[ December 03, 2004, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Altįriėl of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
dont spoil the fun.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
It's tripe and you know it.
I know it's a parody and all, but how do these people keep from getting sued into oblivion? I mean using an identical layout, not to mention the CNN logo has to be copyright infringement at best, defament at worst.
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by Altįriėl of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
yeah, but its still fun.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
I'm waiting for someone to mention it to CNN. THEN the fun will begin.
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Feyd I was thinking the same thing...
AJ
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Sic 'em Ted Turner. That, and Associated Press is cited as the source of the article. They may have some words as well.
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by Altįriėl of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Let the fun begin then Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think it's funny.
That is all.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: they enter Canada at their own risk
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Ted Turner has disassociated himself from CNN because he is less than pleased at what it has become.
Posted by Altįriėl of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I don't blame him...
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
Aw... And I was happy for a full thirty seconds...
Posted by Altįriėl of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
so was I... I couldn;t wait to get home and see it on TV...
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Very good parody.
Ted Turner didn't "disassociate" from CNN--he was forced out in a typical corporate squeeze play during the TimeWarner/AOL merger and aftermath:
quote: But when, in January of 2000, Time Warner and Turner agreed to join with the Internet company America Online, Turner was not invited to participate in the talks about how the merged company would function.
Less than four months later, Ted Turner was fired. The news, Turner says, was delivered during a telephone call from Gerald Levin, the C.E.O. of Time Warner, who told Turner what Turner had often told others: the company was going to reorganize. Turner Broadcasting would no longer report to Turner but, rather, to Robert Pittman, the chief operating officer of AOL. āYou canāt report to Pittman, so you have to have a more senior role,ā Levin remembers telling Turner. As Turner recalls, Levin went on to say, āSorry, Ted, but you lose your vice-chairman title as well.ā According to Levin, Turner offered to give up his vice-chairmanship in order to keep running the Turner Broadcasting division, which included CNN, TNT, Turner Classic Movies, the TBS Superstation, the Cartoon Network, the New Line Cinema studio, the Atlanta Braves baseball team, the Atlanta Hawks basketball team, the Atlanta Thrashers hockey team, and Time Warnerās HBO. āI didnāt fire Ted,ā Levin insists today. āI said, āThis is the way we need to run the company.āā
lol...though I don't think canadians would be happy about it. There would have clearly been an invasion in retaliation.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Parody is a protected form of free speech so I don't think there'll be any lawsuits.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
it could be iffy, since it is not really a parody of CNN, yet they are using the CNN stuff...also, due to the web address, it could be argued that they are trying to fool people into thinking they are CNN...and that is a no no.
[ December 04, 2004, 05:08 AM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Parody isn't protected when it confuses the viewer. In fact, if it confuses the viewer it isn't parody.
A work is only a parody (under the law and in general) if it both evokes the original and is clearly its own work. This fails the second part.
Posted by kyrie (Member # 6415) on :
it still amused me Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, its definitely amusing, its just probably not legal.
Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
So what's the deal, have they gotten in trouble? I was completely fooled into believing it was real. Probably because I wanted to.. *shrug* Now I can laugh at myself as well as the article. Where did the picture come from, then? And, why would they waste so much time copying the entire CNN website just for this article? Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Thing is, the site at the top of this thread is a different website from the one talked about in that article.
The one in the article did not use CNN's webpage at all, and the one that started this thread had no mention of parody.
So, the thread-starter is not only using CNN's and AP's names in a less than legal way, but it's also plagiarizing another parody that did things in the legal way it was supposed to.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A work is only a parody (under the law and in general) if it both evokes the original and is clearly its own work. This fails the second part.
fugu, out of curiosity, how do you know so much about IP law? You have knowledge that's usually a step beyond even well-informed laypersons.
And you present it in a fairly legal fashion, organized roughly into elements and such.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, I read a lot?
That's pretty much it. Of course, part of its being good at selecting what to read, and searching out things to verify.
For instance, in that case I was pretty sure what I wanted to say (envisioned it pretty much as I said it, in fact), but then I googled for general information, and looked up a couple specific cases (for instance, the Penny Arcade case, which I knew about from recollection), which substantiated my position.
Also, I cull through a large amount of information every day, looking for stuff that's "interesting" -- and I'm interested in a lot of stuff. This means I've got a large amount of bits and pieces of knowledge which allow me to connect to lots of things.
I actually don't cull through as much as I normally do because I havent' re-set up my RSS feeds, being only temporarily on this computer while I await my new one.
I follow links, often deeply -- for instance, I regularly read slashdot, and more importantly, I read the comments (with certain ratings given much higher scores than others). While most of the comments are crap, I've got settings that avoid the trolls, and have become adept at quickly picking out comments of interest -- which I then follow up on.
As far as the presentation goes, I have a background in literary analysis, philosophy, and am a fan of minimalist absurdism (well, its not actually absurdism, but that's what its commonly associated with). Plus I've posted a lot at hatrack, and by far most of it is moderate to lengthy posts in "serious" threads, I do believe. Between those things I've become pretty decent at understanding nuance while eschewing complexity for complexity's sake, I'd like to think.
As regards (say) IP law in particular, formalisms intrigue me. Meaningful formalism is a remarkably complex concept, for all that the results of its application are often disturbingly simple. IP law's unsettled state means that formalisms in the field are not well-adjusted, which is a particularly fascinating state of affairs, combined with that in several ways it directly pertains to me (I write open source software; I use open source software; I pay attention to content-related issues because the availability of information is important to me).
Oh, and Larry Lessig rocks .
Posted by Altįriėl of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
this is definatlely not a parody, but it is still funny. Wonder if it were true, how would society respond to this?
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Well, if the last election were any indication, approximately half of the country would be afflicted with some amount of burning anger (as far as spontaneous combustion, I would imagine!) and the other half would be similarly afflicted with celebration.
[ December 06, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Man, give a guy a compliment and get a life story in return. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I was paying your compliment the due respect with a response it deserves as is my obligation as dictated by the Creator of the World . . . either that or I've been reading too much Persian literature lately Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, but his knowledge is deeper and broader than what you pick up from free software folks.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And, yet, he's still a big dork.
[ December 06, 2004, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Altįriėl of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While your average OSS proponent likely isn't hugely knowledgable, some of the modern giants in IP law (such as Larry Lessig and Eben Moglen) are Open Source Software advocates and central to the advancement of OSS's ideals (particularly Moglen, who is the co-author of the General Public License, among other roles).
And the "leaders" of the OSS movement(s) generally are rather educated as to IP law (usually to the extent of rejecting many of its modern edifices ). Richard Stallman, Bruce Perens, and others are giants in the field of OSS and software in general, and are quite aware of IP issues.
There are several OSS projects which are founded from a profound conception of IP rooted in modern IP law, such as the Debian project, which adheres to a policy of free as in freedom for the software distributed by it -- see their page on "What Does Free Mean?"
And while slashdot is mostly chaffe, there are quite a few very reasonable and knowledgable people on it, one merely needs to find them .
Posted by SausageMan (Member # 5134) on :
Most people who "know" about IP laws tend to just make stuff up and use big words.
But I don't think that's the case here. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Let's just say I've had more than one conversation with OSS advocates claiming that copyright is unconstitutional and leave it at that.
And I know the leaders of the movement don't say that.
Dagonee P.S., I wasn't comparing you to the idiots, by the way.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Most people who "know" about IP laws tend to just make stuff up and use big words.
You mean lawyers? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Technically most IP laws were just "made up." Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Please don't take any of what I said to denigrate the leaders in that field. I have philosophical differences with many of them, but their grasp on the current state of IP law is far stronger than mine.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heheheheh. *imagines Dagonee posting "Richard Stallman is teh suxx0r! Join the GNAA!" on slashdot with the first sentence being a link to Goatse guy and the other being a link to tubgirl*
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)