IANAL, but while “fair use” is indeed a US term, Goldacre does appear to be covered by the UK definition of fair dealing.

Aye, fair dealing would more than cover this, given what he linked to was a clipped piece of the original broadcast.

LBC’s lawyers haven’t pursued the wisest course of action in my view (says he being ultra-diplomatic): taking on such a prominent and highly-regarded blogger, taking an action which appears bullying, and contrary to the notions of free speech and information availability held by most of the blogosphere, and doing so in defence of an unsubstantiated, unscientific and dangerous to others viewpoint.
Of course it was going to go on wikilieaks, and get a huge backlash. I’m not sure they ‘get’ the net: bully a good guy, and Ben is one of the good guys, and, thank goodness, folk rally round.

Barnett is playing the victim & claiming, pathetically, to be a mother trying to do what is best for her children. I find it possible that she is just stupid & is the dupe of scaremongers, but that’s no excuse. If she doesn’t understand it, she shouldn’t have hectored us about it. I don’t go on TV telling people all about biochemistry or ancient Greek, so why should she have the right to make these statements & go unchallenged?

I have seen nothing even vaguely describale as evidence that MMR causes autism. You are harming children by not having them protected against preventable diseases. The likes of Mad Mel Philips & Peter Hitchens should hang their heads in shame, but won’t.

http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2009/01/barack-obama-mmr-autism-wibble-and-woo.html
http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/search/label/Jeni%20Barnett

This blog is essential reading if you do not follow it already.

Leaving aside the issue of Barnett’s being a dangerous moron and Goldacre’s being wonderful, and the fact that as Alisdair Cameron points out this sort of thing is counterproductive, is it the contention of Goldacre and some of his supporters that Britain does not have copyright law, or that it doesn’t apply to him? The quote from Goldacre makes it sound as if radio companies don’t pay for the right to broadcast, or pay for the production of the programmes they transmit, and it’s questionable to say the least whether reproducing an entire segment of a programme falls within fair dealing. The LRB doesn’t get to reprint entire copyrighted books provided they append a brief review by Terry Eagleton at the end. There’s a great deal of wishful thinking in the area of copyright and the net, unfortunately.

Just out of interest, are you the same Andrew who was being an idiot (”if someone looks at the flowers in my garden, it HARMS me”) on the copyright thread?

“A Sunday Times investigation has now found Wakefield altered the MMR data”

I oppose the death penalty in general, but would cheerfully hang Wakefield.

No, I’m not. But I don’t think copyright is universally evil, and I don’t think pretending that LBC have no rights over the redistribution of their radio show is actually going to make them have no rights (whether it is sensible for them to try to enforce those rights is a different matter, of course). I remember the Laurence Godfrey cases very well, and many people haven’t progressed very far from the common belief back then that sticking your head in the sand and saying “the law doesn’t apply to the internet” is a sensible course of action. It didn’t do Phill Hallam-Baker much good.

In an ideal world, Jeni Barnett would be being pilloried by the national press, but unfortunately we’re living in a world where feelings are allowed to trump facts, and leaving rude messages on an answering machine is an evil crime whereas spreading lies which will lead to children dying is a matter of individual belief, which is sacrosanct.

Lee>Aye, fair dealing would more than cover this, given what he linked to was a clipped piece of the original broadcast.

I think he was on the edge for Fair Dealing as he (AIUI) posted the whole item about MMR. That doesn’t make the bullying any more acceptable, of course.

American schools are refusing to admit pupils who are not vaccinated, on the very reasonable grounds that they pose a health risk to other children, in real life rather than on the planet woo that Barnett inhabits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/feb/10/measles-mmr-vaccine

Something which should be emulated in my humble opinion.

Can’t really be arsed to go on again about how Barnett, Mad Mel, clinically sane Peter Hitchens et al are putting youngsters’ lives at risk. But this is a concrete bit of business that should be enacted.

Definitely agree asquith.