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.
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.
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'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.
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."
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.
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.
...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"
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.
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?
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
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."
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*
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!