Fox Sues Al Franken! - Page 3  

Even the conservative Wall Street Journal agrees with us. I haven't seen a single editorial from anyone other than Fox that agrees with you. And blogs from rightwing crackpots don't count... those are a dime a dozen.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110003890

And it has been pointed out to you why most of your arguments are wrong as a matter of both law and logic. Yet I have not seen you in any way indicate that you have bothered to read or attempted to comprehend them. You simply repeat, "but Frankin's trying to make money."

This ignores that fact that he's trying to make money by criticizing Fox, not by confusing himself with them--which is what trademark protection is all about.

And my rant was directed at more than just you. I happen to live in the most republican state in the country--and yet I still have to put up with Hannity on the radio claiming to be "The Last Bastion of Truth in A Trouble Time." As if you couldn't turn in to Rush, O'Rielly or Reagan--or any of the other wannabes--and here exactly the same "Truth."

By the way, check out Salon.com for an exerp from Joe Cannason's book. It's probably much better than Frankin's and far more damning.

I'm not surprised. On the other hand, you didn't actually deny being a "crackpot partisan who is incapable of having a well thought-out opinion."



(just kidding)

EDIT: Added smily.

It is a sad day indeed when smilies and just kidding in parenthesis are necessary to avoid retribution over what is clearly a joke.

BR, I'm worried for you... don't go holding anything back now!

See, the problem is
derived from the fact that if I call someone a goose-stepper
whether or not it is true or a joke, I might get banned again.

We are expressing opinions here. From what I have read on the topic, Fox at least has a case for the two reasons I listed. What qualifies you?

As far as your rant, it's not my problem if you live in a state which is Republican. I don;t write Hannity's material. Frankly, I couldn't care less if you are frustrated.



First, I don't appreciate that. It's over the top. Why is it that liberals turn to insulting one's intelligence and comprehension skills? Second, what I can't comprehend is what that statment means. I don't understand my own arguments? That's the way your statment is written.

Finally, I never said that "Franken is trying to make money". What I said was that he is mimicking the look and feel of Fox News (a popular and well-known network), as well as their trademarked phrase to piggyback sales of his book.

Actually, you wrote a very cogent explanation of trademarks. There's a little nuance in there that should be brought out though. Trademarks get varying levels of protection based on their distinctiveness. There are 3 general types of marks (there may be more, but my IP days are long over) - fanciful, arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, and generic. The first 3 are considered inherently distinctive and anyone using them other than the TM holder is in for a tough fight. Fox's tm is probably merely descriptive (suggestive requires the phrase to be only suggestive of the features of the product but also use the term in a new or unusual way; a suggestive mark would be something like "heart of darkness" applied to a candy bar having a dark chocolate center). Descriptive marks are only protectible (very generally) if they have acquired some secondary meaning with the public, which "fair and balanced" has. Nonetheless, the scope of protection will very low as described in rok's post, and others above. Of course, Fox could argue that "Fair and Balanced" is actually "arbitrary" or "fanciful", but that would sort of undermine their whole premise, wouldn't it?
Thoth

So what you're saying is that AL is trying to "fool" people into buying his book?

That someone picking up this book would just see O'Reilly's photo and the words "far and balanced" and rush over to the register without opening the book or reading the back cover...

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

O'reilly is a liar... he says that Al Franken is not someone he would ever stoop to associate with, YET he's been on his show twice before... O'Reilly likes to pretend things didn't happen or make things up.
He hasn't once proven or shown that Al has lied or done the very things he himself has done. His ego is so bloated he thinks that just saying something makes it true... HE never won a Peabody... he never even one a Polk... the show he left did... AFTER he left. Yet he blathers on about how he didn't host a tabloid show because it won an award.

If he used the phrase as a parody and this way boosted the salewould you still consider it wrong?

Al Franken is a popular and well known satirist. He was on TV before FoxNews existed.

Don't be a close minded fool. Conservatives call me names around here and 'insult my intelligence'.

