Current Insight Community Cases

The Importance Of Skilled Immigrants To The American Economy

Help A New Kind of Music Label Revolutionize The Industry

Mandates To Buy American Should Be More Carefully Considered

Navigating The New Business World After This Recession

How To Prevent Copyright From Interfering With Innovation

CwF + RtB

-- get "looooots of t-shirts"

Brought to you by Floor64 and the Techdirt crew.

stories about: "fox"
Culture

Culture

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
family guy, seth macfarlane, sponsorship

Companies:
fox, microsoft



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.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
News You Could Do Without

News You Could Do Without

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
dvds, redbox, rentals

Companies:
fox, redbox, universal studios



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?

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Culture

Culture

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
control, dollhouse, dollverse, fan sites

Companies:
fox



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.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Legal Issues

Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


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

Companies:
fcc, 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.

48 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Legal Issues

Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
dmca, fair use, news channels, takedowns

Companies:
cnn, 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.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Legal Issues

Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
defamation, fox & friends, malice, parody

Companies:
fox



Fox & Friends Not Guilty Of Defamation For Repeating Parody -- Just Gullibility

from the not-malice dept

MediaShift points out that the folks at the TV show Fox & Friends have been found not guilty of defamation, after they repeated quotes from a parody news article that they assumed were true (though, even they admitted that the quotes sounded as if they could be from a parody). Basically, it turns out they were just gullible, not defamatory -- mainly because there was no specific malicious intent in repeating the parody info. While the court admitted that the gullibility was negligent and distasteful, that didn't rise to the level of malicious. If anything, the reputation hurt most by this incident isn't that of the guy suing for defamation... but that of the hosts of Fox & Friends.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Failures

Failures

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
dvds, extras, rentals

Companies:
fox



If Your Business Model Revolves Around Taking Some Feature Away From People, You're Doing It Wrong

from the add-value,-not-diminish-it... dept

I'm always amazed when companies think that they can take features away from users and then charge more for re-accessing those features. Taking features away from people to charge them for them almost never works. It just pisses off people who quickly go looking for alternatives. The latest company getting set to discover this for themselves appears to be 20th Century Fox studios, who wants to remove all the special features from rental DVDs in the hopes that people will buy those DVDs instead. Of course, what might happen is that fewer people rent their movies and fewer people buy the movies. I'm a fan of various DVD extras -- and it's part of the reason why I rent movies. If a DVD doesn't have them, I'm a lot less likely to rent the film -- and I'm unlikely to buy a DVD if I haven't first seen it as a rental. So, for me, Fox's strategy will certainly backfire, and I'd imagine the same is true for many others as well.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Culture

Culture

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
copyright, gary stretch, jean epstein, jokes, pink panther, robert simonds, steve martin

Companies:
fox, mgm, sony



Pink Panther Studio, Producers And Star Sued For Joke Theft

from the a-lawyer,-a-copyright-and-a-loser-walk-into-a-bar... dept

Historically, jokes have always been things that were shared and passed on. The power of a joke is not in the idea behind the joke, but in the telling. Yet, in this era when people have it drilled into their brains over and over again that every creative thing is "ownable," we're now seeing this great tradition of joke sharing and joke telling stifled by claims of "ownership." The latest such example, found via Michael Scott, is that two people are suing over jokes in the Pink Panther movies. Specifically, Jean Epstein and Gary Stretch have sued "MGM, Sony, Fox, producer Robert Simonds, star Steve Martin and others" because they say the Pink Panther movies violate their copyright on certain jokes. Apparently, Epstein and Stretch made a short film that they placed on YouTube and iFilm, which included a few jokes that are similar to jokes in the movies. So, be careful next time you're "performing" a joke you heard somewhere else. Perhaps you'll get sued for copyright infringement.

