Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fox Subpoenas YouTube Over Content

Posted by Zonk on 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."

6 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. Why result to laywers..... by LordPhantom · · Score: 5, Funny

    ....when they have Jack Bauer? I mean, Chuck Norris prays to the guy before bed.

  2. Why Worry? by eno2001 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:Why Worry? by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

      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?

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    2. Re:Why Worry? by Jordan+Catalano · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Why Worry? by aeryn_sunn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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...

  3. Not a simple "inside job" case by WebCowboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...