The Daily Mail can get confused (and that's putting it politely). Only in November they mispelt a guy's name, got his nationality and that of the police force investigating his murder wrong!
Hilarious! I'll have to remember the name so that if I see any news links from them to be on guard. I had never heard of them before being in the states.
I support the author of the parody in this case. Twitter's problem is it's rules don't conform to established trademark infringement law (nor do they have to). The standard in a trademark case (or even a slander/libel case) would be whether or not the public might be confused by the account and think that it's real. No way that burden is being met, even without changing the name.
I support the author of the parody in this case. Twitter's problem is it's rules don't conform to established trademark infringement law (nor do they have to). The standard in a trademark case (or even a slander/libel case) would be whether or not the public might be confused by the account and think that it's real. No way that burden is being met, even without changing the name.
I'd guess a significant number of his followers just followed 'CEOSteveJobs' because they thought it was actually Steve Jobs. He certainly didn't get that many followers because of his talent.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You are aware that Congress does not mean companies, schools, your parents, etc., etc.
I understand your statements. You were absolutely correct that the First Amendment refers our national lawmaking body and thank you for clarifying.
At the same time, this is not an employer sanctioning an employee for negative comments made. This is a private citizen. Individuals have rights to express themselves according to individual state civil rights statutes (and we will all agree that speech is inferred to mean most forms of communication).
So even if the Constitution does not specifically provide protections to its citizens, individual states do. Which states do and don't is beyond the topic of discussion, but I'm going to hope that it is at least a few. \
It would probably then get into a debate about Twitter being private property, etc.
I'd guess a significant number of his followers just followed 'CEOSteveJobs' because they thought it was actually Steve Jobs. He certainly didn't get that many followers because of his talent.
LOL, you don't give real Steve Jobs admirers a lot of credit, do you? You must think they are complete dolts to not figure out it is a parody account after tweets like "Please don't call this #alarmgate. That makes it seem like we did something wrong"?
Is the assumption that Steve Jobs is personally offended and that Steve Jobs is taking action? Because that strikes me as idiotic.
Apple is a huge corporation with a huge investment in its public image. "Steve Jobs" happens to be very closely associated with that corporation and image, enough so that he's often treated as being synonymous with Apple.
As such, you wouldn't expect Apple to be any more sanguine about "@ceoSteveJobs" than you would expect Coke to be OK with "@drinkCoke" or AT&T to ignore "@we'reAT&T."
Would anyone be surprised if the CocaCola corporation objected to an @drinkCoke Twitter account saying things like "We ran out of sheep's urine, no Sprite for now?" or something?
By making this about Jobs' thin skin you completely miss the point. Any corporation will move to protect its persona, particularly a CE corporation. If you doubt it, try starting a "@HiFromGoogle" Twitter account and talk about how fun it is to read everybody's email and keep all the naked pictures and see if that goes unchallenged.
... If you doubt it, try starting a "@HiFromGoogle" Twitter account and talk about how fun it is to read everybody's email and keep all the naked pictures and see if that goes unchallenged.
Perhaps you're right. Why don't you prove your point?
Of all the things you can say about Jobs, I would have to say this is his weakest trait. He lack any sort of sense of humor. Even his jokes on stage are not really that funny, and when things go wrong, you can tell he just wants to explode inside.
I understand your statements. You were absolutely correct that the First Amendment refers our national lawmaking body and thank you for clarifying.
At the same time, this is not an employer sanctioning an employee for negative comments made. This is a private citizen. Individuals have rights to express themselves according to individual state civil rights statutes (and we will all agree that speech is inferred to mean most forms of communication).
So even if the Constitution does not specifically provide protections to its citizens, individual states do. Which states do and don't is beyond the topic of discussion, but I'm going to hope that it is at least a few. \
It would probably then get into a debate about Twitter being private property, etc.
Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment also refers to State legislators.
And again, individuals, companies, schools/boards, etc., have a right to limit free speech, when it comes to affect their environment. You can't come into my home and unilaterally say what you want as you can't go into your place of employment or school and not abide by or contravene the dictates of the respective organization.
