ABC shut down blogger who criticized violent rhetoric on one of its radio stations
SUMMARY: The mainstream media have yet to
report on the story of a blogger whose website was shut down after he began
spotlighting inflammatory rhetoric common to several talk radio hosts on KSFO,
an ABC Radio-owned station in San Francisco.
In 2006, a blogger named Spocko began spotlighting inflammatory rhetoric common to several talk radio hosts on KSFO, an ABC Radio-owned station in San Francisco. Spocko compiled a litany of examples on both his weblog, Spocko's Brain, and in numerous letters to corporations advertising on KSFO. He noted that KSFO hosts had claimed to have put "a bull's-eye" on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), advocated hanging various New York Times editors, called for the murder of millions of Muslims, and so on. This letter-writing campaign apparently got results, as major advertisers such as MasterCard, Bank of America, and Visa reportedly pulled their ads from the station. But as numerous blogs have noted in recent days, on December 21, ABC Inc., a subsidiary of the Disney-ABC Television Group, apparently issued a cease-and-desist letter targeting Spocko and his blog for copyright violation. Specifically, ABC alleged that by posting brief audio clips of various talk radio hosts on KSFO, the site was "in clear violation" of the station's copyright. The letter demanded that the owner of the site "remove the content immediately." Soon after, according to Spocko, his Internet service provider shut down his blog.
But while this story has received widespread coverage in the blogosphere, the mainstream media have yet to report on it.
In the past year, Media Matters for America has documented several inflammatory statements by KSFO hosts Melanie Morgan and Brian Sussman (here, here, and here). On his blog, Spocko featured numerous additional examples by these and other KSFO personalities, such as Lee Rodgers and Officer Vic. Spocko also wrote to KSFO's corporate sponsors calling their attention to these statements. For instance, in a November 20, 2006, letter to telecommunications giant AT&T, he wrote: "Thanks to radio hosts from KSFO your brand is being associated with torturing and killing people." He included in the letter numerous examples of the hosts' invective:
- Rodgers on a repeat offender in Lincoln, Nebraska: "Some SOB like this -- you know, lock him up, throw away the key. Better yet, put a bullet between his eyes and get it over, because he's never gonna be worth a damn, never gonna be anything but a criminal anyway. ... Now, you start with the Sears DieHard -- the battery cables connected to his testicles and you entertain him with that for a while, and then you blow his bleeping head off." (8/16/06)
- Rodgers' suggestion of how to punish an arsonist responsible for a forest fire: "I say they catch the person, tie 'em to a post and burn 'em. Set 'em on fire." Morgan added: "Hog tie 'em first. That would be good." (10/27/06)
- Sussman asking a caller to prove that he is not a Muslim: "Say Allah is a whore. ... Say that you love eating pig." (October 2005)
- Rodgers on Indonesia: "Indonesia is really just another enemy Muslim nation. ... You keep screwing around with stuff like this, we're going to kill a bunch of you. Millions of you." (10/25/06)
- Morgan on Pelosi: "We've got a bull's-eye painted on her big, wide laughing eyes." (11/14/06)
- Morgan on New York Times executive editor Bill Keller and other Times editors: "Hang 'em." (6/27/06)
Spocko went on to urge AT&T to drop its advertisements from these KSFO shows. He concluded the letter as follows:
I want to emphasize that if you withdrawal [sic] your ads you aren't limiting their free speech, just removing your paid support of it. Some other company without the values you describe on the AT&T website can support them. You can choose to advertise elsewhere. This is really about YOU. Do YOU want to be associated with these comments? Do you want your company and brand to be associated with these comments?
I urge you to discontinue advertising on KSFO during the shows hosted by Melanie Morgan, Lee Rodgers, Tom Brenner and Brian Sussman.
Following Spocko's communications, advertisers such as Netflix, MasterCard, Bank of America, and Visa all reportedly withdrew their KSFO advertising, as a January 5 Online Media Daily article reported. Spocko has further claimed that Federal Express, AT&T, and Kaiser Permanente are considering pulling their ads from the station.
But on December 21, Spocko's Internet hosting service, 1&1 Internet Inc., received a cease-and-desist letter bearing ABC's logo. In the letter, Enid J.H. Karpeh, who identified herself as ABC's counsel, claimed that Spocko's use of brief audio clips of Rodgers, Morgan, and other hosts was "in clear violation of KSFO's copyright." The letter signed by Karpeh went on to demand that 1&1 Internet "remove the content immediately."
Following is the letter (click here to see full-size version):
Soon after receiving the letter, 1&1 Internet shut down Spocko's Brain. Since the site went offline, numerous bloggers have posted the KSFO audio files on both their own sites and on YouTube. Further, Spocko's Brain recently resurfaced with a new Internet hosting service.