52 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Overhype

Overhype

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
commentary, copyright, demands, fair use

Companies:
eff, fox, progress illinois, public citizen



Fox Demands Site Give Up Fair Use Rights, Run Special Fox Ads, To Do Any Commentary

from the fair-use-doesn't-work-that-way dept

Here's a follow up to our story last Friday about Progress Illinois having its YouTube account restored. The YouTube account had been taken down following multiple DMCA takedown notices from Fox, leading YouTube to institute its usual policy of shutting such accounts down. Progress Illinois sent a counternotice, and after Fox failed to sue the activist group, the account was turned back on. Paul Alan Levy points us to some more troubling details about the discussions between Progress Illinois and Fox. Apparently, Fox sought to have Progress Illinois waive its fair use rights on all future Fox material and demanded that it be allowed to run ads on the Progress Illinois site in exchange for allowing the content to be placed on YouTube. On top of this, Levy notes that Fox is apparently preparing a deal with another video site (that will include its desired ads), which Fox will apparently demand sites use in reporting on Fox News reports. As Levy suggests, Fox may then use this to suggest that any "unauthorized" clip of a Fox broadcast fails the "impact on the market" prong of the fair use test. If true, that could create quite an interesting test case the first time Fox employs that argument on a site doing commentary. Its lawyers do know that failing one prong of the test doesn't automatically disqualify a fair use defense, right?

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Legal Issues

Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
decline to sue, dmca, takedowns

Companies:
eff, fox, progress illinois, public citizen



Declining To Sue Is Hardly An Acceptable Solution For DMCA Takedown Response

from the still-problematic dept

Earlier in January, the EFF and Public Citizen called attention to a local Fox affiliate using a DMCA takedown notice to remove a video that was used by an activist group, Progress Illinois, to comment on the broadcast. It was almost certainly fair use, but thanks to the way the DMCA works, even with a counternotice, YouTube is required to keep the video down for at least 10 business days. Considering that it was being used for commentary on current events, the fact that Fox is able to keep the content down for 10 business days should be seen as a problem. Anyway, as (former Fox lawyer) Ben Sheffner notes, Fox appears not to have filed a lawsuit in those 10 days, and thus, YouTube has restored Progress Illinois' account. Of course, as Sheffner also points out, Fox could still sue Progress Illinois at a later date, despite its failure to do so during the counternotice response window. Again, the whole scenario is problematic. Fox gets to take this video down at a time when it's most useful for commentary purposes, and then retains the right to sue at a later date without ever having to make a case for why the takedown was legitimate. It seems like there should be clarity that, if a company that issues a takedown does not sue following a counternotice, it should be seen as approval that the video is not infringing.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Legal Issues

Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
movie rights, movies, watchmen

Companies:
fox, warner bros.



As Expected, Warner Agrees To Fork Over Tons Of Cash To Fox For Watchmen

from the money-for-nothing dept

It will come as no surprise to anyone that Warner Bros. Studios and Fox have settled over the rights to Watchmen. It was pretty much a forgone conclusion once the court sided with Fox and said that Warner couldn't open the movie without agreeing to pay up. And, indeed, Warner will be paying a chunk of change, plus a percentage of the profits -- all for a movie that Fox had less than nothing to do with. Legally, it may be right, but from a common sense standpoint it makes no sense at all. Fox did everything possible to say that this movie should not be made. And it took none of the risks that Warner took... but now it gets a ton of money for it.

51 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Say That Again

Say That Again

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
lloyd levin, movie rights, movies, watchmen

Companies:
fox, warner bros.



Watchmen Producer Explains Why Fox Doesn't Deserve A Cut

from the hindering,-not-helping dept

There's been plenty of discussion over the fact that Fox is going to end up making money from the movie Watchmen, despite having absolutely nothing to do with the film itself. ChurchHatesTucker alerts us to an open letter, over at HitFix, from one of the producers of the movie, pointing out how ridiculous this is from a common sense approach. Basically, Fox pretty much did everything possible to not let the movie ever go into production, and then Warner took incredible risks, spending a ton of money on a script that Fox (and others) hated, giving it to a director without a commercial hit at the time, and casting no brand name stars. The point that Lloyd Levin is making is that, no matter what the law says, from a basic common sense standpoint, it's ridiculous that Fox should get any money at all. You should read the whole thing, but here's an excerpt:

Larry and I developed screenplays at five different studios. We had two false starts in production on the movie. We were involved with prominent and commercial directors. Big name stars were interested. In one instance hundreds of people were employed, sets were being built - An A-list director and top artists in the industry were given their walking papers when the studio financing the movie lost faith.

