Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Fox subpoenas YouTube after "24" clips posted
today.reuters.com — 20th Century Fox served YouTube with a subpoena Wednesday demanding the Google-owned viral video site disclose the identity of a user who uploaded copies of entire recent episodes of primetime series "24" and "The Simpsons." In addition, a second, lesser-known video site, LiveDigital, was also served with a similar subpoena.
mklopez- 918 diggs
- digg it
- adiqiucorp, on 10/12/2007, -27/+16i will stand for that guy. Praise him for uploading. Go on.
- bmartin, on 10/12/2007, -27/+6YouTube is a great service, but people are using it for risky reasons. I'm not going to say what they're doing is right or wrong, but PeerGuardian is a much safer, since it's designed specifically to block companies that are out to sue the ***** out of you. It works on Windows, Linux, and OS X.
http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/ - Avili, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6bittorrent isn't safer then http, in some cases it's worse. Plus ISPs are traffic shaping the hell out of bittorrent even with encryption enabled with utorrent. Simple answer is don't upload to youtube, try http://www.tvreplay.info.tm I'm guessing we can use alternative non-popular video hosts to host these shows, since the mpaa and tv channels are only policing youtube and other high profile video sites.
- ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -18/+42When will idiots learn? YouTube is for CLIPS, not full episodes or full movies.
This guy will deserve what he gets if Google gives him up, if for no other reason than that he's a moron who couldn't see this coming. - sirloin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I have gotten dmca notices with peerguardian... prototwall and utorrents ipfilter
not all at once.. differnt dmca notices.
The riaa knows about peerguardian and it is trivial for them to find a differnt ip to track you with.(have employees work from home.. proxies.. etc)
better than peerguardian.. is private torrent sites. - RiemannLebesgue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+53FOX has the latest episodes of certain shows (including 24) available for viewing, at no charge, on their myspace: http://www.myspace.com/fox
Yes, there are VERY short commercials every 20 minutes or so, but that's far less disruptive than having to watch 5-6 different videos on Youtube (at Youtube quality) just to get one episode watched. - Goosemaster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17@RiemannLebesgue
holey crap.....dude that rocks.
Finally the broadcasters are learning (CBS's inner tube and now this) that if they give us high-quality show for free with ads we'll watch - Goosemaster, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Too bad it's not in HD and it's flash so you can't make it full-screen:(
- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30@ilyag:
No, YouTube is not for clips. YouTube is for user-generated video. If YouTube was for clips, it would be called "SomebodyElseTube". Maybe these people should try creating content instead of just grabbing someone else's work off of the TV. - gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9You know, if google's motto wasn't "Don't be evil," they could easily kill Fox's pagerank in response to this subpoena and ***** them through the ass.
- RiemannLebesgue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Goose, true, but the quality is far better than Youtube and they do give you two "screen size" options. I imagine it will improve over time. I'm just thrilled that the networks are catching on!
- ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -13/+11DaveV:
I assure you, nobody goes to YouTube to watch your ***** home-made "shows". Or anyone else's, for that matter. The reason this website is popular is because it's a searchable archive of clips from TV shows, local news, movies, and various unintentionally amusing videos a la America's Funniest Home Videos.
The fact that various video blogs and all the rest of that nonsense is also mildly popular is a side-effect to the real reason anyone visits this website.
The only people who give a damn about original home-made video content created specifically for YouTube are the ones who make it. They're in their own little bubble, they watch each other's videos, and they're completely oblivious of the millions of other YouTube users. - mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@twofamousmathsciguy
I wonder why wouldn't they put it on their own website, like CBS and ABC did? - ayeroxor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"better than peerguardian.. is private torrent sites."
Do you think you're so special... are you that narcissistic, that you think you can find private torrent sites, but the studios can't? - dpcamp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Good. maybe this will rid youtube of crappy copyrighted videos, and make it easier to search through youtube to find what it was meant for: original user-created content.
- theuber1337, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5@ilyag
No, I think you are just in your own little bubble of douche-bags.
You lose, good day sir. - ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3theuber1337:
Sorry, but I call out pretentiousness when I see it. You don't have to be a douche bag to be irritated by pretension. - tmattoneill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1About this MySpace Fox TV thing...hello...
"Thank you for your interest in MySpace.com TV. This service is currently unavailable to viewers living outside the United States."
This is true of every site with legal shows and is precisely why people will continue to DL illegally. Of course if there was a legal way to watch fullscreen hidef shows when I want (i.e. Bittorrent) I'd use those instead. Unless and until, I'll have to use what's available to me. - swOhio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Did anybody supporting the uploader even read the ***** article?
The epsiodes of "24" were uploaded almost a week before they premiered! That's why fox is pissed. Sure episodes get uploaded after they've aired but if people know what happens on 24 before Fox spends 2 primetime hours on consecutive nights premiering a hit series, they are looking at lost ad revenue.
It's the fact they were uploaded before they aired that is motivating Fox to take legal action. - kelbear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The ass that uploaded that 24 episode isn't doing a good thing here. Commercials are how TV shows get paid for giving us "free viewing". We pay by allowing them to do it. Ideally, I'd want all TV shows hosted online with commercials so I get to watch when I want to, while giving ratings support for the shows I like so it doesn't die because all the viewership is untracked and not adding anything to the revenue stream. Making it so that commercials are useless for advertising means that advertisers won't pay the prices for airing the commercial meaning that the TV show doesn't get revenue, meaning that we have to either pay to watch the show or the show just doesn't get made anymore.
I miss Arrested Development. - treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Has Fox ever heard of asking nicely?
Why do companies/people always have to sue each other. Use your ***** common sense and ASK that the videos be removed!
- bmartin, on 10/12/2007, -27/+6YouTube is a great service, but people are using it for risky reasons. I'm not going to say what they're doing is right or wrong, but PeerGuardian is a much safer, since it's designed specifically to block companies that are out to sue the ***** out of you. It works on Windows, Linux, and OS X.
- smoothmedia, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5Hmmmm.. Fox...aka News Corp....aka MySpace decides to subpoena Youtube aka Google.... I wonder if a similar outrage would have occured had a user posted the video to Myspace Video.
- dunezone, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8If it was posted on myspace they would of simply taken it down. They cant just simply take it down on youtube.
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8They asked for his/her identity not just to take it down. That's a big difference.
- foobar5892, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Too bad YouTube doesn't know the user's identity any more than FOX does. Email address and a couple of IPs mean nothing. Even if the email and IP could be traced to his person, you'd have to subpoena the email provider and/or his ISP. This is going nowhere.
- uptown, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Apparently you haven't been paying attention to what the RIAA has done?
- djSyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Most major ISPs now have staff just to deal with subpoenas from the RIAA, et al. Unless this guy owns his own ISP, this is going somewhere, and it's going to go somewhere quickly.
- crawfishsoul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Uptown. Good point. But the RIAA is not FOX. FOX couldn't get away with what the RIAA does simply because of the effects of bad PR. A trade association can operate on a different set of rules than a news corporation. The RIAA sues dead grandma's so Justin Timberlake can stay arms length from the issue.
- Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23Who are the people watching TV shows on YouTube?
I seriously would like to know. ESPECIALLY if they are split into 3/6 parts due to the 10min limit on non-directors...
Who watches 10mins of a show, only to have to move on to the next part in 10mins? And with YouTube quality?!?
C'mon people. If you are gonna download a TV show, YouTube is the LAST website I'd go to do so....- egotripping, on 10/12/2007, -2/+41Yes, watching 10 minutes of a show at a time is nothing like REAL television.
- hightechdave, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4agreed, I can't fathom watching a show at that size or quality, not to mention if it were broken into parts. whats the big deal? if I like the show chances are I am going to buy it on DVD.
- UnglueD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"Who watches 10mins of a show, only to have to move on to the next part in 10mins?"
Anyone who watches TV.. they're called commercials. At least with something like this you can go immediately to the next set of 10 minutes. However I do agree with you, I'de much prefer a complete download of a show, or at least a DVR'd version. - Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@egotripping:
Except that real television doesn't re-encode the video into 10-min segments, only to be re-encoded again into glorious YouTube pixels. - flygirl62, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The only people I can think of who would watch this are people who are into the show and missed an episode (probably one that they didn't expect to miss or they would have taped or tivo'd it) and really "need" to watch an episode to not lose the plot-line.
24 is a show especially susceptible to this since each episode depends (to some degree, anyhow) on what happened in the previous episodes.
That said, I agree that youtube would be a pretty bad place to catch up and I don't know why anyone would choose there or why anyone would POST it there.
But the studio is smart to provide an alternative place to watch it because, like the proverbial soaps, 24 is a show where many people will do almost *anything* to catch an episode that they have missed. - detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5"glorious YouTube pixels."
I think you misspelled "fuzzy and littered with artifacts" - V1be, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I do. My friends and I do. At college, we sometimes order delivery, or are just bored as hell and watch episodes on Youtube. We don't have to pay for it, we don't have to wait several hours for it to download/load, and we can switch shows if it sucks.
- jasondragon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2I wonder if FOX will be using more money to try and deduce who uploaded the videos? Wouldn't there time be better spent figuring out how to get these episodes available online such that they get a piece of something? Advertising revenues, etc.
- Chakz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8You mean like this? http://www.myspace.com/fox
- mattyice11, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@Chakz:
"FOX Video on Demand does not currently support computers running Windows Vista operating system. The site will support Windows Vista in the near future." - Wogna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That's funny. Supports Macs but not Vista? Oh no, the world is upside down!
- dpmcalli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Tried that myspace link and got the following error.
"Thank you for your interest in MySpace.com TV. This service is currently unavailable to viewers living outside the United States"
Time to find a decent proxy - sysadmin88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0hell if I'm downloading their "media player" on my computer. Thats as stupid as Comcast saying you need to install the CD to set up your cable modem. I can always torrent the shows or rent em and copy em.
- Managore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Thank you for your interest in MySpace.com TV. This service is currently unavailable to viewers living outside the United States"
Not fair :
- Helenbo, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3This is another reason to boycott everything Fox.
- spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Misleading title, they've started legal action because of full episodes. Suing over clips -which actually help market the show- is idiotic, but suing over full episodes is fair enough really
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Misleading title, they've started legal action because of full episodes. Suing over clips -which actually help market the show- is idiotic, but suing over full episodes is fair enough really "
I thought the commercials made money. Seems they would be mad cause the commercials were cut out. Fox is notoriously zealous about control. I remember seeing an interview with the woman who does the voice of Bart Simpson...and she couldn't even do the voice without Fox's consent. Old schoolers on the Internet will remember how fox went after people who were posting icons of Simpsons stuff and closed down the sites. Fox has always been heavy handed (maybe because they are the worlds largest distributor). - spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Well, maybe they have been heavy-handed in the past, but I don't that's the case this time. I download TV episodes all the time, but I'm under no illusions over it's legality
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Well, maybe they have been heavy-handed in the past, but I don't that's the case this time. I download TV episodes all the time, but I'm under no illusions over it's legality"
I agree...and that is why I usually don't download their stuff. I download BBC stuff cause I can't get it, and Adult Swim because their commercials (at least the marketing) seem to celebrate the new age in media and aren't trying to hold on to some antiquated concept. This makes me happy that I don't watch their shows...though I appreciate people who want to.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Misleading title, they've started legal action because of full episodes. Suing over clips -which actually help market the show- is idiotic, but suing over full episodes is fair enough really "
- uberdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4TV news stations cannot subpoena. Haven't you ever watched Law & Order?
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9FYI: Law and Order is fictional TV.
- neuralcooker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Just like 24.
As a coincidental aside, I saw one episode of 24 once and that so-called CTU was littered with practices that is considered highly illegal for a similar US agency in the real world. I'm not saying that similar organizations are not doing these types of things (which is still very wrong in my opinion). It's something else entirely to portray them doing these things as if it were assumed legal and even lauded over in the show. Soon people will just assume that these organizations have a right to violate people's rights because they are just showing the small types of cases where it actually helps the general population rather than harming them.
- drpunkerz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4This is getting more and more ridiculous. When will these companies just give up and realize no matter what they do, they're just going to agitate it the situation with us even worse?!
- ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"Us" meaning people who want to receive products and services at no charge, regardless of who paid for it or how they want to get the money back on their investment?
A single episode of 24 costs several million dollars to make. This cost is paid for by a television production company who hopes that they will earn a profit on this substantial investment. In order to get that profit, they allow different businesses to buy air time during the show to advertise their goods and services.
Should they instead continue spending millions of dollars on the creation of such products, and offer it to "us" out of the goodness of their hearts? Is that your big plan? - drpunkerz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Misuse of the word us. Anywho, I think that them making a huge deal about this is a bad move, it's just going to cause the people who do upload full episodes to do it more often, and venture off to other sites that will cater to them to spite Fox.
- ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6That may or may not be the case. However, you are not entitled to receiving these highly expensive products free of charge just because you have some kind of an objection to the corporation that spent the money to create it.
- Uberdork, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There goes another media company pissing off that lucrative freeloader demographic.
- dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1'Should they instead continue spending millions of dollars on the creation of such products, and offer it to "us" out of the goodness of their hearts? Is that your big plan?'
Err, as has been pointed out several times, www.myspace.com/fox has streaming episodes, for no cost (A few adverts. But, *only* if your in the US..
But really, I don't see why they'd care (Atleast to the point of subpoenaing Youtube) when there's (nearly) full-res HD versions posted on Bittorrent and similar within hours of it being on TV..
- Ben
- ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"Us" meaning people who want to receive products and services at no charge, regardless of who paid for it or how they want to get the money back on their investment?
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2No 24? Such a great loss. What's next? Family Ties?
/sarc - xfTwitch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I wonder if fox would be upset if the shows were uploaded with the commercials still in tact?
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7People should make their own commercials and mix them with fox's shows. (this would piss off fox to no end...I'm sure.)
- jdavid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this is why google is keeping the youtube name! and why fox is sueing, if fox did not have its own video service through myspace, then they might try to work something out.
- insomniac8400, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Considering this was uploaded weeks before the episodes were to air, the guy who did it will be screwed. But as usual fox for some reason isn't going after the original uploader. Someone had to get a dvd copy from fox and originally upload it somewhere on the internet. Going after the guy who put it on youtube doesn't help to stop the guy who originally flooded the internet with the episodes and therefore does not stop anything.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You sure it isn't marketing? Seems 24 is at a loss for plot lately...and has been going down in ratings. All of this draws attention to the show..and it seems like there have been several publicity stunts like this recently regardless of the legal side.
- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Well, how does one find the "original uploader"?
One starts with the uploader one can find, then works one's way back. And, of course, you kind of ignored the fact that the person who posted the video on YouTube might just be the "original uploader".
Going after the guy who put it on YouTube will help stop the guy by helping to track down the "guy who originally flooded the internet with the episodes", especially when they might be one and the same.
Perhaps you should get your head out of your ass. - flygirl62, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jaycliche, when I heard about the 4-episode DVD being distributed before the 4 episodes aired, I wondered the same thing.
Sounds a lot like the reported purposeful leak of Dr Who episodes that the BBC did.
I *do* know a few people who didn't previously watch 24 who watched that DVD *just* because they could watch the episodes before they aired. - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I *do* know a few people who didn't previously watch 24 who watched that DVD *just* because they could watch the episodes before they aired."
I guess this sounds a bit lame...but I thought relevant. I saw windows 95 in 93. Didn't stop it from anything. I know it is kind of apples and oranges...but when well people realize that the more show get out, the more popular it is.
South Park would be nothing without the initial Internet rush. I know at least 20 people who heard of it simply because of that reason. Merchandising is where the money really is. Special edition DVDs and the like.
- diafel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11This just in: People post copyrighted material on Youtube. More at 11.
- treyuteee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0When will these people learn that if you're gonna upload copywritten material you need to be anonymous. If you leave your own ass out there you deserve to have it smacked.
- heyThere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Thank you foryour interest in MySpace.com TV. This service is currently unavailable to viewers living outside the United States."
ABC, NBC, FOX, etc do block online viewing of their TV shows in countries outside of the USA. It's ironic that Canada is close enough to view the exact same networks, often from over the air antennas located across the border--but not close enough to do so over the internet.
Until there is the freedom to choose, viewing by alternate means will thrive. - mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Was Fox like this fox right from the beginning?
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/b142d534cba30110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd/6.html - redfive19, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry I just kind of skimmed the comments here so I don't know if anyone mentioned this but Fox shouldn't be really surprised about this. Weren't the first 4 episodes released on a bonus DVD for season 5?
[edit]
Sorry seems someone did mention the 4 episode DVD. Was that a Best Buy exclusive disc or something?
[/edit] - atb12688, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What were you expecting Fox to do? Its their content, their intellectual property, and this is blatantly illegal on the part of the youtube and livedigital users. How can you blame them exactly? If it was your intellectual property, wouldn't you want to keep it your own and legal?
