from the please-be-a-little-more-subtle dept.
YouTube Class Action: Same IP Address Used to Upload 'Pirate' Movies & File DMCA Notices
Grammy award-winning musician Maria Schneider and Virgin Islands-based Pirate Monitor Ltd teamed up in the summer to file a class-action lawsuit against YouTube.
In an effort to gain access to YouTube's Content ID system, the complaint stated that YouTube has an allegedly lax attitude to takedown notices and repeat infringers, and discriminates against smaller creators.
Schneider told the court that a number of her songs had been posted to YouTube without her permission. Pirate Monitor Ltd argued similarly, stating that pirated copies of its works had been uploaded to the site. Both further said they had been denied access to Content ID.
In its response, YouTube focused on Pirate Monitor, alleging that the company or its agents uploaded the 'pirate' movies and then claimed mass infringement, something which disqualified them from accessing Content ID.
Related Stories
Summary:
It wasn't just you; SoylentNews.org was down today (Sunday, 2021-01-03) for a few hours in the mid morning to early afternoon UTC. It seems to be back up and running, but there are some minor artifacts.
Background:
First sign was some CSS and Slashbox issues appearing on Saturday night. I was editing a story and when I tried to preview it, saw that the SlashBoxes that normally appeared on the LHS (Left-Hand Side) of the page were missing. A page refresh or two later, and things looked okay, again. A bit later I went to view a story and saw the same symptoms. This time a hard reload that ignored and cache on my system (Ctrl+F5) did the trick.
I popped onto IRC (Internet Relay Chat), reported these symptoms, and asking if anyone else was seeing the same thing. Received a couple confirmations.
Oh. Joy. And TMB (The Mighty Buzzard) still seemed to be away on vacation.
Oh well. Skipped on over to boron and ran a script to bounce the apache servers on fluorine and hydrogen. Popped back onto IRC, reported what I did, and asked if things were better. Got some affirmations. Yay!
Just in case, I hung around for another half hour or so to confirm the site was staying up and running okay. Looking good! After thanking everyone for their help, I wished everybody a good night and then headed to bed.
Sunday:
Shortly after I woke and attempted to visit the site, I was greeted by a message explaining the site was down due to DB issues. When I got back onto IRC, found that TMB was already hands-on. The site had crashed early in the morning. With the site already down, and it being Sunday morning, he decided to take advantage of the opportunity to make some backups and then do some maintenance work.
Status:
Site is back up, system loads seem back-to-normal, and things seem to be pretty much as they should be. Except... the Older Stuff slashbox that appears on the RHS (Right-Hand Side) of the main page seemed to be missing some entries. The newest entry as I write this is YouTube Class Action: Same IP Address Used To Upload 'Pirate' Movies and File DMCA Notice.
I suspect the missing entries will eventually start to stream in and repopulate the list.
tl;dr:
The DB crashed and took the site with it. TMB was soon on the scene and fixed the DB and did some other work. We're back up and running.
Thanks TMB!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 2021, @10:15AM (1 child)
A new year of surprises and women riding cock as the sun rises.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 2021, @10:43AM
for real man i tried to ride a rooster once but he just pecked me all to shit
tell me how you ride those cocks.
(Score: 4, Touché) by stormreaver on Friday January 01 2021, @11:48AM (33 children)
Pirate Monitor Ltd and Maria Schneider should each have to pay YouTube treble the full amount that was being sought against YouTube, plus attorney fees, under the RICO act. And the attorneys for both plaintiffs should be either disbarred or severely sanctioned for knowingly violating their duties as agents of the Court.
