Al Franken got the glad tidings while vacationing in Italy. He had fallen asleep reading "The Tipping Point" and mulling marketing ideas for his forthcoming "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right," when a friend staying in the villa walked into his bedroom and woke him up. "Al!" he said. "You're being sued by Fox!" After a second-and-a-half of considering this, Franken responded: "Good!" Then he fell back asleep.
the amusing thing in the salon article is that fox claims they spent 61 million dollars coming up with "fair and balanced".
Hey, I hate Fox as much as anyone, but to be fair they said they spent 61 million promoting and defending it, not coming up with it. The amount of money you spend promoting a brand always costs a lot if you want the brand well known.
When I work with corporate identities, I always try and tell clients how they use the logo/ID is far more important than how "cool" they think the initial design is.
Personally I've always liked referring to fox as Fairly Unbalanced.
SDW, trumptman, OBJIRA! Come out and slag the judge off! If you were right then you're still right now and American justice is as slanted as the treacherous liberal media!
AMERICA NEEDS YOU! Come out and fight your corner!
Dick... I mean Richard....
I looked through this entire thread and never once saw where I posted anything attempting to defend this lawsuit.
I have repeatedly stated that not only do I not watch Fox News, I don't watch ANY cable news. The information they ALL repeat endlessly I could read in two paragraphs and get on with my day, which happens to be what I do.
But now that you've decided to comment, I have a question or two:
Do you agree with the judge's decision in this case?
Do you think Fox will be able to keep its obviously weak trademark, "Fair and Balanced," given the judge's remarks? (Assuming a case against it is brought forward)
What do you think about a media company that should be fighting for the first amendment but has actually tried to undermine it?
Since you obviously link to Fox News, has the lawsuit changed your opinion of the network in any way?
I?ve taken this on board, Nick; thanks for the advice.
I?m going shopping now. Later I might see a movie (the new Gus vas Sandt film looks good.) I?ve bought a copy of Arena, too, and there are some nice clothes in there. Dries van Nooten looks like a good designer: sort of left field but classy.
But now that you've decided to comment, I have a question or two:Do you agree with the judge's decision in this case? Do you think Fox will be able to keep its obviously weak trademark, "Fair and Balanced," given the judge's remarks? (Assuming a case against it is brought forward) What do you think about a media company that should be fighting for the first amendment but has actually tried to undermine it? Since you obviously link to Fox News, has the lawsuit changed your opinion of the network in any way?
I haven't followed this particular case but based off prior threads I have stated the following.
I'm opposed to most software patents, and look and feel patents.
I'm opposed to pretty much every extention to copyright that congress has ever passed. It prevents items from getting to the public domain, and in the case of companies like Disney, allows them to repeatedly profit from the public domains while giving nothing back.
I'm against pretty much the entire DMCA and any other law that attempts to limit fair use rights.
I can say that I don't blame Fox for suing because the nature of trademarks and copyright law demands that you defend them. In otherwords when determining if your trademark is valid (from what I understand, I'm not gospel on this) they look at your history of enforcement regarding it.
Microsoft has trademarked "Windows" a generic term. Apple (another generic name) sued Microsoft over look and feel and lost. Likewise Apple is about the most lawyer happy company that exists. They sic their lawyers on just about anyone and everyone.
So I guess I would say I wouldn't blame Fox for what they did. (Fox, another generic word as well) Because with the right judge, who knows, and I have witnessed plenty of other companies, especially the one we all know and love, do it as well.
As for fighting for the first amendment I believe it was a look and feel lawsuit that sought changes to the cover wasn't it? Did they seek the change the contents of the book? I don't understand how that is really a threat to the first amendment. That seems a little overblown to me.
I link to FoxNews but I also link to pretty much any source of interest as well. I've linked from the Washington Post, CNN, The Guardian UK, iFeminism, etc. Whoever catches my attention gets the link.
However in typical fashion, I'm going to ask, do you honestly think that if you wish me to believe you honest as a progressive that I should believe Fox is a less evil multinational corporation than say, AOL/TimeWarner? Do you think anything but profit drives one over the other?
CNN, now losing to Fox immediately began adopting Fox's style. I saw you declare on another thread that they are now moving back to their "old style"(something about Fox vs. CNN with personality driven shows but again I am not very familiar with the shows), but it is likely they are just trying a different tact since it didn't increase their ratings. If it had gotten them the ratings though, do you think they would have honestly changed back later? Do you think if O'Reily and his ratings would sign with them that they wouldn't whip out a check right now?
This last page is hilarious. And by "hilarious," I mean pathetic too. Never seen people get so high on themselves over such a frivolous topic. Good that Fox lost, it was a no-brainer. Move along, people, move along.
I?ve taken this on board, Nick; thanks for the advice.
I?m going shopping now. Later I might see a movie (the new Gus vas Sandt film looks good.) I?ve bought a copy of Arena, too, and there are some nice clothes in there. Dries van Nooten looks like a good designer: sort of left field but classy.
Poor Hassan, decries the conservatives but when "getting a life" can show only attempts at spending money, and interacting with inanimate objects.
Poor oppressed boy, no causes or people in his life.
This is the first time they tried to defend it and it was trying to surpress free speech. Plus they waited until they knew the bookwas printed. And to top it off the judge said it was a really weak trademark... almost undefendable.
Names of products and companies are pretty easily defended... Trademarking "fair and balanced" in a news context is like trademarking the words software or computer in the computer industry.
I can say that I don't blame Fox for suing because the nature of trademarks and copyright law demands that you defend them. In otherwords when determining if your trademark is valid (from what I understand, I'm not gospel on this) they look at your history of enforcement regarding it.
Microsoft has trademarked "Windows" a generic term. Apple (another generic name) sued Microsoft over look and feel and lost. Likewise Apple is about the most lawyer happy company that exists. They sic their lawyers on just about anyone and everyone.
So I guess I would say I wouldn't blame Fox for what they did. (Fox, another generic word as well) Because with the right judge, who knows, and I have witnessed plenty of other companies, especially the one we all know and love, do it as well.
As for fighting for the first amendment I believe it was a look and feel lawsuit that sought changes to the cover wasn't it? Did they seek the change the contents of the book? I don't understand how that is really a threat to the first amendment. That seems a little overblown to me.
I link to FoxNews but I also link to pretty much any source of interest as well. I've linked from the Washington Post, CNN, The Guardian UK, iFeminism, etc. Whoever catches my attention gets the link.
However in typical fashion, I'm going to ask, do you honestly think that if you wish me to believe you honest as a progressive that I should believe Fox is a less evil multinational corporation than say, AOL/TimeWarner? Do you think anything but profit drives one over the other?
You don't blame them for suing over what was an obvious satire? Fox wanted an injunction against the book. Fox, a corporation, wanted to stop the book from being sold until Al Franken, a person, agreed to change the title of his book. Hello? Fox pretty much said that Al Franken could not satirize Fox News' slogan, hence the judge's remark about a media company attacking first amendment rights.
(ASIDE: Only profit drives both CNN and Fox? I think that's a fair statement to make. I also think it's a fairly ambiguous statement to make. What does that mean? I guess you can say that profit is the driving motive behind both companies- both of which owned by even larger companies. Although, I think other considerations have some value. In CNN's case, legitimacy, and in Fox's case, ideology. (Although, a case can be made that Fox is concerned with legitimacy in spite of a clear right-wing ideology.) Here's a tidbit for you:
CNN makes more money- despite lagging behind Fox News in the ratings.)
Correct me if I am wrong, but CNN hasn't sued openly critical satirists.
Comments
bu
bu
bubu
bu
bubu
bu
bu
bubu
bu
bu
bubu
bu
bu
bu
bu
bububububu
bubu
bu
bu
bu
bu
bu
bu
bu
bu
bu
bu
bu
bu
bubu
bu
bu
BUUUUUUUUMP!
anyone catch Al on crossfire?
He thanked Fox News for selling alot of books last night on CNN with Paula Zahn.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
BUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMP!!!!!!
I realize I'm a trogladyte, but what the hell does "BUMP!" mean?
