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
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?
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.
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.
How do you "take out of context" a 40 second clip about someone talking about frying someone on the electric chair because they don't like their political views (complete with moronic sound effects)?
...I just realized I was responding to "Anonymous Coward." Doh.
I'm not at all surprised by the idiocy that goes on in the realm of talk radio, but all this guy did was put up clips to show ADVERTISERS that were paying for ads on this show what was going on.
If the quotes were defensible, ABC should have defended them. They didn't. And as people have pointed out, commenting on segments of shows like this with portions of the original broadcast is COMPLETELY legal under the Fair Use laws.
I'm ashamed that my nation picks leaders such as George W. Bush, who thinks selling lives for oil is a less heinous crime than two men loving each other.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
This blog is completely different case, please learn to identify the difference.
While it is offtopic, I think it does show the behemoth nature of the Disney legal department. And while specific cartoon characters may be protected by copyright, I think certain instances of characters painted on the wall may have been fair use. The paintings could have been interpretive in nature. In any case, I think that it does show the over-reaching nature that copyright has attained atop the ivory tower.
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.
Let alone the fact, that were it not for Disney's legal army, copyright terms would not currently stand at 99 years. That company has done far more damage than it is worth. Far more, and as for that little bastard Mickey ... I hope somebody traps his ass. And not with one of those mamby-pamby "humane" traps, either. I want the life quickly squeezed out of him, so we can toss his moldering carcass on the scrap-heap of history.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
And if they used shorter clips I suppose it would be argued that they had been taken out of context.
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.
I'm ashamed my nation has people like you that think George W. Bush is selling lives for oil.
...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 its saying he's ashamed that Americans feel like this. Free speech allows people to say what they want, he's saying he's ashamed people want to say these things.
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
That's only one factor that has to be taken into account. The law doesn't say "it must not have a negative effect," it says that the effect is one of the factors to be considered.
That's hilarious and I hope you win some kind of award for your creativity. I don't think I've seen it argued before, that the character of the criticism (i.e. positive vs negative) is relevant to whether or not the quotation counts as Fair Use. Absolutely brilliant!
(I say "brilliant" because if I called it "stupid" then I wouldn't be able to quote the sentence that I was replying to. ;-)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
...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*
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!