Fox files DMCA Subpoena to YouTube for Identities of users (and thanks Bill Clinton)

[populistdriven]

Big media owes a big thank-you to former President Bill Clinton who signed the DMCA into law. Maybe that will come in the form of a check to his wife. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA#Example_of_DMCA_Takedown_Provision

Fox wants to know who is uploading copyrighted material to YouTube, now owned by Google, Inc. Short of raking out lawsuits in expedient fashion, 20th Century Fox has served YouTube a subpoena as of yesterday. It wants to find out who uploaded copies of entire recent episodes of "24" and "The Simpsons".

Filed on the basis of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the subpoena includes testimony of Fox Entertainment Group vp Jane Sunderland suggesting Fox has been unable to determine the users' identities on its own. The uploaded material could cause Fox "irreparable harm," Sunderland said, but it was not immediately clear if the episodes in question still were posted on the site or had been removed.

However, the subpoena identifies the YouTube subscriber by the username "ECOtotal." A search under that username on the YouTube site unearths a user by that name with a banner across the top of the subscriber's page that reads, "This user account has been suspended."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3i8e461f30b83c62d920b85a10ae9e813c

Is this is why Rupert Murdoch is supporting Hillary Clinton?

[Deja Q]

1. Since those shows are paid for by advertisers, who get their money from

the public who buy their products, I'm confused.

No, I don't upload. But seeing youtube clips sure as hell compels me to BUY the episodes on DVD, or at least netflix them. But if they think they are being deprived of money because they exist online? Never mind 'irreparable harm', which is a complete and total CROCK of steaming cattle cack. Gimme a break!! The video and audio quality is p***-poor. And some clips on youtube aren't on the DVDs sold by, amongst other companies, FOX.

Still, I'm glad FOX makes little worth buying anymore... pity boycotting doesn't work, they've got too many sponsors and it's naive to think boycotting will do any good in the end.

[Clintonista2]

Nice job with the Hillary (not related in any way to the story) smears.

Classy.

[Buzz Clik]

3. Excellent take.

I noticed the "oh, yeah ... and Hillary sucks" addendum as well. I was initially surprised to see that the author of the opening post had more than 5 total posts; then I remembered that mindlesss bashing of "Not My Candidate" is a full-time job for some here at DU.

[Buzz Clik]

2. So, you support the notion of ripping off copyrighted material?

I don't understand your point at all, unless it's simply that you find the actual protection of protected material somehow reprehensible.

This is right up there with the whiners who cannot understand why stealing music isn't legal.

[depakid]

4. Intellectual property laws have become abusive

on almost every front-

And Clinton DID sign one of the more egregious provisions- the DMCA. Both Bill and Hillary pander to corporate media and the entertainment industry- which is why they'll not be getting my support in their bid to return to the Whitehouse.

[Deja Q]

6. Quite. Even corporations sue each other using it! (a good example follows:)

Lexmark has used the DMCA over other companies who make toner cartridges for their printers. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-979791.html

Give me a friggin' break.

That stuff has been going on for ages and by or against other companies too.

Lexmark also happens to SELL toner cartridges for HP printers as well!

Okay, so it's wrong for other people to make toner carts for Lexmark printers but it's okay for Lexmark to make toner carts for other peoples' printers?

Hypocrites.

Dirty hypocrites who want things both ways.

Toddlers.

And a bunch of words I reeeally want to say right now!

The laws simply allows for and begs for abuse. Even by the lackeys who support it, talk about irony.

People who say "Anyone who is against the DMCA is a baby because it stops them stealing". I'm sorry but I've seen that mindset before and all they can do is parrot it. No time to think because all the talking point memes are more important. The issue far transcends their favorite facet and common sense to boot. (fuzzy sounding audio with blocky looking video is the reason why people aren't buying those DVDs which have solid, crisp video and pure symphonic multi-channel sound... uh, okay... :eyes: Who thinks up that shit?!)

:eyes:

[Ignacio Upton]

9. The DMCA is anti-free market

By creating a "permission culture" for ideas, it makes it much harder for fair competition, and hurts consumer choice.

[Ignacio Upton]

8. Yes, and a whole spectrum of people would agree with this

Even the CATO Institute has called for repealing it:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6025

...Also, here's a good NY Times article from 2004 about the abuse of copyright laws:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25COPYRIGHT.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=9eb265b1f26e8b14&ex=1390366800&partner=USERLAND

The DMCA has given the RIAA, Diebold, Faux News, and Microsoft a free hand in stifling innovation and freedom of speech. The law itself even CONTRADICTS previous laws, such as the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Home Recording Act of 1992. It essentially nullifies fair use (although trying to enforce the DMCA against individuals is about as effective as going after pot users, prohibition-era speak-easies, and underage drinkers.)

[Ignacio Upton]

10. BTW, did you know that the former head of the RIAA

Hillary Rosen, appears on Hardball as a "Democratic Strategist"? Sadly, the issue of copyright abuse transcends parties. I know people of both Marxist and libertarian persuasion who speak the truth better than people like Rosen, the Clintons, Biden, or Orrin Hatch.

[Deja Q]

5. All I know is, it takes two to tango. BTW,

Youtube doesn't allow people to download material. One can only play it. And to answer your unspoken question, those hacks I've heard about don't work.

All that means the uploaders aren't nearly as responsible as youtube itself for any purported mess or "loss of revenue" excuse being made. No, there is no loss of revenue. Exposure leads to purchasing. However, offshoring leads to the lack of money to be able to purchase things with. :think:

And as I've said on other forums, I'd pay more to get uncut seasons on DVD and (by and large) refuse to buy the existing sets because they are cut.

[Buzz Clik]

11. Okay, I'll concede all the points to you guys (with respect to the law)

Except one: I can and have captured videos off of YouTube with absolutely no problem. It took a bit of time to set up and a couple of pieces of software (you can buy a single piece for $$$ but it can be done for free).

Apparently they're going after XM radio for selling a device that allows XM subscribers to record they music broadcast. That's pure bullshit for the same reasons you guys have outlined -- not to mention that even the most technically challenged can record broadcast music.

(However, I still bristle at the shots taken at Hillary over this)

[Initech]

7. I hate the DMCA. Worst piece of legislation we've ever passed. EVER.