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Friday January 01 2021, @12:38PM (3 children)
Why RICO? Wouldn't this simply account to (wire) fraud and conspiracy to defraud? That should suffice for a costly affair.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Friday January 01 2021, @01:19PM (2 children)
I wonder whether the news sites carrying the story should have redacted or bowldlerised the artist's name, as this story might accidently streisand her.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3) by barbara hudson on Friday January 01 2021, @02:00PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 2021, @02:05PM
A good streisanding is almost as bad as being schneidered up the rear.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fakefuck39 on Friday January 01 2021, @03:48PM (27 children)
While I would agree if they're guilty, let's see google's evidence: the same IP used to upload and take down. Sorry, but forget building-wide NAT. We got ISP-wide nat these days. Same IP could mean a hundred thousand users in the same city. To find someone guilty, you need a hell of a lot more proof than that.
If we're going to argue an IP on your home's open guest wifi doesn't identify the pirate user, you can't argue that an IP behind an ISP-wide NAT can identify a user either, or use that for anything RICO-related, or disbarring an attorney. It works both ways.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday January 01 2021, @05:18PM (10 children)
MAC addresses?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fakefuck39 on Friday January 01 2021, @05:34PM (9 children)
First, google said IP, not MAC. Second, MAC is layer 2, not layer 3, so it doesn't make it out of your router.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by RS3 on Friday January 01 2021, @06:06PM (8 children)
> so it doesn't make it out of your router.
No, but it could be captured and logged coming in to router, and Internet routers in general.
(Score: 3, Touché) by fakefuck39 on Friday January 01 2021, @08:33PM (7 children)
lolwut? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, so please explain:
I have a laptop connected to my wifi router. The that's connected to a cable modem. That's connected to an ISP router, a couple of others at the ISP, and their border router NATs the entire network with a few thousand users to a single external IP. That's the IP google sees. How does google know my MAC?
Please be specific where in the layer3 packet google receives from the ISP my MAC would be recorded.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by RS3 on Friday January 01 2021, @09:18PM (6 children)
No need to be insulting, I stand corrected. I was thinking of ARP tables in routers, but I acknowledge Internet routed packets don't contain MAC addresses. But, MAC for local LAN is in router's ARP tables and logs, so someone can get at the info if they have access (ISPs do, and probably log it for all I know).
(Score: 2, Informative) by fakefuck39 on Friday January 01 2021, @10:06PM (5 children)
"lolwut" is not an insult. it means "huh?"
people who look to be insulted always will be. if i wanted to insult you, you'd know it. you asked an it question, i answered.
your ISP can only see your mac address if they give you an IP address. is your ip 192.xxx? Then they can't see it. Did your wifi router give you your IP? They can't see it. your MAC does not leave your network.
In my case today, the MAC the ISP sees is a building with about 500 people in it. The ISP sees the MAC of the building router.
so no, ISPs do not log it, because they don't receive that information in the first place. Google, which is what is being talked about here, is completely full of crap. As usual.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Friday January 01 2021, @10:52PM (4 children)
> "lolwut" is not an insult. it means "huh?"
It's a little "tone-troll-ish". Words and phrases can have many, sometimes somewhat hidden / sarcastic meanings. Not that anyone would ever do that here. Recently I saw the term "tone troll" used here... No matter- you're rough but you contribute much great content so I'm thankful for your info / contributions here.
The routers I admin hold ARP tables. Here's an abbreviated example from one of the router's (gateway's) admin pages (I've buggered many of the numbers to protect the innocent):
My point is: the ISP has "backdoor" admin / access into the router. Not sure how, but I know because they told me ... when they got mad because I subbed in a generic Cisco. I can't confirm it, but it's not a stretch to imagine they can access the ARP table and know what's attached to the router. If you're with me so far, it's also not a stretch to imagine they can access the NAT tables too.
(Score: 3, Touché) by fakefuck39 on Friday January 01 2021, @11:37PM (3 children)
everything has arp tables, including your laptop. what doesn't happen is data from the arp table of your machine making it to the router of another network nor traverse a NAT.
if you have a router from comcast, of course they have a login to it - that's how they remotely manage it and update your firmware. it does not mean google, coming from another network, can see your mac address.
a router routes. between networks. arp tables are for that router's network - they don't push their data to some random person's router. what you're saying is a random website like youtube can see the arp table on your router because the isp lets them. this is simply a false statement, because if you manage routers like you say you do, you'd know that google connects to the ISP at layer3, and your ARP is on layer 2.
