Slashdot Mirror
ABC/Disney Shuts Down Blog Exercising Fair Use
An anonymous reader writes "A blogger named Spocko had his blog shut down by ABC/Disney lawyers because he had posted clips from an ABC Radio-affiliated program and commented on their content, as well as informed show advertisers of what exactly they were paying for. Spocko merely pointed out the content that station KSFO was broadcasting, and as a result Visa pulled their advertising from the station. More companies were reportedly considering pulling their ads. A YouTube video summary is available. From the Daily Kos article: 'How'd he do it? He did it the way it's always done - by working within the law, identifying points of weakness, exploiting them and being absolutely tenacious ... It appears to me as if Disney is attempting to bully a little guy in an unethical manner. Any media lawyer worth the air she breathes knows that Spocko's use was well protected.'"
You know, a lot of folks have commented on attacking the other side by torture, murder etc. These folks are forgetting a fundamental fact - the moment you start doing these things, you become like them. There is no difference between us and them if we resorted to the same methods that they do. And that is why it is wrong.
It is sad that there are media outlets out there that not only supporot but also advocate these things.
I mean, racism, advocating torture, describing how they want to get rid of folks they do not like etc. Coudln't all that be construed as inciting hatred and violence?
Disgusting would be another way to put it, especially when you are totally ignorant of the other side and blindly seek to murder, mutilate, insult and say nasty things.
Don't these people have a conscience? And doesn't Christianity say something about loving one another? I wonder where all that was lost.
...to all this right wing old skool conservative radio. The ratings would be even lower if you stopped listening. Your blood pressure would also be lower. In some ways this reminds me of those PTC wackos just listening to be offended so they can complain.
A broadcast on the BBC about Florida and a rather barmy woman on her way to Disney (World|Land|Empire) who gave the quote:
"Wouldn't America be a better place if Disney were running it."
I contend that the correct response to this statement would have been involuntary entry to an organ donation programme.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
I listened to the radio commentary and had to stop before it finished. It's absolutely disgusting! I'm glad this guy did something about it.
Talking about chopping off fingers and genitals, talking about what it would sound like to have someone electrocuted. It's things like this that cause me to feel shame for being an American. We should be above this type of thought, and *certainly* above this type of action.
Don't count your messages before they ACK.
One of the tactics that large companies have used in the past, when dealing with critics - particularly grass-roots activists - was the SLAPP : Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. Someone against your project, or annoying you? File a lawsuit against them. Since you have the money to push it, and they generally don't (if you pick your target well), the only way out of it for them was to shut up. This had the "benefit" of shutting up your other critics, too.
It appears that Disney has dusted off the tactic here. Yeah, Spocko did nothing illegal. All he did was advocate a position, comment legally on what he saw wrong, and point it out to those who finance it. Rather than actually change anything, Disney decided the best move was to shut the critic up. This seems be backfiring though - and it'll be interesting to watch how Disney will twist and turn to try to spin this in a better light.
Plain and simple.
What?
Spocko had his blog shut down by ABC/Disney lawyers
Sigh... Why do slashdotters hate lawyers so much? It's always "the lawyers" and never the management of ABC or the gutless wonders at Spocko's ISP.
It is a disgusting tactic they are using, but it is par for the course. Anyone can threaten a baseless lawsuit. The way to handle it is to call their bluff. I do not believe for one minute that ABC would follow through with their ridiculous (alleged) threat.
By the way... has anyone actually seen this letter we're talking about?
On the YouTube video summary (thanks to the guys that put that up, btw), this just lends more credence to what the "liberals" or "democrats" or whatever you want to call them have been saying. By acting childish, and being vulgar and stupid, these idiots are showing that they have no legitimate argument or opposing viewpoint to give. Because of that, they just spew complete trash, and hope to ridicule the people that think that there is something -very- wrong in this country right now.
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
"...if you want legal help. You can google me -- Camille Abate -- or you can check out my law website, www.abateandpreuss.com, or my new insitute's fledgling (i.e., unfinished) website, www.caja-institute.com.
In any event, I'm very familiar with Rule 11 motions and with federal practice, and it would be fun!
Politics is like football; if you see daylight, go through the hole. -- JFK "
Maybe someone can clue me in on how Rule 11 applies here. I googled it and it is a rule about motions submitted to a court. Among other things, it forbids motions that are for the purpose of harassing the other party. Maybe I missed it, but I wasn't aware that there was a court case; just the threat of one. Did Disney file any motions?
Anyway, the lawyer in the quote above seems to think Rule 11 applies here.
What a strange turn - the radio show's presenters are entitled to their free speech, however objectionable to most, yet the reviewer was slapped down - Disney's logic behind this escapes me.
I know blogging about something like this is bound to gain a lot of traction pretty quickly, but isn't it also possible to send in a complaint to the FCC about this? I know the FCC isn't typically what any of us think of when we think justice, but it is within their domain to dish out some hefty justice.
