Apparently it was video clips originally posted, but it seems like posting unpublished(?) copy of any type can fall under DMCA, which I guess makes sense.
-> [HBO Lawyer] classifies the infringing content as 'summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series'
A summary can't be a matter of copyright. It's probably just the vehicle HBO chose to be able to identify the leaker, because claiming copyright infringement these days is like a superpower, and then use different hammer to go after them.
This is a legally tricky minefield. Depending on what is in summary, it -may- be subject to copyright but be protected as fair use... but a work being unpublished weighs against (but does not preclude) free use.
I could see an argument that it is a trade secret, too-- which could be used to oppose downstream dissemination.
I have never used X/Twitter so I don't know how it works, but don't you have to seek out an account in order to read it? X won't just throw a spoiler at you unsolicited, right?
If it catches engagement, the main firehose feed will show it. They've begun using Grok and AI processes, which is hit and miss, but definitely improving.
Having Japanese, French, other countries' tweets automatically translated back and forth has been fun, too. It'll be interesting to see where it gets to in the next few years.
> Unlike the DMCA notice, where WBD used “video” to describe the content, the declaration to the court by Michael Bentkover classifies the infringing content as “summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series”.
Isn't that simply about spoiling people, or what's the "crime" here? The article also says "Copyright generally protects the expression of a work, not the underlying ideas or plot descriptions", so I'm still unsure what the actual issue is, besides the misuse of DMCA.
Most likely the culprit is someone on their staff that broke their NDA contract, but the DMCA is about stopping the proliferation of copyrighted material. They are misusing the DMCA because it has higher discovery/subpoena ability.
The crime is that we're living in a society where different laws apply to corporations than to people. If a corporation doesn't like you, you're toast, no matter whether you're wrong or right.
There are enough laws that they'll find something to nail you on.
Under the DMCA, you can claim copyright over damn near anything and force a provider to take it down. If there is any ambiguity as to whether you are the owner of the allegedly copyrighted material, like for example legitimate fair use, they still are required to take it down—unless the alleged violator files a DMCA counterclaim in which they must supply their legal name and address to the original claimant. This has been used to silence, or deanonymize, people who post unpleasant things about a powerful person or organization.
Unlike the DMCA notice, where WBD used “video” to describe the content, the declaration to the court by Michael Bentkover classifies the infringing content as “summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series”.
This distinction may matter, as a summary of a plot may not enjoy the same protection as a leaked video. Copyright generally protects the expression of a work, not the underlying ideas or plot descriptions.
I interpret that as they just didn't like that someone posted the summary, and they are trying to use the DMCA to do a job that wasn't intended by the law's creators.
Reminds me of the Snape Kills Dumbledore spoiler initiative that happened in 2005, where people would drive around bookstores with people yelling in line and spoiling it.
Admittedly, kind of a dick move, but I have to admit I did find it kind of funny at the time.
My wife and I have decided there is one thing that it's universally okay for us to spoil to one another in a book, movie, etc.: if the cat/dog survives till the end.
Finding something funny doesn't necessarily imply you endorse the behavior, believe it to be harmless fun, or even that you don't feel sorry for the victim.
There's entire categories of entertainment media that use "unfortunate things happening to strangers" for comedic effect.
lots of modern comedy revolves around people who should know better being petty little jerks and doing stupid things that actually don't cause any real damage but just makes everybody wonder "why is this idiot such a pathetic asshole?!?"
I doubt that. Someone who doesn't like reading wouldn't think of "spoiling a book" as a prank category that comes to mind or understands it to be a serious upset rather than just slightly annoying. Also, they'd likely feel that going to a bookstore and shouting things relating to a book serious is "cringe" or whatever you want to call it, if they aren't the type to even go to a bookstore in the first place.
All it takes is one person to go "I did this" and then the others have a good troll/joke to use. Doesn't take a lot of effort and people were more outgoing back then.
I actually liked reading and I was a nerdy kid. To be clear, I never actively participated in the spoiler stuff, just read about the reactions.
I mean, keep in mind I was fourteen when this happened, and fourteen year old boys are very often assholes and I was sadly not an exception to this.
I guess I just found it funny how much of a reaction people had with it. I liked the Harry Potter books too, I was reading them like every other fourteen year old was, and the plot being spoiled for me didn't really bother me very much, cuz, you know, it's just a book. Some people really got upset.
Again, definitely a dick move to do that, and a dick move for me to find it amusing. Kids are douchebags.
I don't know if I think it's funny, but I'm probably equally curious about two points. I do think that the journey is as important as the destination. I spoil things for myself all the time, mostly because I'm just always out of step with pop culture. It doesn't really impede my enjoyment of a well made book/game/film if I know some plot beats ahead of time. If you're just in it for the major plot twists, why not just read the wikipedia synopsis?
Also, there's the assumption that it was a real spoiler. It's not immediately verifiable. What if people were yelling "Snape kills Harry"? Why did the people in line assume the guy yelling into the night was being truthful, or that weirdly cropped images of pages weren't just photoshopped?
