Vancouver Rioters Trying To Abuse Copyright To Avoid Being Identified, Which Only Helps Identify Them

from the admission-of-guilt dept

Mon, Jul 11th 2011 3:13am — Mike Masnick

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."

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: copyright, riots, vancouver

30 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 11 Jul 2011 @ 3:50am

And coming up next on World's Stupidest Criminals, a forger who filed a patent infringment claim on his way of making money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nicedoggy, 11 Jul 2011 @ 4:00am

This is just priceless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim McGinn, 11 Jul 2011 @ 4:06am

Streisand effect in 3...2...1...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2011 @ 4:30am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2011 @ 4:34am

Typical troll. YouTube video equates to sandwiches.

At least get on the topic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nicedoggy, 11 Jul 2011 @ 4:37am

Re:
Bum go find a baby for rent that you can use to get more money when begging.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2011 @ 4:42am

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)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
senshikaze (profile), 11 Jul 2011 @ 4:51am

Re: Re:
1) you can't copyright a recipe:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2011 @ 5:14am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gracey (profile), 11 Jul 2011 @ 5:15am

...only in Canada, eh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Schmoo, 11 Jul 2011 @ 5:20am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2011 @ 5:25am

Re:
They still have the IP addresses
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 11 Jul 2011 @ 5:28am

Re:
You must not have been in Chicago in the mid-90's....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bruce Ediger (profile), 11 Jul 2011 @ 5:33am

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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2011 @ 5:39am

The amusing thing is that with Canadian privacy laws, the information gained from these submissions may not be allowed in court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liz, 11 Jul 2011 @ 5:51am

Re: Re:
IP addresses aren't conclusive proof either since they can be easily spoofed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
-, 11 Jul 2011 @ 5:55am

Re:
Yeah, the whole post is nonsense. Unless the people who send takedown requests are stupid, there's no additional risk of identification.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kaden (profile), 11 Jul 2011 @ 5:57am

I can state with absolute certainty that Vancouver is home to the stupidest criminals in all of creation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greg G (profile), 11 Jul 2011 @ 6:09am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2011 @ 6:52am

Re:
Oh Cana-duh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2011 @ 6:55am

Re:
with Canadian privacy laws, the information gained from these submissions may not be allowed in court.

[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 11 Jul 2011 @ 7:35am

Re: Sci-Fi Future!
I see what you did thar! -.-
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 11 Jul 2011 @ 8:15am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jimbo, 11 Jul 2011 @ 8:15am

so copyright law has never been abused before then?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 11 Jul 2011 @ 8:25am

Re: 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).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Schmoo, 11 Jul 2011 @ 9:03am

Re: 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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe, 11 Jul 2011 @ 9:19am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Miff (profile), 11 Jul 2011 @ 11:39am

Out of curiosity
Has anyone ever been prosecuted for perjury for filing a false DMCA complaint?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2011 @ 12:44pm

Re: Re:
These people were caught rioting on video. It's safe to assume they aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fred von Lohmann (profile), 11 Jul 2011 @ 3:46pm

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).
[ link to this | view in thread ]