
Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook - kimburgess
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-04/green-v-mundine-live-streamers-warned-to-brace-for-legal-action/8241276
======
codewithcheese
I enjoyed the use of 'mate' in that conversation. No mistaking what country
that conversation took place in.

------
technion
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...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/326147/number-of-broadband-
subscribers-in-australia/)

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

~~~
dogma1138
So it's like BT now since OpenReach is still under their thumb and they bought
EE a while ago.

------
jmkni
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
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
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)

~~~
posterboy
Why wouldn't it? Arcane laws modeled after theaters presenting unlicensed
material are hardly the end of the stick either.

------
airbreather
$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.

~~~
technion
$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.

~~~
airbreather
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.

------
ioquatix
> 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
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
> 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.

~~~
i336_
Whoa. Do you have any video or photographic references of this?

Just really fascinated with the technicals of how they'd do that.

~~~
thejosh
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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9419930)

~~~
mattmanser
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.

~~~
i336_
While thinking about this for a bit after reading
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9419930](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

~~~
mattmanser
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?

~~~
i336_
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.)

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

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

------
RileyJames
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](https://www.gofundme.com/9rp4a2-legal-cost)

------
ominous
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.

~~~
mattmanser
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.

~~~
ominous
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.

~~~
mattmanser
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".

~~~
ominous
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.

~~~
mattmanser
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.

