back to article TVEyes blindsided: Fox News defeats search engine in copyright spat

A US appeals court has backed Fox News in the broadcaster's copyright-infringement battle against online telly streamer TVEyes. Essentially, TVEyes was showing clips of Fox News on its website alongside text transcripts of the reports. Fox News took the biz to a district court, alleging copyright infringement, however the site …

  1. Herby Silver badge

    Ten minutes??

    I'm surprised that anyone here in the USA has an attention span that long. Perhaps that is why news stories (and commercials) are short. I remember back in my youth that commercials were ONE minute long, and we could take breaks from TV watching to use the facilities. Now we have five second intros to YouTube videos that are all pretty short.

    Yes, our minds are turning to mush.

    1. Scoured Frisbee

      Re: Ten minutes??

      TL;DR

    2. Gio Ciampa

      Re: Ten minutes??

      Last time I was over there I couldn't help but marvel at the epics that were the drug adverts...

      10 seconds of "do you have these symptoms? Our new drug might be able to help"

      30 seconds of "oh... by the way... it might cause this, that, the other ... or even kill you"

      10 seconds of "ask your doctor about it" (presuming that the previous 30 seconds hasn't put you off)

      10 seconds of "oh... if you can't afford it we might be able to help with that too..."

      That was pretty much the template for every single one...

    3. Michael Strorm

      Re: Ten minutes??

      "I remember back in my youth that commercials were ONE minute long, and we could take breaks from TV watching to use the facilities. Now we have five second intros to YouTube videos that are all pretty short."

      You're probably right that modern attention spans have shrunk horribly. However, I don't think that's the issue here.

      It's more likely that they've found a five second non-skippable (but barely worth skipping anyway) advert that shows the product is more likely to be effective than a one-minute advert that's going to get skipped five seconds into the setup. (Or if the latter was non-skippable, is likely to be killed via the impatient user reloading it, or simply ignoring it in another tab until it's over).

      Also, you seem to forget that- even in the TV days- ad breaks were never designed for your convenience, to "take breaks from TV watching to use the facilities"... even if many people *did* use them for that purpose!

  2. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

    Fair Use

    Showing the clips without any commentary on them is not fair use. Fair use allows for a clip with enough of the context to be shown as long as you are truly use it as a basis of something else. Now if they were linking to the clips on Fox's website, no problem.

    1. Shadow Systems Silver badge

      Re: Fair Use

      I'm not familiar with TVEye nor am I a lawyer, but if the company was providing full transcripts of the videos then they should have claimed a Federal exemption for providing Disability Services for the deaf & hard of hearing.

      You can make a transcription of an audio feed so that the D&HoH folks can gain access to the material, you just can't deprive the IP owner of their ability to profit from their IP content.

      It's the same part of the law that allows libraries to make a transcription of visual only media for use by the Blind & visually impaired.

      If a book, magazine, or newspaper has an image then the library can transcribe it so us B&VI folks can have access to the same information (whatever the picture was about) as all you Sighted folks.

      The library isn't depriving the IP owner of their ability to profit from their IP content, merely offering the content in an Accessible form.

      If TVEyes were doing something similar, or at least claimed to be doing something similar, then things might have gone differently... at least right up to the point where the judge realized they were talkin' out their arses & tossed the case.

      Again, I am not a lawyer & am not familiar with how TVEyes did things, so this is just my One-Fiftieth of a Dollar...

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: Fair Use

        They weren't bitching over the transcripts but the video clips.

  3. Winkypop Silver badge

    Definitely a crime!

    It's bad enough that FOX News exists at all, but reproducing it?

    INHUMAN.

  4. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Battle of the Brainwashers with the Justice System deciding on Benefits from the Spoils?

    If the news is fake news, is it classified propaganda and rightly subject to Copyleft protection and treatment?

    Copyleft (a play on the word copyright) is the practice of offering people the right to freely distribute copies and modified versions of a work with the stipulation that the same rights be preserved in derivative works down the line. Copyleft software licenses are considered protective or reciprocal, as contrasted with permissive free software licenses. ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

  5. lglethal Silver badge
    FAIL

    EFF WTF?

    "The EFF, of course, described it as a "terrible" decision..."

    I'm normally a fan of the EFF, but defending TVEyes in this case is taking the p%ss.

    If TVEyes just had the transcripts or just linked to the videos on the fox website (like a search engine)and there was a decision like this then by all means call it terrible. Perhaps if they were showing 30 second clips and including a link to the full video you could also argue for them, but showing the entire clip up to 10 minutes and not linking to the original source, really isnt a defendible action. It's flat out copyright infringement, there is not really a need for the EFF to get involved here...

    1. Stu Mac

      Re: EFF WTF?

      Unless you support the destruction of copyright all together, I suppose.

    2. David Nash Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: EFF WTF?

      Agree.

      "this week's ruling is likely to derail TVEyes' operations. "

      Yes. that's the point!

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    a collection of facts isn’t “copyrightable.”

    So how could that ever be applied to Murdoch's organ ?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: a collection of facts isn’t “copyrightable.”

      I don't think "Murdoch's organ" is anyone's business besides his. And Jerry Hall's.

      (And anyone who wants to print a sleazy, privacy-invading, demeaning story about it in some gutter rag, because if anyone deserves a taste of their own medicine after years of doing it to others, it's that sociopathic piece of excrement).

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019