Fox Tries To Hide Paula Abdul Videos... Causing (Of Course) Them To Get More Attention

from the nice-try dept

Wed, Jan 24th 2007 8:47am — Mike Masnick

If you follow pop culture news at all, you probably saw the recent clip of Paula Abdul's bizarre performance on a TV news program promoting the latest season of American Idol. In the clip, Abdul sways around, appears confused and occasionally slurs her speech -- a situation that Fox and Abdul tried to explain away as "technical difficulties." However, just as the issue was starting to die down, it appears Fox is giving it an extra push for attention. GMSV points out that Fox has supposedly sent DMCA takedown complaints to YouTube, demanding the offending videos be removed, as they try to erase history (even as plenty of people had already seen the video, and it was already featured on various talk shows). Either way, it's nice to see the press report on the topic quotes a lawyer referring to "the Streisand Effect." Ever since first (jokingly) coining the phrase, we've been waiting for lawyers to understand it.

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

26 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Alan, 24 Jan 2007 @ 9:04am

Lots of em...
I just checked YouTube and was easily able to find many copies of the video showing her COMPLETELY SMASHED!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sanguine Dream, 24 Jan 2007 @ 9:32am

Unbelievable
Weren't we just discussing how some people are learning to work the Streisand Effect to their advantage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buzz, 24 Jan 2007 @ 9:40am

LOL
Modern communication technologies seem hard to grasp for a lot of companies these days...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2007 @ 9:43am

> appears confused and occasionally slurs her speech -- a situation that Fox and Abdul tried to explain away as "technical difficulties."

Yeah, those technical difficulties like drunkenness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Iam Smart, 24 Jan 2007 @ 9:43am

Blatant PR stunt
Next up, a Simon sex tape.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lewis Salem, 24 Jan 2007 @ 9:51am

Classic clip.
Saw the clip this week. Wow. I'll have what she's having.

Anyways, it is sad that now corporations can selectively remove content they don't like with the DMCA. Of course, we all predicted this would happen when this steaming pile of legislature passed years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
misanthropic humanist, 24 Jan 2007 @ 9:52am

how to get fair use
afaics the letter of the law says it's infringing, though we all know that censorship is the motive.

From TFA:

“Some people would say this is an overly aggressive use of the takedown procedure [allowed in the DMCA],” said James Nguyen, an attorney who specializes in entertainment and copyright law at the Los Angeles-based law firm Foley & Lardner. “They’re within their rights … but most of the major TV networks don’t ask you to take down their other clips.”

He doesn't explain what their rights actually are, especially since:

However, there are also “fair use” laws that allow some content—such as short clips or satirical depictions of celebrities—to be aired online.

So what makes the difference?

Contrary to popular belief and misleading assertions of certain media organisations, Fair Use has never been overturned in the USA. The law still protects content where it used as part of another work analysing, satirising or discussing the contents of the clip in question. Simply taking a short clip and putting it online is not sufficient for Fair Use, ergo to have Fair Use you must have a use for it.

All that is necessary to protect the clip from DMCA takedowns is to add a short introductory voiceover (over black) asking the question "Was Ms Abdul pissed out of her tiny mind, or not, you decide?"

That changes it from a potentially infringing "clip" to an integral part of another work, one which poses a ligitimate question and frames the clip correctly as evidence of the case in point, and making any attempt to remove it incontrovertibly censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sanguine Dream, 24 Jan 2007 @ 11:29am
  
  Re: how to get fair use
  
  All that is necessary to protect the clip from DMCA takedowns is to add a short introductory voiceover (over black) asking the question "Was Ms Abdul pissed out of her tiny mind, or not, you decide?"
  
  That changes it from a potentially infringing "clip" to an integral part of another work, one which poses a ligitimate question and frames the clip correctly as evidence of the case in point, and making any attempt to remove it incontrovertibly censorship.
  
  But wouldn't putting it up on a video hosting site that allows for comments fit the requirement you just mentioned?
  
  In this day and age where people are always looking for the chance to say, "Don't knock it before you try it," is it any wonder that people try to get the content in question out into circulation before the PR machine tries to spin it away?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - misanthropic humanist, 24 Jan 2007 @ 12:27pm
    
    Re: Re: how to get fair use
    I don't think so Sanguine. That's why I say - make it a part of another work, however small the additional context. Putting "the clip" on a site that allows post facto comments doesn't change it. Making a short introduction does, in fact it makes it your copyright :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - matticiousg, 25 Jan 2007 @ 9:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re: how to get fair use
      I'm not very knowledgeable about copyright law so I could be way off base here, but doesn't youtube.com as an entire website count as a "work" in and of itself? I don't see the difference between a site like youtube and a show like Best Week Ever aside from the number of people allowed to comment on the clip.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
UniBoy, 24 Jan 2007 @ 10:01am

That's classic!
At the end of the interview, Paula actually states "Hey, any publicity is GOOD publicity!"

