Apparently Rupert Murdoch Loves Fair Use When It Protects Him

from the let's-see-what-the-courts-think dept

Fri, Apr 2nd 2010 6:11am — Mike Masnick

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.

22 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 6:37am

why is this fossil still newsworthy?
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 chronology ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 2 Apr 2010 @ 6:53am

agreed
everyone ignore that noob another dino needing to be hit by a incoming space meteor, HOWEVER RMS is still very important anonymous....you do well to just as well say that for all bill gates wealth, hes actually also an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rupert Murdoch, 2 Apr 2010 @ 6:59am

I am the boss of you
Do as I say. I own everything and will be king. Its only fair if its fair for me; not you stupid little people. Be gone now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Peasant, 2 Apr 2010 @ 7:16am
  
  Re: I am the boss of you
  All hail king Rupert. Long live the king!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 7:13am

"his earlier statements claiming that fair use would be barred by the courts"

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 chronology ]
Mrs R Murdoch, 2 Apr 2010 @ 7:15am

Oh no
Rupert, just wait till you get home. Little people indeed, you forget who runs this house.

No dinner for you tonight - Fair enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 7:18am

it is only funny to read a story like this because you think old rupe runs everything and knows everything that goes on in his company. does he replace toilet paper rolls at night too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 7:22am
  
  Re:
  To say that he is unaware of this now either means that he buries his head in the sand and keeps himself unaware of things he should be unaware of and, as a result, he should be punished for mismanagement at the very least.
  
  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 chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 7:30am
  
  Re:
  Your comment is irrelevant to the issue of fair use. He, or his company, is claiming fair use. If Robert does not support fair use then he supports the idea that his company should be punished for infringement if it infringes regardless. and as a result his company SHOULD be punished and lose the lawsuit. Robert should have no problems with this.
  
  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 chronology ]
  - Ryan, 2 Apr 2010 @ 9:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    No. A justice system that establishes a precedent based on the eccentric ramblings of the majority owner of a company, or punishes the rest of the company employees and stockholders, is a terrible system.
    
    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 chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2010 @ 9:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "You don't change the rules whenever you want to just because you don't like somebody."
      
      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 chronology ]
- Rupert Murdoch, 2 Apr 2010 @ 8:16am
  
  Re:
  does he replace toilet paper rolls at night too?
  
  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 chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 10:02am
  
  Re:
  Shouldn't his lawyers know this stuff? Oh, right, you were being disingenuous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 7:23am

It's odd that people try to defend Rupert Murdoch... He should be saying that his own Fox News should be drawn and quartered for making him look bad. Where is his comments on this? Are we to expect that he knows less of his own operations than the operations of others because that's his job?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 9:48am
  
  Re:
  "Are we to expect that he knows less of his own operations than the operations of others because that's his job?"
  
  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 chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 10:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Why haven't you pressed the magic button! There's so much infringement on your networks, now hurry up and press the magic button! Why are you ignoring the magic button! Press it already!"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 7:33am

why is he still around???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 7:54am

Hypocrisy

"the tribute that vice pays to virtue"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
burger king, 2 Apr 2010 @ 8:55am

listen up
im da king
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 2:00pm

Heh. Someone should just copy all his legal briefs and cross out ever mention of Newscrap ah Newscorp and write in the suing company. Then submit it as an action against Newscrap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use Nazi, 2 Apr 2010 @ 2:16pm

Rupert reminds me of someone, but I just can't pin it??? "Um, excuse me, I - I think you forgot my bread." "Bread, two dollars extra." "Two dollars? But everyone in front of me got free bread." "You want bread?" "Yes, please." "Three dollars!" "What?" "No soup for you!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use Nazi, 2 Apr 2010 @ 2:20pm

I figures it out... "You're through, Use Nazi. Pack it up. No more Fair Use for you. Next!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]