Slashdot Mirror


Fox Subpoenas YouTube Over Content

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."

4 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. If he posted the commercials ... by jsnipy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If he posted the commercials, would they still care?

    --
    -- if you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
    1. Re:If he posted the commercials ... by ip_vjl · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
  2. How is this really ''your rights online''? by nweaver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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"

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
  3. Re:Why Worry? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?