Hmm, seems to me this usage would be legal--he's using it as part of a "news" story or as evidence. I don't know, not a lawyer, but it's not as if he's posting entire Disney CDs online for download (god forbid). That station sounds vile.
Although I missed the second installment of Captain Jack Sparrow's adventures this summer, it was worth it to boycott Disney. I've even blocked ABC and all the Disney channels on my Tivo. That's the way to get their attention - ignore them. The advertisers will notice.
Great post. Another layer of the onion goes way back to before Bush's even taking office, and before the war. I was wondering, in the aftermath of Saddam's grotesque execution by that gloating death squad, why there wasn't more commentary about George Bush's role the last time he was involved with executions, when he was the Death Penalty Decider for the state of Texas -- in which capacity he had been known to do his own share of gloating. Poking about on the Web, I came across an October 2000 piece about Bush published by Derrick Z. Jackson in the Boston Globe. It seems remarkably prescient now -- especially the title, "Bush's Death Factory."
Hey - does Disney have a whole department devoted to watching Donald Wildmon after that tacky "Soap" fiasco in the seventies?
Okay Halfmed, I'll bite.
You stated, "Hmm, seems to me this usage would be legal--he's using it as part of a "news" story or as evidence. I don't know, not a lawyer, but it's not as if he's posting entire Disney CDs online for download (god forbid). That station sounds vile.
Halfmad | 01.05.07 - 2:22 pm | # "
You stated it was part of a "news story" or as "evidence."
He claims he is a professional journalist and assesses professional journalists. Professional journalists know the laws and rules of copywrites. Rule Number One, "Always cite your sources and get permission to use them."
If you write a news story you quote the comment and then simply report the news. But he doesn't write news stories. He simply had a commentary blog.
He could have easily asked to use the sources, but he didn't. He chose to unlawfully reproduce them and then put them into the public domain.
Evidence of what? None of what he had was evidence of any violation of law. Evidence doesn't get placed and stored on the internet. It gets placed in court files and courthouses not on the internet into public domain, especially not without permission of the owners.
Analogy of your argument: 1) He only reproduced some of Microsoft's software programs and gave them to people on the internet, not their entire product line. 2) He only stole some of Warner Brother's movies and put them into public domain, not their entire library 3) The petty thief only stole some items from the department store, not wiped out the entire place. 4) The burglar only stole some jewelry and some silverware not everything in the house.
The issue is he took something that didn't belong to him and put it out in public domain. That wasn't his right or his responsibility to do, especially with something that belonged to someone else.
Just because he didn't like the opinions that were expressed, didn't mean he could illegal capture them and keep them, to use them to try to thwart the free speech of those expressing those opinions.
Bloggers, journalists and others who relish the freedoms of free speech should be appalled by his actions and offended at the black mark he has given them.
EVERYONE has a right to free speech and a right to protect their own personal property...writers have a right to protect the product they produce, screen writers have a right to protect their screenplays, sound artists have a right to protect their recordings, movie producers have a right to protect their product....
Like it or not, we live in America, where free speech is an integral part of our society. What he did was very similar to the tactics that occur in extremist countries, such as Iran, Somalia and previously occurred in Cold War Russia...Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Nazi Germany...and, yes, in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
He had a choice according to some news reports. He was given seven days to remove the protected matter from his website or his site would be closed down. Clearly, he wasn't interested in expressing his opinion. He was more interested in putting, stolen private property on his site...his blogging wasn't bringing in people, so he had to find something that he felt was.
Take the Pelosi "bulls eye" comment for example. The definition of bulls eye is the center of a target. But what kind of target? A target of interest? A target of controversy? A target of discussion? A target of investigation? A target could be a goal....
But how did he interpret it and advertise it on his site? He chose to use his perception of a what a target was...which his thought process obviously focuses on violence. Clearly, he was not capable of logical thought...and immediately accused individuals of violent acts.
He has some issues...issues with moral and ethical journalism and like it or not, bloggers are journalists. He has some issues with his own perception of what he hears and what he reads and his own interpretation of it, not being able to think logically. He has some issues with honesty, taking private property and distributing it publicly. He has some issues with boundaries.
I don't feel sorry for him at all and neither do most ethical bloggers. They are shrugging their shoulders at his actions and writing him off.
It comes down to freedom of speech and personal property rights, for which he obviously felt no sense of respect for the rights of others.
As a journalist and a blogger, I feel his actions put a black mark on all of us...and finally, he had a choice. And his choice was to continue his selfish sense of entitlement of property that belonged to someone else and didn't have the sense of dignity or respect for others to simply remove the material from his site, choosing to have the ISP close it down.
Blogicalthought, you speak as though what is legal and what is right were the same thing. They aren't.
blogicalthought -
spocko's use of the kfso audio clips falls pretty squarely under section 107 of the copyright act, aka fair use. see here. i'd say that's a pretty authoritative source. note:
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
and:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes...
spocko doesn't even take ads. this is as non-profit as it gets.
oh, and nicely done trying to hide these cretins behind the most vague of their vile remarks, the "pelosi bullseye" while ignoring their calls for the execution of leading liberal figures. someone unfamiliar with the case might think spocko's overreacting, but you and i both know you're not telling the whole story.
FYI, "blogicalthought" has posted basically the same comment on about three or four other blogs. I suspect it works for Disney/KSFO. That you, Mr. Sussman?
I agree with the "fair use" accessment. It's "newsworthy" and he wasn't making money off it. This is just corporate mega-bullying.
blogicalthought -
Yes everyone has a right to free speech.
Everyone also has a right to boycott the advertisers of any media outlet or retailer they so desire.
The Christian right tries to pull off boycotts all the time because they do not agree with equal rights for all or the equally protected free speech of those who disagree with them.
Goose/gander thing doncha know.
About time someone took a stand.
Free Spocko's Brain!
Thanks for posting the laws regarding this, Dan McEnroe. I knew the law did allow for some reproduction of copyrighted material for certain uses, and you pulled it out. Thanks.
Like it or not, we live in America, where free speech is an integral part of our society. What he did was very similar to the tactics that occur in extremist countries, such as Iran, Somalia and previously occurred in Cold War Russia...Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Nazi Germany...and, yes, in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.~blogicalthought
Gees-o-pete, can you get any more dramatic??? And I noted that you didn't put your blog in with your siggy...so, if you're truly a blogger, why not include your webpage?
~~As a side note, about ten years ago, ABC News killed a story on Disney allowing known child molesters to be employed at their amusement parks. When a reporter found this out, and had proof that Disney knew about it, the story was killed. The News Editor told the reporter in so many words: we are owned by Disney, and we're not going through with the story.
The reporter had evidence that a child molester tried to abduct a child who was there with her parents. Pretty scary, eh?
Soured my view on Disney's happy little world they try to promote...they cared more about people looking clean-cut and "wholesome" rather than if they were there because they would have plenty of victims to pick from a crowd. Disgusting.
You guys are hilarious.
Lets recap here...
There's a person who posts day in and day out for well over a year about a particular talk show host. He has a fictitious screen name and refers to himself as a Vulcan. He seems totally obsessed with the talk show host and records the sound bytes of the talk show host. Yesterday, he posted a letter in which he claims he threatened to sue someone for defaming his screen name (excuse me, I can't stop laughing over that!)
Nonetheless, he takes the unlawfully recorded sound bytes and puts them on his website. He receives a letter from his ISP telling him to remove the protected property or he will lose his website. Instead of removing the soundbytes, which he obviously feels some incredible desire to keep close to his website, he chooses to let his blog go. Then, he writes everyone and tells them that someone other than his ISP removed him from his website and begs them for help. He makes outlandish claims that someone from the company has threatened him, though he has been posting anonymously (a sense of paranoia there?) and creates an incredible drama, that individuals who claim to be reputable bloggers leap into....its all too hilarious and is ripe for a sitcom.
Make the key character a "Homer Simpson" type of guy, sitting at his computer in his Homer Simpson undies and his "wife beater" t-shirt, drooling at his computer while he sucks down a beer--talk radio echoing in the background. Toss a few posters of the talk show host on the walls.
I mean, what can you say about a guy who would rather give up his website than remove a few sound bytes while trying to resolve the situation?
I think you've all been stuck in your virtual reality way, way, way too long...and you write on Democrat blogs, huh?
Hmmmmm...clearly the young Democrats are more concerned with an obsessive, whacky guy with some serious issues than the issues involving this nation.
Just tooooooo funny!
Disney has every reason to be concerned about the light Spocko has shown on them, but if they were looking to suppress negative publicity they chose an idiotic way of going about it.
For anyone else who might be following this, BlogicalThought has been trolling about the blogosphere in the wake of this story, lone defender of the jack-boot tactics of ABC/Disney on behalf of its right-wing KSFO affiliate. Visit Online Blogintegrity for a lengthening list of BlogicalThought's trollfest.
So much for "disney family values."
"I mean, what can you say about a guy who would rather give up his website than remove a few sound bytes while trying to resolve the situation?"
