ABC's KSFO - The Empire Strikes Back at Blogs Charing "Hate" Speech

[DaleGriffin]

You can not take other people's content and post it online without their permission. Period. Take of your "rarara let's cheer for our side" glasses and be a reasonable individual.

 

[fred flintstone]

Dale, where did you go to law school?
Just curious.
And where do you practice intellectual property law?

 

[DaleGriffin]

Probably the same place you did.

 

[fred flintstone]

Probably the same place you did.

People with strong legal credentials have stated that Spocko's actions fall under "fair use."
His new server host (and their lawyers) apparently agree.
You don't want to hear any of that.
Like anyone with broadcasting background, I have had to enough about relevant law to keep myself out of trouble.
However, you are dogmatic in your insistence that you are right - everyone else is wrong.
This is apparently how you want things to be. I get that.
But why should we take your statements as many more than your wishful thinking?

You can not take other people's content and post it online without their permission. Period.

Clearly, an over-reaching statement which shows you don't know what you're talking about.
Somehow I doubt even your hero, Lawyer Levin, is making statements like that.
Levin went to Temple. Some good undergrad programs but I guess old Mark couldn't get into Penn Law.
Too bad nobody from ABC was around to twist their arm.

 

[evnlee]

The difference here, though, is in the use of the Internet. As I see it, the only case KSFO would be able to argue in that vein is that Stark posted the clips publicly, which violates their copyright of the material. Had Stark sent the clips to the advertisers directly, the copyright issue wouldn't have come up at all. Bad judgement on his part, maybe, but in my eyes it affects the case greatly.

I agree with you. Stark should have gone to the advertisers without publicly posting the audio clips. Strong legal credentials or not, you cannot do that with copywritten material with the intent to damage KSFO and argue 'fair use'. The first word there is 'fair', and violating copyright law for the 'greater good' will not fly in a circuit court. bet on it.

 

[FightingIrish]

You people do realize that it was Spocko, not Mike Stark, who started all of this, right?

Spocko initially posted the audio files and wrote the advertisers. Stark befriended him and posted about his plight at Daily Kos, HuffPo and his own blog.

 

[jcolletta275]

That's my mistake. I read incorrectly.

here is exhibit A of why you will never be a judge. Judges are suppose to be fair and unbiased, claiming the content is offensive when deciding whether or not Spocko violated the copyright is irrelevant.

I never said anything about the offensive nature of the content being a factor in making a ruling. I merely stated that, were I the judge, I would bar KSFO from launching a copyright suit against Spocko because the copyright violation is not what KSFO is intent on going after him for. KSFO wants to get back at Spocko for pointing out to their advertisers what their station's personalities said, which in turn led to the advertisers pulling their ads from the station. That's not a copyright issue, and I would make sure that KSFO doesn't attempt to sue Spocko over the copyright in place of the advertising issue. That would be abuse of the court system, and I wouldn't allow it.

Take of your "rarara let's cheer for our side" glasses and be a reasonable individual.

I'm not wearing any such glasses. I'm looking at this from a realistic point of view. If you want me to concede anything, I would probably add to my ruling that Spocko would have to pay the station the amount that the hosts were paid for the length of each clip (whatever their pay rate is for however long each clip is) for each day that each clip was posted on his blog. Though it wouldn't amount to much, it would be 100% fair to KSFO. But again, my barring KSFO from filing a copyright suit against Spocko would still stand.

 

[DaleGriffin]

I merely stated that, were I the judge, I would bar KSFO from launching a copyright suit against Spocko because the copyright violation is not what KSFO is intent on going after him for. KSFO wants to get back at Spocko for pointing out to their advertisers what their station's personalities said, which in turn led to the advertisers pulling their ads from the station. That's not a copyright issue, and I would make sure that KSFO doesn't attempt to sue Spocko over the copyright in place of the advertising issue. That would be abuse of the court system, and I wouldn't allow it.

Where to start.... Is this the role of judges to determine what the intent of the action is? It doesnt matter why they are going after this guy for violation of their copyright, all that matters is did he violate it.

I'm looking at this from a realistic point of view. If you want me to concede anything, I would probably add to my ruling that Spocko would have to pay the station the amount that the hosts were paid for the length of each clip (whatever their pay rate is for however long each clip is) for each day that each clip was posted on his blog. Though it wouldn't amount to much, it would be 100% fair to KSFO. But again, my barring KSFO from filing a copyright suit against Spocko would still stand.

I am sure this ruling would stand, no way it get overturned. It is obviously based on case law and not partisan ideology. I will now quote myself.

Take of your "rarara let's cheer for our side" glasses and be a reasonable individual.

 

[jcolletta275]

Where to start.... Is this the role of judges to determine what the intent of the action is?

