Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook
1–10 of 59 posts
Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook
#2> 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.
Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook
#3Seems 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?
Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook
#4Title should read '..suing people who broadcast the event via Facebook'
Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook
#5> 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.
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.
Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook
#6Seems 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?
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).
Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook
#7I enjoyed the use of 'mate' in that conversation. No mistaking what country that conversation took place in.
Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook
#8Seems 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?
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).
Wherever you draw the line, it's nowhere near "I've got 78,000 viewers that aren't gonna be happy with you mate"
Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook
#9Seems 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?
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).
This is what judges are for. In this case it's fairly easy to determine what his motive was. Broadcast a pay per view fight to thousands for free. Or do you think an audience of thousands would have been watching if he'd been talking with his family with some barely audible audio in the background?
Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook
#10> 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.
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.
> 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.