After all these years of rejection, this is the same project, the same movie, over which two studios are now spending millions of dollars contesting ownership. Irony indeed, and then some.

Through the years, inverse of the lack of studio faith has been the passionate belief by many many individuals - movie professionals who were also passionate fans of the graphic novel - who, yes, wanted to work on the film, but more for reasons of just wanting to see the movie get made, to see this movie get made and made right, donated their time and talent to help push the film forward: Writers gave us free screenplay drafts; conceptual art was supplied by illustrators, tests were performed gratis by highly respected actors and helped along and put together by editors, designers, prop makers and vfx artists; we were the recipients of donated studio and work space, lighting and camera equipment. Another irony, given the commercial stakes implied by the pitched legal dispute between Fox and Warners, is that for years Watchmen has been a project that has survived on the fumes of whatever could be begged, borrowed and stolen - A charity case for all intents and purposes. None of that effort, none of that passion and emotional involvement, is considered in the framework of this legal dispute.

From my point of view, the flashpoint of this dispute, came in late spring of 2005. Both Fox and Warner Brothers were offered the chance to make Watchmen. They were submitted the same package, at the same time. It included a cover letter describing the project and its history, budget information, a screenplay, the graphic novel, and it made mention that a top director was involved.

And it's at this point, where the response from both parties could not have been more radically different.

The response we got from Fox was a flat "pass." That's it. An internal Fox email documents that executives there felt the script was one of the most unintelligible pieces of shit they had read in years. Conversely, Warner Brothers called us after having read the script and said they were interested in the movie - yes, they were unsure of the screenplay, and had many questions, but wanted to set a meeting to discuss the project, which they promptly did. Did anyone at Fox ask to meet on the movie? No. Did anyone at Fox express any interest in the movie? No. Express even the slightest interest in the movie? Or the graphic novel? No.

From there, the executives at Warner Brothers, who weren't yet completely comfortable with the movie, made a deal to acquire the movie rights and we all started to creatively explore the possibility of making Watchmen. We discussed creative approaches and started offering the movie to directors, our former director having moved on by then. After a few director submissions, Zack Snyder came onboard, well before the release of his movie 300. In fact, well before its completion. This was a gut, creative call by Larry, me and the studio... Zack didn't have a huge commercial track record, yet we all felt he was the right guy for the movie.

Warner Brothers continued to support, both financially and creatively, the development of the movie. And eventually, after over a year of work, they agreed to make the film, based on a script that, for what it's worth, was by and large very similar to the one Fox initially read and deemed an unintelligible piece of shit.

Now here's the part that has to be fully appreciated, if for nothing more than providing insight into producing movies in Hollywood: The Watchmen script was way above the norm in length, near 150 pages, meaning the film could clock in at close to 3 hours, the movie would not only be R rated but a hard R - for graphic violence and explicit sex - would feature no stars, and had a budget north of $100M. We also asked Warner Brothers to support an additional 1 to 1.5 hours of content incurring additional cost that would tie in with the movie but only be featured in DVD iterations of the film. Warners supported the whole package and I cannot begin to emphasize how ballsy and unprecedented a move this was on the part of a major Hollywood studio. Unheard of. And would another studio in Hollywood, let alone a studio that didn't show one shred of interest in the movie, not one, have taken such a risk? Would they ever have made such a commitment, a commitment to a film that defied all conventional wisdom?

Only the executives at Fox can answer that question. But if they were to be honest, their answer would have to be "No."

