Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.82.105

Forum Moderators: goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Fox subpoenas YouTube after "24" clips posted

     
5:07 pm on Jan 25, 2007 (gmt 0)

Administrator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Sept 21, 1999
posts:38066
votes: 15


Reuters [today.reuters.com]:

20th Century Fox served YouTube with a subpoena Wednesday demanding the Google-owned viral video site disclose the identity of a user who uploaded copies of entire recent episodes of primetime series "24" and "The Simpsons."

The "24" episodes in question actually appeared on YouTube prior to their primetime January 14 premiere on the Fox broadcast network, which spread four hourlong episodes of the hit drama over two consecutive nights. Fox became aware the episodes were on YouTube on January 8, according to the subpoena.

6:10 pm on Jan 25, 2007 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 5, 2001
posts:392
votes: 0


I thought the 10 minute cap was in effect, how did the 'entire episode' get posted?

the truth of the matter is that these episodes got leaked in high quality to bittorrent and file-sharing sites a week ahead of time... in my mind it was inevitable that parts of it at least would end up on youtube.

time ol' question - where does the blame lie, with the original leaker, or with the subsequent distributors...

a little from column a, a little from column b I guess.

I know from having gone through the youtube upload process personally, there is no identifying information required - and unless they're capturing mac addresses (which could be fake) or some fun intel-style unique cpu identifier, how can they find people who have covered their tracks? I doubt they can.

6:18 pm on Jan 25, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:May 2, 2002
posts:918
votes: 0


IP
6:19 pm on Jan 25, 2007 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 5, 2001
posts:392
votes: 0


ummm, 'cover their tracks'....

there are a lot of wireless networks out there that have no association with the users.

7:32 pm on Jan 25, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member billys is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:June 1, 2004
posts:3181
votes: 0


YouTube = Problems for Google
9:43 pm on Jan 25, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 29, 2001
posts:2145
votes: 0


>>>unless they're capturing mac addresses (which could be fake) or some fun intel-style unique cpu identifier

Well that will identify the computer, how are they going to finger the person?

Especially if the computer was in a public place.

10:08 pm on Jan 25, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from FR 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member leosghost is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 15, 2004
posts:6717
votes: 230


Murdock is way more clever and experienced than the people running Google..while they were signing the deal for hispace the devil from down under was getting ready to bite their ass first chance he got ..and youtubé them ..

in corporate affairs ..and media savvy ..he ..on his own ..without his "suits" ..can run rings around their "suits" ..even while they are in the same bedspace ..

Mr Murdock is not going to be gentle in this relationship ..it's not his style ..google may find the experiences painfull from time to time ..they may have to just smile on the outside and roll over and take it from time to time ..

5:00 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 11, 2005
posts:143
votes: 0


Or Google could do some bad data refresh on Murdoch empire. Or better yet smart price from time to time. Come to think of it, I don't see myspace much in SERP.
11:18 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 13, 2003
posts:222
votes: 1


So... when myspace profiles incorporate YouTube videos that violate Fox copyright?
10:44 pm on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 5, 2001
posts:392
votes: 0


>>>unless they're capturing mac addresses (which could be fake) or some fun intel-style unique cpu identifier

Well that will identify the computer, how are they going to finger the person?

Especially if the computer was in a public place.

If they can identify the computer they can probably find out when it was sold, where, and to who. If it was used in a crime I'm sure they could legally find out the name on the debit or credit card used to buy it. It's been done.

a laptop bought for cash is much less traceable, but that much rarer.