Radio show host Michael Savage's copyright infringement claim against a Muslim rights group has been thrown out, with the judge ruling that the group acted well within the doctrine of fair use when it posted a clip from his show on its website. The case may be dead in the water for now, but likely won't remain there for long; Savage plans to amend his claims and continue going after what he describes as a terrorist group that is using his words for its own benefit.

In late 2007, Savage used his radio show, Savage Nation, to go on a rant about Muslims in America. On air, Savage detailed how he thought Muslims should be deported from the US immediately, how "90 percent are on welfare," and how they are directly tied in to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) took issue with Savage's claims and posted a four-minute excerpt of the show on its website, along with a rebuttal.

Savage filed a lawsuit against the group alleging copyright infringement, although his complaint focused very little on copyright. Instead, he used the vast majority of the lawsuit as an extended rant about "CAIR and it's [sic] terror connections," and how the group was "tied to terror from the day it was formed." He also says his comments were taken out of context, and that other excerpts from his show would show that he is not anti-Muslim.

In addition to all of the above, Savage made a racketeering claim against CAIR, saying that "the role of CAIR and CAIR-Canada is to wage PSYOPS (psychological warfare) and disinformation activities on behalf of Whabbi-based [sic] Islamic terrorists throughout North America. They are the intellectual 'shock troops' of Islamic terrorism."

Further, he said that the group had caused him to lose $1 million in advertising revenue, and that it was using his words for its own fundraising purposes. CAIR responded to the suit with the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, merely saying that US copyright law allows for anyone to use clips of copyrighted material for criticism or commentary, and that Savage's complaint is "laced with falsities and xenophobic fantasies to punish and intimidate the Council for American-Islamic Relations."

That more or less brings us to where we are today. Late last week, US District Judge Susan Illston dismissed the lawsuit, agreeing with CAIR and the EFF that citizens are allowed by law to use snippets from public broadcasts for comment and criticism. She said that reprinting or rebroadcasting portions of a copyrighted work is sometimes necessary in order to provide a complete and easily understandable rebuttal.

Additionally, Illston said that Savage failed to provide evidence that the alleged copyright infringement was responsible for his loss of ad revenue, and she ruled that Savage was unable to show how the "alarming" racketeering charges affected him.

Although the case has been dismissed, it is probably not over. Illston noted that Savage has until August 15 to amend his claims and ask that the case be reheard, which is exactly what he plans to do.

"We are prepared to file a very detailed and well-documented new complaint," Savage's attorney Daniel Horowitz told the San Francisco Chronicle. Horowitz didn't go into detail on how Savage plans to continue going after CAIR (apart from raising money on his website over the issue), but CAIR also indicated that it, too, would continue fighting the case.

Further reading: