Study Shows Counterfeit Buyers Frequently Buy Real Products Later

Yahoo Doesn't Want You To Know Its Spying Price List; Issues DMCA Takedown

from the can-the-pricelist-be-copyrighted? dept

Mon, Dec 7th 2009 9:44am — Mike Masnick

Last week, well-known privacy activist, Chris Soghoian, got a lot of attention for revealing some data on how often Sprint was sharing GPS data with the government. However, perhaps an even more interesting part of his detailed writeup about various service providers and how they provide data to the government, was his attempt to uncover how much various service providers charge the government. This was interesting, in that it showed how giving the government private data could be a bit of a profit center for some firms. Soghoian uncovered some price lists, but Yahoo and Verizon refused to reveal their price lists, claiming that doing so would "shock" or "confuse" customers. That was odd, since other firms did reveal their price lists, and the results weren't all that shocking or confusing.

Of course, it didn't take long for someone to leak Yahoo's spying price list (or, more accurately, its "compliance guide for law enforcement," which also includes some pricing info) to Cryptome.org. Other, similar documents were also posted to Cryptome from other service providers, but the only one who freaked out appears to be Yahoo. Robert Ring alerts us that Yahoo sent a DMCA takedown request to Cryptome over the document. Cryptome appears to have just posted the takedown request along with its ongoing email discussion with Yahoo's lawyers, while leaving the original document in place.

Of course, by now, you can rest assured that Yahoo's document has been copied in all sorts of places, just by nature of Yahoo's attempt to hide it. It makes you wonder why the company even bothered in the first place.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: dmca, law enforcement, price guide, privacy, spying
Companies: cryptome, yahoo

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ObjectiveR (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 8:55am

Other than the classic Streisand effect, what's the brew-ha-ha here?

It's not like Yahoo! is selling data to whoever asks. It still requires a court order and wants to be recouped the overhead of complying. You can argue the price points, I guess. But, not for charging.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 9:48am

I love the email stating that the list is copyrighted. You know our copyright system is screwed up when a mere list of prices can somehow be considered copyrighted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 7 Dec 2009 @ 10:18am

Re:
I think its mainly out of curiosity, that people want to see the details regarding an agreement as fucked up and contrary to privacy as this little scheme between ISPs and government. I would surmise that the higher the price point, the less incentive Yahoo has to actually keep its data private. Then, its just interesting to watch as Yahoo loses more face with every attempt at covering up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
investigator, 7 Dec 2009 @ 10:25am

Subpoena shmoopeener
You don't need to be a government to purchase other people's phone records!

Testimony of Robert Douglas Before the Committee on Energy & Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives (February 1, 2006)

d) Did the FTC Signal Tacit Approval of the Sale of Phone Records by Private Investigators?

Arguably yes. In direct and indirect ways the FTC has signaled to the illicit brokers and investigators that the sale of phone records will be tolerated—as long as it isn’t too blatant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed Woychowsky, 7 Dec 2009 @ 10:38am

Re:
It is not copyrighted, you cannot copyright a fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 10:43am

"Its". Not "It's". Sigh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chunky Vomit, 7 Dec 2009 @ 10:55am

Re: Re:
You could also surmise that the higher price point, limits the clientele's ability to buy more. Lowering the price point could be even more profitable to Verizon since higher prices don't always equal more profits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ragaboo, 7 Dec 2009 @ 11:02am

What I just e-mailed the lawyer
The Yahoo! spying document detailing the government price list for private data recently came to my attention. Please be aware that it only came to my attention because a DMCA takedown notice was issued to remove it.

I, like tens of thousands of others, only become privy to such information when a takedown notice is issued, because I'm curious what people try so hard to hide. Had no DMCA notice been issued, I never in my life would have stumbled upon this information that Yahoo! is trying so dearly to protect.

In the future, I would strongly recommend that you urge your clients not to issue such notices, as it only serves to spread the allegedly infringing content further. It would be negligent of you not to mention this possibility to your clients. It will now be impossible to get this document off of the public Internet, which was counter to what Yahoo! requested your services for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 11:09am

I wonder how many times that's been downloaded & saved now that this has come out :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 11:13am

Thanks!
Thanks! This Yahoo document is going out to my students in my Social Issues of Computing class. It is very interesting.

[And thanks Yahoo lawyers for making a fuss; I wouldn't know about the document otherwise.]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 11:15am

Everyone's gotta screw the taxpayers.. sheesh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Space Pirate, 7 Dec 2009 @ 11:19am

Price This!
Is there another price list floating around that shows how much I'd have to pay to have my personal data excluded from their secret fire sales?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The fool, 7 Dec 2009 @ 11:22am

open records
One would think, since it is a guide for law enforcement, a copy could be obtain through open records laws
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 11:24am

Re: Thanks!
Replying to myself...

Two things:

- if you didn't click through to read Cryptome's ongoing discussion with Yahoo lawyers, do so. The Cryptome Admin has a decent sense of humor about this.
- the Yahoo document as well as a similar MySpace document were posted to Wikileaks yesterday.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 11:29am

Re:
this
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Harmonious Pandemonium, 7 Dec 2009 @ 11:31am

Fake info + VPN
I downloaded the document and skimmed through it. What it made me realize is how important it's becoming to never give out any of your real information. It used to be just good sense, but these days it's becoming an absolute must. I'm sure the VPN business will be booming for the foreseeable future, especially those that don't keep logs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 11:32am

I love the email stating that the list is copyrighted. You know our copyright system is screwed up when a mere list of prices can somehow be considered copyrighted.

It's not just a list of prices, but rather a whole guide for law enforcement on how to submit requests to Yahoo (including estimated prices). Certainly the whole document, produced by a private company, can be copyrighted.

Cryptome seems to be claiming that Yahoo can't send a DMCA take-down notice until after it officially registers the copyright on the document with the Copyright Office (or at least that it doesn't have to comply with such a request until the copyright is officially registered). Is that actually correct?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 11:33am

Re: Thanks!
You're probably one of those "Cool" Professors that teach reality and don't teach to the test. :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yakko Warner, 7 Dec 2009 @ 11:49am

So, what is the "correct" procedure?
What I see linked here is more than just a "price list", but a full document, created, owned, and (presumably) copyrighted by Yahoo. Some other party has determined that this document is of "public interest" and has decided to publish it on their own. Yahoo has decided they do not want their document (to which they own the copyright) published.

What is the correct procedure for an individual or organization to assert its rights under copyright?

In this case, Yahoo filed a DMCA takedown notice, and the response is (in not so many words) "Streisand effect!"

In another, rather similar case involving a church, they filed a lawsuit, and the response was the same. "You call attention to it! Now everyone knows your secrets! Lookie lookie!"

In cases involving works of fiction, the story goes, "Embrace the file sharers! Use the free publicity! Connect with fans, reason to buy!"

Is it the prevailing opinion that "copyright" is meaningless? That, no matter who you are, what the document is, or what your intent to do or not to do with it is; someone is going to copy it and republish it on the web, and there's not a thing you can do about it?

Or is there some "Techdirt-approved" way to produce and publish a document, maintain control over that document's publication, and appropriately assert those rights to keep others from taking that document from you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kazi, 7 Dec 2009 @ 12:03pm

Re: So, what is the "correct" procedure?
Don't make it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 12:09pm

Re: So, what is the "correct" procedure?
The price list is not copyrightable.

First, there's no creativity.

Second, to the extent there might be some miniscule iota of creativity, it's outweighed by the public interest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 12:15pm

Re: Re: Thanks!
ya... I wonder how long before your school board fires you for non compliance to the new standards for education: if it isn't on the test, and it raises their awareness of the reality of things, then it is evil and therefore banned from the classroom. Long live our beloved dictatorship.

