digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Fox says: Linking is illegal

quicksilverscreen.com — Fox has been sending these cease and desist letters to website operators who link to DailyMotion, YouTube, Google and other video websites.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • justchil, on 10/12/2007, -2/+46If you search some of these shows google links to sites which have links to the movies (or just the movies themselves)... does that mean they should be removed from all search engines as well?

    I don't watch any shows on fox.. do they even offer a legal way of viewing/downloading shows?
    • kanja42, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14You can view some of there newer shows on there website. Just not any of the ones they want removed from his site.
    • goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+60I didn't even know they owned 'My Name Is Earl'? Isn't that NBC?
    • mv10, on 10/12/2007, -9/+38I have one thing to say to FOX..


      LOL!!!
    • Four20, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8crap, they already know about dailymotion. . .
    • 8086ed, on 10/12/2007, -6/+57So... Fox links to YouTube
      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203959,00.html
    • musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19You didn't read the article and don't know how GIANT corporations work do you? First off, Fox News Corp and Fox Television are very different different companies. Secondly, as the article stated, they said that linking to copyrighted content was probably not legal, not that linking to anything fox was not legal.
    • drlha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22@goatrandy: My Name is Earl is shown on NBC, but its made by 20th Century Fox Television. Its pretty common for shows to be made by other companies than the network they're shown on. For example, ER and Friends are made by Warner Brothers, but they're shown on NBC, not "The WB".
    • dagnabbit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8It's not even been decided that the content providers like YouTube can be held liable for copyright infringement (Tur v YouTube still being worked out) thanks to the DMCA's takedown provision.

      There's no way that a website linking to a content provider could be held responsible, at least until a precedent is set for those hosting the files.
    • MiddleGirth, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2In case anybody didn't realize, this is fabricated. It is also spam. It was a ploy to get this to the front page and it worked.

      spam
      spam
      spam
    • deadaluspark, on 10/12/2007, -27/+3this is for goatrandy:

      "I didn't even know they owned 'My Name Is Earl'? Isn't that NBC?"

      ok, so theres this little thing called licensing, and a company can sell a show they own to other networks (ever wonder why Oprah is on so many networks. its that magic bean called LICENSING!).

      so yeah, Fox owns My Name Is Earl. I cant believe your stupid comment got 28 diggs. are that many people really completely ignorant of how IP law works?

      if these are the people running to join up with the EFF and are trying to get piracy to be more legal, then we're *****. this is the equivalent of trying to talk to hippie environmentalists. they can tell you all about why global warming is bad...minus facts. they never seem to know what the hell the facts are. yeah global warming is bad, but can you tell me the average rate of climate change over the last 200 years? oh you cant, then what the ***** do you know einstein?

      you guys dont know any of the facts, obviously.

      ive got this constructive thing for all of you to try: its called research

      i think theres a website dedicated to helping people with research. last i checked it was called WIKIPEDIA. maybe you can find out who owns My Name Is Earl there.

      ...and stop wasting our ***** time.
    • scallon, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4@deadaluspark
      Im only going to post this under one of your comments (as you seem to be generally raping this thread), and i dont want to have to sit here while you continue to shovel these peoples' ***** back into their own mouths.

      I am a former Special Forces soldier (even changed my citizenship to join your military), who was discharged for medical reasons (finished physical rehab a couple months ago), and i have only one word for you:

      Hoo ah!
    • rtakach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14deadaluspark: bitter about something? so anxious to prove how much you know on a message board...you're probably the guy at happy hour ***** all over the conversation, spouting off at the mouth to show off your brain power...dude get real, you sound like a valley girl "uhhh it's CALLED licensing, DUHHHH, ohh my god! you are so dumb"

    • rexb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Also Google can link to them b/c they haven't asked google not to list their index'd pages via the robots.txt file. You have to be proactive in this business.
    • lostmongoose, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Dagnabbit
      That's because no one watches the WB >.>
    • deadaluspark, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1@rtakach
      is it really all that odd to be bitter about people who dont take the time to read the article or just plain look up information?

      i mean, we're supposed to be the geeks that lead the next generation here. not the ones who ask dumb questions about obvious *****.

      how are we supposed to do that if we cant be bothered to read what we're talking about or look up information we may not know/dont understand that goes along with what we just read?

      yes, maybe i am that douchetard ***** all over the conversation, but at least im doing my part in the reading/thinking category instead of 'dudz, wtf is fox like suing cuz i linkd to myspce??? LOL!'