In this case, Twitter called out the offender for not abiding by the rules that he signed in order to use their services. He could have created his own web site and had every right to say what he wanted to. But then, he would or could be sued for defamation/slander, amongst other things.
What is disturbing is the concept that we can say anything about anybody. You may think it is your right to call your mother a f'n c't. But don't try to say that about mine.
By the way, the 14th Amendment does specifically provide protection to its citizens.
Wow ... even if you're on Apples side, you're like ... not! .... must hurt like hell, going through life with a fence post up your**** ...
Yeah, I made the mistake of poking fun at Steve's turtlenecks, boy did Apple ever fix me!
I'm definitely an Apple fan. Used to be a SJ fan, but it's faded big time in recent years. I just want to see him laugh once where it isn't awkward looking.
I know people love to paint this as Apple using it's clout to crush a little guy, but the only real issue here is whether or not the twitter account in question violates twitter's policy on parody, and on the surface it looks like it does.
Well I don't know about little guy, don't really know the guy personally. As far as Apple using their clout, absolutely they are! I admit crush is probably not exactly an accurate description of what is happening to him though.
Of all the things you can say about Jobs, I would have to say this is his weakest trait. He lack any sort of sense of humor. Even his jokes on stage are not really that funny, and when things go wrong, you can tell he just wants to explode inside.
This is probably his biggest short coming
Again, the idea that this is Jobs getting mad at someone is a stretch. Apple Inc. is the one without a sense of humor, as pretty much any big corporation is going to be without a sense of humor when it comes to their public image.
Nother wiseman once said "don't f*ck with someone using their name especially if they are woth many billions of dollars!".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooch
it is parody, after all. and good for christof.
i have resisted following twitter. but since the top free app in the new mac app store was twittier, i downloaded it. i think this will be the first twit i follow.
Another famous (whether wise or not) man said: "I don't care what you write about me as long as you spell my name correctly." (George Steinbrenner, former Yankees owner, most nationally famous as a parodied character on Seinfeld)
You can't BUY publicity like this which ultimately only adds to the cult of (and therefore ultimately the sales and profits of) Apple. The execs at companies like H-P, Google, Dell, etc. would kill for this kind of word of mouth that would create and keep excitement about their companies and products at a fever pitch. Except that the execs are publicly colorless and (with the exception of Google here) are seldom transformative.
Steve Ballmer of course, doesn't need a parody page. He manages to parody himself quite nicely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka
There is a difference between laughing at someone and laughing at yourself
Think about all the comedy you've ever read, heard or seen. Likely 90% of what we laugh at - from pratfalls on America's funniest home videos or Jackass to YouTube and SNL is something we would not laugh at if it was happening to us, or if it has happened to us, resonating with someone else it's happened to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
What all you genius' are forgetting is that Mr. Jobs was okay with "Fake Steve Jobs" (another seriously lame, unfunny parody) ... If this idiot "christof" had any real talent, he could get a laugh without resorting to stupidity, violence and insults. If it really *was* a "parody" account, it would be more intelligent and, you know ... actually parody the guy instead of just saying a lot of dumb stuff.
Parody has never exactly been considered the highest and most refined of the creative arts. Crude, rude and lewd are frequent components. Defang it too much and it has no bite, and at least a whiff of outrageouness is parody's currency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka
It's more likely that someone posting a tweet about Apple products having shotguns in them, is the root of all the commotion. That's not only not funny it's directly disparaging and defamatory.
If you've got kids, you probably don't let them have squirt guns. Seriously, do you think there is one human being on the planet who read that and believed the next iPad would have an actual shotgun built in?
C'mon, you all know how Steve hates extra ports.... And even it did, you'd have to send it to Cupertino to get it reloaded. Oh whoops, my bad. I'm now writing violent, defamatory parody.
Comments
The Daily Mail can get confused (and that's putting it politely). Only in November they mispelt a guy's name, got his nationality and that of the police force investigating his murder wrong!
Hilarious! I'll have to remember the name so that if I see any news links from them to be on guard. I had never heard of them before being in the states.
I support the author of the parody in this case. Twitter's problem is it's rules don't conform to established trademark infringement law (nor do they have to). The standard in a trademark case (or even a slander/libel case) would be whether or not the public might be confused by the account and think that it's real. No way that burden is being met, even without changing the name.
I'd guess a significant number of his followers just followed 'CEOSteveJobs' because they thought it was actually Steve Jobs. He certainly didn't get that many followers because of his talent.
Jeff this is the internet. It seems somewhat naive to expect to find reasonable people here.
Wow, I addressed this three posts after the one you quoted. I'll amend my first post to avoid confusing people that can't wait to snap out a reply.
I gather you don't know your Bill of Rights.
The First Amendment reads,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You are aware that Congress does not mean companies, schools, your parents, etc., etc.
I understand your statements. You were absolutely correct that the First Amendment refers our national lawmaking body and thank you for clarifying.
At the same time, this is not an employer sanctioning an employee for negative comments made. This is a private citizen. Individuals have rights to express themselves according to individual state civil rights statutes (and we will all agree that speech is inferred to mean most forms of communication).
So even if the Constitution does not specifically provide protections to its citizens, individual states do. Which states do and don't is beyond the topic of discussion, but I'm going to hope that it is at least a few.
It would probably then get into a debate about Twitter being private property, etc.
I'd guess a significant number of his followers just followed 'CEOSteveJobs' because they thought it was actually Steve Jobs. He certainly didn't get that many followers because of his talent.
LOL, you don't give real Steve Jobs admirers a lot of credit, do you? You must think they are complete dolts to not figure out it is a parody account after tweets like "Please don't call this #alarmgate. That makes it seem like we did something wrong"?
Apple is a huge corporation with a huge investment in its public image. "Steve Jobs" happens to be very closely associated with that corporation and image, enough so that he's often treated as being synonymous with Apple.
As such, you wouldn't expect Apple to be any more sanguine about "@ceoSteveJobs" than you would expect Coke to be OK with "@drinkCoke" or AT&T to ignore "@we'reAT&T."
Would anyone be surprised if the CocaCola corporation objected to an @drinkCoke Twitter account saying things like "We ran out of sheep's urine, no Sprite for now?" or something?
By making this about Jobs' thin skin you completely miss the point. Any corporation will move to protect its persona, particularly a CE corporation. If you doubt it, try starting a "@HiFromGoogle" Twitter account and talk about how fun it is to read everybody's email and keep all the naked pictures and see if that goes unchallenged.
... If you doubt it, try starting a "@HiFromGoogle" Twitter account and talk about how fun it is to read everybody's email and keep all the naked pictures and see if that goes unchallenged.
Perhaps you're right. Why don't you prove your point?
Wow, I addressed this three posts after the one you quoted. I'll amend my first post to avoid confusing people that can't wait to snap out a reply.
It seems it's not just Steve Jobs and Apple that have zero sense of humor.
This is probably his biggest short coming
I understand your statements. You were absolutely correct that the First Amendment refers our national lawmaking body and thank you for clarifying.
At the same time, this is not an employer sanctioning an employee for negative comments made. This is a private citizen. Individuals have rights to express themselves according to individual state civil rights statutes (and we will all agree that speech is inferred to mean most forms of communication).
So even if the Constitution does not specifically provide protections to its citizens, individual states do. Which states do and don't is beyond the topic of discussion, but I'm going to hope that it is at least a few.
It would probably then get into a debate about Twitter being private property, etc.
Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment also refers to State legislators.
And again, individuals, companies, schools/boards, etc., have a right to limit free speech, when it comes to affect their environment. You can't come into my home and unilaterally say what you want as you can't go into your place of employment or school and not abide by or contravene the dictates of the respective organization.
In this case, Twitter called out the offender for not abiding by the rules that he signed in order to use their services. He could have created his own web site and had every right to say what he wanted to. But then, he would or could be sued for defamation/slander, amongst other things.
What is disturbing is the concept that we can say anything about anybody. You may think it is your right to call your mother a f'n c't. But don't try to say that about mine.
