backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 35 comment(s) - last by Anosh.. on Jan 30 at 5:58 AM

The "24" four-episode season premiere was originally leaked via private FTP sites with the official box art
Fox first made YouTube aware of the infringement on Jan. 8, according to the movie studio

Twentieth Century Fox has subpoenaed YouTube to discover who uploaded four episodes of the popular TV show 24 before they aired on television.  Four episodes which served as the season premiere of the show ended up on YouTube, uploaded by a user only known as "ECOtotal," according to the subpoena from Jane Sunderland, vice president of content protection for Twentieth Century Fox.  The subpoena was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 18 via Fox's parent company, News Corporation.

The episodes finally aired on live TV January 14 and 15, 2007.

Twentieth Century Fox wants YouTube to turn over information on the identity of the user so Fox is able to properly distinguish the copyright infringement.  ECOtotal also uploaded 12 episodes of the Simpsons on YouTube.  A quick search on YouTube reveals that ECOtotal's user account has been suspended.

The episodes are known in the pirate community as "pre-airs" since they were released before the episodes were actually broadcast on television.  Pirates often obtain these pre-airs by decrypting or finding an unencrypted satellite broadcast to a sub-station, then re-encoding the episode into a smaller format like DiVX. 

In this case, 20th Century Fox actually timed a DVD release of the first four episodes on January 16, 2007.  The pirate group "FEAR" released the pre-air to private FTP servers on January 6, 2007 with the following message:
How f***in' cool to own on dvd the first 4 episodes preair.
This rip is from retail disc, jpgs for proof.
The 24 Season 6 pre-air containing four episodes was uploaded to newsgroups on January 7, 2007 -- a full day before ECOtotal uploaded it to YouTube.  The first BitTorrent tracker spotted Season 6 on January 8, 2007. 

It's possible ECOtotal was the same person to upload the release to all three sources, but it seems more likely he was a rung further down the distribution chain and not the actual source of the DVD rip.

LiveDigital, a lesser-known video sharing site, also received a similar subpoena from the movie studio, after someone under the username of Jorge Romero uploaded the same episodes.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Missing the Forest, but they have a point
By Orbs on 1/26/2007 2:27:30 AM , Rating: 5
While I agree that going after the YouTube poster won't solve the problem, they have every right to protect their interest (and in this case it wasn't a matter of advertisers getting at the intended market, which still is a legitmatie scenario).

Additionally, while the poster wasn't the source of the problem, YouTube is much more mainstream and reaches a far wider audience than the average newsgroup or FTP site.

That being said, this whole thing really upsets me, because it's crap like this that make hollywood studios want more DRM. If we ever want to fully control the content we purchase, things like this cannot continue. Google has the resources to monitor what goes on YouTube and should be more proactive as idiots will always want to rip and post.

As someone who pays for cable to get the HD content, an event like this is frustrating as it only makes it more difficult for Fox to be willing to let me placeshift my HD recording to any portable device (online or offline), which is what most paying customers want to and should be able to do.




By Macuser89 on 1/26/2007 2:33:35 AM , Rating: 2
I agree.


By WayneG on 1/26/2007 2:57:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That being said, this whole thing really upsets me, because it's crap like this that make hollywood studios want more DRM. If we ever want to fully control the content we purchase, things like this cannot continue. Google has the resources to monitor what goes on YouTube and should be more proactive as idiots will always want to rip and post.


I completely agree. DRM for a start is null and void since it must be able to be hacked because it was made by a human in the first place and so it's not too much struggle to find a way to work around them. The studios need to consider that consumers are going to get the content they want one way or another and introducing rules where you can't even burn your own DVD onto your computer only distances us from them and leads us to the pirates way of life. And they're the dumb ones who left their server open to hacks. Who cares if the episode aired a week or 2 early? Just let the select few watch their program and then the masses will just get it the normal way, this has been the general way of life for a while now... They have to learn to accept there will always be someone who will pirate their products (and in this case it's not even worth that much anyway..) and accept this as wastage.


RE: Missing the Forest, but they have a point
By KashGarinn on 1/26/2007 5:58:30 AM , Rating: 3
I disagree that the problem lies in that the community is too fast in pirating the stuff.. Or that it's too easy to do and the corporations need to get even stronger means as a deterrent.

Get it through your skull people that DRM does not work, then base all your future reasoning regarding piracy from that single fact.

If you do that, what is the real problem? the real problem is that Fox is using an outdated mode of dispersing the content to viewers, and there are plenty of viewers using the new-improved content dispersal system which is in every way better than the old one.

