Fox goes after YouTube pirates

January 25, 2007 2:36 AM

Fox goes after YouTube pirates. Fox takes a new approach to fight copyright infringers who post illegal content on YouTube. Going after the user who uploaded the copyrighted material instead of forcing YouTube to pull it from the web site should prove a more effective deterrent.
posted by jeyoung (20 comments total)

That said, this isn’t the first time a company has subpoenaed YouTube: Paramount Pictures successfully got them to hand over the details of YouTube user Chris Moukarbel, who was was sued for copyright infringement on June 16th 2006 for uploading dialog from the movie “Twin Towers”.

And as we all know, YouTube's really gone to shit since June.
posted by mek at 2:50 AM on January 25, 2007

DMCA only gives them safe harbor if they comply. Did anyone not see this coming? YouTube isn't based on SeaLand.
posted by dhartung at 2:52 AM on January 25, 2007

A more effective deterrent... for me to poop on!
posted by Effigy2000 at 3:02 AM on January 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

We know that Google acquired YouTube for $1.65 Billion in stock...has YouTube services changed to good or worse for you?
posted by murzilka at 3:12 AM on January 25, 2007

I don't think Google has actually acquired YouTube yet.

The only place Google appears to be mentioned on YouTube is the privacy policy, in reference to 3rd party ad servers.
posted by pruner at 3:46 AM on January 25, 2007

Now the gootube will be less foxy?
posted by srboisvert at 3:53 AM on January 25, 2007

You're right. Here is a link explaining the future YouTube/Google Combination.
posted by murzilka at 4:01 AM on January 25, 2007

Funny, one might think Fox would be thrilled to have YouTube's servers help them to spread their pernicious propoganda.
posted by three blind mice at 4:11 AM on January 25, 2007

Going after the user who uploaded the copyrighted material instead of forcing YouTube to pull it from the web site should prove a more effective deterrent.

Who is this guy posting all those videos to YouTube? Probably some kid with too much time on his (or her - yes, it is feasible!) hands. Rest assured, citizen: federal authorities will catch the culprit soon.

In the meantime, take precautions to only view corporate authorized videos and "chat" just to user names you know personally (said culprit has cleverly registered under several assumed names using falsified information).
posted by hal9k at 4:26 AM on January 25, 2007

I think it will work. There will be a lot less copyrighted material on YouTube.
posted by tellurian at 4:39 AM on January 25, 2007

demanding that the site provides the details of users who uploaded four episodes of “24″ and twelve episodes of “The Simpsons”.

what about the users who say that Bill O'Reilly is an asshole?
posted by matteo at 4:39 AM on January 25, 2007

This isn't about piracy, this is about MySpace becoming the new Microsoft (or Apple for that matter), in so much as being a closed system.

FOX/Newscorp is working on the old business model of permission culture, where they (legally and rightfully so) are the gatekeepers of their "owned" material. (Ignoring the fact that increased non-restrictive spreading of that material leads to increased revenue.)

They have no problem with their content online. But why have it on YouTube when they have MySpace for their video distribution? They've already declared war, started to block various third-party parisites from being used on profiles, and are trying to lock people in by integrating their products horizontally.

As far as going after users - Google could and should defend users who are using material under fair-use guidelines (and strengthening the public domain), but after watching the RIAA go after everyone and their grandmother for shakedown settlements, it's much easier to go after some pirate kid that Google and their deep pockets. The Chilling Effect yet again raises it's ugly head.

And on preview, doesn't you tube limit clips to five-minutes?
posted by rzklkng at 5:29 AM on January 25, 2007

I don't think Google has actually acquired YouTube yet.

They have.
posted by inigo2 at 6:54 AM on January 25, 2007

There is some wise commentary on here. I think that the content goons will lock down what they can, forcing people to use their own walled gardens. However, tiny Flash videos lasting five minutes are not a substitute good for DVDs or properly encoded downloads - its just free publicity from people who love your product. Stupid. Google needs to do something to keep these goons away as without technically copyrighted content (I think a few minutes in lofi is fair use but am no legal expert) YouTube is nothing but students doing renditions of bad pop or kids trying to do jackass-esque stunts and thus is not worth $1.6bn at all...They should try agree to share revenue with content owners and make them go away. Doubt Newscorp or anyone with their own ambitions will.
posted by The Salaryman at 7:23 AM on January 25, 2007

Wait until they hear about what radio is going to to kill live music performances.
posted by GuyZero at 8:02 AM on January 25, 2007

How is posting Fox's video to youtube fair use?

I don't think it is, which means that we're in pretty basic copyright land. Because of that, and the revenue Google will be seeking from content providers such as Fox, I don't think Google will be too excited about defending anyone in one of these lawsuits.

My money is on Google rolling over and distancing itself from the possible infringement charges.
posted by Muddler at 8:56 AM on January 25, 2007

as without technically copyrighted content (I think a few minutes in lofi is fair use but am no legal expert) YouTube is nothing but students doing renditions of bad pop or kids trying to do jackass-esque stunts

And lots of cats and dogs and birds and iguanas doing stupid pet tricks. Don't forget stupid pet tricks!
posted by blucevalo at 9:04 AM on January 25, 2007

I can't argue on fair use and probably was too flippant in citing it but maybe a small selection can be cited for 'comment'?

Google spent a lot of money on YouTube. YouTube without copyright-problematic (there's a euphamism) content is not worth very much at all and will be of little interest to advertisers (who make the money for Google). We shall see but this is a very important battle. Ideally Google could come to some kind of blanket license agreement with at least some content holders.

Hopefully wiser heads will prevail..
posted by The Salaryman at 9:10 AM on January 25, 2007

Legally, that's what they're required to do. The legal responsibility is on the uploader, not on Youtube.
posted by delmoi at 12:28 PM on January 25, 2007

This is as rzklkng said above. This is about MySpace vs YouTube.

Think about it. Simpsons and Family Guy clips have been on YouTube since about 27 minutes after the site went live. What a shock that only now does Fox care, with it paying an embarrassing sum for MySpace, which is about 8 months from jumping the shark, and with Google paying an even more ridiculous amount for You Tube, which without Lazy Sunday (or the next big thing, or the next) will have little to no value.

Traditional media still does not understand this whiz-bang internet thing.

Having Lazy Sunday on You Tube was the best thing to happen to Saturday Night Live in over a decade. So, of course, the logical approach from NBC was to have it removed.

You have to ask yourself, how did having Lazy Sunday on You Tube do anything except BENEFIT NBC and SNL? There is no downside of any kind. It had no cost to NBC, and it cost them no revenue. It was just free advertising on someone else's bandwidth dime. So of course, by all means, cease and desist.

Insane.

I really wonder who their "new media" consultants are. It has to be the same people Sony hired when they tried to convince Congress that VCRs would mean the end of motion pictures.

If I were NBC I would BEG You Tube to let their millions of eyeballs see 5 minutes from the latest episode of Hit Comedy Show. I would PAY for that privilege.

Instead, they cloister the clips on their own web site, where they have to pay hosting and bandwidth, and where it gets 1/1000th or less of the traffic.

"You mean I can pay more for less exposure? AWESOME! Where do I sign?"

Again, insane.
posted by Ynoxas at 1:19 PM on January 25, 2007