Yes, actually. The judge has to consider both sides of the case and the motive behind each.

It doesnt matter why they are going after this guy for violation of their copyright, all that matters is did he violate it.

That's why I said this, and I will now quote myself:

If you want me to concede anything, I would probably add to my ruling that Spocko would have to pay the station the amount that the hosts were paid for the length of each clip (whatever their pay rate is for however long each clip is) for each day that each clip was posted on his blog. Though it wouldn't amount to much, it would be 100% fair to KSFO.

Voilá. Copyright issue resolved.

I am sure this ruling would stand, no way it get overturned. It is obviously based on case law and not partisan ideology. I will now quote myself.

Take of your "rarara let's cheer for our side" glasses and be a reasonable individual.

I think what I've proposed is perfectly reasonable. I fail to see where you find me playing partisan politics here... especially since I've already professed to be a conservative (and if you go back and look at the posts where I have expressed my ideology, you'll quickly find I'm not just using that as a front). If you'd lose the idea that everything I post is politically motivated, you'd find I'm a very reasonable individual.

 

[evnlee]

I think what I've proposed is perfectly reasonable. I fail to see where you find me playing partisan politics here... especially since I've already professed to be a conservative (and if you go back and look at the posts where I have expressed my ideology, you'll quickly find I'm not just using that as a front). If you'd lose the idea that everything I post is politically motivated, you'd find I'm a very reasonable individual.

Josh, I agree with you that you seem reasonable enough. But, you never addressed the white elephant in the room: damages. Spocko/Starko/SpockStarko aside, he could have pointed out what the hosts were saying to the advertisers without using copywritten material. Happens ALL the time. He could have said: " this host called Obama a 'halfrican', and left the advertisers to call the station and find out if that was true.If the station lies, THEN he would be able to send them the audio clips, as HE would be damaged by the station LYING, or at least he could use 'fair use' as a defense to infringement.But he still could not post those clips publicly..That's when a judge would rule on 'intent' in a case like this, the precedent is already set.

 

[kaufcom]

It is amazing how all you guys are such experts on copyright law. It is also amazing how many of you seem to supporting the sleazy $700 per hour Disney lawyers that initiated the case against Spocko. It is also amazing that people interested in talk radio would be opposed to recording talk shows over the air and playing back what they say. Broadcast hosts (right and left) do it all time. Stephanie Miller uses clips from other stations throughout her three hour show. I would think that talk radio fans would support the right of individuals to record shows. (As long as they are not retranmsmitting the shows in their entirety.)

 

[DaleGriffin]

It is amazing how all you guys are such experts on copyright law. It is also amazing how many of you seem to supporting the sleazy $700 per hour Disney lawyers that initiated the case against Spocko. It is also amazing that people interested in talk radio would be opposed to recording talk shows over the air and playing back what they say. Broadcast hosts (right and left) do it all time. Stephanie Miller uses clips from other stations throughout her three hour show. I would think that talk radio fans would support the right of individuals to record shows. (As long as they are not retranmsmitting the shows in their entirety.)

You do not take other people's property. It is that simple. It's wrong, your motives do not allow you to do wrong.

 

[kaufcom]

You do not take other people's property. It is that simple. It's wrong, your motives do not allow you to do wrong.

It happens all the time. Have you listened to a talk show show lately. They are always running clips from other shows. No one has complained about this. Go to mediamatters.com, they have an extensive library of talk show clips (including several from KSFO hosts.) No one is suing them. Besides who says that what Spocko is doing is "wrong." You do know the law lets people do a lot things that a reasonable person may consider to be "wrong" like cheating on your spouse, overcharging for food in a 7-11., and practising on the drums in your garage.

 

[DaleGriffin]

It happens all the time. Have you listened to a talk show show lately. They are always running clips from other shows. No one has complained about this. Go to mediamatters.com,

No one is using those to try and cost people business. And in this case doing it successfully.

Besides who says that what Spocko is doing is "wrong."

Wrong in this case is easily defined, taking clips that you do not own and posting them is wrong. Telling advertisers not to sponser a show is fine. Posting the clips was wrong. ABC has the right to go after him for that. His noble cause does not negate that.

 

[kaufcom]

I said
It happens all the time. Have you listened to a talk show show lately. They are always running clips from other shows. No one has complained about this. Go to mediamatters.com
You said

No one is using those to try and cost people business. And in this case doing it successfully.

When Stephanie Miller runs clips ridiculing Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, her expectation is that her ratings will go up and theirs will go down, thereby costing those people business.

I said.
Besides who says that what Spocko is doing is "wrong."

You said

Wrong in this case is easily defined, taking clips that you do not own and posting them is wrong. Telling advertisers not to sponser a show is fine. Posting the clips was wrong. ABC has the right to go after him for that. His noble cause does not negate that.