Think about how easy it is now to reach millions of people online.. One person grabbed a video, uploaded it, another person grabbed it and uploaded it to youtube and millions of people can now watch it from the comfort of their comfy-chair

Until the producers of content actually start to give the viewers the easiest access to their content available first (which is online), they'll never succeed in this new distribution market which is the internet.

One world, One Internet, One people.


By Webgod on 1/26/2007 11:12:41 AM , Rating: 3
The problem is that the Internet downloaders aren't subscribing to a TV service, and they aren't watching the advertisements in the shows because they've been edited out. The content provider isn't benefiting from the consumption of their content. Studios and networks, the whole Hollywood chain, go for a carefully crafted winning formula for a TV show that is good enough to gain an audience and put them in front of their TV sets at a specific time. They sell TV commercial time to advertisers who can bank on an audience for their products. Being able to guarantee the success of a show increases what that commercial time can be charged for, and more money is made. It's not in Hollywood's interest to split up that audience. It is in their interest to provide a way for people to catch up with missed episodes, and for the most part they're responding to that with streaming episodes. At least with streaming their own content they can insert ads and get some kind of measurement of site visitors and ad impressions.

I just don't believe in piracy if there's another way. The Internet generation(s) have to evolve to a new ethic where freeloaders *aren't* cool, and stealing *isn't* cool. Personally the idea of being caught and sued and judged would bug me.


By theapparition on 1/29/2007 12:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. What I'd like to see is how well "24" did in the ratings because of this. My guess (and just a guess) is probably pretty good, maybe the best ratings for Fox this year? So the impact of this "pirated" copy is, what? This is the front that DRM needs to be tackled on.

Your spot on with the broadcasters dis-allowing the copying of shows in the future. Pretty soon, you won't be able to copy the superbowl (but you can buy it from NFL films for 29.99), won't be able to DVR record "Lost" (but you can watch the show on ABC.com for 5.99), etc. Get the picture. It's coming, and I don't like the direction.

Funny though, with fair pricing how piracy goes away. I'm not going to debate the "it's my right to make a backup vs. you're not stealing to feed your family vs. you don't like it, go somewhere else" debate. I have over 1000 DVD's. Most were purchased on the $5-10 rack. At these prices I'd never even consider trying to download it. Have I ever downloaded a movie or music, absolutely. Do I also own a copy of it, absolutely.

If someone can tell me why watching "Pirates of the Carribean" a month before the DVD was realeased, and then still buying the DVD hurts the industry.......please let me know. I would love to hear a fair response.


Who wants to watch?
By Gooberslot on 1/26/2007 2:36:08 AM , Rating: 5
I can understand why people might like to download a show but who would want to watch one off Youtube? Sheesh, how desperate do you have to be.




RE: Who wants to watch?
By Vokus on 1/26/2007 2:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
Dont they also come at a very low res on youtube...


RE: Who wants to watch?
By Marlin1975 on 1/26/2007 2:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe some of use are at work and just trying to kill time. Me and some others watched a couple South parks and a family guy one night when we were slow.
Yea the quality is not great, but good enough for a old 17inch CRT at work. :)


RE: Who wants to watch?
By h0kiez on 1/26/2007 8:43:55 AM , Rating: 2
I hate you for being able to access Youtube while at work.


RE: Who wants to watch?
By CrasHxxx on 1/26/2007 12:53:27 PM , Rating: 1
I've gotten so bored at work, i've actually started to download torrents. I actually have the time to sit back and say "I can't watch this in low res". Pretty sad since they pay me really good too. Not my fault they've turned me into a slacker. I love being the only IT guy as well, where no one else in the office even has a single clue about what I do. If they see me watching a movie, I'll tell em it's live on the interweb and I'm bandwidth testing since I've got them programmed to think that streaming vidoe it the best way to test a network. Life's good.

Sorry, i know this was totally off topic. Maybe I should waste my time starting a blog...


RE: Who wants to watch?
By Anosh on 1/30/2007 5:58:11 AM , Rating: 2
Well for starters the US shows don't appear in most EU countries until a year earlier.

And if you would like to see a new (US) show the only alternative would be to watch it on say Youtube.

And if these videos on Youtube happen to be preair or not doesn't really make a difference.. it's the one year delay that matters.. for the consumer..



By Phillycat on 1/26/2007 2:41:13 AM , Rating: 5
They just should have sent jack bauer in to interrogate the youtube IT staff. He would have had the name of the user, his social security number, drivers license, childhood nickname, mothers maiden name...




