5 ms·

HBO Obtains DMCA Subpoena to Unmask 'Euphoria' Spoiler Account on X

111 points by speckx 7mo ago

fhdkweig 7mo ago
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?
- dogma1138 7mo ago
  No there is a feed, if you follow a topic such as a show you probably will get exposed to it.
- Rebelgecko 7mo ago
  I think they algorithmically show you content designed to provoke engagement
- nslsm 7mo ago
  TFA mentions what the actual issue is (it's not simply spoiling people)
  - fhdkweig 7mo ago
    It really didn't. 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the content, the declaration to the court by Michael Bentkover classifies the infringing content as “summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series”.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.
  - embedding-shape 7mo ago
    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the content, the declaration to the court by Michael Bentkover classifies the infringing content as “summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series”.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.
    - fhdkweig 7mo ago
      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.
      - ddtaylor 7mo ago
        Can an NDA be used as justification for a DMCA? Has it happened before?
      - autoexec 7mo ago
        > but the DMCA is about stopping the proliferation of copyrighted material. If the videos posted to twitter were just summaries and not actual video of the unreleased show it seems unlikely that there was any copyrighted material being proliferated
    - bitwize 7mo ago
      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.
- observationist 7mo ago
  https://github.com/twitter/the-algorithm 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.
  - touwer 7mo ago
    I don't believe that is/was the real, complete algorithm. It has no 'boost elon' code
  - tetrisgm 7mo ago
    The other day, I looked at the trending topics. Top one was "Lesbians". I was wondering if there was some kind of development in politics. Nope. It was all porn. I was on a call with a friend and he checked from his account too and it was there as well, so this wasn't some kinda A/B test thing. It disappeared after a bit. My point is the algo is a bit wonky.
    - numpad0 7mo ago
      Twitter had always been the modern day Playboy mag from Sci-Fi era. So there's Bradbury, Lenna, geopolitics, all bound in one. The catch is it's a UGC based algorithmic system with instant feedback, which means the fastest adapting contents with most bandwidth absolutely wins, which tends to be, like that. Does anyone have the solution to this problem anyway? I thought this was always inevitable on WWW.
      - tetrisgm 7mo ago
        You’d think one person eyeballing topics and flagging stuff would solve it
        numpad0 7mo ago
        Not with 600m organic global active users. The platform moral compass must align to the performance weighted sum total of its user, rather than the other way around. Trying to bend the platform morality to suit your idealisms seriously ruin yours over time.
dfxm12 7mo ago
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?
- landl0rd 7mo ago
  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.
  - ronsor 7mo ago
    And all of this falls apart if you use Mullvad, who will be happy to fax HBO lawyers a blank sheet of paper.
    - landl0rd 7mo ago
      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.
      - ronsor 7mo ago
        You can pay $5 for a verification phone number. It's not hard.
        madars 7mo ago
        There are so many more ways one could screw up, and you only need to screw up once. For example, does X do browser fingerprinting and did you ever use similar setup to use a more identifiable Twitter account? Are you using unique phrasings or behavioral patterns? These things can be solved to a satisfactory degree, but I don't think "it's not hard" captures it - for an average user it _is_ hard.
wolvoleo 7mo ago
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
- ajcp 7mo ago
  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'
  - buran77 7mo ago
    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.
    - ajcp 7mo ago
      That too makes sense.
    - mlyle 7mo ago
      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.
      - autoexec 7mo ago
        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.
tombert 7mo ago
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 https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/snape-kills-dumbledore
- shermantanktop 7mo ago
  Can you describe what you found funny at the time? I'm genuinely curious what motivates behavior like this.
  - wormpilled 7mo ago
    It was people that didn't like reading or nerdy kids, trying to spoil their interests.
    - tombert 7mo ago
      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.
      - rkomorn 7mo ago
        Did you also find videos of guys waiting in line at stores to buy consoles, then smashing them in front of the people who were still in line funny?
    - morpheuskafka 7mo ago
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
boring-human 7mo ago
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.

111 points by speckx 7mo ago

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?

dogma1138 7mo ago
No there is a feed, if you follow a topic such as a show you probably will get exposed to it.
Rebelgecko 7mo ago
I think they algorithmically show you content designed to provoke engagement
nslsm 7mo ago
TFA mentions what the actual issue is (it's not simply spoiling people)
- fhdkweig 7mo ago
  It really didn't. 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.
- embedding-shape 7mo ago
  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.
  - fhdkweig 7mo ago
    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.
    - ddtaylor 7mo ago
      Can an NDA be used as justification for a DMCA? Has it happened before?
    - autoexec 7mo ago
      > but the DMCA is about stopping the proliferation of copyrighted material. If the videos posted to twitter were just summaries and not actual video of the unreleased show it seems unlikely that there was any copyrighted material being proliferated
  - bitwize 7mo ago
    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.
observationist 7mo ago
https://github.com/twitter/the-algorithm 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.
- touwer 7mo ago
  I don't believe that is/was the real, complete algorithm. It has no 'boost elon' code
- tetrisgm 7mo ago
  The other day, I looked at the trending topics. Top one was "Lesbians". I was wondering if there was some kind of development in politics. Nope. It was all porn. I was on a call with a friend and he checked from his account too and it was there as well, so this wasn't some kinda A/B test thing. It disappeared after a bit. My point is the algo is a bit wonky.
  - numpad0 7mo ago
    Twitter had always been the modern day Playboy mag from Sci-Fi era. So there's Bradbury, Lenna, geopolitics, all bound in one. The catch is it's a UGC based algorithmic system with instant feedback, which means the fastest adapting contents with most bandwidth absolutely wins, which tends to be, like that. Does anyone have the solution to this problem anyway? I thought this was always inevitable on WWW.
    - tetrisgm 7mo ago
      You’d think one person eyeballing topics and flagging stuff would solve it
      - numpad0 7mo ago
        Not with 600m organic global active users. The platform moral compass must align to the performance weighted sum total of its user, rather than the other way around. Trying to bend the platform morality to suit your idealisms seriously ruin yours over time.

dfxm12 7mo ago

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?

landl0rd 7mo ago
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.
- ronsor 7mo ago
  And all of this falls apart if you use Mullvad, who will be happy to fax HBO lawyers a blank sheet of paper.
  - landl0rd 7mo ago
    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.
    - ronsor 7mo ago
      You can pay $5 for a verification phone number. It's not hard.
      - madars 7mo ago
        There are so many more ways one could screw up, and you only need to screw up once. For example, does X do browser fingerprinting and did you ever use similar setup to use a more identifiable Twitter account? Are you using unique phrasings or behavioral patterns? These things can be solved to a satisfactory degree, but I don't think "it's not hard" captures it - for an average user it _is_ hard.

wolvoleo 7mo ago

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

ajcp 7mo ago
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'
- buran77 7mo ago
  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.
  - ajcp 7mo ago
    That too makes sense.
  - mlyle 7mo ago
    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.
    - autoexec 7mo ago
      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.

tombert 7mo ago

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 https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/snape-kills-dumbledore

shermantanktop 7mo ago
Can you describe what you found funny at the time? I'm genuinely curious what motivates behavior like this.
- wormpilled 7mo ago
  It was people that didn't like reading or nerdy kids, trying to spoil their interests.
  - tombert 7mo ago
    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.
    - rkomorn 7mo ago
      Did you also find videos of guys waiting in line at stores to buy consoles, then smashing them in front of the people who were still in line funny?
  - morpheuskafka 7mo ago

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

boring-human 7mo ago

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.