RSS
Did Michael Savage Violate The DMCA By Demanding Takedown Of Content Already Declared Fair Use?
from the questions,-questions,-questions... dept
We've written a few times about radio show host Michael Savage and his misuse of copyright law. Last year, he sued a group that he had criticized on-air for using the clip from his show on their website to respond. It took just a few months for a court to toss out the lawsuit and explain the basics of fair use to Savage. However, soon after that, Savage and his syndicator, Online Talk Radio Network (OTRN), sent out new DMCA notices, including one to the documentary film company Brave New Films, for a video clip that used the same material that had been used in the original lawsuit in a commentary about Savage. In response, Brave New Films, with the help of Stanford's Fair Use Project sued Savage and OTRN.
Savage responded on a number of points, trying to get himself out of the lawsuit, which have now been rejected by the court, though some interesting questions are raised by Eric Goldman in analyzing the decision. First, Savage claimed that he's not liable for a false DMCA takedown because OTRN sent it, rather than Savage. Except... Savage owns the copyright and in filing the takedown, OTRN had to claim that it was representing the copyright holder's interests, so the court tossed out that argument. Then Savage claimed it wasn't really a DMCA takedown, so he shouldn't be subject to sanctions for bogus DMCA takedowns, but the court found it to be substantially similar, so that argument got tossed as well.
But what makes this case interesting is what Goldman discusses in the final paragraph. You may recall last year, that a court ruled that those who are sending DMCA takedown notices need to at least consider if the use is fair use before sending the DMCA takedown (it doesn't say that you can't send the takedown, but that you first have to consider whether it's fair use). However, as Goldman notes, this case takes the question a step further because of the earlier lawsuit, where the use of substantially similar content was already ruled by the court to be fair use. To send a takedown on the same content certainly seems pretty questionable.
Of course, I'd guess that Savage's response would be that Brave New Films' use wasn't exactly the same, and thus he (or OTRN) no longer believed the use to be fair, but that may be difficult given the similarities between BNF's use and the use in the original case. Either way, this may be an interesting case to watch to see if someone finally gets in trouble for sending a DMCA on obviously fair use content.
24 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- How Much Is Enough? We've Passed 15 'Anti-Piracy' Laws In The Last 30 Years
- Justice Department Wants $5 Million To Bolster Its Efforts As Hollywood's Private Police Force
- Two Contradictory Paths In The UK When It Comes To Copyright Issues
- UK Now Seizing Music Blogs (With American Domains) Over Copyright Claims
- Disney And Warner Bros. Prepare To Fight Over Who Owns The Public Domain Wizard Of Oz
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Sanctions against Copyright holders sending bogus takedowns.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The second guy will be using in a documentary which I am sure he will make money off of. will he be giving Savage a cut off any profits made?
Copyright holders and the DCMA in general are out of control but everything is not black and white.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
relevant how?
The second guy will be using in a documentary which I am sure he will make money off of. will he be giving Savage a cut off any profits made?
Copyright holders and the DCMA in general are out of control but everything is not black and white.
Whether or not there are profits involved should have zero relevance as far as whether the clip falls into the fair use catagory
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
He is nothing to some of the left wing nut-jobs that blame Bush for Katrina or caused the 9/11 attacks. Have you had the luxury to listen to Air America with the 8 other listeners they have? A lot worse than Savage.
not to mention so of the crap that is played on MSNBC with Maddox or Olberman...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: relevant how?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Really?? You have to go THAT FAR to paint this guy in a better light?
I don't even know who this Michael Savage is but I can tell from this post and other ones above you all are digging deep to defend him.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: relevant how?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Its mouth-breathers like him who stir up hate in our society and only a weak-minded individual wouldn't be able to see that"
which proves that he is nowhere near what others say.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So because someone said "Its mouth-breathers like him who stir up hate in our society and only a weak-minded individual wouldn't be able to see that" you say "Well then I better start escalating this!" Instead of taking a level headed approach?
Mouth breather and weak minded indivdual is still a far cry from a dude that thinks Bush had control of a flipping weather control device and decided an awesome idea would be to destroy an american city! Especially since bush really really hated people that were not americans the level of insanity here is pretty high all over the god damn place.
You could say "well you 'indy' self righteous bigots that buy T-Shirts promoting an anti-capitilist revolutionary you bought at the GAP seem to like "
Might be seen as something a bit more acceptable and palatable. So while you are perceived as being angry you are still showing yourself as an informed individual and give yourself some weight in your argument instead of looking like a fat ugly troll.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: relevant how?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"just feel sorry for all the children that will have to die because of the shift to socialism"
I live in Canada, and most would say that free healthcare for everyone is "socialist", but is it bad that we help everyone?, Is it bad that the poor can be brought to hospital to be helped?, are children going to die because our taxes fund the hospitals at which they are born and at which their lives are saved?, I think your apparently broad hatred of socialism is misguided, and I challenge you to prove how socialism, (In Canada we call it helping our fellow citizens in their times of need) will result in the death of children.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's as crazy as some other crazy people
vs.
He's not as crazy as some other crazy people
Who will win? Factional government!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Fair use?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
whatever Savage...Go troll somewhere else you loser.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Also some people's sarcasm detectors are not only not working, they were never installed.
Example: Savage is a D-bag is a communist who hates their country. Its mouth-breathers like him who stir up hate in our society and only a weak-minded individual wouldn't be able to see that..
That's either sarcasm (and contradictory actually if you read it through) or trolling. Either way, you're a fool to respond to it. Cheers.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment