SWG Tales

X'an Shin wrote: This pretty much sums up my whole opinion on mainstream media: They're no longer an unbiased source of information.

/agree

Notice how in the last 10 years news anchors give their own personal comments and asides regarding the story that they are reporting? I remember when something like that was unheard of. It was considered unprofessional and prejudicial. Just report, please.

Watch the movie Network. It's scary how prophetic that movie was 30 years ahead of it's time.

hmmm... I have written pages and pages of stuff about this crap.

Number one on my list, if you get your home searched (i'll go into reasons later) and the cops find household cleaners, and a couple of guns, like your pappy's hunting 12ga. and a couple .22's
it will be reported that you were found with drug or bomb making materials and a gun cache, "its a good thing they caught this extreemist, terrorist before he could make drugs to fund his Jihad..." or some BS like that.
on a serious note, The gun cache thing is something I actually heard, and guy was taken in and his "gun cache" was no more than a few hunting guns... which would make me a military superpower...

MrDooo wrote:And that's not The Onion??

No...I made that in Photoshop.

Might want to be careful about who sees that, Jotun. The kid who made the fake CNN page about blowjobs being a health boon to women was sued by CNN. Fraudulent use of their trademark and website crap. They were pretty serious about it, too.

Del'tar Chagas wrote:Might want to be careful about who sees that, Jotun. The kid who made the fake CNN page about blowjobs being a health boon to women was sued by CNN. Fraudulent use of their trademark and website crap. They were pretty serious about it, too.

So how much did CNN get from ya in the lawsuit, Del?



(Find a good lawyer and they'll tell you that you can be protected under the parody law. Its how shows like SNL and Mad TV and parody products get away with using real names and trademarked material.)

Fucking sue my ass!

Actually, I believe this was not protected under the parody laws. That was one of the big hullabaloos about it. There was nothing indicating that it was anything BUT an authentic CNN webpage. Even the link looked authentic. He made absolutely certain that it was authentic to the very last. The banners at the top, the footers. It was dead on. With the exception of some of the names (which is tricky because some people have shitty, shitty names), it was impossible to tell the difference.

An SNL news cast with Darrel Hamond as Ted Koppel is pretty obvious. Plus, how many of the shows that they parody on SNL are owned by NBC? They own the rights to those trademarks and can give permission to use them.

Still F***ing hilarious though, Jotoscasonic.

suring jotun over that reminds of two sayings:


ya can't squeeze blood from a turnip


half of nothing leaves nothing

I am sure CNN wouldn't be after Jotun's money.

How are they to maintain their unblemished record of objective and non-biased reporting based on years of experience and creativity if there are these pages floating around that make a mockery of them?

oh wait...

Well in truth Parody Law covers copyright, not trademarks. He'd still be screwed for using the CNN logo.

I'm talking about the kid mind you, not Jotun. He ain't getting sued and you know it. Silly spikey headed mook.

Jotun wrote:

MrDooo wrote:And that's not The Onion??

No...I made that in Photoshop.

I'm soooooo linking to that.

That kid prolly got sued because he took CNN's HTML source and made it his main site, then didn't respond to warnings...I merely took a screen grab, doctored it and made a link to it. Not to mention if they did see what I did, they would most likely ask me to remove it before they wasted time and money on legal action.

I think it was much simpler than that, Jotun. I don't think how he did it wasn't really the issue, it was that his work was neither critical nor educational. It could be argued that it was for entertainment, but that is a stretch considering the lack of context that would indicate it as such. If you break it down, the 4 things that make up the fair-use defense in which he would have been within his legal rights were lacking. He could not establish a fair-use defense of his work, so his copying of the format and logo and such was not protected under the law.

Why do I know any of this? I need to spend more time at work actually WORKING.

/targetself
/shake