Media Matters found no record of ABC having responded to the Spocko controversy or having confirmed or denied that it sent the "cease and desist" letter. When asked recently about the story by Online Media Daily, Julie Hoover, a spokeswoman for ABC Radio, declined to comment.
been following this for a bit.
First story out of the chute on KCBS 5 San Francisco at 11pm!!! The announcer even gives a warning of offensive language prior to airing the clips so they see what the clips contain. One of the KSFO announcers, Brian Sussman, apologizes on his personal website for what he has said in the past to Muslims and African-Americans however he wouldn't speak on camera for this report.
[link to briansussman.com]
Let's see...KSFO/ABC gives a cease and desist to Spocko who is some goof with a website for using clips from KSFO. KCBS 5 is owned by...uh...hmmmm....CBS yeah that's right...and THEY use clips from KSFO as well. So place your bets as to when CBS will receive a cease and desist from ABC's lawyers. Don't hold your breath!!! Disney not only airs quite offensive programming with the guise of being a family friendly Disney station, but they also just prove that they are willing to be a Goliath against a David. Now another Goliath is airing their audio and we will see ABC back down by not sending a C&D to another Goliath, CBS. The report shows that KSFO has lost several national advertisers as a result of Spocko sending audio clips to their administrative headquarters.
Lots of sites are carrying this story with a couple being
[link to www.dailykos.com]
[link to www.callingallwingnuts.com]
[link to www.spockosbrain.com]
You know that you've hit a nerve when you get a letter from their lawyers. Keep up the good work Spocko!
I have listened to KSFO for many years.
Shortly after I became a listener, I suggested that, even though the station is located west of the Mississippi, the FCC should assign it a new call sign:
WKKK
If the shoe fits...
...being west of the Mississippi, it'd have to be "KKKK".
Actually, there already IS a WKKK in West Virginia. I don't know whether it's ABC, CBS, or what, I just know it's a country station.
Nice to see he got such a response from some of their big advertisers.
Mosquito can vex the dull, complacent beast, think about 10,000 mosquitos...
A blogger was perhaps using unauthorized audio content and the internet service that hosted the blog decided to pull the plug - their right to do so. But the blogger wasn't silenced for long, another hosting service picked them up - obviously their right to do so as well.
Why would the mainstream media report on this story? If they felt it important or relevant or newsworthy enough to their viewers/listeners, I am sure they would.....I would imagine it goes less to media bias and more to a business decision.
The content he posted probably fell under the fair use clause. The story here is intimidation. Another reason why media outlets wouldn't report on this is becuase they are either owned by, are business partners with, or advertise with, Disney or its parent organizations. So the more interesting question is why aren't they reporting on this. There's certainly enough time and ink in all the newspapers and news networks to give it a mention. So there you go.
This is much like Fox's lame attempt to shut down Franken's book. ABC really wants to outFox Fox.
You frame the lack of mainstream media coverage as a "business decision" rather than a media bias. So, you pooh-pooh MM's coverage of this. Whereas business considerations are surely part of this, no situation is either/or. For example, Spocko isn't part of the status quo. And the status quo always seeks to perpetuate itself by protecting itself. Part of ABC's response is probably a reflexive kick.
ABC disseminates news: not Spocko. ABC opines. Not Spocko. ABC is a player. Not Spocko. But Spocko can be spanked and ABC hopes that bad boy/girl bloggers will see the spanking and be afraid. Of course, it hasn't worked that way. Spocko seems nimble and bold and if the mainstream media were to report this story, they would look stiff and old rather than nimble and bold.
And Spocko, who's probably a liberal, is taking a stand for the alleged conservative values of restraint and decorum and decency. Old school conservatives wouldn't low like cattle about shooting politicians and torturing criminals. That's the province of neocons. It would be great if the old school conservatives took a stand against such evil, but it seems that Spocko is taking that stand...and being punished. Pity for ABC that he's so nimble and bold.
Spocko has every right to highlight whatever he sees fit on his blog, provided laws governing such are followed.
My point was this isn't necessarily some nefarious omission by anyone in the mainstream media. It isn't hard to fathom that some editor or program director was brought this story and said "Look, we could report this or not? Reporting it just gives more publicity to the likes of Morgan and the other offensive hosts, which is what they crave, so why do that? I say No, we don't give this kind of talk legitimacy."
Look at Spocko's page and point out how his presentation of audio clips is any different than Media Matters' or any other website that operates under fair use laws.
I do not know the laws governing these copyright laws, so the only assumption I was making is why did the internet hosting site pull it? Maybe it was perfectly legal what Spocko was doing.........that is not the point.
The point is businesses have the right to make business decisions all the time in their best interest. Obviously they felt that hosting Spocko did not serve those interests, so they dropped him.
