tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8802856.post3697766960340402467..comments2023-10-22T13:55:34.868+01:00Comments on TechnoLlama: Bad Science meets Bad CopyrightAndres Guadamuzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04772686466126007620noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8802856.post-56333026571683168802009-02-11T00:15:00.000+00:002009-02-11T00:15:00.000+00:00Thanks for the comments. Ramel, I have amended the...Thanks for the comments. <BR/><BR/>Ramel, I have amended the text to reflect the extended time. I listened to one of the ones that had been broken up. 44 minutes is quite long, but my analysis stands.Andres Guadamuzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04772686466126007620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8802856.post-37694881688079978342009-02-10T23:37:00.000+00:002009-02-10T23:37:00.000+00:00An excelent post. One correction though, the clip ...An excelent post. One correction though, the clip he used was 44 minutes long.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8802856.post-27825048877071668732009-02-10T15:16:00.000+00:002009-02-10T15:16:00.000+00:00Strikes me that the section of broadcast needed to...Strikes me that the section of broadcast needed to be available in its entirity to provide true context for criticism; one of the most common aspects of Bad Science appears to be (from my reading of Ben's excellent book) that evidence is cherry-picked to prove a pre-determined point. To include only sections of the broadcast would have left room for doubt over the criticism - that it was available as a complete piece secured the validity of the criticism, in my view.<BR/><BR/>As is evident, I am merely a layman with no experience of the law, but I have faith that common sense is allowed in the court room.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8802856.post-68051966226002761012009-02-07T22:46:00.000+00:002009-02-07T22:46:00.000+00:00Thank you, Andres! I knew you'd come up with the g...Thank you, Andres! I knew you'd come up with the goods.Margarethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15456006889868172386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8802856.post-42847407572308176372009-02-07T12:13:00.000+00:002009-02-07T12:13:00.000+00:00I agree.LBC fail to appreciate that the world has ...I agree.<BR/><BR/>LBC fail to appreciate that the world has changed. Applying an iffy legal argument to bully a defendant without financial resources used to be a one-way-bet - either the defendant backed down or he didn't. You had nothing to lose by having a go. <BR/><BR/>The internet makes it a one-way-bet in the opposite direction. Even if they litigate and win (which is very doubtful) the material they were trying to protect will still have received ten times the exposure that Goldacre gave it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8802856.post-9781879846963434562009-02-07T12:12:00.000+00:002009-02-07T12:12:00.000+00:00I agree with your analysis, and would in fact go f...I agree with your analysis, and would in fact go further and say that Lord Denning's analysis of fair dealing in the public interest in <A HREF="http://uniset.ca/other/cs3/vosper.html" REL="nofollow"><I>Hubbard v Vosper</I> [1972] 2 QB 84</A> likely provides a good basis for a defence. He accepted that in matters of great public interest and concern even very extensive quotation, if done for the purposes of genuine criticism, could be held to be fair dealing.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, Goldacre also has an arguable defence under s.30(2) CDPA 1988 of fair dealing in respect of current events reporting. It was held by the Court of Appeal in <A HREF="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/2001.html" REL="nofollow"><I>Pro Sieben Media v Carlton</I> [1999] 1 WLR 605</A> that where a topic is a matter of public interest and concern, coverage of that topic falls within the s.30(2) meaning of 'reporting' and so may be quoted on a fair-dealing basis.Simon Bradshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14233721281522686341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8802856.post-55597302488708660612009-02-07T10:20:00.000+00:002009-02-07T10:20:00.000+00:00Thanks for this excellently written piece. I whole...Thanks for this excellently written piece. I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion and, while I can understand why Ben did, I wish he'd said no and allowed us to help him mount a defence and raise a fund. My beleif us that they wouldn't have taken it to court anyway because it would have had directly the opposite effect to what they hoped for.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07819695794251897057noreply@blogger.com