Slashdot Mirror
A Law Professor's Opinion of Viacom vs YouTube
troll -1 writes "Lawrence Lessig, a well-known law professor at Stanford, has an op-ed in the NY Times entitled
Make Way for Copyright Chaos which references the Viacom vs YouTube case. What's interesting about this article is that it gives some historical perspective on copyright law and the courts. Up until Grokster, Lessig says the attitude of the courts was, 'if you don't like how new technologies affect copyright, take your problem to Congress.' But in the Grokster case the court seemed to rule against the technology itself, cutting Congress out of the picture. He also explains that Viacom is essentially asking the Court to rule against the safe harbor provision of
Title II of the DMCA which should protect YouTube and others against liability so long as they make reasonable steps to take down infringing content at the request of the copyright holder. Lessig doesn't give us any insight into who's going to win but he does conclude that 'conservatives on the Supreme Court have long warned' about the dynamic of going against Congress when it comes to copyright."
Is Slashdot responsible for it's user's material? No.
Should YouTube be responsible for it's user's material? Viacom says yes. Viacom doesn't want to get into the buisness of tracking down users individually.
Now is Google supposed to rat out offenders minimally? Or is Google supposed to become the user generated content police themselves? If they are, it sets a bad prescedent for all text forums online in that the moderator will have to make sure the posters aren't posting something copywrighted. I won't get into draconian measures an oppressive government has on free speech, even though it does tie in.
God spoke to me.
As the opinion piece clearly points out, a deal was struck by law in 1998...now one of those parties doesn't want to have to hold up its end of the deal. (Viacom self monitoring of content providers) It is always frightening when the courts make law, of course it is rightly obvious that is not their intended responsibility to do so...but the oversight of lawmakers has been usurped by their fear of not being re-elected...no one in congress wishes to show leadership...i.e. "rock the boat" as it were , heaven forbid if they can't stay on the DC party circuit.
While the arguments on the table are whether Viacom right or is YouTube right, but the real question that will be answered by the outcome of this little court battle is: what will video entertainment look like in the coming decade? If Viacom wins, it will look pretty much like it does today. If YouTube wins, it will look like we all want it to look: Video on demand, anywhere, anytime, any content.
I say that because Google/YouTube is one of the few companies that actually wants to provide such services. They have the right business model to do so, and they are making stars out of ordinary people. There is some evidence to show that YouTube sites et al will replace network television in short order if network television continues to suck and user generated content continues to get better. Mashups will make the 45,000+ channels of on-demand YouTube content even more coherent, and thus more attractive to the average viewer.
Back to the question on the table. The article clearly shows that what Viacom is pissed off about is that they have to look for the infringement on their own, or PAY YouTube to do so. Personally, I think Viacom is just whining because they are being hung with their own rope!
IMO, it would benefit the industry, the country, the world if YouTube wins. I say this because on-demand content is the future, and not the kind where you are paying DVD rental costs for each view. The on-demand video industry will replace television eventually, but it cannot grow to that size if the Viacom's of the world are allowed to destroy it before it gets off the launching pad.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Many people have roasted GWB for his apparent glaring shortcomings. But I bet his one lasting legacy will be his judicial appointments to the supreme court that may reign in copyright gone amok.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Even before Mark Cuban stated that whomever bought YouTube would become a "marked" company, how many of us genuinely thought that YouTube could succeed with millions of leechers benefiting from loose standards under the guise of "Fair Use" and no income?
Google _had_ to expect this. They probably consulted Lessig _prior_ to purchasing the startup. The thing is, this is the showdown that we all expected. Does 'Fair Use' exist? Are content providers liable for member uploads? How is YouTube above the laws that Napster collapsed under? According to the "big, bad DMCA" the _victim_ has to prosecute, which in this case is Viacom, and by the same standards, they should be forced to go after individual users (uploaders) that are at fault, like the RIAA.
The real issue at hand is that copyright law is in complete disarray today. It has an identity crisis that makes such a risky purchase on Google's part worth pursuing on the off-chance that they can score several million more users and page impressions, while still weathering a lawsuit of this magnitude.