You arguing this, indeed deserves an lolwut. and at this point, since you keep pushing the issue and moving the goalposts, while being completely wrong in your original statement, which was that "google can see my MAC" - you're a fucking retard who can't admit he's wrong. so you move goalposts, you pretend to have been insulted, and all kinds of other retard shit. what you don't do however, is manage any router besides the little box from amazon you have at home. and that is very clear. fuck off retard. insulting enough? this time it was meant to be.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday January 02 2021, @12:35AM
I see, so it's not possible for Comcast, for example, to share / sell that ARP table data to google, NSA, etc? Okay, Einstein, you win.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RS3 on Saturday January 02 2021, @12:39AM (1 child)
I may be a "retard" compared to you, but you have major short-circuits in your neural clump.
Nope, never said, that. But I gather that English isn't your first language, so I'll excuse your reading comprehension disability.
Interaction with you is a colossal waste of time.
(Score: 2, Touché) by fakefuck39 on Saturday January 02 2021, @12:52AM
me: google can't identify a user by IP behind several levels of NAT.
you: MAC address?
nope, you certainly never said it. it must be my engrish no so good. that's fine. it was my 3rd language. learned at about 5 years old, but still 3rd. or maybe second - i was a kid, don't remember what came when.
we are talking about youtube the website identifying you at home. you literally said they'll identify your by MAC address.
but it's cool. your interaction with me was a waste of time, you learned nothing today, and that is very good for literally everyone else. life is competition, the less skills and knowledge you have, the better for me.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 2021, @07:25PM (6 children)
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
As others have pointed out in the discussions on Slashdot the RIAA/MPAA have long claimed that IP addresses = identifiable person.
https://news.slashdot.org/story/20/12/21/2133239/youtube-class-action-same-ip-address-used-to-upload-pirate-movies-and-file-dmca-notices [slashdot.org]
The comment section overall is worth reading.
What's frustrating is the one sided nature of IP laws.
The penalty structure is one sided. The penalties for infringement far exceed the penalties for false takedowns when the opposite should be true. It also seems like suing for infringement requires far less evidence than trying to defend against infringement or suing for false takedowns. Not to mention there seems to be such thing as criminal infringement explicitly written into the laws but are there any potential criminal sanctions for false takedowns?
IP lasts way too long.
IP is opt-out and not opt-in which makes it hard to know what works are protected, what works aren't, and who really has control over what works. It's almost like we have to rely on hearsay. Anyone can just claim anything and it's just left to the courts to decide who really controls the content after the fact.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 2021, @07:27PM
(Well, not IP in general but in the case of copy protection laws. You still have to apply/opt-in for a patent and get approval).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 2021, @07:50PM (3 children)
Imagine if regular property laws were written like that. I can just claim your refrigerator belongs to me or your house belongs to me and suddenly you have to cease control of your belongings until we sort this whole thing out in court.
No, with real property we have bills of sale. We have pink slips. We have receipts. We have a governing body that keeps track of who owns what with respect to your house. If you leave your personal property on the street and it goes missing because someone takes it then that's your fault for abandoning it on public property.
Yet with intellectual property anyone can just claim they own anything and since it's opt-out there is no requirement to track anything beforehand. We have to sort it out in court after the fact. Why is it when it comes to intellectual 'property' common sense gets completely thrown out the window.
