You are not logged in. Please login or register.
That is horrible. This fucking world, sometimes. Well, that's not fair, it's not the world's fault, it's the people living in it that are crazy.
The bit in that article about the little girl is heartbreaking.
What a tragedy. I've actually been to Aurora a few times as my roommate at Colorado University was from there, somehow, it feels different when it's a place you've heard about and been to.
I struggle to imagine what would push someone to do this, how fargone you would have to be to just go around and shoot random people that you don't know or have any issue with.
Also, is it usual for such young children to be at the cinema so late at night?
I think it is is America, yes. Apparently people take babies to late night screenings because they usually just sleep through the film.
Maybe the sign should just say 'NO' in big, unfriendly letters
Jack Daniels staying cool.
Meh. They'd prefer he didn't parody their product. He'd prefer that "reasonable amount" contributed toward changing the cover be very, very reasonable.
That is the nicest C&D letter I have ever seen.
That's because it's not a cease and desist letter. The book cover is well within the boundaries of parody, and that's well-trodden case law. Jack Daniel's is being nice because they don't have legal ground to make a real demand.
You could use the actual label if you wanted, assuming that you are mocking the product and not pretending that you're selling something endorsed by the company.
That's how The Daily Show gets away with using the Fox News logo and clips of Fox News shows.
Except the book cover DOESN'T parody their product. It uses elements of their well-known trademark to promote the author's product. That's what gives JD grounds to take action. Not that they needed a make-able case to file suit anyway, if they wanted to go that route.
Which makes the fact that JD chose to try to resolve it nicely even more impressive. Now the Streisand Effect is working in their favor.
EDIT: In your example, the Daily Show is using and parodying Fox's material and logos in order to comment upon and criticize Fox. That is indeed Fair Use. The Jack Daniels book cover isn't as cut-and-dried a case, it might well take a court to resolve it. Again, damn good move by JD to play nice, assume no infringement was deliberately intended, and handle it the way they did.
Now, if the author had responded with "Nyah nyah, fair use, can't touch me muthafarkers, eat me!" the next correspondence would have been a bit less pleasant.
Last edited by Trey (2012-07-23 23:12:06)
Except the book cover DOESN'T parody their product.
The novel is a story about a guy who is brilliantly creative but only when he's blind drunk. The cover therefore mocks the projected tradition and sophistication of those who drink whiskey and uses only enough of the label to make the comparison obvious without suggesting that the book is endorsed by the distiller.
Unlike copyright law, trademark law focuses primarily on whether or not the two could be confused, and there seems little doubt here. And this was ruled fair use as parody of the trademarked product.
/IANALB I'll take the case!
Last edited by Zarban (2012-07-24 01:24:46)
All true enough, but the only way that good lawyer can make that case is by going to court. JD was sending a polite but clear message that they were prepared to take that step, but giving the other party a chance to avoid it first.
But the point here isn't whether or not they have a case (they do). The point is the very internet-savvy way they went about this. They're not even asking that all existing copies be destroyed, and incredibly they even offered to pay a reasonable fee for a new cover design. That's what makes this a noteworthy story, and why JD is to be commended - they didn't have to do any of those things.
By not coming across like a big company out to crush the "little guy", they not only got the result they wanted without fuss, they even reaped a nice bonus of goodwill from teh interwebz. Brilliant.
My dog met the real-McCoy Target dog (flown in from California for a Chicago store opening). He sniffed her butt and everything.
You are not wearing shoes, and whoever is walking the Target dog is probably cute.
Do go on.
You are not wearing shoes, and whoever is walking the Target dog is probably cute.
Do go on.
Thusly, the Most Specific Fetish in the history of all Internet reveals itself.
+1
I don't know, there is this "cute anime girl standing next to a large dinosaur" fetish that is just sweeping Deviant art.
I think misguided enthusiasm is the better of two cultural evils between that and writ dismissal.
So... I guess I should preface this with something. I was reading an article about the fallout of the Colorado shootings. And as I expected it's the same bullshit that happens every time. But something they said stuck with me, the sentiment was basically that, when it comes to dissecting tragedies and what steps can be taken to prevent them from happening again, for some reason anything involving guns is taboo beyond reconciliation as it's become so ingrained in the american psyche (and lobby groups and politics) that it's every man and womans right to own as many guns as they want and THAT is a FACT of the universe, unchanging and permanent, inarguable. So I just got thinking, and this popped into my head. I didn't really know where to put it... so it's going here:
I wanna know what would happen. If right now. This very second. Obama signed into law, the banning of all firearms. Anyone not an active member of the police or military, in possession of any firearm would be subject to immediate and indefinite incarceration. Would it maybe, just maybe, be enough to push the country into it's inevitable revolution? Would the removal of that one indisputable right of American freedom be enough to finally motivate them? Would that be a bad thing? Would the simple act of finally standing up be enough to propel the country into the realization of just how fucked up things are? Would that one insane act by one man, be enough to give the country enough of a jolt to wake them from their cozy little mundanity?
(I honestly don't have any answers to this, I'm not even sure the questions are worth asking, but I just havn't been able to get it out of my head.)
I wanna know what would happen. If right now. This very second. Obama signed into law, the banning of all firearms. Anyone not an active member of the police or military, in possession of any firearm would be subject to immediate and indefinite incarceration. Would it maybe, just maybe, be enough to push the country into it's inevitable revolution?
Well, first it would get Obama impeached, as you can't override the Constitution with a law.
However, if we ignore HOW this would happen, and use the old alternative history idea "What if Alien Space Bats just did it"... I have to admit, it would get me to take my Dad's old guns out of the cabinet and join the revolution. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to arm the citizens against the government (with secondary goals of providing local militias who can be called on in emergencies). If the nation, as a whole, want to go through the long process of giving up that right... OK, fine. But any leader who wants to disarm the people is looking at Syria and going, "if the protesters had fewer guns that would be going a lot better."
Actually, what you seem to be asking is, was Jefferson right when he wrote "I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
Well I was going more for a feeling of, oh...Obama is now our dear leader and this is officially a police state (only government officials can be armed) but anyways, on a larger scale yes, you can just take it as writ to ignore the how (or you could imagine Obama storming into the other branches of gov't with swat teams going "It's mine now bitches." Whatever gets the point across.)
Actually, what you seem to be asking is, was Jefferson right when he wrote "I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.
That's part of it yes. But what's rolling around in my head isn't even about revolution, or at least not in that sense. It's more about... has everything about our existence become so mundane, and by the book, that something like the colorado shootings isn't even a thing anymore? I mean we pretend it is, and everyone goes through the motions, but nothing actually changes, things just stay the same, and we go back to what we were doing before. Everything is so deeply rooted in this cycle of greyness, and it has been for so long that we don't know how to do anything else. Idk, maybe it's just because personally, I've never really known anything else (I was 9 on 9/11 and I have very very few memories of anything before the world we live in now), so I have nothing to compare it too, so it all just blurs together in this greyish blob of apathy. So I look around and everything is just these little patterns of everyone stuck in their ways, and no one really cares enough to try and change it (Occupy gave a glimpse of some people trying to change that, but it wasn't enough, it was the guy standing on the shore at night trying to yell at the giant cargo container to change heading), everyone's content to just sit back and watch the mudslide into destruction. So I just have to wonder what it would take, it would have to be something massive, something so overwhelmingly disturbing to everything that lies on the foundation of that country that it's unignorable (Guns are what I used, namely because of the article...but I'm sure there are other things you could use that would be equally shocking). Even then would it be enough to shake people out of this stupor and into action?
EDIT: (Sorry if I come off like a rambling fool. I don't really even know what I'm trying to understand, it's just this weird boiling pot of shit in my brain.)
Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2012-07-24 23:44:36)
But any leader who wants to disarm the people is looking at Syria and going, "if the protesters had fewer guns that would be going a lot better."
Australia? England? Totally fucking Syria.
Some people got killed by a crazy guy. We want to find ways of reducing similar incidents, same as if a school bus got hit by a train because of a guy who wasn't paying attention or a building collapsed because of a guy who made corrupt deals. It's not the end of the world or a reason to bring about the end of Western civilization. It may not even warrant a change in the current laws.
Anyway, revolutions are for big stuff—you know, like times when you're asked to pay a couple cent tax on tea and stamps to pay for a war you personally started. (Lookin' at you, George Washington).
No, you'd need something that would surely get EVERYONE pissed off, even the morons. You want to start a revolution, ban religion. Order every church, synagogue and temple torn down within a week. You get space aliens to do that and you'll see what a vast majority of the US can do when it gets pissed off.
But you probably won't like what happens when they win.
Yeah, I was actually thinking about that after I posted.
And yeah... that's one of those things that terrifies me about this whole thing. In order to evoke any sort of response you need to truly fuck some shit up, but the people that are going to rise up the highest against it are not the kind of people that you want rising up into any sort of power. The entire country (And obv beyond it's borders too, but for the sake of ease) kinda feels in a constant state of catch 22 right now. No matter what happens, you're going to be fucking something up (And not in the the give and take, compromise way). And there's no way to break that system. Occupy tried, and failed. And I don't know if they'll be coming back.
Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2012-07-25 02:36:49)
So anyway, it's now time for pictures of cats.
Last edited by Dave (2012-07-25 02:49:48)
I think a lot of people -- Americans at least -- like the idea of being part of a revolution (*cough*Red Dawn*cough*), but wouldn't take part in them. We're comfortable with our mediocre lives. Americans used to take action when we didn't like stuff, now we're all talk. Occupy, for all its publicity, was hardly a revolution. We buy bumper stickers that say "If you're not angry, you're not paying attention!" We mutter passive-aggressive comments at our televisions. And we say awful things on the Internet to people who disagree with us. But does that mean we actually care? I don't think so.
Point is, an American Revolution today, no matter what the cause, would fail miserably. And if it succeeded, things would be worse than they were before. Great, you overthrew the government and got your guns back! Who's gonna be the new Secretary of Education? Johnny Triggerfinger over there? People complain about politicians all the time, but they'd only replace them with other politicians. Why? Because the people in Washington are probably the best people in the country to be there. Not all of them are great, but they could be a hell of a lot worse.
I could go on, but the pizza's here and I think that's enough cynicism for one day.
ban religion. Order every church, synagogue and temple torn down
But that's not a bad thing 
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
