre-air distribution and I don't see that the law did anything unethical to bust him.

That being said, I hope we don't see FOX going after people for distributing the same episode after it has been aired, since I can't see such an infringement translating into real revenue loss for FOX.

Re:u toob

[anagama]

offtopic mod is fair, but it is hilarious in an odd way.

Re:OT

[nickull]

127.0.0.1 = localhost, more commonly known as the http callback interface. Not sure why this is posted on this thread. Enlighten me?

Re:OT

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be there's no place like /home/. ~/ is your home, so, that would be the most correct approximation.

It's not copyright that I support

[Anonymous Coward]

You're mistaken if you think it's copyright that I support. I do not.

I support the free & open exchange of ideas. This includes their reuse by others. The GPL aids that, if you break the GPL, you are inhibiting the free & open exchange of ideas by refusing to share. Here, copyright is being used to keep people from seeing this material. Never mind that it was all over Usenet and they're tracing the wrong source.

In other words, you have to understand the reasons why someone supports something, not just go for this simplistic "X is always good!" or "X is always bad!" reasoning that applies to only a very, very few cases.

So if you're going to accuse someone of pretending to believe in something they don't (AKA hypocrisy), please do us all a favor and make sure you understand what they believe. It's not hypocrisy merely because people don't believe the strawman position you think they do.

P.S. The whole of this response is disclaimed by me, the author, into the public domain.

Re:Did Cheney torture them for it, Frist?

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of stupid low class scum joins the army. You belong in a local fast food restaurant mopping the fucking floors and cleaning up my ketchup spam.

Re:OT

[RaceCarDriver]

"~" is the User's "home"dir. Saying "~/.." is home is wrong because that would only work for users whose homedir is in /home/, and even then it would be more like a neighborhood, not a "home". FYI: Not all user accounts are in /home/WHATEVER! You must be new to Linux/Unix...

Re:Did Cheney torture them for it, Frist?

[Anonymous Coward]

The C OP people I know wouldn't have bothered to reply.

And there are thousands of Sergeants in the Army.
Now go back to running your mess hall.

Re:OT

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no place like google.com/ig ?

Choose your battles

[HomelessInLaJolla]

The other side of the theory is that everyone gets mugged, in some form or another, all the time. The important battle lines are drawn when people decide which types of mugging, perpetrated by whom, committed against whom, and done how often are worth chasing after.

Today's American society does away with those considerations and simplifies its choice to one criteria: convenience. Everyday muggers (P2P networks and common citizens) are much easier to shake down than billion dollar corporate marauders who have social and legal connections to make their prosecution significantly more difficult.

Re:Choose your battles

[tompaulco]

Well, I don't consider it "mugging" that some record company exec wants to charge me $20 for a CD. I don't feel entitled to have it for less than that. It may be worth less than that to me, but in that case, unless I can find it used for the price I am willing to pay, I just don't get the CD. I am not going to call the corporate execs "muggers" and go download it for free off of a P2P site. CDs are fairly cheap to produce and distribute, but when I look at software, I definitely believe that the fact that some people steal software raises the cost of said software for people like me who buy it legally. It is not the execs at software companies that are ripping me off, but people who decide they are entitled to the software, but do not wish to pay the price set by the company.
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:Choose your battles

[HomelessInLaJolla]

> I don't consider it "mugging" that some record company exec wants to charge me $20 for a CD

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 business speculators know darn well that free advertising saves them more money than sharing ever could take away.

People steal. Choose your battles. Your employer steals from you. Your government steals from you. Your supermarket steals from you. Like most of today's population you only see half of the stealing reality.

Re:Choose your battles

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I guess you are lucky air and water comes cheap then. Indeed i will change what i am willing to pay. It will change to whatever other reasonable or closest price of said product is, if that happens to be "free" so be it. Fuck the corporations and your moral dilemmas. They don't give a fuck about my troubles and to tell you the truth i don't care about theirs.

Re:Choose your battles

[Babbster]

Metallica, Madonna, Nirvana, and Michael Jackson made it big because their fans could freely share their work by dubbing cassette tapes.

Oh, so THAT'S why they made it big. I guess the facts that even as children my friends and I owned Metallica, Madonna, Nirvana and Michael Jackson albums (properly bought at record stores by lower-middle-class kids), that we heard the music on the radio, that we saw the artists on TV, that the record companies spent millions promoting them...all of these apparently had little or nothing to do with their success. It was people too cheap to buy a record that did it!

Your contention has about as much weight to it as when the RIAA claims that piracy is destroying its member companies.

Re:Choose your battles

[zakezuke]

I definitely believe that the fact that some people steal software raises the cost of said software for people like me who buy it legally

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's Word or Excel documents. Heck, Excel can't read Works documents. A $500 version that reccomends 2.5gigs of ram? The new Vista prices are bordering on insane.

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.

Bill Gates himself said that if a user has to pirate a product, he hopes they pirate a microsoft product. In the early age of computers, one reason MS-Dos took hold of the market was the fact that you could get a system without dos and save alot of money. IMHO the propagation of this product without compensation offered more benifits than any possible material harm. Them the user's hooked, then find a way to make them pay for it.

Re:Choose your battles

[m0rph3us0]

Umm... a corporation would get teh shakedown for copyright infringement much sooner than a private citizen. Corporations generally have lots of assets or lots of cash, or both. Generally this makes for an appealing legal target, when a tort has been committed. What corporations don't get nailed on has to do with externalities.

Re:Choose your battles

[petermgreen]

they are scared because they know because to most people 128k skip free mp3 is as good as CD (yes there are a few with especially good hearing or who have trained themselves to do it who can hear the difference) and can be easilly burnt to a CD or copied to a portable player with full track seperation maintained.

also after the initial loss of making the mp3 there is no further loss no matter how many times it is redistributed.

compare this to copying a LP or CD to tape for friends, there you have a lot of generation loss and on no copys do you get easy and quick track selection (yes track selection is pretty easy on a LP)

the music industry want some copying (even though they can't/won't admit it) but they don't want high quality copies moving easilly round the world with no generation loss.

CD was an attempt to make the dominant digital audio format a read-only one but CD-R, MP3 and flash based portable audio players screwed up that plan.

Re:Choose your battles

[Anonymous Coward]

it is not stealing, it is copyright infringement
and while you bash pirates saying what they do is illegal and morally wrong.

well how about the practices of these "victim" coporations.
all guilty of collusion, market manipulation, strongarming and monpolistic practices.
which is illegal last time i checked, but hey, they got deep pockets and an army of lawyers so what do they care.
seizing authoratative power, abusing our court system and blackmailing US citizens....
morally wrong? how about morally bankrupt.

im all for bashing illegal behavior, but for christ sake be consistant.

Re:Choose your battles

[HomelessInLaJolla]

> RIAA claims

Maybe they're paranoid.

Another sign

[HomelessInLaJolla]

If the people at the pub agree with you when you talk politics.

Head for the hills!

I wonder -

[Anonymous Coward]

It'd be pretty amusing if the original upload IP (even assuming it can be tracked) turned out to belong to an unsecured hotspot that covered the entire FOX headquarters.

Nah, its a bug.

[Pinback]

Either the guy lives in a place with a negative timezone offset, has been affected by the DST bug, or was uploaded by a timelord.

The video was clearly labeled "-24". What does Fox want?

So what? Justice ftw.

[Anonymous Coward]

The copyright infringer just got what he deserved (morally, at least). However, YouTube's policies only explicitly state that they will "remove" material deemed in violation of a copyright. Arguably, they should be more clear in their rules by clarifying that they may release you personal information to third party companies if it is deemed in violation.

So, basically... YouTube is stupid, but justice *was* served...

Because...

[Anonymous Coward]

...ludicrously rich people are always punished to the full extent of the law!

Re:Did Cheney torture them for it, Frist?

[ScrewMaster]

Go ahead ... tell him. You'll just have to kill him anyway.

Re:OT

[McFadden]

Enlighten me?