I think it's extremely hard to argue that kids tend to be emotionally immature and especially vicious in this regard. But considering the GP has admitted that in retrospect they find this action to be a dick move I think it's important not to try and generalize immature behavior to all of humanity.
The question of whether humans are more biased towards social or antisocial behavior[1] is a complex one that philosophy has struggled with for a long time without a clear consensus.
1. Often historically framed as whether humans are inherently good or evil.
There's never going to be philosophical consensus on the "good/evil/social/antisocial" debate because the human impulse to self-justify and believe that you're the "good guy" is extremely powerful. Those of us who seek to understand human nature have to proceed without consensus as a goal.
Mao Zedong was able to convince kids and teenagers to have their parents and teachers killed during the Cultural Revolution by convincing them that it was prosocial behavior, and indeed their duty. So the question is fraught with conundrums of the form "humans tend to prosocial/antisocial according to which standard?"
I feel like "pain" is a strong word here. It was a book spoiler. I wasn't laughing at people being punched or hurt or anything.
I acknowledge it's a dick move, but it really is just a spoiler for a book, not exactly life ruining and really shouldn't even be day-ruining. I had the book spoiled for me too and it was just something I moved on from, somehow.
The issued subpoena requires X to share information sufficient to identify the person behind the account. This includes names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, account numbers, IP addresses, and any other contact or billing records held by the platform.
Taking TF's reporting at face value, would twitter be able to sufficiently identify a user? Does Twitter have the address, real names, etc. of its users?
Twitter has IP addresses at the very least. HBO will then subpoena the account's ISP. If the account had the checkmark pro plan or whatever it's called, it may have or be able to obtain legal name and address for payment details, or its payment processor (Stripe I think) would.
The only thing that falls apart is the IP address identification, which is only a very small signal for identifying an internet user. X/Twitter undoubtedly has more identity information than just an IP address.
At which point twitter will probably yell at you to "verify" with a phone number or something else tied to your government name. Yes you could probably go get a prepaid SIM for cash (depending on your country, many now ban this though America doesn't) but very few people bother with it. Or they just lock your account and demand your ID which I think they now sometimes do.
If it's not actual video material but just talk about what happens in the next episode before it's released, does that really fall under copyright?
I can see it being an NDA breach or something but otherwise not
Apparently it was video clips originally posted, but it seems like posting unpublished(?) copy of any type can fall under DMCA, which I guess makes sense.
-> [HBO Lawyer] classifies the infringing content as 'summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series'
A summary can't be a matter of copyright. It's probably just the vehicle HBO chose to be able to identify the leaker, because claiming copyright infringement these days is like a superpower, and then use different hammer to go after them.
This is a legally tricky minefield. Depending on what is in summary, it -may- be subject to copyright but be protected as fair use... but a work being unpublished weighs against (but does not preclude) free use.
I could see an argument that it is a trade secret, too-- which could be used to oppose downstream dissemination.
That too makes sense.
I have never used X/Twitter so I don't know how it works, but don't you have to seek out an account in order to read it? X won't just throw a spoiler at you unsolicited, right?
https://github.com/twitter/the-algorithm
If it catches engagement, the main firehose feed will show it. They've begun using Grok and AI processes, which is hit and miss, but definitely improving.
Having Japanese, French, other countries' tweets automatically translated back and forth has been fun, too. It'll be interesting to see where it gets to in the next few years.
I don't believe that is/was the real, complete algorithm. It has no 'boost elon' code
No there is a feed, if you follow a topic such as a show you probably will get exposed to it.
I think they algorithmically show you content designed to provoke engagement
TFA mentions what the actual issue is (it's not simply spoiling people)
This is what TFA seems to say:
> Unlike the DMCA notice, where WBD used “video” to describe the content, the declaration to the court by Michael Bentkover classifies the infringing content as “summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series”.
Isn't that simply about spoiling people, or what's the "crime" here? The article also says "Copyright generally protects the expression of a work, not the underlying ideas or plot descriptions", so I'm still unsure what the actual issue is, besides the misuse of DMCA.
Most likely the culprit is someone on their staff that broke their NDA contract, but the DMCA is about stopping the proliferation of copyrighted material. They are misusing the DMCA because it has higher discovery/subpoena ability.
Can an NDA be used as justification for a DMCA? Has it happened before?
The crime is that we're living in a society where different laws apply to corporations than to people. If a corporation doesn't like you, you're toast, no matter whether you're wrong or right.
There are enough laws that they'll find something to nail you on.
Under the DMCA, you can claim copyright over damn near anything and force a provider to take it down. If there is any ambiguity as to whether you are the owner of the allegedly copyrighted material, like for example legitimate fair use, they still are required to take it down—unless the alleged violator files a DMCA counterclaim in which they must supply their legal name and address to the original claimant. This has been used to silence, or deanonymize, people who post unpleasant things about a powerful person or organization.
It really didn't.
