And you believe reasonable people would believe that Fox endorsed Franken's book?
Your arguments are EXACTLY what the judge deemed "wholly without merit." No reasonable person would have been confused.
My goodness you are easily confused. I'm surprised that you didn't consider Franken's book from Fox seeing how easily you mix up issues.
Most satire doesn't even require "research" beyond the most basic nature of getting to know your subject. Most satirist of say, Clinton would appropriate a few mannerisms, make some references to womanizing or fast food, etc. They wouldn't be oh Clinton likes cigars scented in a unique manner, hahahahaha, oh and btw he signed welfare reform that denied new benefits to children born to mothers already receiving assistance for more than 3 years... ha...ha?
As I said, I see how Franken, Limbaugh, Maher, straddle two worlds and are good at what they do. I can also see how they sometimes take heat from both sides as well. If you can't then oh well for you.
And I would love for you to show where I said that Franken's book would be mistaken for something from Fox. I would love for you to even find where I said Franken's book wasn't judged satire in the end.
I just said that he lives in two worlds and undoubtedly he understands that. You asked my opinion on the lawsuit and I said Fox was welcome to take a swing. You never know with the judges we have today. A different judge might have judged the book by it's contents, not the cover and made a different conclusion. I don't really care about the outcome because if it was silly it would be tossed, and it was.
Rather I care more about the contention that when people adopt more than one role, you can only hold them to the rules of one role. That is silly and I'm not just saying it from one side, but both. You don't see me around here quoting Rush Limbaugh like he is George Will or Thomas Sowell because he isn't the same in my book. If Limbaugh were to go on CNN or some other network and act as an analyst for a show (I'm not sure but he may have done this a bit in the past) then he should be held to the rules of being a political analyst for the comments made during those times. This should be the same for Maher, etc.
If you want them to only be held to one set of rules, (satire) that is fine. However don't get upset then if the, what could be very valid points are dismissed with the same word, satire. Don't turn around later and come at me with something like "Well Franken says Bush did X,Y,Z, and 1,2,3 in the midst of a political discourse. The guy writes jokes. I wouldn't give him anymore political validity than say, Tom Leykis.
I allow them to work both roles, but I don't get upset if they get heat from them either. You want him confined to one role, and set of rules that is fine. I will gladly dismiss the "research" that is in his books as joke fodder.
Franken, Maher and others really are straddling a line here. They are very entertaining and comedy certainly can drive some points home better than ever a full blown piece from a regular political commentator. However when you straddle a line, you shouldn't be upset if sometimes people hold you accountable for what is true for both sides of that line.
Nick
No,
You should be upset when a media company sues to block publication of an openly critical satire. I neither have an idea nor a care for where you took the conversation, but the point is that Al Franken should not have been sued because satirical takes on trademarks (especially weak ones like Fox's) are generally protected under the first amendment. All indications suggest that Fox did not sue to protect its trademark, but to deride and punish Franken (or to satisfy one of its star commentators). Obviously, the suit had the opposite effect- bolstering Al Franken's sales while making Fox look like what critics have always suggested. But O'Reilly's probably happy--
To suggest the title (which was the legal issue) of Al Franken's book "straddles a line" is to suggest that it was not obviously satirical (your point- perhaps?)-- a point that was literally laughed out of the courtroom as "wholly without merit."
Of course it's really painful to admit that Fox made a mistake...
You should be upset when a media company sues to block publication of an openly critical satire. I neither have an idea nor a care for where you took the conversation, but the point is that Al Franken should not have been sued because satirical takes on trademarks (especially weak ones like Fox's) are generally protected under the first amendment. All indications suggest that Fox did not sue to protect its trademark, but to deride and punish Franken (or to satisfy one of its star commentators). Obviously, the suit had the opposite effect- bolstering Al Franken's sales while making Fox look like what critics have always suggested. But O'Reilly's probably happy--
To suggest the title (which was the legal issue) of Al Franken's book "straddles a line" is to suggest that it was not obviously satirical (your point- perhaps?)-- a point that was literally laughed out of the courtroom as "wholly without merit."
