Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Fox gets personal over YouTube takedown
Fox has lifted a page from the RIAA playbook in a recent YouTube takedown request. Under normal circumstances, when a user uploads a copyright protected piece of video to YouTube the copyright holder complains and the item is quickly removed. In this case, where a user uploaded Simpsons and 24 episodes, Fox has gone much further, asking a court to force Youtube to fork over the personal information attached to the offending user account. We can safely assume Fox's only reason to go begging for a user's personal data is to file a lawsuit against the individual. Fox's VP of content protection, Jane Sunderland, is quoted in the subpoena claiming "irreparable harm" from the brief infringement, a note of panic that may be a bit over-the-top in describing the harm rendered by a poorly encoded Flash movie making a quick show on the popular video site. According to Google Watch, neither side of the dispute would comment on the matter; My first question would be aimed squarely at Fox, "When you sue John Doe, what are you planning to ask for remedy?"
We could be watching a whole new chapter in YouTube's evolution. I'm not encouraging the rampant sharing of copyright protected material, but I do think it's important to balance a user's right to privacy against the right of a corporation to protect itself. Dishing out a user's personal info over something that barely amounts to a blip on the piracy radar is totally overzealous.
Comments
9
Subscribe to commentsRGJan 25th 2007 1:19PM
I'll put this under the 'least surprising news' category. This was going to happen, why? because lawyers and corporations can. Whether its a minor or major case of piracy hasn't much to do with it IMHO.
DiRTJan 25th 2007 1:25PM
First of all, this isn't a download. Thanks for soapboxing inappropriately. Secondly: "I do think it's important to balance a user's right to privacy against the right of a corporation to protect itself." So they have the right to be protected for breaking the law? I don't get it.
Victor Agreda, Jr.Jan 25th 2007 1:25PM
let's face it, this is a company (FOX) not known for subtlety...
Chris O'RourkeJan 25th 2007 1:37PM
So how come Fox isn't suing myspace for running HD versions of ALL of their shows for free. Oh I get it, youtube doesn't display ads that make Fox money like (Fox owned) Myspace does. I love hypocrisy :D
http://www.myspace.com/fox
AmandaJan 25th 2007 3:06PM
Grant - I think you missed a major point in your reporting of this, that the episodes appeared on YouTube about 6 days before the first air date of the new season of 24. That is what is most likely really causing Fox to sue for information. They are looking the 'mole', not just some person with a DVR and internet.
m3nt0rJan 25th 2007 4:34PM
Okay.. in that case i can see why it could be important to them, but i bet the upload did not originated from the mole himself.
Files like these are not distributed over youtube and come from other channels in the net. My guess is that this episode has been uploaded by some kid who wanted to get some "you da man" comments for his upload.
Instead of hiring lawyers they should invest in more security to protect their property.
Sammy D KatJan 25th 2007 5:44PM
Chris O\'Rourke-
How is it hypocrisy to sue another company for not compensating you for use of your work? YouTube isn't some garage operation - it's a $1.65 billion company. Fox is the one who invested the time & money in developing shows (most of which are not successful), why shouldn't they reap the benefits of the ones that are popular? Don't know about you, but I prefer to get paid for my labor. Don't talk about a business you don't understand.
JoeJan 26th 2007 10:08AM
Fox has every right to do this since YouTube is clearly not upholding it's own policy. There is irreparable harm here as there are many methods to download and save YouTube hosted videos. Theft and redistribution of copyrighted material without the authors approval is theft no matter if blog-o-sphere agrees or not.
JamesJan 26th 2007 11:48AM
A big second to Sammy's comments -- "hypocricy" is precisely the opposite of Fox's move. The old argument in favor of "pirating" TV shows using e.g. BitTorrent or YouTube used to be that once you had missed a show, you had to wait until rerun season or a DVD release (several months to a year later) to see it, which wasn't "fair".
Now, all the major networks have installed a mechanism by which they can allow for "on-demand" viewing of many (or in some cases, I think all) of their prime-time shows within a few days of the episode's premiere, and they get paid for it. So while I still download the occasional HD rip of a TV show "illegally" (I probably don't need the scare quotes there), I don't claim to have the moral high ground when doing so -- I *should* be going to the show's web site and viewing the ad-laced version they have there, and I *would* do so if they let me view it full-screen on my home theater PC, and/or presented it in high def. Anyway, it's certainly not wrong for Fox (or anybody else) to try to make a few bucks off of their own TV shows.