×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

15-Year-Old Scams YouTube

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the so-easy-a-kid-can-do-it dept.

The Internet 106

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

YHBT (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18730719)

YHBT (Youtube has been trolled)

Mod Parent Up (was Re:YHBT) (-1, Offtopic)

Laebshade (643478) | more than 7 years ago | (#18730737)

Nice Dattebayo reference.

Re:Mod Parent Up (was Re:YHBT) (0, Redundant)

LarsG (31008) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731329)

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

YKYBNerdingTLW you know this is a Usenet reference. Oh, and don't forget Kibo.

Check the Jargon file [catb.org]

LAPTOPS!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18730729)

LAPTOPS!!! [google.com]

First Post takedown (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18730743)

As copyright holder I DEMAND Slashdot remove all first posts from all stories now and in the future.

Now we'll see if /. is really US centric! (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 7 years ago | (#18736263)

n/t

See your news first! On Slashdot (5, Interesting)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 7 years ago | (#18730767)

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230785&cid=187 29299 [slashdot.org]

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:See your news first! On Slashdong (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18730879)

My theory: The kid was sent by PETA to bang a dog up the ass and steal Google's collection of rubber dildoes and massaging toys. Think about it, it all adds up.

Re:Not the first time this has happened. (3, Interesting)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731127)

In this incident [pbs.org] , a non-copyright holder demanded the videos be removed, and they were.

"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.

Re:See your news first! On Slashdot (1)

omeomi (675045) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731315)

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.

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:See your news first! On Slashdot (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731909)

I doubt it, the ABC are a pedantic bunch.

Re:See your news first! On Slashdot (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 7 years ago | (#18733829)

That's why the RIAA needs a gambling factor... make a legitimate takedown request and it gets honored. Make a bad one and it gets treated like any other fraudulent abuse of power. Let's pretend the kid made this takedown notice, well for one he is illegally assuming the indentity of an ABC employee. This isn't a strong case because any idiot can look up ABC's address and type it on a letter. So plan B: the recipient should check the credentials, by contacting the sender, no less. Obviously someone failed to do that here. But if they had contacted ABC, they would have to answer the question "Did you send us a takedown notice for XYZ?" If they answer yes, they're lying! Fraud! If they answer no, the prank ends. All that can be done against the prankster is a deposition stating that he or she must stop abusing the company's resources with pranks. If they do it again, well then you have documentation to press charges against them. Sue the kid, toss them in juvy, hell drag it to Texas and shoot it if you must.

The important thing is that every party involved should be held accountable for their actions. They are each responsible for a piece of the puzzle that makes the DMCA work (in theory). If any one of them fails to do their part of the job properly, they can potentially cause far more damage than the alleged infringement ever did.

Re:See your news first! On Slashdot (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 7 years ago | (#18738099)

Yeah, but my point was that the ABC (and SBS) here in Australia are consituted in a similar fashion to Britain's BBC, I very much doubt they would just answer "yes" to an enquiry about a legal matter. The three main commercial networks are a different story.

Re:See your news first! On Slashdot (1)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 7 years ago | (#18733029)

Chaser crew)

Doesn't that sound like a cool job?

Re:See your news first! On Slashdot (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 7 years ago | (#18736553)

I think the chaser guys would use this, they are funny bastards. This would give them ideas.

Seems pretty funny to me (5, Interesting)

@madeus (24818) | more than 7 years ago | (#18730773)

I'm not usually one to find 'disruptive' pranks funny, but this doesn't seem too far off the kind of things do they on the show [wikipedia.org] (which I've not seen). If companies will put out shows that do just these kind of stunts, and aimed at the teenage/early 20's demographic it's of course no surprise.

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18730929)

I'm not usually one to find 'disruptive' pranks funny, but this doesn't seem too far off the kind of things do they on the show [wikipedia.org] (which I've not seen)
If you haven't seen the show you can watch it on ABC's website at http://www.abc.net.au/vod/selector.htm?program=cha ser [abc.net.au] , or subscribe to the video podcast at http://abc.net.au/tv/chaser/war/vodcast/chaser_mp4 .xml [abc.net.au]

Re:Seems pretty funny to me (1)

@madeus (24818) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731487)

Hey video podcasts - excellent thanks (I didn't notice that when I went to their site myself).

