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.
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.
Isn't that the kind of talk that Spoko was complaining about?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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."
His blog is back up, reading and listening to the clips myself, the context of most of them is clear. Listen for yourself: http://www.spockosbrain.com/
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
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
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?
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?
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."