I interpret that as they just didn't like that someone posted the summary, and they are trying to use the DMCA to do a job that wasn't intended by the law's creators.Reminds me of the Snape Kills Dumbledore spoiler initiative that happened in 2005, where people would drive around bookstores with people yelling in line and spoiling it.
Admittedly, kind of a dick move, but I have to admit I did find it kind of funny at the time.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/snape-kills-dumbledore
My wife and I have decided there is one thing that it's universally okay for us to spoil to one another in a book, movie, etc.: if the cat/dog survives till the end.
Can you describe what you found funny at the time? I'm genuinely curious what motivates behavior like this.
Finding something funny doesn't necessarily imply you endorse the behavior, believe it to be harmless fun, or even that you don't feel sorry for the victim.
There's entire categories of entertainment media that use "unfortunate things happening to strangers" for comedic effect.
lots of modern comedy revolves around people who should know better being petty little jerks and doing stupid things that actually don't cause any real damage but just makes everybody wonder "why is this idiot such a pathetic asshole?!?"
It was people that didn't like reading or nerdy kids, trying to spoil their interests.
I doubt that. Someone who doesn't like reading wouldn't think of "spoiling a book" as a prank category that comes to mind or understands it to be a serious upset rather than just slightly annoying. Also, they'd likely feel that going to a bookstore and shouting things relating to a book serious is "cringe" or whatever you want to call it, if they aren't the type to even go to a bookstore in the first place.
All it takes is one person to go "I did this" and then the others have a good troll/joke to use. Doesn't take a lot of effort and people were more outgoing back then.
I actually liked reading and I was a nerdy kid. To be clear, I never actively participated in the spoiler stuff, just read about the reactions.
I mean, keep in mind I was fourteen when this happened, and fourteen year old boys are very often assholes and I was sadly not an exception to this.
I guess I just found it funny how much of a reaction people had with it. I liked the Harry Potter books too, I was reading them like every other fourteen year old was, and the plot being spoiled for me didn't really bother me very much, cuz, you know, it's just a book. Some people really got upset.
Again, definitely a dick move to do that, and a dick move for me to find it amusing. Kids are douchebags.
I don't know if I think it's funny, but I'm probably equally curious about two points. I do think that the journey is as important as the destination. I spoil things for myself all the time, mostly because I'm just always out of step with pop culture. It doesn't really impede my enjoyment of a well made book/game/film if I know some plot beats ahead of time. If you're just in it for the major plot twists, why not just read the wikipedia synopsis?
Also, there's the assumption that it was a real spoiler. It's not immediately verifiable. What if people were yelling "Snape kills Harry"? Why did the people in line assume the guy yelling into the night was being truthful, or that weirdly cropped images of pages weren't just photoshopped?
A mild reminder that humans tend towards inflicting pain on their fellow humans when there are no consequences.
I think it's extremely hard to argue that kids tend to be emotionally immature and especially vicious in this regard. But considering the GP has admitted that in retrospect they find this action to be a dick move I think it's important not to try and generalize immature behavior to all of humanity.
The question of whether humans are more biased towards social or antisocial behavior[1] is a complex one that philosophy has struggled with for a long time without a clear consensus.
1. Often historically framed as whether humans are inherently good or evil.
There's never going to be philosophical consensus on the "good/evil/social/antisocial" debate because the human impulse to self-justify and believe that you're the "good guy" is extremely powerful. Those of us who seek to understand human nature have to proceed without consensus as a goal.
Mao Zedong was able to convince kids and teenagers to have their parents and teachers killed during the Cultural Revolution by convincing them that it was prosocial behavior, and indeed their duty. So the question is fraught with conundrums of the form "humans tend to prosocial/antisocial according to which standard?"
I feel like "pain" is a strong word here. It was a book spoiler. I wasn't laughing at people being punched or hurt or anything.
I acknowledge it's a dick move, but it really is just a spoiler for a book, not exactly life ruining and really shouldn't even be day-ruining. I had the book spoiled for me too and it was just something I moved on from, somehow.
The issued subpoena requires X to share information sufficient to identify the person behind the account. This includes names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, account numbers, IP addresses, and any other contact or billing records held by the platform.
Taking TF's reporting at face value, would twitter be able to sufficiently identify a user? Does Twitter have the address, real names, etc. of its users?
Twitter has IP addresses at the very least. HBO will then subpoena the account's ISP. If the account had the checkmark pro plan or whatever it's called, it may have or be able to obtain legal name and address for payment details, or its payment processor (Stripe I think) would.
And all of this falls apart if you use Mullvad, who will be happy to fax HBO lawyers a blank sheet of paper.
> all of this falls apart if you use Mullvad
The only thing that falls apart is the IP address identification, which is only a very small signal for identifying an internet user. X/Twitter undoubtedly has more identity information than just an IP address.
At which point twitter will probably yell at you to "verify" with a phone number or something else tied to your government name. Yes you could probably go get a prepaid SIM for cash (depending on your country, many now ban this though America doesn't) but very few people bother with it. Or they just lock your account and demand your ID which I think they now sometimes do.