Democrats Are From Cablevision & Republicans Are From Fox In Retransmission Fee Dispute?

from the republicrats dept

One of the nice things about most tech issues is that they're not split down typical political party lines. In practice, tragically, that sometimes means that both of the major political parties side with rent-seeking interests, rather than the public good, but in other cases, it does mean that you can get actually cross-party discussion on the issues, rather than the talking points. However, it seems that whenever any particular issue gets "big enough," it suddenly has to break down on party lines. We saw it happen with net neutrality, but now it appears to be happening on the whole silly retransmission fight between cable companies and TV networks. As mentioned, these fights break out every few months, with both the networks and the cable companies blaming each other. In the end, consumers end up with higher prices either way. The whole fight itself is silly, but when TV stations get blocked during key sporting events (football, baseball playoffs), apparently Congress immediately sees an issue worth grandstanding over.

And, as Broadband Reports notes, at least in the case of Cablevision/Fox, it's become a partisan issue, with Democrats lining up behind Cablevision, introducing legislation that would bar broadcasters from pulling channels during negotiations. Meanwhile, Republicans are being lobbied heavily by News Corp to take its side. It could just be that it's because this is News Corp./Fox, which tends to support Republicans. So it will be interesting to see if similar battles involving other broadcasters split along similar lines...

Filed Under: cable, politics, retransmission, tv
Companies: cablevision, fox, news corp.

Fox Extends Cablevision Blackout To Hulu... Temporarily

from the doesn't-make-much-sense dept

These days, fights between the TV networks and cable providers are so common that we stopped bothering to report on them. Basically, every few months, there's a fight over how much money should be paid to carry the networks, and the two sides get angry, a public relations brawl ensues with threats of channels being removed (or, the channels are removed for some time). Eventually a price is agreed upon between the networks and the cable providers... and the consumers pay more. Great, huh? Of course, some have been suggesting that these fights could drive the push for people to ditch cable altogether, and switch to going purely online.

Except, in the latest such fight, between Fox and Cablevision in New York, things took an odd twist, with Fox not just pulling its network from Cablevision, but somehow getting Hulu to block access to Fox shows to anyone accessing the site from Cablevision. Apparently, after people started asking questions, Fox/News Corp. changed its mind and let Cablevision subscribers view Fox content on Hulu again.

However, this does raise a bunch of pretty serious questions. First of all, why did Hulu consent to this move? If Hulu were serious about its offering, it wouldn't agree to take part in a silly fight like this, singling out people on a particular ISP. Once again, though, this shows how Hulu is way too beholden to the content providers. Second, while this is not really a "net neutrality" issue, it's somewhat surprising that Fox/News Corp. would take a step like this that undoubtedly will be talked about in "net neutrality" terms. Any move that specifically restricts content to a certain class of users isn't going to be looked upon kindly. Finally, in what world did News Corp. think this was a smart move? Did they actually think that users would be so upset that they'd asked Cablevision to raise their bills to bring Fox on Hulu back? Of course not. They're simply going to blame Fox (and Hulu) for pulling their shows.

Filed Under: cable, internet, tv
Companies: cablevision, fox, hulu, news corp.

Fox News Sues Senate Candidate For Using Clip In Commercial

from the let-me-introduce-you-to-my-friend,-fair-use dept

During the Presidential campaign in 2008, we noted that CBS had sent a takedown notice for a John McCain ad that included a snippet of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. We noted that this seemed silly and a pretty clear case of fair use. While not much more ever happened in that case, in a similar situation, we now have Fox News and one of its hosts, Chris Wallace, suing Missouri Senate candidate Robin Carnahan, claiming copyright violations, invasion of privacy and misappropriation of likeness -- saying that the ad implies that Wallace endorses Carnahan. Fox has also sent takedown letters to YouTube for hosting the video, though others appear to have it (for the time being).

The ad itself is pretty straightforward. It's a clip of Chris Wallace asking a question to Carnahan's opponent in the race, Roy Blunt from a few years ago. It's basically Wallace saying the following:

"You just said a moment ago that you have to show that you're the party of reform but some question whether you are the man to do that. In 2002, you tried to insert language into the Homeland Security Act to help Phillip Morris tobacco [company] while you were dating that company's lobbyist. And your campaign committee's paid $485,000 to a firm linked to lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Are you the one to clean up the house?"

