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

51–59 of 59 posts

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

#51

Post by laumars »

ominous wrote: post #36
pmiller2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 people across the street can see as well? Can I project it on that publicity board? Can I twitch my reaction to the game? Can I stream the screen? Oops. In the US, it is a violation of copyright law, if "people across the street can see it..."…

So not having curtains can be illegal. Note to self: don't let security cameras or baby cameras record the inside of any books I am reading, when in the US.

Unfortunately, technically "not having curtains" could be argued as a breach of copyright law. However as referenced earlier in this discussion, this is where judges come into play. They should hopefully address the balance between harmful / intentional violations and petty litigations that harm personal liberties.

This may not be a perfect system but it's still better than having the law rewritten for ever conceivable edge case scenario that random folk can dream up.

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

#52

Post by RileyJames »

It seems like Darren (Dazza, to his mates) knew what he was doing. But the second example is more reasonable. A guy, trying to share with a few mates, doesn't realise it's public (google hangouts can be confusing when sharing, could easily lead to making it public instead), suddenly 100,000 people are watching.

Yes, it's illegal either way. But the intent is very different. With the role technology plays in our lives now this use case (a few friends) it's more akin to inviting those mates to physically attend the viewing, in which no law was broken.

Looks like Dazza needs a few more mates: https://www.gofundme.com/9rp4a2-legal-cost

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

#53

Post by technion »

airbreather wrote: post #40

$60 to watch at home was unreasonable - definitely the law was broken, but this is what happens when they charge unreasonable amounts, it was almost a form of civil disobedience. I would say that a lot of people who watched it on the streaming were not going to pay anyway, so the loss was probably minimal in reality. If you really wanted to watch and did not have the Foxtel or the money you could have gone to the pub…

$60 is only the price if you have an existing Foxtel contract, which is an increasingly poor proposition these days. My parents pay $120 per month for their Foxtel subscription and honestly there's better viewing on Netflix.

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

#54

Post by i336_ »

klackerz wrote: post #13
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.

My cable provider also has a unique code which flashes on TV randomly. I could provide a photo or video of it if you are interested later when I reach home.

Someone linked a photo in another comment in this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13566519). If it looks significantly different to that then sure, I wouldn't mind seeing.

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

#55

Post by i336_ »

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

From that thread: http://up.metropol247.co.uk/davidlees/daybreak_sky_sports.pn... - what the wineglass looks like

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

#56

Post by i336_ »

mattmanser wrote: post #24
thejosh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While thinking about this for a bit after reading https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9419930, I thought of something:

Why not just get the home package and run it through your own overlay system? The fatal flaw here with this design is that there's nothing in place of the glass. With enough tinkering (a pub subscription and a home subscription to play with, and maybe a fortnight to a month, if that) build something that exactly reproduces the watermark. 1080i-capable HDMI capture systems are expensive but not 5-figures (or even 4-figures) expensive nowadays, and most satellite feeds don't even justify 1080i anyway. Do satellite receivers do HDCP? If they do, RGB video is still very very very good quality for 1080i, and reference-quality RGB capture systems aren't 5 figures (probably very low 4 figures). You could just output via HDMI or whatever of course.

To complete the setup, you could have one place receive a legitimate broadcast, and (alongside the TVs/projectors) run that through a capture system which would do differential frame analysis to heuristically figure out what watermark is displaying at the moment. This location automatically pushes the current watermark type out to a bunch of other places - for a nice small fee.

Of course, the above is said from an honest academic-security standpoint. :P

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

#57

Post by mattmanser »

i336_ wrote: post #56
mattmanser wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While thinking about this for a bit after reading https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9419930 , I thought of something: Why not just get the home package and run it through your own overlay system? The fatal flaw here with this design is that there's nothing in place of the glass. With enough tinkering (a pub subscription and a home subscription to play with, and maybe a fortnight to a month, if that) build somethin…

To be able to do this, you'd need access to the pub subscription to be able to see the glass to replicate it, so why bother?

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

#58

Post by airbreather »

technion wrote: post #53
airbreather wrote: post #40

$60 to watch at home was unreasonable - definitely the law was broken, but this is what happens when they charge unreasonable amounts, it was almost a form of civil disobedience. I would say that a lot of people who watched it on the streaming were not going to pay anyway, so the loss was probably minimal in reality. If you really wanted to watch and did not have the Foxtel or the money you could have gone to the pub…

$60 is only the price if you have an existing Foxtel contract, which is an increasingly poor proposition these days. My parents pay $120 per month for their Foxtel subscription and honestly there's better viewing on Netflix.

Totally agree, but some people get it for the sport. I just go to the pub or local bowling club if there is something I want to see.

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

#59

Post by i336_ »

mattmanser wrote: post #57
i336_ wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While thinking about this for a bit after reading https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9419930 , I thought of something: Why not just get the home package and run it through your own overlay system? The fatal flaw here with this design is that there's nothing in place of the glass. With enough tinkering (a pub subscription and a home subscription to play with, and maybe a fortnight to a month, if that) build somethin…

To be able to do this, you'd need access to the pub subscription to be able to see the glass to replicate it, so why bother?

Because one legitimate subscription could get at that info and then transmit it to 100 other setups all using the standard home subscription.

The fees the place with the legit subscription would impose be significantly less than the ~£400+ pub subscription fee.

But, you know... I just realized... there's nothing stopping the place with the legit subscription simply just retransmitting/forwarding on their own signal to a bunch of other places. Duh. And that's so simple I'd be surprised if it isn't already being done in at least one place in the wild. (I have no idea if it is, I only just thought of the concept.)

Post reply on HN