Custom Toy Blogger Accused Of Infringing On Wolverine

from the take-a-look-at-the-photos dept

Reader shaniac points us to a blog post on a custom toy blog, where the blogger explains how some of his photo galleries of custom toys he made were forced offline due to a DMCA takedown notice from 20th Century Fox, claiming that they infringed on intellectual property from the Wolverine movie. Except, if you look at the images, it seems pretty clear that they've got nothing, whatsoever, to do with Wolverine. In other words, 20th Century Fox appears to have broken the law, in claiming it held the copyright over the figures in those images, when it appears it did not. Unfortunately, the site hosting his content doesn't fully understand that under the DMCA it can re-enable his content if he files a counternotice and 20th Century Fox fails to file a lawsuit within a specified period of time. Instead, it's told the blogger that he needs to get the lawyer from 20th Century Fox to agree that the content doesn't infringe -- and the lawyers don't seem to be responding to any emails, meaning that the blogger is stuck in limbo for no good reason.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

MySpace Video Blocking Not An Antitrust Violation

from the well,-good dept

Brad Greenspan, who at one point was CEO of Intermix, the spyware/adware firm that originally created MySpace, has been complaining for years that News Corp. engaged in fraud when it purchased Intermix in order to get MySpace at a discounted price. A court found nothing to support this, pointing out (yet again) that the acquisition was agreed to by both parties. However, that hasn't stopped Greenspan, whose own competitive startup Live Universe filed an antitrust lawsuit against MySpace for blocking Live Universe videos from MySpace profiles.

How is this possibly an antitrust issue? Well, that wasn't clear to anyone... least of all to the courts apparently. After first losing at the district court level, an appeals court has now found no validity in the antitrust claims either, sending Greenspan back to the drawing board for attempts to find ways to suck some more money out of News Corp.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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..

News Corp Found Guilty Of Hacking Only A Single DISH Smart Card

from the that's-not-gonna-hurt dept

Last month we wrote about the strange case of DISH Networks accusing a News Corp subsidiary of hacking its smart cards and distributing them. This seemed really unlikely, as there was little incentive for the company to do so. The company did admit to reverse engineering DISH Networks technology (which is perfectly legal). It appears that a jury wasn't particularly convinced either. It did find the subsidiary guilty of hacking one single smart card, for which the company was fined $49.69 (ouch!), and then the court added another $1000 for "damages." So, technically it's a "victory" for DISH, but probably not to the level it was expecting.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Did DirecTV Hire Satellite Hackers To Leak Dish TV Smart Cards?

from the seems-a-bit-extreme dept

I had missed this story when it came out last week, but thanks to a reader (who prefers to remain anonymous) for sending it in. Apparently, Dish Network is suing DirecTV, claiming that DirecTV (and its parent News Corp) hired notorious satellite TV hackers to break Dish's encryption and "flood the market" with hacked smart cards. That's quite a claim, and it will be interesting to see what evidence the company has to back it up. After all, reverse engineering a product is perfectly legal -- and, indeed, DirecTV claims that's all it did. Furthermore, it seems doubly strange that DirecTV would go down this route after so thoroughly pissing off smart card hackers of all kinds a few years ago by accusing them all of stealing DirecTV signals with almost no evidence, and then pushing many to pay up to avoid a lawsuit. It's also hard to see what the real benefit to DirecTV is of such a plan. Making it easier to get Dish for free shouldn't increase DirecTV's market at all. One would hope that Dish actually has some serious evidence to go along with these claims.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Can Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, AOL And News Corp Sit Down And Just Divvy Up The Internet Already?

from the thanks dept

Well, well, well. So, apparently, the earlier news about Yahoo using Google ads was just the appetizer to the more meaty story, which is apparently... well... that just about all the big name internet players are going to do a bit of horse trading to figure out who owns who in the end. There seems to be a lot of speculating in the WSJ article, but apparently step one is that Yahoo and AOL might merge their internet properties (something that's been rumored before). That pairing would likely lead to Google taking over the ads (it already handles the ads for AOL and owns a stake of AOL). At the same time, the article reports that News Corp., once rumored to be a suitor of Yahoo until it vehemently denied the story, may actually be teaming up with Microsoft to make a joint bid for Yahoo. Who else did we leave out? Nobody?

Anyway, I stand my by original assessment of a potential AOL-Yahoo merger ("like trying to keep a wild animal from eating you by covering yourself with feces"), but honestly, this gathering of the big players should actually be seen as a huge opportunity for everyone else. Basically, the big boys are about to make a big mess, and there will be tremendous opportunities that spill out while they try to figure out what went wrong. People are just starting to realize that you don't innovate by building up huge mega-corporations -- you do it by being small and nimble. These megamergers are going in the wrong direction and will open up huge opportunities for small, quick firms that think big.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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..

