Fox Subpoenaing YouTube Uploaders

[MalaCloudy Black]

While TV networks like CBS have realized that people watching clips of their shows on YouTube actually is a good thing that helps increase the regular viewers of the show, apparently that lesson hasn't rubbed off on Fox. Rather than learning to embrace a new distribution tool, and going beyond the traditional "takedown notices" that other networks have sent, Fox's "piracy czar" has subpoenaed YouTube to find out more info about whoever is uploading episodes of "24" and "The Simpsons." The subpoena, of course, carries the typical legal blurbage about how these uploads have caused "irreparable harm." Of course, it's tough to believe that's actually true. Beyond the evidence of CBS's experience, it seems pretty unlikely that anyone would watch a show like 24 entirely on YouTube, avoiding it on a TV -- and, if they were, it's unlikely that they're the sort of audience advertisers care very much about. If anything, it seems like the clips are much more likely to encourage non-watchers to get into either show and get them thinking about watching it on TV or recording it on a DVR. But, no matter, apparently Fox wants to sue those responsible for helping them promote their shows.

SOURCE: http://techdirt.com/articles/20070124/151132.shtml

Admittedly the article's a little biased and opinionated, but that's still fucked up. Kinda seems on par for the course for Fox, though.

[Farmer Reil]

The article isn't biased (¬_¬), it just applies common sense to the sitation.

Something FOX have proven time and time and time and time again that they just don't possess the ability to do.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Farmer Reil

[apsham]

Oh wait , where have I seen this before?

While wrestling federations like TNA have realized that people watching clips of their shows on YouTube actually is a good thing that helps increase the regular viewers of the show, apparently that lesson hasn't rubbed off on WWE.

In short, whoever wrote that article is annoying as hell in the way they write and relies on the "they're promoting the shows!" argument. Maybe the shows, but they're creating an alternative to watching the actual network as well, which I assume is what FOX has a problem with.

Edited January 25, 2007 by TAKA Apshamoku

[zero]

This is where the whole crusade against piracy gets so strange to me. You know, the ability to download an entire band's album, that I can understand why people are getting pissed. Being able to download an entire movie and burn it onto a DVD, that I understand. But TV shows? They're free to watch. It's legal to record them on your DVR or if you're technologically-impaired, your Tivo/DVR. What difference does it make if you watch it on YouTube? It can't be the advertising, because those are already skipped when people record the show. And advertisers aren't dumb, that's why you see more product placement in shows or even when a company like Toyota presents a show commercial free. The only thing I can think of is DVD sales. But surely I'm one of the few lunatics out there that actually waits an entire year for a show to come out on DVD as opposed to watching it on television. Putting it on YouTube would only help those people that miss an episode so they can catch up and resume watching, right? Or the obvious, FOX just doesn't want people to see the clips anywhere else that could take away from people paying to watch on iTunes.

EDIT

While wrestling federations like TNA have realized that people watching clips of their shows on YouTube actually is a good thing that helps increase the regular viewers of the show, apparently that lesson hasn't rubbed off on WWE.

Because WWE, wants to do it on their own terms. They want to keep it all in-house, with people watching clips on WWE.com, which boosts their ad revenue on there. YouTube getting hits doesn't help these companies, getting hits on their own website does. Not defending it, but I understand the logic there.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Zero

[Vilge Duin]

Most corporations and companies had almost no problem with YouTube until the Google buyout. The moment that happened Google started reaping in cash for any clip that is watched on their YouTube network. Benefiting from the products of others. This isn't a problem with Johnny Nobody trying to promote himself out of his bedroom with a webcam, but multi-million dollar shows owned entirely by giant companies is something different altogether.

Shows like 24, American Idol, The Simpsons, etc. don't need the "advertising" of YouTube. They achieve the audience they do regardless of the slight promotion YouTube might get them. It's an alternate for people to watch their popular shows without Fox actually garnering any benefit.

People use the "it's on TV so it's free" argument, but it doesn't work like that. Product placements have become a byproduct of things like DVRs and Tivos. People now skip the advertisements that pay for those shows to begin with and thus you need to advertise in the show.