Couragous? Determined? Aware of the facts in law and in close touch with the ACLU?
He is either in compliance with fair use or not. If he is in compliance with VERY settled law, than he's got no reason to "resolve the situation." He is allowing you to set yourself up for a counterclaim, and possibly charges of intential rights violations - you AND his ISP.
Taking down the "sound-bytes" would weaken his case. And if they ARE just "sound bites," excerpted to demonstrate his point that Disney is funding racist reactionary hate speech, they are "fair use."
"Fair use" requires no permission - for reasons that should be entirely obvious. Public acts, especially newsworthy public acts, may be reported on as matters of fact, and to that extent ARE in the public domain.
A more interesting light upon this matter might be more along the line of "Why in heavens name would Disney WISH to assert copyright over such words, when it would be so much better for their image to let the speakers themselves twist slowly in the cold winds of consequence?"
To assert ownership implies that these words are precious, valuable commodities that must be defended in the most agressive way imanginable.
Well, that's standard Disney reflex, all right; not only do they own The Mouse, but they wish to own all mice, as well as any any references to any mouse by anyone, in perpetuity.
And they prefer to litigate to protect the image of The Mouse rather than to react to such situations in a way that would distingush them from, oh, say, the Catholic Diocese of Chicago, circa 1985.
I, along with many others are starting to feel that the interests of the Disney Empire and the interests (and free speech rights) of everyone else diverged some time ago.
I'm an ethics blogger and while I don't have time to cover every single case where the ethics of a large corporation are questionable, I think Disney may become a fruitful exception for me. People, after all, rely on disney for wholesomeness and positive moral leadership in our culture.
I've been snickering about that one since "The Little Mermaid."
Nah, if I want my kids to learn some positive social messages - I'll point them toward The Wabbit.
Facing a SLAPP suit from a self-rightious mouse, What Would the Wabbit Do?
I think it might be interesting for folks to look into their "ethical funds" portfolios and see if there's any Disney in there.
Any more friends and defenders like blogicalthought and Disney will be losing more business. S/he is wrong about the law and its spirit.
So boycott Disney. BFD.
Next time I go the lines might be what, 2 people shorter at the front gate?
Seriously, how many people who frequent this backwater website actually choose a Disney park for a family vacation, anyway? (begging the question, how many--or how few--people actually frequent this site)
Legal is legal, and we can't fight the law by breaking the law, one nice essay on Civil Disobedience notwithstanding.
This is not a freedom of speech issue, it's a copyright legal issue. Look, if I had my way, every right-wing commentator (and politician) would be treated to just what Saddam got, complete with the disrespectful mocking. But I've chosen to fight this good fight within the law, otherwise I'm them. So unless and until everything in your home--including the computer and online service you use to read this website--is not owned by a huge multinational corporation, please just stfu before you tilt at windmills. Thanks.
blogicalthought/color me snarky--
If you think everyone who disagrees with you should be hanged, then yes, by all means, don't question any laws, they're probably the best you're going to do. As a point of fact, though, I don't think everyone here wants every right-wing commentator killed immediately.
If you call fighting any battle that could possibly be lost "tilting at windmills," that's one more thing you don't have in common with the unpaid readers and commenters on this and other liberal blogs. Legalism is not progressive. If no one questioned laws, they would never change and we'd still be stoning people to death for adultery.
Great Ghu in heaven, snarky/bio; is this the best you can do?
OK, lemmie point something out here, oh highly-paid shill. You are not in Kansas any more.
You are using arguments designed to appeal to ... well, non-critical thinkers.
I mean, I'm sure you DO feel as you state about Right-Wing bloggers, and the readers of said job. As a professional shill, that's where the cost-benefit ratio is. You hardly need to think to point that herd in the right direction.
But on the SMART end of the political spectrum, we actually ask questions of ourselves, such as "quo bono" and "who's ox is being gored."
This is why you were almost immediately identified as a corporation shill from Disney/viacom.
Every single argument you venture goes to the direct benefit of that entity.
Aside from being largely merit-less on any grounds that would impress a progressive thinker. Disney has done more to twist and abuse the intent of copyright law, and has done as much as it could to unfairly restrict fair use as any single corporation - to the extent that it's pretty much an open scandal among folks who follow copyright law.
Last thing they want is to have blogswarm on the issue, pointing out how bizarre their attitudes are toward copyright and commentary.
Dude, that doesn't discourage anyone here. Your very presence is evidence of retracting corporate scrotal sacs. You, sir, are "a sign of weakness," reinforcing the oppression, so to speak, of that abominably childish SLAPP suit.
