News Corp. Makes Copyright Claim Over News Corp's Live Video Stream Of The GOP Debate

from the well,-that-makes-sense dept

As you may have heard, there was a Republican Presidential debate last night — and it was so much fun they actually did two of them. I happen to be in a hotel which had Fox News on the TV (at home I haven’t had any TV service for many years), so I was watching some of it, just for the fun of it. A few people also pointed out that you could watch the stream live via Sky News’ YouTube livestream. The debate was officially the “Facebook/Fox News” debate, so it seems odd enough that it wasn’t streaming anywhere on Facebook, but we’ll leave that aside for now. Yet, with about 15 minutes left in the debate, the livestream on YouTube suddenly disappeared and you got this:

In short, Fox News issued a copyright takedown to YouTube over Sky News’ streaming the debate. While that might sound perfectly reasonable, it seems worth pointing out that both Fox News and Sky News are owned by the same company: News Corp.. Yes, News Corp. effectively DMCA’d itself. Because that’s how copyright works.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: fox news, news corp, sky news

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “News Corp. Makes Copyright Claim Over News Corp's Live Video Stream Of The GOP Debate”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
64 Comments
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 7th, 2015 @ 6:03am

Nah, he’ll just attack the mirage as usual. If he faces reality, he’ll have to face some hard truths.

In reality, there’s 2 possibilities here. Either that not even News Corp was able to ensure that it wasn’t infringing another’s content, or a perfectly authorised and legal stream was taken down by a false DMCA notice / false ContentID positive.

In other words, if he doesn’t attack and lie his ass off, he has to admit that the system is broken, and possibly that even his masters are capable of unintentionally pirating content.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 7th, 2015 @ 6:03am

Or, third possibility, the putative copyright holders hired a third-party, automated-code-written-by-a-script-kiddie, no-repercussions-so-let’s-nuke-everything-from-orbit, “copyright protection service” whose owners MUST be cackling like mad over the fact that their clients (the copyright holders) really, truly don’t care when they fuck up.

tqk (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 7th, 2015 @ 6:03am

… “copyright protection service” whose owners MUST be cackling like mad over the fact that their clients (the copyright holders) really, truly don’t care when they fuck up.

I believe you’re exactly correct on this, and have thought the same for quite a while. If we could prove to the owners of the MafiAA and blow the whistle on these guys, they’d disappear overnight.

Why those deep pocketed owners don’t have people watching out for this sort of thing for them, I don’t know. Where’s an Eddie Willers when you need one? Email the Koch’s executive assistant and ask them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Political debates and political discussions with politicians and regulators shouldn’t be subject to copy protections. It’s anti-democratic. While I know you are a democracy hating tyrant I think democracy is important and that corporations should not be able to control content so pertinent to our democracy.

It should also be noticed how you aren’t defending artist here but you, the one so so concerned with the independent artist, are here defending the middleman directly and so vehemently. Then you turn around and use the artist as the poster child for your defense of these laws intended for and put in place by these big corporations. But your post here is more evidence that you care not about the artist because in every instance your position lines up only with the corporations you are shilling for even when at the expense0 of artists. Your post here helps reveal who your true masters are. Your concern for them is so apparent both here as well as when you use the artists as the poster child for your true selfish agenda. And don’t give me your self righteous nonsense, no one is buying it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

That the shills here think corporations should control (political) content and delivery and the speech associated with politicians, political candidates, and regulators (ie: by using IP to gain such control) simply reflects the overarching theme that I’ve been mentioning here. They are a bunch of democracy hating tyrants.

They subvert democracy to get politicians to pass the laws they want (ie: buying politicians) and regulators to secretly work for them (ie: secretly conspiring with attorney generals), they do so in secrecy (ie: secret meetings with politicians and regulators), they want a hand full of selected people to have control over delivery (ie: broadcasting monopolies, cableco monopolies) and content (they abuse their govt established monopoly position to censor anything critical of IP while indoctrinating us with pro-IP nonsense over the mediums they do have govt control over like broadcasting and cableco, their blogs are notorious for either disabling comments or deleting/moderating out ones that disagree with them, their comments here are intolerant of anyone that disagrees with them both insulting those that disagree with them and claiming that those that disagree with them are ‘abusing’ them for criticizing them), they want copy protection control over political debates and discussions involving political candidates and politicians, they declare themselves to be unquestionably self righteous as though their moral viewpoints should be forcefully and without question be imposed on everyone else. In every step of the way their views are anti-democratic and pro-fascism.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Agreed, we need more democracy not less.

It amazes me every time some talking head spouts things about how this nation is the greatest democracy ever, while out the other side of their gaping pie hole they rant on about voter id laws and how disenfranchisement will deliver them the elections they want. Hypocrisy and lies are all they know.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Probably. But then that raises the further question – was it infringing? If so, then News Corp is engaged in piracy. If not, then the system is so broken that perfectly legal content is being removed based on false evidence at the behest of a competitor.

You can spin this as far as you want to pretend that the error is with YouTube rather than News Corp, but whatever the answer it’s an example of how broken this whole thing is.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“You can spin this as far as you want to pretend that the error is with YouTube rather than News Corp, but whatever the answer it’s an example of how broken this whole thing is.”

They will just over look the following line in the article “In short, Fox News issued a copyright takedown to YouTube over Sky News’ streaming the debate.” and will just blame Youtube the error despite the fact that the whole blame lies solely with Fox News as they were the one that issued the DMCA notice.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The blame lies completely outside YouTube, but for a different reason: NewsCorp, was one of the parties (self-righteous jerks) that forced YouTube to put in ContentID in the first place. No matter which way it goes, the blame lies on those media conglomerates, jointly and severally, that demanded this “feature.”

Nigel (profile) says:

I have dish network. I do not have a box for it in my room so I just use dishanywhere and stream stuff.

At 6:30pm fox news had a listing in the guide showing Oreily but the guide was empty after that time slot. At 7pm fox news was not in the guide any longer, at all.

So, I floundered over to Fox online to watch it there. It didn’t work. Dish Network was not even in the list of providers to sign in with so I used both facebook and twitter logins on FOX. Neither worked, at all. No stream.

It took me more time dicking around with my legit already paid for options than it took me to go find a pirate stream so I could watch it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Does "equal time" still exist?

In the 1980’s I interned at a radio station. When any advert or program was marked as ‘political’ there were certain forms we had to fill out detailing the time it was aired and how long it ran. The reason was that if anybody else submitted an ad or program involving the same race or issue the station had to give them the same consideration regarding air time and charges thereof; they could not charge more or less for the airtime, and they had to air in the same or comparable time frame.

So if “equal time” still exists couldn’t YouTube be ordered to air it again or otherwise make it available?

(And yes that might be a stupid question given Dark Helmet’s comment.)

Anonymous Coward says:

It would have been worthwhile to note in the article that the fact of common corporate ownership is irrelevant as a matter of law. Fox and Sky are separate corporate entities, within their corporate “family” are doubtless separate business units and profit centers, and for all intents and purposes are competitors.

With this as background it is not at all unusual and unexpected that the principals at Fox would not warmly embrace another business unit free riding.

Anonymous Coward says:

Per the headline:

(b)News Corp. Makes Copyright Claim Over News Corp’s Live Video Stream Of The GOP Debate(/b)

Per the graphic in the article:

(b)This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Fox News Network, LLC.(/b)

To be clear, News Corp. is not Fox News Network, LLC. They are separate and distinct legal entities, and to equate them as one in the same because one may be the corporate parent of the other is a mistake.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“To be clear, News Corp. is not Fox News Network, LLC. They are separate and distinct legal entities, and to equate them as one in the same because one may be the corporate parent of the other is a mistake.”

Kind of like how my left hand and right hand are “separate and distinct”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

No, more like someone equating you and one of your parents as the very same person. That would be sloppy and fallacious logic, which is precisely what was presented in the article.

When discussing juridicial entities it is important to be precise as each is a unique individual. Anything less and the discussion falls flat, invariably racked with errors.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

What an incredibly irrelevant and logically fallacious comment. Perhaps you fail to understand that each of these separate and distinct legal entities have their own staff at their own, separately located places of business. My God. What does it take to get people here to understand that separate corporate entities employ different people in different locations, and that but for a familial relationship they are for all intents and purposes completely separate companies? The litany of quite silly analogies are the equivalent of saying that elderly parents and their adult, emancipated children are really one in the same person, and the actions of one are readily attributable to the other.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Your succinct question clearly indicates that you do not appreciate the importance of accurately delineating each named party and what a corporation/LLC/PA/etc. actually signifies and why.

News Corp. is an individual person, albeit one created by operation of law, that stands separate and alone from Fox News Network, likewise an individual person created by operation of law. The fact that one of them may own the other is legally irrelevant in this instance, as the author of the article should have mentioned instead of glossing over it with large hand-waving gestures that paint an inaccurate and distorted picture.

What many persons who have never worked in large corporate environments fail to realize is that in most conglomerates the individual business units, which are typically separately incorporated, compete with one another with the same competitive fervor and determination as they use to compete with others totally unrelated to the conglomerate. They do not take kindly to another business unit trying to cop a free ride on its coat tails and financial investments.

tqk (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

News Corp. is an individual person, albeit one created by operation of law …

Yet, isn’t it odd that slavery has been outlawed, so it’s illegal for one person to own another person? Neither News Corp nor Fox can rightly be considered persons.

Perhaps it’s nonsensical to consider corporations persons in light of the emancipation act. Citizens United should just melt away like the morning’s mist. We can send the boards of directors and major shareholders to prison for attempted slavery.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

What the heck does this rant have to do with the issue at hand, namely, the misidentification of the parties in interest by the author of the article?

Words matter…and the accurate identification of parties matters very much. Otherwise, an article devolves to little more that a misleading communication almost certain to mislead a large segment of its readership.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re:

To be clear, News Corp. is not Fox News Network, LLC. They are separate and distinct legal entities, and to equate them as one in the same because one may be the corporate parent of the other is a mistake.

Interesting. So you are saying that if News Corp. doesn’t hold the copyright on either the Fox News Network or Sky Network broadcasts? That if someone infringed on a broadcast from one or the other, News Corp. wouldn’t have standing to sue?

If not, then your point is irrelevant. If News Corp. is the copyright holder of both broadcasts, they DMCA’d themselves.

PaulT (profile) says:

“What many persons who have never worked in large corporate environments fail to realize”

Oh, I think most of it understand it fine. We just look at it from a position outside of the legal fiction that’s been created and are amused by the fact that it’s ultimately siblings attacking each other where there’s greater benefit from working together. Especially considering that these are also the same jackasses trying to force regional blocks on everyone, meaning that the original stream being “protected” here was likely not accessible by the people accessing the Sky version.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...