Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship The Internet Media The Almighty Buck The Media

ABC/Disney Shuts Down Blog Exercising Fair Use 525

Posted by Zonk
from the mouse-trap dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ABC/Disney Shuts Down Blog Exercising Fair Use

Comments Filter:
  • by metlin (258108) * on Sunday January 07, 2007 @02:33PM (#17499668) Journal
    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.
  • by JoshJ (1009085) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @02:41PM (#17499724) Journal
    It was lost in about 100 AD when the Church started killing those who didn't agree with the viewpoints of those in power. They've been doing that for the past 1900 years, give or take a few (Crusades, Inquisition, Reconquista, killing/threatening scientists in the renaissance period, etc). Why expect that to change now?
    Religion is a barrier to progress and an excuse for evil.
  • by metlin (258108) * on Sunday January 07, 2007 @02:44PM (#17499744) Journal
    Oh I'm not a Christian and nor do I support religion in any form (am an agnost) -- I was just talking about the right-wing show hosts.

    If you are right-wing Christian, doesn't that involve _following_ your religion? The one that supposedly had a man called Jesus who talked about doing good, being good to everyone etc?

    That is the part that I do not understand.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07, 2007 @02:44PM (#17499758)
    ...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.
  • I seem to recall (Score:4, Insightful)

    by also-rr (980579) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @02:45PM (#17499768) Homepage
    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.
  • by Curunir_wolf (588405) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @02:51PM (#17499822) Homepage Journal
    I contend that the correct response to this statement would have been involuntary entry to an organ donation programme.

    Isn't that the kind of talk that Spoko was complaining about?

  • by semifamous (231316) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @02:52PM (#17499826)
    Don't blame religion. Blame people. People do this stuff. They may do it in the name of religion or in the name of their own greed, but it's still the people who are doing it.
  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @02:52PM (#17499832)
    And doesn't Christianity say something about loving one another? I wonder where all that was lost.

    Yes, it does. You now have good reason to believe these people aren't actual Christians.

  • by spiritraveller (641174) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @03:00PM (#17499908)
    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?
  • Full circle (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gordon Bennett (752106) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @03:05PM (#17499956)
    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.
  • Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spiritraveller (641174) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @03:17PM (#17500034)
    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.
  • by NineNine (235196) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @03:21PM (#17500074)
    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.

    Because there's ALWAYS some slimy, shitbag lawyer that would do whatever you'd like, just so long as you had the money. If I read more about lawyers refusing to accept cases like this, then maybe I'd have more respect for them. They're kind of like whores... they'll do whatever you want, just so long as you have the money to pay for it.
  • by a_karbon_devel_005 (733886) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @03:23PM (#17500088)
    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'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.

    ...I just realized I was responding to "Anonymous Coward." Doh.
  • I'm ashamed that my nation picks leaders such as George W. Bush, who thinks selling lives for oil is a less heinous crime than two men loving each other.
  • by Original Replica (908688) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @03:26PM (#17500118) Journal
    Religion, like patriotism, is easily turned from it's true meaning into a tool for the gain and exercise of power. That doesn't mean that faith or pride in your country are wrong. It means that you need to know enough about those things, to be able to tell when they are being misused. To put it in comfortable /. terms : Computers are wonderful things, but if you don't carefully inspect and maintain them, they pick up a bot and become a bad thing. The church is no different.
  • by hunterx11 (778171) <hunterx11&gmail,com> on Sunday January 07, 2007 @03:28PM (#17500152) Homepage Journal
    I agree that religion is given too much credit for encouraging evil, but it is likewise given too much credit for encouraging good.
  • by spiritraveller (641174) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @03:30PM (#17500170)
    Because there's ALWAYS some slimy, shitbag lawyer that would do whatever you'd like, just so long as you had the money. If I read more about lawyers refusing to accept cases like this, then maybe I'd have more respect for them. They're kind of like whores... they'll do whatever you want, just so long as you have the money to pay for it.

    First, Disney didn't have to hold out a bag of money on a street corner looking for a "slimy lawyer". They have a legal department, which they keep staffed. They are employees of Disney, and at the same time, Disney is their client.