The justices will ultimately determine who the winner/loser is, not Congress. This is a rare stage in history where the "intent" of the law will determine its true meaning and either empower or enslave the people going down one path or the other.
If you're half as beautiful naked, you'd be 4 times as beautiful with twice as many clothes on.
Yes, what would Siva Vaidhyanathan do?
-- haaz.
...trying to stop these is like trying to stop the Missouri River. Give up. People obviously want this technology; give it to them, and figure out how to make money from it.
Since when is Lawrence Lessig introduced on Slashdot simply as "a law professor"?
Big in the "Free Culture" movement and writer of the phrase "code is law". Slashdotters should recognize this name.
//TODO: signature
Great, so SCOTUS remands Constitutional issues (copyright extension) back to Congress, and then wrests legislative power away from them. Dubya sets up his own judicial system in Gitmo. Soldiers playing cop in Iraq. FBI playing "secret agent" at home. The Patent and Trademark Office weighing in on National Security. WTF? Next thing you know we'll have corporations determining foreign policy.
Make sure the jew-juice is concentrated. If it's not we'd have to send it to a camp.
Youtube's business model has depended on copyrighted material for roughly half it's content. Their stance is tell us what you don't like and we'll take it down. Well they are effectively asking the copyright holders to police their site. Viacom will have to create an entire department just to police Youtube. Youtube benefits from the traffic while Viacom takes on the expense of tracking down copyrighted content. Let's say I start a TV network based on old TV shows. Half are in public domain and the other half are copyrighted. My policy is is you complain about a specific episode I'll stop broadcasting that episode. It's even worse with Youtube because it's like tens of thousands of TV stations running at the same time and even if they take down the episode some one can post it again minutes later. It's an impossible situation for Viacom. The only option other than fighting it is to let them run content for free. If they do that the advertisers will refuse to pay when large numbers watch commercial free postings. There's already been a drop in commerical revenues. The networks are facing a loosing battle and what it means is eventually little or no new content. In the old days just for primetime the networks would do three hours or more of content with even more non primetime content. Now nearly half of television is paid advertisements and a lot of the rest is reruns. The average for primetime content is less than two hours and dropping and a lot of that is reality TV. Network TV won't survive in the long run. People may not post and file share lesser shows but they will the popular ones and those are the profitable ones due to commercials. Take away the profit and TV goes away. The only other option is going to a BBC system where tax money is used for broadcast TV and the budgets of the average show is pocket change.
When does a Pawn Shop or Consignment Shop that accepts stolen goods become a fencing operation. Presumably it has to do with if the pawn shop owner knew or had reason to suspect the items were stolen. But of course we know that's not good enough. We must also expect the pawnshop owner to make a good faith effort to determine if the goods were stolen. Otherwise we end up with a bunch of Sargent Shultz, winking de facto fences. (I know nothing!). Yet we also can't expect the pawnshop or consignment owners to work so hard at establishing the provenance or they can't exist as a bussiness.
Now scale this up to the point where the consignement owner has both slashed his margins to the bone, and is accepting and reselling so much merchandise he literally hasn't the staff or time to check. Then you have E-bay.
E-bay is a consignment shop that is not really meeting the good faith effort that is the industry standard for pawnshops.
One the one hand, who gave them a free pass on making an effort? On the other by having a huge customer base and low margins, they in some ways have created a new industry. They are arbitraging the junk drawers and attics of america. Putting all that goods back into circulation effectively increases the wealth of the nation, and also means less waste of resources to remanufacture items. It's giving people who could not afford goods, those goods at lower costs, and it's also encouraging others to buy new goods they might hesitate to buy because they know they can cash them out later.
So arguably it's good for the nation.
How to we resolve this dichotomy: promotes illegal activity and is below community standards for good faith effort to prevent that activity versus promotion of healthy commerce at a mega scale.
Hmmmm. Hell if I know. A freind of mine had his skis stolen. One assumes they probably went on e-bay. He also bought a pair of skis to replace them on e-bay at a below wholesale price. Coincidence? Ebay has lots of legit merchandise but it's a good place to sell stolen stuff too.