      so yes, i am bitter that i live in a world full people who would rather ask a stupid question and not even really bother looking for an answer (case in point: the initial post has gotten hell of digs, the two posts explaining why My Name Is Earl is owned by Fox but shown on NBC have not. mine got dug down [obviously for its vicious nature.] while the other got a measly 11 diggs. how many of those 11 people were out of the same number of people who dugg the original comment? probably not the same people, which is just plain sad.).

      so excuse my viciousness, but you had to admit that thats pretty ***** retarded.
    • 0o0Moylan0o0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Dammit! they took down the quicksilver website. i only found it on Digg about a month ago, and the bastards already took it down
    • rtakach, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1it's definitely pretty ***** retarded, of course they're getting c&d letters! i read the article and it consisted mostly of the letter and the illicit links....if someone can't figure out why it's illegal then it's their problem...the vids are still up there despite the letter
    • dzelika, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Rather than harassing them, Fox should thank them for promoting their programming instead. I would have never started watching some of their shows if I did not watch a couple of episodes on the net beforehand.
    • alfredn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If Fox says linking is illegal, then they dont know squat **** about how the internet works.
  • smacktacular, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34"The undersigned has a good faith belief that use of the materials in the manner described herein is not authorized by Fox, its agent, or the law."

    I'm probably reading this wrong, but to me it says, "We are pretty sure this is illegal."
    • mocheeze, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2It's just saying that they're pretty sure that QSS didn't have a license to link to the material. Not that they need a license to link, anyway.
    • DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22cease and desist orders can be issued basically at will. they do not necessarily mean any laws have been broken, nor are they legally enforceable. a C&D is what you send someone when you don't like what they're doing and want to find a way to litigate against them.
    • djlosch, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5fox is royally lame, but fully justified with this cad letter. the problem is that qs is SYSTEMATICALLY promoting piracy through their linking, which is illegal in the US, and is the interpretation from the p2p cases with sharman/grokster. napster/kazaa/grokster had legal uses, but was advertised to violate IP. qs purposefully posted those sections that are fox's IP, and the list on the right shows that violating IP is all qs does. what qs is doing is clearly illegal under the p2p holdings. in contrast, youtube, gvideo and dmotion have tons of legal videos and are not systematically encouraging violation of IP rights. when you [violate the law and] make an index to point out the videos that do happen to fall through the cracks and get online, you just give the legislators more reason to regulate online video sites. stop, because you're ***** it up for the rest of us. sites like qs are the exact reason why the content industry wants to stomp out fair use, and you're just pouring gasoline in the fire.

      and even if you move your host to malaysia, you're still a US citizen residing in the US, so you're still bound by US laws.
    • djlosch, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3bury me all you want, but i'm 100% right. i'm an IP law student. this will be my career. when you condone blatant open piracy like this, 5 years down the line, congress will hand DRM and unconscionable punishments to the content industry on a platter, and they'll be fully justified. i won't feel sorry for you when you get slammed with a fat lawsuit, and i'll tell you that you deserved it. you're like the morons who think we can make drugs legal by smoking crack on the front lawn of the white house. that's not how you get things done.

      i don't want DRM at all. i run linux, and i'm all in favor of sticking it to the industry, but when you ***** up like this and get reamed for it, don't cry about it.

      at least TPB has a case. they have international law on their side. QS does not.
  • GreenDiamond, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6QSS for life.
    Recognize.
  • Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7What does Fox have to do with Google?
    • goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Nothing, but google has every single link that QSS does, and THEY haven't been sued over it. I wonder if that's not because Google has deep pockets, and QSS doesn't?
    • jcounterman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15digg me down, you nailed it.
    • AndrewWiggin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4I don't think you can hold google reponsible for their search results. It's different.
    • chaos386, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Google has links to billions of webpages. QSS is just links to illegally hosted videos. I don't see why this guy is complaining. His ENTIRE SITE is for the sole purpose of streaming TV shows.
  • Mininday, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Something is very weird here. Are we sure this is Fox? My Name is Earl???
    • sharedferret, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Even though it's broadcast on NBC in the US, My Name is Earl is actually produced by FOX Television Studios.
    • TSCheredar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5NBC has the broadcasting rights to air "My Name is Earl" on their network but this doesn't necessarily mean the show itself was produced in an NBC/Universal studio. So conceivably "Earl" could be produced by FOX and not air on any of their networks. The WB did this quite often before deciding to create their own network (an example would be The OC, a WB produced show that airs on fox.)