The WWE argument also isn't valid much anymore. They could be lumped in with all large corporations in the past, but since the move to USA again they get no advertising revenue for commercials anymore. So latching onto and protecting their product is more paramount to them now. DVD sales and such are a big money maker for them.

And Zero, I also watch TV shows on DVD. Almost exclusively. Schedules and such very rarely allow me to watch anything regularly (and I have no DVR or anything). The leisure of watching a series at your own pace and without commercials is nice, along with having permanent copies of the episodes along with any extras they toss in (commentaries, featurettes, etc.).

[Lord Nibbler]

This is where the whole crusade against piracy gets so strange to me. You know, the ability to download an entire band's album, that I can understand why people are getting pissed. Being able to download an entire movie and burn it onto a DVD, that I understand. But TV shows? They're free to watch. It's legal to record them on your DVR or if you're technologically-impaired, your Tivo/DVR. What difference does it make if you watch it on YouTube? It can't be the advertising, because those are already skipped when people record the show. And advertisers aren't dumb, that's why you see more product placement in shows or even when a company like Toyota presents a show commercial free.

[therockbox]

Didn't the ratings for the first few episodes of 24 go up, despite them being leaked?

[zero]

But it all boils down to ratings. If people watch it online rather than watching it on TV, or even recording it and watching it later, ratings drop. When ratings are low, so is ad revenue.

But I agree about YouTube being a useful marketing tool, FOX should embrace it rather than futilely trying to fight it.

But TV ratings are all based off of Nielsen boxes. I highly doubt people that are selected for Nielsen are the same people who would only watch something on YouTube. Of course this could lead to a rant about how flawed the ratings system is, but Nielsen just recently (2006) started acquiring ratings from people in college dorms. That's the exact kind of demographic that would be the most likely to use YouTube to watch 24. It's not like TV's just record what everyone's watching, it all goes through the insane Nielsen system, so I don't really see how this could affect ratings that much.

[METALMAN]

Youtube is pretty awkward for watching videos. The maximum time is ten minutes I think, so the videos are split and they take a long time to download. Even more TV programs would be watched if the time was raised. Most likely the reason its there is to stop that happening.

Interestingly, the Sunday Times recommended youtube as a good place to listen to music. It even acknowledged its not really legal.

[Farmer Reil]

Not to mention the fact that the picture quality is horrendous.

[GA!]

The picture quality can be good if you use a specific setting - MPEG-4, 320*240 pixels etcetera. My preference has been leaning towards Google Video for some reason...

[Lowerdeck]

Youtube is pretty awkward for watching videos. The maximum time is ten minutes I think, so the videos are split and they take a long time to download.

If there's a maximum, it's sure not anywhere near 10 minutes.

[GA!]

Youtube is pretty awkward for watching videos. The maximum time is ten minutes I think, so the videos are split and they take a long time to download.

If there's a maximum, it's sure not anywhere near 10 minutes.

The max if you're a director I presume is 100mb. It's possible to get 100 minutes out of that if the video's a low quality WMV.

[Ananas]

Wow, FOX is swinging a big legal stick there. You'd think they were overcompensating for something. Like the fact that their President hasn't developed a single hit show yet. Oh, to be in the Gail Berman days again.

[Farmer Reil]

Youtube is pretty awkward for watching videos. The maximum time is ten minutes I think, so the videos are split and they take a long time to download.

If there's a maximum, it's sure not anywhere near 10 minutes.

[Guest mAXi]

Ugh, i hate Fox. So, so much. They cancelled AD, the cunts. The fucking cunts.

Yeah, and i don't care about Youtube >_>

[Lord Nibbler]

But it all boils down to ratings. If people watch it online rather than watching it on TV, or even recording it and watching it later, ratings drop. When ratings are low, so is ad revenue.

But I agree about YouTube being a useful marketing tool, FOX should embrace it rather than futilely trying to fight it.

But TV ratings are all based off of Nielsen boxes. I highly doubt people that are selected for Nielsen are the same people who would only watch something on YouTube.