Re: Fox News got OWN3D!
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:14 am
Hmm.. I wanted to view video again and.. it's gone. It violated the terms of using youtube. I rember it and it didn't.. strange. Youtube and Fox News are buddies?
Official Forums
http://offtopicproductions.com/forum/
http://offtopicproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3375
If it contained footage belonging to Fox, then it did. Being a well-known company rather than some vague entity which previously owned YouTube, Google is rightly concerned about keeping things on the up and up.Rex wrote:Hmm.. I wanted to view video again and.. it's gone. It violated the terms of using youtube. I rember it and it didn't..
If you would indulge my nitpicky nature for a bit, I would like to say that it is still a very poor comparison. A novel usually has one author whereas a news network has a whole bunch of producers, journalists, liars, cameramen and so on. Another thing we need to take into account is that the value of news degrade over time, if you report something totally unheard of it is worth a lot, but as time goes on, said news item won't be new any more and will become essentially worthless over time. A book on the other hand will often be worth the same for a much longer period of time, or in some cases will become more valuable over time (as is the case with classics).chris the cynic wrote:So comparing a week of Fox to a novel is a mistake, we would be better off comparing three weeks of Fox to a novel.
You've forgotten the editor(s), the typesetter, everyone involved in the actual the book manufacturing process, any research assistants, the agent, and gobs of other people. Seriously, if we're counting the camera people then why are we discounting the people who actually make the book.Jaedar wrote:If you would indulge my nitpicky nature for a bit, I would like to say that it is still a very poor comparison. A novel usually has one author whereas a news network has a whole bunch of producers, journalists, liars, cameramen and so on.
Which means that playing a clip that fox aired a month ago is nonthreatening to Fox's bottom line. When examining whether the publication of an excerpt is in violation of copyright within he United States (Youtube is US based) one of the primary considerations is whether or not the publication of the excerpt is going to remove revenue.Another thing we need to take into account is that the value of news degrade over time,
Which, again, lends to the idea that Fox is not justified. It means that the the 30 second clip is worth less than those 4 and third words from Ulysses.if you report something totally unheard of it is worth a lot, but as time goes on, said news item won't be new any more and will become essentially worthless over time.
Ok, you said what I said already. Nevermind. Sorry. Disregard most of this.A book on the other hand will often be worth the same for a much longer period of time, or in some cases will become more valuable over time (as is the case with classics).
The comparison is, to me, a sort of cap. The value of news degrades, the value of the words in a book does not. So the value of the clips of Fox is the same as the four and a quarter words at the most.In short: Comparisons are messy. Let's just agree to think Fox are stupid
Well, it is if it was their footage. It doesn't matter how small, it's their footage reproduced without permission.chris the cynic wrote:It wasn't in violation of copyright. This does come down to army of lawyers.
Youtube and Fox are both US companies. Our laws apply here, not yours. Our laws say that what you are saying is false.DaveW wrote:Well, it is if it was their footage. It doesn't matter how small, it's their footage reproduced without permission.chris the cynic wrote:It wasn't in violation of copyright. This does come down to army of lawyers.