What exactly gives you this moral high ground? Do you not remember a little thread made by sammy jo that you crashed? Do you not remember every insult you fling at "liberals?" Give me a break. You go around insulting everyone else then cry and moan when someone returns the favor.

You are a goddamn joke.

A) I come from a family of lawyers, including a brother who works in entertainment and IP law.

b) I work as a creative professional--including writing and music. Some knowledge of contract and copyright law is a matter of survival in contract negotiations.

c) Opinions--remember. I'm allowed one too.


You know, that was meant as a bit of an apology for the tone -- thanks for throwing it back in my face. You used a type or argument that pushed my buttons. I thought you might like to know why it pushed my buttons.


Forgive the grammar. I could repond in kind and tell you it's spelled "Statement."

What I mean is that you don't seem to bother to read, comprehend or respond to the opponents arguments in order to address them. Why won't the parody defense work? Why do you think it doesn't matter that Trademark of common phrases is usually limited? Why do you think that a trademark taken for a news network should be applied to books, as well? (You do realize that O'Rielly's books are not put out by Fox news--and hence the look and feel of them has nothing to do with this lawsuit.)

If you would like to prove you do have an interest in real discussion. Please pick a point above to refute, and I promise a polite, thoughfull, respectful answer. If not, well, I won't be suprised.


And, once again, back to the same argument without addressing counter arguments. Do you have any thoughts on the arguments above? Remember, Frankin is disagreeing politically with Fox News. Political speech is the single most protected form of speech under the law and constitution. Fox's Trademark is commercial, usually the least protected form of free speech.

You are free to think Fox will win. But to think it is an open and shut case--or to think those who disagree with it even being filed are simply blinded by ideology--is simply willfully ignoring the evidence.

http://www.nbc6.net/entertainment/2415468/detail.html

Is FOX really gonna go through with this.

OH NO! YOU ARE TRYING TO GET MORE ATTENTION TO YOUR POSTS BY HAVING FAIR AND BALANCED AS YOUR TITLE! SUE ANDERS! SUE ANDERS! SUE ANDERS!

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts...n-Lawsuit.html

They've moved up the release of the book to the end of this week... hehe. Just in time for the hearing on Friday... how great will it be if they throw the suit out on friday... more free press!

Oh and they've printed an additional 40,000! Thanks FNC!

There is a clear difference between what I do and what others like you do. I mocked sammi jo's thread and called her out on her supposed impartiality. I did NOT call her "stupid" or a "goddamn joke" or tell her she needs to learn to comprehend common English.

If you are insulted by the fact that I think liberalism is a totally flawed and failed ideology, then I'm sorry. See, it's the ideology I have a problem with, and any attacks I make are come out of that context. I might ask someone how in the hell they can believe what they do, or express shock at a statment, or deride liberals and liberalism, but that's not a personal attack. I attack the IDEA.

Funny, you don;t seem to have a problem with the thread "Psyche Profile of Conservatism"...now do you? You don't seem to have a problem with the six billion anti-bush, anti-republican, anti-war, anti-tax cut threads that get started...do you? Thought not.

...And the next time I'm having it out with someone else about HIS post, stay the **** out of it.

Your continued insults aside, I am not dismissing your arguments. It is possible Fox will lose based on some of the grounds you pointed out. I also have a fair understanding of copyright law, BTW.

But, the evidence is against Franken here. As I said, do you think he would have used the phrase if Fox DID NOT use it? Of course not. The phrase would have no meaning if Fox hadn't popularized it. Franken used it while rather obviously visually referencing Fox News itself, and now he will profit from it. He also may have slandered O'Reilly and others in the process with the sub title.

This has nothing to do with ideology. This is about trying to predict what a court of law will decide, and I think there is a good chance Fox will win the case. Legal context aside, what Franken did was shameless and you know it.

I'd dig through the archives but I don't have that kind of time.

