News Corp. Makes Copyright Claim Over News Corp's Live Video Stream Of The GOP Debate

from the well,-that-makes-sense dept

Fri, Aug 7th 2015 5:14am — Mike Masnick

As you may have heard, there was a Republican Presidential debate last night -- and it was so much fun they actually did two of them. I happen to be in a hotel which had Fox News on the TV (at home I haven't had any TV service for many years), so I was watching some of it, just for the fun of it. A few people also pointed out that you could watch the stream live via Sky News' YouTube livestream. The debate was officially the "Facebook/Fox News" debate, so it seems odd enough that it wasn't streaming anywhere on Facebook, but we'll leave that aside for now. Yet, with about 15 minutes left in the debate, the livestream on YouTube suddenly disappeared and you got this:

In short, Fox News issued a copyright takedown to YouTube over Sky News' streaming the debate. While that might sound perfectly reasonable, it seems worth pointing out that both Fox News and Sky News are owned by the same company: News Corp.. Yes, News Corp. effectively DMCA'd itself. Because that's how copyright works.

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: content id, copyright, live stream, takedown
Companies: fox news, news corp., sky news

64 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 4:16am

Where are the 'anomaly boys' now?

Ahem. I say let them DMCA themselves out of existence. It's not like news coming from Fox are that good..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 10:40am
  
  Re:
  uh, are you saying this *isn't* an anomaly?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- andy, 7 Aug 2015 @ 12:20pm
  
  Re:
  They have been given the rope and are now slowly hanging themselves, their greed does not allow them to do anything else and this is why eventually they will hang themselves until they gasp their last breath and new Consumer friendly media can take over and supply a better base for content providers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 5:38am

They are just trying to bury it on FOX News. Did you catch the failure to light Megan Kelly in the opening three shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 6:02am

Rupert Murdoch realized the candidates were embarrassing themselves so he DMCAed himself!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kallethen, 7 Aug 2015 @ 6:03am

DMCA'd?
Not really DMCA'd, but ContentID'd itself, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 6:25am
  
  Re: DMCA'd?
  How can you content Id a live stream?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - R.H. (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 7:35am
    
    Re: Re: DMCA'd?
    If any audio that matched something in ContentID played (and that audio was claimed by Fox), you end up with this message.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - kallethen, 7 Aug 2015 @ 7:38am
    
    Re: Re: DMCA'd?
    I have no experience with ContentID, so can't say if it really was. But considering the past false positives, it wouldn't surprise me if it was ContentID instead of DMCA.
    
    That said... I'm not condoning it. If anything, this shows how both DMCA and ContentID are broken.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 6:03am

OMG, an unlicensed stream was DMCA'd?!?!? Call the EFF!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 6:12am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 7th, 2015 @ 6:03am
  You might want to actually read the story before commenting
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 6:54am
    
    Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 7th, 2015 @ 6:03am
    Nah, he'll just attack the mirage as usual. If he faces reality, he'll have to face some hard truths.
    
    In reality, there's 2 possibilities here. Either that not even News Corp was able to ensure that it wasn't infringing another's content, or a perfectly authorised and legal stream was taken down by a false DMCA notice / false ContentID positive.
    
    In other words, if he doesn't attack and lie his ass off, he has to admit that the system is broken, and possibly that even his masters are capable of unintentionally pirating content.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 7:52am
      
      Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 7th, 2015 @ 6:03am
      Or, third possibility, the putative copyright holders hired a third-party, automated-code-written-by-a-script-kiddie, no-repercussions-so-let's-nuke-everything-from-orbit, "copyright protection service" whose owners MUST be cackling like mad over the fact that their clients (the copyright holders) really, truly don't care when they fuck up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - tqk (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 10:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 7th, 2015 @ 6:03am
        ... "copyright protection service" whose owners MUST be cackling like mad over the fact that their clients (the copyright holders) really, truly don't care when they fuck up.
        
        I believe you're exactly correct on this, and have thought the same for quite a while. If we could prove to the owners of the MafiAA and blow the whistle on these guys, they'd disappear overnight.
        
        Why those deep pocketed owners don't have people watching out for this sort of thing for them, I don't know. Where's an Eddie Willers when you need one? Email the Koch's executive assistant and ask them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 8 Aug 2015 @ 2:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 7th, 2015 @ 6:03am
        Well, yes, and that's almost certainly what happened. But in that case, it still fits in possibility 2 that I posited.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 6:59am
  
  Re:
  Political debates and political discussions with politicians and regulators shouldn't be subject to copy protections. It's anti-democratic. While I know you are a democracy hating tyrant I think democracy is important and that corporations should not be able to control content so pertinent to our democracy.
  
  It should also be noticed how you aren't defending artist here but you, the one so so concerned with the independent artist, are here defending the middleman directly and so vehemently. Then you turn around and use the artist as the poster child for your defense of these laws intended for and put in place by these big corporations. But your post here is more evidence that you care not about the artist because in every instance your position lines up only with the corporations you are shilling for even when at the expense0 of artists. Your post here helps reveal who your true masters are. Your concern for them is so apparent both here as well as when you use the artists as the poster child for your true selfish agenda. And don't give me your self righteous nonsense, no one is buying it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 7:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    err ... even when at the expense of artists and democracy. You almost always side with your corporatemasters at almost all costs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 7:59am
  
  Re:
  antidirt just can't stand it when due process is enforced.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 8:20am
  
  Re:
  They are owned by the same company.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 6:12am

Be grateful
My wife and I drank wine and hate-watched the hell out of that whole thing on TV last night. You should thank News Corp. for putting you out of your misery on the live-stream....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 9:31am
  
  Re: Be grateful
  Yep. They were absolutely, completely out of touch with the American people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Smear Campaigns Are So Mature For World To Watch, 8 Aug 2015 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re: Be grateful
  I am for one thankful I know just enough to keep me completely out of politics.. forever grateful.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 6:31am

Some democracy when corporations effectively control political discussions with political candidates and politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 7:40am
  
  Re:
  Never was a democracy and the way things are going, never will be.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 8:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    That the shills here think corporations should control (political) content and delivery and the speech associated with politicians, political candidates, and regulators (ie: by using IP to gain such control) simply reflects the overarching theme that I've been mentioning here. They are a bunch of democracy hating tyrants.
    
    They subvert democracy to get politicians to pass the laws they want (ie: buying politicians) and regulators to secretly work for them (ie: secretly conspiring with attorney generals), they do so in secrecy (ie: secret meetings with politicians and regulators), they want a hand full of selected people to have control over delivery (ie: broadcasting monopolies, cableco monopolies) and content (they abuse their govt established monopoly position to censor anything critical of IP while indoctrinating us with pro-IP nonsense over the mediums they do have govt control over like broadcasting and cableco, their blogs are notorious for either disabling comments or deleting/moderating out ones that disagree with them, their comments here are intolerant of anyone that disagrees with them both insulting those that disagree with them and claiming that those that disagree with them are 'abusing' them for criticizing them), they want copy protection control over political debates and discussions involving political candidates and politicians, they declare themselves to be unquestionably self righteous as though their moral viewpoints should be forcefully and without question be imposed on everyone else. In every step of the way their views are anti-democratic and pro-fascism.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 2:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Agreed, we need more democracy not less.
      
      It amazes me every time some talking head spouts things about how this nation is the greatest democracy ever, while out the other side of their gaping pie hole they rant on about voter id laws and how disenfranchisement will deliver them the elections they want. Hypocrisy and lies are all they know.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 6:32am

It's just another anomaly
It's just the latest anomaly added to the vast, innumerable and uncountable copyright anomaly heap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JoeCool (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 11:40am
  
  Re: It's just another anomaly
  How high does that heap need to be before the "anomaly" becomes the norm?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
wereisjessicahyde (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 6:50am

I think any situation that results in less Fox News being broadcast is a win in my book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 6:50am

I bet that News Corp submits all their output to contentid, regardless of whether they are the copyright holders or not. The delay in the takedown was simply contentid gaining and processing a long enough segment to be usable for identifying infringing works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 6:57am
  
  Re:
  Probably. But then that raises the further question - was it infringing? If so, then News Corp is engaged in piracy. If not, then the system is so broken that perfectly legal content is being removed based on false evidence at the behest of a competitor.
  
  You can spin this as far as you want to pretend that the error is with YouTube rather than News Corp, but whatever the answer it's an example of how broken this whole thing is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 7:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    "You can spin this as far as you want to pretend that the error is with YouTube rather than News Corp, but whatever the answer it's an example of how broken this whole thing is."
    
    They will just over look the following line in the article "In short, Fox News issued a copyright takedown to YouTube over Sky News' streaming the debate." and will just blame Youtube the error despite the fact that the whole blame lies solely with Fox News as they were the one that issued the DMCA notice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 11:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The blame lies completely outside YouTube, but for a different reason: NewsCorp, was one of the parties (self-righteous jerks) that forced YouTube to put in ContentID in the first place. No matter which way it goes, the blame lies on those media conglomerates, jointly and severally, that demanded this "feature."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 7:02am

And the blather from planet Murdoch was silenced, an angel got its wings, a unicorn was born, peace happened in the Middle East... until the machine roared to life again
Slaying the angel, serving Murdoch a filet of unicorn, and well the Middle East went back to being what Murdoch hopes it can be forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 7:08am

Do you think we can get News Corp to issue a DMCA notice to take down the entire Fox network?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigel, 7 Aug 2015 @ 8:21am

I have dish network. I do not have a box for it in my room so I just use dishanywhere and stream stuff.

At 6:30pm fox news had a listing in the guide showing Oreily but the guide was empty after that time slot. At 7pm fox news was not in the guide any longer, at all.

So, I floundered over to Fox online to watch it there. It didn't work. Dish Network was not even in the list of providers to sign in with so I used both facebook and twitter logins on FOX. Neither worked, at all. No stream.

It took me more time dicking around with my legit already paid for options than it took me to go find a pirate stream so I could watch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonmylous, 7 Aug 2015 @ 8:46am

According to Torrentfreak they took their OWN stream out for a brief time as well, and Sky News' live feed still isn't back up.

Like Ouroboros, this media giant is madly chewing its own tail and beginning to devour itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 8:58am

Does "equal time" still exist?
In the 1980's I interned at a radio station. When any advert or program was marked as 'political' there were certain forms we had to fill out detailing the time it was aired and how long it ran. The reason was that if anybody else submitted an ad or program involving the same race or issue the station had to give them the same consideration regarding air time and charges thereof; they could not charge more or less for the airtime, and they had to air in the same or comparable time frame.

So if "equal time" still exists couldn't YouTube be ordered to air it again or otherwise make it available?

(And yes that might be a stupid question given Dark Helmet's comment.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 9:04am

So the (copy)right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 9:05am

Rupert Murdoch will sue Rupert Murdoch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 9:09am
  
  Re:
  And, unfortunately, his head will NOT explode over the paradox.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 9:34am
  
  Re:
  That's okay. He has enough money to pay himself off before it goes to trial.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Digitari, 7 Aug 2015 @ 6:45pm
  
  Re:
  and, after spending 200 million in lawyers and court fees, He'll win!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 9:15am

It would have been worthwhile to note in the article that the fact of common corporate ownership is irrelevant as a matter of law. Fox and Sky are separate corporate entities, within their corporate "family" are doubtless separate business units and profit centers, and for all intents and purposes are competitors.

With this as background it is not at all unusual and unexpected that the principals at Fox would not warmly embrace another business unit free riding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 9:27am

Isn't it nice that DMCA is finely being used for what it should be since it was bought and paid for; taking off line current events as they happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 10:35am

Lucky you didn't use the actual television!
Wouldn't have an anomaly.

For those who think this bothers anyone who supports copyright, you are likely mistaken, certainly so for me. -- I bet that one AC up there was a clumsy fanboy-troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 11:29am
  
  Re: Lucky you didn't use the actual television!
  I find it amusing and thoroughly entertaining when you guys shoot yourselves in the foot, that's all.
  Thanks for the laughs, and I'm glad it doesn't bother you.
  
  Hopefully, you'll keep on keeping on with DMCA-ing your own stuff, as WE find it damn funny!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 7 Aug 2015 @ 10:40am

It could have been some background music
After all, web licensing is different that broadcast licensing. So while they may have been licensed for broadcast of a music clip, they may not have been licensed for web distribution. Or Content-ID caught it and flagged it pretty quick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Crowad, 7 Aug 2015 @ 12:00pm

I love how half the commenters are talking back and forth to each other about things they clearly did not even read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 2:51pm

Ah yes
Ah yes, News Crap - owned by our good "friend" Rupert Murdock, one of the most unethical billionaire moguls in the world. Why am I not surprised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 3:01pm

Per the headline:

(b)News Corp. Makes Copyright Claim Over News Corp's Live Video Stream Of The GOP Debate(/b)

Per the graphic in the article:

(b)This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Fox News Network, LLC.(/b)

To be clear, News Corp. is not Fox News Network, LLC. They are separate and distinct legal entities, and to equate them as one in the same because one may be the corporate parent of the other is a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 4:48pm
  
  Re:
  "To be clear, News Corp. is not Fox News Network, LLC. They are separate and distinct legal entities, and to equate them as one in the same because one may be the corporate parent of the other is a mistake."
  