And then some tag line against Blunt. It never shows Blunt's response. It's difficult to see how anything about this lawsuit makes sense. First of all, the copyright claim is pretty weak. While most of the commercial is the clip, it seems like it's quite likely this would still qualify for fair use. The idea that this implies Wallace endorsed Carnahan is a huge stretch. Nothing in the ad suggests he did at all. It's a factual representation of what was said. Fox's claim that this creates financial harm doesn't make much sense. Even if (again, a huge stretch) people believe that Wallace was endorsing Carnahan, that's got nothing to do with the financial loss from the clip itself. Case law is pretty clear that the financial loss needed in a fair use analysis involves the financial loss over what the clip itself could be licensed for -- not any ancillary "costs." And, in the very same complaint, Fox makes it clear that it wouldn't license this clip even if the campaign had asked. Thus it seems to admit that the "financial loss" is nothing.

But, really, the bigger issue, is that in suing and sending takedowns over this video, all Fox has done is draw significantly more attention to the story itself and the negative impression of Blunt. If I had to guess, I'd say that Carnahan has never been so happy to be sued. It's tons of free advertising on an attack ad on her opponent. And, of course, if the video is found to be fair use -- as I would bet it would be -- we'll have yet another example of how the DMCA's takedown process is a clear violation of free speech. Even if the video is eventually allowed back online due to a counter-notice, copyright law was being used to silence political speech in the middle of a campaign.

Filed Under: chris wallace, copyright, endorsement, publicity rights, robin carnahan
Companies: fox

Big Studios Willing To Let Fan Fiction Fly?

from the one-hopes... dept

We recently had a discussion about the legalities of fan fiction, and how some authors were adamantly against the concept (even if their views were on shaky legal grounds). While it is true that certain derivative works can be stopped, that also doesn't mean it's a smart thing, from the perspective of cultivating fans. Reader Eilieen now points us to the news of a fan-made film that builds on Joss Whedon's Firefly TV show and Serenity movie:

"Browncoats: Redemption was made by the fans for the fans," director Michael Dougherty explained to Wired.com by e-mail. "But we view this as an independent film; we had Firefly fans travel from all over the U.S. to volunteer their time as extras and other supportive roles in its production. Without them, this film would not exist, and it will only be successful with their continued help and support."

Unfortunately, the article at Wired totally leaves out the question of whether or not the copyright holders know about this particular fan film, and if they're okay with it. Plenty of movie makers -- such as George Lucas -- are perfectly happy with fan flicks, even to the point of encouraging them. But, in this case, it's not clear if this is, in any way, sanctioned. While the filmmakers say they're doing this for charity, that still suggests they're hoping to make some money from the film to give to charity -- which often is the trigger that sets off Hollywood lawyers.

Whedon, for his part, has always been good about cultivating super-loyal fans, and at the same time, of experimenting with smart business models. But, not everyone associated with Firefly/Serentiy have always been so sharp. Back when Universal Studios tried to market Serenity via its biggest fans, the lawyers at Universal (apparently kept separate from the marketers) tried to demand licensing fees from the fans that the marketing department was urging to promote the film.

Looking over the site of the movie itself, it does suggest that they were able to secure permission from everyone necessary -- including both Universal and Fox (who ran the TV show) along with Whedon himself:

So here's how it is, we've reached out to FOX, Universal Studios, Joss' agent at CAA, and even Mary Parent who is now at MGM. Everyone we've dealt with has been extremely helpful and completely blown away the stereotype of what the Hollywood experience is like. And much to our surprise, we even have the blessing of Joss Whedon himself. We've reached out to both Fox and Universal to get a greater understanding of the legal permissions we needed to make this a reality and we set out to complete it. And thanks to mighty fine Browncoats like yourself...we have.

That's slightly cryptic, but it sounds like all the legal permissions were granted, and perhaps this fan film will go ahead with all the official blessings. While it's silly that such a permission-based culture is necessary, just to make a film celebrating something that people love, at the very least, it's nice to see some Hollywood folks recognizing that fan fiction and fan films aren't inherently bad things.

Filed Under: fan fiction, firefly, joss wheedon, movies, serenity
Companies: fox, universal

Netflix Agrees To Delay Fox And Universal New Releases, Annoy Avatar Fans

from the let's-make-it-harder-for-the-consumer-to-access-our-product dept

Netflix recently decided it would be a good idea to strike a deal with Warner Brothers that involved delaying all new Warner Brothers releases by 28 days. Film industry executives somehow believe this strategy is going to help them sell more DVDs, though as we've been discussing, the deal as designed seems just as likely to confuse the hell out of consumers as it tries (and fails) to prop up less innovative companies. Why would Netflix agree to such a deal? It was the only way they could get Hollywood to loosen their vice-like licensing grip on the number of titles they allow Netflix to stream via broadband.

Of course the deal doesn't apply to Blockbuster, who ponied up the cash to the studios so they can apparently mock Netflix and Redbox in advertisements instead of actually innovating. None of this, including the fact that Netflix is facing a class action lawsuit, has apparently fazed Netflix or the studios -- as Netflix has now signed similar delayed-release deals with both Twentieth Century Fox and Unviersal Studios. As with the Warner Brothers arrangement, this will ramp up Netflix's access to both studios' libraries for streaming, though it looks like it won't necessarily save Netflix any money:

Netflix says its deal with Universal will give it the "benefits of reduced product costs;" it does not make a similar assertion about Fox. Both deals do however let Netflix build up its instant-streaming catalogue. Fox, for instance, says it will make all prior seasons of several hit TV series, including 24, Bones and King of the Hill, available to Netflix instant-streaming subscribers, while Universal says it is doing the same with some "premium domestic titles," like Gosford Park.

Not too surprisingly, the press release announcing the deal tries to pretend that the deal is about "providing consumers with attractive options" when it does the exact opposite. Netflix goes on to insist that by restricting how consumers can consume studio content, they're actually making film delivery more "flexible" and "convenient" and that the deal is just "a win all around."

Granted, Netflix customers who really only use Netflix's streaming service may not care about this, especially if they're not all that interested in new releases. Still, that doesn't make keeping your product out of customer hands any smarter of a business plan when you're trying to compete with piracy. One of the first major titles to be impacted by the deal will be Avatar, which thanks to this "convenient" deal won't be available on Netflix in any form until 28 days after its April 22 street release date. Customers annoyed by that delay might go buy the DVD, or hey, they might just go download it via Bit Torrent, where they aren't forced to wait for no particularly good reason.

Filed Under: movies, release windows
Companies: fox, netflix, universal

Microsoft Pulls Out Of Family Guy Sponsorship... Gets Half The Benefit For None Of The Money?

from the did-they-just-pull-one-over-on-Seth-Macfarlane? dept

In the past couple weeks a few folks had sent in various versions of the plan by Microsoft to sponsor an entire episode of the show Family Guy that would involve somehow weaving Microsoft Windows 7 into the story. While some found the whole concept to be "the end of the world," that was pure nonsense. It was a perfect example of how advertising is content, and content is advertising. If the fear was that the episode would suck, well, then it wouldn't act as a very good commercial for Microsoft, then, would it? If the fear was that the episode would be good, then what was the problem?

Either way... it appears that the whole thing is now dead. Reports are coming out that Microsoft has bailed out on the project, claiming that "the content was not a fit with the Windows brand." My first reaction to this was that whoever approved the deal in the first place must not watch Family Guy very much, because the whole show is based on "not being a fit" with pretty much anything.

But the more I thought about it, the more I wonder if Microsoft just pulled a fast one on Fox and everyone else. It's now received a ton of attention for the whole project... and doesn't have to pay Fox any money. Perhaps Microsoft just out-Foxed Fox.

Filed Under: family guy, seth macfarlane, sponsorship
Companies: fox, microsoft

Fox The Latest Studio To Declare War On Redbox

from the not-a-good-idea dept

It was just a few days ago that Mark Cuban was singing the praises of Redbox as the perfect model for movie distribution, claiming that the movie studios loved it, because they pay the studios a minimum guarantee with no returns. Cuban claims that this is a no-risk deal for studios who get pure incremental revenue. That didn't read right to me, because it was just a few months ago that it seemed like Universal Studios was doing everything it possibly could to kill Redbox. And, now, Mark alerts us to the news that 20th Century Fox is also demanding wholesellers not sell to Redbox. In fact, the article notes that Redbox only has a deal with Sony. It purchases all the movies from other studios through wholesale middlemen -- which seems to contradict Cuban's claims. Either way, this is a story of the movie studios letting their own greed interfere with innovation. These movies are being legally purchased. It's difficult to see how the studios have any leg to stand on in preventing Redbox from using their movies in its service. Isn't there a First Sale right somewhere?

