The FTC can kiss my ass: UPDATED
By John Amato Wednesday Oct 14, 2009 12:00pmF*&king FTC Major league A-Hole Richard Cleland. I'm sure most of our readers heard about the "new" rules the FTC just came out with which to me are there just to punish bloggers.
The new guidelines declare that bloggers who fail to disclose "material connections" to companies they write about can be fined … wait for it … up to $11,000 per violation! Wow. I asked Julie O'Neill, a former staff attorney for the FTC in the New York regional office and now an attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of law firm Morrison & Foerster, about these new rules.
My first question was whether these rules are fair, rational and enforceable. Julie responded: "I do think that they are rational in the sense that they apply the rules traditionally applied to advertising to new media, but I don't know whether the FTC has completely considered the practical ramifications. For example, the revised guides say that a company that provides a blogger with a free product to review should both require the blogger to disclose that he received it for free and have procedures in place to monitor his postings for compliance."
As you can see from this short excerpt, the FTC has NO F*&king clue what they are doing.
As you know C&L does write a lot of book reviews. Hell, we even host book chats with the author. I happen to get many books sent to my PO BOX and many of them I just don't have time to review or read in a timely fashion so they go up on one of my shelves and I eventually try to get to them. It gets even more ridiculous than I first thought.
Daily Kos reads an interview with Richard Cleland and the stupid burns :
The more I read this interview of an FTC staffer by book blogger Edward Champion, the more the stupidity burns.
{}
You can return it. Most book reviewers (political bloggers included) get dozens, if not hundreds of books, per year. The logistics and expense of such a thing makes it impractical. Strict adherence to this edict would essentially kill non tradmed book reviewing. And why?If, however, you held onto the unit, then Cleland insisted that it could serve as "compensation." You could after all sell the product on the streets.
So stupid. You "could" sell it. If you buy a gun, you "could" shoot someone with it. If you purchase a knife, you "could" stab someone. If you open up a stock trading account, you "could" engage in illegal insider trading. If you buy shoes, you "could" use them to run away from a crime scene. If you get an accounting degree, you "could" use that knowledge to launder drug money. If you take a job at the FTC, you "could" become a blithering idiot.
Read the whole post because my eyes are burning in my head. As Duncan often says:
To be clear, I have no problem with transparency and disclosure, I have a problem with Blogger Ethics rules and laws which don't apply anywhere else in the universe for no rational reason.
WTF, am I supposed to burn a book after C&L reviews it. If I write a TV review on a great, great show called Dexter, will they search my house to see if I got a copy from Showtime? Here it is.
I think Dexter is an excellent show. Go and buy or rent all the seasons because the 4th one just started. Are they f*&king kidding me? The FTC can kiss my Italian ass. And that is that.
UPDATE: I see the FTC is rethinking their position now.
FTC Reassures Bloggers - Big Brother Isn't Watching
In a conference call for reporters today, Engle aimed to set the record straight after a flurry of news stories (not to mention blogs and tweets) about the FTC's new advertising guidelines that were, as she put it, "all wrong."
"We are not going to be patrolling the blogosphere," she said. "We are not planning on investigating individual bloggers."
Engle stressed that the guidelines are just that – guidelines. “They are not rules and regulations, and they don’t have the force of law,” she said. “They are guidelines intended to help advertisers comply with Section 5 of the FTC Act,” which covers unfair or deceptive practices.
--
If a blogger received an occasional free sample and happened to write something positive, she said, “that’s not something we think would change the expectation of the audience,” and might not require disclosure. But if at some point it became a steady stream of freebies, then disclosure would be called for. “It’s not burdensome and it’s not hard,” she said.
When it comes to making law enforcement decisions, however, she said the FTC will go after the cases that are black and white. “We’re not interested in playing gotcha in the gray areas.”
Login or Register to post comments.
Effin WaPo and NYT's can peddle garbage about anything but a blogger is suppose to WHAT?
AAARRRGGGHHH!
FTC can KMA too!
It is the Predator State in full regalia.
Protecting the predators on parade from the people they run over.
Now you know why Alan Simpson got elected to the US Senate from Wyoming by showing a cowboy trying to carry a porta potty out to the range on the back of his horse to symbolize OSHA. (snark) :)
the manner in which laws and rules are made today in the US is based on seeing the future and applying fines and sentences to what you might have done if you weren't stopped not what u actually did.
