Apparently it was video clips originally posted, but it seems like posting unpublished(?)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 [HBO Lawyer] classifies the infringing content as 'summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series'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 but a work being unpublished weighs against (but does not preclude) free use.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 think it'd pretty much have to be a script, a screenshot, audio, or video to qualify as copyright infringement. I can tell you what a song is about without risk of violating copyright, but the moment I start quoting lyrics things get riskier.
I think it depends on the depth of the summary, and the purpose. You can do quite an indepth analysis as part of educational material for example, which is one of the tests of fair use.
I think a key thing to remember when assessing your own liability is fair use is a defense, not an automatic guaranteed right for blanket uses.
Leaking spoilers of unpublished works can definitely cause market harm, and serves no wider good for the market the same way educational material would.
I wouldn't like to be on the receiving side of this lawsuit. At the very least it's going to be expensive to defend against.
That's the rub. When it comes to copyright, money makes right. The one with more money and willingness to go to court will win. Not who is actually legally right.
That's not just copyright, it's our entire legal system. A corporation can intentionally murder hundreds of thousands of people and get nothing but a slap on the wrist fine.
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.
Doesn't matter if the device you used phoned home with your IP address and any kind of identifier. Your OS that sends telemetry every 7 seconds, a windows update check, another tab with a social media account open. It's easy to cross reference that stuff and figure out what a person's regular ISP is. Almost nobody uses a VPN 100% of the time and at the router (because your OS will phone home before you desktop finishes loading).
Twitter won't have your various device IDs and VPN IPs are typically shared among many clients simultaneously. You could certainly generate a suspect list but I don't think you'll get conclusive evidence.
That said I don't know how much browser fingerprinting Twitter might be doing and if fingerprints from other services might be possible to crossreference. Much higher risk is probably visiting other sites both with and without the VPN using the same browser without thinking about it and thus leaking your fingerprint or even account cookies that way. Or if you don't run a filter then visiting a site without the VPN that embeds Twitter tracking assets would leak to them directly.
You're right that you can end up with a suspect list instead of a direct answer, but it shouldn't be hard to narrow it down from there, especially in a case like this where most people wouldn't have access to privileged info about unaired shows to start with. It also helps if you have more than one IP address to start with. You can end up with multiple suspect lists, but only one or two people who show up on all of them.
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.
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.
I understand the temptation to Streisand this, but for the love of, please don't. S1/2 were the best show I've seen on TV. It would be a crime against good taste.
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?
72 comments
I can see it being an NDA breach or something but otherwise not
-> [HBO Lawyer] classifies the infringing content as 'summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series'
I could see an argument that it is a trade secret, too-- which could be used to oppose downstream dissemination.
I think a key thing to remember when assessing your own liability is fair use is a defense, not an automatic guaranteed right for blanket uses.
Leaking spoilers of unpublished works can definitely cause market harm, and serves no wider good for the market the same way educational material would.
I wouldn't like to be on the receiving side of this lawsuit. At the very least it's going to be expensive to defend against.
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?
> 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.
That said I don't know how much browser fingerprinting Twitter might be doing and if fingerprints from other services might be possible to crossreference. Much higher risk is probably visiting other sites both with and without the VPN using the same browser without thinking about it and thus leaking your fingerprint or even account cookies that way. Or if you don't run a filter then visiting a site without the VPN that embeds Twitter tracking assets would leak to them directly.
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