      Why would a network that produced a hit show like the OC willingly allow a rival network to air it? It's likely because they didn't feel the show was worth their air time and passed on it. But the WB still makes money off of the OC. So It's simply all about the money. (but still, check to make sure where Earl is produced).
    • diggerphelps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8IIRC, In the good old days, the FCC did not allow studios (Warner, UA, Universal, Paramount, Disney) to own networks (ABC, CBS, NBC).

      They eventually allowed studio ownership of networks with deregulation, however, the networks were not allowed to own the shows they aired.

      Now, I believe, anything goes, but I am not 100% sure.

      *The more you know.*
  • egbert, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8http://www.duggmirror.com
  • Justin6512, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22Fox also says "George Bush is a good president."
    • Ashkc88, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Not my local "Fox 43 news"...oh wait your thinking Foxnews which is a totally different network...
    • tonage, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13FOX IS NOT FOXNEWS. You damn morons.
    • Justin6512, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Fox 43 is an affiliate of the Fox Network! That's why it's called Fox! Fox News is the news channel of the Fox network.
  • sh4rk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5It was only a matter of time before they realized how many of there shows were being streamed over the internet.
    • halik, on 10/12/2007, -6/+48THEIR
    • pureliquidhw, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7i honestly don't understand how people can screw that up.
    • dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Because they don't nativity speak English? I bet you'd make far more spelling and grammar mistakes if you were typing in Russian, or Italian, or any other language..
      And I honestly know how you screwed up a basic principle of English : Capitalization.
      *Removes ranting-hat*
      - Ben
    • Avalontor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2you understood him didn't you?
    • imightkillyou, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@dbr_onix
      "Because they don't nativity speak English?"

      It's natively. Nativity is a scene, like 3 kings, Mary, Joe and such.

      Frankensense and MURRR bitches!
    • Zaphod2016, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Dontcha love it when some troll starts bitching about poor language skills, only to start a wave of typo-ridden corrections?
    • squarehappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@pureliquidhw: I understand the difference between "their" and "there" and yet I still mix them up when typing. I imagine this is the case with everyone else here who has mixed them up. The world is much easier to deal with when you realize that everyone's mind works differently.

      The armchair psychological explanation: You construct the sentences in your brain before you type them (I hope). You think in your primary language, which is basically a little voice in your mind that you "hear" (I accidentally typed 'here' first). As you transcribe your mind's voice, it can come out of your fingers phonetically if you're not focused on the meaning of what you're typing. Make sense?
  • Aneurhythmia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I have a terrible memory, but I want to say a State Supreme Court ruled in favor of the MPAA when they were suing sites that only linked to other sites hosting the DeCSS hash.
    • omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The hack was itself (debatably) illegal. FOX's programming isn't. (If I didn't care so much for the First Amendment, I'd wish it was, though)
  • Yage2006, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6***** FOX they sucks
    Everyone should link to them in protest :)
  • foodluver, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2I don't see why QuicksilverScreen has problem with what Fox did. Fox owns the copyright on those tv shows and they are only protecting that copyright when they sent the letter to quicksilver and their isp. Even if they are only links, Fox is still trying to watch the medium upon which their shows are watched. I guess an analogy would be a drug dealer. Maybe he doesn't do the drugs, but he still deals (sells) them out to other people which is just as if not more illegal than doing the drugs in the first place. Therefore, unauthorized linking to copyrighted material should be illegal as well.
    • sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6No... this is more like a guy who knows a drug dealer getting arrested for telling people that he knows a drug dealer. And anyway, are you so sure this is a proper or legal way to protect one's copyright?
    • letdowntourist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4you've got your analogy all mixed up. dealing drugs is illegal. they created a law saying so. yelling hey there's a drug dealer in that building, however, is not illegal.
    • deabyss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Banks that can be robbed are found along 1st street at every other intersection.


      You think I should go to jail for telling you that?
  • malkir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'll just state it simply, linking is not illegal. Anyone claiming it is does not understand the law. Now, hosting a video could be considered illegal (unless a user of your site put it up). Hosting it, getting a cease and desist, and not taking it down is the only time you are in fact breaking the law.
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12600 was successfully challenged for linking to DeCSS, and was forced to take down their link. You can be forced to take down a link, so it's often easier to just comply, and put up a new link (wonder if a referral service like tinyurl.com might work)...
  • u8myfoood, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6choose one...
    A) let us watch it on video sites
    B) let us download them
    C) sell the dvds of the shows for >$15
    • diggerphelps, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8C) sell the dvds of the shows for >$15

      Um, they DO.
    • JeffD, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@diggerphelps

      Where?

      Evrey time Ive seen a TV show for sale they got for ~$50 a season.
    • dutter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30I think you mean < $15. Remember, alligator eats the larger number when you're looking for less than/greater than.
  • sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23Linking illegal?
    Okay, Internet, show's over. Time to pack up and move on. We had a good run, but... they got us.
  • there, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3
    We are all soon to be unpaid police agents for RIAA and MPAA interests.
  • LucidHawk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1This better get shot down or the whole internets are in trouble!
  • Erez, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1linking is illegal.. wtf.. is farting ok then? ***** you fox!
  • SERPENT7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Foodluver,
    I agree with you in theory. I guess it depends on if the link was attached to pirated material, or if someone was linking to the fox site itself. If fox is pissed over the former, then i see your point. Otherwise, FOX is just gay.
  • f0rTyLeGz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1FOX wake up and smell the coffee!
  • klepto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Didn't 2600 already go through this already?
  • omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3FOX does so well at proving what a moronic network it is. This is like when O'Reilly was making legal threats against people mentioning Olbermann on his show.
  • deanhiller, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1morons, if they don't want people linking, just change the url every 60 minutes and have the web pages that link to it change with it so no one else you don't want can link to it. these guys no nothing about technology.
  • XMinusX, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4So CBS thinks youtube is helping there buisness. Colbet & the Dailyshow crew thinks putting there clips is a great idea by promoting there shows and Fox who is like the fat kid that can't run to the school bus in time as a company thinks it's a bad idea.um what did fox ever do for us. umm give us a crappy news channel.cancled Family Guy. Ban ***** and for a decade it's only show was the simpsons,X-files and they gave there beter shows to WB.

    but they did give us O'raily and Nancy Grace and ton of annoying people. i rather hear Fran Dresher for 8 hrs then watch Fox news
  • rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Fox sucks. People who watched Fox were persuaded to vote for Bush and look at the mess he made for us all.
    • tonage, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Fox is not Foxnews. My god, you liberals are so obsessed with your hatred for FoxNews, you just start spouting off. The result? Just proving your ignorance.
  • musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I posted this earlier but Fox News and Fox Television are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, different management, different content, everything is different. This was FOX TELEVISION sending a CnD letter saying not to link to their copyrighted material, if you bother to read the article you would find this out.
  • tolldog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Were they embedded via the typical embedded youtube window or were they just links to the shows?

    I can see how the embedded movies would throw a lawyer, but they should understand links by now.

    • musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3It is embedded via Dailymotion, I bet DM also got a CnD but are not whining about it on Digg.
  • DavisTheDigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4this is like peekvid
  • pirotess, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3No surprise here. Corporations have more rights than people.
  • waytoorandomx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I would have written a letter back to FOX.

    Hai2Fox,

    Please suck a dick.

    Kthxtrulyyours,
    Emocat
  • deadaluspark, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12sometimes i want to bitch slap everybody on ***** digg.

    the general consensus lately seems to be 'if i read the title and its inflammatory, im digging it up without reading it'

    or as my and my friends say 'since i have never seen this i can honestly say its awesome.'

    if any of you stupid ***** bothered to read an article once in a while youd notice the title is DECEITFUL.

    look, im a tv show stealin jerk like the rest of you. ill download any tv show, i could give a ***** about Fox.

    but you know what, its not like they dont have a legal right to send these cease and desist letters you ignorant *****.

    yes, its copyright material. and yes, these sites are ONLY around to be link-storehouses for full episodes of copyrighted shows. i mean, if you dont think youre going to get a CnD for something like that youre seriously ***** stupid.

    the title, (once again) is completely misleading. they are saying linking to copyrighted material is illegal, because in a sense youre being a distributor. you are not only allowing others access to these copyrighted works, but you are also encouraging the infringing of the copyright.

    so, if you dont want Fox breathing down your neck, install protowall, and stick to downloading torrents.

    and seriously, dont write inflammatory headlines anymore. if the people on digg get any stupider i swear... i dont even know how to follow it up. im just sick of you stupid bastards writing inflammatory comments about stories you didnt even ***** read.

    so lets review.

