Slashdot Mirror
15-Year-Old Scams YouTube
SurturZ writes "A fifteen year old from Perth, Australia, posed as an employee of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, demanding that YouTube remove hundreds of video clips of 'The Chasers War on Everything.' The amusing part is that The Chaser is a comedy company well known to perpetrate exactly this sort of prank."
YHBT (Youtube has been trolled)
As copyright holder I DEMAND Slashdot remove all first posts from all stories now and in the future.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230785&cid=187 29299
The teenager has since apologised.
My thoughts on this: Google simply took down the videos and sent out copyright infringement notices to the users who had put them up, without contacting the ABC to verify the claim. This kid claimed to be representing the ABC, so obviously if Google had contacted him to confirm the claim, they still would have problems, which is why they should have contact the ABC directly.
The copyright is owned by the ABC (or the Chaser crew), but they give permission to use it anywhere and everywhere.
I wank in the shower.
I'm not usually one to find 'disruptive' pranks funny, but this doesn't seem too far off the kind of things do they on the show (which I've not seen). If companies will put out shows that do just these kind of stunts, and aimed at the teenage/early 20's demographic it's of course no surprise.
This seems largely harmless in the end, and ABC seem to be taking it in good faith (recognising the irony, I assume). I'm happy that it brings attention to how worth while it is to have a system where you make some attempt to verify the authenticity of a claim of ownership when a takedown is issued.
I know with the DMCA you are supposed to take down content when a complaint is made - and not dick around establishing ownership (and you should then put it back up if the origional party claims it's legitimate - and then it's up the two parties to fight it out in court), but are you at least allowed to verify the request was sent by the party that claims to have sent it? If not, it seems like a significant oversight in the process.
If the people who drafted this legislation had any idea about the technology they were dealing with, they could at least have mandated requests be digitally signed with the public key of the content holder (with a certificate that is backed by one of a number of trusted authorities).
Did the kid pull this off on April 1st?
From TFA: "Everyone does dumb stuff when they are fifteen," Ms Gibson told ABC Radio.
Personally I think this is great, not dumb. It's a far cry from the typical prank done by a 15 year old and really shows some ingenuity and humour...
If I were in the position to give the kid a job, I would.
Brilliant, I look forward to the next Chaser episode - I expect they're going to sing his praises for such a cool stunt... and I'll upload it to YouTube for you too :-)
You mean they lie about whether they're authorised to act on behalf of copyright holders _under penalty of perjury_?
In any case, I think the interesting part is this:
butter the donkey
Can you see now what bad influence the MPAA, RIAA and certain laws have on your children?
Protect your children and support piracy!
The ABC is Australia's equivalent of PBS.
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
If you live in Australia and haven't seen The Chaser it's one of the funniest shows that we've got (9pm on ABC 1). If you don't live here, you can download every episode, legally at http://www.abc.net.au/tv/chaser/war/vodcast/.
The ABC is, in fact, Australia's equivalent of the BBC or CBC: a crown corporation that acts as a national and international broadcaster. There is no direct equivalent in the United States, where it would be dismissed as "state-run television".
If you take a look at The Chaser's vodcast page it says the following, which I believe contradicts Ms Gibson's comments:
This video podcast is made available for use by persons located in Australia only. If you are not located in Australia, you are not authorised to use this podcast. The ABC grants you a licence to download these audio-visual files for your private, personal, domestic, non-commercial use only. You may not use these audio-visual files for any other purpose (including but without limitation downloading, editing, or using these files for the purpose of (a) distribution to a third party; or (b) promoting, advertising, endorsing or implying a connection with you (or any third party) and the ABC, its agents or employees).
This is actually quite annoying for me because (as an Australian) I pay for them to make this show, but I am not allowed to convert the episodes to Vorbis/Theora and put them on a website for other people to download.
"Dear Member: This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by NBD Television Ltd. claiming that this material is infringing:...
But Squidoo DIDN'T violate the copyright of NBD Television Ltd., because NBD -- a London-based distributor of films about music and musicians -- DOESN'T HOLD THE COPYRIGHT TO TRIUMPH OF THE NERDS. That copyright is owned by Oregon Public Broadcasting, which made the show. I contacted Rebecca Morris, chief counsel at Oregon Public Broadcasting. She had not heard of NBD Television Ltd. and had never been contacted for permission to act on behalf of Oregon Public Broadcasting in this matter. I contacted NBD Television Ltd. And they did not reply.
I'm quite happy to defer to your superior knowledge since you're familiar with the programme/channel and their surrounding culture. However, the the standard disclaimer at the bottom of the linked page says something quite different.
First two lines of the small print:
Mod parent down. It's comparable to the BBC in the sense that its run by the state and has a large budget. It's nothing like PBS.
There is no direct equivalent in the United States, where it would be dismissed as "state-run television".
Strangely enough, the Howard government dismisses it for exactly that reason, and prefers to use the commercial media to get their spin out.
This is one of the major faults with the DMCA. If someone claiming to be the copyright holder contacts you with a takedown notice, you don't really have any recourse but to comply. The only situation in which you don't is if you know that you own the copyright. However there's not really a way to verify if the person contacting you is legit or not, you just have to assume they are, or risk trouble.
I've dealt with several where I work. We get the e-mail (that's how they arrive) forwarded to us. I then go and see if the computer they said actually has the files they claimed. If so, I take it down. Now in our case it's always been clear cut, things like a student's system got hacked and it is acting as an XDCC bot serving up movies, but I have no way of knowing if the complainant is actually the copyright holder or not. I have to act on the complaint anyhow.
So it's not really a scam, it is companies doing what they must to comply with a bad law.
How did this get modded up in the first place? ABC is the equivalent of the Britain's BBC or Canada's CBC. It's not paid for by sponsors, it's paid for by the state.
That's simply because the commercial television media here doesn't have much as of a budget for news and tends to take everything in the press releases on trust.
This kid claimed to be representing the ABC, so obviously if Google had contacted him to confirm the claim, they still would have problems, which is why they should have contact the ABC directly.
I wonder if this would even have worked...I have a feeling if you call up ABC and ask them such a question, their knee-jerk reaction is just going to be to say "yes, take it down" without bothering to check on what the actual status of the show is...
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
YKYBNerdingTLW you know this is a Usenet reference. Oh, and don't forget Kibo.
Check the Jargon file
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
The head of the comedy department didn't fly off the handle saying we're suing the kid. The police didn't show up at his door to take them away in hand cuffs. There response was "Everyone does dumb stuff when they're 15." What happened to that attitude in America?
- Joe
To be fair to the ABC, their income is neither set in stone, nor reasonable. Our current government has been slowly choking the ABC for years, and excellent shows like the Chaser can make them some desperately needed money in DVD sales (where non-Australians get a chance to pay for it). I'm not arguing that clips shouldn't be available everywhere, but they do have a reason to protect their content in some way.
I think that, if anything, the SBS would be the closest we have to PBS, although it still falls in with the ABC as a public, government-funded, national broadcaster.
At the end of the legal blurb you'll see that it's a standard form written by people from Screenrights, a royalty collection company that collects money primarily from schools & colleges using television content in teaching. The ABC, like any starved-for-money service with a DVD market, does need some form of revenue protection, and they contract Screnrights to provide it. The spirit and intent to make everything available to everyone is still there.
I doubt it, the ABC are a pedantic bunch.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Updated each week
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Mod parent down. It's comparable to the BBC in the sense that its run by the state and has a large budget. It's nothing like PBS.
The BBC is expressly *NOT* run by the state. They have a (published) charter _agreed_ with the state but that is most definately not the same thing as being run by the state.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
To say he scammed them seems a bit harsh. He didn't do this for any personal gain, which is implied when you call it a scam. It was silly and he shouldn't have done it, but it wasn't as serious as a scam. No harm done, except maybe a little time lost and some advertisment money. On the other hand, Youtube has learned a lesson.
I know we tend to put burger flipping in the bottom rung of jobs, but that's pretty messed up if you ask me. Do you really want the dregs of the dregs Preparing your food ?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Chaser crew)
Doesn't that sound like a cool job?
You don't need to show how you own the copyright.
You don't need to prove you are who you claim to be.
So YouTube had no way to verify the DMCA complaint and no choice but to comply to retain their ISP immunity.
Who the fuck ever came up with the DMCA (and all it's equivalents) is fucking incompetent and should be ashamed.
This also proves just how flawed the copyright law is when it comes to proving that it's yours. When anyone can claim ownership, and demand removal it is just screwed up. Also makes you wonder if many others were con into removing files online by a person without copyright ownership. For that fact even con to remove files from your computer. A person could have a field day party sending those emails out to unsuspecting individuals.
That's why the RIAA needs a gambling factor... make a legitimate takedown request and it gets honored. Make a bad one and it gets treated like any other fraudulent abuse of power. Let's pretend the kid made this takedown notice, well for one he is illegally assuming the indentity of an ABC employee. This isn't a strong case because any idiot can look up ABC's address and type it on a letter. So plan B: the recipient should check the credentials, by contacting the sender, no less. Obviously someone failed to do that here. But if they had contacted ABC, they would have to answer the question "Did you send us a takedown notice for XYZ?" If they answer yes, they're lying! Fraud! If they answer no, the prank ends. All that can be done against the prankster is a deposition stating that he or she must stop abusing the company's resources with pranks. If they do it again, well then you have documentation to press charges against them. Sue the kid, toss them in juvy, hell drag it to Texas and shoot it if you must.
The important thing is that every party involved should be held accountable for their actions. They are each responsible for a piece of the puzzle that makes the DMCA work (in theory). If any one of them fails to do their part of the job properly, they can potentially cause far more damage than the alleged infringement ever did.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I have to thank that kid for his act. Because YouTube/Google usually is *far* too zealous in removing content someone complains about.
They really, really, need to think more about the legal support and verification before they do these things.
So -- thanks to this kid for illustrating the problem so well.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Does anyone have the sign form copy that was sent to YouTube from this teenager?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Gotta point out that if the legal copyright owner gives permission for free use of its material, it's got nothing to do with "piracy."
It actually creeps me out a little whenever I see "pirating" used as a general term for "downloading something for free." That's only true if all media is locked up and restricted... and we're not there quite yet.
I should buy some cement.
n/t
Rethinking email
The only thing that keeps them ever so slightly in front, is the, generally, high quality and wide diversity of programming.
The introduction of programme disrupting advertisments to keep the money coming in, is yet another demonstration of the pressures brought by the morally bankrupt and economical with the truth current federal government here in Australia on every section of Australian society.
"You've got a chart filling a whole wall with interlocking pathways
and reactions to shock and the researcher says "If I can just control
this one molecule/enzyme/compound I'll stop the whole negative
physiologic cascade of post haemorrhagic shock." Yeah, right."
I think the chaser guys would use this, they are funny bastards. This would give them ideas.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
I thought it was about DaxFlame.
Now doesn't he have to come here to appologize and get a public booting? It's our proudest tradition! Disparaging the boot is a bootable offense!
At the time this happened, the Chaser had an anti-Clinton video that was the 4th most viewed video for the day. The take down was most likely politically motivated.
Yeah, but my point was that the ABC (and SBS) here in Australia are consituted in a similar fashion to Britain's BBC, I very much doubt they would just answer "yes" to an enquiry about a legal matter. The three main commercial networks are a different story.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
What's more amusing, and not picked up by the slashdot article or the ninemsn story is that:
it looks like ALL of the chaser clips released by the OFFICIAL account of ABC Australia have also been removed "due to copyright violations".
I find it bloody hilarious.
here's a link to the profile and a couple of videos.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=abcaustralia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICTP3NednF4
Perhaps you should check out "public service broadcasting" in other countries before making the comparison. It comes from an ethos that appears to be entirely alien to you. Having seen PBS in the States, [ABC]BC should be serving a defamation suit on you for this.
He was a man who didn't know the meaning of the word "fear"; or the meaning of many other words longer than 3 letters