Generally it's bad etiquette to bump before the topic gets to the bottom of the first page of topics.
I read the transcript from last nights Crossfire... pretty funny stuff.
he's still spinning the Peabody story.
http://www.oregonlive.com/living/ore...9900752210.xml
Ya think O'Reilly will pay Al's legal fees? He's said in the past that those who make frivilous lawsuits should pay when they're thrown out.
"They Can Dish It Out, But They Can't Take It"
Al Franken got the glad tidings while vacationing in Italy. He had fallen asleep reading "The Tipping Point" and mulling marketing ideas for his forthcoming "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right," when a friend staying in the villa walked into his bedroom and woke him up. "Al!" he said. "You're being sued by Fox!" After a second-and-a-half of considering this, Franken responded: "Good!" Then he fell back asleep.
heh.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
the amusing thing in the salon article is that fox claims they spent 61 million dollars coming up with "fair and balanced".
Yeah, but "Wholly Without Merit" was free.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Yeah, but "Wholly Without Merit" was free.
GET BACK IN THE ATTIC!
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
the amusing thing in the salon article is that fox claims they spent 61 million dollars coming up with "fair and balanced".
Hey, I hate Fox as much as anyone, but to be fair they said they spent 61 million promoting and defending it, not coming up with it. The amount of money you spend promoting a brand always costs a lot if you want the brand well known.
When I work with corporate identities, I always try and tell clients how they use the logo/ID is far more important than how "cool" they think the initial design is.
Personally I've always liked referring to fox as Fairly Unbalanced.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
A great big gloating
BUMP!
SDW, trumptman, OBJIRA! Come out and slag the judge off! If you were right then you're still right now and American justice is as slanted as the treacherous liberal media!
AMERICA NEEDS YOU! Come out and fight your corner!
Dick... I mean Richard....
I looked through this entire thread and never once saw where I posted anything attempting to defend this lawsuit.
I have repeatedly stated that not only do I not watch Fox News, I don't watch ANY cable news. The information they ALL repeat endlessly I could read in two paragraphs and get on with my day, which happens to be what I do.
Now go get a fvcking life.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Now go get a fvcking life.
You could have just pointed out his mistake.
But now that you've decided to comment, I have a question or two:
Originally posted by trumptman
Now go get a fvcking life.
Nick
I?ve taken this on board, Nick; thanks for the advice.
I?m going shopping now. Later I might see a movie (the new Gus vas Sandt film looks good.) I?ve bought a copy of Arena, too, and there are some nice clothes in there. Dries van Nooten looks like a good designer: sort of left field but classy.
Apparently Fox News' suit has been a PR nightmare for them. Now they're getting the skepticism and ridicule they deserve.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Aug27.html
Originally posted by ShawnJ
You could have just pointed out his mistake.
But now that you've decided to comment, I have a question or two:Do you agree with the judge's decision in this case?
Do you think Fox will be able to keep its obviously weak trademark, "Fair and Balanced," given the judge's remarks? (Assuming a case against it is brought forward)
What do you think about a media company that should be fighting for the first amendment but has actually tried to undermine it?
Since you obviously link to Fox News, has the lawsuit changed your opinion of the network in any way?
I haven't followed this particular case but based off prior threads I have stated the following.
I'm opposed to most software patents, and look and feel patents.
I'm opposed to pretty much every extention to copyright that congress has ever passed. It prevents items from getting to the public domain, and in the case of companies like Disney, allows them to repeatedly profit from the public domains while giving nothing back.
I'm against pretty much the entire DMCA and any other law that attempts to limit fair use rights.
I can say that I don't blame Fox for suing because the nature of trademarks and copyright law demands that you defend them. In otherwords when determining if your trademark is valid (from what I understand, I'm not gospel on this) they look at your history of enforcement regarding it.
Microsoft has trademarked "Windows" a generic term. Apple (another generic name) sued Microsoft over look and feel and lost. Likewise Apple is about the most lawyer happy company that exists. They sic their lawyers on just about anyone and everyone.
