Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook(abc.net.au)
abc.net.au
Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-04/green-v-mundine-live-streamers-warned-to-brace-for-legal-action/8241276
58 comments
I enjoyed the use of 'mate' in that conversation. No mistaking what country that conversation took place in.
Note, Telstra isn't "just" a cable provider.
They currently own nearly all of the landline market, large portions of the Internet provider market, and the mobile carrier market. This randomly Googled page looks about accurate:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/326147/number-of-broadba...
They currently own nearly all of the landline market, large portions of the Internet provider market, and the mobile carrier market. This randomly Googled page looks about accurate:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/326147/number-of-broadba...
Seems like an open and shut case, no?
The guy streamed from his personal Facebook page, and answered the call during the stream, what could his defense possibly be?
The guy streamed from his personal Facebook page, and answered the call during the stream, what could his defense possibly be?
Where do you draw the line? If he was streaming something else that was going on in his home and happened to have the fight on in the background, would that be OK? What if you only caught a glimpse of the fight? What if it was just audio?
I think it's dangerous to let Foxtel sue this guy for streaming something that's going on inside his own home (albeit, a view of his TV).
I think it's dangerous to let Foxtel sue this guy for streaming something that's going on inside his own home (albeit, a view of his TV).
Wherever you draw the line, it's nowhere near "I've got 78,000 viewers that aren't gonna be happy with you mate"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvoJju4B11s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvoJju4B11s
Why wouldn't it? Arcane laws modeled after theaters presenting unlicensed material are hardly the end of the stick either.
As jsmeaton says, judges aren't idiots, and a reasonable person's interpretation of intent is used in law all the time (see murder vs manslaughter, for example).
Or another example: a person I know got done for embezzling a five-figure sum from a business. She got off pretty lightly (though not scot-free), because she used those funds to feed and clothe homeless people; she wasn't doing it to profit. The action and the damage to the victim was the same, but the intent made significant difference to the legal opinion.
Or another example: a person I know got done for embezzling a five-figure sum from a business. She got off pretty lightly (though not scot-free), because she used those funds to feed and clothe homeless people; she wasn't doing it to profit. The action and the damage to the victim was the same, but the intent made significant difference to the legal opinion.
That seems unfair. The business she embezzled from, and by extension its shareholders, were harmed regardless of what she actually did with the money.
This is what judges are for. In this case it's fairly easy to determine what his motive was. Broadcast a pay per view fight to thousands for free. Or do you think an audience of thousands would have been watching if he'd been talking with his family with some barely audible audio in the background?
$60 to watch at home was unreasonable - definitely the law was broken, but this is what happens when they charge unreasonable amounts, it was almost a form of civil disobedience.
I would say that a lot of people who watched it on the streaming were not going to pay anyway, so the loss was probably minimal in reality.
If you really wanted to watch and did not have the Foxtel or the money you could have gone to the pub, or a mates, anyway.
I would say that a lot of people who watched it on the streaming were not going to pay anyway, so the loss was probably minimal in reality.
If you really wanted to watch and did not have the Foxtel or the money you could have gone to the pub, or a mates, anyway.
$60 is only the price if you have an existing Foxtel contract, which is an increasingly poor proposition these days. My parents pay $120 per month for their Foxtel subscription and honestly there's better viewing on Netflix.
Totally agree, but some people get it for the sport. I just go to the pub or local bowling club if there is something I want to see.
> Rep: "It's a criminal offence against the copyright act, mate. We've got technical protection methods inside the box so exactly this thing can't happen."
Ah, yeah, so "exactly this thing can't happen". Logic 101. Guess DRM was a terrific success then.
Ah, yeah, so "exactly this thing can't happen". Logic 101. Guess DRM was a terrific success then.
Well, it sounds like they did eventually cut his access, so that's one measure. Presumably they relied on Facebook having his real name in order to know who he was, though it's also possible that they have some stenographic watermarking.
> they have some stenographic watermarking
They did. Right before access was cut, a code was watermarked on the TV, I assume it was per-box as a number so they knew who it was to cut access to.
They did. Right before access was cut, a code was watermarked on the TV, I assume it was per-box as a number so they knew who it was to cut access to.
Whoa. Do you have any video or photographic references of this?
Just really fascinated with the technicals of how they'd do that.
Just really fascinated with the technicals of how they'd do that.
I work in a similar industry and many times content providers require you to implement a system for this kind of identification. It's nothing special technically, you just display a unique ID over the video on ALL client devices for a fraction of a second when a potential infringement is under way - just enough to get evidence that lets you later identify the user from the recording.
My cable provider also has a unique code which flashes on TV randomly. I could provide a photo or video of it if you are interested later when I reach home.
Someone linked a photo in another comment in this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13566519). If it looks significantly different to that then sure, I wouldn't mind seeing.
Sky in the UK do this routinely on their sports channels (example image: https://up.metropol247.co.uk/davidlees/bbc_sky_sports.png ). IIRC, switching channels causes it to temporarily disappear, so I assume the receiver is responsible for overlaying it on the incoming video feed.
It has to be the receiver because otherwise you're then sending a unique video feed to every set top box. It makes far more sense to braudcast 1 video feed and let the clients manage the unique watermarking.
They use to do this in UK pubs for those who were showing something on their TVs without a licensed.
They tried showing an image, but the owners would just stick something covering the watermark so they wouldn't be caught q
Edit - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9419930
They tried showing an image, but the owners would just stick something covering the watermark so they wouldn't be caught q
Edit - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9419930
You've got it a bit backwards, they still show a pub glass icon.
It's for inspectors to see that it's a pub license, which is more expensive than a home one.
The volume in the glass changes daily so you can't just put a sticker or overlay on to replicate it.
It's for inspectors to see that it's a pub license, which is more expensive than a home one.
The volume in the glass changes daily so you can't just put a sticker or overlay on to replicate it.
While thinking about this for a bit after reading https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9419930, I thought of something:
Why not just get the home package and run it through your own overlay system? The fatal flaw here with this design is that there's nothing in place of the glass. With enough tinkering (a pub subscription and a home subscription to play with, and maybe a fortnight to a month, if that) build something that exactly reproduces the watermark. 1080i-capable HDMI capture systems are expensive but not 5-figures (or even 4-figures) expensive nowadays, and most satellite feeds don't even justify 1080i anyway. Do satellite receivers do HDCP? If they do, RGB video is still very very very good quality for 1080i, and reference-quality RGB capture systems aren't 5 figures (probably very low 4 figures). You could just output via HDMI or whatever of course.
To complete the setup, you could have one place receive a legitimate broadcast, and (alongside the TVs/projectors) run that through a capture system which would do differential frame analysis to heuristically figure out what watermark is displaying at the moment. This location automatically pushes the current watermark type out to a bunch of other places - for a nice small fee.
Of course, the above is said from an honest academic-security standpoint. :P
Why not just get the home package and run it through your own overlay system? The fatal flaw here with this design is that there's nothing in place of the glass. With enough tinkering (a pub subscription and a home subscription to play with, and maybe a fortnight to a month, if that) build something that exactly reproduces the watermark. 1080i-capable HDMI capture systems are expensive but not 5-figures (or even 4-figures) expensive nowadays, and most satellite feeds don't even justify 1080i anyway. Do satellite receivers do HDCP? If they do, RGB video is still very very very good quality for 1080i, and reference-quality RGB capture systems aren't 5 figures (probably very low 4 figures). You could just output via HDMI or whatever of course.
To complete the setup, you could have one place receive a legitimate broadcast, and (alongside the TVs/projectors) run that through a capture system which would do differential frame analysis to heuristically figure out what watermark is displaying at the moment. This location automatically pushes the current watermark type out to a bunch of other places - for a nice small fee.
Of course, the above is said from an honest academic-security standpoint. :P
To be able to do this, you'd need access to the pub subscription to be able to see the glass to replicate it, so why bother?
Because one legitimate subscription could get at that info and then transmit it to 100 other setups all using the standard home subscription.
The fees the place with the legit subscription would impose be significantly less than the ~£400+ pub subscription fee.
But, you know... I just realized... there's nothing stopping the place with the legit subscription simply just retransmitting/forwarding on their own signal to a bunch of other places. Duh. And that's so simple I'd be surprised if it isn't already being done in at least one place in the wild. (I have no idea if it is, I only just thought of the concept.)
The fees the place with the legit subscription would impose be significantly less than the ~£400+ pub subscription fee.
But, you know... I just realized... there's nothing stopping the place with the legit subscription simply just retransmitting/forwarding on their own signal to a bunch of other places. Duh. And that's so simple I'd be surprised if it isn't already being done in at least one place in the wild. (I have no idea if it is, I only just thought of the concept.)
From that thread: http://up.metropol247.co.uk/davidlees/daybreak_sky_sports.pn... - what the wineglass looks like
Title should read '..suing people who broadcast the event via Facebook'
Well this is what you get, when idiots get access to the web.
It seems like Darren (Dazza, to his mates) knew what he was doing. But the second example is more reasonable. A guy, trying to share with a few mates, doesn't realise it's public (google hangouts can be confusing when sharing, could easily lead to making it public instead), suddenly 100,000 people are watching.
Yes, it's illegal either way. But the intent is very different. With the role technology plays in our lives now this use case (a few friends) it's more akin to inviting those mates to physically attend the viewing, in which no law was broken.
Looks like Dazza needs a few more mates: https://www.gofundme.com/9rp4a2-legal-cost
Yes, it's illegal either way. But the intent is very different. With the role technology plays in our lives now this use case (a few friends) it's more akin to inviting those mates to physically attend the viewing, in which no law was broken.
Looks like Dazza needs a few more mates: https://www.gofundme.com/9rp4a2-legal-cost
So is there a limit on the number of people that can watch, per box?
Can I watch it with my dog?
With my friend?
With my friend and her kids?
Can I watch it during a birthday party? There will be 20 kids and their parents around, is that ok?
Can each of said parents have a conference call with their buddies to watch and discuss the game? Is there a limit on the size of the tv? Can I mount a 10x5 monitor setup so people across the street can see as well? Can I project it on that publicity board? Can I twitch my reaction to the game? Can I stream the screen? Oops.
Be creative.
Also,
Can I watch it with my dog?
With my friend?
With my friend and her kids?
Can I watch it during a birthday party? There will be 20 kids and their parents around, is that ok?
Can each of said parents have a conference call with their buddies to watch and discuss the game? Is there a limit on the size of the tv? Can I mount a 10x5 monitor setup so people across the street can see as well? Can I project it on that publicity board? Can I twitch my reaction to the game? Can I stream the screen? Oops.
Be creative.
Also,
"It's stealing. It's no different to video piracy
or music piracy,"
one of the fight's promoters
Why are you coming up with "scenarios"? It's illegal to rebroadcast a copyrighted show, which is what he was doing.
Ignorance of the laws of copyright doesn't make it any less illegal.
Also he'll be in civil breach of his cable contract too, which will have a rebroadcast clause in it.
Streaming on Facebook is rebroadcasting.
I can't understand, with even the most basic knowledge of copyright, how you can think it's not illegal?
The guy was a total idiot, he will be fined, probably very heavily given he continued after being asked to stop and being informed that he was commiting an illegal act. Maybe even jail time.
Ignorance of the laws of copyright doesn't make it any less illegal.
Also he'll be in civil breach of his cable contract too, which will have a rebroadcast clause in it.
Streaming on Facebook is rebroadcasting.
I can't understand, with even the most basic knowledge of copyright, how you can think it's not illegal?
The guy was a total idiot, he will be fined, probably very heavily given he continued after being asked to stop and being informed that he was commiting an illegal act. Maybe even jail time.
Because the world happens in scenarios. And failure to adapt to real world scenarios that regular humans might end up desiring is a problem.
What you are saying is we should adapt, mold, conform, comply the law, all the time, without thinking. Laws come from the past and these scenarios come from the future. Who would you rather please?
Your future you, who might end up away from home but still wants to watch the fight? So he sets up a stream he can access while on the train, for example. And he shares it with a friend on the next seat. And his brother, from outside the country, so they can discuss it together. Yes, this is broadcasting. Just because you can't set it up, you don't know how to do it without googling, or simply don't conceive it to be possible, don't limit the guy that finds out how.
Or would you rather please that guy that calls you and informs you that you should stop, because something as vague and as distant as "copyright law"? Sir, please stop. Your intent cannot be monetized further. Please wait a few years until we develop an app/device/system that allows you to view the stream remotely so we can charge you.
Fuck that guy.
If none of the scenarios resonate, then that's fine. But understand that people will want to do new things. Some will be deemed illegal, some will be acepted. Some can't be stopped.
Refusal to think about new scenarios dooms us to whatever was decided before we were born.
Enjoy your retro life.
What you are saying is we should adapt, mold, conform, comply the law, all the time, without thinking. Laws come from the past and these scenarios come from the future. Who would you rather please?
Your future you, who might end up away from home but still wants to watch the fight? So he sets up a stream he can access while on the train, for example. And he shares it with a friend on the next seat. And his brother, from outside the country, so they can discuss it together. Yes, this is broadcasting. Just because you can't set it up, you don't know how to do it without googling, or simply don't conceive it to be possible, don't limit the guy that finds out how.
Or would you rather please that guy that calls you and informs you that you should stop, because something as vague and as distant as "copyright law"? Sir, please stop. Your intent cannot be monetized further. Please wait a few years until we develop an app/device/system that allows you to view the stream remotely so we can charge you.
Fuck that guy.
If none of the scenarios resonate, then that's fine. But understand that people will want to do new things. Some will be deemed illegal, some will be acepted. Some can't be stopped.
Refusal to think about new scenarios dooms us to whatever was decided before we were born.
Enjoy your retro life.
Was that an attempt to burn me? Retro! What a tool.
There's an existing law and just because you're rebroadcasting using Facebook Live instead of a video camera doesn't suddenly make it any less illegal.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
Rebroadcasting copyrighted event = illegal.
Rebroadcasting copyrighted event + Facebook live = ?
Figure it out.
We can come up with another scenario about waving your hands while hopping on one leg and pressing the stream button on Facebook Live of a copyrighted show while facing west and singing omm-pah loom-pah and sharing that stream with every 3rd member of the New York Symphony Orchestra.
Is that illegal?
Yes. The only relevant bit of that ridiculous thought experiment is "copyrighted show...sharing with".
There's an existing law and just because you're rebroadcasting using Facebook Live instead of a video camera doesn't suddenly make it any less illegal.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
Rebroadcasting copyrighted event = illegal.
Rebroadcasting copyrighted event + Facebook live = ?
Figure it out.
We can come up with another scenario about waving your hands while hopping on one leg and pressing the stream button on Facebook Live of a copyrighted show while facing west and singing omm-pah loom-pah and sharing that stream with every 3rd member of the New York Symphony Orchestra.
Is that illegal?
Yes. The only relevant bit of that ridiculous thought experiment is "copyrighted show...sharing with".
> Rebroadcasting copyrighted event + Facebook live = ?
I'll add that this is breaking the law twice, once with the origin and second with Facebook as violation of their service.
Otherwise, the parent doesn't make any sense in his ramblings.
I'll add that this is breaking the law twice, once with the origin and second with Facebook as violation of their service.
Otherwise, the parent doesn't make any sense in his ramblings.
Breaking Facebook's TOS isn't a breach of the law. God help us if it ever becomes illegal, what a creepy dystopia that would be.
I expressed myself badly, your term was correct, breaking TOS, not breaking the law (for now, hope never lol).
In the worst case he would get banned from using Facebook, which nowadays can have can be negative based on the capacity user is engaged with it (using it as an online identity manager for logins, social consequences etc.).
In the worst case he would get banned from using Facebook, which nowadays can have can be negative based on the capacity user is engaged with it (using it as an online identity manager for logins, social consequences etc.).
Sorry, didn't meant to make it personal. Retro wasn't an insult, "time delayed", or "vintage" would also be ok. I like retro. I was born when retro as modern.
But can't help but notice that:
1) you also can't (until now) put lipstick on a man and call it a woman, but look at what new "scenarios" people have come up with recently.
2) You had something about being happy with half a brain, but deleted it. Glad to see you have more than half.
Now you are equating bootleg DVD with facebook live. I understand that, while you don't make money with streaming on facebook (do you?), you still end up with notoriety, some kind of social credit. However, still a longshot from "selling pirated copies".
Was there a business model in my scenarios? Did this guy, clueless as he is to what is deemed illegal in 2017, monetize it?
As for your "copyrighted show[content]...shared with", do you talk with people? Tell me, be honest: have you ever shared something, in the privacy of a phone call, intimate moment, or at dinner, about a book you read? When you exit the movie theather, do you comment "out loud" what you saw?
In this new scenario, I am specifically asking if someone, ever, has wanted to rebroadcast to the world what he just acquired from a book or movie, to start a conversation.
Because now we get into the "how detailed can the sharing be", and I'll ask you if 240p is "low detail" enough, or if I omit the weather and words longer than 6 letters, and you'll say "but only if in black and white and without sound", and I'll ask if I can share the sound in another stream, and if is illegal for a third party in Iceland to assemble the two streams, and you'll get angry and either punch me, or call me stupid again.
But can't help but notice that:
1) you also can't (until now) put lipstick on a man and call it a woman, but look at what new "scenarios" people have come up with recently.
2) You had something about being happy with half a brain, but deleted it. Glad to see you have more than half.
Now you are equating bootleg DVD with facebook live. I understand that, while you don't make money with streaming on facebook (do you?), you still end up with notoriety, some kind of social credit. However, still a longshot from "selling pirated copies".
Was there a business model in my scenarios? Did this guy, clueless as he is to what is deemed illegal in 2017, monetize it?
As for your "copyrighted show[content]...shared with", do you talk with people? Tell me, be honest: have you ever shared something, in the privacy of a phone call, intimate moment, or at dinner, about a book you read? When you exit the movie theather, do you comment "out loud" what you saw?
In this new scenario, I am specifically asking if someone, ever, has wanted to rebroadcast to the world what he just acquired from a book or movie, to start a conversation.
Because now we get into the "how detailed can the sharing be", and I'll ask you if 240p is "low detail" enough, or if I omit the weather and words longer than 6 letters, and you'll say "but only if in black and white and without sound", and I'll ask if I can share the sound in another stream, and if is illegal for a third party in Iceland to assemble the two streams, and you'll get angry and either punch me, or call me stupid again.
Yeah, sorry I was still in grouchy morning mode. I sometimes post, re-read and realise I'm an ass and quickly edit.
I also deleted the bootlegger comment at the same time as well as I realised he'd not personally profiting from it so it's materially a different scenario, so I agree there.
But, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The quality doesn't matter. Even if it were at 4 px density and colossally compressed audio. Sharing exemptions tend to be limited in scope, lending the physical copy so you can't use it at the same time, less than X number of people at a shared screening, etc. Some of the scenarios you can come up with are technically illegal, just no-one's going to enforce them. You might not remember but back in the day coaches weren't supposed to screen films from video tapes and it was explicitly stated in the copyright notices, but they did any way. They probably still do. But if a free cinema had set up and just started screening bootlegged films, they would have got raided and convicted because of the difference in scale.
Say I share a TV show or two with friends electronically. At worst if the law found out they'll tell me to cut it out. If I start hosting the TV show on a website and 100,000 people download it, you can be damn sure someone's going to ensure I'm going to feel the full scope of the law down my neck.
It's the same with this. If it hadn't got shared outside his friend group, even if they found out, no-one would have probably bothered doing anything apart from maybe send a warning not to do it again. But he knew 100,000+ people were using his stream, he was identified, contacted and he declined to stop. That he was ignorant of the law, or he was sharing in a newish way is not a defence.
From my pov, this isn't even new, my old housemate used to stream football games from illegal streams every weekend, I don't really see how this is any different just because it's using Facebook.
I also deleted the bootlegger comment at the same time as well as I realised he'd not personally profiting from it so it's materially a different scenario, so I agree there.
But, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The quality doesn't matter. Even if it were at 4 px density and colossally compressed audio. Sharing exemptions tend to be limited in scope, lending the physical copy so you can't use it at the same time, less than X number of people at a shared screening, etc. Some of the scenarios you can come up with are technically illegal, just no-one's going to enforce them. You might not remember but back in the day coaches weren't supposed to screen films from video tapes and it was explicitly stated in the copyright notices, but they did any way. They probably still do. But if a free cinema had set up and just started screening bootlegged films, they would have got raided and convicted because of the difference in scale.
Say I share a TV show or two with friends electronically. At worst if the law found out they'll tell me to cut it out. If I start hosting the TV show on a website and 100,000 people download it, you can be damn sure someone's going to ensure I'm going to feel the full scope of the law down my neck.
It's the same with this. If it hadn't got shared outside his friend group, even if they found out, no-one would have probably bothered doing anything apart from maybe send a warning not to do it again. But he knew 100,000+ people were using his stream, he was identified, contacted and he declined to stop. That he was ignorant of the law, or he was sharing in a newish way is not a defence.
From my pov, this isn't even new, my old housemate used to stream football games from illegal streams every weekend, I don't really see how this is any different just because it's using Facebook.
[deleted]
You can postulate whatever scenarios you like, but they bear no relevance whatsoever to what actually happened here, which is about as clear cut a case of copyright infringement as you'll ever see.
> Can each of said parents have a conference call with their buddies to watch and discuss the game? Is there a limit on the size of the tv? Can I mount a 10x5 monitor setup so people across the street can see as well? Can I project it on that publicity board? Can I twitch my reaction to the game? Can I stream the screen? Oops.
In the US, it is a violation of copyright law, if "people across the street can see it..." or if you "stream the screen," as that creates a "public performance," which, presumably would be unlicensed.
In the US, it is a violation of copyright law, if "people across the street can see it..." or if you "stream the screen," as that creates a "public performance," which, presumably would be unlicensed.
So not having curtains can be illegal.
Note to self: don't let security cameras or baby cameras record the inside of any books I am reading, when in the US.
Note to self: don't let security cameras or baby cameras record the inside of any books I am reading, when in the US.
Unfortunately, technically "not having curtains" could be argued as a breach of copyright law. However as referenced earlier in this discussion, this is where judges come into play. They should hopefully address the balance between harmful / intentional violations and petty litigations that harm personal liberties.
This may not be a perfect system but it's still better than having the law rewritten for ever conceivable edge case scenario that random folk can dream up.
This may not be a perfect system but it's still better than having the law rewritten for ever conceivable edge case scenario that random folk can dream up.
I don't think it's hard to see that streaming the event on Facebook is not what the subscription is meant for.
I think it's pretty easy to discern private viewing from public viewing.
You're not allowed to distribute the content. Don't tell me that those people didn't know they weren't supposed to stream someone else's content on Facebook.
I think it's pretty easy to discern private viewing from public viewing.
You're not allowed to distribute the content. Don't tell me that those people didn't know they weren't supposed to stream someone else's content on Facebook.
"meant to" is not something that is factored into purchase.
And what should, or should not be done is so subjective it's meaningless.
And what should, or should not be done is so subjective it's meaningless.
Our legal system is based a lot on interpretations of reasonable expectations and reasonable behaviour. You may think you're being super clever by talking about it like you're interpreting it like an ISO standard and finding gaps, but everyone else including judges and juries understands what is reasonable and what is not.
Do you?
Have an idea of what normal society considers to be reasonable? Yes I think so.
Let's how long I last then.
Yes.
Definitely.
Definitely.
It's not subjective. It's outlined in the TOS.
It's up to the customer to read them, but you agreed to them.
It's up to the customer to read them, but you agreed to them.
> is there a limit on the number of people that can watch, per box?
While it's not fixed, it's generally thought to be fewer than 91,000.
While it's not fixed, it's generally thought to be fewer than 91,000.
Lets not get stupid now.
It's all based on intent. His was fine, until he forgot that the medium used was putting him in the violation in the first place, but the cherry on top was not limiting the access to the people the stream was meant for.
It's all based on intent. His was fine, until he forgot that the medium used was putting him in the violation in the first place, but the cherry on top was not limiting the access to the people the stream was meant for.
Once the number of people at your house reach 100,000 it would seem to put the party in a different category