By Vokus on 1/26/2007 2:42:20 AM , Rating: 5
the irony


By jtesoro on 1/27/2007 5:36:55 AM , Rating: 2
And he'd be done in 24 hours too.


They deserved it.
By Captain Orgazmo on 1/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: They deserved it.
By BRNEWSNET on 1/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: They deserved it.
By TheDoc9 on 1/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: They deserved it.
By BRNEWSNET on 1/26/2007 11:15:18 AM , Rating: 1
'the pot calls the kettle black, news at 11'

You begin your statement by saying 'somthing to fight the liberal tv show invasion'

and then attack a news artical with the term bias,

you have only proven that you:
1. are a Republican (which most republican policys have been liberal)
2. Watch bad telivison alot, enough to debate its content
3. are Biased

I bet you came from the non-biased ChronWatch site....


RE: They deserved it.
By arcon on 1/26/2007 11:26:46 AM , Rating: 3
That post could be coming from a very non quote "Liberal" point of view. Alex Jones (a radio host whose done a lot of videos too) believes that Satan is behind what's going on and he is using all of the main stream media including News Corp and Clear Chanel. Of course I don't really believe Alex Jones, but I do have to wonder how money, greed, and hate are Christian values. I'm a polysci major, and through my study of the subject, I have concluded that most large corporations are heavily tied to interest groups. Media companies want favorable legislation and they want to make money. People should think twice before listening to them because they are dividing us into two groups that don't exist today in government. Liberals and Conservatives. The liberals aren't liberals and the conservatives aren't conservative. Just remember "A house divided will not stand". All of this divisiveness is evil and if it doesn't stop, it will destroy America. We should have disagreements, we should debate topics, we should search for the truth, but we must not hate each other. We must stand together! We are all Americans!!! We may not always agree, but we MUST work together as a United States of America not a divided one. Both groups that are causing our country to divide need to stop!


RE: They deserved it.
By Webgod on 1/26/2007 11:41:28 AM , Rating: 2
Your indictment of 24 is pure fantasy, and I can't let you get away with it. Conspiracy theories are only worth so much.


RE: They deserved it.
By BRNEWSNET on 1/26/2007 11:56:17 AM , Rating: 1
I doubt there is anything fantastic about saying they use torture, villify muslims, and conduct un-constitutional actions on the show, and people think inside, 'well if jack bauer can do it I guess its ok for the CIA, 'cause it'll stop the terrorists'

Though I have only heard clips of the show '24' and have not watched any syndicated programming in well over a year now, ive got my mind back and I'm loving it. TV's are designed to put your mind into a coma.

Alex Jones, does have a great radio show, and he has worked hard producing documentrys, his most recent "Terrorstorm", details false flag gov't operations.

Listen Live today http://www.nfowars.net:443/stream1.pls
11am/2pm central
he is always trying to find someone with some sense that disagrees with him.
800-259-9231

p.s. you have 5 minutes from now until the show sarts, so youd better have your facts straight and your points coherent, if you want to even have a chance.




RE: They deserved it.
By stromgald on 1/26/2007 4:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, trashing a show that you've never watched. That sounds very educated to me. Talk about jumping to conclusions and painting Muslims with a broad prejudiced brush. You're doing the same thing to '24'.

If you think TV is bad, fine, you don't have to watch. But, with that thinking, books are bad too because they make it easier to store/distribute information. That was the argument about writing a few thousand years ago. It rots the mind because it doesn't require you to keep everything in your head. Just because something doesn't fit your accustomed way of doing things, doesn't make it bad.

'24' is a fantasy, everyone who watches it knows this and watches it because it is good, entertaining drama.


RE: They deserved it.
By Captain Orgazmo on 1/27/2007 5:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
My comment was voted down why? No one bothers to rebut, so it must be ok... whatever.


Are they serious?
By xphile on 1/26/2007 4:17:18 AM , Rating: 3
Is it just me or is this what was stated...

1) In this case, 20th Century Fox actually timed a DVD release of the first four episodes on January 16, 2007.

2) The episodes finally aired on live TV January 24 and 25, 2007.

Fox release a dvd of the episodes BEFORE they air and are upset they are on the internet before the air date?

"Holy cow Batman, it looks like a deliberate seeding case to trap those evil copyright breakers"

"Yes Robin, when you leave your car unlocked on a busy urban street with the keys in the ignition, all the doors open and the stereo blasting it is posible it may not be there when you return".




By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/26/2007 4:33:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
2) The episodes finally aired on live TV January 24 and 25, 2007.