I'm not insulted by that. I'm insulted that you use the word "liberal" as an insult that you fling at people who disagree with you. If I were to believe that the word "flimdangleboofrackno" meant dirty slut homosexual fat cow person with feces on their head and everyone knew that was how I viewed the word and I went around calling everyone a "flimdangleboofrackno" in every thread, it would be just as wrong.

Maybe this SAT analogy might clear things up.

In SDW's world...
Liberal:Retard::Fudge:Fvck.



The idea and the person do not live separately in a vacuum.

Let's finish the sentence and add implied bits...How in the hell can they believe what they do? What they believe is retarded and anyone who believes that must be a dirty liberal scumbag!


Like it or not, some people identify themselves by their ideology. Hence, an attack on their ideology is a direct attack on them.

See above.

And the idea that you are allowed to have kids sickens me. I'm just attacking the idea man.


I didn't make a big stink in that thread because I find it to be boring schlock. I have no problem with threads that criticize the sitting president, my stupid democrat governor in Cali, for tax cuts, against tax cuts, for mandatory female circumcision, against breast feeding in public, or pretty much anything else for that matter.


No, I will not stay the <expletive deleted> out of it. It's a public board and I will respond publicly on this public board because the public deserves to hear my publicly made speech intended for the general public of AI.

If you don't want me to comment, keep it to PMs.

Have a nice liberal day.

BR:


Then be insulted. I call them like I see them.


The difference is I don't write that. It's your inference.


Like it or not, I can't control other's feelings...only my own. If people take me attacking an ideology as attacking them, then that is the individual's problem.


That's perhaps the most disingenuous and classless thing you've ever said, BR. Your just playing more semantical games. You know quite well that the above statement does not attack an idea.




translation: "I will follow SDW around and disagree with everything he posts just because I can.... all while simultaneously insulting him instead of arguing the point".

I think that's what you meant.

SDW...room 23 at the hilton...meet me there in 10 minutes.








Just preempting the get a room crowd...

Back on topic...

Well, regardless of the eventual outcome, this gets Franken tons of publicity so either way he should thank Fox. Hmm...although...

Perhaps Franken could sic the FTC on Fox for false advertising and deceptive trade practices...fair and balanced...pffft.

Conservative prick.

Well, depending upon how one looks at it, they both are "flawed and failed" ideologies. "Liberalism" in the sense that you mean it was part of a c18 and c19 critique of Smithian classical capitalism that first emerged as a vigorous kind of Christian charity that took both England and New England in America by storm.

The notion that the state should care for its poorer or weaker elements is something we Americans inherited from/developed alongside England. After the dissolution of the convents and monasteries by Henry VIII, those institutions that had formerly provided relief to individuals in need vanished, and the local and national governments had to pick up the slack. This really gets going in the mid-late c18 and continues through today. What you call "conservatism" we might consider to have origins in "Toryism," which had traditionally allied itself with the monarch/leader and sought to maintain wealth, landholdings, and political power (duh.). It is against this political position that all modern labor movements, and all modern notions of liberalism, find their origins.

Unchecked capitalism in England and America in the c18 and c19 resulted in absolutely deplorable conditions. If you don't believe me, go read some Dickens (preferably Hard Times) or Alger (Ragged Dick). If there was one thing that the c19 showed unequivocally, it was that capitalism needed restraints, and that if it were allowed to exist unchecked, the conditions that resulted were, quite simply, inhumane. If you want a brilliant snapshot of what I'm talking about, take a look at Engels's descriptions of the poor in London (esp. Conditions of the Working Classes). Or Mayhew's London Labour and the London Poor. Or hell, just about any magazine from the mid-c19.

Cheers
Scott

Everyone understands that the FNC trademark is the big middle finger at mainstream media. Implying that mainstream media is NOT "fair and balanced".

Al Franken's book is political satire... and very well protected under the 1st amendment. It's just not that AL used the trademark on the cover of the book... but HOW he used it.

No one is going to believe that he's trying to fool people into thinking it's a conservative book...

