Fox News got OWN3D!

[Rex]

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?

[OiNutter]

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 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.

However, I did not get to see the video the first time, so damn you, YouTube!

[Rex]

Oh yea.. talk about something and don't even show a part of this materials.
They didn't claimed any right to that material. Few seconds of video and one picture. And they was more then happy to say these lies belong to fox news. It's fucking abnormal. I wonder if Fox News have any rights to use Mass Effect screens in their porn material. Hmm..

[Jaedar]

I thought that in the americas, right had nothing to do with it, only who has the largest army of lawyers.
Are you saying this is a faulty belief? Color me shocked dear sir!

[DaveW]

Fox News has recently been through Youtube deleting videos that belong to them or criticise them, they got some guy who posted up lots of Liberal videos from CNN, MSNBC etc. (and very ocasionally Fox News) banned. Though that was probably more to try and silence the liberals on Youtube.

[chris the cynic]

It wasn't in violation of copyright. This does come down to army of lawyers.

Basically what happened is that the people on Fox would say stupid things and people would say, "Look at this stupid thing the Fox people said."

Because of the tangled mass that is the US legal system they were legally allowed to post these excerpts in spite of the fact that the things they were excerpted from were subject to copyright.

But, because of the tangled mass that is the US legal system, Fox can falsely claim that they are not legally allowed to post these excerpts and get them taken down. Which Fox has done. To just about everyone who has ever shared an example of Fox being stupid. Army of lawyers vs. youtube poster more or less guarantees that Fox will win this one. (Assuming the law even comes into this, Youtube has chosen to trust Fox and this may be more about Youtube policy than US law.)

-

If you've got a thirty second clip you're talking about 1/20160th of what Fox did that week. Showing that 30 second clip would be about equivalent to quoting slightly less than one word from a short story. (Assuming a short story of maximum length.) About two and a half words from a short novel, five words from an average novel, ten point 4 words from Moby Dick* or 13 words from James Joyce's Ulysses.

Now obviously this comparison is absurd. It takes a lot more than a week to make a novel. The most crazy-fast writer I know of writes an average of twenty pages a day and writes novels about 400 pages long meaning it takes him about twenty days to write a full novel**. 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. So a thirty second clip would be more like quoting four and a third words from Ulysses ("Stately, plump Buck Mulligan ca".)

* I thought Moby Dick was longer than that.

** Which really shows. He doesn't produce good novels. On the other hand he is a published author, which is more than I can say for myself.

[Jaedar]

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.

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).

In short: Comparisons are messy. Let's just agree to think Fox are stupid

[chris the cynic]

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.

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.

What about the distribution network? What about the person who has to convince someone that they should put this book on their shelves. What about the cover artist? What about the person who needs to do the figures to see how many books should be printed in the first run?

Do they all count for nothing. They need to paid if the book is going to make it any consumers. They may very well have children that need feeding. Why do they get no respect?

The poor forgotten people.

-

I like that you included liars in your list, by the way.

Another thing we need to take into account is that the value of news degrade over time,

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.

The question becomes, "Would someone who was going to watch Fox News long enough to increase their ratings and thus ad revenue suddenly decide not to, thus negatively impacting Fox's bottom line, because they can watch a short clip of something that aired on Fox in days long since passed?"

If it can be sufficiently demonstrated that that the answer is "Yes," (and not in a "I read a negative review so I won't watch," way) then I am wrong and Fox is actually right in this case.

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.

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.

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).

Ok, you said what I said already. Nevermind. Sorry. Disregard most of this.

In short: Comparisons are messy. Let's just agree to think Fox are stupid

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.

If a novelist found out someone had quoted four and a quarter words from one of their books as part of making a point about that book and tried to get someone kicked off the internet as a result the host would (or at least should) laugh at them. Hard. Fox is doing something even more absurd, as you correctly pointed out.

If it weren't for the extreme headache I have been suffering since I woke up this morning I'd edit the post to be more consistent with what I now realize you were saying.

[Rex]

Well, lucky that Fox Shit is not too smart. The original sex-box material is still up, the parody of it too, many responces too, the 'do not trust fox news' too. But official attack of other station was deleted.. Mhmm.. indeed.

[justanotherfan]

You think it would be easier to maintain a story, their narrative, without screwing it up all the time, without contradicting themselves or being absurd. The contradictions over time are inevitable when governments change, but they often look foolish day to day.

One thing I've noticed, is that I really like any criticism toward an entity that the reporter is biased towards. Democracy Now does some excellent stuff against Obama's administration, when they are doing the exact opposite of campaign promises and often going even beyond the Bush administration. Colin Powell politely shredded the 2008 Republican campaign. It's too bad the Republicans are so disciplined, that they'll back contradictions and absurdity.

[DaveW]

It wasn't in violation of copyright. This does come down to army of lawyers.

Well, it is if it was their footage. It doesn't matter how small, it's their footage reproduced without permission.

[justanotherfan]

Fair Use covers things like that. A clip of video or a song, especially for satire, is protected. In the states, they have the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, so it's easy to deny fair use.

For example, shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show often use clips of Pox News without permission. That's covered under Fair Use due to the quantity of Viacom's lawyers.

[chris the cynic]

It wasn't in violation of copyright. This does come down to army of lawyers.

Well, it is if it was their footage. It doesn't matter how small, it's their footage reproduced without permission.

Youtube and Fox are both US companies. Our laws apply here, not yours. Our laws say that what you are saying is false.

Most of that is indeed wrapped up in fair use, as justanotherfan points out.

[smmpanelpro]

Stay informed with insightful news updates on https://insightfullnk.online/. Explore timely articles covering a wide range of topics, from groundbreaking tech innovations to global business developments. Join our community of knowledge seekers today.