ABC/Disney Shuts Down Blog Exercising Fair Use
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Jan 07, 2007 02:32 PM
from the mouse-trap dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Problem with things like torture (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Problem with things like torture (Score:4, Insightful)
Religion is a barrier to progress and an excuse for evil.
Re:Problem with things like torture (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Problem with things like torture (Score:5, Funny)
Some Christians are a bit more Old Testament in their faith than others.
Re:Problem with things like torture (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
the "God" of Hebrews and Arabs (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org], from where Semites [wikipedia.org] come from, both Ishmael and Isaic are Semites as well therefore both Arabs and Hebrews are Semites.
FalconNow for another bad analogy... (Score:4, Funny)
Main languages in Constantinople: Latin and Greek
That's a big difference there. They must be different cities.
Re:Problem with things like torture (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
[1]Except possibly some advanced flavours o
Re:Problem with things like torture (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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...)
Re:Problem with things like torture (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
Re:Problem with things like torture (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:Problem with things like torture (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Problem with things like torture (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Problem with things like torture (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The factual errors in your post just cry out for more correction. You write of "the Church" doing various things, and identify this
Re:Problem with things like torture (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Problem with things like torture (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it does. You now have good reason to believe these people aren't actual Christians.
Re:Problem with things like torture (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Problem with things like torture (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Problem with things like torture (Score:4, Interesting)
I seem to recall (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re:I seem to recall (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that the kind of talk that Spoko was complaining about?
Disgusting radio commentary... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
SLAPP Reborn (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:SLAPP Reborn (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:SLAPP Reborn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Again... blaming the lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Disney" had their lawyers shut him down, Disney is dead, therefore Disney, the inanimate corporation doesn't take actions by itself, Disney's Management took the decision, the lawyer
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because there's ALWAYS some slimy, shitbag lawyer that would do whatever you'd like, just so long as you had the mon
Re:Again... blaming the lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Again... blaming the lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Again... blaming the lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Free Speech doesn't include the right to have sponsors.
What about FCC? (Score:4, Interesting)
To paraphrase (Score:3, Interesting)
KSFO is in big trouble here. (Score:5, Interesting)
First, already this is the top story on MediaPost [mediapost.com], 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) [dailykos.com]
That might be a felony. 18 USC Sec. 871 [cornell.edu]
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 [marketwatch.com], 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."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
5-minute audio clips are not "fair use" (Score:3, Interesting)
how did you come across that info? (Score:3, Interesting)
DailyKos is a deeply partisan site (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:DailyKos is a deeply partisan site (Score:5, Informative)
counter-notification (Score:4, Informative)
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 [cmu.edu]. This puts the ball back in ABC/Disney's court and doesn't require a lawyer at all.
Re:counter-notification (Score:4, Informative)
Currently in court for a similar issue (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:No doubt the comments (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 th
Re:Slashdot readers come out in force (Score:5, Insightful)
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.