Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Government The Courts News

Fox Subpoenas YouTube Over Content 141

Posted by Zonk from the keeping-the-goodies-to-themselves dept.
popo writes "FOX has subpoenaed YouTube for the identity of a user who posted entire episodes of '24' and 'The Simpson's'. It is not yet known whether YouTube has complied with the request. The '24' episodes in question actually appeared on YouTube prior to their primetime January 14 premiere on the Fox broadcast network, which spread four hourlong episodes of the hit drama over two consecutive nights. Fox became aware the episodes were on YouTube on January 8, according to the subpoena."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fox Subpoenas YouTube Over Content More

Fox Subpoenas YouTube Over Content

Comments Filter:

  • Why result to laywers..... (Score:5, Funny)

    by LordPhantom ( 763327 ) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @03:23PM (#17757514)
    ....when they have Jack Bauer? I mean, Chuck Norris prays to the guy before bed.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      BUllSHIT!! Chuck Norris only prays to Chuck Norris...

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Are you kidding? Chuck Norris is the one who leaked the videos.
      --
      Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages are named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck ing hates noobs!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by saskboy ( 600063 )
      Do you think this Jack Bauer guy would ever try to take down the Teleban [abandonedstuff.com]? After all the organization devoted to Banning TV, might pose a threat to his career.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Ghanburigahn ( 1055868 )
      Chuck Norris only needs 1 hour to get done what it takes Jack to do in 24...and 50 minutes of that is travel time.
    • ... when you can simply use bad grammar and word usage in your slashdot-post subject lines?
      • Troll Scorecard! Using spelling/grammar mistakes: +5 User ID under 100,000: -2 Posting days after the topic is over a day old: -10 Making OP feel good that you're karma-bitter over a non-preview post: -10 Using a "... / ..." transition: +5 Feigning innocence about understanding something obvious: +5 Total Score: -7. You've failed. Crawl back under your bridge and cry.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
      Chuck Norris doesn't even pray to God. God prays to HIM.

      -Eric

  • he's a star (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @03:25PM (#17757556) Homepage
    FOX has subpoenaed YouTube for the identity of a user who posted entire episodes of '24' and 'The Simpson's'.

    Yeah, they're looking for him so he can star in an upcoming show on CourtTV.
    • If the person is smart, they wouldn't of used any of their real life details anyways (I know I sure don't when I register for any online stuff that doesn't require a credit card) So how would getting the "identity" help them at all? At most they might get a free hotmail account, then go bug hotmail to release the identity for that email address (which is probably fake info to)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by User 956 ( 568564 )
        At most they might get a free hotmail account, then go bug hotmail to release the identity for that email address (which is probably fake info to)

        Yeah, and even if they track it back to an IP address, the guy probably did it from an open wireless access point. At least, if he was smart he did.

  • Why Worry? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eno2001 ( 527078 ) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @03:26PM (#17757564) Homepage Journal
    This isn't about your typical copyright infringement. This is about an inside job since that's the only way those files would have made it to YouTube. I have a feeling that if found, the person responsible will first be fired, then sued out the whazoo and sent to debtor's prison.

    • Re:Why Worry? (Score:5, Funny)

      by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @03:29PM (#17757628) Homepage
      I have a feeling that if found, the person responsible will first be fired, then sued out the whazoo and sent to debtor's prison.

      I can understand firing him and suing him, but don't you think sending him to live in Detroit is a bit harsh?

    • Re:Why Worry? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Cylix ( 55374 ) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @03:33PM (#17757704) Homepage Journal
      Inside job?

      Often times, an episode or pilot will be sent out on dvd to be distributed to potential clients. These are presented as general sales tools and sometimes carry little restriction. ie, copy and burn to distribute to those you deem necessary. While the episode may not contain all of computer graphics of the final show... it can very much be the whole thing.

      I'm surprised it actually took this long for someone to do this. However, it wouldn't have to be an employee of a Fox affiliate and could just be some random soul who was given a copy for preview.

      These things have always been a bit sloppy in my opinion and it will be interesting to see if they tighten up on these internal releases.

      • Re:Why Worry? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by dknight ( 202308 ) * <damen@knightsOOO ... inus threevowels> on Thursday January 25, 2007 @03:51PM (#17758000) Homepage Journal
        I know a lot of the "TV Groups" get shows long before they air.
        How? Well, one in particular that I know of used to pull them out of the air. It seems that Fox would send out the completed episodes about a week before they were supposed to air, via satellite, to assorted groups (I dont know who, but I assume their affiliates). These "pirates" would pull the complete shows right out of the air (yes, I know, its much more complicated and involved than I'm making it sound, but I'm simplifying here people), encode them, and release them, well before the actual airing.

        No inside job needed, and noone handing out things they werent supposed to.

        • Re:Why Worry? (Score:5, Informative)

          by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @03:57PM (#17758110) Journal
          These "pirates" would pull the complete shows right out of the air (yes, I know, its much more complicated and involved than I'm making it sound, but I'm simplifying here people)
          Actually, it is pretty much that simple.

          The big networks don't always use an encrypted feed when they're sending the shows (over satellite) to the affiliate stations.

          Anyone with a big dish can point it at the satellite and grab the episodes.

          There's a lot of free/random stuff floating around on satellite TV if you point your dish around.

          • Re:Why Worry? (Score:4, Funny)

            by lonechicken ( 1046406 ) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @04:03PM (#17758194)

            There's a lot of free/random stuff floating around on satellite TV if you point your dish around.
            Is this an appropriate point to insert a "Single Female Lawyer" joke/reference? Oh well.

            Single Female Lawyer
            Fighting for her client!
            Wearing sexy miniskirts
            And being self-reliant...

            Single Female Lawyer
            Having lots of sex.
          • Do you have any good websites giving a DIY on how to do this? I've always been interested in these since I knew they were available. Most of the "free satellite" searches come back with how to crack DSS. I plan on canceling cable (I don't watch enough) but if I could get some used equipment and scan the sky I'd love to.

            • Re:Why Worry? (Score:4, Informative)

              by DarthBart ( 640519 ) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @05:33PM (#17759562)
              search for "Free to air" or "FTA" satellite. That will get you the equipment you need for the unencrypted digital feeds. However, for the unencrypted analog feeds, search for "C-Band/Ku-Band TVRO".

              C-Band TVRO requires one of those Big Ugly Dishes, so you may have a problem there.

              Lyngsat.com gives you a list of transponders per satellite and what's on them. The ones marked "feeds" are the ones used to transmit programs to affiliates or backhaul remote news/sports trucks back to the studios. The feeds are raw, so you'll probably catch some reporter scratching his ass or picking his nose.
            • a good place to start is http://www.lyngsat.com/ [lyngsat.com]

              then maybe http://happysat.org/ [happysat.org]

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Cylix ( 55374 )
            Just out of curiosity... who isn't using encryption these days? As far as the larger networks go.

            Now, occasionally there will be an unencrypted backup feed, but as far a I know most of the large networks are using DVB type setups with encryption.

            Lyngsat seems to be nearly always out of date, but it is still a great source of information. There are some better wild feed listers, but I haven't paid attention to those in years.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Tim C ( 15259 )
          noone handing out things they werent supposed to

          I think copyright law might disagree with you there. Ok, so distribution isn't literally "handing out", but they're still not supposed to be doing it...

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by gstoddart ( 321705 )

        Often times, an episode or pilot will be sent out on dvd to be distributed to potential clients. These are presented as general sales tools and sometimes carry little restriction. ie, copy and burn to distribute to those you deem necessary

        Often times, yes. But, I don't get the impression this is one of them.

        The show '24' is hardly being shopped around at this point for potential clients -- every single Fox affiliate is playing it now. It's exceedingly well known at this point.

        And, TFA indicates these were

        • Re:Why Worry? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by HTH NE1 ( 675604 ) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @04:40PM (#17758786)
          Seeing as the episodes in question were the ones made available on DVD the following Tuesday, I'd think the most logical leak would be somewhere in the chain responsible for getting the DVDs made and to the stores in time.

          • Seeing as the episodes in question were the ones made available on DVD the following Tuesday, I'd think the most logical leak would be somewhere in the chain responsible for getting the DVDs made and to the stores in time.

            I'm not sure the above statement is true. From TFA, we see this:

            The "24" episodes in question actually appeared on YouTube prior to their primetime January 14 premiere on the Fox broadcast network

            I can't imagine that the episode which premiered on TV in primetime on January 14th was relea

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by hansonc ( 127888 )
              They released the DVD of the first (couple?) episodes the day after it aired. Of course they leaked from the DVD supply chain. You don't seriously think they aired the episode, and then pressed a million DVDs and had them on the shelves the next day do you?
              • Obviously they didn't press and ship a million DVDs in a day, but that doesn't mean that the leak came from the supply chain. They could have been snatched out of the airwaves since a lot of networks send their shows to their affiliates early so that local commercials can be added in before airing.