But this viacom thing is the same thing all over again except this time it's intellectual rather than physical property.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Most of this mess is due to pacts between dems and republicans. In fact, the republicans have pushed this just as much. I would not be surprised to see these new judges back these ppl.
I believe that if you read Grokster, you will find that the court's rationale is favorable to YouTube.
Let's look at the holding:
Held: One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirma- tive steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribu- tion with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the deviceís lawful uses.
This does not apply to YouTube. YouTube, by actively discouraging infringers by being *overzealous* when pursuing alleged infringers (see Chung, Anshe; Crook, Michael), and plasting the site with warnings, and setting annoying upload limits that are shorter than television episodes, is not conducting itself in any manner remotely analogous to Grokster.
Technologically, YouTube is more analogous to the Napster case (centralized database, ability to terminate users). But Napster was never found guilty--it was just found that an injunction could be filed against them, and the legal costs forced bankruptcy.
I do not see Viacom winning this case, and I am surprised Lessig didn't opine similarly.
http://www.lessig.org/ he's a cool guy. Doesn't like the state of copyright today. More into the dissemination of information.
Live according to the Categorical Imperative. If the Categorical Imperative tells you not to live by it... ignore it
I was curious, as it was introduced in a Wired article and then I signed up for the beta http://www.joost.com/. For those who are unfamiliar, here is a Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joost/ entry...
Just because you get modded "insightful" on Slashdot doesn't mean you actually are in real life.
As someone else pointed out, pasting text articles into forum articles is related to the kind of copyright violation issue Viacom is suing over.
So someone posting the comment of the article in the Slashdot discussion, considering the article isn't slashdotted, is, well, funny. But it illustrates that Slashdot is subject to the same types of copyright violation.
IIRC, CmdrTaco and friends already had to deal with it once before, with the Scientologists. (Though that wasn't a copypaste of a linked article...)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Having sat in on the oral arguments and read the decision I can tell you that the reason the court was unanimous in ruling against Grokster had almost nothing to do with the technology. There was clear evidence that the founders created a business model expressly to allow copyright infringement. It was, in fact, a fairly narrow ruling that did not condemn any underlying technology, but made clear that there was a responsibility of business to respect copyright, and that knowingly enabling piracy for profit would not stand under the law.
Frankly I grow more and more disappointed with Lessig. Ever since he lost the most important copyright case of the century (Disney) I've stopped giving him the free-culture-rockstar status he seems to hold with others.
YOuTube seves us all as a global community. Viacom and other companies like them are standing in the way of whats good the the entire Internet this case is to protect one partys intrests at the expense of the entire world (That has net access) for now its confined to youtube but how long in the future will it be until they are attacking all Websites that allow usergenerated content?
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Lame
--GATech undergrad
YouTube is not effectively asking anyone anything. The DMCA lays out the legal ground work for protecting copywrite. This is the DMCA that google lobbied against, and Viacom lobbied for. If Viacom has changed their mind, they need to change the law. But as Lessig points out, thats not terribly likely at this point.
The TV station analogy is crap. Pure wishful thinking. A TV station has a program manager, they do not rely or even allow "user" content. The BASIS for YouTube (do you not already get it?) is YOU provide the content. The difference is very important. In fact, it's the reason that Youtube still exists.
It's foolish to allow Viacom to leech money from Youtube, either for content "protection" systems or thru forcing monitoring onto YouTube. And lets not forget, they had a chance to share the profits, they didn't want to play by Youtubes rules.
You talk about the end of TV as we know it. You talk about it like thats a bad thing. It's not. An end to the tripe that populates all 500 channels on my satellite is more than worth celebrating. And few if anyone is going to cry about it. One could make a strong argument that the current offerings are actually poisoning the minds of the watchers, but thats another story altogether. And are the advertisers being hurt? First, Who cares? Second, do you rush out and buy everything you see on ads? Any of it? Do you make consumer choices because of ads?
The BBC model is worth investigating, as far as I'm concerned, it works. I watch alot more BBC TV than I watch US TV. Maybe when you don't have a 1m per episode budget, you actually have to focus on good story telling. Who knows.
Let me summarize. Viacom along with the rest of the "content" industry lobbied, bribed and manipulated the united states political machine. They passed a law, the DMCA, that favored the content industry in almost every conceivable way. Then YouTube came along. And because YouTube followed the rules, but became popular anyway it became difficult to find and censor all the content. So then Viacom tried to weasel into the ad revenues. But google wouldn't give them enough of it. So now Viacom is suing. Isn't it clear who is in the "right"? Viacom has chosen to litigate, rather than follow the rules they had a hand in creating. I have about 0 sympathy for them.
That being said, Youtube is doomed eventually, maybe this case, or another. The content industries will win eventually in a limited fashion. That limited fashion is that any commercial service like napster, youtube, or what have you will fail due to litigation costs. Simple as that. Even if they don't actually LOSE the court case, like napster, they will be sued to the ground as often as it takes. That still leaves us with other channels, but those channels will likely never be more than a small portion of the population.
This case is likely unique in that both sides have deep pockets. But Viacom has no choice but to fight to the death. Where as google can and will cut Youtube loose if it becomes too expensive.
He wrote something on his blog that stuck with me. Basically he asked, how is it that Google has no way to police and filter copyrighted content from getting onto their site, yet they somehow miraculously always manage to keep all nudity and pornography off the system? Youtube may have plenty of teenage girls gyrating and dancing to music from the 80s, but you'll never see anything you couldn't see on basic cable. How is it that with hundreds of thousands of videos being posted, no pornography ever makes it through? The answer is obvious. They pay people and employ filters to keep such content out. The point of course is that this means they can filter out copyrighted content and even have a system in place for it, yet they don't do it because they know that's the backbone of the site. I think Google/Youtube's protection under safe harbor might not hold up because they're basically encouraging and making no effort to prevent all that copyrighted material.
...then they are just looking for a big payday from Google's deep pockets, and are using the suit to force them into some sort of deal the way some other content providers have done. Realistically, there is no way to effectively police millions of clips uploaded on a daily basis for copyright violations any more than Slashdot could police every single post on its site to see if there is anything infringing, libelous, or somehow illegal. And don't forget, YouTube is NOT the only game in town -- they may be the biggest and most popular such site, but many times I have seen a clip that was killed on YT simply turn up on a dozen other smaller video sites -- I don't see Viacom going after them. If you had a physical product that was being sold illegally, you're going to sue Wal-Mart, not Bob's General Store -- you go where the money is.
BUT, sometimes these things depend more on the attitudes and personalities of the rights holders than anything else. I can give an example of that on a much smaller sale. I have an acquaintance who had been providing short, out of context clips of some obscure TV shows that (a) are not being rebroadcast anywhere and (b) are not likely to be offered commercially in any form because there is simply not a big enough market for the material, and it would not have been profitable for them to do so. His efforts appealed to a very small, narrow group of fans. Nonetheless, he received a C&D letter, a threat of a lawsuit, and a demand for compensation from the holder of the rights to these shows. His argument that the owner was not making a dime off the material, and indeed had no intentions of doing so, and that therefore he was causing no financial harm to them, fell on deaf ears. Because, basically, you can own a copyrighted work, and lock it away in a vault never to be seen again, and still demand that no one else make use of the material. He said that the responses he got from their legal eagles were almost petulant -- we don't care that we have no intentions of making any money off this stuff -- we don't want YOU to do so either. (Even though his compensation in this case amounted to a handful of small donations that users sent to help support his site.)
So, clearly, this was a case in which attitude and a strict adherence to the letter of the law were far more important than the money involved, which was, on the rights holder's part, nothing, and on the infringer's part, pocket change. While this is hardly directly analogous to the Viacom-YouTube situation, it does demonstrate how it's not always about the money. To repeat, if Viacom was smart, they would just seek a big licensing payout from Google and be done with it. But, for all we know, Viacom's masters may be anal, set in their ways, and motivated by the notion of an affront more than anything -- this is OUR material -- how DARE they use it -- we're not going to be forced into a deal with them even if it means a big profit for us -- WE will control who uses our stuff.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
You better be thankful that the courts do "make law" as you describe it. Laws passed down by the government can never take into account all the circumstances of your specific case. They hardly ever see how the law may be used or avoided, even though the law making process takes so long.