Of course it's really painful to admit that Fox made a mistake...
Fox made a mistake. Their lawsuit is almost totally devoid of merit. It was tossed out of court.
Why would that be painful to say? You make it sound like I have some attachment to Fox when I don't. I said I wouldn't blame them for filing it. I mean you don't mind people filing lawsuits against McDonald's that are frivolous why should you mind Fox?
My point is as it has been all along Franken knows what he does straddles a line. Sometimes it is in good taste. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it is satire, and sometimes it is obviously political commentary disguised as satire.
What I suspect is more painful for you to do, is admit that a trademark case isn't about free speech. Even if Fox had won all the publisher would have done is taken off the words "Fair and Balanced" and still published the book. The comments that it is "censorship" and a "free speech issue are nonsense.
Fox made a mistake. Their lawsuit is almost totally devoid of merit. It was tossed out of court.
Why would that be painful to say? You make it sound like I have some attachment to Fox when I don't. I said I wouldn't blame them for filing it. I mean you don't mind people filing lawsuits against McDonald's that are frivolous why should you mind Fox?
My point is as it has been all along Franken knows what he does straddles a line. Sometimes it is in good taste. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it is satire, and sometimes it is obviously political commentary disguised as satire.
What I suspect is more painful for you to do, is admit that a trademark case isn't about free speech. Even if Fox had won all the publisher would have done is taken off the words "Fair and Balanced" and still published the book. The comments that it is "censorship" and a "free speech issue are nonsense.
Nick
Because that's the first time you said the lawsuit lacked merit. You previously argued that Fox should sue to defend all cases of trademark infringement-- even in cases where it obviously isn't and in cases where other factors such as smearing a critic and satisfying a star matter.
Oh... that's just bullshit that it's not a free-speech issue. If Fox had won, then satire wouldn't have been a form of protected speech. Yes-- it would be painful to admit that. Gladly- I don't have to.
Because that's the first time you said the lawsuit lacked merit. You previously argued that Fox should sue to defend all cases of trademark infringement-- even in cases where it obviously isn't and in cases where other factors such as smearing a critic and satisfying a star matter.
Oh... that's just bullshit that it's not a free-speech issue. If Fox had won, then satire wouldn't have been a form of protected speech. Yes-- it would be painful to admit that. Gladly- I don't have to.
Glad that's over with-- now it's SDW's turn.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem not only with me, but with yourself. I said that the nature of trademarks, since the often involve common words or phrases is that once granted, you must show strong enforcement. CNN stands for cable news network. I assure you that if Ann Coulter produced a book called "A look at the reporting of cable news networks(CNN's)" she would be immediately sued. It is the nature of trademark. They are taking common things and giving them special significance and if they don't defend them, they are allowed their common usage.
As for claim of bullshit on the free speech issue. I challenge you to show where Fox was suing while declaring that satire wasn't a protected form of free speech. Here is what they were suing about and you might even trust the source on this one. It is a guy I call...Shawn and from the very first post.
Quote:
Fox objects to Franken's use of the words "Fair and Balanced" in the title of his book, "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right". Fox is suing for copyright or trademark infringement.
The only person even in the links you posted that said it was a free speech issue was the publisher.
You contended not that the case was right or wrong but that I should be "upset" about the case of which I was not and am not.
Here is what I first posted.
Quote:
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.
It was a trademark case. Companies have to defend their trademarks, even in ridiculous instances. They took their shot and had it tossed. At least now if another news company tries to proclaim they are "fair and balanced" they will have a case history.
If Fox had won, satire would still exist and so would free speech. The only thing that wouldn't have existed were the words "fair and balanced" in the title of Al's book. Take your hysterics and save them for a real cause.
I assure you that if Ann Coulter produced a book called "A look at the reporting of cable news networks(CNN's)" she would be immediately sued. It is the nature of trademark.
How about you just use an example that a) makes some amount of sense and b) uses a trademark in a comparable way to the subtitle of franken's book?