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by asills ( 230118 )
                A coworker of mine had the DVD the week before 24 aired. His girlfriend works at Blockbuster and they had gotten their shipment of the DVDs three or four days before it aired. The Blockbuster manager allows employees to "rent" anything before it goes on shelves so she got them and he watched them that weekend.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by GoodbyeBlueSky1 ( 176887 )

              I can't imagine that the episode which premiered on TV in primetime on January 14th was released on DVD the following Tuesday. Everything about this article is saying that is was a fully-prepped episode, not yet aired on TV, and not a tester or in post production.

              What the hell's wrong with you? The GP makes an insightful post that probably hits the nail on the head and you say it's wrong because you can't imagine something that happened happened?

              From Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org] "FOX released a Season 6 Premiere DVD on January 16. This DVD contains the first 4 episodes of 24 season 6, and a preview of episode 5. The DVD leaked on Saturday, January 6, eight days before the season premiere, to BitTorrent and other P2P networks.

              Come on, don't refute someone's argument with a "hunch".

            • I can't imagine that the episode which premiered on TV in primetime on January 14th was released on DVD the following Tuesday.
              This will probably be redundant by the time I can hit 'submit', but yes, they really did release the 1st two episodes on the Tuesday after the second one aired. Perhaps FOX has decided to "compete with free," as it were.
            • I can't imagine that the episode which premiered on TV in primetime on January 14th was released on DVD the following Tuesday.

              Oh ho ho, sounds like somebody watched the episode without the commercials! Television thief! [wikipedia.org]

              "Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming." -- Jam

          • The other logical leak would be during transmission to stations, if that is still what FOX does. There is a post in another thread about how this happens, but the basically the studio (or another middle man after the studio who holds the finished episode) sends the episode out to all of the affiliates before the show airs. This episode doesn't contain any commercials (although some contain a few global commercials) so that the affiliates can fill the episode with local or regional commercials. This is wh

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gkhan1 ( 886823 )
          All four episodes were available on bittorrent networks long before they aired on tv (lets just say I can personally attest to that fact ;). Fox had sent out screeners to every critic they could think of, so naturally they made it onto the web.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Cylix ( 55374 )
          I have a brand new DVD sitting on my desk made for affiliate use and I had mine a week earlier then the show release. (Full box art as well) I would rather not site the specific network affiliation because I do not speak for them.

          My copy was also late...

          I was speaking in very general terms here trying to convey a message.

          However, it is entirely possible that a full blown release was available to anyone within any given stations reach a week before the episodes public release.

          If I recall correctly, they were

      • Re:Why Worry? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by aeryn_sunn ( 243533 ) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @03:56PM (#17758084)
        I have a er..."friend" who is a member of the Academy and gets to vote on the Oscars. One really cool thing about going to her house is that she gets tons of movies from various studios that are vying for nominations for every category... why cool? because she has movies that are still in the theaters, or ones that we never get to see, such as foreign released films, shorts, documentaries, and stuff that is not yet on DVD (yes, usually there is a weekend marathon of movies)

        Anyway, the Academy used to send them on regular DVD but one of the restrictions was that members are forbidden from sharing the movies, i.e., letting others borrow them, else they lose their membership and probably get tossed in a cell with a drunk Mel Gibson and Gary Busey... now, they have the movies on a special DVD that only works on special players that are distributed to most members (I think some members still get regular DVDs, although I cannot vouch for this)...

        I wonder if Fox just gives out regular DVDs to special people to view? I know a guy I worked for one time used to the president years ago of whatever group gives out the Emmys, but as a member of the..."Emmy group"?...he still gets tons of DVDs of various episodes of all the TV shows on broadcast and cable. As far as I know, they were regular DVDs. (I used to sneak a few out at work and watch them on my computer...during lunch and breaks of course).

        It seems if Fox or other networks thought that such episodes were so important,they would not allow unresticted DVDs out into the wild. Hell, it could have been one of Fox's VP's kids that got a hold of 24's premiere and unleashed that baby into the tubes of the interwebs...

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by devoss ( 717340 ) *
          Super secret special DVD players!?? wow, they'll never crack those.

          I mean, unless they hook the DVD player up to a computer instead of a TV and record it. Man, I hope they thought of that! I'd hate to think hollywood was making less money.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by shreevatsa ( 845645 )

          now, they have the movies on a special DVD that only works on special players that are distributed to most members

          And it is something that has cost them dearly [waxy.org]:

          In 2004, a company named Cinea spent $5 million distributing custom DVD players to Academy and BAFTA members with very mixed results. Lately, it seems the new strategy is to stop trying. Maybe the industry is finally realizing that the best way to get recognized is for people to see your movie, despite the risk of piracy. For example, Munich was v

      • I've seen Lost and Prison Break episodes on torrent sites at least a week before airing...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Tim C ( 15259 )
          I've seen Lost and Prison Break episodes on torrent sites at least a week before airing...

          Before airing where? I don't know about Lost of Prison Break, and it's certainly not the case for the latest series, but I seem to remember that the UK got the first series of the new Battlestar Galactica before the US did.
          • Beforing airing everywhere, according to tv.com etc I don't know where it came from, but it wasn't in the right perspective + you sometimes could see the microphone in the top of the picture + there was some timer running in one of the upper corners, with three decimals
      • Fox is selling the first 4 episodes on DVD (Amazon) so depending how this was distributed it could even be a retailer. If you are going to be that quick to market the DVD after airing the episodes, these DVDs have been sitting somewhere for a while now, or out for pressing. If you are in DVD production before the initial airing...Fox didn't ask for it, but wouldn't have needed a crystal ball to predict it either. Fox is trying to get the cat back in the bag.

    • Not a simple "inside job" case (Score:5, Informative)

      by WebCowboy ( 196209 ) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @03:42PM (#17757836)
      This is about an inside job since that's the only way those files would have made it to YouTube.

      You don't have to be an insider to pull this stunt--you only need equipment that is no longer commonly available. TV programming is sent from network HQ to affiliate stations electronically via satellite, sometimes hours to several days before scheduled broadcast. You do not need to be an employee of either the station or the network to receive a satellite signal. I used to regularly watch episodes of Star Trek DS9 up to three days before they aired on "real" TV.

      Wild feeds, or "occasional video transponders" are still commonly sent in unencrypted form so anyone can get them. However nobody knows when they are broadcasting or what the content is unless you are an employee. Sometimes if you watch the feeds you can pick out a pattern that seems like a regular schedule, but sometimes it shifts around. Also, episodes may be broadcast in wild feeds out of sequence. Furthermore, they are not broadcast in the same way as the most commonplace digital satellite systems--they are typically analogue and in a different frequency band--in the US they are on C band satellites. Most people who want satellite TV want the little dish hanging off the eaves, not a ten-foot C-band dish that obscures half of your yard (and you'd have to be in a rural setting for it to even be permitted). Wild feeds in Canada are commonly in Ku band as well, which permits a slightly smaller dish but still not appealing to anyone but enthusiasts.

      Fox has a larger hunt on their hands and it IS a typical copyright violation case. Hence, the subpoena of Google/YouTube.

      Stupid of broadcasters to still broadcast in the clear like that, but there is some technological inertia in every industry...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
        I'm not sure how relevant this is in the era of HD feeds, maybe they send them by HD/4DTV.

        There is plenty of C band equipment to be had. I was practically given my 10ft dish. Some folks let you take theirs if you'll take it out of their yard. The setup's a little hard but it's paid for now.

        They are very popular in rural areas and the service plans are still cheap. I like the fact that I can just buy the channels that I want for a very low annual fee - I get all the channels I want for less than a single
        • I really don't think it's worth hunting them down, there are so many satellites to check and so many channels on each. I've never found anything worthwhile by doing random checks.
          Which is why having a 10ft dish & being willing to spend time searching/recording the right feeds is a quick way to get into a release group.

    • Re:Why Worry? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jordan Catalano ( 915885 ) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @03:44PM (#17757882) Homepage
      The full DVD of the first four episodes was ALL OVER Usenet on the 7th.

      Thousands of people DLed that, and one guy encoded it for submission to YouTube.

      No insider job here.
    • In most cases maybe, but this season in an attempt to stop people from downloading shows from BT Fox released the first four episodes on DVD the Tuesday after they aired. As often happens some people got their hands on these DVDs and the shows were available more than a week before they aired.

