Of Course: New Fox Delay Means More Unauthorized Downloads Of Fox Shows

from the this-isn't-rocket-science dept

Back in July, when the Fox Network announced plans to block or delay many of its popular shows from going online, we predicted this would increase the number of unauthorized downloads. This just seemed stupid. People want to access it online and they will access it online. Why not offer it to them in an easy and convenient manner that can be monetized. Of course, when others pointed out the same thing, the geniuses at the MPAA threw a hissy fit about how even admitting that Fox's stupid business decision might increase unauthorized file sharing was the equivalent of praising "stealing."

So, um, I wonder how the MPAA's brilliant strategists will respond to the news that, in the first week of Fox's delays alone, unauthorized downloads of some of its most popular shows increased massive amounts, doubling or tripling what they were before. In fact, that article notes that many of the people viewing it through unauthorized means left comments about how they tried to watch via legal channels, but couldn't.

So I'm wondering how the folks at the MPAA might explain this. Are they going to throw another tantrum and blame "reality" for supporting file sharing? Or will someone there finally buy a clue and recognize that not providing consumers what they want is a bad business decision. I guess that would require someone at the MPAA to actually have experience in business -- but they all seem to be lawyers or political flunkies.

Filed Under: consumers, culture, downloads, fox, tv
Companies: fox, hulu, mpaa, news corp.

Fox News Tells AP Not To Use Clips From GOP Debate; AP Apparently Unfamiliar With Fair Use

from the no-surprise dept

The Associated Press has a history that suggests it doesn't like fair use, even though its reporters and staff rely on it constantly. Yet, perhaps the AP is finally putting its money where its mouth is and will no longer rely on fair use at all. As Tim Lee points out, in this video clip the AP put together of the GOP presidential candidates' debate, there is no footage of the actual debate shown, and the AP says (at about 28 seconds) that "Fox News Channel did not allow AP to select excerpts of the debate for use in this online video story." But, of course, short clips from debates are always used by competing news channels and they know that it's protected by fair use. There's so much that's bizarre about that single line in the story when you think about it. Why would AP ask permission in the first place? The whole point of fair use is that you don't need permission. Why would Fox deny the permission? Fox relies on fair use just as much as others do, and "denying" another news provider seems likely to come back and haunt them. Why didn't the AP use the video clips anyway and stand up for their basic fair use rights?

Filed Under: copyright, debate, fair use, fox news, gop
Companies: associated press, fox, news corp.

20th Century Fox Claims 'Dice Age' Game Sounds Too Much Like Ice Age Movie

from the morons-in-a-hurry-with-dice dept

David Schumm points us to the news that the makers Dice Age, a strategy game involving some very funky and different dice, which was successfully funded via Kickstarter, has run into a bit of a stumbling block in trying to trademark its name. Apparently, the lawyers at 20th Century Fox have decided that Dice Age sounds too much like Ice Age, a movie put out by 20th Century Fox... or a "a generic geological period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental ice sheets." In other words, its a generic term. More importantly, it seems pretty damn clear from the video of the game Dice Age that it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the movie Ice Age (or, for that matter, the geological period, ice age):

Filed Under: dice age, games, ice age, trademark
Companies: news corp.

WSJ's Defense Of News Of The World: Hey, It's Not Like They Published Wikileaks Secrets

from the uh-what? dept

Lots of folks are pointing out the ridiculousness of a new editorial in the WSJ defending News Corp. (the owner of the WSJ) in the ongoing hacking debacle. Basically, it defends everything about News Corp. and its actions with a tiny nod to the fact that phone hacking is illegal at the beginning and at the end of the piece, but, even then, it tries to pin the blame on UK law enforcement rather than News Corps.' own actions:

Phone-hacking is illegal, and it is up to British authorities to enforce their laws. If Scotland Yard failed to do so adequately when the hacking was first uncovered several years ago, then that is more troubling than the hacking itself.

Uh, yeah. What struck me as even more ridiculous was the editorial's attempt to mock other publications for talking about this by noting that some of those publications (they're mainly talking about The Guardian, who has been the main force driving the phone hacking story for the past few years) worked with Julian Assange and Wikileaks:

The Schadenfreude is so thick you can't cut it with a chainsaw. Especially redolent are lectures about journalistic standards from publications that give Julian Assange and WikiLeaks their moral imprimatur.

Let's see. One involves getting whistleblowers to expose corporate and government malfeasance... and one involved hacking into the phone of a dead girl and erasing messages, throwing off the investigation and giving her family hope. Sure, I can see how there's a moral equivalence there...

