Posted on 01/26/2007 4:12:51 PM PST by blam
Fox subpoenas YouTube over "Simpsons," "24" - WSJ
Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:26 AM GMT
NEW YORK (Reuters) - News Corp. studio Twentieth Century Fox subpoenaed Google Inc.'s YouTube video service to learn who uploaded pirated copies of episodes of television shows "24" and "The Simpsons," The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
The subpoena, filed January 18, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asks YouTube to hand over information to identify the subscriber so Fox can stop the infringement, the Journal reported.
The four-episode season premiere of thriller show 24, starring Kiefer Sutherland, appeared on the site ahead of its TV broadcast, and 12 episodes of the Simpsons were being distributed on YouTube by a subscriber called "ECOtotal," the subpoena's declaration said, according to the paper.
Fox said it officially notified YouTube about the episodes and requested immediate removal or to disable access to the service, the Journal said.
News about the subpoena filed surfaced on the blog, Google Watch.
The same group of episodes were uploaded under the username of Jorge Romero on the video site LiveDigital, to which Fox also issued a subpoena, the paper said.
A spokesman for LiveDigital told the Journal that the material was taken down right away.
Google and Fox officials were not immediately available for comment.
For 24:
http://myspace.com/fox
Look up who can issue a subpoena and you'll find your answer.
OK. I did.
There is a difference between issuing a subpoena and asking to have someone subpoenaed. If I am missing something, please enlighten me.
I assume there is a pending action of some nature between Fox and YouTube.
I believe that the article is simply poorly worded. If, in the discovery process a subpoena is issued, then I would think that it has officially been issued by the Court and that for ease of processing the paper work a preformatted, preagreed to 'subpoena' may be filled out by the attorney's and sent.
Perhaps that is the case here, but I am certain that only the Court can officially issue subpoenas.
I really did not intend to make a big deal of this, as I fully knew what was meant, we all did. But when newspapers or other official informational sources become lazy in their reporting of facts and processes, it deepens the misunderstandings that abound regarding our system. There are many of examples of this:
"America is a democracy"
"Bill Clinton was never impeached"
These are two statements that are heard or read, quite often, most of us ignore them because we know what the intent was. But both statements are false.
As pertains to this article the correct wording, I think, should be:
"Fox requests subpoena for "U-Tube" or "Fox requests that U tube be subpoenaed"
They haven't learned yet that they cannot sue their way out of piracy....they better start learning how to work with it and profit from it.
Copyright as we know it is DEAD.
With the bonus of being the first elected president ever impeached... though not the "first impeached".
I think you are looking for section 512(h) of the DMCA.
Title 17, U.S. Code:
§ 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online
(h) Subpoena To Identify Infringer.—
(1) Request.— A copyright owner or a person authorized to act on the owner’s behalf may request the clerk of any United States district court to issue a subpoena to a service provider for identification of an alleged infringer in accordance with this subsection.
(2) Contents of request.— The request may be made by filing with the clerk—
(A) a copy of a notification described in subsection (c)(3)(A);
(B) a proposed subpoena; and
(C) a sworn declaration to the effect that the purpose for which the subpoena is sought is to obtain the identity of an alleged infringer and that such information will only be used for the purpose of protecting rights under this title.
(3) Contents of subpoena.— The subpoena shall authorize and order the service provider receiving the notification and the subpoena to expeditiously disclose to the copyright owner or person authorized by the copyright owner information sufficient to identify the alleged infringer of the material described in the notification to the extent such information is available to the service provider.
(4) Basis for granting subpoena.— If the notification filed satisfies the provisions of subsection (c)(3)(A), the proposed subpoena is in proper form, and the accompanying declaration is properly executed, the clerk shall expeditiously issue and sign the proposed subpoena and return it to the requester for delivery to the service provider.
(5) Actions of service provider receiving subpoena.— Upon receipt of the issued subpoena, either accompanying or subsequent to the receipt of a notification described in subsection (c)(3)(A), the service provider shall expeditiously disclose to the copyright owner or person authorized by the copyright owner the information required by the subpoena, notwithstanding any other provision of law and regardless of whether the service provider responds to the notification.
(6) Rules applicable to subpoena.— Unless otherwise provided by this section or by applicable rules of the court, the procedure for issuance and delivery of the subpoena, and the remedies for noncompliance with the subpoena, shall be governed to the greatest extent practicable by those provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing the issuance, service, and enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum.
Thanks for the link. Here is a portion of the key section, as relates to issuance of subpoenas:
(h) Subpoena To Identify Infringer.—
(1) Request.— A copyright owner or a person authorized to act on the owner’s behalf may request the clerk of any United States district court to issue a subpoena to a service provider for identification of an alleged infringer in accordance with this subsection.
(2) Contents of request.— The request may be made by filing with the clerk—
If content producers can not at least protect their intellectual property so they are the first ones to release it, then property rights are dead. Thus, why should anyone bother to create or invent anything since someone else can copy it and get to market before the owner?
Good for Fox.
Good question.
Content will be "free". The dam is breaking, and there's nothing the creators can do about it. However, if they change their thinking and grasp the new paradigm, there's alot of money to be made. Read the following and you'll see the future of media.
Even in that example, the artist or other content producer has the right to make the first sale. If someone can steal the music or TV show or whatever and make it available for free, then the creator can not make any money on his or her product. It costs a lot to create this stuff and the studios will go under if they can not generate revenues distributing their product.
Intellectual property rights are just as important as physical property rights and much harder to protect.
In an age when users can create infinite, unrestricted, pristine copies of the work, copyright doesn't exist...or does it?
The only leverage the creator has are access fees, licensing, advertising dollars and other revenue ancillary to the actual product. Its as if the actual work is now simply a vehicle to drive the revenue streams....which ironically doesn't include the work (mechanical rights).
However, that's a tremendous amount of money when you break it down. Nobody's going to go broke.
Who's going to watch 24 on YouTube?
As for me, I'm content with my HD tivo and surround sound (not something you get with YouTube)....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.