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.'"
Christianity had no state support until AD 313. Right up until that point, it was heavily persecuted by the Roman Empire and was in no position to go out killing. Might want to get your facts straight.
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
Some Christians are a bit more Old Testament in their faith than others.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Like the bumper sticker says "if going to church makes me a Christian, does going to the garage make me a car?"
I support the troops. I pay f'ing taxes.
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."
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?