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

[evnlee]

Oh really?

You just copied and pasted my comments, then interpreted them out of context and erroneously.

You did so to try make me look stupid and damage my reputation.

You violated my copyright and owe me damages? Balderdash.

That's your argument thrown back at you.

Okay we'll try this again. How many federal licenses have you ,Zuma? Your comments here are not 'public property' like the airwaves are. Furthermore, you have no copyright, or it would have been shown in print.
And, my reprinting of your comments has not damaged you, except your pride.

I believe I gave numerous examples how the courageous Spocko could have achieved reaching the advertisers without crossing unclear legal lines. You maintain that he was completely in the right to do what he did, yet the ABC legal counsel disagreed.
http://cbs5.com/reference/local_file_010010347

The EFF disagreed with ABC counsel. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005071.php

Until true precedence is meted out in regards to the internet, you can expect this issue WILL come up again, and I tire of having to explain it to you.

The way I see it? There is no good guy/bad guy here. ABC's reaction to Spocko was abhorrent. But, I find Spocko a little yucky, as well. Again: I am of the belief that ALL speech should be protected, even nasty, vile, racist stuff that you don't want to hear.

Again, for the zillionth time~ the radio has a button on it if you do not like what you are hearing. Grow up. :

 

[zumahans]

You can try all you like, but you are making arguments that are growing continuously stupider and further off point.

As to my qualifications, I am part owner of a small broadcasting station group. We have four licenses. I also have 30 years' experience in working in TV news broadcasting - 10 years in management - in the Los Angeles market. At midcareer I have semiretired and now I am a second year law student. I plan to practice copyright and IP law.

Now, some lessons:

1. An original author has a presumed copyright. You do not have to mark something with a (c) to own the copyright. Monet did not have to post a copyright mark on his paintings to own the copyright.

Even your doggerel is owned by someone: you, although we understand if you might want to walk away from that claim.

2. Copyright material that is broadcast on the publicly-owned airwaves, or privately-owned internet, is still copyright material. Are you arguing that TV programs lose their copyright when they are transmitted? Wouldn't that be antithetical to your argument that ABC's radio shows had their copyrights violated? Before you reply, maybe you should go look up what antithetical means.

2. ABC's lawyer's balderdash claims did not cite any points of law at all. It was just a Nastygram, and EFF and others called their bluff. If ABC had the law on their side, why did they not file a case? Ask for an injunction? Cite the laws they seek to enforce?

Easy answer: ABC had no case.

3. Precedent has been meted out in regards to the internet, although that field is fast developing. The District and Circuit courts have plenty of work ahead as bloggers, webmasters, and others continue to steal copyright material from its owners.

But the established statutory law and precedent is very clear about fair use, a form of political speech that is highly protected.

Finally, your legal examples are indeed numerous - and appear to be pulled directly out of your nether-regions.

I am sorry to tire you with the legal facts. You tire easily.

And the on-off button has nothing to do with copyright laws and free speech, which is what this is all about.

Repeating something a zillion times only means you have screwed up logic a zillion times over.

 

[evnlee]

But the established statutory law and precedent is very clear about fair use, a form of political speech that is highly protected.

And the on-off button has nothing to do with copyright laws and free speech, which is what this is all about.

That statement is patently untrue

There is no "established statutory law and precedent" with regards to reproduction of copywritten material and posting it online. In fact, ( since you used Monet as an example ) there are cases ongoing insuperior courts to determine just that. Here's one that was decided last year (since you used Monet as an example )that dealt with an artist that did 'appropriation art' , he basically 'copied' other artists in order to make some 'point'. He's been to the Supreme's, and he's won and lost. And this is just 'fair use' in visual arts.

'Fair use' is still being determined, no matter how angry or bitter you become.

And, sooner or later, someone's going to take audio from some host and it's gonna go to the upper courts. There is no 'slam dunk'. I'll remind you when it happens.

And, if your getting all hot and bothered by what your hearing ) or reading ) you can always use that fancy little button


:http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Blanch+v.+Koons+Opinion.pdf

 

[zumahans]

That's the best you can do?

