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

by kimburgess • 9 years ago

45 56 9 years ago

abc.net.au

ioquatix• 9 years ago

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.

jfoster• 9 years ago

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.

girvo• 9 years ago

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.

jmkni• 9 years ago

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?

jstanley• 9 years ago

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).

chrisbolt• 9 years ago

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

jsmeaton• 9 years ago

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?

vacri• 9 years ago

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.

peternilson• 9 years ago

Title should read '..suing people who broadcast the event via Facebook'

codewithcheese• 9 years ago

I enjoyed the use of 'mate' in that conversation. No mistaking what country that conversation took place in.

tdkl4• 9 years ago

Well this is what you get, when idiots get access to the web.

ominous7• 9 years ago

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,

    "It's stealing. It's no different to video piracy
    or music piracy,"
     one of the fight's promoters

The usual stealing/piracy synonym. I don't remember the name, but there was this project to have a server somewhere running rtorrent continuously, piping any downloaded torrent to /dev/null, stealing and burning money as fast as bandwidth allows it.

flashman• 9 years ago

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.

nkkollaw3• 9 years ago

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.

ominous7• 9 years ago

"meant to" is not something that is factored into purchase.

And what should, or should not be done is so subjective it's meaningless.

pmiller2• 9 years ago

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.

ominous7• 9 years ago

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.

tdkl4• 9 years ago

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.

mattmanser5• 9 years ago

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.

ominous7• 9 years ago

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.

supercoder• 9 years ago

Once the number of people at your house reach 100,000 it would seem to put the party in a different category

technion2• 9 years ago

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...

viraptor• 9 years ago

For the UK people, it's like BT before openreach, with extra mobile business.

dogma1138• 9 years ago

So it's like BT now since OpenReach is still under their thumb and they bought EE a while ago.

airbreather2• 9 years ago

$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.

technion2• 9 years ago

$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.

airbreather2• 9 years ago

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.

RileyJames• 9 years ago

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

Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook

Related Stories