    1. read the ***** story
    2. digest what you just ***** read (i.e. think about it for more than five seconds.)
    3. be ***** objective about it for ***** sake
    4. think about reality, not the psuedo-reality where HACKRS RULZ and mp3s are like candy on trees and there are no IP laws! SHUT UP AND REALIZE ITS NOT HAPPENING DOUCHETARDS. OR DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. DONT JUST BITCH AND MOAN ON DIGG.
    • unknownunknowns, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5you make some decent points about some diggers apparently not making the grade in reading comprehension. but i think something to think about is: copyrighted content used to be ***** you got off of usenet, irc, friends with AIM, filesharing networks...etc., then bittorrent came along, and the pirate bay...etc.etc..//history lesson

      but ***** is going even farther with embedded videos. and here's my point: the title isn't that misleading, because it points out the absurdity of saying "you can't link to copyrighted content," but then you have fox owning myspace, and ***** man
      if that isn't a repository for copyrighted content, wtf is? and fox makes mad profit off that *****, so...in conclusion, fox is a douche.

      fox doesn't own all of the content on myspace, such as songs and videos and links to youtube videos by artists not associated with fox. but, fox doesn't care, because they can handle a CnD if they get one. so...the title should have been "linking is illegal, unless you have a team of lawyers with settlement checks at your beck and call."
    • themuffinman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"DONT JUST BITCH AND MOAN ON DIGG"

      Wait a minute...
    • deadaluspark, on 10/12/2007, -3/+50 to tha gn03z!!!!!!!!!!!!``

      i just got told!!!!

      good points all around.
    • hzmp32001, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@deadaluspark: Oh man you took the words right out of my freaking mouth! How did you do that!?!?

      Seriously, come on. Fox is not against 'linking'!! Fox is against linking to illegal content to which they own the copyright. The owner of the website, even though they aren't hosting the content, does derive some value from linking to it. Primarily in the form of traffic and presumably some advertising kickback. That value is generated from the linking to copyrighted content. The content and any value generated from the content belongs to Fox.

      Get over it spoiled bitches!
    • malkir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The fact remains that you cannot get in any legal trouble for linking to copyrighted content. It is the site hosting it that is going to have the legal problems. Fox can send out all the cease and desists they want, but thats all they can do, and their little letters are absolutely meaningless.

      Your torrent links at any torrent search site do the exact same thing this website does, link to copyrighted material, however torrent sites just ignore cease and desists because they aren't actually hosting the content. This is why torrents are the most popular form of file sharing now.
    • Dylan16807, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, the torrent links link to a file that tells you where to get the material. It's like linking to the quicksilverscreen site, or to a google search for the video. How far do you have to go before no one thinks it is infringing?
    • kanja42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I considered adding a question mark to the title when I posted this story to digg, but then realized that by doing so I might be losing some valuable digg loving from people who didn’t understand what I was trying to say. I think the people that aren’t “wise” are the ones who don’t realize what my title was implying. It would be absurd to think that fox was saying that ALL linking was illegal and I doubt that all the people digging this story thought that’s what I meant.

      But fox did indeed say that linking to there content was illegal, which IS very questionable by the law, of course uploading pirated content to a website is against copyright law but linking to that content it is NOT illegal and fox is trying to say that it is. That’s the story.

      I challenge you to prove that linking to video upload by a user without permission from the copyright holders is illegal. Uploading the content is…hosting it is…linking to it? No way, and if it was then we wouldn’t have search engines.
  • zacmccormick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8They own those shows that are being linked to. That being said, I don't think there is a HUGE difference between linking to the material and hosting the material. Either way you are contributing to the illegal distribution of someone else's property. Whether or not there is a clearly stated law to bust you on it today, I don't know, but it only takes a little bit of common sense to realize that what you are doing isn't exactly ethical, and certainly not worth getting in trouble over some stupid links to ***** quality tv streams. If it was me, I would download the shows to my hdd and take the links down, simply because it isn't worth it.

    Fox makes awesome tv shows, and I want that to continue. They currently make their revenue off of commercials during the show. Why is it so difficult to understand why Fox would get upset when people are stealing their work for free? If people don't watch commercials -> Fox makes no money -> Fox makes no more shows. Now if Fox wants to setup an alternative way to view their content online in a supported way (which they should do), then that is a completely different story. They could think of some alternative revenue generators (ads, subscriptions, etc) to do this.