1. You challenged my credentials. Now you're not man enough to admit that my argument is based on solid credentials, solid fact.

2. You completely ignore the argument that destroyed your point about presumptive copyright.

3. You make some halfbaked reference that supposedly went to the Supreme Court about an artist who did some sort of "Appropriative Art." Are you talking about Blanch v. Koons? That case AFFIRMED the copycat artist's right to copy the other art. (A) That case did not go to the Supreme Court, and (B) that case affirmed the artist's FAIR USE right to excerpt copyright material.


4. Fair use, like all law, is always being interpreted. But that section of copyright law is well-established in case law, has been on the books since 1976, was upheld in substantive decisions by the Supreme Court in major decisions settled 27 and 13 years ago respectively (Betamax and Acuff-Rose). It's well settled law: American Jurisprudence, Americal Law Review, Westlaw case notes all say so.

4. Sooner or later someone will take audio? Doubtlessly. Go to the high courts? Nope. You said Supreme Court. Circuit Courts get crappy appeals all the time.

Angry or bitter? Knocking down a pipsqueak argument like yours, illustrated with emoticons, is child's play.

 

[AKLes]

Angry or bitter? Knocking down a pipsqueak argument like yours, illustrated with emoticons, is child's play.

And one might hope the child enjoyed the play-date.

Fact remains, it's The Barnum Theory at work.

The longer the lawyers can keep the ball rollin' the more free publicity accruses to KSFO and the more people tune it to see what in hell it's all about.

Deplorable....but it IS The American Way. Yes, America needs more lawyers to facilitate this kind of thing.

 

[AKLes]

[quote removed for TOS violation]

Though San Francisco might acquire a deeper port in the manner you suggest, I hardly think this dispute is worth anything like the side effects of settling a simple copyright matter so dramatically.

I can't help feeling that KSFO somehow orchestrated this to bolster ratings.

But we'll see when the next ratings are released....

 

[evnlee]

That's the best you can do?

1. You challenged my credentials. Now you're not man enough to admit that my argument is based on solid credentials, solid fact.

2. You completely ignore the argument that destroyed your point about presumptive copyright.

3. You make some halfbaked reference that supposedly went to the Supreme Court about an artist who did some sort of "Appropriative Art." Are you talking about Blanch v. Koons? That case AFFIRMED the copycat artist's right to copy the other art. (A) That case did not go to the Supreme Court, and (B) that case affirmed the artist's FAIR USE right to excerpt copyright material.


4. Fair use, like all law, is always being interpreted. But that section of copyright law is well-established in case law, has been on the books since 1976, was upheld in substantive decisions by the Supreme Court in major decisions settled 27 and 13 years ago respectively (Betamax and Acuff-Rose). It's well settled law: American Jurisprudence, Americal Law Review, Westlaw case notes all say so.

4. Sooner or later someone will take audio? Doubtlessly. Go to the high courts? Nope. You said Supreme Court. Circuit Courts get crappy appeals all the time.

Angry or bitter? Knocking down a pipsqueak argument like yours, illustrated with emoticons, is child's play.

Ok Zuma. You believe that the case is shut, well precedented, and that noble Spocko had done nothing wrong.

I maintain that both these guys look slimy to me, and this area is sketchy at best. The EFF WANTS to defend a case like this so a definitive precedent can be sent. The ABC lawyers looked like jerks, so they cut thier losses, but that does not mean that this issue will not come up before a higher court. The ABC lawyers could have argued against a fair use infringement, but didn't. That's not 'proof' that they had no case, only that they did not want to pursue this case.

BTW, Handel on the law spoke at length about this issue.

Fair use is one of the most important, and least clear cut, limits to copyright. It permits some use of others' works even without approval. But when? Words like "fair" or "reasonable" cannot be precisely defined.

Uses that advance public interests such as criticism, education or scholarship are favored -- particularly if little of another's work is copied. Uses that generate income or interfere with a copyright owner's income are not.

http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/copynet.htm

Lighten up , Francis. :