So, it appears that at least she gets it!

Classic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fak3r, 24 Jan 2007 @ 10:01am

Be sure to see the other interviews from that morn
Damage control talks about 'technical difficulties' and that the interview was at the end of 2 hour press junket -- but watch the same behavior on interviews earlier that day:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DL5a-MbrtDw

fak3r.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Philip, 24 Jan 2007 @ 10:07am

It's in effect ....
the Streisand Effect is in effect. I hadn't herd of this until you mentioned it.

It's bloody hilarious. I managed to watch another interview with her that's just as bad. Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tapper, 24 Jan 2007 @ 10:15am

Technical Difficulties
At one point Fox explained the "technical difficulties" as multiple people talking into Paula's earpiece at once giving her mixed communication and forcing her to try to respond to all of it at once.

Yea, that's exactly what it appeared to be, good answer Fox!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AMP, 24 Jan 2007 @ 10:24am

Technical difficulties
80's pop stars sure do have a lot of "technical difficulties"

Janet Jackson's breast exposure at the Super Bowl
Paula Abdul smashed on TV

What's next? Cindy Lauper in a heroine stupor at the Grammy’s?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
KevinG79, 24 Jan 2007 @ 10:29am

Re: Technical Difficulties
At one point Fox explained the "technical difficulties" as multiple people talking into Paula's earpiece at once giving her mixed communication and forcing her to try to respond to all of it at once.
Try more like... she tried to respond to all the voices IN HER HEAD... Crack,LSD, and whatever other drugs she was on tend to do that to a person... Nice try Fox. You can't hide the obvious fact that your beloved American Idol judge is a crack whore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeff, 24 Jan 2007 @ 11:34am

I definitely have the hots for her now
First, she has sex with a contestant. Now she's getting smashed. Paula, call me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
xxl3w, 24 Jan 2007 @ 11:58am

I bet..
I bet she had RFID chips on her tires. That's how the government was able to obtain this video and distribute it worldwide! DAMN THE MAN! SAVE THE EMPIRE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thinlizzy151, 24 Jan 2007 @ 12:06pm

Paula Abdul video
The woman was so obviously smashed, so why did her handlers let her on? What's the big deal anyway? It's only a big deal due to these ham-handed attempts at damage control which only serve to pour gasoline on the fire. When are these companies going to realize that we are now in an age of instant communication and the genie is out of the bottle before you even realize someone has opened it? Or maybe they just wanted all this publicity? Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hoopster, 24 Jan 2007 @ 12:17pm

Paula's not drunk, she's on pillz
definitely a pill popper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Major Chriskensonyelson, 24 Jan 2007 @ 12:37pm

Good for her
There are only a handful of beings on earth that can always say they have been smashed on national television.

Harry Carey
Joe Namath
Danny Devito
George W Bush

She joins an extremely exclusive group.

I say good for her!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MïK, 24 Jan 2007 @ 1:07pm

Paula Abominal
Meanwhile, KCPQ13, the station that the interview originatedon, is airing tape DAILY. Take-down, indeed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chucky, 24 Jan 2007 @ 2:06pm

She joins an extremely exclusive group
Anyone remember Jessica Savitch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Political.Asylum, 24 Jan 2007 @ 7:53pm

It's pretty obvious...
It's obvious that Paula Abdul was posting on the Sarcastic Idiocy Forum prior to her seemingly drunken appearance in the video clip. The SIF's effects have been proven by the medical community to cause similar effects to that of ingesting a roofies and NyQuil cocktail.

http://www.thesif.net/SIF/index.php?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another, 25 Jan 2007 @ 1:46pm

Get real
Call me a cynic, but maybe Fox and Paula did this on purpose to generate even more publicity?

People really need to understand that much of what happens is all for publicity. Bill O'Rielly goes on Colbern, think Bill doesn't know whats going to happen? Hell, both their ratings have went up. Trump gets into a pissing match with Rosie right before his show goes on, guess what, both their ratings go up. Tom Cruise has a movie coming out, he jumps up on Oprah's couch. Tom Cruise has another movie coming out, he marries someone. He has another movie coming out, he has a baby. GWB wants to weaken middle eastern powers, so he goes in and gets the religious wars started so sooner or later Iran will be fighting another faction soon. Hey, you never know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2008 @ 10:19pm

where is the tape
[ link to this | view in chronology ]