All laws are judged in a public court, and mostly impartial judges are there to see if your case fits the law in question or not. This is the way the trias politica works, and it works well. What's sometimes even more important than the law, is the case precedence, which is where the law gets worked out to real world examples.
In short, lawmakers make the law, judges tell you if it applies to your case. This is good.
(I won't go into the motives of lawmakers who get funded by certain large corporations, etc, etc)
"That being said, Youtube is doomed eventually, maybe this case, or another."
I am not so sure...
YouTube Summer of Art anyone?
Put up some nice prizes in several categories. Contest rules like so:
1. Make and post videos in some category. License must be copyleft.
2. Put all "raw materials" that went into the video up somewhere like the internet archive. (Google could host for free as well I guess.) This is for reuse by all in the next contest that will be held.
3. Winners determined. (How? Most popular on YouTube itself? Some other way?)
4. Winners get a nice budget to make more copyleft videos.
Whatever.
If the "content" industry insists on hamstringing the tech industry, the tech industry might need to fund alternate content. Content that can't be used to hamstring new tech but would rather promote new tech while that same new tech promotes that content.
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcaf2ThG7q4
UFO seen in skies over Winton!
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
As much as I agree with the ends you're trying to achieve, we've got to get beyond substantitively fraudulent analogies if we're going to win in the long-term.
Your analogy is consistent enough to hold water at most marketing-based office conversations, but at a low-level, we both know it breaks down: However juicy the meta-comparison may seem, there is a world of difference between user-generated ascii content and the latest episode of Heros; If we pretend not to see this, the Real Decisionmakers(tm) will see us as hippies and thieves and we'll lose this battle too.
...I bought a set of camshafts for my Volkswagen!
Blar.
Viacom is not trying to renegotiate the DMCA - Lessig is. And he's trying to persuade the Supreme Court to agree with him. The DMCA protects passive storage - think web hosting companies. YouTube obviously has knowledge of what's up and filtering is implemented in a lot of places, including MySpace (with approximately equal volume). In short, YouTube is arguing that it can sell content to users (by advertising to them), but doesn't itself know what's on. Lessig argues that the court in Grokster was wrong because it found a technology to be bad. It didn't. P2P continues on - its a platform for telephony (Skype) and even licensed television (Joost). What the court found is that if you write a business plan that says "let's find out where burglars hang out so we can fence their stuff" you have crossed the line from a second hand store to a co-conspirator. Viacom argues that YouTube should do what it can to eliminate known infringements - what's wrong with that? If you put yourselves in the shoes of any artist - how do you feel when someone is profiting from your stuff without your permission? And how could you possibly police every company that sets up a user-generated content site? Viacom's not asking for YouTube to be shut down - only that it act responsibly. If you're constructing a building and cause damage to the building next door - you fix it and keep on building. Doesn't seem unfair.
... for trying to make copyrights work. After all, we never take the position that copyrighrs are shit and that we have a right to do whatever we can do to defy them, No, instead we take the position that they are some type of kind benevolent tyrrany that can be overcome if we just all try to get along. Well, bullshit. Copyrights are to the information age what slavery was to the industrial revolution. The people who want everyone to "just get along" are evil in ways that we can't even imagine.
... it seems that Congress is in Big Media's back pocket (see: Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act), so any onerous copyright provision implemented by the judiciary would have been backed up by Congressional legislation anyway.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
If you don't like taking dick up the ass, GTFO.
Heterosexuals are not welcome among Real Mac Users. Keep your filthy woman-diddling dongs to yourself.
I haven't really heard much on the details of this, but I figured that it was basically a case of:
"If you're willing to pay us, we'll assign you a person/team who will be dedicated to checking out infractions on your IP"
I'm not sure google's the one to do this though, but perhaps a proper solution to the problem would be to have an independent party that could investing/delve copyright violations, paid by both the media companies (such as viacom) and those providing various services online (google-youtube, etc)
Yeah, one thing that youtube covers that a lot of other storage/transfer media do not: media hosting is expensive!
