Slashdot Log In
15-Year-Old Scams YouTube
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Apr 14, 2007 08:05 AM
from the so-easy-a-kid-can-do-it dept.
from the so-easy-a-kid-can-do-it dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
YHBT (Score:5, Funny)
First Post takedown (Score:5, Funny)
See your news first! On Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
The teenager has since apologised [smh.com.au].
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.
Re:Not the first time this has happened. (Score:4, Interesting)
"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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that sound like a cool job?
Seems pretty funny to me (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Re:Seems pretty funny to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course. That law was written specifically TO cause failure. It was a law wanted by companies that distribute media through traditional outlets so they could disrupt the new media distribution outlets which they couldn't figure out how to profit from, and weren't setup to profit from.
The only logical recourse will be to make serious changes to that law to remove the clear preference for systemic failure, and this will probably only come about after a large amount of civil disobedience (or pranks or exploitation) of the sort described in the summary.
If someone distributes a virus which randomly generates and submits DMCA takedown notices for every video on youtube, then the law says they should follow them all. Does that make sense?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting idea. Illegal as hell, but very interesting.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or what if it specifically didn't target certain types of videos/songs? A Christian organization could write a virus that would send take down requests for Islamic, Jewish, and Atheistic files, for example. Likewise, Sony could include it in their next root kit and have all of their competitors
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the irony is that if Google chooses to they can persecute the individual under the same law as it has provisions to punish you for doing this with material you do not own.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Persecute or prosecute? I guess in this context there'd be little difference.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Great Stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No offense, but that's probably why you aren't in a position to do so.
And if the kid's behavior is actually an outgrowth of the qualities it seems to suggest, he should be making his own way instead of working for someone else.
Low-end jobs. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He might get his own segment... (Score:5, Funny)
They do? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [smh.com.au]:
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's actually not true. (Score:3, Informative)
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 do
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Not only absurd since it's not public domain, it's also absurd since 1) They try to border the Internet. Jeez. 2) They take on some private MNC attitude saying "hey, we only want this content available to those who actually pays for it", ignoring that Australian tax payers basically are the only ones who legally CAN pay for it. Co
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a taxpayer, I'm funding the transit system they happen to be building outside my living room window right now. Despite this, I fully expect to be charged to use the system once it's up and running.
I agree with you, though, about the double-speak regarding sharing the "content" (I hate that word for some reason now). They should be up-front with their policies. But I don'
Keep reading, chief (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The kid was right that YouTube and the uploaders did not have permission to use/distribute these works. It seems YouTube has now been given implicit permission to use ABC works for commercial gain.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And why would an Australian minor care about penalty of perjury of a US court?
Or have you missed the part where this points out the silliness of DMCA requests from international interests?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm confused... why would he care if he can't get a visa to visit a country he probably has no interest in visiting?
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2veTZlmaUJI [youtube.com]
Pretty funny stuff.
Re:They do? Yes -- it's public broadcasting (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:They do? Yes -- it's public broadcasting (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The ironic part to this (Score:5, Informative)
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/ [abc.net.au].
Re: (Score:2)
So it dosn't seem like The Chaser are against piracy, only the ABC.
Where did the ABC state that they are opposed to piracy? That aside, you're at least on the money about Chaser being one of our best shows.
Death to Naomi Robson [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
That's only because everything else is so fucking dismal. If banal immature humour is your thing, then...
Oh wait. This is Slashdot...
I look forward to the day when The Chaser team accepts a huge offer to move to 7, only to have their show cancelled because it's crap - and because our commercial networks here wouldn't recognise a popular show if it poked them in the eye, kicked them in the nuts, set their ar
"Piracy?" (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Uhhh, he didn't really "scam" them (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Good Response.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Scams"? Shouldn't that be "pranks"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was silly and he shouldn't have done it,
I disagree, he should have done it, I'm glad he did, and I only wish I'd have thought of it first. Though nobody seems to have thought to ask him why he sent the fake take-down notice, I suspect he did it to help underscore how truly ridiculous our society's behavior has been become regarding copyrights. You have this handful of enormous corporations who want to own and tightly control all of the world's content. They throw money at lawmakers who then pass really s
Thank you! (Score:2)
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.