Filed Under: dvds, redbox, rentals
Companies: fox, redbox, universal studios

Fox Publicity Department Trying To Exert Editorial Control Over Dollhouse Fan Site?

from the that's-not-how-it-works... dept

It's no secret that some entertainment companies have had trouble recognizing that fan sites help promote a show and add value to the show for free. In spite of these benefits, they still seem to have trouble with fan sites, sometimes threatening them over intellectual property violations or simply trying to shut them down. Now Blake points us to the news that someone in Fox's publicity department is apparently trying to exert editorial control over the fan site Dollverse, which helps promote the TV show Dollhouse. From the details, it really does look like a single person in the publicity department writing a too-sternly-worded letter demanding: "Moving forward do not make any further announcements on your site regarding network scheduling unless you receive notification from the network that scheduling is confirmed." It sounds like, otherwise, the network had been supportive of the site (and this didn't come backed up with any specific legal threat). However, it's still quite an amazing move for a "publicity" department to first demand that a site no longer write about stuff without confirmation, and then to later claim: "Clearing up your misperceptions of the show has become very time consuming and frankly takes away valuable time that could be spent actively marketing the series in the proper way." That's not exactly embracing the fan community.

Filed Under: control, dollhouse, dollverse, fan sites
Companies: fox

Supreme Court Says FCC Can Fine Fleeting Expletives... For Now

from the next-up,-first-amendment-question dept

The FCC, under former chair Kevin Martin, suddenly took a much greater interest in fining network TV broadcasters for "fleeting expletives" -- generally live performances in which someone uttered a curse word. Prior to that, the FCC had generally ignored such "fleeting" uses and focused on more significant violations. So, when the FCC suddenly changed its policies and fined some TV networks, they sued, complaining that the change was arbitrary. In 2007, an appeals court agreed, calling the policy arbitrary and capricious. However, the Supreme Court has now reversed that, saying that it's within the FCC's power to make the determination of what policy it follows in regulating broadcast content.

However, the case is far from over. So far, this part of the case has only focused on whether or not the rule change was allowed. What hasn't been explored is that, if the rule change is allowed, is that new rule unconstitutional (as a violation of the First Amendment). That's the real question -- so all this stuff about whether the policy was arbitrary and capricious was more like the opening act for the First Amendment headliner that's about to happen. The case has now been sent back to the appeals court, where the free speech implications will be reviewed.

In the meantime, I'm still wondering why the liability should be on the broadcasters in the first place. If Cher or Nicole Ritchie utter a curse word while on live TV, how is that the network's fault? Beyond just the free speech questions, I'm trying to figure out why the liability should be on the networks at all.

Filed Under: fines, first amendment, fleeting expletives, free speech, supreme court
Companies: fcc, fox

CNN Follows Fox News In Using DMCA To Take Down Fair Use Videos

from the thin-skinned-much? dept

What is it with cable news channels for being thinskinned the second some bloggers start posting criticism? Earlier this year, Fox News used the DMCA to take down videos that were being used in commentary, and then sought to force the site to waive its fair use rights for future video usage. So, that give liberals a chance to laugh at "conservative" Fox news... but don't laugh too hard, because now there's the flipside. The "liberal" CNN has filed a DMCA notice to have video taken down that was being used by a conservative blog for commentary purposes -- again, almost certainly fair use. Also, it sounds like some of the video footage that CNN demanded be taken down wasn't even filmed by CNN, suggesting they don't hold the copyright on it. Either way, it's quite silly for either news station to file such a notice. In both cases it was clear that the sites in question weren't trying to use the video to "compete" unfairly, but to offer criticism and commentary. The fact that both news channels went the DMCA takedown route, makes it clear that they were simply trying to shut up critics. And, of course, in both cases, it backfired, bringing more attention to the stories (and just how thinskinned) cable news networks appear to be... no matter where they might sit on the political spectrum.

Filed Under: dmca, fair use, news channels, takedowns
Companies: cnn, fox