The first post had the phrase "There's no place like 127.0.0.1" in his signature sparking the usual slashdot tradition of debating anything except the actual featured article.

Confiscating hardware

[Foerstner]

in and confiscating all of their hardware

I'd love to see the looks on the Feds' faces when they show up to seize all of Google's servers.

Re:Confiscating hardware

[Gentlewhisper]

"I'd love to see the looks on the Feds' faces when they show up to seize all of Google's servers."

They just bring a bulldozer.

Re:Confiscating hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

And leave with a broken bulldozer.

Re:Confiscating hardware

[z0idberg]

They would just need a big truck to dump it all on. Tubes would be no use in this situation.

Yeah, ABUSE that moderation!

[drinkypoo]

Moderation +2
30% Informative
20% Troll
20% Insightful

This comment was up to +5. It's come down to +3. That means there's at least two troll votes.

Troll does not mean "I don't agree with you" and using it as such is an abuse of moderation - not that the people "running" slashdot (into the ground) care any more, if ever they did.

Trolling is when you say something that you don't believe in order to elicit a desired response. I believe everything I said (the thing about the {RI,MP}AA lawyers was tongue-in-cheek but it contained a serious message) and not only that but it is also true. We're talking about a legal case here, thus we are talking about legal terminology.

The only question is, am I being downvoted by one of my serial downvoters, who is just following me around harassing me, or by an astroturfer, who saw my crack about the RIAA and MPAA and is trying to make my post less visible, or just by a random asshole who hates accuracy?

We may never know.

Someone already answered this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone leaked the episodes on usenet prior to this incident. The youtube guy wasn't an insider.

You miss the point

[commodoresloat]

This was over the Fox show "24." The problem is not that Google complied with the court order, but that Jack Bauer is now going to kidnap the user for interrogation. Google is now complicit in torture!!

Re:You miss the point

[karnal]

Hopefully Jack's dad doesn't go off and kill him too.

What about viewers?

[Ka D'Argo]

Ok so we already know the MPAA and big studios want their piece of the pie when it comes to people downloading, uploading and viewing pirated material. Obviously they've hit up people who have uploaded such content, but how long until they start in on YT, Google, etc for people who viewed the material? We all know there's someone up in their corporate office thinking "Man, millions of people saw this commercial free, illegally, they should pay some sort of cost to see it." Is it just a matter of time till we see these studios do something like this?

Did you know...

[Anonymous Coward]

A few weeks ago some African American came to my house to pick up my sister for a date. I had chase him away wearing my ghost costume. What was surprising was how scared he was of ghosts.

No one has sex with my sister besides me.

They both made mistakes, I think.

[Ben Feldman]

That's a shame. So the guy posted some episodes of a TV show on YouTube--mind you from a TV station that doesn't require Cable to watch. C'mon News Corp-- it's not like you don't give away FOX for free anyway. If I didn't have Cable, I could watch FOX all I want without paying you a penny--so when this guy promotes your free-to-watch shows... meh. I could understand it if someone posted an episode from a station like HBO that requires Cable to watch. But it's not. That's horrible. As for Google... why in the world did you give them this guy's info? You took the videos down. You did what they wanted. I thought you weren't evil. Honestly, what ECOTotal did was not anything out of the ordinary. Just hope the guy doesn't get in any legal trouble.

Re:OT

[vindimy]

there's no place like /usr// ...
or, there's no place like c:\documents and settings\\ ...
or, ctrl+home for the less concerned ...

Re:OT

[paulthomas]

Another comment addresses why this is even being discussed. You're right that 127.0.0.1 is localhost. You're wrong about it being called the "http callback interface." Its the "loopback interface" and has little to do with http, other than the fact that you can reach locally run http services over it.

Re:OT

[nickull]

Re:you're wrong about it being called the "http callback interface." Its the "loopback interface" D'oh! typo on my part. I lie forever disgraced in the eyes of /. ;-) Good catch. Too little sleep, not enough caffeine. It's definitely != home unless the person using it has somehow found a way to reside in the various daemons that listen to the loopback. Duane (reeling from jetlag)

Re:Willing and able to shield lawbreakers?