By the way, the 14th Amendment does specifically provide protection to its citizens.
You can clearly tell who's a blatant fanboy and who has a sense of humor by reading these comments. Bet you would find a Steve Ballmer parody funny.
Everyone needs to lighten up. Including Apple.
I thought Ballmer was a parody!
Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment also refers to State legislators.
My point was that states have laws explicitly securing and/or protecting freedom of speech as a civil right.
Wow ... even if you're on Apples side, you're like ... not! .... must hurt like hell, going through life with a fence post up your**** ...
Yeah, I made the mistake of poking fun at Steve's turtlenecks, boy did Apple ever fix me!
I'm definitely an Apple fan. Used to be a SJ fan, but it's faded big time in recent years. I just want to see him laugh once where it isn't awkward looking.
I know people love to paint this as Apple using it's clout to crush a little guy, but the only real issue here is whether or not the twitter account in question violates twitter's policy on parody, and on the surface it looks like it does.
Well I don't know about little guy, don't really know the guy personally.
My point was that states have laws explicitly securing and/or protecting freedom of speech as a civil right.
I don't think so.
Of all the things you can say about Jobs, I would have to say this is his weakest trait. He lack any sort of sense of humor. Even his jokes on stage are not really that funny, and when things go wrong, you can tell he just wants to explode inside.
This is probably his biggest short coming
Again, the idea that this is Jobs getting mad at someone is a stretch. Apple Inc. is the one without a sense of humor, as pretty much any big corporation is going to be without a sense of humor when it comes to their public image.
If you must have lawyers, that's the place for 'em.
Can't wait to use this at the next legal/regulatory review at work!!
BTW, if Steve shows up at the Verizon show, it would be great if he produced one of those bobble-heads and tell everyone, "I got it on eBay."
Nother wiseman once said "don't f*ck with someone using their name especially if they are woth many billions of dollars!".
it is parody, after all. and good for christof.
i have resisted following twitter. but since the top free app in the new mac app store was twittier, i downloaded it. i think this will be the first twit i follow.
Another famous (whether wise or not) man said: "I don't care what you write about me as long as you spell my name correctly." (George Steinbrenner, former Yankees owner, most nationally famous as a parodied character on Seinfeld)
You can't BUY publicity like this which ultimately only adds to the cult of (and therefore ultimately the sales and profits of) Apple. The execs at companies like H-P, Google, Dell, etc. would kill for this kind of word of mouth that would create and keep excitement about their companies and products at a fever pitch. Except that the execs are publicly colorless and (with the exception of Google here) are seldom transformative.
Steve Ballmer of course, doesn't need a parody page. He manages to parody himself quite nicely.
There is a difference between laughing at someone and laughing at yourself
Think about all the comedy you've ever read, heard or seen. Likely 90% of what we laugh at - from pratfalls on America's funniest home videos or Jackass to YouTube and SNL is something we would not laugh at if it was happening to us, or if it has happened to us, resonating with someone else it's happened to.
What all you genius' are forgetting is that Mr. Jobs was okay with "Fake Steve Jobs" (another seriously lame, unfunny parody) ... If this idiot "christof" had any real talent, he could get a laugh without resorting to stupidity, violence and insults. If it really *was* a "parody" account, it would be more intelligent and, you know ... actually parody the guy instead of just saying a lot of dumb stuff.
Parody has never exactly been considered the highest and most refined of the creative arts. Crude, rude and lewd are frequent components. Defang it too much and it has no bite, and at least a whiff of outrageouness is parody's currency.
It's more likely that someone posting a tweet about Apple products having shotguns in them, is the root of all the commotion. That's not only not funny it's directly disparaging and defamatory.
If you've got kids, you probably don't let them have squirt guns. Seriously, do you think there is one human being on the planet who read that and believed the next iPad would have an actual shotgun built in?
C'mon, you all know how Steve hates extra ports.... And even it did, you'd have to send it to Cupertino to get it reloaded. Oh whoops, my bad. I'm now writing violent, defamatory parody.