Shouldn't Warner Brothers be entitled to the spoils - if any -- of the risk they took in supporting and making Watchmen? Should Fox have any claim on something they could have had but chose to neither support nor show any interest in?

Look at it another way... One reason the movie was made was because Warner Brothers spent the time, effort and money to engage with and develop the project. If Watchmen was at Fox the decision to make the movie would never have been made because there was no interest in moving forward with the project.
All in all, what Levin is saying is effectively the same point we've made about the innovation market over the years: the "idea" is a very tiny part. It's all about the execution. Fox wanted nothing to do with the execution and wasn't even that interested in the idea. Warner put up all the risk, and now Fox gets rewarded because at one point it bought the rights to just the idea. Once again, we're seeing society overvalue the idea and vastly undervalue the execution.

Of course, it's no surprise to see Fox's response is the same as plenty of patent holders in the same situation (paraphrased, obviously): "Tough noogies. The law is the law, and we win, so suck it." Wouldn't it be nice if, just once, we got to see common sense match up with what the law allows?

42 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Legal Issues

Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
australia, blame, busines models, copyright, isps, lawsuits, movie industry, movie studios

Companies:
disney, fox, iinet, paramount, seven network, sony, universal, village roadshow, warner bros



Movie Studios Sue Australian ISP For Not Waving Magic Wand And Defeating Piracy

from the blame-someone-else dept

A few years ago, after realizing that blaming consumers wasn't a particularly effective strategy in covering up for the entertainment industry's own inability to adapt to a changing market, industry insiders chose a new strategy: blame ISPs. That sent them down a path of trying to force ISPs to do a variety of things, such as installing filters, policing their networks for copyright-infringing material and, of course, kicking users off their networks. In the mind of entertainment industry execs, a failure to do any of these things should be a crime. Note how the industry totally shifts responsibility here. Rather than admitting that they should change with the market, it's always someone else who needs to change to protect the entertainment industry's obsolete business model.

While the industry has been able to get some politicians and ISPs to agree (amazingly, often against their own best interests), it's now gone a step further. A bunch of the biggest movie studios (Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, and the Seven Network) have teamed up to sue Australia's largest ISP, iiNet, for failing to stop copyright infringement. iiNet, you may recall, is the same ISP that has been mocking the Australian government for requiring filters. So, naturally, it's response to this lawsuit is rather direct. While the studios complain that iiNet isn't doing anything, iiNet responds that this is not true at all. They pass each complaint on to the police, because if there's a crime, then the police should deal with it:

They send us a list of IP addresses and say 'this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say 'well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say 'you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'.

We are not traffic cops. We can't stand in the middle of it and stop the individual items that might be against the law. These guys are asking us to be judge, jury and executioner.
Even better, iiNet's CEO Michael Malone gets to the heart of the matter:
I think they genuinely believe that ISPs have a secret magic wand that we are hiding and if we bring it out we can make piracy disappear just by waving it. And it doesn't exist.
Indeed, but that might mean that the entertainment industry has to actually take responsibility for their own business model failings, and they can't do that. So they have to blame others.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Legal Issues

Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
movie rights, movies, watchmen

Companies:
dc comics, fox, warner brothers



Fox Tries To Kill Watchmen

from the thank-you-intellectual-property... dept

The movie version of DC Comics' Watchmen is getting a lot of hype these days, as the early buzz on the film is quite strong. But, you may not get to see it at all. That's because 20th Century Fox claims that it owns the rights to Watchmen, despite the fact that the movie was being made by competitor Warner Brothers. Fox had owned the movie rights to Watchmen decades ago, but was unable to make a movie out of it. However, the producer that Fox had originally signed to do the project eventually popped up at Warner Brothers with the project. Fox claims it still owns the rights and is suing Warner to stop the release of the movie entirely. Most expect that this will get settled long before the movie's scheduled release in March of next year -- but it will probably mean that Fox gets some of the profits for doing absolutely nothing.