[hguorbray]

Especially when you would be shielding someone who had unlawfully obtained and then posted materials protected by copyright.

That would probably make you guilty of aiding and abetting or some such....

Bands have started to have this shit happen too -rough, often incomplete or crappy mixes are surfacing on the net. I believe something like this caused one of Beck's album to have a rush release to try to keep the inferior versions from gaining ascendancy and so as not to lose the inertia of the buzz of the initial product release.

Not that it's more defensible morally, but at least with final releases you are presenting the artist's fully realized vision instead of some rough sketch. Studio cuts vs Director's cuts of films would be the exception to this case.

I'm just sayin'

myspace a factor

[recharged95]

With GooTube's history of resisting gov't requests, I wonder if the subpoena was pretty a dead horse and Fox really threaten to pull the plug from the $900m Myspace-Google deal.

Conspiracy no, business yes

what if the guy isn't american?

[Anonymous Coward]

i mean, everyone's assuming the guy and his ISP reside in america.. if they don't, why would his ISP comply to the subpoena (and give fox his identity)?

Re:Bye bye YouTube

[rob1980]

Because 99% of their users don't give a shit if they can post anonymously or not. They just want to be able to share the video of them teasing their cat.

Dangit!

[Salmar]

You beat me to it.

Re:OT

[iamstretchypanda]

Ha, just think... I've been trying to click on the little house all this time. Stupid GUI... ::rambles off::

Why is this tagged with PRIVACY?

[Vampyre_Dark]

If I go take a piss on the clerk at BlockBuster, are they neglecting my privacy rights by giving the surveilance tape, and my card info to the police? YouTube exists to upload NEW content that you own the rights to. Not un-aired episodes of 24.

I don't remember anything in the TOS about them hiding you in their attic from the police.

How many grains in a heap?

[zippthorne]

Stealing is 'wrong' regardless of its purpose. However, it may be a 'wrongness' that Heinz is willing to live with considering the consequence of not stealing.

Should Heinz have stolen the drug? sure.
Should Heinz be required to make restitution for his crime? absolutely.

Was the druggist's action morally right? not enough information: What did it cost him to develop the drug? Has he paid for that yet? If he gives in to Heinz's request, he probably won't starve, but if he gives in to every one whose wife is dying and can't pay, he will. How should he choose?
It seems odd that he wouldn't accept the man's debt in return for the drug, but the nature of the drug has also not been fully revealed: Is it a one-time course of treatment, after which Heinz would be able to pay him back? Or is it a lifetime thing, such that Heinz would never be able to pay him back no matter how earnest?

This situation is tragedy precisely because of the clash of moral values and righteousness: there is no way out for Heinz or the druggist. There are no actions for either of them that are 100% morally good.

Does this analogy even relate to the discussion of copyright violation? Probably not. No one will ever come to bodily harm from not watching a particular episode of a particular show.

I am talking about fundamental theft

[SuperKendall]

No, you see, you're talking about what some group of people lobbied some other group of people to write on a piece of paper, leading to its enforcement by threat of violence. Whereas I'm talking about a concept which has existed for as long as property has existed.

And that is why you are wrong - I am talking about a more fundmental use of "theft". The person taking this from Fox has in fact taken away from fox:

The right to first air

The right to decide to make public at all

The right to refine and alter before presenting

These are the fundamnetal rights of a creator, well outside law. Your attempt to figure out what "theft" means "to you" is meaningless, because something is really being stolen here regardless of how you want to label the act.

It is far different than copyright violations that we see mislabled as theft, and you seem to lack eitehr the moral compass to understand the degree of loss or the deeper understanding of just where the line is for true ownership of intellectual property.

Re:I am talking about fundamental theft

[Anonymous Coward]

the deeper understanding of just where the line is for true ownership of intellectual property.

That's simple: there is no ownership of intellectual "property", we reject it just as we reject ownership of people.

Effect vs. naming

[SuperKendall]

But what we call it is just a name.