See DUI laws - ve vill put u in jail because u might have killed someone because you had a measurable amount of alcohol in your body.
You're arguing against DUI laws? How stupid do you have to be to see DUI laws as a bad thing?
No one in their right mind would argue for drunk-driving, or against fair DUI laws. Many ARE concerned about the unfair application of those laws and the dangerous precedents their lazy enforcement could bring.
http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09/the-dui-exc...
Like speed-traps, harsh and zero-tolerant DUI enforcement has become a money-making proposition in many districts.
effects for 5 years and come back to talk intelligently about them.
They have been a miserable failure and created an entirely new criminal class based on the idea of what a person might end up doing rather than what they have actually done.
To feed the frenzy, the illegal limit for alcohol consumption is being pushed lower and lower and more people who have not caused any damage to themselves or anyone/anything else are in jail. Despite the evidence that those involved in fatal accidents where alcohol is said to be a factor average a BAC (Blood Alcohol Concentration) of .16, twice the legal limit.
The social drinker is not involved in these accidents. Yet the same laws and draconian punishments apply. In fact, over 85% of traffic fatalities involve excess speed, yet nobody automatically goes to jail because they hit somebody while driving too fast.
They have stripped the Constitutional protections away from citizens involved in a DUI investigation and have made DUI a cottage industry while having ZERO effect on the number of people killed in traffic accidents.
I understand your knee-jerk reaction. It's normal. However, your knee has no leg to stand on.
I could go on all day. Hope you get the picture. Check it out. America's system of laws at work in its finest capacity.
The facts are out there and they prove it.
Is that just blogs or does that include newspapers with websites as well.
It sucks regardless.
Follow the link to the GOS and you'll see what a completely fucked double standard we're looking at.
When I wrote movie reviews for the paper I often got in for free on a non-weekend showing, and all I had to do was to simply write what theater I saw the movie in (there were just two at the time... now there's three) and what other movies they might be showing.
man... what a double standard...
The upside would be if the Drudge Report endorsed a candidate by saying how great that person was... they'll have to disclose that they're a shill and prove the "greatness" in question.
What about what's-his-name and Ebert? They get in free, I bet. Will they be fined?
They don't just get in free. High-end media movie critics get private screenings. They don't have to mingle with the hoi-polloi.
So how can Beck keep talking about the weak dollar and pointing toward gold, while he has an ad for a gold investment company that plays on the radio. Shouldn't he have to disclose on his show that he has been paid to do gold investment commercials?
The FTC has it's hads full dealing with these dangerous bloggers.
But I thought we were just sitting in our parents basement, wearing our PJs and eating crappy food. I thought we were not to be paid attention to.
I'm eating Cheeto's, one of the foods of the Gods, baby! Hold on a sec...
HEY, MA, I'M ALMOST OUTTA CHEETOS! COULD YOU RUN TO THE STORE FOR ME? TRYIN' TO SAVE THE WORLD HERE! OH, YEAH, RUNNING LOW ON MOUNTAIN DEW, TOO! THANKS! LOVE YA!
Be sure to get the Halloween Cheetos that turn your tongue green!
The commercialization of the food of the Gods is really disgusting.
;D
Full disclosure: I loved Cheetos before loving Cheetos was not cool. Do they really have some that turn your tongue green?
p>I just saw them at Safeway yesterday. I was even tempted for a moment. BTW, they're yellow. It's a Halloween MIRACLE!
I would have jumped on that so fast it might have knocked that cat thing right off the package.
You replied to my reply, which means that now I can't get rid of that nasty little HTML scrap at the beginning. Oh, well ... I must resign myself to occasional imperfections.
I'm sure that if you go to your favorite mainstream grocery store, you'll encounter a big special magic Cheetos display near the front.
I already have my necessary Halloween M&Ms and my candy corn, so the Halloween Cheetos are a must have. Ah, life is good!
.
Maybe those yellow Cheetos turn your tongue green because your blue, Kate?
I don't believe Kate is a "blue tongued mango vole"
If you don't read Carl Hiaasen, that won't mean squat to you and if so, that's okay.
of CH's books, but haven't kept up with him, so yeah, I don't get the reference. But tell me what book it's from and I'll get hold of it somehow.
Here ya go.
Them's fightin' words!
The pilgrims came here before colors were invented so there were no yellow pilgrims just people in black and white clothes.