If you release your intellectual property and people copy it without authorization you can sue with no prior need to register the works. You can just let the courts and everyone figure out who really has control over it after the fact in a messy processes that makes no sense and never applies to real property because real property laws make a lot more sense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 2021, @11:44PM (2 children)
The reason why there's the cease and desist to the copyright infringement cases is that further distribution would result in further harm to the plaintiff. In the case where the defendant wins the case, there's the possibility of getting an award in a countersuit. Dealing with physical property doesn't automatically come with that harm, but in cases where further use would damage the plaintiff, judges can issue an injunction until the case is resolved.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:49AM (1 child)
"Dealing with physical property doesn't automatically come with that harm"
If someone steals something from me and uses it they can add wear and tear to the item they stole. For instance if they stole my car they are adding mileage to it not to mention they can be driving over bumps and driving recklessly which could damage it. Actual damages, not imaginary damages.
Intellectual property laws, the way they are now, are outrageous. It's written for the corporations by the corporations. It's not written for or by the people or the artists. This is supposed to be a democracy. Disney should not be writing the laws. If these laws were written in good faith then stricter IP laws would not be snuck in larger stimulus bills last minute. There is nothing honest about IP laws. There is nothing honest about the people that abuse it (like the people in the OP suing Youtube). The mainstream media would not allow critics to discuss these issues because there is nothing honest about the mainstream media. NOTHING!!! They are purely dishonest. This is supposed to be a democracy and my vote is to abolish these laws. I want my vote to count. Large corporations that buy politicians shouldn't have a stronger voice than me. I also want a voting system that's more tamper proof than the current one.
For me to even consider copy protection laws anything but a dishonest subversion of democracy it must first be acknowledged that copy'right' is not a right. It's a privilege given to the privilege holder by the government. Any potential perceived 'damages' done to the privilege holder by an alleged infringer must be second to the potential damages done to someone potentially having their own content taken down. Not the other way around (as we currently have).
So to go over your points.
"there's the possibility of getting an award in a countersuit."
The penalty structure is one sided in favor of those issuing potentially false takedowns. The penalties for false takedowns should far exceed the penalties for infringement in every case (ie: intentional or unintentional). The person issuing takedowns should be responsible for knowing ahead of time if the takedowns are valid or not and shouldn't be allowed to threaten others with the possibility of huge infringement damages while only being given the possibility of a small slap on the wrist if the takedown turns out to be false. Not acceptable whatsoever.
"judges can issue an injunction until the case is resolved."
Which gets to the next point, that the legal system doesn't require any prior registration of these things. It's opt out. So it becomes a potential game or hearsay over who really has privileges. How is a service provider supposed to know who really has control of the works ahead of time. The thing has to be taken down and dragged in court first.
This is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable. It should be opt-in with a requirement to preregister so that the registration can be referenced and a service provider can verify the validity of the takedown request ahead of time. Tired of corporations writing these laws. This needs to stop, this is supposed to be a democracy but IP laws have proven it's a corporatocracy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @09:51AM
Let's also not forget that the TPP was negotiated in secrecy. Like I said, there is absolutely nothing honest about IP laws and IP proponents and those that abuse IP laws. It's not like it's that surprising that those that file mass takedowns are the same types of people that would upload the content they are filing takedowns for, it fits their character type. No moral standards, it's the same type of people that have subverted our democracy to pass these unethically one sided laws.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 2021, @10:54PM
NO NO!! NEVER quote slashd... (the name I can't say) here! When you mix red and green you get brown! Poop! El stinko- never do that!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday January 02 2021, @06:12AM (1 child)
So you are saying that is possible that the upload and complain are really-really independent and it's a coincidence the IP address is the same? And this from a pool of a hundred thousand users in the same city?
Ummm... may I interest you in buying the winning ticket of the 6/49 lottery next week? I sell it on the cheap, a bargain at just a couple of thousands for a pool prize of millions. I don't actually know if it will win, but the odds for it to win are about 714 times better [wikipedia.org] than 1/100,000*1/100,000.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fakefuck39 on Saturday January 02 2021, @01:57PM
That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying what I said. If you use one set of logic to defend people at home not getting sued based on their IP, that legal defense applies here too. You can't have a different set of rules depending on whether you like the party being sued or not.