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"What were you expecting Fox to do? Its their content, their intellectual property, and this is blatantly illegal on the part of the youtube and livedigital users. How can you blame them exactly? If it was your intellectual property, wouldn't you want to keep it your own and legal? "
Yes, but we ARE talking about Fox here.
***** em.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"What were you expecting Fox to do? Its their content, their intellectual property, and this is blatantly illegal on the part of the youtube and livedigital users. How can you blame them exactly? If it was your intellectual property, wouldn't you want to keep it your own and legal? "
- mwilke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I guess google didn't pay FOX enough $$ to not sue.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"I guess google didn't pay FOX enough $$ to not sue. "
Maybe fox's myspace can go back to it's own "wicked cool" search engine.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"I guess google didn't pay FOX enough $$ to not sue. "
- canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this is not about copyright infringement, this is a strategic slap in the face at google. this is about fox wanting to scare users away from youtube and on to myspace for their video needs. as already noted above, you can watch 24 legally but still get access to plenty of illegal (in terms of copyright) video on myspace. if enough youtubers get scared off and stop uploading content, the user base stops showing up because youtube can't survive with just lonelygirl15 et all, and all of a sudden myspace becomes becomes king of internet video.
and since google doesn't own any video content, they can't even retaliate. this should be fun to watch. - Sharky35, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Screw FOX and SCREW 24 and SCREW JACK BAUER......
Isn't 24 broadcast over "the air".
Isn't 24 broadcast for free?
A semi intelligent marketing person would see this as excellent, free viral marketing and stfu......
But noooo Fox get pissed that you are watching their show without viewing all the damned commercials...
Guess what FOX, I don't always have time to put my life on hold to watch a TV show.
I was planning on buying the videos to try and "catch-up"...
Scratch that.
Buncha turd fergusons. - shiftless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You think they'd be happy so those who missed the first few episodes could catch up. Watching 24 in YouTube quality has to be painful though, since it is gorgeous in HD and 5.1.
- xenoploid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is this the first time this has happened? Previously, I believe, the copyright owner (i.e. Fox) would contact YouTube about their content appearing on the site, and YouTube would remove it on a case by case basis. It appears this is a shift into a more aggressive legal approach, similar to the RIAA demanding ISPs disclose the identities of people who download copyrighted material from Peer-to-Peer networks. This could spell the final end to any copyrighted material ever appearing on GooTube again. DailyMotion's copyrighted uploads died last month, too.
- InsaneGeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Rather than this being a concentrated plot against copyrighted material on the internet it's more like find the leaker. From the article the content was posted prior to their broadcast release (at least 6 days if not more), meaning there is a limited number of people that had access to it. Someone in the corporate ranks put that video on the net prior to it's broadcast and they want to at least get that person removed so leaks like that won't happen again. My guess is a production house contractor that does touch-ups decided it'd be cool to leak it to everybody before it was shown, Fox basically want that guy's balls because the ad revenue loss potential was probably in the multiple million if not multiple tens of millions of dollars if all their advertisers pulled out.
After it's initial showing Fox hasn't appeared to be too aggressive on getting episodes down, but you trump the first showing of it you are going to piss off a whole bunch of TV people as a majority of the ad profit comes from the release of the first episode rather than any reruns.
- InsaneGeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Rather than this being a concentrated plot against copyrighted material on the internet it's more like find the leaker. From the article the content was posted prior to their broadcast release (at least 6 days if not more), meaning there is a limited number of people that had access to it. Someone in the corporate ranks put that video on the net prior to it's broadcast and they want to at least get that person removed so leaks like that won't happen again. My guess is a production house contractor that does touch-ups decided it'd be cool to leak it to everybody before it was shown, Fox basically want that guy's balls because the ad revenue loss potential was probably in the multiple million if not multiple tens of millions of dollars if all their advertisers pulled out.
- thebutangjedi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The sad part about this situation is that consumers ultimately get the shaft. Yes, it is in Fox's legal right to sue for the distribution of intellectual material they actually own. However, other users have pointed out that Fox uses youtube/myspace to advertise and promote shows. People obviously do not prefer Fox's commercial model of business and want something else.
