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.
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'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.
"Disney's logic behind this escapes me."
Their logic had nothing to do with free speech and censorship. They reasoned that certain publicity could be bad for their profits, and they had the power to silence that publicity (or so they falsely believed in this case), so they tried to exercise that power.
It fortunately backfired on them.
Nonetheless, the DMCA as a method of trial-free law-backed coercion still exists in full force, and is being successfully abused in many other situations. As long as one person can instantly (albeit temporarily) silence another merely by sending a letter to an ISP (with no trial, no judge's approval, no oversight whatsoever), it will continue to happen.
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.
That's just it, though. Criticizing a corporation for withdrawing its advertising from a particular program is not really the issue. If all that ABC/Disney was doing in this case was criticizing, they'd be well within their rights. Sending threatening legal notices to the person or persons responsible for persuading the corporation that it might not be in their business interest to continue to spend advertising dollars on the program is emphatically not within anyone's rights.
Put more bluntly, this is a straw man argument. The right-vs-left politics are a sideshow, and they're distracting from a more serious issue at the heart of this mess. The question shouldn't be whether or not the blogger Spocko is a liberal, or whether ABC/Disney is conservative. If Spocko violated ABC's copyright, he should be reprimanded/made to stop. If, on the other hand, ABC/Disney is merely using legal threats to silence a critic who has not violated the law, then they need to be reprimanded/made to stop. This is true, regardless of the political orientation of anyone involved. Period. Whether or not you agree with the actual substantive arguments of Spocko or of ABC's hosts is immaterial.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
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.