Re:Seems pretty funny to me (4, Interesting)

zCyl (14362) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731085)

If not, it seems like a significant oversight in the process.

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?

Re:Seems pretty funny to me (3, Interesting)

bhiestand (157373) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731143)

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?
That is an absolutely brilliant idea! You don't plan to patent that, do you?

Re:Seems pretty funny to me (2, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731367)

Not only is it brilliant, but in essence it is a form of automated civil disobedience.

Interesting idea. Illegal as hell, but very interesting.

Re:Seems pretty funny to me (2, Insightful)

bhiestand (157373) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731407)

Exactly. I wouldn't want to be caught writing such a program, but if it became widely spread it could certainly influence media conglomerates like Google and MySpace to use their weight to get these laws changed...

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' fan sites and music video uploads removed.

Re:Seems pretty funny to me (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731389)

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.

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:Seems pretty funny to me (2, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731669)

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.

Persecute or prosecute? I guess in this context there'd be little difference.

Re:Seems pretty funny to me (2, Interesting)

svunt (916464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731543)

The DMCA becomes an interesting issue when the material isn't American. I'm curious about whose laws apply with regard to a takedown notice coming from outside the domain of the Act. Obviously, IANAL.

Re:Seems pretty funny to me (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 7 years ago | (#18738083)

No, it continues to behave normally. There are some exceptions, but generally the US grants US copyrights for works created in other countries by foreign authors just as it would for anyone else. Indeed, that's how most of the world works, in essence.

There's no question that the holder of the US copyright, regardless of whether the work is from Australia or the holder of that copyright or the author are Australian, can use the DMCA. But the DMCA may only be used against entities within US jurisdiction. So the location of Youtube is the real issue, and as it's not in any real doubt, this really isn't as interesting a question as you originally thought.

Re:Seems pretty funny to me (1)

svunt (916464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18738143)

Thanks! You're right, that's not so interesting.

Re:Seems pretty funny to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18736063)

some day morons like you will need a law to put your underwear on.

i'll be on a ninja ship pillaging and marauding, living the free ninja lifestyle.

Timing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18730779)

Did the kid pull this off on April 1st?

Great Stuff (5, Interesting)

geekinaseat (1029684) | more than 7 years ago | (#18730793)

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:Great Stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18730853)

Absolutely great job, kid. No need to apologise, really, for exposing weakness.

Re:Great Stuff (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18731019)

If he stabbed a baby would he need to apologize?

he could demonstrate that their fleshy underbellies are weak.

Re:Great Stuff (1)

ady1 (873490) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731151)

All depends on whom species the baby belongs to.

As a teenager myself, I used to stab tens of babies everyday including but not limited to ants, mosquitoes and even hit baby flies with a newspaper.

Re:Great Stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18732271)

Dude u hired.

I dub thee baby-stabber extraordinaire. Stabbing a baby mozzie in the fleshy belly is a rare feat indeed. And tens a day, egads! Skills unheard of in any day and age.

Can you upload a video of it on YouTube? I'll look for it, assuming it doesn't get pulled off the site by request of a false copyright holder.

Re:Great Stuff (1)

Jasin Natael (14968) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731989)

If I were in the position to give the kid a job, I would.

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.

Re:Great Stuff (1)

LordEd (840443) | more than 7 years ago | (#18732085)

I disagree. I believe this kid could flip my burgers or pump my gas anytime. He's earned it.

Low-end jobs. (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 7 years ago | (#18732187)

I know we tend to put burger flipping in the bottom rung of jobs, but that's pretty messed up if you ask me. Do you really want the dregs of the dregs Preparing your food ?

Re:Low-end jobs. (1)

10Neon (932006) | more than 7 years ago | (#18733309)

Nono it's not the dregs of the dregs we have preparing the food, it's just the teenagers. We have Law and Politics to keep the real dregs from giving us food poisoning.