    The whole "it's just a link, links aren't illegal" argument is pretty worthless IMO, Fox isn't saying links are illegal, the submitter completely fabricated that statement from reading the article and getting emotional. *Some* links *might* be illegal is what the letter says, and it makes sense to me. If law enforcement can determine that you are intentionally trying to distribute illegal material (a dozen links that say "free tv episodes" might just fall into this category), it makes sense to me that they should be able to take some type of legal action to prevent that person(s) from stealing and/or helping others to steal their intellectual property. In almost all other illegal activities, instigating and/or promoting and sometimes just being aware of such activities gets you in trouble, and I just don't see why the internet should be an exception. Of course I think most of you want to make an exception because it's Fox and it's cool to hate on them :P
    • deadaluspark, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9hell yeah, its nice to see someone else with some common sense on here.

      because, if we all remember, way back in the day, when mp3s first came out, a lot of people got in suits over linking to mp3s. even if they didnt host them, its another form of distribution.

      props dude
    • Ashkc88, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6Digg users = generally liberal. Of course they would see a title and believe it right off the bat because its against big businesses. But if the title were about finding nuclear weapons in Iraq, then they would want proof and not believe it untill then. I think half of digg users are under 18, that or they live with their parents which would make them not very smart people.
    • scallon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@ash
      Man, if there is anything worse than people bitching without reading the article, it is ***** like you who come on here and turn everything into a ***** political debate. And no, i dont give a ***** if you are liberal or conservative, there is a time and a place for such debate, and this particular story is not it.
    • Ashkc88, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Yeah, and same goes with people who dont read previous comments. I'm not the first person to bring Bush and Fox news into this. Idiot. Infact, this is the first time I've said anything political what so ever on digg.
    • Ashkc88, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Ran out of edit time (for both). I meant to reply on the comment by deadaluspark. That is why my comment doesn't have anything to do with what zacmccormick said. I'll leave everything there.
  • Reader11722, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4It's all about censoring the internet. Censorship is becoming America's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protestors, ban books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Fox wants to keep their crap programming from being mocked all over the internet.
    Final link (before Google Books caves to censors and drops the book):
    http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
    • deadaluspark, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6yes, because Steven Jones, while being the authority on physics...is not the authority on what the ***** happened on September 11th.

      was he even there that day. was he a witness or is he just another douchetard who likes to make up ***** thats even more insane than the generally accepted sequence of events.

      yes, islamic extremists is too easy. that cant be what happened, it has to be a BIGGER conspiracy!

      dude, get the ***** over yourself. you live in the country with the most freedom and least censorship. yes we have problems, but there isnt a place on this planet that is perfect. at least we are allowed to access wikipedia in america. in china, you dont get any web2.0 goodness.

      quit bitching and grow up.
    • musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5My favorite thing about Jones is hes a PHYSICS expert claiming to be an expert on CHEMISTRY, something doesn't add up but what do I know.
  • rabidgnome, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Buried - title is misleading
    Fox isn't saying that "linking is illegal" - whatever that means. Fox is objecting to this guy teaching people how to get episodes of shows for free - he is facilitating copyright infringement. ***** Fox and ***** DMCA - but this is about as surprising as the MPAA trying to shut down a site called getanymovieforfree.com
  • grantmc1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3tell peekvid.com/ that linking is illegle
  • DrWu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Fox does this all the time. I used to run an extremely popular site for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and Tru Calling. Out of the blue, I got a C & D from the Fox lawyers telling me to take down various information related to their shows, as well as any links to Fox-related products. I supported the site through an Amazon Associate account, and used images provided by Amazon to advertise the products. Two weeks after I took down both the store and the content that was posted (which, I should say, was in the public domain and was not related to video, images, or links to torrents), I got another letter saying that I was still in violation. It appears that even text-only links to the products sold through Amazon.com, were enough to put the lawyers on the rampage.

    What gets me is that this was all completely legal, legit, and I sold over a quarter-million dollars worth of Fox merchandise over the course of a year. The only images or printed materials ever posted were those that were provided by Amazon.com. Obviously, promoting their shows (legally or non-legally) is not something they are interested in.

    Karma must suck, because the show that got them them to send the C&D in the first place, was cancelled before even a single episode of season two aired.

    Fox FTL
    • deadaluspark, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4you sir, are among the few who have a real reason to bitch.

      im sorry Fox treated you like crap. It really isnt all that unusual for them to treat business partners that way.

      in your case, it was unwarranted, but in this case (this websites CnD) it was.
    • DrWu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Yes, I agree and I was trying to edit my post to elaborate on that point when it locked.

      The point I wanted to make was that Fox has a tendency to take a 'shotgun' approach to linking issues. While the person was wrong for linking free videos, the approach that Fox used with me could also be used on innocent people who use Google Adwords. I had to constantly keep a lookout for Google linking to the gajillion 'Download free episodes of xxx TV show' sites that are out there (and you can see all the time if you visit sites that even mention a TV show, I remember Scott K. at PvP Online running into the issue when he talked about 'Star Wars', and ads would pop-up to download the movie for free). Fox doesn't seem to differentiate between legal and illegal links, and blames the site that they appear on rather than whatever is plugging that ad into the site.

      Which again, on further review, is not the same in the case the article talks about. But I do believe it's important to point out that they have gone after people with legitimate links to legitimate material.
    • bigsteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What if my site simply states, "You know, one could visit that popular youtube.com site there and watch themselves some fox programmin' .."

      It's simply one step removed.


      (...did i just break the law?)
    • malkir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You shouldn't have taken the site down. Just because someone sends a cease and desist to you does not mean you actually have to cease and desist. Everything you did (from your description) sounds perfectly legal. You should of course always get legal counsel (of the type that actually has experience with internet & IP law), but it sounds like a case where you just got intimidated and buckled.
    • DrWu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The Amazon links were fine, and if it was just that I would have probably fought it. But then again, I don't have the resources to go up against a bunch of high-priced Beverly Hills lawyers. The main part of the site was devoted to spoilers about un-aired shows, and while the information was publicly available, I was using technically copyrighted material. I wasn't printing it word for word, but even paraphrasing set them off.

      Funny thing was, they could care less about other properties of theirs, it was 'Tru Calling' that finally got them to bring down the axe. The even told me outright that information I had posted about the other shows was fine, they just wanted the 'Tru Calling' and Amazon links removed.

      It didn't make much sense at the time, but I wasn't going to fight a battle over a lame show like that.
  • thepopularloser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This reminded me of something I saw on a Wikipedia chat page... people were upset because admins were forcing people to remove youtube links of copyrighted material. I didn't know what the deal was but I looked it up and this is what their policy is and why:

    "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement."

    So while I sympathize and resent Fox Network's suppression of streaming shows like Family Guy, especially when they offer no alternative, Fox has a legal basis for asking you to remove the links, especially if you're profiting off the site. But at least you've become moderately Digg-famous :)
  • phpCypher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Watch as big media kicks and screams getting dragged into the digital world while their advertising income dwindles.

    You think they would of learned something from past similar scenarios ( napster, etc) that digital distribution is the future.

    The solution is not litigation, the solution is to provide episodes online with the commercials intact.

    Watching this happen is like watching a caveman cry because he has to use a spoon.
  • razdigital, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If fox was smart enough they would broadcast all their shows online with ads from their servers for a few week or so. That way everybody has had the chance to watch it. It would get fox some money along with give a more accurate account for how much the show is watched.
  • rexb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Deep linking is illegal. Well it's debatable.

    This is old news

    http://www.marketingterms.com/dictionary/deep_linking/
  • brizzad, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2I guess it's time to send C&D letters to all the hoes deep linking my dick.
  • hiscity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Practically speaking, viewing copyrighted material is no different than reading a book from the library.

    If someone puts up a bulletin on a public bulletin board about where to find good books -- that's clearly not illegal anywhere! Of course, you can view videos and listen to music from the library too. You might as well say that putting up a notice on a bulletin board that lists videos available at the library is illegal. Clearly nonsense!

    Geographically, "where something is legal or illegal" needs to be part of the discussion also. QS apparently moved their host to Malaysia... end of problem for them. Something like gambling in international waters. The web by it's very nature is international.

    Once something is broadcast though, it's in the public domain. There's a big difference between private showings and public broadcasts. If producers and distributors want to control their content -- they should air it in private settings such as a club or movie theater where they control the security -- and could have viewers sign non-disclosure agreements as part of getting tickets. Then at least there's a contract.