Mother And Daughter Still Blame MySpace For Not Protecting Her From Sexual Assault

from the go-after-the-money dept

Two and a half years ago, we wrote about a teenager who sued MySpace following a sexual assault, saying that it was the site's fault that she was assaulted. This despite the fact that she had signed up for the site, lied about her age and the actual assault (obviously) happened outside of MySpace. That's not to say that a crime didn't happen, but it's quite difficult to see how it could possibly be MySpace's fault. In fact, a judge made exactly that point in dismissing the lawsuit last year, noting that MySpace was protected under section 230 safe harbors, and even if it wasn't, it would "cripple" 3rd party communication systems if you could attach liability to them for every crime committed that touched on those services. The judge also pointed out that this seemed like a clear case of a parent trying to blame a big company for her own failings: "If anyone had a duty to protect Julie Doe, it was her parents, not MySpace."

Of course, that's not good enough for the girl and her mother, who have now appealed the case, still claiming that MySpace somehow is responsible. The girl's lawyers claim that MySpace still had a responsibility to protect the girl, even though he doesn't explain how it can protect a girl who lied about her age and then went off to meet with a much older guy in real life. It's difficult to see how that can possibly be MySpace's fault -- but the rule of thumb these days is always sue the big company that has the most money. As for the older guy accused of the sexual assault, he's been indicted, but last we heard, his lawyers were also thinking about blaming MySpace. After all, if the girl is blaming MySpace, then how could it be the guy's fault?

47 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Dow Jones Execs Talk Murdoch Out Of Dropping The Paywall

from the short-term-revenue-vs.-long-term-relevance dept

For months there had been a lot of buzz about how Rupert Murdoch was interested in dropping the WSJ's paywall. However, as we noted, execs at Dow Jones were quick to hit back, and said they would convince Murdoch otherwise after the acquisition was completed. It appears that's exactly what's happened. Murdoch today admitted that he's going to keep the WSJ subscription offering and maybe even increase the price. Amusingly, this news is available for free on the WSJ's site. The truth is, it's still not entirely clear what's going to happen to the Journal's website. While Murdoch said there will always be a subscription offering, he also said that more content will be free. It sounds like he's trying to straddle both solutions here, picking the "most valuable" content to remain locked up. Of course, that was the NY Times' strategy -- which failed.

The simple fact is that news reporting content is incredibly difficult to monetize directly anymore -- due to a variety of factors, mostly having to do with the nature of trying to sell content. There are models (even subscription models) that work, but they will be not for the content directly, but for advanced services, such as personalization or analysis. The risk in locking up your best content is that the WSJ will continue to lose relevance, as the next generation of readers won't even bother to sign up, as they won't be able to understand why it's worth paying for this content, no matter how good WSJ execs claim it is.

The next generation of content users have learned something important: it's no longer reasonable to take it on faith that content they don't have access to is good and worth paying for. They need to have access to the content itself, and will figure out for themselves if it's valuable -- and if it is, they'll want to do more with it than just read it. They want to share it, vote on it, discuss it, analyze it and many other things. Locking up the content makes it a lot more difficult and takes away much of the value. Taking away value from consumers isn't exactly a strategy for success these days.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Dow Jones Pours Cold Water On Murdoch's Free Journal Plans

from the he-said,-he-said dept

For months, we've been reporting on rumors that Rupert Murdoch is thinking about dropping the Wall Street Journal's paywall in the hopes of dramatically expanding the paper's readership. This week we've had the first direct confirmation of Murdoch's plans when he predicted at a shareholder meeting that dropping the Journal's paywall would expand the paper's online readership from a million readers to 10 or 15 million. But Dow Jones executive Michael Rooney rushed to pour cold water on Murdoch's comments, insisting that they would need to wait until after the sale closed before any decisions were made. He said he wanted to figure out how much revenue Dow Jones would lose before deciding whether to drop the paywall. Frankly, I think it's a good thing Murdoch will soon be in charge of the paper. Short-term revenues are far less important than the paper's long-term influence and visibility. Murdoch understands that continuing the paywall would virtually guarantee continued readership stagnation by keeping the Journal out of the online conversation. That would leave a huge opening for one of the Journal's competitors to establish itself as the leading online business news outlet. That's a far bigger threat to the paper's financial health than a short-term loss of subscription revenue. Murdoch has a long history of being willing to take temporary financial hits to build up successful and ultimately profitable media properties, and that shrewd business sense looks set to continue with his acquisition of Dow Jones.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Studios Unveil Meaningless 'Guidelines' For User Content Sites

from the audible-magic-full-employment-agreement dept

There's a lot of talk about the new "guidelines" that were announced today mainly by the big television studios, along with a few smaller players in the online video space. The press coverage highlights two things: this is a big deal and it's notable that Google didn't agree to join. I'm not sure either thing is really true. Reading through the actual principles, about the only thing that's noteworthy is how pointless they are. If anything, they're basically a "full employment for Audible Magic" document in that they require companies to install the type of filters that Audible Magic is selling (though, it's still questionable how well they work). There are some totally meaningless statements about supporting fair use, but no details on how that's actually to be done. In other words, these principles are basically "everyone should install filters that block unauthorized content and... uh... the content companies will remain aware that fair use sort of exists sometimes." That's somewhat meaningless. Google's reason for not joining, even though it has come up with its own filters, is that it doesn't see why it should agree to stand by any specific guidelines that go above and beyond what the law requires, as there could be conditions under which such guidelines hold back necessary innovation. The bigger point, though, is how truly meaningless these guidelines are. If those guidelines are truly effective in stopping some unauthorized content on these sites, that content (and many users) will simply migrate elsewhere. In other words, it won't stop that unauthorized use of content and it won't help any of the companies that have agreed to the principles. That means that the impact of such things is likely to be pretty much nil.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will Fox Sue Congress For Simpsons Parody?