So I guess I would say I wouldn't blame Fox for what they did. (Fox, another generic word as well) Because with the right judge, who knows, and I have witnessed plenty of other companies, especially the one we all know and love, do it as well.
As for fighting for the first amendment I believe it was a look and feel lawsuit that sought changes to the cover wasn't it? Did they seek the change the contents of the book? I don't understand how that is really a threat to the first amendment. That seems a little overblown to me.
I link to FoxNews but I also link to pretty much any source of interest as well. I've linked from the Washington Post, CNN, The Guardian UK, iFeminism, etc. Whoever catches my attention gets the link.
However in typical fashion, I'm going to ask, do you honestly think that if you wish me to believe you honest as a progressive that I should believe Fox is a less evil multinational corporation than say, AOL/TimeWarner? Do you think anything but profit drives one over the other?
CNN, now losing to Fox immediately began adopting Fox's style. I saw you declare on another thread that they are now moving back to their "old style"(something about Fox vs. CNN with personality driven shows but again I am not very familiar with the shows), but it is likely they are just trying a different tact since it didn't increase their ratings. If it had gotten them the ratings though, do you think they would have honestly changed back later? Do you think if O'Reily and his ratings would sign with them that they wouldn't whip out a check right now?
Nick
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I?ve taken this on board, Nick; thanks for the advice.
I?m going shopping now. Later I might see a movie (the new Gus vas Sandt film looks good.) I?ve bought a copy of Arena, too, and there are some nice clothes in there. Dries van Nooten looks like a good designer: sort of left field but classy.
Poor Hassan, decries the conservatives but when "getting a life" can show only attempts at spending money, and interacting with inanimate objects.
Poor oppressed boy, no causes or people in his life.
Nick
Names of products and companies are pretty easily defended... Trademarking "fair and balanced" in a news context is like trademarking the words software or computer in the computer industry.
Hey Buono... don't like the topic? Move along...
Originally posted by trumptman
I can say that I don't blame Fox for suing because the nature of trademarks and copyright law demands that you defend them. In otherwords when determining if your trademark is valid (from what I understand, I'm not gospel on this) they look at your history of enforcement regarding it.
Microsoft has trademarked "Windows" a generic term. Apple (another generic name) sued Microsoft over look and feel and lost. Likewise Apple is about the most lawyer happy company that exists. They sic their lawyers on just about anyone and everyone.
So I guess I would say I wouldn't blame Fox for what they did. (Fox, another generic word as well) Because with the right judge, who knows, and I have witnessed plenty of other companies, especially the one we all know and love, do it as well.
As for fighting for the first amendment I believe it was a look and feel lawsuit that sought changes to the cover wasn't it? Did they seek the change the contents of the book? I don't understand how that is really a threat to the first amendment. That seems a little overblown to me.
I link to FoxNews but I also link to pretty much any source of interest as well. I've linked from the Washington Post, CNN, The Guardian UK, iFeminism, etc. Whoever catches my attention gets the link.
However in typical fashion, I'm going to ask, do you honestly think that if you wish me to believe you honest as a progressive that I should believe Fox is a less evil multinational corporation than say, AOL/TimeWarner? Do you think anything but profit drives one over the other?
You don't blame them for suing over what was an obvious satire? Fox wanted an injunction against the book. Fox, a corporation, wanted to stop the book from being sold until Al Franken, a person, agreed to change the title of his book. Hello? Fox pretty much said that Al Franken could not satirize Fox News' slogan, hence the judge's remark about a media company attacking first amendment rights.
(ASIDE: Only profit drives both CNN and Fox? I think that's a fair statement to make. I also think it's a fairly ambiguous statement to make. What does that mean? I guess you can say that profit is the driving motive behind both companies- both of which owned by even larger companies. Although, I think other considerations have some value. In CNN's case, legitimacy, and in Fox's case, ideology. (Although, a case can be made that Fox is concerned with legitimacy in spite of a clear right-wing ideology.) Here's a tidbit for you:
CNN makes more money- despite lagging behind Fox News in the ratings.)
Correct me if I am wrong, but CNN hasn't sued openly critical satirists.