    Secondly, lawyers are like whores because that is the ethical responsibility of every lawyer. When you represent someone, you stand in their shoes, whether it is a corporation, a little old lady, or somebody charged with a capital offense.
  • Re:Full circle (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07, 2007 @03:32PM (#17500178)
    "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.
  • by NineNine (235196) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @03:44PM (#17500302)
    As a lawyer, you have no responsibility to take every case. If somebody asks you, as an attorney, to have somebody killed, you have a legal responsiblity to say, "No". If somebody asks to you batter some individual until they shut up (even though that individual has done nothing wrong), then you have the moral responsibility to say "No". I have a buddy who is an attorney who regularly turns down people that he doesn't want to represent for a whole variety of reasons. The Disney lawyers pursuing this are whores. It's as simple as that.
  • Re:SLAPP Reborn (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07, 2007 @03:52PM (#17500392)
    This blog is completely different case, please learn to identify the difference.

    While it is offtopic, I think it does show the behemoth nature of the Disney legal department. And while specific cartoon characters may be protected by copyright, I think certain instances of characters painted on the wall may have been fair use. The paintings could have been interpretive in nature. In any case, I think that it does show the over-reaching nature that copyright has attained atop the ivory tower.
  • by ConfusedSelfHating (1000521) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @03:59PM (#17500466)

    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.

  • by Original Replica (908688) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @04:01PM (#17500482) Journal
    "Umm, who are you to judge who is "real christian" or not (where's that part in the bible about judging others). "

    Ah, a perfect example of warping a religious ideal into a tool for your own purpose. Thank you. There a great deal of difference between exercising your personal feeling of justice (Judging) and verbally holding your fellow man accountable (you claim to be Christian, yet are clearly acting otherwise). Judge not lest ye be judged, is not a call to apathy but to mercy.
  • Re:SLAPP Reborn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @04:08PM (#17500534)
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07, 2007 @04:12PM (#17500588)
    And if they used shorter clips I suppose it would be argued that they had been taken out of context.
  • by bmajik (96670) <matt@mattevans.org> on Sunday January 07, 2007 @04:20PM (#17500660) Homepage Journal
    All religion is inherently a bad thing, even when "good" things are done in it's name, because it is based on a falsehood, i.e., a superstitious belief in the supernatural[1]. It's wrong, and that makes it bad.


    How do you know religion is based on falsehood?

    Everything you haven't experenced first hand, heard about from a reputable source, or beleive to be correct from your constrained understanding of the universe is by definition supernatural. It's all supernatural until one day it isn't.

    100 years ago nobody would have beleived that putting a clock on an airplane and flying it around at 600mph would have changed how it kept time. Then in 1905 Einstein changed that, and 50 years later the US Navy verified that yes, infact, you can measure relatavistic time dilation using conventional aircraft.

    Much of the new testament is the recording of testimony given by eye witness acocunts of those who witnessed the teaching and miracles of Jesus (some of it passed word of mouth prior to its first recording on paper, but even this detail has been widely discussed to my satisfaction)

    You can beleive the whole thing is fabrication if you like, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the accounts depicted in the Bible are historical, not fictional. It's not like people were vastly more gullible then - many of Jesus own followered needed convincing on several occasions. People that saw him perform miracles with their own eyes still had doubts about who he was.

    You only get to read about it, so its understandable that you're skeptical.

    By claiming that something is false even though it might be true simply because you cannot explain how it could be true, doesn't that suggest a certain amount of... beleif on your part?... which is according to you.... evil? (pinky goes to corner of mouth)
  • Sad (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bmajik (96670) <matt@mattevans.org> on Sunday January 07, 2007 @04:23PM (#17500686) Homepage Journal
    I liked conservatives better when they listened the the vitriol of the left and just sighed and kept quiet... you know.. being conservative.

    It is a perverse state of affairs when someone representing DailyKos has the legal and ethical highground over their adversary.

  • by Teun (17872) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @04:31PM (#17500770) Homepage
    Das Modell needs to go back to school.

    Allah as the Muslims call God and God (Yahweh) as the Christians and Jews see their deity are one and the same, it's according to all three scriptures the God of Abraham.

    And that's what makes the disagreements between these three 'religions' so sad...

  • by kmac06 (608921) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @04:43PM (#17500894)
    I'm ashamed my nation has people like you that think George W. Bush is selling lives for oil.
  • by stubear (130454) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @05:13PM (#17501156)
    ...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.
  • by EsbenMoseHansen (731150) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @05:19PM (#17501218) Homepage
    parent: Everything you haven't experenced first hand, heard about from a reputable source, or believe to be correct from your constrained understanding of the universe is by definition supernatural. It's all supernatural until one day it isn't.
    wikipedia: The supernatural (Latin: super- "above" + nature) refers to entities, forces or phenomena which are not subject to normal natural laws, and therefore beyond verifiable measurement.