Meet new people, and kill them.
I don't worry about lunatic talk show hosts. I worry about their listeners.
What?
were taken out of context. That's the way the LLL's work.
Good for ABC/Disney, fighting back against the insipid inanity of the left.
What's despicable is how soon some people forget that Free Speech includes the right to comment on someone else's speech.
Free Speech doesn't include the right to have sponsors.
...to the perpetually aggrieved conservatives:
"Don't like what you are hearing or seeing? Use that 'off' button."
Lets not become new class of perpetually aggrieved.
First, already this is the top story on MediaPost, a web site for ad buyers. This is very bad for a radio station.
Then their big mistake: On Nov. 14th Melanie Morgan said this about Nancy Pelosi: "We've got a bulls-eye painted on her big laughing eyes." (from the Daily Kos)
That might be a felony. 18 USC Sec. 871
They said that after the November election, when Ms. Pelosi was Speaker-elect of the House. (The Speaker of the House is second in line for the Presidency, after the Vice President.) Somebody is probably going to be asking some hard questions of the people at that radio station.
There's a legitimate First Amendment issue here, but it's in that grey area between political speech and death threats. Morgan, KSFO and Disney may have some unpleasant months ahead. This could create liabilities that would interfere with the planned sale of the station to Citadel Broadcasting. That sale was supposed to happen during 2006, but on November 22, the deal was postponed and repriced, and not to Disney's advantage. ("the potential amount of cash retained by Disney has been reduced by $300 million in the aggregate, $100 million of which is an outright reduction in the cash...")
In terms of financial losses by a media company, this could be bigger than the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction."
Below is the text of the article:
Electrocute Bill Keller! No, hang him!
The moronic hosts of GOP-connected radio station KSFO get big yuks calling for "traitors" in the press to be killed -- all brought to you by Disney.
By Joe Conason
Jul. 14, 2006 | While Melanie Morgan debates with Ann Coulter about whether the executive editor of the New York Times should be killed by gas chamber or firing squad, the institutional forces behind the San Francisco radio host deserve to share in the national spotlight now focused on her. Morgan's brand of authoritarian extremism is brought to her radio listeners every day courtesy of the Disney Corp., which owns KSFO-AM -- a station that functions as a mouthpiece and fundraising mechanism for the Republican Party.
Through KSFO and Move America Forward, a right-wing nonprofit (and "nonpartisan") organization that she co-chairs, Morgan enjoys an extensive network of connections in the Californian Republican Party. The founder and "chief strategist" of Move America Forward is noted Republican consultant Sal Russo, whose firm has represented a broad spectrum of GOP candidates around the country over the past three decades.
Started as a vehicle for the recall of California Gov. Gray Davis, the group has pursued such disparate causes as discouraging theaters from screening Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," promoting the confirmation of United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, promoting happy news from Baghdad -- and, last December, launching an ad campaign to persuade Americans that Saddam Hussein really did possess a hidden arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
For a commercial radio station, KSFO maintains an unusually close relationship with the local Republican Party. The station's Web site links to Political Vanguard, which is operated by Contra Costa County GOP chairman Thomas Del Beccaro. Both his site and KSFO feature a series of party fundraising events, notably a gala hosted by Morgan herself and an upcoming speech by Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund. (Perhaps Morgan will take the opportunity to harangue Fund about his traitorous Journal colleagues, who also published the story about the financial tracking of terrorists by the SWIFT bank consortium.)
Anyone wishing to purchase tickets to these KSFO-sponsored events is advised to make out a check to "Contra Costa Republican Party" and mail it to the party headquarters in Walnut Creek, Calif.
Morgan and her co-hosts at KSFO (formerly the home of hatemonger Michael Savage) are predictably thrilled by the attention she has received ever since she called for Times executive editor Bill Keller to be sent to the gas chamber (after a "trial," of course). To listen to them is to wonder whether they may have gotten a little overexcited about their newfound notoriety -- Morgan's daily program specializes in primitive politics, with aging frat-boy high jinks provided by male sidekick Lee Rodgers and another character known as "Officer Vic."
On June 27, following a news item about President Bush's denunciation of the Times story on financial tracking of suspected terrorists via the SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications ) bank consortium, Morgan sputtered, "Get 'em! Yes, hang 'em! Yeah!"
Two days later, her sidekick Rodgers became exasperated with the Associated Press for reporting that antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan and others had begun a hunger strike. "Why don't you dopes at the Associated Press do the world a favor? Commit mass suicide!"
"Oh, Lee!" tittered Morgan.
The hilarity
Y'all lefties sure hollered their free speech was being violated.
All this guy did was the same thing.Good riddance to no talent talkers.The pros can get sponsors despite who they offend.
Vivaldi's 'Winter' concerto - perfect choice of backing on the YouTube video presentation - highlighting the fact that free speech is presently suffering one very cold winter.