Re:Great Stuff (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 7 years ago | (#18732097)

I agree. Regardless of the teen's motives (whether that be social statement or dumb stunt) it serves as a fine example of how easily ANY random person or organization can abuse the DMCA takedown rule.

Re:Great Stuff (2, Informative)

pestie (141370) | more than 7 years ago | (#18734347)

Good point. There's a world of difference between an intelligent prank like this, which is not only funny but makes a serious political point, and the usual 15-year-old prank. "Oh, dude, we totally fuckin' spread dog shit all over the doors of the school! It was fuckin' awesome, hey! People were all, like, 'Eww, that's so gross!' Seniors rule!"

He might get his own segment... (5, Funny)

agittins (1085543) | more than 7 years ago | (#18730801)

Brilliant, I look forward to the next Chaser episode - I expect they're going to sing his praises for such a cool stunt... and I'll upload it to YouTube for you too :-)

They do? (4, Interesting)

asninn (1071320) | more than 7 years ago | (#18730811)

The amusing part is that The Chaser is a comedy company well known to perpetrate exactly this sort of prank.

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] :

[ABC TV head of arts, entertainment and comedy] Gibson said the removal of the clips was in direct contrast to ABC's policy on content sharing. "[ABC wishes] to get our content out there on as many platforms as possible, run by as many different operators as possible."

Re:They do? Yes -- it's public broadcasting (0)

Simon Garlick (104721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18730847)

The ABC is Australia's equivalent of PBS.

Re:They do? Yes -- it's public broadcasting (4, Informative)

fizzup (788545) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731059)

The ABC is, in fact, Australia's equivalent of the BBC or CBC: a crown corporation that acts as a national and international broadcaster. There is no direct equivalent in the United States, where it would be dismissed as "state-run television".

Re:They do? Yes -- it's public broadcasting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18731233)

There is no direct equivalent in the United States, where it would be dismissed as "state-run television".

Strangely enough, the Howard government dismisses it for exactly that reason, and prefers to use the commercial media to get their spin out.

Re:They do? Yes -- it's public broadcasting (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731299)

Strangely enough, the Howard government dismisses it for exactly that reason, and prefers to use the commercial media to get their spin out.

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.

Re:They do? Yes -- it's public broadcasting (1)

rollonet (882269) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731231)

Mod parent down. It's comparable to the BBC in the sense that its run by the state and has a large budget. It's nothing like PBS.

Re:They do? Yes -- it's public broadcasting (1)

Cyvros (962269) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731743)

I think that, if anything, the SBS would be the closest we have to PBS, although it still falls in with the ABC as a public, government-funded, national broadcaster.

Re:They do? Yes -- it's public broadcasting (1)

Petra_von_Kant (825352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18736443)

The federal goverment is becoming an increasingly minority investor in SBS (Special Broadcasting Service). Tragically, SBS has plummeted since the beginning of their programme interrupting ads, so it is far more like commercial (and is almost indistinguishable from) TV.


The only thing that keeps them ever so slightly in front, is the, generally, high quality and wide diversity of programming.


The introduction of programme disrupting advertisments to keep the money coming in, is yet another demonstration of the pressures brought by the morally bankrupt and economical with the truth current federal government here in Australia on every section of Australian society.



"You've got a chart filling a whole wall with interlocking pathways
and reactions to shock and the researcher says "If I can just control
this one molecule/enzyme/compound I'll stop the whole negative
physiologic cascade of post haemorrhagic shock." Yeah, right."

Re:They do? Yes -- it's public broadcasting (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731933)

Mod parent down. It's comparable to the BBC in the sense that its run by the state and has a large budget. It's nothing like PBS.

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.

It's public broadcasting, but not as you know it (1)

kon23uk (683814) | more than 7 years ago | (#18740247)

Perhaps you should check out "public service broadcasting" in other countries before making the comparison. It comes from an ethos that appears to be entirely alien to you. Having seen PBS in the States, [ABC]BC should be serving a defamation suit on you for this.

