Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 59 posts

Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook

#21

Post by ominous »

nkkollaw wrote: post #17
ominous wrote: post #15

So is there a limit on the number of people that can watch, per box? Can I watch it with my dog? With my friend? With my friend and her kids? Can I watch it during a birthday party? There will be 20 kids and their parents around, is that ok? Can each of said parents have a conference call with their buddies to watch and discuss the game? Is there a limit on the size of the tv? Can I mount a 10x5 monitor setup so peop…

I don't think it's hard to see that streaming the event on Facebook is not what the subscription is meant for. I think it's pretty easy to discern private viewing from public viewing. You're not allowed to distribute the content. Don't tell me that those people didn't know they weren't supposed to stream someone else's content on Facebook.

"meant to" is not something that is factored into purchase.

And what should, or should not be done is so subjective it's meaningless.

Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook

#22

Post by vacri »

jstanley wrote: post #6
jmkni wrote: post #3

Seems 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).

As jsmeaton says, judges aren't idiots, and a reasonable person's interpretation of intent is used in law all the time (see murder vs manslaughter, for example).

Or another example: a person I know got done for embezzling a five-figure sum from a business. She got off pretty lightly (though not scot-free), because she used those funds to feed and clothe homeless people; she wasn't doing it to profit. The action and the damage to the victim was the same, but the intent made significant difference to the legal opinion.

Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook

#23

Post by tdkl »

ominous wrote: post #15

So is there a limit on the number of people that can watch, per box? Can I watch it with my dog? With my friend? With my friend and her kids? Can I watch it during a birthday party? There will be 20 kids and their parents around, is that ok? Can each of said parents have a conference call with their buddies to watch and discuss the game? Is there a limit on the size of the tv? Can I mount a 10x5 monitor setup so peop…

Lets not get stupid now.

It's all based on intent. His was fine, until he forgot that the medium used was putting him in the violation in the first place, but the cherry on top was not limiting the access to the people the stream was meant for.

Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook

#24

Post by mattmanser »

thejosh wrote: post #19
i336_ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoa. Do you have any video or photographic references of this? Just really fascinated with the technicals of how they'd do that.

They use to do this in UK pubs for those who were showing something on their TVs without a licensed. They tried showing an image, but the owners would just stick something covering the watermark so they wouldn't be caught q Edit - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9419930

You've got it a bit backwards, they still show a pub glass icon.

It's for inspectors to see that it's a pub license, which is more expensive than a home one.

The volume in the glass changes daily so you can't just put a sticker or overlay on to replicate it.

Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook

#25

Post by mattmanser »

ominous wrote: post #15

So is there a limit on the number of people that can watch, per box? Can I watch it with my dog? With my friend? With my friend and her kids? Can I watch it during a birthday party? There will be 20 kids and their parents around, is that ok? Can each of said parents have a conference call with their buddies to watch and discuss the game? Is there a limit on the size of the tv? Can I mount a 10x5 monitor setup so peop…

Why are you coming up with "scenarios"? It's illegal to rebroadcast a copyrighted show, which is what he was doing.

Ignorance of the laws of copyright doesn't make it any less illegal.

Also he'll be in civil breach of his cable contract too, which will have a rebroadcast clause in it.

Streaming on Facebook is rebroadcasting.

I can't understand, with even the most basic knowledge of copyright, how you can think it's not illegal?

The guy was a total idiot, he will be fined, probably very heavily given he continued after being asked to stop and being informed that he was commiting an illegal act. Maybe even jail time.

Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook

#26

Post by chrisseaton »

ominous wrote: post #21
nkkollaw wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's hard to see that streaming the event on Facebook is not what the subscription is meant for. I think it's pretty easy to discern private viewing from public viewing. You're not allowed to distribute the content. Don't tell me that those people didn't know they weren't supposed to stream someone else's content on Facebook.

"meant to" is not something that is factored into purchase. And what should, or should not be done is so subjective it's meaningless.

Our legal system is based a lot on interpretations of reasonable expectations and reasonable behaviour. You may think you're being super clever by talking about it like you're interpreting it like an ISO standard and finding gaps, but everyone else including judges and juries understands what is reasonable and what is not.

Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook

#27

Post by stordoff »

i336_ wrote: post #11
girvo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Whoa. Do you have any video or photographic references of this? Just really fascinated with the technicals of how they'd do that.

Sky in the UK do this routinely on their sports channels (example image: https://up.metropol247.co.uk/davidlees/bbc_sky_sports.png ). IIRC, switching channels causes it to temporarily disappear, so I assume the receiver is responsible for overlaying it on the incoming video feed.

Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook

#29

Post by ominous »

chrisseaton wrote: post #26
ominous wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"meant to" is not something that is factored into purchase. And what should, or should not be done is so subjective it's meaningless.

Our legal system is based a lot on interpretations of reasonable expectations and reasonable behaviour. You may think you're being super clever by talking about it like you're interpreting it like an ISO standard and finding gaps, but everyone else including judges and juries understands what is reasonable and what is not.

Do you?

Re: Australian cable provider suing people who streamed event via Facebook

#30

Post by technion »

Note, Telstra isn't "just" a cable provider.

They currently own nearly all of the landline market, large portions of the Internet provider market, and the mobile carrier market. This randomly Googled page looks about accurate:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/326147/number-of-broadba...

Post reply on HN