Apparently Rupert Murdoch Loves Fair Use When It Protects Him
from the let's-see-what-the-courts-think dept
Earlier this year, we pointed to a lawsuit involving Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., sued for airing an interview with Michael Jackson's ex-wife. We noted how amusing the lawsuit filing was, because it blatantly mocked Rupert Murdoch due to his earlier statements claiming that fair use would be barred by the courts -- trying to cut off that defense. But, of course, the only way to defend the actions is to use fair use -- and that's exactly what Fox News is doing in its defense of the lawsuit, heavily claiming fair use. It certainly makes you wonder -- if Murdoch ever really does pull that supposedly itchy trigger finger on a Google lawsuit -- if filings such as these will come back to haunt him. How can he claim that fair use doesn't exist on the one hand, while one of his companies uses the doctrine to defend itself in a lawsuit?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: fair use, rupert murdoch
Companies: news corp.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just because he runs it doesn't mean e have to mention him in the one environment he has no control over.
He's like RMS, e used to be a bigshot, then he says stupid things like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
agreed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I am the boss of you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If Robert Murdoch doesn't support fair use he should logically be held to a higher standard in that respect than others. No fair use for him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh no
No dinner for you tonight - Fair enough?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I am the boss of you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
He expects others to not infringe and to even magically know whether or not they're infringing ahead of time (both companies and individuals), he should at least be held to a much higher standard in that respect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The more relevant question is, what is Robert's position on the punishment for unintentional infringement for others? If it's high, then he should be punished even worse.
He supports no fair use so, according to him, he infringed and he should be held up to the standard he wants to hold others up to (but that's not to say that others should be held up to such ridiculous standards, only him since they are his standards).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"the tribute that vice pays to virtue"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No I do not. I pay you peasant little pee-on's pennies to do that for me.
I run everything and know all. YES I DO. My minions below me are exact replicas of me. Little clones, I Like to call them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
listen up
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Rather, they can use their fair use defense against them if they ever attempt to file a suit themselves(not that it should matter anyway if fair use were consistently upheld correctly, but anybody can see the duplicity in this). You don't change the rules whenever you want to just because you don't like somebody.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's worse than that. Copy privilege holders expect others to know more about the privilege holder's operations than the privilege holders know about their own operation. That's why they tend to believe that there should be little to no punishment for falsely claiming infringement on something one does not have copy privileges on yet there should be far greater punishment for unknowingly infringing on someone else's privileges. It's insane.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is partly why I'm mostly against this limited liability nonsense. I believe that if someone does something wrong they should be punished personally, not anyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]