And another picked him up...........therein lies the beauty of competition and our free enterprise system.
...you wrote, "A blogger was perhaps using unauthorized audio content and the internet service that hosted the blog decided to pull the plug - their right to do so."
But if the blogger wasn't using unauthorized audio content, then the isp simply caved in to pressure and empty threats from ABC. You can call that a business decision if that makes you feel better about a blogger being unjustly bullied, but quibbling about that misses the entire point of this story.
I said "perhaps".
Your incessant quibbling over silly semantics renders any main points you are trying to make.........well, impotent.
I quoted you correctly. My point still stands. This isn't an argument over semantics.
As a long time visitor to this site, I've noticed quibbling over semantics is one of the tools you frequently use to dispute MMFA articles. I agree with your assessment of its use.
Spocko did nothing illegal. You may not know the law but hopefully ABC's high-priced attorneys do. Excerpting publicly broadcast media for the purposes of critique is a "fair use" exception to copyright law. Anyone who has ever taken a comm law class should know that.
The point is that ABC, one of the most powerful media businesses on the planet, used the threat of a lawsuit to shut down a guy who was legitimately commenting on them. When doing so becomes a "legitimate business decision," we're all deprived of our constitutional freedoms.
Maybe it's an error of omission, not commission,. Maybe they just don't see the relevance of this story. That's only slightly less scary. How long before the media are in the hands of people who understand the 21st century?
"Anyone who has ever taken a comm law class should know that"
*******************************
If everybody, including the internet hosting site, knows he was doing nothing illegal, then why worry? Why not thumb their nose at the big bully and tell them to bring it on?
Legal or not is not the issue. They dropped him because they had every right to. You just don't like their decision.
Your first post asked, "What is the issue?" and it still appears as if you don't know the answer. You're trying to reframe it as an isp making a business decision, but again, that's missing the entire point of the article. The story here is that ABC forced a blogger (temporarily) offline because they didn't like what he was writing about them, and other news outlets are not reporting this story. Your focus on the isp who dropped him is a distraction from the real issue.
So, your point is that ABC had no legal right to send the letter? And if the lawyers for 1&1 internet were not up to speed and the copyright laws, then that is whose fault?
You want to make this about media bias and strong-arm manipulation by ABC. You have no proof that is anything other than a business decision by 1&1 internet to avoid litigation, and their refusal to stand by their website.
Why do you keep going back to the line about this being "a business decision by 1&1 internet to avoid litigation"? Are you reading the responses to your posts? Have you read the article above? This is about ABC using their muscle to squelch a critic, and the media's decision to turn a blind eye. 1&1's decision is tertiary to the real issues here.
Only in your mind. You want to make it about ABC, media bias and "silencing" a blog whose content you agree with, because that fits into your political ideology..........it's nothing more than that.
You are nothing if not incredibly transparent.
This is all about freedom of businesses to make their own decisions, whether you admit it or not. As for why the mainstream media doesn't run with the story, I have already addressed that - probably the same reason the nightly newscasts don't highlight what Michael Savage says on his radio show every day.
... and in walk two gorillas in 3-piece suits. They cover the lens on your surveillance camera, pull out the mike and tell you that unless you come up with $500 in cash for them every Thursday, they will crush all your knuckles on a pair of vise-grips.
If you decide to pay them are you making a simple business decision, nothing more?
I would call the police. They would be charged with extortion, most likely.
Are you really so naive?
You would call the police. A bored detective would take a report and file it. Two days later one of the gorillas would come back, stick the big knuckle of your right forefinger in a big greasy pair of pliers, squeeze it until you begged for mercy and say, "You need to take us more seriously."
What is written in law books is not what happens in real life. As in the case of ABC censoring a critic with a threat letter that has no legal merit.
Your analogy is ridiculous. If you want to continue with it, be my guest.
I gave you my answer.
I will let people reading this board decide for themselves who is being ridiculous. Do try and get outside at some point today. The world beyond your computer screen is a mite scary, yes, but full of beauty and wonder.
Pretty petty argument.............
I think it an apt analogy.
MMFA isn't asking why Morgan/Sussman/Rodgers's comments aren't being highlighted by the media, so your Savage analogy doesn't make any sense. You're the one who initially asked what the issue is here, and since then you've proceeded to spend this entire thread refusing to hear the answer. 1&1's decision to drop Spocko is completely beside the point, and that seems to be clear to everyone who's posted in this thread but you.
.........and that seems to be clear to everyone who's posted in this thread but you.
**********************
You just answered your own question, and confirmed mine.
You want to distract from this being a business decision because that doesn't fit your "conspiracy" theory, or some such nonsense. But that is the point, despite your refusal to admit it.