      I think Fox just feels spited because the whole point of releasing them early was to combat BT distribution and all it actually did was make BT a more attractive method of getting the shows because they were there ear

  • I guess this means (Score:5, Funny)

    by bky1701 ( 979071 ) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @03:26PM (#17757568) Homepage
    Kiefer Sutherland learned how to use the internet, and took the "post your own videos!" thing a bit overboard.
  • The producers of the television show 24 have a great DVD marketing strategy -- show some new footage that takes place just before the yet-to-be-aired season and package it on the DVDs of the previous season as a bonus. Unfortunately someone on YouTube screwed that strategy over and probably cost Fox a grip in DVD sales. They are out for blood.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Fulg ( 138866 )
      The producers of the television show 24 have a great DVD marketing strategy -- show some new footage that takes place just before the yet-to-be-aired season and package it on the DVDs of the previous season as a bonus
      For season 6 they pushed it a bit overboard I think - on the morning following the "4-hour premiere" broadcast, you could buy a DVD with those 4 episodes, and the bonus footage (the "bait") was scenes from the following week's episode...
  • Lionel Hutz will crush their subpoenas like a paper cup.
  • I think this case may due a precedent for these video sharing sites.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by A Name Similar to Di ( 875837 )
      Sorry, I read your comment but I'm not quite sure I'm following. I popped open the Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] on the subject and it noted that "it does not guarantee to people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations" but only those from the government.

      Further, IANAL, but doesn't the search seem specific (we want the information for this _one_ fellow here) and contain probable cause (his name uploaded copyrighted material)?

      Sorry, I'm interested in t
      • I would have thought unreasonable searches and seizures by private organisations would be called breaking and entering and/or burglary and/or outright theft. Since when do corporates have any rights to trespass and steal? And why do you think it's okay if they do?
        • I would have thought unreasonable searches and seizures by private organisations would be called breaking and entering and/or burglary and/or outright theft. Since when do corporates have any rights to trespass and steal? And why do you think it's okay if they do?

          Wow, I'm not quite sure how I gave you that impression, but let me try and clarify. I started by including the line that the 4th amendment applies only to the government and not private organizations as (as I mentioned) IANAL and the exact legal
          • Surely Fox have to have a reason backed by some sort of legality before they can just demand other people's information or property?
        • Not to be pedantic, but there is a difference between 'unreasonable search and seizure' and 'unlawful search and seizure'. In many cases, the government is held to the higher standard of 'unreasonable', but to my knowledge, citizens are only held to 'unlawful'. For example, in Catz (I think), the government wasn't allowed to use evidence they had gained from eavsdropping- that was 'unreasonable'. It certainly, however, wasn't illegal.

    • How is this a 4th amendment issue? Its freely evident in the public space that YouTube possesses stolen property. Youtube may fight the subpoena but I do not see anything unreasonable here about Fox's actions.

  • The uploaded material could cause Fox "irreparable harm," Sunderland said, but it was not immediately clear if the episodes in question still were posted on the site or perhaps had been removed.

    Well, his/her account has been suspended [youtube.com] but you can still view some of their videos for some reason.

    That's beside the point, though. Once Jack finds out that there is some person somewhere acting unlawfully against him, all civil laws and the Geneva Conventions will be ignored in his quest to find them. Wit

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by dema ( 103780 )
      I accidently watched 24 once. I thought it was some over-the-top MadTV parody or something...

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by synx ( 29979 )
      I think 24 is a profoundly disturbing show. I think in this 'terrorism is war' mentality, whre people think anything goes, and anything works, 24 has convinced america that torture can work.

      Lets just put it this way, Mossad gave up on torture. If they can't make it work, no one can.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Radon360 ( 951529 )

      The show, in too many different ways, albeit technological, chronological, sociological, etc. has parted ways with the bounds of reality so much that the show has become uninteresting to watch because it lacks any plausibility any more.

      The artistic license given to Hollywood (and now, New York) is so vast that I've stopped watching CSI regularly for similar reasons. I mean, these guys can pull a good DNA sample off of dog poop and trace it back through the Miami-Dade Humane Society's database on any cani

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )
      "Jack interrogates Larry to a bloody pulp "

      I love that line..I so am going to use it in my next game.

  • It's not the darned "Simpson's" (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Simpsons. Simpsons.

  • ..... Lionel Hutz as an attorney?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Hutz [wikipedia.org]
     
  • I look forward to www.0daytube.com.

