Fox News Sued For Copyright Infringement; Complaint Mocks Murdoch's Comments On 'Stealing' Content

from the gonna-come-back-to-bite-you dept

Fri, Jan 8th 2010 5:50pm — Mike Masnick

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.

"Fox sanctimoniously operates unencumbered by the very copyright restrictions it seeks to impose on its competitors," the lawsuit states.

Once again, it appears that a copyright holder doesn't believe in fair use for others, but only for themselves.

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.

39 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2010 @ 6:17pm

Republicans claim to be free market capitalists but that's just a lie. They're free market capitalists only to the extent that it benefits them, otherwise they want the government to come in and dictate laws that benefit them unfairly.

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 thread ]
Brian (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 6:21pm

I guess Fox is learning all about karma. Perhaps it will visit them again soon :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pirate pete, 8 Jan 2010 @ 6:24pm

Hoisted by his own petard!
'nuff said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
W, 8 Jan 2010 @ 7:35pm

Re:
I thought Karl Rove was already working there?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
another one, 8 Jan 2010 @ 8:16pm

hypocrisy
Do as I say, not as I do
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard, 8 Jan 2010 @ 9:24pm

Re:
You obviously know different Democrats than I do. Most of the ones I know are far more socialist or communist than capitalist.

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 thread ]
Mal, 8 Jan 2010 @ 9:54pm

Re: Re:
Government intervention =/= socialist or communist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 10:16pm

Re: Re:
Please note that on anyone Else's scale, the democrats are usually barely even managing 'center right'. The entire US spectrum of politics is just massively right-shifted. (it's also almost entirely above the zero line of authoritarianism-liberalism, with authoritarianism being positive numbers)

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 thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 9 Jan 2010 @ 12:57am

Re: hypocrisy
Seems the 1984 Orwell guide seems to be well under swing. Anybody else notice this trend with the state of affairs as of late?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2010 @ 2:37am

Re: Re:
You obviously have a reading comprehension problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2010 @ 2:41am

Re: Re:
"You obviously know different Democrats than I do. Most of the ones I know are far more socialist or communist than capitalist."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2010 @ 3:04am

The way it works is that poor people want to become rich and acquire wealth. Of course they don't have the resources to lobby the government so their only choice is to innovate. Rich people, on the other hand, are happy with the way things are and see innovation as something they should unfairly benefit from and they see it as a potential threat to their current status as well. Since many rich people disregard morality and they have the resources to successfully lobby the government they lobby for intellectual property laws and other laws that will allow them to unfairly exploit any innovation even if at the cost of innovation. Hence the ridiculous intellectual property laws that exist today. Hence cableco companies get a monopoly on who can use the existing infrastructure and who can build new infrastructure. Hence the monopolies that taxi cab drivers get. Hence the fact that taxi cab drivers stole the innovation of putting ads on a transportation vehicle from someone who did innovate because the current taxi cab industry does not innovate, it only steals innovation from others. The government intervenes in such a way as to give the non innovative rich people complete control over innovations in a way that optimally benefits them at the cost of society and at the cost of those who do/would actually innovate without such ridiculous laws.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2010 @ 3:04am

Re:
oops, I meant to post this somewhere else. May you please delete it from here? Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
William Dodder, 9 Jan 2010 @ 5:25am

I am above the law.
I hate these big companies that feel like they can do whatever they want.

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 thread ]
DS, 9 Jan 2010 @ 7:18am

Re: Re: Re:
Gov't takeover = socialist or communist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2010 @ 7:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny how the comments to an article about fox news include the words socialist & communist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 9 Jan 2010 @ 8:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Socialism! Unamerican! Secret muslim! Weapons of mass destruction! September eleventh!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 9 Jan 2010 @ 10:43am

The only real solution is to abandon the two-party system entirely. Political parties have done nothing but harm to our society, just as George Washington warned in his farewell address. We didn't listen, though, and every generation since then has suffered for it. Allegiance to one's political party has become more important than allegiance to one's people and country. If you want to truly protest the system, discard the Dem/Rep label (whichever it happens to be for you, if you haven't already) entirely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Click Track, 9 Jan 2010 @ 11:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you use the word "Socialist" or "Communist" to describe the Democrats, the Terrorists win.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 9 Jan 2010 @ 1:34pm

Re: Re:
@Mighty Buzzard: "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."

Yeah. Only the Chinese seem to have pure capitalism right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2010 @ 1:40pm

Re:
That is but a small part of the political problems facing most nations. Corruption and greed are the major problems and they will probably never be done away with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2010 @ 2:04pm

Re: Re:
This is exactly why free markets are optimal when it comes to optimizing social welfare. The government is not interested in what's best for us, WE ARE, and so the free market gives us the most freedom to act in our own best interest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2010 @ 5:04pm

Re: Re: Re:
That's fine and dandy when there is competition
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2010 @ 7:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
The lack of competition is exactly because the government distorts free markets (ie: by granting monopolies on everything).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zenasprime, 10 Jan 2010 @ 6:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are other kinds of monopolies, often the result of the free market, other then the ones granted by the Government that are just as destructive to society as the ones granted by the Government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 11 Jan 2010 @ 3:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Free markets work whilst all the players have similar resources. Of course in the nature of things some do better than others and quickly use their extra resources to behave in anti-competitive ways.

It's just like poker - the guy with more chips tends to win even with a weaker hand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 11 Jan 2010 @ 3:48am

Re: Re: Re:
Please explain how a free market will ever do anything for the poor elderly and destitute?

It seems to me that the free market solution is to let them die.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 11 Jan 2010 @ 3:57am

Companies and capitalism
Many companies claim to support capitalism however none of them are capitalist on the inside.

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 thread ]
ethorad (profile), 11 Jan 2010 @ 4:46am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not all of them - someone needs to feed the bodies into the incinerators to power my caviar fridge!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Valkor, 11 Jan 2010 @ 1:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
True. The poor, elderly, and destitute are not in the domain of the free market, but rather in the domain of charity and love. There are more motivations in life than pure profit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
robert simmons, 12 Jan 2010 @ 11:29am

Re: Re: Re:
glowing fish gene in mouse =/= fish or Bad/Mal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheSteelGeneral (profile), 19 Jan 2010 @ 2:15am

@Mighty Buzzard: "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."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2010 @ 9:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are not as destructive to society as the ones granted by the government, not at all. If a monopoly in a free market starts to act against the best interest of its customers people will start competing and customers will switch to a competitor. But when the government grants a monopoly I am stuck with that monopoly no matter how badly is abuses its monopoly power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2010 @ 9:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Free markets work whilst all the players have similar resources."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2010 @ 7:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Of course in the nature of things some do better than others and quickly use their extra resources to behave in anti-competitive ways."

Because people should be presumed guilty until proven innocent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Agent24, 29 Jan 2010 @ 6:07pm

Bunch of hypocrite fuckers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 16 Feb 2011 @ 1:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, marketing and physical force (intimidation) effectively emulate government controls. Government doesn't always mean the state...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sarrahevil, 26 Jun 2012 @ 9:51pm

-)) thatis it .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sarrahevil, 26 Jun 2012 @ 9:51pm

-)) thatis it .
[ link to this | view in thread ]