My example makes perfect sense. Ann Coulter's writing borders on satire in my opinion. At a minimum it is a bit over the top. Likewise she appears on shows like Politically Incorrect and Real Time with Bill Maher. CNN and pretty much any large corporation today has lots of very generic words that they own the trademark on when used in a certain contexts. Cable News Network is generic for example. On NBC you have... the Today show, the Tonight Show and Later. CNN has shows called Crossfire and American Morning. All are fairly generic terms.
If someone, like say Ann Coulter, titled a book: Cable News Networks, caught in the Crossfire of lies and a liberal agenda. I have no doubt there would be a trademark lawsuit.
If someone, like say Ann Coulter, titled a book: Cable News Networks, caught in the Crossfire of lies and a liberal agenda. I have no doubt there would be a trademark lawsuit.
Nick
I don't doubt there would be a lawsuit if the book title, as suggested, had a capitalized 'C' on Crossfire.
By doing that you have obviously recognized that Crossfire is being used as a proper noun. A proper noun that denotes a trademarked title of a television show.
Don't forget the little trademark symbol next time you try to be clever, or at least don't capitalize the words that ae obviously pushing the buttons.
I don't doubt there would be a lawsuit if the book title, as suggested, had a capitalized 'C' on Crossfire.
By doing that you have obviously recognized that Crossfire is being used as a proper noun. A proper noun that denotes a trademarked title of a television show.
Don't forget the little trademark symbol next time you try to be clever, or at least don't capitalize the words that ae obviously pushing the buttons.
I wasn't trying to hide the fact that it was CNN's Crossfire. That is the point. Franken's case not only featured the words, it featured them in the same style and typeface as they appear on Fox.
Eitherway I didn't say it would be a good lawsuit even in my own example, however I have no doubt there would be a lawsuit.
One last follow up, I found a few links to trademark lawsuits that are similar to this. One is from Hormel relating to calling filtering junkmail and using Spam in the name. A second is for an adult store that calls itself Victor's Secret. The last one involves... CNN. CNN wrote letters alleging trademark infringement not because of some words, but because of a letter. A parady website set up at CNNDN.com was alleged by CNN to dilute their trademark even though it was obviously parody.
You're saying you take her columns completely seriously?
From her latest column....
Quote:
Liberals simply refuse to consider thoughts that would interfere with their lemming-like groupthink. They hold their hands over their ears like little children who don't want to listen to mother.
More..
Quote:
Clinton's statesmanlike response to Islamic fanatics was to do nothing -? except when he needed to distract from his impeachment and would suddenly start bombing foreign countries at random. In eight years, the only domestic Muslim terrorist Clinton went after was a blind cleric sitting outside a mosque in New Jersey behind a card table with an "Ask Me About Terrorism" sign.
I consider her straddling the line much like Maher which is why he has her on his show. Instead of doing a 50%-50% though she is probably 80%-20% with the 20% being statements like I quoted above.
If someone, like say Ann Coulter, titled a book: Cable News Networks, caught in the Crossfire of lies and a liberal agenda. I have no doubt there would be a trademark lawsuit.
Good job. This one has relevance and coherence.
However, that one (sans capped 'crossfire,' which would not make it on to the presses because it's clumsy and dumb) would probably be OK. Cable news networks is general enough and in the context would be appropriate for a book title on cable news networks.
As much as this may be debatable, this is also a very different situation from the use of a slogan in a subtitle.
You're saying you take her columns completely seriously?
Wow, why do you even care to be so consistently dishonest? Does this board have a dishonesty prize I'm not aware of? Do you get extra posts for sustained obfuscation?
Not taking someone seriously may equal satire, but it can obviously mean other things too. Like Ann Coulter, unlike Al Franken, does a poor job researching and fact-checking her book.
Wow, why do you even care to be so consistently dishonest? Does this board have a dishonesty prize I'm not aware of? Do you get extra posts for sustained obfuscation?
Not taking someone seriously may equal satire, but it can obviously mean other things too. Like Ann Coulter, unlike Al Franken, does a poor job researching and fact-checking her book.
Shawn you are funny. You keep calling people "dishonest" for giving their opinion in matters or for matters in which there is an honest disagreement. Likewise when you can't prove someone wrong, you just resort to shouting liar, liar.