What we call it is just a name. The effect is has however is not just a name, but a real effect. What I am saying is that there is a fundamental and huge difference (especally morally) between the guy at home downloading 24 episodes after they air, and the person who obtains episodes of 24 before they go public and releases them.

I don't care what you call it either; but I want to see this person punished whereas I do not think harm should come to those downloading TV or movies already aired.

Re:Effect vs. naming

[91degrees]

Yes. I agree with you there.

Exactly

[SuperKendall]

How do the bits that make up an episode of 24 having been "confidential" make this any more or less of a copyright violation? If anything, I am in the school of thought that says prior to publication a work's author does not enjoy a cause of action for copyright infringement because prior to publication the bargain of publication in return for a government-enforced "right" (monopoly) on copying has not occurred.

That is exactly my thinking behind not lableing it a copyright violation. Until publishing the author has not entering into the public contract we consider copyright and is instead just private data.

Worse, currently copyright law (you know, the stuff bought and paid for by corporations like Fox) makes unpublished works enjoy a longer copyright term than published works.

Why is that part worse? That part is excellent, if you want anything to do with privacy laws. Why should people be forced to turn over private journals or sketces to the public after a short period of time?

I also think "ral" copyright extension have gone way to far. But as far as I'm concerned if I paint or write something and choose not to make it public, it should be able to go to my grave with me unless there is some compelling public need to see what I have created.

Only goes to show .....

[ajs318]

Never, ever give out your real details to anyone who doesn't need to know them.

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:OT

[Claws Of Doom]

I'm gonna petition for an extra option in my profile: Alongside "Hide signatures" I want "Hide discussions involving seemingly witty signatures but then generate more offtopic posts than Custard recipies on an article about the Pope."

Re:OT

[Anonymous Coward]

And you know what he wanted to say, how? Maybe he doesn't like home... and didn't mention it on purpose -- he is proud of localhost instead. I bet his localhost is more unique than his home too, hence the expression no place like localhost.

Re:Did Cheney torture them for it, Frist?

[Jonny do good]

What kind of stupid low class scum joins the army.

People with more balls than to post as an anonymous coward.

Sure...

[paladinwannabe2]

Oh noes! My supermarket is stealing from me! And here I thought that a voluntary exchange of goods and services for money was capitalism! Help, help, I'm being repressed!

I don't know about most people on /. but I don't think consider my employer or the supermarket as stealing from me- I'm entering into a mutually beneficial arangement with both of them. Just because they benefit too doesn't make it stealing. I don't even consider the government as stealing that much from me- certainly some of the government is wasteful and provides me no benefit, but I'd still rather live in America than most of the rest of the world, and paying taxes is just a condition of living here.

Furthermore, just because Bob steals from you, that doesn't give you the right to steal from Frank.

While you are correct that copyright isn't a Natural Right (like life or liberty) free music isn't a Natural Right either. You don't have a 'right' to freely copy music any more than the record companies have a 'right' to stop you from doing so. And stop equating capitalism with theft- that's even more stupid than calling copyright infringement theft.

Re:Sure...

[HomelessInLaJolla]

> I'm entering into a mutually beneficial arangement

By mass producing and mass distribution the recording labels are entering into a mutually beneficial arrangement with the consuming public.

Door swings both ways unless you're drinking the Kool-Aid.

And now, meta-abuse of moderation

[drinkypoo]

As if we needed any more proof that the staff of slashdot does not care about the moderation system... why do we even have the fucker?

Re:Choose your battles - just about music

[Anonymous Coward]

About music: The problem is that there is no such thing as regulation of the price by the market
No offer and demand.

If I want to edit a picture and I think Photoshop is too expensive, I can buy another software or use a free one such as Gimp.
Because of that Adobe may not sell it too pricy.

If I like the beatles, and the CD is still sold $20 today, I can't say "Oh I'll buy Simon&Garfunkel instead!"
Music also is part of our culture. I'm told that when they sent some Voyager probe, they included a record of "Johnny B Goode" as an example of human culture.
I still have to pay $20 to get that damn Chuck Berry CD.
Will they also charge the aliens, if anyone out there catch the record ?????