Hopefully the new Congress (pushed by enough pissed-off individuals and lobby groups) might bring back the sweet chirping of birds and fresh green buds on the trees of creativity.
Or is this the start of another Ice Age?
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
Christianity was declared as the state religion of the Armenian Kingdom in AD 301.
It appears that Spocko had clips that ran as long as five minutes. That's beyond fair use in most circumstances. Those are probably what gives Disney a leg to stand on. His short clips (5-15 seconds) were within the bounds of fair use, though.
I would be interesting in seeing where you got that info.
DailyKos and their allies want the radio station shut down because it's a conservative talk radio station. This is just an excuse. There is a complete lack of context to their comments. They mention that the radio talk show hosts suggest that a black man from Nebraska should be tortured to death. My guess is that a particular criminal performed a horrible act and they want him to pay for the act more severely than the law provides (an emotional response). I don't know because it's not mentioned in the article. Just the race baiting key points of "black man" and "torture/execution".
I'm not saying that the radio station shouldn't be shut down. However, I suggest we should base our discussions on more reasonable sources such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and various British papers (not the Guardian). If Rush Limbaugh said that Nancy Pelosi should be removed from office because she was disloyal to the United States, would you take him at his word?
That said, I believe that websites should be allowed to post copyrighted material when it's in the public interest. If they feel that the copyrighted material is violating the law and constitutes a threat, they should be able to bring their case to the public.
Raped them in court over some woman spilling coffee on herself.
And now they can only sell lukewarm coffee.
Lawyers suck they sue over anything and often win despite the merits of the case because juries think the "victim" deserves something.
do not believe for one minute that ABC would follow through with their ridiculous (alleged) threat.
I think you're right, they're just trying to stop the bleeding.
The lawyers are just doing what they're paid for doing, it's ABC/Disney management that fumbled the response. This is not how you respond to this type of criticism if you're guilty...and they're guilty. This is knee jerk. All it's done is to hang a lantern on the protest so it might be seen by a wider audience. They made him a hero. Hopefully they sober up before actually filing a court case. Then those radio clips would be evidence in a court case and open the door for discovery. Public suicide.
More proof that, in my opinion, top executives are not worth the millions they're getting. Lose money, bungle incidents like this, still collect a golden parachute.
It's also possible the ABC/Disney execs don't know what exactly is going on. This could have been bungled entirely within the confines of ABC's radio division. This smells a lot like mid-manager knee jerk trying to save their job after losing a major sponsor. You know how information gets filtered on the way up the chain. Who knows what bs story they fed up the pipeline?
Also doesn't stop him from sending transcripts to sponsors and potential sponsors. Maybe the rest of us to could dash off a quick note to FedEx letting them know their support of right wing hate speech doesn't make them look good.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I'm surprised that the blogger has given in so easily. I understand that he can't afford a lot of legal expenses, but my understanding is that at this point all he needs to do is file a counter-notification with his ISP certifying that to the best of his knowledge his use of copyrighted material falls under Fair Use, which it almost certainly does. Here's a how-to. This puts the ball back in ABC/Disney's court and doesn't require a lawyer at all.
Wouldn't give much credence to anything published by that site. They're the 'Rush Limbaugh' of the left.
[Insert pithy quote here]
I liked conservatives better when they listened the the vitriol of the left and just sighed and kept quiet... you know.. being conservative.
It is a perverse state of affairs when someone representing DailyKos has the legal and ethical highground over their adversary.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Lawyers did McDonald's a huge favor. It cost them a pittance.
Their coffee isn't lukewarm, it actually tastes a lot better than it used to.
You've obviously never been on a jury. I have. And even in a very liberal metropolitan area, they tend to be very skeptical and take their responsibility very seriously.
Why do slashdotters hate lawyers so much? It's always "the lawyers" and never the management of ABC or the gutless wonders at Spocko's ISP.
Because the lawyers have free will to not take the job and do something else with their skills. It is like saying that a mercenary solider isn't to blame for war crimes because he was ordered to by someone else. He signed up for the job and could have said no when they wanted to hire him.
Even more so since I doubt Disney hangs traitorous lawyers for desertion.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Case in point: The Path to 9/11
Why not present the facts on their merit? So much of this entire thread has ventured into religion. The seething hatred against religion is understood among many here but there is plenty to be alarmed about in the article without getting into it.
Just remember when those on the right start boycotting the Dixie Chics, it is essentially the same thing this guy was doing. Both are perfectly fine things to do, but just remember that.
is probably playing both sides of this issue with their accomplices. Kind of like selling weapons to both sides of the war.
What?
Nuts. No particular instance is "most circumstances" so your claim, in addition to being unfounded, is meaningless. It's like arguing that there was no avalanche in Colorado this past week because there isn't that much snow on the road in most circumstances.