Just look at your name as it appears with any of your comments.
redundancy? Or redolence?
Well, cheetos seem to be the burning issue instead of the column that John Amato took the time and passion to write, which seems pretty important to me. Comment on that maybe? I think the FTC trying to burn bloggers is bullshit. Discuss amounst yourselves. Or have a cheeto.
Sorry, that one was for you POP. Posted in the wrong place. Get's confusing in the basement with only cheetos to eat.
Sometimes I wish we could just stay on topic and not have long conversations that have nothing to do with what we should be discussing.
So what in your comment relates to "what we should be discussing"?
from cheetos.
but the whole Fox News cable station and website profited from their promotion of the Tea Parties by receiving lots of advertiser dollars.
"EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW"
This is complete and utter BS and is also unconstitutional - why is the FTC wasting time and money on this?
It is the "Trade" commission - don't we have enough trade problems to solve?
I think one could raise the equal protection clause successfully, since it appears the FTC is trying to protect traditional news outlet sources from the new blogs, and that is not their function to act essentially as a special interest lobbying group.
Dog forbid these rules get applied to the talking heads on teevee.
Oh wait, these rules are there to *protect* the talking heads on the teevee. Mustn't step on their income stream...
It's times like this that make me glad I just have a pee wee blog and no one sends me shit.
I could . . .
Although the cops look down on me sending shit. I think it's because I always have better shit then the cops!
:)
If you sent me shit, I "could" fling it at someone. So please don't.
....this.
That's a reply to p.o.p. @ 13:14.
There's not room to set it up down here in my parents basement. Of course my parents didn't have a basement and their house belongs to someone else now and they are both dead and in Florida, basements are truly rare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYfjq3ZYZbA
Well that is an interesting comment since the FTC would NEVER have any idea who did what to whom?
So how are they going to find any of the violators?
Maybe they'll just pray on it?
the adults are not in charger over at the FTC.
I'm guessing . . .
Bush holdovers?
Probably from one of those Xtian universities.
dead-enders.
A couple goes on vacation to a fishing resort in Northern Minnesota. The husband likes to fish at the crack of dawn, the wife likes to read. One morning the husband returns after several hours of fishing and decides to take a nap.
Although not familiar with the lake, the wife decides to take the boat out and get some sun. She motors out a short distance, anchors, and continues to read her book. Along comes a game warden in his boat.
He pulls up alongside the woman and says, "Good morning ma'am. What are you doing?"
"Reading a book," she replies. (thinking, isn't it obvious.)
"You're in a restricted fishing area," he informs her.
"I'm sorry officer, but I'm not fishing, I'm reading"
"Yes but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment. I'll have to take you in and write you up."
"If you do that, I'll have to charge you with sexual assault," says the woman.
"But I haven't even touched you," says the game warden.
"That's true, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you can start at any moment."
"Have a nice day ma'am, " and he left..........
MORAL: Never argue with a woman who reads, its likely she can also think.
====================================================
Yeah...teh stoopid of the FTC freaking burns.
Why am I not comforted?
I love that story!
I don't want anyone playing gotcha with anyone's gray areas or pink or brown areas either.
lollers
But it goes on too long. I'd end it with "you can start at any moment." That's where the punch line is. Extending just dilutes the impact.
I like diluted stuff. Sometimes it makes things easier to swallow if they're a bit diluted.
the exact tenor of the DUI laws I noted above.
Threat of arrest for what you might do, not what you actually have done.
Great story, too.
I would think under the Fair Use Doctrine, reviews are acceptable. And although disclosures might be necessary, there would be a fixed dollar amount in "gifts" not to cross over. And once something is in your possession, and the artist's rights are secured, part of owning property is to dispose or sell as one wishes.
But then I ain't one of them law-spoutin' folks.
Oops...
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fai...
I see there is an update to the original post that says they are not interested in going after individual bloggers, so send me all the free shit you want. I'm partial to good books, very nice purses and a variety of other nice things.
I'll send you some of my cartoons if you want.
My whole freakin' life is a cartoon. But thanks for the offer. :)
http://tpzoo.wordpress.com
Leave a message in any thread asking to be contacted. We love good 'toons!!
...a nice bottle of wine?
How about a big bottle of Sapphire Gin instead. :)
How 'bout I just drink one and send you my impressions?