There was a previous article on Digg that talked about all of the crap that comes pre-loaded on the Dell computers. I view commercials just like I do this crapware. Should we have to pay Dell NOT to put that stuff on our computers? I guess in this day and age the answer is yes.
Was it just me or was cable/directtv/satellite radio supposed to be commercial free (at some point). Instead, I now pay for both services... and I STILL don't get to pick what I want to listen/watch. The only quality programming that is "worth" the money on cable are channels like HBO. I would gladly pay premium to have channels without commercials, and great programming.
It all comes down to what consumers are willing to put up with. Sadly, many consumers are not on the bleeding edge of technology and will never be. They are happy to have whatever the cable company serves them. You can argue all day but we (collectively) decide what businesses will succeed or fail. Until the majority of users express disinterest in the marketing strategies of massive corporations there will be no change (unless we enact some sort of legislation).
I wonder where Americans got their sense of entitlement? I find myself doing the same thing... I would gladly pay for a commercial free show (given that i could watch it whenever and wherever I wished). However, if this show is not available in the form I want it I find myself justifying my own blatant piracy. Do i really have a right to complain about a social contract I agreed upon? (I can either watch commercials or not watch at all). Do I have a right to watch 24 any way I want to? I think we all know the answer is no (at least from an ethical standpoint).
Hopefully, more companies will begin to see that anti-drm schemes can work. Emusic is an example of a relatively harm-free commercial service I utilize. I could always pirate the music I by... but emusic has taken away my desire to do so (primarily because the music is easily accessible and DRM free). Itunes works that way for TVshows to an extent (I still feel an icy chill when I am watching an HD tv show in a god awful resolution... "I payed for this and didn't pirate it").
In closing, I'd like to use the Zune as a case for the growing frustration consumers are dealing with. Microsoft PROMOTES the fact that one can share music with the Zune... yet fails to mention that many record labels prohibit this. So you are not only "paying" for the extra neato sharing ability, you are simultaneously getting the shank in the back by not being able to share paid music. Not to mention that microsoft has ALREADY paid royalties on music you "might" steal. I don't know about you... but this puts my blood to a boil!
But than again... what do I really need to be happy? Do I need to watch an episode of 24? Do I need to listen to the latest craptastic american idol album? Do I need to pay cable companies to shovel 400 ***** channels down my throat just so I can watch HBO?
Perhaps not
And maybe this feeling of helpless consumerism is exactly why we are impotent to change the practices of the companies that we despise.
Find something free that you love, and engage that. I know that when I'm at the beach I spend way less time fretting about how Fox has ***** me again and more time wondering what I can do to contribute to this world. - OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Give it time and you will see advertising on the DVDs that you buy - and I am not talking about the opening 5 minutes...
- SquareOne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2FOX is a horrible network anyway.
- KlayBorg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why does Fox always need to be an ***** about things?
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Knowing Fox and their political campaign against YouTube (for having lots of embarassing videos from Fox News posted and being used to expose their lies in public), I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Fox deliberately hired someone to post these videos, in order to try to get at YouTube and get access to their data.
- sputza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think Hollywood understands that having clips on youtube might actually increase their viewership. They need to come to the reality of the whole Internet thing. Its not just a series of "tubes".
- thenativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Why would you have your personal information on any site?
Homer Simpson
742 Evergreen Terrace
Springfield, IL - SilenceBroken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Treat other people like you would like them to treat you." The Golden Rule, straight out of the Savior's lips two thousand years ago. The world would be a better place if people lived by this rule. If the studios don't want their TV show broadcast on the Internet without their permission, we should respect that. This isn't oppression or civil rights. It's 24. I for one am going to live by the Golden Rule regardless of whether others choose to or not.
- ayeroxor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Many artists want others to freely copy and distribute their artwork to as many people as possible. They create art to share with the world.
Are you saying that copying movies would be okay for these people, because it's what they would want?
Or is it possible that this has nothing to do with the golden rule and everything to do with the implications of owning and sharing something that can be copied?
- ayeroxor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Many artists want others to freely copy and distribute their artwork to as many people as possible. They create art to share with the world.
- davidepaula, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I say, GO GET THEM FOX!!! It's because of people like this guy that the music and film industry are panicking so much about protecting their contents with DRM *****. The P2P and torrent technology could be on a whole different level if it wasn't used primarily for stealing protected content.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by