    What parent says is simply not true. According to him, some random Indian guy hugging his beloved is supernatural, yet this is clearly not beyond verifiable measurements, as wikipedia claims to be a requirement. Of course, wikipedia, could be wrong, so let's try dictionary.com:

    of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

    What would you know, it says the same thing.

    If being a religious person means believing in something supernatural (like the resurrection of Jesus, women becoming men before going to heaven, thunder from Thor's hammer and so forth) then a religious person is almost certainly wrong about his/her perception of the world. It is hard to quantify how certain, but beyond 99% at least.

    The new testament was written long after Jesus death, btw, and the different writers don't agree on much. I remember at least 3 contradictional accounts of the birth of Jesus, e.g. Thus, we can assume that most of these accounts are somewhat or completely wrong.

    And don't give me the line about science might be wrong about some details or as-yet unthought experiments. While this is true, this shows the strength of science compared to religion... when science can't match results to theory, it changes the theory... not the other way around. So get back to me when the religious people admit that yes, the mother of Jesus (I forget her name) became a virgin in translation. I mean, we have the original and the translated text, there is really no doubt about this.

    On a funnier note, there are rumours that the 72 virgins the martyrs were supposed to enjoy as reward was a mistranslation too. That would be almost too funny. I might die of laughter if this is proven to be true :)

  • Too Broad a Term (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Lord Balto (973273) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @05:24PM (#17501268)
    "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.
  • by Sj0 (472011) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @05:32PM (#17501338) Homepage Journal
    The first person you should judge, before anyone else, the first person you should criticize, before anyone else, the first person you should hate for being wicked, before anyone else, is yourself.

    Islam, and a thousand other religions may have a billion sins behind them, but they aren't us. We are us, and we ought to be the first and largest concern in our own minds regarding morality and ethics.

    Guess what? We're the west. Thus, ought to criticize ourselves before we do so to others, thus you hear a lot more griping about the things we're doing. That's the way it should be. A world where people criticize themselves first is a just world.
  • by smchris (464899) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @05:39PM (#17501390)
    The events of the Old Testament took place before God sat down and took some anger management classes.

    Good update. Wasn't Mark Twain's line something like "God got religion in the New Testament"?

    And the people who would like nothing better than a good stoning on a Saturday night are still here.
  • by sithkhan (536425) <sithkhan@gmail.com> on Sunday January 07, 2007 @05:41PM (#17501404)
    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 [snop.com] via GreaseMonkey [mozdev.org]
  • by smchris (464899) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @05:48PM (#17501456)
    Power always protects itself. Christianity made one advance. My "Magic and Witchcraft in Ancient Greece and Rome" class (yeah, I was one of _those_ majors) claimed non-collusium ritual human sacrifice was quite common into the Roman Empire along the frontiers. Christianity substituted the symbolic ritual of consuming the single, essential all-powerful and life-everlasting human sacrifice. Brilliant for its time. Creepy that we are still practicing it after landing on the moon.
  • by NoMaster (142776) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @05:52PM (#17501478) Homepage Journal
    All religion is inherently a bad thing, even when "good" things are done in it's name, because it is based on a falsehood, i.e., a superstitious belief in the supernatural
    Look, I'm as agnostic/athiest as the next guy, but c'mon, anti-religion nuts are just as crazy any annoying as religious nuts.

    You're seriously trying to argue that a basically pacifist* philosophy developed over 2000+ years is much more inherently harmful than a belief in solid evidence + whatever shit you make up to suit yourself, fill in the holes, and glue it all together?

    At the very least, religion gives you the benefit of having other people around you with similar basic beliefs to occasionally tell you "no, you're wrong"...

    (*Yeah, yeah, bring up the history of the the Crusades, Charlemagne, the various Inquisitions, and your peculiarly American fundie doctor-killers and radio nutjobs. I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the Christian philosophy - y'know, "do unto others ...", "love thy neighbour ...", etc, etc.

    About the only thing I can say is bad about religion is that focussed belief seems to inherently cause more and greater hurt in the world than unfocussed belief. Think about that for a while, and ponder who the bad guy there really is - organised region, or human nature?**)

    (**No, not the band - though sometimes I wonder about that too...)