Now, what does this mean for you, in your singular or several persons?
Well, I presume you actually work for some sort of spin control firm, specializing in "creating impressions" on the Internet.
I think your firm needs to concentrate on it's core business; touting penny stocks and Multi-Level-Marketing schemes targeted at Christian Homemakers.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/E2JJb3ba.png
Bob King,
Would a corporate shill in charge of some kind of worldwide internet paranoid control initiative call you a fucktard? Because that's what you are, a fucking retard. Jesus, Bobby, my 2 cents is that the people on this site who bitch about Disney are not the kind of people who go to Disney on vacation anyway, so what's the big fucking deal?
I happen to think Disney is a great place to vacation with my family, and I also have written letters once they bought ABC about that dickhead racist Bob Grant who used to be on the radio in NYC before they fired him and I'd write often when Disney owned E! and when that network did the Howard Stern Show--that guy's almost a big a fucktard as you.
Listen, Bobby, you are so far off you should be the star of Clueless II. I'm not even a Christian, I'm an atheist. I just know a good amusement park when I see one.
So take a fucking hike...or better yet, stay right here, the middle of fucking nowhere.
Have a nice day, Dude.
Seriously, how many people who frequent this backwater website
So take a fucking hike...or better yet, stay right here, the middle of fucking nowhere.
Just out of pure curiosity, why do you bother to frequent this backwater website yourself?
"Just out of pure curiosity, why do you bother to frequent this backwater website yourself?" --Echidne
Try hard to not flatter yourself, Echidne. I'd hardly call 2 posts to the same thread in as many days as "frequenting" this site. I used to be a regular until the quality of your posts (and guest posts) slipped well past being readable, in my opinion.
Since then, I've checked back in about every 4 or 5 months, only to be disappointed each time.
I chimed in on this Spocko thread only to experience what has become your typical reader reaction; so I responded using language that I would hope demonstrate that I wasn't some corportate shill plumbing the net to sock puppet responses.
You've gone the way of Atrios and become what we loathe in people like Bush--surrounded by sycophants, you've begun to believe the sucking up and gleefully allow them to 'defend' you from any critiques. It's even obvious in your responses to those who dare take issue with you--ignore the point and respond with snark...essentially "I know I am but what are you."
I had hoped for better. Still, it's your site, so enjoy. I say what once was a groove is not a deep rut and soon you'll find yourself in a self-dug hole. But what do I know, I'm supposed to be a Christian corporate conservative shill. Yeah, whatthefuckever. Save your breath, I'll go back to talkingpointsmemo.com for real news and commentary without the mandatory blogger worship.
Blogicalthought/colormesnarky,
I was wondering how you were going to respond to Echidne's question. . . just insults, naturally.
So you're not paid to say this stuff? You just come here for fun to look out for the interests of large corporations, throw a few insults around and generally try to bring everybody down a bit. Well, aren't you swell!
See you at TPM! Honest.
You've gone the way of Atrios and become what we loathe in people like Bush--surrounded by sycophants, you've begun to believe the sucking up and gleefully allow them to 'defend' you from any critiques. It's even obvious in your responses to those who dare take issue with you--ignore the point and respond with snark...essentially "I know I am but what are you."
Nah. This is not me. Sorry, but it's something you see for some odd reason.
Have a good life.
I believe he may be unable to sustain a blog of his own, and rather than look into why that is, tells himself that those who come here are "sycophants."
And IRT this:
Would a corporate shill in charge of some kind of worldwide internet paranoid control initiative call you a fucktard? Because that's what you are, a fucking retard.
Oh, no, I'd never think a person in charge of some kind of worldwide internet paranoid control initiative would call me a "fucktard."
But some failed troll being paid by the post doing "what he does best" might WELL call me a fucktard. And think that in doing so he'd Proved Them All Wrong.
Resorting to ad-hominim after the third pass, though, much less "fucktards" and "retards" is so appallingly lame that your supervisor had best put you back on frothing up the regulars at LGF.
Jesus, Bobby, my 2 cents is that the people on this site who bitch about Disney are not the kind of people who go to Disney on vacation anyway, so what's the big fucking deal?
That's a damn silly assumption. But even if it were true, we influence people who do. Even those of us who live in such shallow "backwaters" as this.
The New York Post has a much bigger subscription base than The New Republic. Why? Because people who can parse the New Republic are outnumbered by... well... your sort, sir.
And I assure you, those who WRITE for the Post READ the New Republic.
Good day to you.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