Or, if you prefer a more formal version, you committed a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid.
--MarkusQ
...the actual duration of the clips used? Perhaps Disney feels Spocko used too long a clip to comment on and it's up to a court of law, not Slashdot (as shocking as that might seem to many here) to decide. If Spocko doesn't want to fight Disney that's his problem. The law works both ways. corporations shouldn't have to allow their poperty to be used without their consent simply because the person violating thel aw doesn't have the finds to defend themselves in court against copyright infringement charges. "If you can't afford to do the time, you can't afford to do the crime" seems a bit apropos here.
"Religion" is really too broad a term for this discussion. Compare, for example, Buddhism, which posits a one-to-one relationship between one's actions and one's position in the next incarnation, with Christianity, that claims to offer absolution from the most heinous of crimes upon becoming a Christian. And there seems to exist, at least in the public mind, the notion that Jesus will forgive just about anything no matter when the infraction occurs. I would submit that there is a fundamental difference in attitude here in regard to the nature of evil and the advisability of committing it. One has to think that the various dictators in the world who claim or have claimed to be Christians have this little caveat floating around somewhere in the backs of their minds.
After reading through approximately 60 posts out of 150 posted, it is obvious that since the program being criticized was of the conservative view, Spork/Sprock/Whatever was justified in his presentations to Visa and other sponsors. If someone wants to complaint to a corporation about the content of a show that company sponsors, more power to them. I will be hard-pressed to contain my humor, however, when some conservative goes to a company for advertising on a show like "Will and Grace", for example, and Slashdot readers will be sure to criticize that corporation for withdrawing ad dollars. Content is content. Some people will like it; some will be upset by it. However, one must be consistent in their stance on this issue. Is it acceptable for a corporation to withdraw advertising revenue after political heat is applied, or is it not? As for the commentators, anonymous and otherwise, people are not sheeple. Using that word only makes you appear elitist and condescending. I give the flamebait/troll tag ten minutes on the over/under.
---
but make sure that the last line
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey
is it that bad seein a hot chick again? if i see a hot chick walkin down the hall i dont say "repost"
no ad hominem attack use a dictionary dickface (that's ad hominem)
try shoe is on the other foot
neither case is censorship
At various times, Karel has taken the following political stances. (1) After the American military overthrew Saddam Hussein, thousands of Iraqis staged loud anti-American demonstrations and began to initiate guerrilla warfare against the American soldiers. Karel actually supported the Iraqis. (2) Karel claims that people who oppose illegal immigration are bigots, racists, or Nazis.
You can join Karel's online chatroom to offer your opinions during his on-air program. If you poignantly criticize his stances, then he arranges for the moderators to kick you out of the chatroom.
Meanwhile, Ray Taliaferro has taken the following political stances. (1) Taliaferro claims that Washington is a terrorist government. (2) He insists that the Americans are the primary agent preventing the third world from becoming prosperous. (3) He cheered the death of Ronald Reagan.
If you doubt what I am saying, then I challenge you to prove me wrong. Listen to the talk show hosted by Karel. Join his chatroom, and in it, criticize his extremist positions. Then, see what happens to you.
By the way, I am a liberal. However, there is a difference between a liberal and a leftwing mental case.
Note that I am not saying that KGO is unbalanced. KGO does include a fair representation of the political spectrum. However, Karel and his ilk are leftwing extremists. He hates Dr. Bill Wattenburg (and other moderates) with such a vengeance that he has censored Wattenburg's last name in the chatroom. Go to Karel's chatroom and type "Wattenburg". The software powering the chatroom will automatically replace "Wattenburg" with a sequence of "****".
Note that Wattenburg is another talk-show host at the same station, KGO.
The quote, as you have even written, is "ABC/Disney Lawyers" See, it's like this sentence "Disney's hammers hit his skull." This does not blame the hammers nor does the sentence really blame lawyers.
Although I am sure that we must actually blame the lawyers. After becoming that well-studied in the rules of our democracy the best they can do is hire themselves out to these dirt peddlers?
Umm, who are you to judge who is "real christian" or not (where's that part in the bible about judging others).
You can have an opinion without judging someone. For instance, a real Christian in my book would remember Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world."
Quite a few of the right wing extreme in the US seem to spend the bulk of their time trying to advance their beliefs and lifestyle through force of legislation. Those who mix politics and religion corrupt one and pollute the other.
So who's judging who when I say a "real Christian" wouldn't try to enforce their beliefs by means of corrupt and secular government?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
At various times, Karel has taken the following political stances. (1) After the American military overthrew Saddam Hussein, thousands of Iraqis staged loud anti-American demonstrations and began to initiate guerrilla warfare against the American soldiers. Karel actually supported the Iraqis. (2) Karel claims that people who oppose illegal immigration are bigots, racists, or Nazis.