    If you try to redistribute media, especially for profit (such as attracting advertising revenue), then lawyers may try to get a piece of you through civil action in the US
    -- where anyone can sue anybody -- win, lose, or draw.

    What's funny is that any group related to a news organization would raise a stink, since news by it's very nature depends on private citizens not raising a stink about being written about or having their image captured. Since money is being made off those images (to attract advertising viewers) -- they are valuable property -- belonging to the originator.

    So, a moral argument can be made that all news agencies steal from private citizens.
    Like the news broadcasters, the same goes for any entertainment show that deals with any private citizen or corporation. I wonder if there is cause for a class action suit for all the things they've stolen over the years from private citizens?

    Of course, that means that as private citizens we should protect our media better, such as images of what we look like, audio of what we sound like, and written content that shows what we think. I need to make up some "(c) hiscity 2006" signs to go on my mailbox, vehicle, t-shirt, etc. Is there a lawyer out there that would help defend my content for a percentage?

    Perhaps we should =all= take a lesson and copyright what we write or create. Then we could send cease & desist letters and get lawyers to go after the news and entertainment corporations that steal our stuff! Especially outfits like Fox and FoxNews.

    Here at digg especially, we see how they depend on us to find interesting content and commentary. So the biggest copycats on the block are the broadcast networks. Personally, I think they ought to have to get a release from every fan at a sporting event or bystander in a documentary before using them in any shot.

    Don't forget to send those cease and desist notices by registered mail. You'd think that after the income slump for Chavez/Citgo or Korea/China/Walmart that corporations would know better than to mess with their customers. In the long run it's likely more effective to hit the broadcasters in the pocketbook.

    So, if you've got stock in Fox, nows the time to bail out and if not buy 'em cheap on the rebound.

    (c) hiscity 11-30-2006
    • deadaluspark, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6thats an interesting take on the situation, hiscity.
      i really like it.
      especially when you think about the fact that any private corporation is specifically considered a real "person" under united states law.

      if we are not allowed to use their likeness' (corporate logos, brandings, etc.), then what right do they have to use ours in news broadcasts that make money from advertising? none, i suspect.

      now, finding someone who knows more about the specific laws involved would be helpful, since i am no expert on law in this area. maybe we could direct this idea to the EFF and get some input.

      serious props, dude.
  • DiggSucksDick, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Umm ... the summary seems to leave out one important point -- quicksilverscreen is apparently acting as an index page to copyrighted content posted on youtube, dailymotion, etc. ... seems like too much of a slippery slope to me. I mean, the value added by QSS is to help people find content that shouldn't be there in the first place. I'd hardly say that "Linking is illegal" is an accurate description ...
  • lopla, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4However all pro-GOP and pro-Bush linking is encouraged.
  • Warnke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Digg needs some quality control with the titles of it's submissions, this was very misleading.
  • d00fy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4***** fox.
  • addicted68098, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It seems like it was because the links where to illegal content, I think they should attack the supplier first, but I think they have the right to do that.
  • eddiea23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3First (assuming we really are only talking about linking to others content and not making copies of it), if anything, any complaint about others deep linking to one's content is tantamount to saying: "I don't know how to manage my web server." It's a relatively trivial matter to control what domains may link to what content on a server. For example if I only want people to be able to access my "deep" content from my home page, I just require that those links be "referred" to from my home page, or -- if not -- the user just gets redirected to the home page. Of course, referrer spoofing is relatively easy, but the circumvention of good faith efforts to protect the content is a separate issue from simply linking to content which is already publicly accessible.... simply by typing in a URL.

    Second, I'm curious about the implications of posting URL's without the href's. Is that still a problem? After all, there is no "link". One just has to copy and paste the URL to get the same effect. In essence a link is nothing but a one-click shortcut for a copy-paste (or typing) operation. And I imagine the U.S. constitution's 1st amendment would allow for simply disclosing a URL.

    Under their logic, If I give someone directions to a library, I would be guilty of "intellectual property violations", since I pointed someone to a location with copyrighted material that I don't own.
  • Sp4nk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"We see you're using Internet Explorer. Try Firefox, you'll like it better."

    Blow me.
  • Exzero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4online community says: Suck my dick fox :D
  • Majin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5everything is illegal these days .... just go kill ureself now beat the rush.... fox fair and balanced .... rather mentally unbalanced if u ask me
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.