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.
posted
Ted Turner has disassociated himself from CNN because he is less than pleased at what it has become.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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
posted
lol...though I don't think canadians would be happy about it. There would have clearly been an invasion in retaliation.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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? Posts: 925 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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 .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
this is definatlely not a parody, but it is still funny. Wonder if it were true, how would society respond to this?
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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 Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but his knowledge is deeper and broader than what you pick up from free software folks.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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*
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