That's just not the same somehow. :(
keep records that the govment can unnerstand
just as the church required all with telescopes to unnerstand
where the sun revolved around Earth.
Of course this doesn't apply to all those independent TV analysts on the payroll of insurance companies, defense corporations, etc.
...just donate the book to a city library or something after reading it? Maybe you could even claim a tax deduction.
don't hold back; tell us how you really feel...
If the FTC does kiss John's ass must he disclose the kissers name? I would.
LOL
Another Bush holdover serving in an office for which they are not qualified??
But like Madeline Kahn said in Young Frankenstein, "No tongues..."
They might kiss your ass, John, but it looks too much like your face. :)
(Notice on being banned to appear in 3.......2.......1.......)
Do you play with matches around oily rags?
Seriously, I'm pretty sure John has a good sense of humor, otherwise how could he put up with the likes of all of us?
They have to kiss his Italian ass. It's possible there's another one it could be confused with.
But there's always the "ignore" button.
*click*
Welcome to my world, C & L. As an adult film producer/director, I am governed entirely by the U.S. Criminal code, specifically Title 18 U.S.C. 2257. In fact, we are the only legal industry governed entirely under the criminal codes of the U.S. Government.
The rule not only requires record keeping not required of "mainstream" production companies such as Fox & Universal, but it also prohibits us from "importing" models/actors from other countries, but we can film them outside of the United States and sell the product in the U.S.
Again, welcome to my world.
Oh, I don't know if the welcome is necessary. I've been visiting your world for a long time... ;)
I hope you enjoy it!
Hold-on... The New World Order might be coming ;P
The devil's in the details..."Book 'em Danno!
If the new world order is coming can we rule beck and his pals out of order?
LA: Who do you see as fueling this rhetoric?
FS: Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, Glenn Beck... we all know this crew. And of course there's Rush Limbaugh. But worst of all are not the famous leaders but the every day religious leaders feeding hate.
FRANK SCHAEFFER, Author of Crazy for God
The New World Order might be coming ;P
Nice! (Maybe it's just breathing hard....)
best thing to come out of the writers strike was CBS threw it up on the schedule so that those of us who are not in a position of enriching the local cable thieves could have a vidi...
On the face of it, this is pure interruption of free speech of the printed word. You are selling your words and not the product, so this is not an FTC issue. You're not on a gov't licensed broadcast signal, so not FCC. What gives them the authority to interrupt and control free speech of the printed word on an electronic publication? I don't know the full facts and will have to read the full regulation.
...are all media outlets expected to abide by these "guidelines"? Does every pundit on TV have to disclose when the products he talks about were gifts? Does Oprah have to specify which pile of crap she's plugging this week is the result of a gift? (That would be all of them.)
And if they're just "guidelines", why the fines? If they're not "rules and regulations", where do they get off penalizing someone for going against them? And how are they going to determine who deserves to be fined and who doesn't?
This is so utterly ridiculous, it's unbelievable. How many out there wanna bet the only people to be hit with these fines will be people who can't afford to pay them?
plugs a book, does he have to report that he received a free copy? What about the NYT book review?
This sounds like a horrific double standard. I certainly don't know the rules that apply to TV, radio and Newspaper, but I'm quite certain they don't PAY for the copies of books they review, anymore than radio stations PAY for the music they play. Much less announce that they get it for free.
for the FTC conga line.
I hoped this unequally-applied piece of crap regulation would start catching someone's attention.
Does this mean Susie will have to stop shilling for the flu vaccine manufacturers?
But the law is still on the books, to hang over your head?
Maybe they aren't going to enforce it unless you get uppity, and they need something to come after you with?
It's like sodomy laws, or Alabama's ban on sex toys - pretty much unenforcible and stupid, but there to threaten you with.
We're not going to enforce this. Unless you make us.
I read through the guidelines, and from what I can tell their insane rules would apply EVEN IF YOU BUY THE THING YOURSELF!
Let's say I buy a nifty laptop computer. I like it. I write a review on my blog about it.
According to the FTC regs, because I could conceivably sell that laptop at some future date -- even though there's no way in hell I could recoup my original purchase price -- I'd technically be in violation of their rules.
They may not be "interested in playing gotcha in gray areas", but there it is. A gray area in which every single product, book, or anything being reviewed or critiqued is included.
