Fox News Sued For Copyright Infringement; Complaint Mocks Murdoch's Comments On 'Stealing' Content
from the gonna-come-back-to-bite-you dept
It's always funny how those organizations that seem to be against the concept of fair use have it come back to bite them. You may remember, a few months ago, as part of his campaign against "aggregator" sites that "steal" from him, Murdoch commented that fair use would likely be barred in the courts if properly challenged, suggesting he didn't believe in fair use at all. We already noted the irony of this, given how many different aggregator sites Murdoch owns as part of News Corp. Now those statements may also be causing a bit of a problem in court as well.A bunch of folks have been sending in the news that a former advisor to Michael Jackson who apparently holds the copyright on certain interview footage is suing Fox News over airing parts of the interview recently. In response Fox has claimed "fair use," over the use in a news program -- and I actually agree that it seems like a case of fair use -- but the copyright holder actually uses Murdoch's words against him:
The filing chides Murdoch, who has threatened to sue the British Broadcasting Corp. and others for copyright infringement because he claims they are stealing content from his company's newspapers.Once again, it appears that a copyright holder doesn't believe in fair use for others, but only for themselves.
"Fox sanctimoniously operates unencumbered by the very copyright restrictions it seeks to impose on its competitors," the lawsuit states.
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
Filed Under: copyright, fair use, fox news, infringement, rupert murdoch
Companies: news corp.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
At least the democrats ADMIT to being non free market capitalists, so while I may disagree with the democrats on many things at least they admit that they want more government intervention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That said, capitalism, like anything else, taken to the utmost extreme winds up being a pretty bad idea. Which is why we go nowhere near pure capitalism here in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm ignoring the fringe groups who never get anywhere, who i naturally therefore have not heard of.
if the democrats are communist, then you really need entirely new Words for the rest of the world.
well, ok, their supporters and members may be different stories, but the party as a whole in the way it is recorded as acting is like that.
seriously, go have a look at the political compass sometime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I've never said that democrats are free market capitalists. Hence the reference to your reading comprehension problem. What I said was that democrats ADMIT to wanting more government intervention, suggesting they are not free market capitalists. On the other hand, republicans DO want more government intervention, but only to the extent that it unfairly favors them and the main difference is that Republicans lie about the fact that they do want more government intervention by claiming they do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah. Only the Chinese seem to have pure capitalism right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hoisted by his own petard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hypocrisy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hypocrisy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and another purpose (not function, but INTENDED function) of intellectual property is that it can hinder innovation by allowing a corporation to patent something it never plans to develop. The purpose of this is to prevent others from innovating and creating a product that could disrupt the existing status of immoral rich people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am above the law.
Whether Fox or Associated Press or others. These organizations are truly bad actors.
Let's see if AP's or Fox's attorneys actually have enough brains to figure a way out of this without handcuffing themselves in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's just like poker - the guy with more chips tends to win even with a weaker hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Free markets work optimally to produce the most aggregate output for everyone as a whole. Take an econ class.
"Of course in the nature of things some do better than others and quickly use their extra resources to behave in anti-competitive ways."
in free markets if you behave anti competitively I can open up a competing firm and compete with you and drive you out of business to the extent that you don't serve your customers as well as I do. In a free market the reason some do better is because they better serve the consumers than others. If some don't want to work, ie: The RIAA/MPAA and cableco/telco corporations, taxi cab drivers and their controlling corporations, and all the other evil rich people asking for government monopolies, then they should do worse than those who are willing to work. It's not for the government to decide that evil lazy people should do better than those willing to work hard. Yes, in free markets some do better than others, those who can best serve the market. In the government controlled state, only the evil lazy people do better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because people should be presumed guilty until proven innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It seems to me that the free market solution is to let them die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Companies and capitalism
Nor are any families that I know.
Like it or not the dominant form of organisation in all human history (and I suspect in the future too) is socialism.
The free market can exist only in a certain limited domain. It is not a form of organisation - rather it is the lack of organisation.
The free market also cannot provide anything that is indispensable.
You can pretend that (say) a water utility is a free market private company but this is a lie. If it was truly a free private company it would be free to simply stop supplying water on a whim of it's bosses, drain it's reservoirs and build houses on the land. The fact that the state would step in rather early in this process proves that it is really a department of the state masquerading as a private company in order to give it's directors and shareholders the benefit of running a monopoly enterprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yah. the scary thing is, you prolly believe that. it's not pure capitalism, but it's REALLY NEAR pure capitalism!
In the end RepuKKKes support feudalism, or oligarchy: The rich and big companies decide everything. Democrats are more on the side of the people, defending them against Big Corp and Big gov.
Besides, Government Intervention is GOOD, except when it's done to save big companies. That wasn't the case with the bailout, since that was more about saving the system for the people (but RepuKKKe senators managed to cut themselves and Big Corp special deals) than about saving companies.
Who really believes FoKKKs anymore, save for stupid Palin-lovers, but those also believe the earth is 6000 years old, so do the math.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]