Vancouver Rioters Trying To Abuse Copyright To Avoid Being Identified, Which Only Helps Identify Them
from the admission-of-guilt dept
IshmaelDS was the first of a few of you to submit variations on this story of how some of those involved in the Vancouver riots are trying to stymie attempts by people to identify who they are through the abuse of copyright law. Some folks have set up sites with pictures and videos from the riots, trying to crowdsource the identity of people involved. However, some of those in the videos are making bogus copyright claims to get the content taken down:
“What criminals are now doing is they’re claiming that they have copyright notice, or they’re the copyright holder of the video because they appear in the video. So YouTube has been taking down videos in the last couple of days.”
Of course, this is doubly stupid. Not only is it an abuse of copyright law, but it is basically people identifying themselves in the video, since they have to give their name to YouTube, and YouTube passes that info along:
Texeria uploaded the video on behalf of a friend. He says if criminals were hoping they might be able to hide by making copyright claims they’re actually making themselves easier to find because YouTube notifies whoever uploaded the video.
“Basically what it says is, this person, and it lists his name, complained and so I actually have the personal information of the people complaining, and I will then be turning that info over to the police as well.”
Comments on “Vancouver Rioters Trying To Abuse Copyright To Avoid Being Identified, Which Only Helps Identify Them”
And coming up next on World’s Stupidest Criminals, a forger who filed a patent infringment claim on his way of making money.
This is just priceless.
Streisand effect in 3…2…1…
pretty sure I saw in the cliff notes version of the bible that copyright was one of the most evil deeds a man could attempt.
So the agenda of encouraging hatred towards copyright must be on the right path, correct?
Yea. Oh, and everything should be free. Like, go make me a sandwich. And stop complaining about it. If you don’t like working on a sandwich that I want to consume right now, then clearly you have a problem with your business model. ok, fine.
Typical troll. YouTube video equates to sandwiches.
At least get on the topic.
Re:
Bum go find a baby for rent that you can use to get more money when begging.
Re:
1) you can’t copyright a sandwich… perhaps the recipe for making it, but not the sandwich itself.
2) My business model doesn’t involve making sandwich’s. So your demands seem strangely out of place. Unless… are you a Troll sir (or madam as the case may be)?
Re:
1) you can’t copyright a recipe:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
Re:
And after the break, the story of the bank robber that tried to patent his business model:
Mr. B.R. Bank Robber: Yeah, my business models is pretty simple: I steal money from banks and try not to get caught. It’s a real no brainer.
But major financial institutions complained about the patent saying that there is already loads of prior art:
Scumbag-uh-Economist: Did you see all those economic meltdowns in the past few years? We’ve been doing this for ages and getting away with it, so there’s plenty of prior art. The USPTO should carefully consider this, because this patent could ruin an entire industry that is based around generating money out of doing absolutely nothing other than move other people’s money around – the very basis of our economy!
Stay tuned for more developments.
…only in Canada, eh?
Er, what? I think you’ll find the names passed on by Google from the notices will be along the lines of John Doe, John Smith, etc.
Abuse of copyright law? yes. Stupid? I see no reason to assume so… more info required.
Re:
They still have the IP addresses
Re:
You must not have been in Chicago in the mid-90’s….
Sci-Fi Future!
Imagine a (not unlikely) future where this could happen. Give (some) people “representational rights” or some such legalistic piffle to allow them to control how and when they appear in the press. Then, use those “property rights” to leverage a DRM system, installed by law in all cameras, to keep just anyone from taking a picture of a “Rightsholder”. Those Rightsholders would quickly become a privileged class, a kind of computer-enforced aristocracy.
And, given the really-o truly-o inability of DRM to work perfectly, it would enable some lower class people, who bear a weird, not-always-humanly-discernable resemblance to a Rightsholder, to almost magically disappear from images. Including Police Cameras. Which would lead a small fraction of them, the Ghosts in the Machine, to live a life of crime.
There, great book plot idea, yours for free!
The amusing thing is that with Canadian privacy laws, the information gained from these submissions may not be allowed in court.
Re:
IP addresses aren’t conclusive proof either since they can be easily spoofed.
Re:
Yeah, the whole post is nonsense. Unless the people who send takedown requests are stupid, there’s no additional risk of identification.
I can state with absolute certainty that Vancouver is home to the stupidest criminals in all of creation.
Re:
If Google were smart, and I think they are, anyone complaining and wanting something taken down would be denied if giving a name such as John Doe, Jane Smith, unless conclusively proven that that is, indeed, their real name.
Re:
Oh Cana-duh?
Re:
[citation needed]
Sci-Fi Future!
I see what you did thar! -.-
be careful
Some of the rioting was organised… you don’t want to be in the police report as having identified the wrong rioter if you live in Vancouver… the triads are vengeful. Anonymous tips are far safer.
so copyright law has never been abused before then?
Re:
Um, what scumbag economists?
Economists had NOTHING to do with the meltdown. It was analysts and investors practicing varying amounts of deceit and doublethink.
Economists are all about modelling, it’s much more abstract. They don’t get to play with actual money (unless they start a highly succesful blog, then mansions, lamborghinis and lingerie models).
Re:
OK, if Big G is smart, they’ll catch numpties like me who put no thought into their fake names. What about the ones with a bit more imagination?
As an aside – just curious – is there a legal issue with singling out some people for a more thorough vetting than others based on a name? I mean, what constitutes a fake name is somewhat subjective, isn’t it? And some people are going to take offence if their real name triggers a you-must-be-joking type response. Even if it’s not a genuine concern, you’ve still gotta watch the legal trolls, right? Won’t somebody please think of Randy Baumgardner!
Not to interrupt the hens clucking, but I’d like to see a bit more proof this actually happened. The video in question here was a guy getting a nut shot from a tear gas canister, not a looter. There was a casual sidebar that other protesters are making takedown requests but nothing sourced.
Out of curiosity
Has anyone ever been prosecuted for perjury for filing a false DMCA complaint?
Re:
These people were caught rioting on video. It’s safe to assume they aren’t the brightest bulbs on the tree.
triply stupid
Generally speaking, copyright is owned by the person taking the video. Hence, if you’re in the video, you’re generally not the copyright owner (unless you hired the cameraman).