I think we need to a court to determine this. Because Disney attorneys were able to pressure an internet hosting service to drop Spocko proves nothing.

 

[evnlee]

You do not take other people's property. It is that simple. It's wrong, your motives do not allow you to do wrong.

It happens all the time. Have you listened to a talk show show lately. They are always running clips from other shows. No one has complained about this. Go to mediamatters.com, they have an extensive library of talk show clips (including several from KSFO hosts.) No one is suing them.

Umm, really? The talk show's that play other clips get permission before they do so, or they get a 'Cease and Desist order'. Believe it or not, even the shows that hate O Reilly have to get permission to air his clips~ and if Al Franken went on the air, played something ridiculous BOR says, and then asked his listeners ( both of them ),to call one of his advertisers, guess what would happen?


Now think about this for a minute~ Franken and BOR hate each other. They would like to damage each other, no doubt. They both make fun of each other, yet neither has targeted the others advertisers. You could sue for damges then. Get it?

 

[dampier]

You can not take other people's content and post it online without their permission. Period. Take of your "rarara let's cheer for our side" glasses and be a reasonable individual.

Listen to your own advice. Fair use provisions of copyright law make it absolutely clear one can excerpt both written and recorded material without permission. Spocko's blog contained excerpts shorter than those posted by hundreds of other web sites that excerpt other's material and then comment on it. Even radio talk shows excerpt bits from one another to make points.

The matter was litigated back in the 1980s, and not even over talk radio, but rather over sampling music. The courts found there was a right of "fair use."

ABC's lawyers wanted to stifle the content of Spocko's site because he was making a dramatic impact on their advertisers (although the advertisers who cancelled did so after hearing his e-mailed clips - they weren't just visiting his blog). I contacted 1&1 as a customer to complain about the ham-handed way they caved at the first sign of a letterhead and actually got a reply from them claiming they agreed Spocko had fair use rights, but they wanted to pull the material temporarily until the case was reviewed by them.

In the end, this entire incident was one backfire after another. ABC's overreach and 1&1's cave-in turned this into a national story, caused even more advertisers to drop out of the controversy, and exposed how desperate KSFO was in running a three hour "explain it all away" radio special.

You can insist on your position, but that doesn't mean you're right.

 

[dampier]

Strong legal credentials or not, you cannot do that with copywritten material with the intent to damage KSFO and argue 'fair use'. The first word there is 'fair', and violating copyright law for the 'greater good' will not fly in a circuit court. bet on it.

More nonsense. Intent has nothing to do with the fair use provision. You don't get extra or reduced rights based on your "intent" to disparage or approve of the content of the material you are using.

Talk shows themselves do this every day, pro and con, and there has never been a problem with it. The EFF lawyers made it perfectly clear they would happily represent Spocko. It was ABC's lawyers who dropped the entire matter. They knew they had no case.

 

[evnlee]

Strong legal credentials or not, you cannot do that with copywritten material with the intent to damage KSFO and argue 'fair use'. The first word there is 'fair', and violating copyright law for the 'greater good' will not fly in a circuit court. bet on it.

More nonsense. Intent has nothing to do with the fair use provision. You don't get extra or reduced rights based on your "intent" to disparage or approve of the content of the material you are using.

Talk shows themselves do this every day, pro and con, and there has never been a problem with it. The EFF lawyers made it perfectly clear they would happily represent Spocko. It was ABC's lawyers who dropped the entire matter. They knew they had no case.

more nonsense. There's has 'never been a problem with it'? Really? I guess that's why the EFF got involved, right? If there 'was/ has never been' a problem like this before, they wouldn't be involved.

The fact is, the legal language of 'fair use' in regards to damages accrued from the internet(s) is still being discovered. What you are saying is tanamount to claiming that Universal had no legal basis in suing Sony in the infamous betamax case, which I referenced earlier. Until it had been litigated, it was illegal to videotape, even though the abilities to prosecute were slim. Talk shows may play clips, but show me the talk show that plays the clips, posts the clips online, and then calls the advertisers of the host they are playing clips of. Oh, you can't? That's because they know better.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html

"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Otherwise, will the use damage the author(s) of the copywritten work.

Sorry Phil, but you got this one wrong. This is not cut and dry, no matter what the EFF says ( and I side with them, BTW.)

Again, there's a button on your radio if you don't like what you are hearing.
:

 

[zumahans]

You do not take other people's property. It is that simple. It's wrong, your motives do not allow you to do wrong.

I just did! Your words belong to you, and I took them without your permission.

It's not wrong, it's constitutionally-protected free speech.

Fair comment on copyrighted material is a legal precept that goes back to old England.