  • by maxwell demon (590494) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @05:53PM (#17501492) Journal
    Of course Mao managed to get good people to do evil things without a religion. The trick of getting good people doing evil things is to make them think those evil things are good. Religion is quite easily misused for that purpose, but it isn't the only abusable thing. The Nazis managed to misuse Darwin for their racism. Basically anything can be abused that way as long as four key factors apply:

    1. Enough people believe that it's true (or you can manage to get people believe it).

    2. Most of those people don't really understand it.

    3. It can be mutilated to "say" what you want it to say.

    4. The mutilated version divides the people in "good" and "bad" ones, where the "good" have the duty to eliminate the "bad".
  • by Wildfire Darkstar (208356) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @06:09PM (#17501626)
    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.

    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.
  • by Petrushka (815171) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @06:33PM (#17501828)

    My "Magic and Witchcraft in Ancient Greece and Rome" class (yeah, I was one of _those_ majors) claimed non-collusium ritual human sacrifice was quite common into the Roman Empire along the frontiers. Christianity substituted the symbolic ritual of consuming the single, essential all-powerful and life-everlasting human sacrifice.

    Heh, I guess that class didn't extend as far as how to spell "colosseum". Anyway, many of the practices and tenets of Pauline Christianity are based more on pre-Christian Dionysiac cults than on human sacrifice per se: the ideas of the sacrifice, tearing-apart, and eating of the god at a feast, of the god having an intensely personal relationship with the individual practitioner, the god dying in order to give eternal life to the practitioner, miracles etc at the birth of the god, and others, are basically Dionysiac. These aspects of Dionysiac/Orphic religion go back a lot earlier than the Roman Empire; if they, in turn, were adapting aspects of human sacrifice practices, it probably dates to the 6th/5th century BCE.

  • by aussie_a (778472) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @06:56PM (#17502044) Journal
    No its saying he's ashamed that Americans feel like this. Free speech allows people to say what they want, he's saying he's ashamed people want to say these things.
  • by adzoox (615327) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @07:02PM (#17502102) Journal
    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.

    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_ lawsuit_ov.htm [ericgoldman.org]

  • by imthesponge (621107) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @08:19PM (#17502814)
    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.
  • by ClamIAm (926466) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @09:12PM (#17503276)
    There is a complete lack of context to their comments.

    If you're referring to the radio clips, I call bullshit. The only way to show there is a "lack of context" is to produce either (a) longer recordings that show something was taken out of context, or (b) research based on longer recordings. And if you think that talk radio goons don't say stuff like this, well you're also wrong there.

    I suggest we should base our discussions on more reasonable sources

    If you mean "non-partisan", then that is impossible. There will always be people claiming Foo Times or Bar Magazine is partisan. It's also pretty hard to be completely non-partisan.

    If you mean "mainstream", I don't think this is good either. These entities often aren't the most truthful either. For example, the 2004 US election had lots of, shall we say, irregularities, yet there was a near-total blackout in the media regarding them.

    Either way, a search at Google News shows me that this story has not been picked up by any big newspapers or news organizations (that I recognize). Heh, and you won't be seeing it on tonight's news on any "local" network owned by Disney.
  • by Sloppy (14984) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @10:21PM (#17503802) Homepage Journal
    Obviously the use was intended to have a negative impact on the market value of the show and therefore fails the fair-use test.

    That's hilarious and I hope you win some kind of award for your creativity. I don't think I've seen it argued before, that the character of the criticism (i.e. positive vs negative) is relevant to whether or not the quotation counts as Fair Use. Absolutely brilliant!

    (I say "brilliant" because if I called it "stupid" then I wouldn't be able to quote the sentence that I was replying to. ;-)

  • by cfeedback (467360) on Monday January 08, 2007 @12:01AM (#17504460) Journal
    ...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*
  • by nilbog (732352) on Monday January 08, 2007 @03:17AM (#17505580) Homepage Journal
    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!
  • by macsuibhne (307779) on Monday January 08, 2007 @04:50AM (#17505978)
    Of course DailyKos is an avowedly [dkosopedia.com]partisan site. And while it might be the case that most DailyKos readers might be happy to see KSFO shut down, Spocko is not one of those who is listed as a representative of the site (see the link), and in fact acted until recently as a lone gunman, documenting the hate speech emanating from that station and drawing it to the attention of its advertisers all by himself. This effort only came to the attention of the DailyKos community _after_ his personal site got SLAPPed by Disney/ABC. He's not even a regular DailyKos blogger, though he does have an account there, and someone else entirely drew the community's attention to his plight. Consciously or not, your entire post explicitly invokes the "guilt/honour by association" logical fallacy (and what the hell is wrong with the Guardian by the way?). Just because it got reported on DailyKos doesn't make the story false.
     
    Tony.

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

Working...