from the d'oh! dept

If you follow politics outside of the tech world you've probably seen plenty of talk in the last week or so about the battle over SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The details of the debate really aren't worth getting into on a tech/business news site, but a bunch of Republican Congressmen put out what can only be considered a parody press release using characters from the TV show The Simpsons to try to highlight their side of the debate. This was so random and bizarre that a few people actually wondered if the Republican site had been hacked. That turned out not to be the case, but apparently none of the Representatives who put together the mock press release sought the approval of Twentieth Century Fox, who apparently is not at all happy that Simpsons characters are being used in this manner: "Twentieth Century Fox was unaware of the illegal use of characters from The Simpsons in this press release. Let me assure you, Fox did not authorize this use. Characters from The Simpsons may not be used in this manner…" Some would argue that parody is covered by fair use, but that may only be true if the parody is of The Simpsons itself, rather than using them for a parody of something else. Either way, while Congress has been bending over backwards to give the entertainment industry everything it wishes when it comes to keeping control over their creative works, it seems that even those same Representatives can think of cases where it made perfect sense to them to make use of characters without having to first license them. Somehow, why do I get the feeling this lesson won't stick and these same Reps will have no problem putting in place more stringent copyright laws that eat away at fair use?

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

MySpace Turns A Profit, Barely

from the not-even-in-the-tweens-of-millions dept

Ever since News Corp. bought out MySpace, there have been lingering doubts about the social networking site's profitability. The deal that the company signed with Google did put some of these doubts to rest, as it seemed likely that News Corp. would comfortably recoup its initial outlay. But the fundamental issue of whether a popular social networking site is necessarily a cash cow remains up in the air. Yesterday, News Corp. announced that in this past fiscal year, the company's interactive division (which is mainly MySpace) turned a profit of $10 million on revenue of $550 million. These are incredibly paltry margins. This division is still growing rapidly, so it's understandable that it would be putting a lot of money towards new investments. However, the figures include money from the Google deal, which should drop right down to profits. In other words, while the company may be crowing that the unit is now profitable, it's far from showing that things are truly successful.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Does Sale Of Dow Jones Mean The End Of The Paywall?

from the freedom dept

With News Corp.'s purchase of Dow Jones now all but certain, there's a lot of discussion about whether Rupert Murdoch will pull a Mikhail Gorbachev and tear down that (pay)wall at the Wall Street Journal. Yesterday we argued that if the Financial Times wants to raise its profile in the US, it should do just that, as a way of differentiating itself from the Journal. At this point, there's no way of knowing whether Murdoch will make the move first and preempt Pearson (parent company of the Financial Times). You have to figure that he has other things on his mind right now than how best to monetize the Wall Street Journal online. But, seeing as part of the deal's rationale is to bolster the credibility of Fox's forthcoming business channel, it makes sense to make the Journal's content more widely available. Another possibility, put forward by the founder of MarketWatch (also a Dow Jones property), is to tie MarketWatch in with Fox, leaving the Journal as it is, a premium offering for non-retail investors. But, realistically, the MarketWatch brand doesn't carry near the value that the Journal does -- if Murdoch is really intent on bolstering its business channel, it has to do it by leveraging the Journal.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Pearson Mulls Possibilities To Exploit News Corp./Dow Jones

from the the-next-move dept

By all accounts, News Corp.'s bid for Dow Jones is coming down to the wire, although the latest indication is that the deal is likely to go through. If the deal does happen, one of the big winners could be Pearson, the publisher of the Financial Times, which has been making an aggressive push to expand its global presence and present itself as an alternative to the Wall Street Journal. Already, the company has indicated that it would like to partner up with another major media organization in order to promote its brand. One possibility would be to partner up with CNBC if News Corp. decides to sever Dow Jones' relationship with the business news network. In addition to striking such a partnership, Pearson should be looking to open up its content as a way of differentiating the Financial Times from the Wall Street Journal. At the moment, the sites of both papers are largely locked down, with most content available to subscribers only. Were the Financial Times to take down this wall, opening up its best content to the public, it wouldn't be hard to imagine the paper usurping some of the Journal's influence.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

News Corp. Looks Set To Lock Down Dow Jones

from the just-about dept

After months of negotiations, News Corp.'s bid for Dow Jones looks like it's close to completion. A tentative agreement still needs to be ratified by the full board, but barring any last minute surprises, it seems as though the original offer of $5 billion will stand. The timing is great for News Corp., as it recently set a date for the launch of its business channel, and it will undoubtedly use the Dow Jones brand to bolster the channel's credibility, helping it take on the industry leader, CNBC. It's safe to assume that there are various measures in place designed to prevent Rupert Murdoch from radically changing the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones' crown jewel, but ultimately, once the Bancroft family hands over the keys, all bets are off.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..