That was supposed to read 14 and 15.


Does Michael Hoffman's BLOG count as news?
By hellokeith on 1/26/2007 10:39:32 AM , Rating: 1
And why the snide comment "Misses Forest in the Trees"?




RE: Does Michael Hoffman's BLOG count as news?
By bbomb on 1/26/2007 12:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
I think its in reference to Fox going after a guy (tree)who simply uploaded it versus going after the people who ripped the DVD (forrest) and spread it.


By walk2k on 1/26/2007 6:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
They should go after both. The guy who posted it on YouTube probably caused it to reach a MUCH wider audience than someone who put it on some obscure FTP site.

Besides, for all we know they are the same person.


all i know
By Vokus on 1/26/2007 2:29:57 AM , Rating: 2
Who has the time to actually what TV shows when they air on live tv and the 200 adds they come with, its obviously more convenient to download tv shows and watch them when you want with out any ads.

If the movie companies figure this out, and set up an online demand system with out DRM, with reasonable pricing, they might make alot of money.




RE: all i know
By Orbs on 1/26/2007 2:32:40 AM , Rating: 2
I want the same thing, or if it's on live TV, let me take my recordings where I want and let me watch them when I want!


By rika13 on 1/26/2007 6:09:26 AM , Rating: 2
what these idiots dont realize is that drm costs money, lots more than some people think

sure, lost sales suck, but you must also evaluate the cost of drm, lost revinue from drm (starforce is a good example of this, as many people refused to buy starforce protected software), and the costs of drm employees (tech support staff and employees to manage them)

in the end, the only people who make money off drm is companies who provide drm like macrovision, sony, and such




By randomlinh on 1/26/2007 7:01:27 AM , Rating: 2
which is really annoying because in the end, we're paying for it. Remember how much money sony dumped into one of their early DRM tactics for audio cd's? what beat it? a freakin sharpie. Millions in "research" defeated by a $2 marker.

how about moving to the 21st century and realizing how things are changing?


Vokus made a good point...
By shilala on 1/26/2007 9:05:33 AM , Rating: 2
Look at Apple. They pulled something off that no one thought could happen. They got all the music dickheads together and offered their music the WAY THAT PEOPLE WANTED IT. The biggest battle in settling the deal was for Apple to gain permission to offer tracks rather than full albums.
Iirc, iTunes sells somewhere on the order of a million songs an hour at this point.

The reason they are so successful is that Steve Jobs is smart enough to insist on giving people what they want. It's one reason he's a brilliant businessman. He hasn't lost touch with his customers or their desires.
iTunes is simple.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to operate it. It is simple to move content to your music player.
The people who are willing to pay $3.00 or $4.00 for a movie to put on their iPod are not the same people who are willing to go through all the motions to rip their movie and move it to their iPod.

Folks here are computer savvy. We make up far less than 5% of the computer using public. We can do whatever it takes to move our media to our devices.
The general public does not.
But they WANT to watch tv shows on their iPod. They want to watch movies on their iPod. And they have money that they are very happy to part with.

Steve Jobs will round up the tv folks and movie folks and make them iTune's bitch. And drm will be all but forgotten except by the software doinks who have also lost touch with reality.

I've gained respect for Job's way of doing business by learning what he's done and how he's done it.
Adobe has adopted a common sense approach as well.
They us a serial number and authentication process that's very rudimentary and easy to circumvent.
Why?
Because they realize you can only stop who they can stop. They also realize it's senseless to spend millions on copy protection that will be defeated in minutes. And they've said so in numerous press releases.
So they skip to the bank with the money they didn't waste and continually develop products that work well and come at a fair price.




Piracy is good
By i2mfan on 1/26/2007 9:08:12 AM , Rating: 2
They should look at "Piracy is good",a download, made in 2005 showing where a show is released with a small logo like tv station do now but with the advertiser logo at the bottom. People download it at no cost. That's the way to go and with no DRM.

Both system(regular tv/download) should be possible at the same time. Missed the TV airing, download it!

I understand them that they want to protect their rights but they should look at other options. Quality shows cost something and should have some return on it!

btw, 24 is one of the best :)

P.S. In the third seasons of 24, I think, I missed the final 10 minutes of a particular moment. It was on my PVR(bad sat signal). That turn me to Bittorrent has my backup PVR. ;)

I still prefer my PVR but downloads is another way also.

Plus, don't forget that if too many people download stuff, more ISP will cap monthly bandwidth. That will cost you more in the long run.






"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki