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.'"
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.
Actually, it hasn't been dusty since about 1967. After Walt Disney's death, the corporation decided that a vast litigation department would help keep the billions flowing in.
In the 1970's they went around the country shutting down child care centers that had Disney characters on their walls.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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?
What I've always found interesting is that these people seem to be able to make threats against elected officials (calling for their death, torture, etc.) yet nobody ever says anything about it. Yet the moment a kid in a high school somewhere says something to the same effect, they're arrested, interrogated by the FBI, etc. Yet if you're a talk show host, or a popular right-wing media whore, you're allowed to call for the death or torture of anybody with whom you disagree.
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."
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.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have a good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg, Physicist and Nobel Laureate.
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.
No. This is not only completely wrong, it's a very common misconception among those who defend lawyers.
Note, IAAL.
The ABA model rules of professional conduct, which most states' ethical rules are based on, have more than the requirement that you "zealously represent your client" (which is the rule everyone seems to remember).
They also require, more importantly, they you do not press claims you know to be frivilous or a non-good faith extension, modification, or reversal of an existing law. See rule 3.1
Tons of lawyers who should be sanctioned for this, aren't. However, if you ever accidentally mix client funds, you will be disbarred.
The rules also require that you keep in contact with your client, and be responsive in keeping them up to date. See rule 1.4.
When have you met a lawyer who actually responds to phone calls?