Mod parent down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18731245)

How did this get modded up in the first place? ABC is the equivalent of the Britain's BBC or Canada's CBC. It's not paid for by sponsors, it's paid for by the state.

Re:They do? (2, Insightful)

catxk (1086945) | more than 7 years ago | (#18730867)

I can see why you think that part is interesting, then again, it's a public service company so any policy other than "get our content out there on as many platforms as possible" would be absurd. It's the tax payers who pay for it, thus everything produced under the ABC banner should be (and is it seems) public domain by definition. On a sidenote: As I said, any other policy would be absurd. Sweden's SVT currently is absurd.

It's actually not true. (2, Informative)

babbling (952366) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731111)

If you take a look at The Chaser's vodcast page it says the following, which I believe contradicts Ms Gibson's comments:

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 downloading, editing, or using these files for the purpose of (a) distribution to a third party; or (b) promoting, advertising, endorsing or implying a connection with you (or any third party) and the ABC, its agents or employees).

This is actually quite annoying for me because (as an Australian) I pay for them to make this show, but I am not allowed to convert the episodes to Vorbis/Theora and put them on a website for other people to download.

Re:It's actually not true. (2, Interesting)

catxk (1086945) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731275)

Then it's absurd.

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. Content industry never acted logically, but still, it would seem logical that when you're income is set in stone as more or less is the case with normal public service, you wouldn't fight (rather promote) global spread.

Btw, I'm a Swede, I know nothing about Australian law nor anything more about ABC than a 20 second Wikipedia search gave me, so I might be off on their status as a "normal public service".

Re:It's actually not true. (1)

babbling (952366) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731499)

I agree it's absurd. As far as I know the ABC is a corporation owned by the Australian government. That seems to be how they circumvent the government-stuff-is-public-domain thing.

Re:It's actually not true. (1)

ajdlinux (913987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18735073)

In Australia government stuff is in fact copyrighted - just look at any .gov.au website and you'll see 'Copyright © 2007 Commonwealth of Australia' or similar.

Ahem. (1)

svunt (916464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731607)

To be fair to the ABC, their income is neither set in stone, nor reasonable. Our current government has been slowly choking the ABC for years, and excellent shows like the Chaser can make them some desperately needed money in DVD sales (where non-Australians get a chance to pay for it). I'm not arguing that clips shouldn't be available everywhere, but they do have a reason to protect their content in some way.

Re:Ahem. (1)

babbling (952366) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731861)

I don't think they should make shows with taxpayer money and then charge the taxpayers again if the taxpayers want to watch those shows. It's even worse that they claim to be making "everything available to everyone" when they have a very explicit copyright notice on the page that says others may not distribute the works for any purpose.

Re:Ahem. (1)

svunt (916464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731901)

The ABC is an underfunded public service - there's a difference between allowing your material to be posted on YouTube, and allowing the entire content of your program to be reused by the rest of the world. I'm an Australian, I pay a LOT of tax, and the ABC is one of the few media producers I have sympathy for. When I mentioned DVD sales, I was talking about how they can get some money (which all goes towards production costs for more excellent television) from the rest of the world, who've not contributed via taxes. Oh, and we can watch it as many times as we want, via our own recorded copies or vodcast, so nobody's asking Aussies to pay twice.

Re:Ahem. (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18733195)

I don't think they should make shows with taxpayer money and then charge the taxpayers again if the taxpayers want to watch those shows.


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't have a problem with them attempting to generate revenue with the programmes they produce. Government-funded broadcasting companies are easy targets for budget cuts, especially in times of restraint or conservative governments who see such programs as "socialism" (that's they word they like to spit at you where I live). As long as they are not trying something stupid like preventing me from making private copies for my own personal use, I'm okay with them saying you don't get to compete with them by distributing the shows.

But then, IANAA (I am not an Australian).

Keep reading, chief (1)

svunt (916464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731783)

At the end of the legal blurb you'll see that it's a standard form written by people from Screenrights [screenrights.org] , a royalty collection company that collects money primarily from schools & colleges using television content in teaching. The ABC, like any starved-for-money service with a DVD market, does need some form of revenue protection, and they contract Screnrights to provide it. The spirit and intent to make everything available to everyone is still there.

