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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cair, copyright, criticism, michael savage, racketeering
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Defending Terrorists?
http://www.savage-productions.com/Savage_CAIR_suit.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope he wins.
The Truth Abour CAIR and Terrorism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hope he wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's amazing!
And please, stifling his freedom of speech? Criticism of what someone says does not violate his freedom to say it... Although I would go so far as to say that SUING someone for criticizing you is far more clearly a violation of that person's freedom of speech. Unless of course you believe CAIR does not deserve to be guaranteed freedom of speech, in which case this debate would take a whole different context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fellow Travelers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's amazing!
"It seems clear that this is merely an attempt to bully and silence a critic."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations has filed a $1.35 million lawsuit against the founder of a website that accuses the controversial lobby group of supporting terrorism.
"With this lawsuit, we are sending a clear message to all those who make malicious and defamatory statements against American Muslims or their institutions that they will be held accountable in a court of law," said Arsalan Iftikhar, CAIR's director of legal affairs.
There is much more to this suit than just about fair use, Savage wants Discovery in this case to be brought tho the attention of the American people and how CAIR operates and funds different questionable groups. I listen to him regularly and highly doubt he cares about them using his clips. He is just using that as a basis for his suit. I doubt he even wants to get money from CAIR, i am led to believe he just wants the feds involved in RICO investigations, and who knows what will come of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's amazing!
I agree that IP laws are abused in this country, but in this instance, surely you can appreciate the information that this case will expose. Unless you too are closely aligned with their goals ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't care who CAIR is...
As far as CAIR trying to discredit Savage, I think that you're wrong there too. If a person publicly makes statements that can then be used to discredit themselves or make themselves look stupid, that's their own problem. If you don't stick your foot in your mouth then you don't have to worry about what your toejam tastes like. The moral of the story is that you don't publicly make statements that make you look bad.
As far as CAIR trying to drive away Savage's sponsorship, it's about time that these tactics have come around to bite some conservative talk radio people in the ass. It is a long-standing tradition for people to pressure sponsors to stop supporting people who voice unpopular sentiments. Usually it's the conservative wing of our society going after people like Howard Stern or Don Imus or other broadcasters of allegedly "inappropriate" content. Most times the broadcaster shrugs and moves on, but when it happens to the conservative talk show hosts they try to turn themselves into martyrs by claiming that people are trying to take away their freedom of speech. News flash: "freedom of speech" does not guarantee you a sponsored radio show from which to broadcast your opinion. While we're at it, it only applies to government censorship too, not private companies deciding whose speech they want to fund.
If anyone here is restricting someone else's speech here (and they're not), it would be Savage. Savage gets to say what he wants on the radio. CAIR is actually spreading his speech to people who wouldn't normally hear it, along with their criticism of his speech. Savage wants to take away their ability to do so. Whose actions are more restrictive on speech?
These conservative talk show hosts crack me up with their "holier than thou, I'm always right" attitude. They sit around taking potshots at anyone they can think of, telling people who to hate and why, and then when the criticism flows in the other direction they can't handle it. What a crock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't care who CAIR is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't care who CAIR is...
If CAIR is determined to actually be a political organization hiding behind something different the case will bring that to light via discovery motions and testimony. If so, Savage will then financially own CAIR. It will be all over for them. I believe there is fire behind all the smoke. Savage had no choice other then to sue. He didn't start the battle. Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. - Sun-tzu. Dan Horowitz is a pretty smart guy, I put my money on Savage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if you're wrong Kevin ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if you're wrong Kevin ?
You're saying they should be treated as guilty until proven innocent? That is pretty much what your saying right? Destroying civil rights and liberties on the off chance we *might* just find one of those damn ol' terry-wrests is just fine and dandy? Who cares if we persecute people for no reason just because they look different, we could stop the next 9/11! Danger is everywhere!
You sir, are what is wrong with the world today.
On the topic though, it is quite clear he is trying to hush up a critic by abusing IP laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your mistakes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Savage is crazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American Xenophobes Please Shut Up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: American Xenophobes Please Shut Up!
Freedom of Speech is a two-edged sword, if it isn't, it ain't free.
Even the crazy bastards who use our own freedoms against us get to say what they please. It also allows me to say that I think that if someone/anyone is proven to have ties to a terrorist organization, especially one whose aim is not freedom but the destruction of my country and the subjugation of others, we should save millions of tax dollars and just line up against a wall and put a bullet in their heads...Or maybe we should just tie the price of grain to the price of oil...Course we could just make the mideast glow in the dark and be done with it.
See now thats called exercising the right of rree speech...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Savage is a WUS!
I'm sick of these whining crybabies. They wrap themselves in the flag and accuse everyone else of being "anti-American", yet it is they who are the biggest danger to the US Constitution and everything it has stood for for over 200 years.
Savage, go sit in the corner and shut up, you puerile infant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never said they were guilty Paul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the problem is CAIR's politics then
Using copyright and racketeering law when they attempt to defend themselves from his claims is indefensible. Freedom of speech is designed to create a free marketplace of ideas where the truth wins out. If Savage really has a case then he shouldn't be afraid of an open debate. That he is trying to suppress debate only undermines his credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Savage, CAIR and free speech
It should be clear to all that Savage's primary goal is money, that his path to that goal is via ratings, and the reason that's his path is that "ratings" == "commercial support". Fairness, accuracy, free speech, reason, respect, common decency have nothing to do with it -- none of those things put money in his pocket. This posturing over copyright is simply more of the same.
As to CAIR, let me point out that sufficiently diligent investigation could no doubt uncover "links" between everyone posting in this thread and The Bad Guys. As in "once lived across the street from someone who sold a car that later was purchased by Timothy McVeigh" or "belonged to the same Saturday softball team as the person who taught the sophomore economics class that covered a theory later adopted by the Unabomber" or similarly tenuous connections. None of these have any real value, of course, but in a climate of fear-mongering it's often presumed that they do. If there is any real evidence demonstrating organizational involvement in real crimes, then the path is clear: produce that evidence, seek an indictment, and prepare to try the case in open court. (That's how we do things here.) And note that rumors, innuendo, propaganda, hearsay, suspicion, etc. are generally not considered admissible evidence -- for very good reason.
And as to free speech, as others have pointed out, that includes hateful speech, stupid speech, bigoted speech, incoherent speech, and everything else. That's the deal. Anyone who can't handle that really needs to spend some quality time reading Thomas Paine -- they have failed to grasp the full meaning of the First Amendment. And yes, sometimes it's hard, especially when faced with completely vicious assholes like the godhatesfags types. But that's the deal. If you don't like the deal, then seek the repeal/modification of the First Amendment. That's also how we do things here -- you know, the rule of law and all that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Savage, CAIR and free speech
You would be so right if you were not so utterly wrong. The facts, determined not by innuendo coming from you or I, but by the USA government in a court of law, speak for themselves.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016754.php
As to fear mongering, CAIR has been revealed.
One simply has to read at http://www.anti-cair-net.org/
The totality of everything written has caused a precipitous drop in association with CAIR and with an awakening for all of us, Muslims included, as to the threat imposed on the USA.
That they scrambled like crazy to avoid service speaks volumes.
My opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
History on how this happened
Savage is a performer, unfortunately his performance included slandering not only islamofacists but CAIR an organization.
CAIR chose to act upon the allegations buy pursuing advertisers to pull away sponsor ship based on hate-speech.
This got Savage angry as CAIR went for the money and he sued them, for which CAIR counter-Sued.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtY-JWahHQs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick is a fool to take the side of the ENE
He is a useful idiot for the political wing of the terroristic jihad.
Thank you for endangering us all by strengthening those who use women with down-syndrome to blow up shoppers in a market. You must be very proud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick is a fool to take the side of the
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick is a fool to take the side of the
That's not what this is about. This is about Savage's attempt to stifle free speech using copyright. If CAIR is doing the same thing, then that's a different story. I have no problem pointing out anyone misusing IP laws for such things.
He is a useful idiot for the political wing of the terroristic jihad.
Wow. I said nothing about anything other than the misuse of IP law -- which this certainly appears to be, and suddenly I'm a tool of the terroristic jihad? That's a might big brush you're painting with.
I love how anyone who points out that this shouldn't be a copyright issue is suddenly siding with the terrorists. Nice bit of debate strategy. You don't, however, explain how this is a legitimate copyright issue. It may very well be that CAIR is an awful, horrible group. I don't know. But that's a different issue than the one we're discussing. I recognize you might not like nuance, but it doesn't make you look particularly intelligent if you can't separate out the two issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike Masnick is a fool to take the side of
According to the lawsuit chapters:
24.
The segment misappropriated was in excess of four minutes. As set forth in more detail herein, the misappropriated segment was used by CAIR for fund- raising purposes and the segment was used in a manner designed to cause harm to the value of the copyright material in the long and short term. This was the desired result and it was part of a greater plan and scheme to destroy public voices that express opposition to the criminal political agenda of CAIR as set forth more fully in the Second Cause of Action. (The allegations of the Second Cause of Action are incorporated herein by this reference.)
and
27.
CAIR has misappropriated copyright protected material from Michael Savage and made this material available on its website. This is actionable regardless even if CAIR had a genuine charitable purpose in using Michael Savage's material. However, even genuine charities must gain the permission of a copyright holder before using the copyrighted work for fund raising or other purposes.
The courts will decide upon the merits, but it's not like there are many freedom fighters in today's society that have standing to fight this battle. Savage is a true American hero on this front and I'm saddened that you can't understand how the limitations of a free society provide haven for those who neither respect nor even understand freedom.
When's the last time you fought for freedom in a way that would put you at risk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick is a fool to take the sid
"The courts will decide upon the merits, but it's not like there are many freedom fighters in today's society that have standing to fight this battle."
Ok. Sorry, but when you reach the point of claiming that a copyright infringement lawsuit is about "freedom fighters" "putting themselves at risk" you've officially gone over the edge.
If the group is supporting terrorist activities report them to the FBI. Don't sue them for copyright infringement. If the group has defamed you, sue them for defamation. The use of copyright here seems clearly designed to stifle free speech of a critic -- no matter whether that critic is right or wrong. If CAIR is stifling Savage's free speech, then he should go after them for that -- but not using copyright law. And, as the EFF notes, there's little evidence that CAIR is doing anything to stifle Savage's ability to speak freely. Getting sponsors to give up their sponsorship is hardly stifling free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Choose your partners wisely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Choose your partners wisely
There are more than two "sides" here.
The point of this article is to point out possible copyright law abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Choose your partners wisely
I'm quite certain they're are a few not-gun-shy agents looking for a high-profile promotion-worthy case.
Yet for all the rhetoric, this "terrorist group" continues to exist? Protected by laws even?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Savage, CAIR and free speech
Merely naming someone an "unindicted co-conspirator" means nothing -- other than prosecutors did not feel they had enough evidence to seek and achieve an indictment. This either means (a) no such evidence exists (b) the evidence exists but isn't in the hands of prosecutors or (c) the evidence exists and is in the hands of prosecutors but they've bungled it. Given the high profile of such cases, the qualifications of the people working on them, and the collaborative approach, (c) seems unlikely. Given the unfettered use of wiretaps, national security letters, informants, interrogations, etc., (b) also seems unlikely. Which leaves (a).
Because given the current political climate, there is no way prosecutors would have passed on the indictment if they had even a whiff of the evidence needed to seek one. So the bottom line is: not convicted, not even tried, not even indicted.
And for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter anyway: the First Amendment doesn't make exceptions for those convicted...or tried...or indicted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Choose your partners wisely
on one side there are alleged terrorists and on the other side a loony?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turnabout is fair play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to America A C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CAIR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick is a fool to take the side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Savage-as-hero
He's nothing of the kind. He's a racist, sexist, xenophobic, ignorant bullying coward of the first order -- a textbook example of the very worst qualities to be found anywhere in our nation. There's nothing in the least bit "heroic" about the vile filth that he excretes onto the airwaves as he panders, exploits and rants.
It's very sad that there are enough people of such limited intellect and deficient education that he still has an audience. But that's one of the side effects of the First Amendment, and if we must temporarily endure it, then we will -- just as we endured other worthless demagogues and later consigned them to the dustbin of history. Our Constitutional principles aren't worth much if we don't preserve them for all -- even vermin like Savage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Savage is a terrorist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Savage vs cair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Savage is a crybaby
Most people realize that his show is satire (a 60+ year old never married man who has lived in San Francisco his entire adult life - went to Berkeley worked as a flower arranger and “crystal power” new age healer is suddenly the angry prophet for the right LOL . . . come on sheeple?). As satire I love Savage, he can be clever and hilarious, but I think he is starting to take his own act a little too literally. I understand that he is essentially a “shock jock” and as such this sort of thing is his bread and butter, but he’s got nothing here. Regardless of who CAIR is or who they are connected too, it is perfectly just and legal for them to use his own words to expose him as a liar. There is really no question about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Savage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]