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Saturday January 02 2021, @06:50AM (1 child)
In the fine article, You alleges that the videos were being uploaded from Pakistan, and the take down notices were coming from Hungary, so not the same IP. Except at some point, one of the accounts that was uploading from Pakistan suddenly logged into Youtube from Hungary, from the exact same IP that the takedown notices were coming from. So it's either a completely bizarre and unlikely coincidence, or the more probable explanation is that Pirate Monitor was using something like a VPN to post videos from Pakistan in an attempt to cover their tracks, and someone screwed up.
Besides, if Google is tracking and logging the IPs associated with Youtube log ins, they're going to have a pretty good idea where the large scale NAT deployments are.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Saturday January 02 2021, @01:55PM
Yes, this is circumstantial evidence, but in court you have a much higher burden of proof. Both the paki and hungarian IPs are most likely a NAT router. All it could mean is the paki guy took a trip to hungary and stayed at a big hotel.
I'm not defending either side here. I'm pointing out that if we're going to use the defense against RIIA and friends that an IP doesn't identify the user enough to sue that person, that defense applies to this google claim too.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday January 02 2021, @08:30AM (2 children)
Silly rabbit, carrier NAT is for peons. Residential users get carrier NAT, business lines do not.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Saturday January 02 2021, @10:16AM (1 child)
Sure business's usually purchase more IP addresses, but I've never seen a business that didn't use NAT.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:33PM
sjames was referring to ISP NAT. ISPs don't put business customers behind their own NAT firewalls that they put their consumer customers behind. That has nothing at all to do with LAN side NAT that most businesses use.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by stormreaver on Saturday January 02 2021, @01:54PM (1 child)
Please start reading the articles before responding. Here's the relevant quote:
For this purpose, it doesn't matter if two different individuals were performing the acts. They were both doing it with the same Internet collection at the same time. Since two different Internet connections can't have the same IP address, it's compelling proof that Pirate Monitor is guilty. The only open question is whether Maria Schneider knew what was going on, and went along with it.
(Score: 1, Troll) by fakefuck39 on Saturday January 02 2021, @02:10PM
right. and same internet connection (by IP) in this case can be a NAT router for a hotel with a thousand people.
Should you be sued for illegal distribution if you stay at a hotel if someone at that hotel does it? Yeah, there are 500 people in that hotel, but you're personally named in that lawsuite. Because, you know, according to your logic - same internet connection.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @05:53AM
Trump won in a landslide, there has been massive fraud, MSM is lying. So does Google. Demand access and audit the signatures, count all legal uploads. #MAGA2021
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by crafoo on Friday January 01 2021, @02:04PM (3 children)
Copyright law is fully subverted. Youtube is the decaying Myspace of 2020s. I would be more concerned with setting up a second passport than worrying about a slowly failing NSA data collection organization.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 2021, @02:07PM
Unlike MySpace, Youtube is THE place to go for pseudo grass roots sports fan videos and We Love Russia blooper reel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01 2021, @05:00PM (1 child)
Everyone still uses Youtube, so it's not a decaying Myspace just yet. Where's the Facebook of videos coming to kill Youspace? Hint, it's not Facebook or Bitchute.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Wednesday January 06 2021, @04:38AM
Something doesn't have to have a viable replacement in existence to be considered decaying. Your logic is flawed.
(Score: 2) by Username on Friday January 01 2021, @03:00PM (2 children)
Everyone should have access to their content id system. If someone claims someone else material, invalidate it, let them sue each other, then validate it to the victor.
(Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Saturday January 02 2021, @12:36PM
You are aware that ContentID has huge potential for misuse? And that Youtube isn't just Music videos?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @05:54PM
The problem with that is the same problem that exists now. There is a massive asymmetry between those who are creating these lawsuits and takedown notices and those receiving them in terms of their monetary funds and access to lawyers. The victor will almost always be the person with more money to spend on their defense. Some granny who unwittingly had copyrighted music in a video of her gardening is not going to be able to fight a takedown notice, or even know what one is.