To be honest, the whole concept of selling off exclusive rights to a story idea for a movie never made that much sense. If multiple studios want to make multiple movies out of the same concept, why shouldn't that be allowed, letting the best movie win in the marketplace? If the original content creators feel strongly about a vision, then they can sign up to work with one particular studio to make sure the movie is more true to life -- but it shouldn't require "exclusive" rights. In fact, we've already seen this in practice. Technically, no one can copyright a true news story -- so movie studios have no exclusive rights to making a movie out of a news story. Yet, they will often still buy the rights -- without it being legally necessary. There are a few reasons why: it signals to others that you're making a movie on the topic and it often comes with ties to those close to the original story to get them involved in the project. Why aren't the same things done with adaptations?

We've seen a few authors recognize this. Jonathan Lethem freed up his latest book for anyone to make a movie out of it -- so long as they promised to put the movie into the public domain five years after it was completed. And then there's Paulo Coelho, who freed up one of his books and told fans to make their own movies about parts of it -- which he would stitch together into a larger movie. If Fox really wanted to make a Watchmen movie, it should have done so. It shouldn't now prevent someone else from doing so -- or, even worse, get a cut of the action for doing nothing.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Surprises

Surprises

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
social networks, synergies

Companies:
facebook, fox, fox news, myspace



Synergies? Fox News Skips Fox's Own Social Network For Facebook

from the synergies-don't-mean-much dept

While we do believe that there can be so-called "synergies" in various mergers and acquisitions, it often does seem as though companies over state what those benefits may be. Take, for example, the news that TV channel Fox News has set up shop on Facebook, rather than the social network's main competitor, MySpace. MySpace just so happens to be owned by Fox -- so it may seem odd that Fox News chose to go with Facebook rather than sister company MySpace. Basically, it appears that Fox News recognized that it was more likely to find an audience on Facebook than MySpace. This highlights just how silly some expected "synergies" often turn out to be. While many may have expected that the close relationship between Fox News and MySpace would mean that there's some advantage to both organizations to work together, the truth was the opposite. If Fox News had gone with MySpace instead, due to "synergies," (i.e., management mandates that those two companies work together) the end effect would have been worse. Fox News would have gone with the social network that didn't fit as well -- just to please management. So, rather than a "benefit" the so-called synergy would have been a net negative. In other words, the so-called "synergies" wouldn't actually have been... well... synergistic. The end result shows why so many mergers over so-called "synergies" don't really make much sense. If there's true synergy between the separate organizations, then they can work together as partners, rather than from within the same company. Otherwise, you get a situation where you may be locked in to a partner who is not as good as one outside your organization. (Post updated to clarify).

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Legal Issues

Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
clipping, copyright, tv shows

Companies:
fox, nbc universal, news corp, redlasso



Redlasso Sued By NBC Universal And Fox For Making It Easy For People To Promote NBC Universal And Fox

from the you-must-pay-us-to-promote-us dept

Redlasso is an interesting company. Something of an online "clipping" service for television content, it has a nice web feature that allows users to do a search and find a relevant clip -- and to also embed that clip in your own website. It's been used to great effect by various sites that want to provide commentary on certain television content. The actions by Redlasso don't seem all that different than some old school TV clipping services, but (once again) the addition of "the internet" to the situation throws a legal wrench in things. NBC Universal and Fox are now suing Redlasso for violating copyrights.