Who decided the rights for a damn set of chords has to last 99 years ?
Is it right considering a patent's duration is about 25 years? and even less when you talk about drugs? (and don't you change that!!)

Re:Did Cheney torture them for it, Frist?

[winkydink]

There's a chasm of difference between a Snake Eater and a REMF

Sunday night to become primest time

[a1mint]

Battlestar Galactica has already done this. They made sure that both in Canada and the US, it airs exactly at 10pm EST, *only*, and no other timezones get it earlier or later. That means 7pm PST. They moved it to Sunday 10pm, so that most people that want to watch it before the weekend is done, on tv. It used to be that you could torrent the BG episode sometime during Friday midnight, because in the US is was aired on Friday I guess, and in Canada on Saturday. Anyway - one way of circumventing early downloads and torrents, is to move popular weekly episodes to Sunday night.

Re:OT

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, ~ != home either But it *is* $HOME.

The nature of crime.

[Half-pint HAL]

Death penalty for speeders while we're at it?

Now I don't support the death penalty, but why is it a man who drives dangerously (drunk, over the speed-limit, in an unsafe car etc) receives a lesser sentence if he doesn't hit someone than if he hits and kills someone? There is definitely no difference in his intent. Surely the difference between killing someone and not killing someone while driving dangerously is purely random -- whether there's someone to kill or not. As such, there isn't even any difference in action on the part of the driver. How can we convict someone for something so clearly random?

But back to the topic:

But you don't really think that copyright infringement and mugging share a common moral space, do you?

I don't think anyone would really equate the two, but what would be a suitable comparison? To be entirely fair, it'd have to be something that is as argued over as intellectual property so there'd be no point in the comparison as it wouldn't progress the debate at all.

Now, most (sane) people prefer non-violent crime to violent crime. Is that to say that violent crime is "more wrong" than non-violent, or simply "more undesirable"?

NT.

Re:The nature of crime.

[MightyYar]

I don't think anyone would really equate the two, but what would be a suitable comparison? I'd have used something like speeding or making a "pirate radio" FM broadcast. Or maybe getting picked up for drug possession - some other crime that has nothing at all to do with morality.

Now, most (sane) people prefer non-violent crime to violent crime. Is that to say that violent crime is "more wrong" than non-violent, or simply "more undesirable"? I would say that moral "crime" (i.e. rape, murder, theft, fraud, etc.) should be considered unacceptable and dealt with rather harshly. Most people would not consider copyright infringement, speeding, etc. when looking at a new neighborhood, but they sure will look at statistics for the moral crimes. I just don't think that it's really fair to group a guy who may have simply committed copyright infringement in with a mugger.

That said, somewhere along the line, someone committed a moral crime by leaking this video in the first place - they either stole the media or they violated a contract. I think Google acted perfectly reasonably by responding to a court order.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!

[Anonymous Coward]

Big difference between handing over user ID like a proper corporate vassal, and COMPLYING WITH A COURT ORDERED SUPOENA.

Re:Did Cheney torture them for it, Frist?

[WillAffleckUW]

uh huh. So, I'll just ignore my actual experience in Infantry and Engineering units while you whine.

Obviously.

[paladinwannabe2]

Thanks for posting an obvious comment in support of my argument. Since you seem to be agreeing with me now, does that mean that:
A. The post I replied to first was sarcasm/exagerration, or
B. You're being sarcastic now?

Re:Obviously.

[HomelessInLaJolla]

The record companies don't have a natural right to demand that people buy their product. It's called a capitalist economy for a reason.

Re:OT

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't have to translate literally word-for-word to the original cliche - everyone (here) understands "there's no place like localhost". Stop being such a pedant.

Copyright infringement is not theft.

[jotaeleemeese]

Comparing both is starting from the wrong premise.

If they were the same, we would not have completely different bodies of law to deal with to deal with theft and copying stuff whose rights are assigned to somebody else.

Re:OT

[Hamoohead]

There's no place like localhost? I don't get it.