You could run an http server and put up your video there. However, if it becomes popular, then you will have your bandwidth/server swamped and possibly offlined
You could post it as an indirect p2p link, such as from aMule etc. At first it's going to be slow and a drag on your servers (until a few other people snag parts/copies), but if it's popular at least you won't take the main load. However, then you might get a bunch of asshats putting up copies of donkey porn and labeling it at your video... so this way lacks control.
ll Then, you might try something in a more direct p2p approach, like a torrent link. You can still have an "official" source, with more control. The webpages and seeding will take bandwidth, but not as much as directly hosting the video. However, you might still get flooded with requests to the http/seeding server, and the upload ability will still depend on others doing the seeding.
With most of the above, anyone who wants to watch the clip will also have to wait for it to download, which could lessen interest. (note you could have an actual streaming server, but this is probably the worst drain on bandwidth/server power)
So the final method? Something like youtube. Video quality is in most cases not as good as a downloadable version in MPEG-2/MPEG-4/DivX/etc format, but it's actually not too bad (heck, it could even cover for grainy photography). You can link to it from an official site (although the indirect links may still exist), users will be able to view the content quickly once it grabs/buffers the first bit, and you're not going to be blasted with bandwidth bills. I'm not aware if google has any "official" youtube hosting, but this would still likely be a cut cheaper than host-it-yourself, with more powerful servers behind it, and lower the issues with fakes/clones.
Youtube definately has a place on the net beside pirated videos. I've seen quite a few good skits/shorts on there, and I'd imagine the longer videos could also prosper... though they might do better if segmented into "episodes." I've always wondered how projects like "Star Wreck" did in terms of bandwidth use, and I believe that a service like youtube might be quite useful for such things (if not for whole videos, then for part-episode or publicity shorts, or ads... watch part live and download the whole thing)
While they do a good job, they do have the odd porn etc pictures that pop through. Further to that, it's quite a bit easier to spider out and filter the porn sites itself. A lot of them would have (but law) the 18+ entry page), they have plenty of keywords that could be filtered to pop up a red flag, etc etc
Other than the entered title/description, there isn't much that can flag something as a copyrighted video. Porn is easier.
If you want to see google's failed efforts to filter, check out the sites that spam keywords, and have a banner "front" page that forwards to the main site. There are plenty of these, pages that exist soley to get hits and then forward on... and google hasn't done a spectacular job of filtering those.
Best post in the thread so far - that's a brilliant quote from the CSTB, and you can never go wrong with The Economist.
An important difference is that in the case of copyrights the same technology that allows the the cheap distribution of information also allows the copyright holder to locate infringing copies. Google provides such tools (its search engine). The guy with the stolen skis has no way to tell which pair of skis on sale at Ebay is his pair of skis.
Just like the police is not going to investigate a burglary (or even know it happened) unless the victim complains, so the DMCA expects hosts to act on complaint and does not expect them to act when no one complains.
...
Of course one might expect that the police will act to prevent burglary from happening, and they do, but they cannot prevent it entirely as we all know. YouTube also makes a reasonable effort to make it hard to post some kinds of materials, but they cannot and cannot be expected to totally prevent posting of copyrighted works without permission. If you want better protection against burglary than what thee police provides to the public, you can pay for it
Finaly: if YouTube refrained from posting copyrighted material it would be empty. There is no such thing. Everything is copyrighted. If you contribute your work to the public domain it just means that you licensed your work to the public. It cannot be determined to be in the public domain without such a license (your death certificate can be a substitute for that license...). When the copyright merchants complain that "YouTube is distributing copyrighted content" what they mean is that they are allowing the distribution of content by people who do not have permisions. Posting of copyrighted content with permision is allowed and is perfectly legal, as long as the copyright holder permits it, and I'm quite positive that by accepting YouTube ToS a user declares that posted material are allowed to be posted by the copyright holder. So it's not a question of whether or not posted material is copyrighted or not. It's a question of whether or not the copyright holder permitted it. And YouTube has no reasonable way to know this is so unless the copyright holder says so. The discussed section of the DMCA says it is OK to post unless there copyright holder explicitly says "no", just like the police department may assume that the people taking all that furniture and loading it on that truck have been allowed to do it by the owner, unless someone says it's a burglary, or it looks very much like a burglary (such as happenning in the midle of the night).