Now, off to re-education camp you evil free radical!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 12:42pm

Re: So, what is the "correct" procedure?
Well said. Copyright is stupid, but it is the law. The law prescribes a stupid enforcement mechanism. It is not wrong for individuals to try to utilize the stupid enforcement mechanism. After all, it is the only one they've got.

If a reporter were to write an original article in which they disclosed that sources had revealed Yahoo!'s pricing, and it was $x for y service, presumably Yahoo! would not take issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 1:07pm

Re: Re:
Did you read the document? It's far more extensive than a set of simple facts. If Cryptome were to provide a simple price list derived from the Yahoo doc, it would not be infringing on Yahoo's copyright. But posting the entire document verbatim is almost definitely a violation of copyright law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 1:09pm

Re: Thanks!
Be careful about distributing this document -- while fair use may well apply in your case, as a copyrighted document you are treading on risky territory when you distribute it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 1:11pm

Re: Re: So, what is the "correct" procedure?
Those aren't valid arguments. Creativity isn't used to determine whether something can be copyrighted; rather, fixing a unique expression or idea to a tangible medium means it's copyrighted automatically under existing U.S. copyright law (for better or worse).

Furthermore, the public interest issue you mention is completely without merit in copyright law. There is no basis in law or precedent for expression to lose its copyright protection merely by virtue of its disclosure being in "the public interest."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chill, 7 Dec 2009 @ 1:15pm

Re: Re: Re:
The point is that it shouldn't be. Policy guidleines != IP
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Isaac Ludwig, 7 Dec 2009 @ 1:25pm

from the response TO the lawyer...I laughed
Note: Yahoo's exclamation point is surely trademarked so omitted here.

Regards,

John Young
Cryptome Administrator
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 1:49pm

Re:
It is : It's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 2:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Thanks!
Free radicals? Eat more vitamins!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 3:39pm

Is it possible that Yahoo did this intentionally to get people talking about Yahoo?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 3:40pm

Re: So, what is the "correct" procedure?
"Or is there some "Techdirt-approved" way to produce and publish a document, maintain control over that document's publication, and appropriately assert those rights to keep others from taking that document from you?"

Yes. It involves learning the definition of "take."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phil Wolff (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 5:12pm

Re: Its vs. It's
Sigh +1.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 5:39pm

Re: Re: Its vs. It's
Fixed. No reason to sigh... typos happen. We fix 'em when alerted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Petpeeved, 8 Dec 2009 @ 6:30am

Re:
Well that was a horrendous waste of effort and energy. Was it really necessary to create an entry simply to correct someone's spelling?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny (profile), 13 Dec 2009 @ 8:57pm

Re: Re: Thanks!
I have some flexibility when using it for education. There are also significant limitations to my fair use rights.

That said, the PR burn to them for going after an educator is something they'd have to consider. That and the Streisand Effect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jennifer, 25 Dec 2009 @ 6:56am

I'll tell you why they bothered in the 1st place
1st off let me say that I have used and mostly enjoyed Yahoo mail for years. I do believe it's management is now incompetent and out of grasp with reality.

I say this as I am currently having an error issue with my email, and after requesting yahoo's help, they act like they have no idea of how yahoo's (it's own serivce)works.

If this is not incompetent then I do not know what is.
They also were unable to tell time or at least count to 24.

This is why, they have way more money and power than sanity.

Make sense now?

Remember Nero fiddle while Rome burned.

SexyJennifer
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Angelo, 28 Oct 2010 @ 6:30am

yahoo spying on me
Yahoo is spying on me. They use the Information that I am typing on my computer for their news movies and radio shows. It is a group that calls them self watchman.
The other Information they can not use for the news is then given to conspiracy theorist like Project Camelot, Michael Tsarion,
They claim to be department of Intelligentz but in reality they are just a bunch of criminals making money of their costumers privacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]