Re:Keep reading, chief (1)

babbling (952366) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731843)

People who intend to make "everything" available to "everyone" do not tell people that they do not have permission to distribute parts of "everything".

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:They do? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18730883)

"You mean they lie about whether they're authorised to act on behalf of copyright holders _under penalty of perjury_?"

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:They do? (2, Interesting)

Detritus (11846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731217)

He might start caring if the USA asked for his extradition, or if he ends up on a list that guarantees that he can never get a visa. Piss off the wrong people and they will do their best to return the favor.

Re:They do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18731519)

He might start caring if [...] he ends up on a list that guarantees that he can never get a visa

Dude. Seriously. It's been a long time since people in the free world (that's outside of the US, if you haven't understood it yet) wanted to visit your fascist country.

Re:They do? (2, Insightful)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731967)

or if he ends up on a list that guarantees that he can never get a visa.

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:They do? (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731115)

Heck... This 15 year old's stunt got it on slashdot and made me go to Youtube to look them up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2veTZlmaUJI [youtube.com]

Pretty funny stuff.

Think of the children!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18730817)

Can you see now what bad influence the MPAA, RIAA and certain laws have on your children?

Protect your children and support piracy!

Re:Think of the children!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18730933)

Totally Agree! Let's start a campaign!

"Do you want your kids like maniacs calling websites from home asking to remove content?
What if it is your preferred pr0n?
Do you want your kids banning you because you're listening a recorded tape from your old gf?
Now it's time, refuse to follow **AA and become a Pirate (this will also contribute to reduce global warming)
Disclaimer: We are not affiliated with FSM [venganza.org] "

The ironic part to this (5, Informative)

rollonet (882269) | more than 7 years ago | (#18730891)

The ironic part to this is that the ABC releases episodes of The Chaser for free, in video podcast form. Also when they announced the video podcast last year, they plugged BitTorrent for helping distributing the show! In fact, the first BitTorrent release of the show was released by one of the hosts... So it dosn't seem like The Chaser are against piracy, only the ABC.

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:The ironic part to this (1)

shudde (915065) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731101)

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] .

Non-Aussies: Do Not Download? (1)

vain gloria (831093) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731211)

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] .

I'm quite happy to defer to your superior knowledge since you're familiar with the programme/channel and their surrounding culture. However, the the standard disclaimer at the bottom of the linked page says something quite different.

First two lines of the small print:

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.

Re:Non-Aussies: Do Not Download? (1)

Xiroth (917768) | more than 7 years ago | (#18737089)

Yep, that's because their charter (as a government agency) gives them no direction to distribute their shows internationally, so they can't be seen to be spending money on bandwidth for international viewers. Therefore they allow it to be uploaded to YouTube (or maybe do it themselves) so that they can avoid being investigated for misuse of funds.

Re:The ironic part to this (1)

NoMaster (142776) | more than 7 years ago | (#18732181)

If you live in Australia and haven't seen The Chaser it's one of the funniest shows that we've got
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 arses on fire, and sent them a set of ratings, market share, and audience appreciation figures certified by Jesus, Ghandi, and the Pope.

Not that anyone would ever get to see it in the first place - what with no EPG, shell-and-pea con-game programming, 3 extra ad breaks cut into each hour of programming, and a complete and utter fucking inability to keep within 20 minutes of a regular or published schedule. Much easier to just take a few already-contracted network "celebrities" and stick them on an ice rink or dance floor somewhere, or buy a few "reality documentaries" from UnZud and stick a local newsreader's face and voice on them...

Even better, take a few ancient programs where you bought the perpetual broadcast rights for peanuts, cut a few extra ad breaks in (don't worry about stopping the tape - nobody remembers the plot leading up to the first ad break, let alone after 5 or 6 breaks), and slap Russell fucking Gilbert (so unfunny he couldn't even get a gig on the Footy Show telling fart and poofter jokes while dressed in women's clothing), Darrell Somers (poor sidekick to a wig on a stick), or Sandra "Australia's Sexiest Android" Sully in front.

(Seriously. Ever wonder what happened to the little android girl in "Small Wonder" [wikipedia.org] ? She grew up and became a TV newsreader and part-time wildlife documentary & quiz show presenter in Australia.)

I've known well-travelled Brits who shake their heads in sorrow when recounting stories of the state of television in the USA. When they experience the inbred, excessively protected, and audience-contemptious state of commercial TV in Australia - and the inability of the woefully underfunded and constantly under government attack ABC to provide a viable alternative - they break down and cry...

Re:The ironic part to this (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 7 years ago | (#18738109)

(Seriously. Ever wonder what happened to the little android girl in "Small Wonder"? She grew up and became a TV newsreader and part-time wildlife documentary & quiz show presenter in Australia.)

Huh.

How does an android grow up, exactly? Did they put her program in a different body?

Re:The ironic part to this (1)

NoMaster (142776) | more than 7 years ago | (#18739753)

How does an android grow up, exactly? Did they put her program in a different body?
And people say I think about things too much!

I'd bet you've never actually seen Sandra Sully host "Australia's Brainiest xxxx" either, otherwise you'd be marvelling at how far robotics has advanced while you weren't looking...

(Sorry, Sandra. I don't know you, have never met you - but I read that you're actually quite intelligent, witty, and a fun and interesting person to know; facts backed up by people I know who have met you. It's not your fault that, despite being a television "personality", all that personality seems to drain away somewhere between you and the camera. I actually feel a little sorry on your behalf, knowing that despite all your training, experience, and a desire to excel at your job, it just doesn't come across on TV.

Tell you what - if ever we meet, I'll buy you a beer - or maybe a nice chardonnay or dry riesling - and we can both laugh about it...)

"Piracy?" (2, Insightful)

violet16 (700870) | more than 7 years ago | (#18735475)

So it dosn't seem like The Chaser are against piracy, only the ABC.

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 (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731241)

This is one of the major faults with the DMCA. If someone claiming to be the copyright holder contacts you with a takedown notice, you don't really have any recourse but to comply. The only situation in which you don't is if you know that you own the copyright. However there's not really a way to verify if the person contacting you is legit or not, you just have to assume they are, or risk trouble.

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:Uhhh, he didn't really "scam" them (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18734073)

Someone willing to write an online takedown letter generator? Sure, besides perhaps aiding the "MAFIAA", it would perhaps illustrate the problems with the DMCA better if these things came into wider use. :-p

Re:Uhhh, he didn't really "scam" them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18735057)

Someone should write a bot that merely scans for content and the names of said content as well as the apparent or approximate owner (basically just find something legit that *might* work, as you don't need 100% accuracy when you're using something highly automated like this, we can deal with 80% or so), and sends automated DMCA takedown emails with the scavenged content names/locations signed with the parent company/owner's names. Spread it around copiously and there you go, a recipe for fun.

(Appropriately enough, the CAPTCHA for this was "kisses")

Good Response.. (4, Insightful)

qbproger (467459) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731373)

The head of the comedy department didn't fly off the handle saying we're suing the kid. The police didn't show up at his door to take them away in hand cuffs. There response was "Everyone does dumb stuff when they're 15." What happened to that attitude in America?

Re:Good Response.. (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 7 years ago | (#18732249)

It was never there in the US.

Re:Good Response.. (1)

Xiroth (917768) | more than 7 years ago | (#18737127)

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, the ABC doesn't really care whether or not it was taken down. As presumably the majority of viewers of the show on YouTube are international, it wouldn't really make a huge difference to their next budget review.

USA Rampant On Censorship/Brain Washing (1)

cannuck (859025) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731787)

The 15 year old just demonstrates how rampant the dominant "family value" in the USA is CENSORSHIP. 99% of the CENSORSHIP has nothing to do with copyrights etc.. This hoax simply reflects on the HOAX perpetrated by all the MEDIA owned by the RICH in the USA - about how FREE the media is to say what it wants to say. The MEDIA (whatever the format - the WWW, TV, radio, newspapers, mags) - only cover what is allowed by the RICH.

The above fits in with the overiding goal of the MEDIA - "keep the RICH happy - and everyone else in fear". Don't understand the latter? - google N. Chomsky and G. Lakoff

"Only LEMMINGS would need a scoring system (in Slashdot) to tell them what they want/need to read. Scoring was brought into the American schooling system to replace severe whipping for giving the wrong answer. Apparantly the Slashdot WHIPPERS here believe in censorship by numbers - that it is as good as whipping"

"Scams"? Shouldn't that be "pranks"? (4, Insightful)

Venerable Vegetable (1003177) | more than 7 years ago | (#18731991)

To say he scammed them seems a bit harsh. He didn't do this for any personal gain, which is implied when you call it a scam. It was silly and he shouldn't have done it, but it wasn't as serious as a scam. No harm done, except maybe a little time lost and some advertisment money. On the other hand, Youtube has learned a lesson.

Re:"Scams"? Shouldn't that be "pranks"? (2, Insightful)

Eil (82413) | more than 7 years ago | (#18733823)


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 stupid laws that substantially reduce our freedoms in a lot of ways and then send threatening letters and file lawsuits against ordinary people who didn't think they were doing anything particularly wrong.

This kid single-handedly demonstrated to the world how ridiculously easy it is for absolutely anyone to get content removed from public content-sharing services, especially when they don't actually own the content in question.

But what do we get from the media? "Oh, it was just some dumb kid trying to scam YouTube."

Makes me sick.

W00T 7p (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18732211)

Munches 7he m0st [goat.cx]

Now how can anyone fall for this? (-1, Offtopic)

kinglink (195330) | more than 7 years ago | (#18732675)

OOH look I just got an email to enlarge my junk!

DMCA again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18733055)

You don't need to show how you own the copyright.
You don't need to prove you are who you claim to be.
So YouTube had no way to verify the DMCA complaint and no choice but to comply to retain their ISP immunity.

Who the fuck ever came up with the DMCA (and all it's equivalents) is fucking incompetent and should be ashamed.

flawed (1)

WeeBit (961530) | more than 7 years ago | (#18733699)

This also proves just how flawed the copyright law is when it comes to proving that it's yours. When anyone can claim ownership, and demand removal it is just screwed up. Also makes you wonder if many others were con into removing files online by a person without copyright ownership. For that fact even con to remove files from your computer. A person could have a field day party sending those emails out to unsuspecting individuals.

Thank you! (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18734049)

I have to thank that kid for his act. Because YouTube/Google usually is *far* too zealous in removing content someone complains about.

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.

A copy of the sign form? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18734561)

Does anyone have the sign form copy that was sent to YouTube from this teenager?

Whew! (1)

Jules Mercuri (921249) | more than 7 years ago | (#18737253)

I thought it was about DaxFlame [youtube.com] .

Wait, I saw this one... (1)

Gerocrack (979018) | more than 7 years ago | (#18737481)

Now doesn't he have to come here to appologize and get a public booting? It's our proudest tradition! Disparaging the boot is a bootable offense!

4th most viewed (1)

Tadeusz (131593) | more than 7 years ago | (#18737583)

At the time this happened, the Chaser had an anti-Clinton video that was the 4th most viewed video for the day. The take down was most likely politically motivated.

The Plot Thickens (1)

mrpostal (840460) | more than 7 years ago | (#18739711)

What's more amusing, and not picked up by the slashdot article or the ninemsn story is that:

it looks like ALL of the chaser clips released by the OFFICIAL account of ABC Australia have also been removed "due to copyright violations".

I find it bloody hilarious.

here's a link to the profile and a couple of videos.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=abcaustralia [youtube.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICTP3NednF4 [youtube.com]

Re:The Plot Thickens (1)

mrpostal (840460) | more than 7 years ago | (#18739901)

Update: The account that I linked to has just been suspended.

That is, the official ABC yotube account.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?