It's not about the big bad boogeyman ultra conservative media strongman syndrome silencing some innocent blogger. But you keep at it, OK?
We can call it a "business decision" by 1&1 if you that's what you want, but that isn't an argument that anyone but you is engaging in. As NoComment pointed out elsewhere in this thread, you're saying "1&1 made a business decision" as if that's some sort of valid argument. It isn't. Try arguing on topic next time.
We can call it a "business decision" by 1&1 if you that's what you want, but that isn't an argument that anyone but you is engaging in.
******************
You want to "conveniently" dismiss that argument, I get it.............and we know why.
Did I say transparent somewhere before?
...because it's a non-argument. So we call 1&1's decision a business decision...so what? It doesn't change my point and it doesn't change the point of this article. This is what you are repeatedly failing to see.
I see it. I see tommy consistently trying to belittle you and dismiss your arguments despite them being obvi0usly valid. I agree with what you're saying.
They dropped him because they got a letter from a high-priced lawyer and were scared they would get their butts sued off unless they rolled immediately, regardless of who was right. Even been involved in a lawsuit with a media giant? If you're completely innocent and very lucky, your legal bill MIGHT be under six figures. But don't count on it.
Only virgins and idiots use language like "bring it on."
What I don't like is not that ABC made a decision I disagree with, but that ABC made a calculated decision to stomp on someone even though he was in the right, simply because they could. Call it a business decision if you want but it's really blackmail, and not as far as you'd like top think from the mob guy offering to "protect" your store for six bills a week.
Why not thumb their nose at the big bully and tell them to bring it on?
You might wanna look up the term SLAPP sometime. Not everyone can afford to "thumb their nose" at a bully. This blogger stated he can't.
I would say he "thumbed" his nose most definitely and the best way possible.
He was picked up by another internet hosting service.
That ABC can afford and Spoko and perhaps the internet provider cannot. THAT is intimidation to squash criticism. ABC knew very well that he was not breaking the copyright law and also that they could bankrupt him and perhaps the provider no matter WHAT the merits of the case. I thought you rightwingers hated frivolous lawsuits.
Look at it this way - ABC/Disney... has lawyers that are much bigger & badder than the little ISP does. If ABC actually took them to court they could easily go bankrupt attempting to win. They probably couldn't even survive the 'paper storm' ABC would unleash on them during discovery.
Sometimes the outcome isn't based on the law as much as it is on the lawyering.
Why isn't the mainstream media covering this? It seems rather newsworthy.
would have been a great human interest story. But now that a few big corporations own all of the mainstream media... suddenly they've decided that the public isn't interested in that type of thing.
Maybe it was perfectly legal what Spocko was doing.........that is not the point.
So you're saying that if a blogger criticized a radio station and did nothing illegal, and he was sent a cease and desist order and shut down by Disney, that there is nothing wrong with that? Then what IS the point?
Tommy,
ISPs routinely pull content when faced with cease and desist orders. It happens all the time . It's much easier to pull content than hire lawyers to defend a poster's fair use rights.
This is an untested area. I understand a couple of lawsuits are working their way through the courts, filed against entities who make false copyright claims against alleged infringers.
Spocko's use of the materials clearly fell within the fair use allowance: he annotated the comments, utilized them for analysis and criticism, and didn't rob KSFO of any marketable opportunities.
Moreover, the ISP claims that they would have allowed Spocko to use transcripts of the clips-- clearly a protected use-- but Spocko refused. This case is not going to go away.
If WKSO can keep a blogger from posting recordings of their show as evidence to their violent tendencies, then by extension, sites like MMFA could have the same thing done to them.
I think that is the main reason for this point. It isn't necessarily a left-right thing. The same could be done to conservative watchdog sites as well.
Don't let the b@stards intimidate the watch-dogs.
I just suggested that you might be missing this possibility: ABC is the old bull: big and bad and more likely to bluff than charge, for it's been in many battles and its knees are arthritic. Bloggers are the new bulls: smaller and nimbler and full of piss. The old bulls will do their best to ignore the new bulls. To acknowledge them is to legitimize them. You suggest that the mainstream media doesn't want to legitimize those viles folks at the radio station. I suggest that the mainstream media doesn't want to legitimize bloggers who are operating on the edge and doing what was once their duty...and still should be.
Like others in this thread, I also believe that the corporations are tangled up in each other. They're longtime rivals, but when old enemies encounter a new rival, old enemies often become buds.
Well said and I can't disagree with you. Businesses make decisions all the time, their reasons are usually financially motivated, not politically.
I can't wrassle with ya if you're going to be so sweet!
You're a good guy, Tommy, and you seem to take citizenship seriously.
