Michael Savage Threatening Sites That Connect Him To Rockstar Energy Drinks?

from the too-many-lawyers dept

Controversial "shock jock" DJ Michael Savage (real name: Michael Weiner) last year made some news for threatening critics with copyright infringement for posting a segment of his radio show and providing commentary on it (while also suggesting his advertisers drop their sponsorship). A court eventually explained fair use to Savage, though it didn't stop his representatives from continuing to threaten others over nearly identical situations.

Now, a bunch of folks have been sending in the story from Consumerist about how Savage's lawyers are apparently sending legal nastygrams to a variety of sites that have noted Savage's connection to the popular "Rockstar Energy Drink." Apparently, the company was founded by Savage's son, and Savage's wife is a director of the company -- as she is for Savage's company, Savage Productions. Both companies share the same address as well. That allowed a few sites to point out these connections, suggesting that Savage was also involved in Rockstar, which brought out the legal nastygrams, leading to a deleted Facebook group and a "retraction" from another site. The specific claim is that despite the family connections, Michael Savage himself has nothing to do with the drink company.

Of course, it's difficult to see the reasoning here. If Savage is not connected to Rockstar, that's fine, but why send out threatening legal nastygrams? A simple note explaining that the companies are separate would seem to suffice. One possible reason to lawyer up so quickly is that Savage wants the close connections (if not a direct connection) kept entirely secret -- except, of course, that's now backfired in a big way, since the threats themselves are making a lot more news than the original claims ever did.

44 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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..

Fair Use Project Sues Michael Savage For Stifling Free Speech Of His Critics

from the yet-again dept

You may recall the lawsuit earlier this year, where radio talk show host Michael Savage tried to sue one of his critics for copyright infringement. The group in question had a pretty clear fair use claim, as they were using Savage's radio broadcasts for commentary and to respond to Savage's attacks on the group. And, in fact, a judge wasted little time explaining fair use to Savage, and tossing out the lawsuit.

However, it appears that Savage hasn't yet learned his lesson on fair use, as he's apparently been sending more takedown notices to folks who use his recordings and respond critically to Savage's on-air claims. In this case, the production company Brave New Films created a similar video critiquing Savage's statements. Savage's syndicator sent out a DMCA takedown notice -- something it clearly should have known was questionable given the recent lawsuit results. So, now, the Fair Use Project is suing Michael Savage and his syndicator, Original Talk Radio Network, on behalf of Brave New Films, for misrepresentations in their DMCA takedown notice.

In the original case, we had some Savage fans show up here in the comments insisting that his misuse of copyright was a good thing, because it would help "expose" the group that was criticizing him as a terrorist front. That's a ridiculous statement of course. If the group were a terrorist front, then that's something for the government to deal with -- rather than a justification for misusing copyright law. Are we now going to hear that Brave New Films is really a terrorist front as well? Or is it just anyone who criticizes Savage must be a terrorist front, and thus it's perfectly fine to try to misuse copyright law to shut them up? Free speech doesn't mean just the speech of people who agree with you.

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Explains Fair Use To Michael Savage; Dismisses Copyright Infringement Charges Against CAIR

from the abuse-of-copyright dept

Back in February, we wrote about how radio talk show host Michael Savage was misusing copyright law to charge the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) with copyright infringement. Savage had apparently said some negative things about CAIR, and CAIR responded by posting the segment of Savage's show and responding to the points he raised. This kind of criticism is the very definition of fair use, and it seemed clear that Savage was trying to abuse the law to silence CAIR from responding to his allegations. What amazed me, though, were the comments responding to that post, accusing CAIR of all sorts of terrorist activities -- and then naming me as a supporter of the "terrorist jihad" for pointing out that Savage was abusing copyright law. I made no statements either way concerning either what Savage was saying or CAIRs response. My interest was merely in the issue as relating to copyright law -- and, on that, it appears that I was right.

The court has now tossed out Savage's lawsuit, pointing out that CAIRs actions were, indeed, fair use.

The complaint affirmatively asserts that the purpose and character of [CAIR's] use of the limited excerpts from the radio show was to criticize publicly the anti-Muslim message of those excerpts. To comment on [Savage's] statements without reference or citation to them would not only render [CAIR's] criticism less reliable, but be unfair to [Savage]. Further, it was not unreasonable for [CAIR] to provide the actual audio excerpts, since they reaffirmed the authenticity of the criticized statements and provided the audience with the tone and manner in which [Savage] made the statements.

Furthermore, the court points out that Savage's claim of "lost revenue" from this so-called infringement are incorrect as well:

Plaintiff instead alleges that defendants caused him financial loss in advertising revenue. Assuming the truth of this allegation, it relates only to the economic impact on future shows, and has no impact on the market for the original, copyrighted show on October 29, 2007.

If it's true that CAIR is some sort of evil terrorist organization, then let the feds deal with it. Don't misuse copyright law to do so. If it's true (as others alleged in the comments) that CAIR uses similar tactics on critics, then let's expose that as well. But, misusing copyright law should never be seen as an acceptable way to shut up an opponent. If truth is on your side, use it. Don't try to shut up opponents by twisting copyright law to your purposes.

38 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Talk Radio Host Accuses Critic Of Copyright Infringement... And Racketeering?

from the for-a-bit-of-criticsm? dept

Radio talk show host Michael Savage apparently isn't as open to accepting criticism as he is in dishing it out. He's suing the Council on American-Islamic Relations for copyright infringement, because CAIR used clips from Savage's show to respond to, and criticize, his statements. That's a perfectly reasonable fair use of copyrighted content. It seems clear that this is merely an attempt to bully and silence a critic. To add even more weight to that claim, Savage isn't just claiming copyright infringement, but racketeering. The reasoning behind the racketeering charge isn't entirely clear (and from the EFF's response about the problems with Savage's filings, it sounds like the reasoning isn't clear to even those who made the racketeering claim), but the idea that posting some radio clips and criticizing them could be seen as racketeering seems pretty ridiculous.

46 Comments | Leave a Comment..