This is especially odd since TV stations are in the business of attracting viewers, and giving people an easy way to promote your content to others (at absolutely no cost to you) would seem like a good plan for attracting more viewers. However, it would appear that the execs suing believe that companies should have to pay TV studios to promote their TV shows. Since it seems unlikely that the TV execs will recognize this any time soon, this particular case will hinge on the question of whether or not Redlasso can prove its claims that this use of clips is fair use. Update: As noted in the comments, the Redlasso has agreed to shut down the site, at least for now.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Politics

Politics

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
fcc, fines, indecency

Companies:
fcc, fox, news corp



Justice Department Sues Fox Over Failure To Pay Indecency Fines

from the the-definition-of-indecency dept

Remember how Fox was simply refusing to pay an indecency fine issued by the FCC? Well, it appears that the FCC isn't too happy about that and has had the Justice Department file some lawsuits against the various Fox affiliates refusing to pay (it turns out a few affiliates did pay). Before filing the lawsuits, the FCC rejected Fox's appeal without comment, but merely by saying that Fox's appeal to the FCC was 14 pages too long and the company hadn't asked permission to exceed the limit. Fox called this response "offensive," apparently resisting the more hilarious option of calling it "indecent." In the meantime, it looks like Fox will have yet another indecency case to fight in court to go along with the Supreme Court case on indecency that also involves Fox.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Legal Issues

Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
fcc, fines, indecency

Companies:
fcc, fox



Fox Simply Refuses To Pay Indecency Fine

from the or-there's-that-option... dept

With the Supreme Court already agreeing to review how the FCC determines indecency in a case involving Fox, it appears that Fox has taken a rather aggressive stance concerning a different case where it was fined: it's simply refusing to pay the fine. The FCC originally fined Fox $1.2 million for an episode of "Married by America" that apparently included clips of a stripper with the "naughty bits" pixelated out. After Fox appealed, the fine was reduced to $91,000, covering just the affiliates where complaints were lodged (which seems pretty weak, since reports have shown that indecency complaints are usually sent in by those who didn't even see the show in question, but were alerted to it by lobbying groups that are pushing for more regulation of TV content). Either way, Fox has simply decided not to pay the $91,000, while also asking the FCC to rethink the fine. Somehow, given Kevin Martin's focus on indecency issues, one doubts he'll play along with this. Perhaps Fox is just hoping that it can stall long enough for a new FCC commish to come into power.

56 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Say That Again

Say That Again

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
fear mongering, foxnews, online games, violence

Companies:
fox, news corp.



FoxNews Fear Mongering: Online Games May KILL You!

from the sensationalism-at-work dept

In a piece that with just a few tweaks could easily be from The Onion, FoxNews has written up a fear mongering article about online game players. It selectively picks out a few extreme cases where people who met via online worlds ended up doing something bad, and broadens that to suggest that online games like World of Warcraft are a threat that's only going to get worse. To be fair, the article does squeeze a few quick quotes in the middle from folks who point out that the premise is highly exaggerated, but it brushes them off and quickly goes back to fear mongering. It includes typical fear-inducing sensationalist statements like: "But some hook-ups have had deadly consequences" (you can practically hear the scary voiceover voice saying it). The article offers nothing in the way of proof that anything described in the article is a common occurrence, instead just offers scary words and conjecture not supported by facts: "You're going to see a lot more of these stories, unfortunately." Oh really? Then how come as these games have become more popular, violence has been dropping? How soon until we see Congress start looking into laws regulating online games?

38 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Say That Again

Say That Again

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
copyright, fair use, john mccain, mitt romney, presidential candidates

Companies:
fox



Mitt Romney To Fox News: Here's A Lesson In Fair Use

from the fair-use-on-the-campaign-trail dept

Who thought that the presidential campaigns would have anything to do with copyright issues? If you said yes, you'd be in a small group. However, as we pointed out last week, Fox News has been sending cease-and-desist letters to Republican candidates for using snippets of the Republican presidential candidate debates in their ads and on their websites. Other networks have agreed to allow the content to be used freely, but not News Corp.-owned Fox. We figured that most candidates would back down rather than getting tangled in a legal battle, but that might not be the case. Against Monopoly points out that Mitt Romney's campaign sent Fox News a letter describing the campaign's use of the material as clearly falling under "fair use". Fox News has shot back that it does not, but so far that seems to be as far as things have gone. Where it will get interesting is whether either side is willing to file an actual lawsuit (News Corp. being much more likely to actually file, but the Romney campaign could always try to get a declaratory judgment). Considering how little attention gets paid to copyright issues during presidential election cycles, this may be about as close as it gets.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

More Stories >>

Search Techdirt
And now, a word from our Sponsors..