It's awfully hard to battle it out with you too - because I really enjoy your posts. Your gifted style of writing and descriptive prose is great. If you weren't a professional writer, I would urge you to become one.
:)
Hun. Now I better get back to my writing. Alas, alas, MM distracts.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Because we all remember that happening when Ann Coulter was making the rounds.
Are you being coy? I don't understand your reference.
Well, when I originally posted my response, there was not a series of 100 back and forths. The comment I was responding to was right above mine. Anyways, here was Tommy's comment:
As we all know, main stream media has had no problem giving hateful speakers a platform. I really doubt they're trying to "save us" from them. In reality, the MSM does not want to expose ABC for what they're doing. If anything, they're sitting silently in the wings and seeing how this one plays out. If ABC is successful, then who knows? They might all start going after their critics. Usually the left-wing ones.
Conspiracy theory? Maybe. But in the end, they're corporations bent on making money and controlling their monopoly on news. Is it that far fetched? It'd be like snitching on your buddy for cheating on his girlfriend if you've been doing the same thing. He might just point the finger back at you.
S: "Is it that far fetched? It'd be like snitching on your buddy for cheating on his girlfriend if you've been doing the same thing. He might just point the finger back at you."
Not farfetched at all. I argued a similar position somewhere in this mess of a thread. I stated that for NBC or its equivalent to criticize ABC would set a precedent of an old boy corporation fingering an old boy corporation.
ABC was uncomfortable with the potential for negative publicity coupled with the loss of revenue that the exposure of the violent rhetoric being broadcast by its affiliate brought about. ABC chose a small, and as they perceived, vulnerable target to shut down to try and squelch the uproar. Let's see if ABC has the cojones to come after MMFA for posting ABC media clips. I'd buy a ticket for the front row.
ABC isn't the only member of the mainstream media. If your "theory" is correct, why wouldn't their competitors in the mainstream media jump all over this?
"Like others in this thread, I also believe that the corporations are tangled up in each other. They're longtime rivals, but when old enemies encounter a new rival, old enemies often become buds."
>>>"I would imagine it goes less to media bias and more to a business decision"<<<
Is there something wrong with Media Matters reporting that mainstream media hasn't reported this---a fact (as opposed to "imagining", like you do in giving the benefit of the doubt)? Is there something wrong with Media Matters asking a question? Why is it that you want to supress this information. One "can imagine" why.
There is nothing wrong with Media Matters pointing this out or highlighting it in any way. And the fact that they have a "comment" section means they solicit comments, both negative and positive.
However every time a negative comment is posted, you go off. That is your problem.
>>"However every time a negative comment is posted, you go off. That is your problem."<<
Glad you at least admit to posting a negative comment--which is what 90% of your posts are. And that people "go off" at them is your whole reason for being here.
I post negative comments regarding content and the relavancy of many items here.
Your commenting on that is for your own pleasure, apparently. You are more than free to stop anytime.
"I post negative comments regarding content and the relavancy of many items here."
-----
Yes, you do. Usually without substance or corroboration.
You asked "what's the issue here?" and then "imagined" ABC's motive. I explained, and then you dismissed me with the arrogant "that's what your problem is". A typically hostile response to a baiting question, which I guess is what you crave.
Is there something wrong with Media Matters asking a question? Why is it that you want to supress this information. One "can imagine" why.
************************
This was what I responded to. Your intentional misrepresentation is another of your problems.
Because it's a perfect "David and Goliath" story.
ABC/Disney whines about their first amendm,ent rights to protect their highly profitable hate speech... Evidently those rights don't extend to people criticizing ABC/Disney.
"Because it's a perfect "David and Goliath" story."
It does have powerful potential appeal. I believe that NBC won't cover it because NBC looks at ABC and sees itself: a large, veteran news organization. If NBC were to finger ABC, that incrimination would require self-incrimination in the future, for they both operate by the same corporate practices. The mainstream media won't cover it because they don't want to set a precedent.
So, a young gunslinger like Spocko covers it and if he can survive the potshots of the old guns, he'll become a player.
are you kidding? I hope that you are.
I am for free speech, which means I must be for vile speech. I'd rather have fascists parading on a street than plotting in a basement. And I think that this is a feel-good story, for a brave blogger was nimble enough and persistent enough to partially cut the radio station's funding.
But Tommy isn't a terrorist or even the 15th cousin, 10 times removed, of a terrorist. He's a good citizen, who is also brave enough to swim against the flow, as Spocko did, and to do so without any of the vileness that spews from the mouths of far right talk show hosts.
ABC has no reason to answer to anybody over this. He was in clear violation of copywrite laws, and payed the price. Hell, he did accomplish some of what he set out for.