If so, every time a news report features a story on the latest iPod or does a story on Beyonce coming to town or the Times does a book review, they need to pay for the rights to that song or return the book or announce that they're doing a free ad for Apple.
Ridiculous. That's what ALL commercial TV is these days. Beyond the 5 minutes of news you get every hour, if it's not an ad for a new product or TV show or album, it's an ad for the Republican party platform.
And don't forget, these media conglomerates get to dodge these rules in all kinds of ways, because they own the rights to a show, a recording act, a book, or a movie, ALL IT TAKES IS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to avoid the same rules that apply to everyone else.
Surprised? No. Pissed? Yes.
The disparity between blogs and traditional media: bad.
That said: it seems to me that it wouldn't be too hard to attach a disclaimer to book reviews saying where the book came from. It would actually be easier to do so on a blog than in traditional media, because you could put in a link explaining the details (including an explanation that this is common publisher practice). Maybe it will help inform readers about the fact that companies DO send out free samples to all reviewers, and make them more skeptical (though hopefully not cynical) even of reviews in traditional media.
And perhaps this will be a stepping stone to mandating such disclaimers in traditional media as well, as the lines between the two blur even further. It will be much easier to go from "blogs required to disclose" to "everyone is required to disclose", then to make the direct jump. It is unfair, but maybe good will come out of it. (That's assuming that requiring reviewers to disclose gifts is a good thing; I think it is.)
What am I missing?
I'm trying to really figure this all out. Let's say I am a big blogger who everyone knows. Let's say some company sends me a cd by someone who records for them. If I blog about liking the cd or not liking it, would it make me legal to say on my blog that the cd was sent to me free as a promotion?
dog.
Nope, not gonna happen. Even to stay on topic for Ms Joy.
John - you need to learn how to release your anger... If you keep holding it in like that, you'll pop a vein.
But seriously - this has the stink of some folks sitting around a conference table discussing what could be done to ensure those poor blog readers aren't taken advantage of by those nefarious bloggers.
"What could we do?"
"Well, we could go for 100% transparency - lets make sure the bloggers disclose to their readers any time they get something of value from a vendor/supplier/manufacturer. If the blogger is sent a video card to review, they need to let the reader know that they got if for free."
"But what if they don't want to disclose that they got it for free? What if they don't want to spend the time on disclosure?"
"Not a problem - they simply have to send it back. If they send it back, then no disclosure is required. I mean, how hard can it be to run down to the Post Office?"
"But if they keep it, they have to disclose that fact?"
"Yep - it's only fair to their readers."
"Sounds good. Let's do it!"
The problem with the above situation is that there was never a break to actually do some fact-finding to see how the real world works for bloggers, or even what is done for reviewers in other media (newspapers, magazines, etc.). Are there similar disclosure rules for papers if their movie reviewer sees a movie for free? How about the New York Times book review section? Does Rolling Stone have to disclose that they have been compensated by Acme Record Company when ARC sends Rolling Stone a New Boy Band on the Block's latest CD?
John - keep up the good fight. I like the idea of disclosure, but I like the idea of fairness and reasonableness more.
Theres an amateur film maker interviewer type, anyway seems he got reported for interviewing people in the streets in his local town, and the local 'Special Branch' (Stazi/gestapo types) came a knocking on his front door and tried to illegally intimidate him (two men in suits at the door and two plus in an unmarked white van outside his house), he caught them on camera much to their dismay.
They huff and puff and eventually go away after a lack lustre attempt at intimidation.
I know it's my Yankee ear, but that intimidation just sounded so polite with those accents.
I find that scary, what’s next?
So is the US government going to police the Internet??
Hmmm…..
John could get up in the grill of the FTC, he could be the guy who stands up and yells- you are out of order and the whole damn courtroom is out of order. Transparency...you can`t handle transparency.
And he would be right!!!!
Why don't ALL bloggers send their extra books to Cleland, so he can check... ;-)
-ek
"Are they f*&king kidding me? The FTC can kiss my Italian ass."
Had me rolling on the floor.
Here is the FCC's summary of those rules. Note the operative language "payments, services, or other valuable consideration." While I think John makes some good points in this post, he ignores the real problem.