Does the editorial board at the WSJ really believe that the public is so stupid as to think that the two things are even remotely equivalent? And if so, why is it that the WSJ set up its own Wikileaks-competitor, with much weaker security and promises to protect identities?

It's a sad day when the Wall Street Journal admits it can't tell the difference between whistleblowing and reporters hacking into personal voicemails and then paying off police and others about it.

Filed Under: news of the world, phone hacking, rupert murdoch, wall street journal
Companies: news corp.

Lobbyists Ramp Up Pressure To Get PROTECT IP Passed

from the but-of-course dept

The world's largest lobbying organization, the US Chamber of Commerce (which thrives off the fact that many people mistake it for a US government body), along with the biggest lobbyists representing the recording and movie industry, have ramped up their efforts to get PROTECT IP approved as quickly as possible. The groups held a conference on Capitol Hill and then began visiting Senators to talk about how much they needed this protectionism, because they're unable to adapt to a dynamic internet where they're no longer the gatekeepers. Who's doing this? Well, along with the Chamber of Commerce, we have NBC Universal, Sony Music and Pictures, Walt Disney Company, the MPAA, the RIAA, News Corp. (watch your voicemails, senators), the National Association of Theater Owners, Warner Music and the American Federation of Musicians.

Basically it's a who's who of those who want to change the internet from a communications platform into a simple broadcast medium that they can control.

And, of course, Steven Tepp, the main guy at the Chamber of Commerce (and a former government official with a history of mocking concerns of consumers when it comes to copyright issues) trotted out totally debunked stats:

"IP-intensive industries are responsible for the jobs of 19 million Americans, $7.7 trillion of our gross output, and 60 percent of U.S. exports."

Note the basic fallacy here. It assumes that "IP-intensive industries" only exist due to stricter IP laws. This is false. In fact, some of the most "IP intensive industries" around, such as the tech industry, are opposed to this law. That the Chamber of Commerce would stoop so low as to include those who are against this law in its argument for why this law should be passed really just highlights the kind of sleazy politicking the organization is famous for.

Either way, there's no doubt (there's never been any doubt) that PROTECT IP was introduced with tremendous support from certain lobbying groups who have tremendous sway in DC. They've actually come up against more roadblocks than they expected, but they're not going to let that stop them. This is the first stage of the endgame to get the law passed. To be honest, I'm surprised they've even had to go this far, because from the beginning it looked like they had the easy support. The fact that they felt the need to break out this little stunt shows that the opposition to PROTECT IP has actually drummed up enough noise that some politicians are concerned about the very real unintended consequences of the law.

And while politicians may be confused and send back the wrong form letters, don't let that stop you from at least making your voice heard. The folks at DemandProgress (with whom I have no direct connection, even if the MPAA will claim otherwise) have set up an easy form to use to make your voice heard. The EFF has set up a similar form. Both of these let you edit the form and say what you want, and making an impassioned and reasoned (and calm) argument in your own words is much more powerful than just submitting the form letter. Of course, the entertainment industry has set up its own form letter generator too -- but it's completely uneditable. In their world, creativity from the people is not allowed. Only the big industry gatekeepers are allowed to be creative.

Filed Under: lobbyists, protect ip
Companies: chamber of commerce, disney, mpaa, nbc universal, news corp., riaa

News Of The World Staffers Take Parting Shot At Management In Final Crossword Puzzle

from the parting-shots dept

With the closure of Rupert Murdoch's News of the World, due to the ongoing criminal investigations and revelations of highly questionable practices involving spying on private citizens and hacking into their voicemails, many people did wonder if the staff would have any sort of message for their bosses in the final edition. Apparently former editor Rebekah Brooks was adamant that staffers not mock them in the final edition, but she failed:

"Rebekah tried everything to stop the staff having the last word and she utterly failed.

"She brought in two very senior Sun journalists to go though every line on every page with a fine tooth comb to ensure there were no libels or any hidden mocking messages of the chief executive.

"But they failed and we’ve had the last laugh.’

How? They hid it in the puzzles section. Apparently, a bunch of clues for the various puzzles were not-so-subtle references to the whole thing, including "criminal enterprise," "catastrophe," "stench," and "racket."

Filed Under: crossword, news of the world, rebekah brooks
Companies: news corp.

Murdochs' Latest Attempt At Crisis Control: Kill Off News Of The World

from the wipe-hands,-problem-solved dept

Apparently all the negative stories about questionable (and potentially criminal) activities by Rupert Murdoch's News of the World, and various advertisers pulling out of supporting the tabloid, have resulted in the Murdoch Family/News Corp. deciding to pull the plug entirely on the newspaper as of Sunday. The crisis control includes finally admitting that the problem was much wider and deeper than the company had claimed earlier. James Murdoch put out a statement, in which he also confirmed that he had tried paying off the victims of News of the World's phone hacking/spying:

Murdoch told employees at the 168-year old title: "The News of the World is in the business of holding others to account. But it failed to when it came to itself".

Murdoch said in a statement: "Wrongdoers turned a good newsroom bad and this was not fully understood or adequately pursued."

Murdoch also conceded the company had "made statements to parliament without being in full possession of the facts. This was wrong".

He said "the News of the World and News International wrongly maintained that these issues were confined to one reporter" but that was untrue, and that the company had passed information to the police which would demonstrate this.

"Those who acted wrongly will have to face the consequences," he said.

Murdoch also said in his statement to staff that he had authorised out-of-court payments to victims of hacking and that: "I now know that I did not have a complete picture when I did so."

He added: "That was wrong and is a matter of serious regret."

While it's good to see the Murdochs finally willing to address the mess head on, it also shows just how bad things are that they couldn't keep trying to brush the whole thing aside as one or two rogue employees.

Filed Under: james murdoch, news of the world, rupert murdoch
Companies: news corp.

Rupert Murdoch's Journalists Accused Of Hacking Into Murdered Girl's Voicemails, Deleting Some

from the classy dept

Well, this is rather horrific. We've mentioned in the past the story about how reporters for Rupert Murdoch's News of the World, one of the many publications in his News Corp. empire, were accused of hacking into the voicemails of hundreds of people. Every few weeks, it seems, more reports surface of people who have had their voicemails hacked. But the latest may be the worst of the bunch. Apparently, after teenager Milly Dowler disappeared in 2002, but before her murdered body was found, reporters hacked into her voicemail. Not only that, but they deleted some messages in order to make more room for new messages. Apparently, the deletions were part of what gave her parents hope that Dowler was still alive, believing that perhaps she was checking her voicemail. Most of the earlier reports on Murdochs' journalists hacking into voicemail had focused on politicians and celebrities. But this sounds like they may have actually destroyed evidence and tampered with an actual police investigation. The company has been paying off some of the celebrities whose voicemail was hacked, but this takes things to an entirely different level.

Filed Under: eavesdropping, milly dowler, news of the world, rupert murdoch, voicemails
Companies: news corp.

How Low Has MySpace Sunk? It's About To Be Sold For Less Than $30 Million

from the destruction-of-value dept

Way back in 2005, when News Corp. bought Intermix, which (believe it or not) was the parent company of MySpace, we focused on the fact that Intermix was big in the spyware/adware business, and didn't even pay that much attention to the MySpace part of the deal (silly us). Believe it or not, that was the point at which MySpace was just really starting to catch on. The whole thing cost $580 million, and a year later, one of the company's founders, Brad Greenspan, sued News Corp., claiming that there was fraud involved and MySpace should have been valued at $20 billion. Of course, the story since then has been one of a big downhill slope. While MySpace had always focused on music, over the last couple of years, at every music conference I've attended, people have joked about the fact that no one uses MySpace at all any more. And so it's come to this. Reports are now spreading that News Corp. is looking to unload what's left of MySpace for between $20 and $30 million. Oh, and in a bit of interesting timing, Facebook is preparing to launch its new music service next month. How quickly things change...

Filed Under: social networks
Companies: myspace, news corp.

New York Post Tries Hamfisted Safari Browser Block To Try To Sell More iPad Apps

from the good-luck-with-that dept

DannyB points us to the news that apparently the folks at the NY Post are still figuring out how this web thing works. As there's been a lot more attention paid to things like apps, they put together a fee-based NY Post app. I have no idea if it's any good, but somewhere along the line, it appears that someone at the Post realized that people could bypass the app by simply visiting the NYPost website via the browser on the iPad. Rather than think that perhaps they should focus on making the app more valuable and worth paying for, the geniuses went a different direction and decided to block access to anyone arriving at the NYPost.com domain via a Safari browser on an iOS device. Will this make people buy the app? Probably not. It might encourage them to go to competing sites, however. Even more ridiculous is that apparently no one at the Post realized that there are other browsers: you can still get to the site via alternatives like Opera and Skyfire.

Filed Under: apps, ipad, ny post, paywalls, safari
Companies: news corp.