Also... FNC doesn't publish O'Reilly's books so they can't sue AL on any "look and feel" issues because of the design of the cover... which is MOCKING O'Reilly's book.

FNC will lose.

Um, you need thicker skin. I don't think anything in my post was particularly insulting. Challenging, possibly, but not insulting. It was you who first challenged my credentials. It was you who first played the grammer card. I'm _trying_ to get you to actually argue your case.

Courts are not unpredictable. In fact, in almost all cases they are fairly easy to predict because the laws are pretty clear. Good heavens, look at Michael Moore's entire career. This is not at all an unclear area of law.

Of course he wouldn't have used the phrase if Fox didn't use it. He's is specifically criticizing Fox and it's personalities. How do you criticize without referencing them? This lawsuit has everything to do with ideology and nothing to do with the law. It is not standard practice to include insults to the defendent in your filing--that was completely PR and not legal manuvering. This was Fox trying to stiffle criticism and political debate. Thank heavens in backfired..

if anyone should be sued... it should be O'Reilly...

how does he get away with this stuff?

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/moyersoreilly.htm

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/billspins.htm

Hey, they just claim to be Fair and Balanced(TM). Not Honest and Truthful (Patent Pending).

The book came out today - there is no way anyone could think it is anything but a parody. I made a display where I work with O'Reilly's latest on one side and Franken's on the other - Franken's is selling like hotcakes. Franken has been parodying corporate slogans for a long time, I think the first time I saw him on Saturday Night Live it was during a skit making fun of the slogan "Without Chemicals, Life itself would be Impossible." How can anyone even look at a picture of Al Franken and think he is being serious?

Cool. Hopefully I can pick the book up at lunch today.

Here's a good article...

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...+intimidation+


there are certain standards the news media and the Executive Branch should adhere to...

FNC and the current Bush administration don't seem to get it though.

Then again, no reasonable person would have confused the book "Al Franken is a Buck-Toothed Moron" with Al's book, but for some reason, Al saw fit to try to challenge this in court. Satire is okay if you are liberal only.

Isn't it ironic that the very thing your saying is a lie.

Al Franken didn't try to stop that book... it says in the book that the letters from Al and his lawyers were fictional...

"Franken may indeed know something about satire; in 1996, his book "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot" was itself parodied by J.P. Mauro (actually two Mauro brothers) in the book "Al Franken Is a Buck-Toothed Moron," which features a doctored Franken photo on the cover. The introduction to the book consists of letters purporting to be from Franken's lawyers, attempting to deny the authors the use of Franken's picture. Later in the book, the letters are described as fictitious."

http://www.latimes.com/features/life...,4846451.story

You're playing the game the same way FNC does...
you don't check your facts and try to discredit people.

You're right, it never happened.

But this did:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966836/posts

Gee, I guess I can't even post something about a book in a satirical way without defining it as satire.

Damn chewie, you beat me to it. When I first saw this post I started searching for this book and the evidence of Franken fighting it, because that would, indeed, make him a hypocrite and I love irony. Quite quickly I came across the info about it being a fiction.

I think the problem is that you just don't understand what satire is... seems alot of conservatives have that problem.

What in your response indicated that it was satire?

And the apology to Ashcroft... do you think Al was REALLY apologizing?

That seems like a fair journalistic tactic IMHO. Journalists will often lie about what information they have in illiciting information from sources. No different from a cop telling a suspect that there accomplice has already confessed to prompt them into confessing. I'm not sure it even qualifies as this, however, since even Ashcroft should be smart enough to sniff out this prank. Surely, Franken would know that Ashcroft would run this by his lawyers who would at least check with Rice and Bennet.

If it had worked, man that would have been a funny testimonial!

Lets see, coming up with a reply that paraphrased a statement about a book of satire that went ahead and admitted a fact. A bit circular, but if this doesn't fall within your definition of satire, please define the term for us.

my definition of satire? try anyones definition.

Basically you tried to get away with something and you got caught. Was the "it's satire is only ok if you are a liberal" the satirical part?