Popular Posts
Poll

Which Internet Concern Worries You The Most?

 

 

 

 

 

 


Add Techdirt RSS To Your Reader
rss Add Techdirt to your Bloglines
Add Techdirt to your Google Add Techdirt to your My Yahoo
Add Techdirt to your Netvibes Add Techdirt to your Newsgator
Subscribe to Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Older Stuff

Thursday

4:52pm: What Does It Say When A Comedy Show Does More Fact Checking Than News Programs? (56)
3:33pm: Nordic Music Week: Optimism Galore And Found Songs (10)
2:10pm: Would Top Sites Really Opt-Out Of Google Based On A Microsoft Bribe? (37)
12:57pm: Intel Lawyers Again Go Too Far In Trademark Bullying (21)
11:43am: Mandelson Wants Gov't To Have Sweeping Powers To Protect Copyright Holders (40)
10:47am: Once Again, Walmart Stops People From Printing Family Photos Due To Copyright Law Claims (42)
9:39am: Essayist Writes Popular Essay... Then Sends 'Non-Negotiable' Invoice To Church Who Posts It Online (59)
8:23am: ASCAP, BMI And SESAC Continue To Screw Over Most Songwriters: 'Write A Hit Song If You Want Money' (78)
7:07am: Kicking People Off The Internet Not Enough In South Korea, Copyright Lobbyists Demand More (26)
5:33am: Are The Record Labels Using Bluebeat's Bogus Copyright Defense To Avoid Having To Give Copyrights Back To Artists? (42)
3:53am: Larry Magid Calls For News Tax To Fund Failing Newspapers (29)
1:35am: Judge Says 'There's An Ad For That...' And It's Ok For Now (14)

Wednesday

11:01pm: Oh Look, Some Police Do Know How To Use Craigslist As A Tool (8)
8:43pm: Netherlands The Latest To Propose Mileage Tax That Requires GPS For Tracking Driving (30)
6:40pm: Spain Says Broadband Is A Basic Right (12)
4:22pm: Entertainment Industry Wants More People To Know About OpenBitTorrent Tracker (25)
3:00pm: It's The TSA, Not CSI: Actions Limited To Security, Not Crime Investigation (25)
1:49pm: The More Innovative You Are, The More You Get Sued; Yet Another Patent Lawsuit Over Shazam (7)
12:36pm: Oh No! Nobody Reads! Oh No! It's Too Cheap For Everyone To Read! (18)
11:15am: We See Your 'Copyright Contributes $1.5 Trillion' And Raise You 'Fair Use Contributes $2.2 Trillion' (17)
9:55am: Cable Industry Joins MPAA In Asking FCC To Allow Them To Stop Your DVR From Recording Movies (45)
8:44am: Sony Pictures Having Its Best Box Office Year Ever... Still Blaming Piracy For Killing The Business (38)
7:30am: Jenzabar Finds 'Expert Witness' Who Will Claim Google Relies On Metatags, Despite Google Saying It Does Not (38)
5:52am: China Says Microsoft Violates IP With Windows, Bars Sales (26)
4:01am: Don't Post Comments On StlToday.com Or They Might Tell Your Boss (45)
1:50am: Recording Industry Making It Impossible For Any Legit Online Music Service To Survive Without Being Too Expensive (45)

Tuesday

11:01pm: Crackdown On Loyalty Program Scams Shows How Ridiculously Sucessful They Were (11)
8:56pm: Just Because People Say They'll Pay For Something, It Doesn't Mean They Will (21)
7:02pm: Yes, Bad People Use Facebook Too (8)
5:29pm: Folks Can Digg Shoes For Needy Kids (2)
More arrow
Quick Links
Close
E-mail It