You can join Karel's online chatroom to offer your opinions during his on-air program. If you poignantly criticize his stances, then he arranges for the moderators to kick you out of the chatroom.
Meanwhile, Ray Taliaferro has taken the following political stances. (1) Taliaferro claims that Washington is a terrorist government. (2) He insists that the Americans are the primary agent preventing the third world from becoming prosperous. (3) He cheered the death of Ronald Reagan.
If you doubt what I am saying, then I challenge you to prove me wrong. Listen to the talk show hosted by Karel. Join his chatroom, and in it, criticize his extremist positions. Then, see what happens to you.
By the way, I am a liberal. However, there is a difference between a liberal and a leftwing mental case.
Note that I am not saying that KGO is unbalanced. KGO does include a fair representation of the political spectrum. However, Karel and his ilk are leftwing extremists. He hates Dr. Bill Wattenburg (and other moderates) with such a vengeance that he has censored Wattenburg's last name in the chatroom. Go to Karel's chatroom and type "Wattenburg". The software powering the chatroom will automatically replace "Wattenburg" with a sequence of "****".
Note that Wattenburg is another talk-show host at the same station, KGO.
You are just plain right. Best comment yet.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
At various times, Karel has taken the following political stances. (1) After the American military overthrew Saddam Hussein, thousands of Iraqis staged loud anti-American demonstrations and began to initiate guerrilla warfare against the American soldiers. Karel actually supported the Iraqis. (2) Karel claims that people who oppose illegal immigration are bigots, racists, or Nazis.
You can join Karel's online chatroom to offer your opinions during his on-air program. If you poignantly criticize his stances, then he arranges for the moderators to kick you out of the chatroom.
Meanwhile, Ray Taliaferro has taken the following political stances. (1) Taliaferro claims that Washington is a terrorist government. (2) He insists that the Americans are the primary agent preventing the third world from becoming prosperous. (3) He cheered the death of Ronald Reagan.
If you doubt what I am saying, then I challenge you to prove me wrong. Listen to the talk show hosted by Karel. Join his chatroom, and in it, criticize his extremist positions. Then, see what happens to you.
By the way, I am a liberal. However, there is a difference between a liberal and a leftwing mental case.
Note that I am not saying that KGO is unbalanced. KGO does include a fair representation of the political spectrum. However, Karel and his ilk are leftwing extremists. He hates Dr. Bill Wattenburg (and other moderates) with such a vengeance that he has censored Wattenburg's last name in the chatroom. Go to Karel's chatroom and type "Wattenburg". The software powering the chatroom will automatically replace "Wattenburg" with a sequence of "****".
Note that Wattenburg is another talk-show host at the same station, KGO.
Seems like Spocko has found a new internet host. The blog can now be found at:
http://www.spockosbrain.com/
For those interested, the new host has commented on his intentions to keep the
blog up and going
http://marc.perkel.com/
I'm currently in a protracted legal battle over my BLOG with a local eBay dropoff who has accused me of using their logo within my story. Their claim is that I am not allowed to use the logo (which is a key illustration of their services) under the Lanham Act. They have placed several pendant issues such as defamation (in the suit called "impeachment of character") and brand dilution/tarnishment.
_ lawsuit_ov.htm
The first court rejected the suit and sent to a lower court, the second court denied an injunction, which is currently in a federal appeal by the Plaintiff. The opposing attorney has been completely unreasonable in his efforts to "punish me" - purely out of revenge (on his client's behalf).
I have received no support from communities like Slashdot, or the EFF because of my typical conservative political affiliation. The legal battle has pretty much cost me my local reputation, ruined my local business, and has caused me a lot of duress/stress over the last year. Since I don't have the money for a lawyer, I have represented myself Pro Se.
I can sympathize with this blogger, and I hope that once my case is resolved that it will help stand as a precedent (which it almost certainly will) as the decision from the lower court contains a formula for determining which bloggers qualify as journalism and which don't. This blogger will benefit greatly from such a decision.
The best analysis of my case can be seen here:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/11/blog
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
One of the tests of Fair Use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Obviously the use was intended to have a negative impact on the market value of the show and therefore fails the fair-use test. In any case, Disney can legally request that the copyrighted material be removed. I see nothing (other than the notoriously bogus slashdot summary) that Disney took any action to shutdown or remove the blog. In all likelihood the Disney lawyers simply send a cease-desist request to remove the infringing material. I wouldn't be surprised if they also mentioned slander or defamation suit.
At various times, Karel has taken the following political stances. (1) After the American military overthrew Saddam Hussein, thousands of Iraqis staged loud anti-American demonstrations and began to initiate guerrilla warfare against the American soldiers. Karel actually supported the Iraqis. (2) Karel claims that people who oppose illegal immigration are bigots, racists, or Nazis.
You can join Karel's online chatroom to offer your opinions during his on-air program. If you poignantly criticize his stances, then he arranges for the moderators to kick you out of the chatroom.
Meanwhile, Ray Taliaferro has taken the following political stances. (1) Taliaferro claims that Washington is a terrorist government. (2) He insists that the Americans are the primary agent preventing the third world from becoming prosperous. (3) He cheered the death of Ronald Reagan.
If you doubt what I am saying, then I challenge you to prove me wrong. Listen to the talk show hosted by Karel. Join his chatroom, and in it, criticize his extremist positions. Then, see what happens to you.
By the way, I am a liberal. However, there is a difference between a liberal and a leftwing mental case.
Note that I am not saying that KGO is unbalanced. KGO does include a fair representation of the political spectrum. However, Karel and his ilk are leftwing extremists. He hates Dr. Bill Wattenburg (and other moderates) with such a vengeance that he has censored Wattenburg's last name in the chatroom. Go to Karel's chatroom and type "Wattenburg". The software powering the chatroom will automatically replace "Wattenburg" with a sequence of "****".
Note that Wattenburg is another talk-show host at the same station, KGO.
It shouldn't be the FCC's job to regulate the content put out by a broadcaster. That's what's been said here every time they fine anyone else for nudity/profanity/whatever, and I'm standing by that even though I strongly dislike the content of the radio show in question.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They're completely different deities because they teach completely different things. They're polar opposites. You may as well claim that China and Norway have the same leader.
Maybe you need to go back to school. The Hebrew and the Arab "God" is the same one. Hebrews are decendents of Abraham's son Ishmael and Arabs the decendents of his son Isaic. The split between the two came when Sarah, Ismael's mother forced Abraham to send Isaic and his mother Hagar into the desert. They all worshipped the same diety. And as Abraham was a decendent of Noah's son Shem, from where Semites come from, both Ishmael and Isaic are Semites as well therefore both Arabs and Hebrews are Semites.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Allah as the Muslims call God and God (Yahweh) as the Christians and Jews see their deity are one and the same, it's according to all three scriptures the God of Abraham.
The deities described by the three religions are very different: they have different histories, different goals, different purposes, and different moralities.
The fact that, at times, adherents of some of those religions have described their own deities as "the same" as some of the other religions is a political and rhetorical trick, not a fact.
And that's what makes the disagreements between these three 'religions' so sad...
No, what's sad is that people are so gullible that they talk about bogus identities of imaginary entities as if they were objective facts. And people who repeat that sort of nonsense contribute to those "disagreements".
clips that ran as long as five minutes. That's beyond fair use in most circumstances.
I don't think this can be correct, mainly because copyright law does not say this. You say "most circumstances", but don't define what you actually mean. Are you talking about fair use of all copyrighted audio works? Or just talk radio?
If you are talking about "all audio", my guess is that you assume "most" fair use circumstances arise from pop songs (or something similar), where a 5-minute clip could contain two entire works, and therefore definitely be infringing. But there are many places when even using an entire work would be fair use. For example, a (radio or TV) news story on Apple computers might incorporate the Mac startup chime, which is certainly copyrighted. Yet uses like this are used all the time.
Regarding talk radio, you have a much more complex beast. Some shows go for several hours. Is 5 minutes a significant portion of this? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.
I think that you can only really claim 5 minutes is "usually" too much if you've either read research to this effect or done it yourself. And since this is Slashdot, I don't think you have.
Are you saying that people often start conflicts because they believe there other side believes in the wrong religion, e.g. Israel-Palestine Conflict?
The broader Israeli Palestinian conflict isn't about religion per se, it is about how European Jews immigrated to Palestine and took control of the area. You hear about all of these Palestinian terrorists but you never hear about Jewish terrorists. And there were a lot of them, such as the Stern Gang or Lehi group. Some of these groups even helped and was helped by the NAZIs. The SS and Gestapo even trained Jews in Germany to fight against the British in Palestine.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Critics have always quoted in order to focus their comments. Had Spock quoted a sentence or two in text instead of audio, it would have very hard to object to.
... one formerly enforced with less visible strong-arm tactics ... and they aren't going to go down without fighting the threat.
But now individuals have powers that used to be exclusive to mass media moguls
In this case the result is fortuitously egregious. It proves that they are becoming desperate. I imagine all the dinosaurs thrashed about a lot as they took their last breaths.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
The first step is to get a story about it posted on Slashdot. No one can support you if they have no idea who you are :]
Unless you can cite precedent to the contrary indicating that using more than X% of a work can never be fair use, I don't believe there's any such bright line rule in USC 17 (copyright law). I know that there are plenty of anecdotal bits of advice out there which give various formulas, but I've never heard of any that have any actual force of law.
:]
According to the my understanding, there's a four factor test which decides whether or not the use is fair. The four factors are purpose and character, nature of the copied work, amount and substantiality, and effect upon work's value.
Because I cannot see how this use (even if it were of the whole program) would harm the market for the work in question, and because they appear to be using the clips for non-commercial news reporting, commentary and criticism, it's my belief that even if they were to use the whole program, their use would be fair. I should also mention that the Betamax case indicates that fair use can still exist even if you copy the entire work, although that was a rather exceptional case.
Granted, IANAL, but were I on the jury, I would have absolutely no qualms in immediately deciding that this particular use was fair and that the infringement claims were merely an attempt to silence criticism. Of course, I'm quite hostile to anyone who uses copyright as a shield against their critics, so I'm probably biased
Main language in Istanbul: Turkish
Main languages in Constantinople: Latin and Greek
That's a big difference there. They must be different cities.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
Dude, you don't get it. Not agreeing with people who hate Islam (which is obviously out to DESTROY THE WEST!!!111) means you hate the West and all it stands for. It's all very logical ;)
Just because some Muslims hate the west doesn't mean all do. Actually many love the west.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The date of compilation/cannonization for either work is irrelevant. Neither of those terms have anything to do with when a work was written. Every book in the NT was definitely written well before 650 AD. The conservative view is that they were all written before 100 AD, and even more liberal scholars have trouble pushing authorship past 200-300 AD. In any case - the NT books were certainly written well before the Koran, and so are "closer" to the OT.
Oh, and in any case, you're comparing apples and oranges; compilation and cannonization are not the same thing. One could certainly argue that the Koran was "cannonized" around 650 AD, but that was essentially simultaneous compilation/cannonization ("This is the only approved copy. Burn everything else.") The process was nothing at all like the compilation/cannonization of the NT, so you're still not really making any sort of reasonable comparison.
The cannonicity of certain books in the NT was certainly questioned by some Christian groups well into the 16th century. However, there was widespread agreement within Christianity on the traditional cannon (gospels, Acts, Paul's epistles, Peter's epistles, John's epistles) much earlier than that - so even that argument falls flat. Wikipedia points out that the traditional cannon was certainly accepted by 400 AD, and possibly even earlier:
Finally, for the record - no, I am not a biblical scholar (yet.... I'm about 2/3 of the way through picking up a bachelor's degree in pastoral theology). Even without that background, I'm reasonably comfortable in saying your argument just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
If you read some of the original PNAC docments, gaining access to the oil and a central permanent base in the middle east in the center of all the oil *was* the primary purpose of the war. Well, that and making the area safer for Israel, but that's a side issue. Unless you are still living in denial that the documents exist and all the top leadership in the original bush admin are PNAC (and AIPAC) members. I still see that occasionaly, funny how it gets ignored by some. Anyway, here is a quick reference about what is to become of the oil, from today:
i l_070107160241
i d=aFOJc1vWmTRo&refer=home
3 A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB11677762055326 5272.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070107/bs_afp/iraqo
It's all about gaining access to infrastructure and resources, from oil in the middle east to water in south america to mines in africa to even selling off domestic US infrastructure,roads to waterworks to prisons to ports to airports to minerals in the ground on public lands to whatever and etc. Governments now are tools of the multinationals, where their hardest push is to privatize function of governments into their private sector hands and make profit from it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&s
http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http%
You want more it is out there, those were extremely easy to find
government by corporation = fascism, no two ways about it. Concocting lies then changing them as they become untenable to another version of some lie is how the bush administration operates. So, yes, they are indeed swapping lives for oil, and for selling more hummvees and helicopters and bombs and rebuilding what was blown up. Later rinse repeat. It also serves as a good excuse to have perpetual boogiemen to use to further get rid of born-with rights to be replaced with government/corporate granted priveleges all at the point of a gun.
And for those bothering to read the actual content of this post: Q: What's the difference between a prostitute and a lawyer? A: A prostitute stops screwing you once you are dead.
Here's an example of a netizen who was 'interviewed' by the secret service after having posted a comment. Follow the link in his story to read the comment which attracted their attention. Then realize: Your comments are public.
When a large entity like Disney files a lawsuit against a small blogger like this, the blogger's defense is an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Instead of answering Disney's complaint (if there is one), the blogger files an anti-SLAPP motion. The judge will then make some preliminary determinations and, if the blogger is successful, will throw out Disney's suit.
The beauty of it is that if the blogger wins, he gets his attorneys' fees paid. (If he loses, he does not have to pay Disney's attorneys fees.)
This encourages attorneys to defend individuals without the resources to fight big companies. There are many attorneys like me who get EFF's emails asking to help individuals like this on a contingency basis. If the blogger really is in the right then that is some good money.
I note that the link discusses a "Rule 11" motion, which would be in federal court. I don't know if there is a similar motion in fed court.
No Inflation Taxation without Representation
...so I made the mistake of lowering my threshold, to make sure I didn't miss any "good" comments.
Boy, was that ever the wrong move. By the time I got to the third page, I was wondering if anyone cared or even remembered about this poor sap with the cease and desist letter...or would it all just be a bunch of ranting and raving about Ishmaels and Isaacs, Korans and Qurans, and Testaments, both new and old... *sigh*
One of the tests of Fair Use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
Another test of fair use is if it news and this is most certainly news.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Dog is my co-pilot.
There used to be a requirement for opposing viewpoints, but that, along with all other concern for the public good on the airwaves, was pretty much trashed under Reagan. That's why radio and TV stations with such blatant ideological biases (hint: they are owned by rich (mostly white and male) people, they are going to tend to support the interests of the rich) had such a boom in the 90's.
The end of the fairness doctrine, and regulations surrounding ad hominem attacks (these died in 2000), has pretty much made a mockery of the phrase "public airwaves."
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
I love when people try to squash free-speech and fair use like this nowadays. All they do is push it further into the mainstream news and show how big of jackasses they are. Seriously, haven't these people heard of the internet? You can't secretly squash out your opponents anymore!
or else!
The main issue here is that obviously, most of the advertisers have been unwittingly supporting the radio show in question. As Spocko put it, from afar, the radio station appears to be a Disney Radio station, with all of the family friendly ideas that conjures up. As it turns out, the programming is not that. Spocko has done a service to the advertisers. This is the point. Never mind right wingers, left wingers, or anything else, the advertisers were spending there hard earned coin for a show they didn't agree with, and I'm sure are very happy to move their money elsewhere. I hope the show's producers, and/or audience doesn't feel so entitled that they should have others pay for their time, no matter how it is spent.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
I like what Spocko did, I really do. As the blog post states, he worked within the law, he didn't call for government censorship -- he merely alerted advertisers to exactly what they were funding, and let them decide.
What I find most interesting is that this comes from Daily Kos. I wonder how many in that community recognize this as the exact same thing Charleton Heston did when he showed up to Warner Brothers shareholders meeting and read the lyrics of "Cop Killer," causing Ice-T to be dropped from the record label post haste. How many of them would call that "censorship?"
Just a thought.
The only way Disney can get away with broadcasting this crap endlessly is because the FCC did away with the fairness doctrine. If stations were still required to broadcast different points of view, stations like KFSO would get honest real fast.
If he doesn't have the funds to fight a protracted legal battle with a large corporation then perhaps, yes, he should not so publicly criticize the corporation
NO! Because at that point, anyone with big enough pockets can simply do anything they want (up to and including making detractors disappear).
I agree with what you say about Spocko representing himself pro se. But just to shut up, simply because they have deeper pockets and might sue?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Something (kind of) similar happened to me, and I wrote up a little web page on my experience. The experience itself provides an interesting story, but afterwards Comcast (who the story was about), got mad and threatened to sue me. I got scared just like Spocko, but talked to a lawyer and he told me Comcast's bullying is just that and they didn't have much to actually do other than that. Anyway, the first (long) part of the story is just the bad experience where I whine a lot, heh. Maybe you'll find it a good story. Anyway, scroll down towards the bottom to see where they threaten to sue me and where I bravely (stupidly?) try to stand up to them. It's been a year and still no lawsuit! http://www.cs.utk.edu/~jthomas/cableguy/cable.html
If you are a lawyer who currently represents a client, the fact that the client wants to do something that is merely frivolous is not grounds enough to refuse to do it. You are acting as your client in the eyes of the law, so anything your client orders you to do that he is legally allowed to do, you must do. A lawyer has no legal recourse to being ordered to do something legal but frivolous by his client. In this case, Disney has lawyers on retainer and merely sending a C&D is not illegal, so although the Disney lawyers can privately advise against sending it, they can't outright refuse to without inviting sanctions and/or disbarment.
A lawyer can choose not to represent a client (unless he is or is acting as a public defender), but again if you already represent them you can't just drop their case cold without a damn good reason such as a conflict of interest that prevents you from ethically representing them any longer. "My client is a scumbag and I don't like him" isn't even close to sufficient reason to drop a case.
-- Old Man Kensey
That's a serious misinterpretation of the intent. Let's take a look at the full fair use guidelines:
They're general areas to be considered, not simple binary tests to be applied. Note that the four are to be considered together as factors, not as a series of independent cases. Also note that it doesn't reference the fair-use-claimant's intent.
Your reading of guideline 4 is completely wrong. With a reading of "if the guideline is relevant then it's not fair use", how do you interpret guideline 1? It's not fair use for commercial or nonprofit educational use? I guess fair use only exists for for-profit educational use. How about guideline 2? No fair use of nature photography? No fair use ever because every copyright protected work has some sort of nature?
Ultimately by your reading of guideline 4 there is no fair use for reviewers ever. The entire purpose of a review is to impact a product or service's market value. That's obvious nonsense in light of the law specifically says that fair use exists for, "criticism, comment, news reporting".
Search 2010 Gen Con events