A while back i posted some Filmore hand bills and posters on ebay. Next thing you know my auctions where shut down. Why? Because [link to www.wolfgangsvault.com] shut me down because they claimed they bought all the copywrites to ALL Filmore and related articles. Therefore I was not allowed to post a picture of it in my sale. Now, I am a individual, not a company. I flames them for months over this.
Are you a lawyer? How was Spocko in clear violation? How are his clips any different from the Morgan/Sussman/Rodgers clips presented by Media Matters? Is Media Matters also in clear violation?
But you are aware Youtube was catching hell due to copywrite violations. So, if they can, he can.
You should just admit that you really don't know what you're talking about and move on. You have no evidence that Spocko was violating copyright laws.
>>But you are aware....
I'm aware of no such thing. Cite an example of You Tube catching hell.
I *am* aware of the opposite... NBC and Comedy Central themselves are posting their copyrighted content on YouTube.
>>>ABC has no reason to answer to anybody over this<<<
But the issue raised by Media Matters is to very rightly ask why the mainstream media has ignored this story. It is not a call to ABC to answer for anything.
"But the issue raised by Media Matters is to very rightly ask why the mainstream media has ignored this story."...by dave_chicago
=====
Probably just a VERY simplistic guess on my part here BUT perhaps the MSM views a bloggers scuffle with a network quite LOW on whatever public interest scale they use....and when weighed against how MANY other stories are out there for them to cover. I wouldn't really expect to see THIS kind of story widely covered, except as a *mention* on the cable outlets. Or buried in the newspapers.
That doesn't mean it doesn't deserve coverage, only why I think it might not be receiving it.
Just a thought....
but to many of us out here, and MMFA and DailyKOS and lots of others, that is a bad decision by the GOPrate meadia whores. that seems to be the point here. if you do not object, nodoy knows it is objectionable and no re-evaluation of priorities will take place. While that may be the aim of some of the more 'colorful' posters like tommy the troll, lie defecator and a few others, it is a poor way to run a society. Suppressing things was a big part of Stalin's influence and those types of posters want that same kind of repression here.
If you spell it "copywrite" you obviously have no real clue whether or not it's a "clear violation of" copyright laws.
Were you selling reproductions or original issue posters? In the case of selling secondhand memorabilia, copyright laws only extend to unauthorized reproductions. As the owner of an original, you ALWAYS reserve the right to sell your goods (i.e. the sale of secondhand Coke signs and comic books are legal, as is comic book original art). But if you are selling copies manufactured by you (and someone holds a legitimate copyright) then they have the right to shut you down to protect their intellectual property. If this is not the case then eBay had no right to interfere with your auctions. No one has the right to "protect" their intellectual property beyond the limits of unauthorized reproductions. Otherwise, every sale of anything secondhand would be considered a violation and virtual garage sales like eBay would be as de facto illegal as chop shops.
There is someone selling Frank Zappa Filmore reproductions on eBay right now. Must have slipped through eBay's crack bunko squad. :)
Reproducing a short excerpt of a public broadcast for the purposes of offering a review or critique, with no attempt to profit from it, is a "fair use" exception to copyright law. It is miles away from hawking posters and handbills on eBay. (Which is too bad, as I bet they are really cool.)
ABC, which surely knows better, stomped all over this guy simply because they are big and bad and can get away with it.
He used small clips for review. His purpose was not to resell the clips for profit, nor did the clips did not represent a large precentage of the original broadcasts. WKRO fans aren't going to just listen to clips on Spocko's site rather than listening to the radio, so he didn't reduce the broadcast's value by posting the clips on his site. The only use he made of the clips was to review them. That's fair use and has nothing to do with your experiences on Ebay.
Get 'em while they're young, I suppose.( Interesting bit on Walt's politics here: [link to www.straightdope.com]
when Mr. Sussman introduces his radio show with an extended outtake from the movie "Apollo 13" he needs to have previously obtained the permission of the copyright holder?
When Officer Vic (Tom B) uses outakes for his humor - including commercials - he needs to have first obtained the permission of the respective copyright holders?
ABC is being a bully. They know the little guy(s) will knuckle under because they are so huge. Try using Roman Numerals and the NFL will come down on you with both feet. Is it fair? McDonalds when after McSushi in San Francisco - was that fair? THe US Postal Service had trademarked "Pony Express" almost 150 years after the real Pony Express went out of business...
they might have to pay royalties or get permission.
"Fair use" doesn't necessarily cover such things.
From Wikipedia: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." (Emphasis mine.) (Wikipedia's entry on Fair Use)
I'm sure in the case of various clips, ABC pays royalties. I think they keep track of all such things played. And pay for bumper music and the like. (Not CERTAIN of that, though.) Of course, Disney might own the stuff they use, so in the end it's a wash.
ABC's demand in this matter was to have the audio content of the Lee Rogers and Melanie Morgan show removed from the Spockosbrain.com blog. ABC's contention (rightly or wrongly) is that the flagrant use of KSFO's material was a clear violation of KSFO's copyright and other interests (interesting choice of words).
I agree with some here that ABC did use this letter as a bullying tactic. I disagree, however, that ABC actually shut down the blog because they never demanded that the blog be shut down, only that certain content that they considered to be copyrighted be removed.
You are right, of course. All this hysteria about this blogger goes directly to what he was highlighting on his site - which is what they are cheerleading for.
As for the bullying, ABC did what any business or corporation would do, within the law - they sent out a letter asking that those laws be complied with. I don't see it as bullying, just protecting their interests, within the law - which is what companies pay lawyers to do. The 1&1 internet site made the ultimate decision.
After arguing that you hadn't made any assumptions about the legality of Spocko's website, you're now proclaiming that ABC is acting "within the law" by issuing their cease and desist letter?
You can use the code word on the story we worked on together to identify your self. (I'm in my undisclosed location in Star Fleet right now and can't talk)
You make us all proud. Keep up the good work!
ABC sent the letter to pressure the ISP to have the content removed although the content was not illegal. I agree with you that it was a business decision. What you won't admit to is the decision was to bully Spocko. The ISP in turn made a decision that it was cheaper to remove the customer than pay the lawyer costs.
From wikipedia: In colloquial speech, bullying often describes a form of harassment perpetrated by an abuser having more physical and/or social power and dominance than the victim possesses. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a target. The harassment can be verbal, physical and/or emotional..
Let's see. ABC has more social power and dominance. And they used that power to try to limit the speech of Spocko. I think this is a perfect example of bullying.
"they sent out a letter asking that those laws be complied with. --Tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don't tell me you actually think ABC's interpretation is in any way a valid basis for complaint? This falls under fair use the same as MMFA's postings do --plain as day. The media clips directly support the points being made in reference to what was said on KSFO.
ABC's lawyers deliberately ignored noted exceptions to copyright laws that Spocko was rightfully operating under.
It should be obvious to you that ABC's argument is entirely self-serving and without any merrit whatsoever.
~~~~
"I don't see it as bullying, just protecting their interests, within the law - which is what companies pay lawyers to do." -- Tommy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No. It is pretty plain bullying. ABC didn't have a shred of a legal argument, but hoped to use their lawyers to achieve a goal they weren't at all entitled to. The ISP was either too stupid, gullible or they just didn't want to have to hire a lawyer themselves for any number of reasons. Any way you look at it, it was pure intimidation and bullying on the part of ABC.
I look forward to the next post by tommy along the lines of "Why is MM commenting on this? What is the issue here?"
Dozens of people can chime in "MM made a business decision; got a problem with that?"
If just saying "business decision" was a valid argument, then that could be an argument for about anything anyone in business does. Not much of an argument about anything. Great quibbling though.
That's the perfect "Because God made it that way" answer. No wingnut would argue with a business decision -- those are sacred!
Darn those businesses that make their own decisions without checking with you first. Who gives them the right??
Tommy is succeeding at dominating the discussion, even though his arguments don't have a leg to stand on.
Spocko, by posting clips of broadcasts and not the entire broadcasts themselves was not a violation of copyright laws (which are flexible, to a point).
I agree with Holly, regarding the tangled web that is the media. It creates issues, like in my area where one company owns the local NBC affiliate and then purchased the local ABC affiliate. Now if you want to hear news that is not approved by the owners of the NBC affiliate you only have CBS and the net.
It confused a number of people in the last election, when both the NBC and ABC affiliates aired the same pro-republican slant and released identical endorsments.
That, I think is the real issue. If you write an article and site your sources, you're fine. You can quote th ethings people said as long as you attribute it. And while you can't reproduce a work in full as a quote ... you can replay pieces.
Think not? Watch Meet the Press some time ... the play back quotes all the time ... all of the news networks do ... it just as to have appropriate attribution.
This is the same ... as long as Sproko attributes it ... he should be fine ... he should get himself a new ISP and start again (oh, and sue the old one).
Next time ABC news plays a clip of quotes of some one from another source ... everyone who reads here should scream as loud (in email).
There has been a fair amount of discussion regarding copyright and the "fair use". I thought it would be useful to post Section 107 of the Copyright Act (title 17 U.S. Code), so it would be clear just how disingenuous Disney's copyright claims are:
The people trying to take ABC's side in this aren't really all that interested in what the law says or how big, mean corporations with lots of lawyers behave in the real world. They are just griefing for the hell of it, and/or so far removed from the realities they seek to pontificate upon that their opinions are meaningless. Ooooo, one of the geniuses above whined early on, I don't know the law, but what ABC did was fine. I just hope his ISP gets a cease and desist letter from George Soros' lawyers and he wakes up one day to find his serviuce is gone. (Hey George, while you're at it, have the lawyers shoot a copy of the letter to his power compant too.) We'll see how must respect he had for that "business decision" by the utilities that covered their butts by cutting him off.
