Fox Goes Beyond YouTube Takedowns; Subpoenas YouTube For Info On Uploaders
from the taking-it-up-a-notch dept
While TV networks like CBS have realized that people watching clips of their shows on YouTube actually is a good thing that helps increase the regular viewers of the show, apparently that lesson hasn't rubbed off on Fox. Rather than learning to embrace a new distribution tool, and going beyond the traditional "takedown notices" that other networks have sent, Fox's "piracy czar" has subpoenaed YouTube to find out more info about whoever is uploading episodes of "24" and "The Simpsons." The subpoena, of course, carries the typical legal blurbage about how these uploads have caused "irreparable harm." Of course, it's tough to believe that's actually true. Beyond the evidence of CBS's experience, it seems pretty unlikely that anyone would watch a show like 24 entirely on YouTube, avoiding it on a TV -- and, if they were, it's unlikely that they're the sort of audience advertisers care very much about. If anything, it seems like the clips are much more likely to encourage non-watchers to get into either show and get them thinking about watching it on TV or recording it on a DVR. But, no matter, apparently Fox wants to sue those responsible for helping them promote their shows.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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not Quite Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd like to see the demographics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
do i get a cookie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The first thing I would do
I am so sick of cases from these companies that start off whining about "significant loses, irreparable harm, lost revenue..." Even if they prove the sales or the number of viewers has dropped, couldn't that just mean that your product/show sucks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New business
That shows you that there is a legal means to stop piracy. I don't have any need to try to find a hosted torrent and thus pirate the first season to find out what happened. And for the record I'm too cheap to buy the DVDs.
CBS gets major points for embracing a new way to show content that can be just as effective at hooking in new audience members as playing re-run marathons.
Fox should wake up and smell the digital coffee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox is dumb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wake up Fox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uTube helps Fox keep viewers
I just hope they end up sueing some little old lady from Utah - it'd just make the whole thing so much more perfect somehoe
As for the damage, loss of monies etc there another thing they haven't factored in. Usually with shows like 24 etc if I miss a few episodes I stop watching promising myself i'll just watch the rerun or but the DVD or similar. I never do and I know plenty like me
Fact is when I can watch the missing episodes on uTube (which lets face it is less than ideal quality wise) I end up with a much greater chance of watching a series all the way through and being advertised to...
OK I am in the UK and don't have Fox itself but I bet the same principle holds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh and yeah, I skip the commercials on my DVR, so the commercials complaint is over the top.
Fox and it's geriatric way of thinking is going to cost them later.
BTW people, please check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzBpPd8XpqY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you even read the articles?
These weren't clips...they were entire episodes made available before they were aired...big difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you even read the articles?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you even read the articles?
This is not a minor issue, there appears to be someone on the inside releasing episodes before they should. If you have to ask what's the damage - it's decreased ad revenue.
Simple as that.
If thousands of viewers aren't watching the program on TV, the ratings fall and advertisers pay less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you even read the articles?
And while I do agree that ad revenue could be lost why not just say that ad revenue was lost instead of the standard corporate lingo of "irreparable damage"?
And speaking of that article in the link:
Although I haven't been in touch with News Corp yet, I assume YouTube didn't remove the videos promptly enough, hence the official subpoena.
So they found the infringing content, ask to have it taken down and then they ASSUME it wasn't taken down properly so they subpeonaed them for the info?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK I found it
Get this, there the same article but ones from the UK and ones from Australia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OK I found it
I think they may have something there then but I don't see the need for all the extra language, they basically been the victims of clear cut theft in that case i'd have thought.
In such a case the authorities should assist them in finding the culprits and part of this would be 'chasing down leads'? (sorry too much CSI)
I still get to hate Fox though don't I? Please say I do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revenue Models
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks
I've said it in here in virtually every response I've ever posted on piracy, it's not about the now, it's about creativity and ensuring better standards in the future - that prevent the possibility of this occuring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's not suprised?
I'm mean this is the same company that have sued people just for talking about x-philes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue Caltrans for Traffic Offenders, just as dumb.
Why don't we sue Fox for broadcasting offending material over the air. I want it blocked from penetrating my home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sue Caltrans for Traffic Offenders, just as du
You don't have to sue for the names of traffic offenders.
Their names (and all pertinant information) is printed right there on the ticket.
If You Tube posted the names of the uploaders on the clip, there would be no need for legal action.
"Why don't we sue Fox for broadcasting offending material over the air. I want it blocked from penetrating my home."
1. Who defines offending material? That is a slippery slope. VERY dangerous idea.
2. You already have the ability to block and material that you consider offending, V-chip, cabel companies parental controls etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Murdoch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]