  • If he posted the commercials ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jsnipy ( 913480 ) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @03:44PM (#17757884) Journal
    If he posted the commercials, would they still care?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by popo ( 107611 )
      Mod parent up. That's a great question.
    • Yes. Some commercials are localized, and you'll end up having some car dealer from Cucamonga being watched in Kalamazoo. Also you'll have time sensitive ads watched too late.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )
        A smart uploader including commercials would still exclude localized commercials as they could be used to determine location, or replace them with local ads from another locality to give a wrong impression.

        Of course, by releasing before airtime, that would mean there'd be no local commercials (from broadcaster or cable company) inserted. If intact, the national commercials the locals replace would be intact or something else to mark the local ad break.

        Interesting though that YouTube has a cap of 10 minutes

    • Re:If he posted the commercials ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ip_vjl ( 410654 ) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @03:56PM (#17758088) Homepage
      If he posted the commercials, would they still care?


      Likely, yes they would. Commercial time is valued based on the audience size (and demographic). The commercials were already sold based on the (projected) television viewership. Just because more people will now watch online doesn't mean they can go back to the advertisers and ask them for more money.

  • The '24' episodes in question actually appeared on YouTube prior to their primetime January 14 premiere
    They also appeared on bittoreent and that other file distribution entity that we're not supposed to name, at least a week prior to their premiere. Of course they never made it on to my hard drive! No sir!

  • Bit Torrent (Score:5, Informative)

    by Aqua OS X ( 458522 ) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @03:54PM (#17758050)
    FYI, it has also been reported that this episode appeared on Bit Torrent prior to it's appearance on YouTube. Odds are this guy was just a moron / 3rd rate P2P pirate. Hassling him probably won't highlight the source of the leak.
    • You are correct. It was available via nbz/torrent first and then trickled onto the public trackers and then YouTube.

    • Odds are this guy was just a moron /

      This is at least the second time in days content pirates are called morons. Yesterday it was about WGA pirates being morons.

      We are anything but morons: in the end, YOU paid for our copy of windows which only cost us the dollar a day our broadband connection cost us and which we needed anyway for our porn.

      Same for this video (which as a Western European won't be able to watch in original version for another two years when they release the DVD) : I was able to see it

      • Ugh. YouTube has been under the magnifying glass eye of studios for months, and this idiot uploaded an unseen episode of 24 to their site. Yes, that makes him a giant moron.

        Moreover, you don't strike me as the sharpest tack either. You can't seem to wrap your head around why uploading unreleased content to YouTube would bring about a studio-backed shit-storm upon the uploader. And, might I add, you're berating a guy with "OS X" in his screen name for purchasing Windows.

        Moron.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )

        Of course... a variant of the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" line...

        Being able to get away with not paying for something that by law one is supposed to be paying for does not preclude one from being a moron... it just means that the ability to enforce the law has not actually caught up with the ability to ignore it. The evidence for any alleged brilliance on the part of people that can manage to successfully evade the law in the case of copyright infringement is largely circumstantial, and cannot reaso

    • Just being pedantic, but something can not 'appeared on Bit Torrent' as bit torrent is not a single network.
      Properly something can 'appear on the internet for download via bit torrent'. And really you don't even need to say anything about the bit torrent method of downloading as it isn't anymore important then saying 'for download via internet explorer' or whatever you browser of choice might be.
      So really it simply 'appeared on the internet for download'

  • How is this really ''your rights online''? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nweaver ( 113078 ) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @04:00PM (#17758154) Homepage
    This is a slam dunk subpoena of an individual who grossly violated copyright laws, and probably (once his identity is confirmed) trade secret laws.

    Dollars to Doughnuts says that Google's laywers took one look at the subpoena and went "Here you go"
  • I misread the headline, but strangely I didn't find the idea of serving a subpoena via YouTube to be surprising in the least. In fact, my initial thought was "Wow, YouTube's toning down their content."
  • The article mentions that the subpoena was "[f]iled on the basis of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act". I was under the impression that the DMCA dealt with circumvention of copy-protection measures. If this was recorded off of 'the air', i.e., an antenna or cable, how does the DMCA apply? AFAIK there are no copy-protection measures on these analog services.

  • "It's the process available under the Digital Copypright Act," Clark said
    Brilliance.
  • ...there is always a mole. Fox will no doubt be surprised when the last four episodes reveal him to be Rupert Murdoch himself. But they'll only find that out through torturing this poor kid first.
  • Do you think they'll incorporate his interrogation into Day 7?

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Close