(Oh, come to think of it, we wouldn't.)
But seriously: Thanks for pulling the statute. It's one of my faves.
Yes. It is NOT copyright infringement if it is a new piece. As long as it meets the criteria for news and is presented as such this is not infringement its news.
I live in Jersey City NJ, just across the river from Manhattan.
I personally know one Enid Karpeh.
She is an attorney. She works for ABC in Manhattan.
If, in fact, you are in touch with Spocko, please pass along that I am willing to contribute to support his blog - but I cannot find, on the blog, a means to do so. Perhaps you could inquire (secret code word, and so forth); and use MMFA to provide that information to others who would not want Tommy to have their email?
Or maybe MMFA could directly obtain such information, and provide it to us as a followup to this series?
I hate to say this and perhaps someone already has but it seems the Fair Use right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act and one of them is " the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." So when Spocko persuaded advertisers to withdraw their support he caused the dubious value of the programs to go down which caused damage to ABC. To avoid this he could have asked permission from ABC to link ABC program clips in his blog for the pupose of editorial comment and social activism, then ABC could not be damaged because they gave him permission. Of course I'm sure pigs will fly before a predatory corporation like ABC would give permission for anyone to challenge their right to shape opinion and advocate social activisim of the worst sort.
I think the real issue here is the fact that these ABC programs are advocating the cold blooded murder of a US Represenative and other public personalities, in a moral, if maybe not legal sense, ABC will be an accessory to murder if one of them is killed. Do they really want to be associated with this? I guess anything goes to make a buck.
...that the act of posting the clips was not the proximate cause of their reduced value. Instead, it was the content of the clips that - when brought to the intention of the advertisers - resulted in their dropping their advertisements. The bloggers posting may likely fall under the defense of Fair Use for the purpose of illustrating criticism of the clips.
The purpose of Fair Use is to strike a balance between copyrights and the First Amendment. If any use that resulted in harm to the owner were considered infringement, that could effectively stifle all criticism. I.e., how would one make a convincing argument with respect to a copyrighted work if you could offer no evidence?
A good example of why copyright laws are actually flexible would be the use of material in cases invloving slander/libel. If the material is copyrighted and can not be copied or reproduced, it would make it difficult to present in court. Hope that helps.
One funny story regarding copyright laws. My student group was told, "you have to buy the rights to show that movie at your meeting." Even though it was only a social event involving group members and did not involve money to view it.
We were told, by a lawyer. We could not view the movie, but if we wanted to watch "clips" of the movie we could. And if those clips were sequential it would be okay. It only mattered that we did not watch the movie straight through from beginning to end.
Calling something a "business decision" sure don't make it right. Slavery was a business decision. So are child labor, price-gouging after disasters, workplace safety violations, the Enron scam, and Halliburton providing our troops in Iraq with contaminated water.
I've never understood why Tommy and other conservatives call an action a "business decision" to deflect criticism of it or portray it as ethically or morally neutral. It must come from that well-researched character trait that leads conservatives to worship authority.
If Spocko's use of KSFO's materials was indeed in violation of copyright laws as stated by ABCs legal department, then his move to a new IP provider will not make a difference. To defend their intellectual property, they will need to proceed either against his new IP or against him directly. Frankly, I don't expect this to occur because Spocko's use of the materials appeared (at least to my untrained eye) not to violate the law according to Fair Use. I would be very interested to see ABC make a case for why Spocko's use of the materials is different from similar sites under Fair Use.
ABC knows full well that multiple websites (both left and right), as well as other media outlets display these materials in much the same way as Spocko, but don't hold your breath waiting for them to widen the scope of their legal proceedings against them. If ABC wants to pursue this, they will have to go after much larger fish than Spocko. Since ABC has the financial resources to pursue this case regardless of merit, one would assume they would be full-steam-ahead if the law was on their side. If they make the "business decision" not to pursue this matter further, it is glaringly obvious that they were simply using their legal department to intimidate a critic. Kudos to Spocko for not caving in.
Our we going to lose the right to freedom of speech our we going to be a closed socity in the Bay Area.
The radio station has as much rights talking their view points to the Bay Area public as much as Mr. Spocko Brain has the right to air his view points using the Bay Area media. If Mr. Spocko Brain doesn't like the talk show than don't listen to that station. The behavior of Mr. Spocko Brain bore out my estimation of his lack of knowledge of the Prim Directive.