There is a problem of blog payola, or "blogola." It occurs in 2 ways: (1) bloggers receive payment or items of real value in order to shill for a company's products. I think John's examples of a dvd or a book to review are de minimis, just like they are for magazines and newspapers who receive them. What about a blogger or an independent magazine writer who gets $100 or more in cash to write a review for a product? What if the free product she receives is a top of the line iPod, a nice cell phone, or other item of real value? (2) A company has its employees write rave reviews for the company's products, and does not tell anyone that they're employees. Both of those examples are not true reviewing, they are paid advertising without disclosing the fact. I would want to know about this when reading online reviews or discussions of products.
To cure the problems John writes about, there could be a de minimis exception, or dollar value below which the rule doesn't apply. Or, similar to the FCC's language, the FTC could limit its enforcement to "valuable consideration," and exclude the examples John mentions. The FTC could also, in its enforcement, take into account whether it's an ongoing sending of items such as books and movies for review, not all of which the reviewer could possibly like or consider valuable. I think those examples are different than more unique items such as pricey electronic gadgets.
I also agree that these types of rules should be applied to those in other media, not just bloggers. Finally, any ethical blogger would already disclose voluntarily that he or she is receiving payment or items of value in return for reviewing a company's products, but unfortunately, not everyone is that ethical.
But that doesn't mean that there isn't a real problem out there, and we should not ignore it.
That is interesting, because it occurred to me that we have so many "best-selling" conservative writers whose books are bought in bulk and then sent out via slashed cost premiums if not free to conservative club members or just simply pulped.
And then they make the TV talk show circuit; what kind of premium might they get?
... but the letter of their rule / "law" is such that they could. It provides a wide open door to abuse of federal power by targeting individual bloggers who publish strong positions inimical to the interest of whoever controls the agency at any given time. (YOu know, like George Bush)
To put it another way, it takes us yet another step closer to Stalin's version of "Law":
"Show me the man, and I'll show you his crime."
other side of the issues?
Kind of like in Soviet Union where comrades ratted out their neighbors for recompense from block captains?
by which I mean to say,
In the new govenment, are bloggers supposed to raise tons of cash to have a K STREET PAC FOR BLOGGERS that chases down FTC and Senators, etc., to protect their interests?
Or get mowed over by arbitrary laws that impede their free speech without hearing from them at all concerning their needs?
I guess so. Unless maybe bloggers get together and hire a law firm to look at the new law and fight it. Or maybe even a politician might do it if he/she can find time between luncheons with PAC folk.
But I have reviewed (Under a pseudonym) things I got for free. And I have *always* felt uncomfortable not disclosing that I got it for free - to the point that whenever I've posted something like that I've noted the fact, whether it was positive or negative. If I can't post that, I won't review it.
It's weird - I don't always give positive reviews, but I'm evidently fair enough - people still send me stuff specifically so I can review it. I'm not even a blogger - {G}.
I will concede - I'm weird, when I get stuff that you normally have to pay for, I actually write down on the book (or whatever) the word "Free:2009-10-14" as a reminder, because it feels odd to me.
But unless there's something specific about it that makes it obvious, I will mention that it's a 'review copy' or something.
Jonnan
It also seems if a book, short stories, comic strips and illustrations are sent without an SASE it's standard publishing practice not to return the item.
Additionally, if you received something you didn't order in the mail my understanding is that there's no requirement for you to return it.
I thought that was the conservatives' job. Government regulation is, by nature, ham-handed and inelegant. This is why businesses (and politicians on the right, which tends to represent business interests) always clamor for deregulation. I work in the auto industry, and have to comply with a ton of laws and regulations.
No rule is perfect, and this one may need improvement, but in general I am for anything that increases transparency and disclosure to the consumer. I can see how books should be exempted, but you can see how an influential blogger could whore him- or herself out as a shill.
I'm new to this debate, but isn't some oversight of new media - some that will potentially work to end as an example the cozy relationship between, say CNBC and every big bank - good? I am not too up on this issue, but I would hope we can bring some sanity back to public discourse.
sorry John, you speak the truth so they are coming after you.
Could you imagine some high school kid starting his own blog and writing a book review of Harry Potter and the FTC rolling into his driveway asking for their $11,000 fine? Oh yeah, they do that already with the music downloading thing.
Dude, all you have to say is you got the book for free from the publisher. It's not the end of the world and you don't have to go on a f*#*ing rant about it.
I for one think it is a positive thing, in an attempt to give bloggers more journalistic credibility.
Login or Register to post comments.