Comments on: Freeview parody pulled from YouTube

By: Craig

Craig — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 05:36:41 +0000

FYI and update!

“A spoof video poking fun at digital television coalition Freeview was taken offline after a request from the group’s lawyers, YouTube says.”

“”We don’t ordinarily comment on individual videos,” a spokesperson for YouTube said.

“But due to some confusion that is circulating online… I wanted to confirm that we received (an infringement) notice for lawyers acting on behalf of Freeview Australia Limited to remove the video in question.” “

By: Brett Ramsey

Brett Ramsey — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:14:17 +0000

I take it then that the people behind this wont mind when we steal it and show it on our show on C31 next Tuesday night?

By: Sharpy

Sharpy — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:15:19 +0000

That’s a great clip, but they needn’t sell t-shirts to pay for potential legal issues. The video is pulled, and that’s that. I’ve had a small handful of vids removed by YouTube because of their copywrite content from the likes of Fox, so I don’t think FreeView are really going to be pushing anything here… the negative publicity alone would give them pause…

By: avoidz

avoidz — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:50:35 +0000

I downloaded the FLV version of this video when the first story linking to it was up here, and I’ll be showing it to all my friends because it’s so true.

I think Freeview is afraid of this video with good reason

By: Dan Ilic

Dan Ilic — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:25:10 +0000

A few people have commented us on selling t-shirt to cover potential legals bills, we’re just having fun with it, so relax. The profits on the t-shirts will go to paying for the venue hire at the Melbourne International Comedy Festival and Marc’s hairdressing and make up.

By: Benny

Benny — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:02:32 +0000

The clip’s humour lies in its truthfulness. 7, 9 and 10 are themselves bad jokes. TV in this country is run by dinosaurs.

They got caught up in the “private equity” nonsense of recent years and are now paying the price. With huge debts and plummeting revenue there will be many tears in the years ahead. It is all their own doing.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:52:19 +0000

FYI Australian Copyright law has no “Fair Use” provisions, its called “Fair Dealing” and as correctly stated it allows for parody or satire (as well as news coverage, education, and specific government uses), under which classification this clip clearly falls. Just wanted to clarify to avoid confusion with US Copyright law.

This aside, the YouTube terms and conditions can be more strict than Australian or US law just as any contract can, provided it doesn’t contravene those laws.
It would in fact be sensible for YouTube to have conditions that covered them against the strictest laws to avoid a legally uploaded clip in one country breaching copyright in another.

By: Johnson

Johnson — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:02:02 +0000

Jason: in my hometown of Hong Kong, the two local commercial networks (ATV and TVB) have had advertisers sponsoring primetime programs outright for the last 4-5 years, and the company’s name is shown at the start of the program, ad breaks, and in promos.

By: ali

ali — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:40:29 +0000

Its funny coz its true!!

By: DAN

DAN — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:37:03 +0000

Wonder which network complained about it first I bet it is the network which number is after 6 and before 8 that clip was telling the truth

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:36:50 +0000

Regarding ad-skpping, the majority of viewers don’t want to be forced into viewing advertising, especially when it ruins the timing and flow of the programs. In lieu of ad breaks, commercial networks should look into having advertisers sponsoring programs outright. It would provide good public relations for a company to sponsor a program without any advertising excluding before and after the presentation. People will think that it was nice of “Brand X” to sponsor my favourite show, they would consider buying their product or service. The programs can be listed in TV/Electronic guide for example “7:30 – Company X presents Bondi Chef”.

You wouldn’t go back to a restaurant that had poor customer service. so if Freeview, commercial networks and advertisers treat viewers with contempt then they will leave and find other options.

By: mac

mac — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:51:30 +0000

if freeview are so concerned about copyright why did they still the idea for their ad from ford.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:13:13 +0000

Zambora: I’m not sure that Gruen will make much of the Freeview ad given that ABC is a partner in Freeview and ABC’s managing director (IIRC) is the CEO of Freeview!

And as for ‘pinching’ ideas from other sources, well, ‘recycling’ has been happening in TV network promotions for years and years. it is nothing new and nothing remarkable.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:55:21 +0000

I don’t really have an issue with the ad-skip feature (or lack thereof) in Freeview. TV doesn’t just make itself it needs dollars to do it, so I can understand the networks restricting the ad-skip feature on the FV equipment otherwise they’ll be encouraging viewers to skip ads which hurts their income . And then we’re going to see more product placement intruding into program content which nobody wants either.

And *some* ads are actually worth watching!

By: Zambora

Zambora — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:33:51 +0000

can’t wait for Gruen Transfer to poke fun at this.
Any chance that networks will own up when they blatantly pinch promos from other sources and modify them i.e. Nine

By: Marc Fennell

Marc Fennell — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:28:09 +0000

Hi guys, Marc Fennell here, one of the spoof creators….

I believe there’s a pretty worrying issue behind all this. These Freeview people are claiming that they’re revolutionising television. How can they be revolutionising television if they don’t understand the most basic principals of the internet? Content wants to be free and it will be. How are they hoping to compete with internet piracy if they don’t comprehend this basic truth – the same principle in fact that is sending audiences fleeing from Free To Air TV in droves? If anything, I think this whole affair exposes a real flaw in their paradigm about the media. At the end of the day, Freeview may be a a pretty vanilla project but I dont think it was evil. A marketing excercise for digital TV? Good on them. Our issue was that they were misrepresenting their product and confusing consumers… but this core misunderstanding that Freeview seem to have about the media and the internet: I think that’s much more concerning.