What is Digg?142 Comments
- goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+60I didn't even know they owned 'My Name Is Earl'? Isn't that NBC?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+57So... Fox links to YouTube
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203959,00.html - 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? - halik, on 10/12/2007, -6/+48THEIR
- 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." - 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.
- mv10, on 10/12/2007, -9/+38I have one thing to say to FOX..
LOL!!! - 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".
- 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.
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- 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"
- Justin6512, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22Fox also says "George Bush is a good president."
- jcounterman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15digg me down, you nailed it.
- 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.
- tonage, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13FOX IS NOT FOXNEWS. You damn morons.
- 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?
- 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.* - themuffinman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"DONT JUST BITCH AND MOAN ON DIGG"
Wait a minute... - 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! - 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. - 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 - 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 :) - 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.
- 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 - 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 - 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.
- 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 - 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. - 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?
- 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
- 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. - cecil_t, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gmoXlNdElM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJl2FRZB8J8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r56Y0qnfhe0
Sue me. - 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.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7What does Fox have to do with Google?
- egbert, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8http://www.duggmirror.com
- Ashkc88, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Its Fox, not Foxnews.
- DavisTheDigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4this is like peekvid
- 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). - 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.
- dustyshadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No, it was ruled as LEGAL and not copyright infringement.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35306,00.html
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/headlines/content/2000040401.html
"Ticketmaster later filed a similar case against Tickets.com, and the judge in this case ruled that such linking was not illegal as long as it was clear whom the linked pages belonged to."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_linking
Fox will lose. - 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.
- zoombusa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Tell FOX to go ***** themselves.
So if I sit out on the street and tell people if they want drugs go to the North side of town, does that mean it's illegal?
If you ***** (Media Giants) don't like it then fight the googles and msns and yahoos that have links to all kinda of "illegal" things.
***** off FOX!!! Fight your battles the right way. - 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. - d00fy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4***** fox.
- 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/+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. - Exzero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4online community says: Suck my dick fox :D
- 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 -
Show 51 - 100 of 138 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is