  Kind of like how my left hand and right hand are "separate and distinct".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 9:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, more like someone equating you and one of your parents as the very same person. That would be sloppy and fallacious logic, which is precisely what was presented in the article.
    
    When discussing juridicial entities it is important to be precise as each is a unique individual. Anything less and the discussion falls flat, invariably racked with errors.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2015 @ 3:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Both of my hands are "unique". So, obviously, one hand cannot be expected to know what the other is doing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2015 @ 7:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What an incredibly irrelevant and logically fallacious comment. Perhaps you fail to understand that each of these separate and distinct legal entities have their own staff at their own, separately located places of business. My God. What does it take to get people here to understand that separate corporate entities employ different people in different locations, and that but for a familial relationship they are for all intents and purposes completely separate companies? The litany of quite silly analogies are the equivalent of saying that elderly parents and their adult, emancipated children are really one in the same person, and the actions of one are readily attributable to the other.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 10 Aug 2015 @ 8:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But it's entirely reasonable that the actions of one tarnishes the other. If a "child corporation" is behaving badly, the "parent corporation" can apply a huge amount of pressure to fix it. If they don't then they are saying that they agree with what the "child" is doing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 4:48pm
  
  Re:
  so?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 10:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Your succinct question clearly indicates that you do not appreciate the importance of accurately delineating each named party and what a corporation/LLC/PA/etc. actually signifies and why.
    
    News Corp. is an individual person, albeit one created by operation of law, that stands separate and alone from Fox News Network, likewise an individual person created by operation of law. The fact that one of them may own the other is legally irrelevant in this instance, as the author of the article should have mentioned instead of glossing over it with large hand-waving gestures that paint an inaccurate and distorted picture.
    
    What many persons who have never worked in large corporate environments fail to realize is that in most conglomerates the individual business units, which are typically separately incorporated, compete with one another with the same competitive fervor and determination as they use to compete with others totally unrelated to the conglomerate. They do not take kindly to another business unit trying to cop a free ride on its coat tails and financial investments.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tqk (profile), 8 Aug 2015 @ 7:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      News Corp. is an individual person, albeit one created by operation of law ...
      
      Yet, isn't it odd that slavery has been outlawed, so it's illegal for one person to own another person? Neither News Corp nor Fox can rightly be considered persons.
      
      Perhaps it's nonsensical to consider corporations persons in light of the emancipation act. Citizens United should just melt away like the morning's mist. We can send the boards of directors and major shareholders to prison for attempted slavery.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2015 @ 9:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What the heck does this rant have to do with the issue at hand, namely, the misidentification of the parties in interest by the author of the article?
        
        Words matter...and the accurate identification of parties matters very much. Otherwise, an article devolves to little more that a misleading communication almost certain to mislead a large segment of its readership.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 9 Aug 2015 @ 1:40am
  
  Re:
  To be clear, News Corp. is not Fox News Network, LLC. They are separate and distinct legal entities, and to equate them as one in the same because one may be the corporate parent of the other is a mistake.
  
  Interesting. So you are saying that if News Corp. doesn't hold the copyright on either the Fox News Network or Sky Network broadcasts? That if someone infringed on a broadcast from one or the other, News Corp. wouldn't have standing to sue?
  
  If not, then your point is irrelevant. If News Corp. is the copyright holder of both broadcasts, they DMCA'd themselves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 8 Aug 2015 @ 3:03am

"What many persons who have never worked in large corporate environments fail to realize"

Oh, I think most of it understand it fine. We just look at it from a position outside of the legal fiction that's been created and are amused by the fact that it's ultimately siblings attacking each other where there's greater benefit from working together. Especially considering that these are also the same jackasses trying to force regional blocks on everyone, meaning that the original stream being "protected" here was likely not accessible by the people accessing the Sky version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2015 @ 3:21am

antidirt, out_of_the_blue AND Slonecker? It's the trifecta of Chris Dodd's entourage of cocksuckers, it seems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuckless the Clown, 8 Aug 2015 @ 2:07pm

Euphemisms Of The New Millenium
Ah, go DMCA yourself!

_"Hey hon, wanna go to the movies tonight?"

"No, I'm gonna DMCA myself tonight."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]