You are just ticked off becuase I proved your wonderful "CNN" is just like Fox. I stated that I had no idealized thoughts about either of them. You go from thread to thread claiming that CNN is only about news. Larry Flynt on Larry King is all about news, not ratings or cash. Yet here they are stopping parody just like... oh every other large corporation I claimed would do the exact same thing.
If anyone here has been a liar it is you. You have claimed certain people or organizations are above the normal operations of business. You have been proven totally dishonest in this regard. People are not going to mistake an email product for Hormel's Spam nor are they going to mistake CNNdn, a parody, for CNN's real financial page.
If I were saying the Earth didn't go around the Sun or some nonsense like that, I could understand your dishonesty claim.
Yet now, (and you do this pretty consistantly) I am "dishonest" because I don't take Ann Coulter seriously all the time. Whatever dude. I hope you get that nearsightedness checked because you are having a little trouble seeing past the end of your nose.
Shawn you are funny. You keep calling people "dishonest" for giving their opinion in matters or for matters in which there is an honest disagreement. Likewise when you can't prove someone wrong, you just resort to shouting liar, liar.
No- just you actually.
And no- just your posts actually.
liar.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Yet now, (and you do this pretty consistantly) I am "dishonest" because I don't take Ann Coulter seriously all the time. Whatever dude. I hope you get that nearsightedness checked because you are having a little trouble seeing past the end of your nose.
Well, I don't really care.
Quote:
What I suspect is more painful for you to do, is admit that a trademark case isn't about free speech. Even if Fox had won all the publisher would have done is taken off the words "Fair and Balanced" and still published the book. The comments that it is "censorship" and a "free speech issue are nonsense.
^This is censorship.
Fox couldn't have won because satire is basically protected- hence the case is a free speech issue (as well as a trademark issue). In fact, it's many issues--
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Wow.
So satires shouldn't be well-researched?
And you believe reasonable people would believe that Fox endorsed Franken's book?
Your arguments are EXACTLY what the judge deemed "wholly without merit." No reasonable person would have been confused.
My goodness you are easily confused. I'm surprised that you didn't consider Franken's book from Fox seeing how easily you mix up issues.
Most satire doesn't even require "research" beyond the most basic nature of getting to know your subject. Most satirist of say, Clinton would appropriate a few mannerisms, make some references to womanizing or fast food, etc. They wouldn't be oh Clinton likes cigars scented in a unique manner, hahahahaha, oh and btw he signed welfare reform that denied new benefits to children born to mothers already receiving assistance for more than 3 years... ha...ha?
As I said, I see how Franken, Limbaugh, Maher, straddle two worlds and are good at what they do. I can also see how they sometimes take heat from both sides as well. If you can't then oh well for you.
And I would love for you to show where I said that Franken's book would be mistaken for something from Fox. I would love for you to even find where I said Franken's book wasn't judged satire in the end.
I just said that he lives in two worlds and undoubtedly he understands that. You asked my opinion on the lawsuit and I said Fox was welcome to take a swing. You never know with the judges we have today. A different judge might have judged the book by it's contents, not the cover and made a different conclusion. I don't really care about the outcome because if it was silly it would be tossed, and it was.
Rather I care more about the contention that when people adopt more than one role, you can only hold them to the rules of one role. That is silly and I'm not just saying it from one side, but both. You don't see me around here quoting Rush Limbaugh like he is George Will or Thomas Sowell because he isn't the same in my book. If Limbaugh were to go on CNN or some other network and act as an analyst for a show (I'm not sure but he may have done this a bit in the past) then he should be held to the rules of being a political analyst for the comments made during those times. This should be the same for Maher, etc.
If you want them to only be held to one set of rules, (satire) that is fine. However don't get upset then if the, what could be very valid points are dismissed with the same word, satire. Don't turn around later and come at me with something like "Well Franken says Bush did X,Y,Z, and 1,2,3 in the midst of a political discourse. The guy writes jokes. I wouldn't give him anymore political validity than say, Tom Leykis.
I allow them to work both roles, but I don't get upset if they get heat from them either. You want him confined to one role, and set of rules that is fine. I will gladly dismiss the "research" that is in his books as joke fodder.
Nick
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Carrots, turnips, swedes and such.
Crap. Does this make me a conservative?
Originally posted by trumptman
Franken, Maher and others really are straddling a line here. They are very entertaining and comedy certainly can drive some points home better than ever a full blown piece from a regular political commentator. However when you straddle a line, you shouldn't be upset if sometimes people hold you accountable for what is true for both sides of that line.
Nick
No,
You should be upset when a media company sues to block publication of an openly critical satire. I neither have an idea nor a care for where you took the conversation, but the point is that Al Franken should not have been sued because satirical takes on trademarks (especially weak ones like Fox's) are generally protected under the first amendment. All indications suggest that Fox did not sue to protect its trademark, but to deride and punish Franken (or to satisfy one of its star commentators). Obviously, the suit had the opposite effect- bolstering Al Franken's sales while making Fox look like what critics have always suggested. But O'Reilly's probably happy--
To suggest the title (which was the legal issue) of Al Franken's book "straddles a line" is to suggest that it was not obviously satirical (your point- perhaps?)-- a point that was literally laughed out of the courtroom as "wholly without merit."
Of course it's really painful to admit that Fox made a mistake...
Originally posted by ShawnJ
No,
You should be upset when a media company sues to block publication of an openly critical satire. I neither have an idea nor a care for where you took the conversation, but the point is that Al Franken should not have been sued because satirical takes on trademarks (especially weak ones like Fox's) are generally protected under the first amendment. All indications suggest that Fox did not sue to protect its trademark, but to deride and punish Franken (or to satisfy one of its star commentators). Obviously, the suit had the opposite effect- bolstering Al Franken's sales while making Fox look like what critics have always suggested. But O'Reilly's probably happy--
To suggest the title (which was the legal issue) of Al Franken's book "straddles a line" is to suggest that it was not obviously satirical (your point- perhaps?)-- a point that was literally laughed out of the courtroom as "wholly without merit."
Of course it's really painful to admit that Fox made a mistake...
Fox made a mistake. Their lawsuit is almost totally devoid of merit. It was tossed out of court.
Why would that be painful to say? You make it sound like I have some attachment to Fox when I don't. I said I wouldn't blame them for filing it. I mean you don't mind people filing lawsuits against McDonald's that are frivolous why should you mind Fox?
My point is as it has been all along Franken knows what he does straddles a line. Sometimes it is in good taste. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it is satire, and sometimes it is obviously political commentary disguised as satire.
What I suspect is more painful for you to do, is admit that a trademark case isn't about free speech. Even if Fox had won all the publisher would have done is taken off the words "Fair and Balanced" and still published the book. The comments that it is "censorship" and a "free speech issue are nonsense.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Fox made a mistake. Their lawsuit is almost totally devoid of merit. It was tossed out of court.
Why would that be painful to say? You make it sound like I have some attachment to Fox when I don't. I said I wouldn't blame them for filing it. I mean you don't mind people filing lawsuits against McDonald's that are frivolous why should you mind Fox?
My point is as it has been all along Franken knows what he does straddles a line. Sometimes it is in good taste. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it is satire, and sometimes it is obviously political commentary disguised as satire.
What I suspect is more painful for you to do, is admit that a trademark case isn't about free speech. Even if Fox had won all the publisher would have done is taken off the words "Fair and Balanced" and still published the book. The comments that it is "censorship" and a "free speech issue are nonsense.
Nick
Because that's the first time you said the lawsuit lacked merit. You previously argued that Fox should sue to defend all cases of trademark infringement-- even in cases where it obviously isn't and in cases where other factors such as smearing a critic and satisfying a star matter.
Oh... that's just bullshit that it's not a free-speech issue. If Fox had won, then satire wouldn't have been a form of protected speech. Yes-- it would be painful to admit that. Gladly- I don't have to.
Glad that's over with-- now it's SDW's turn.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Because that's the first time you said the lawsuit lacked merit. You previously argued that Fox should sue to defend all cases of trademark infringement-- even in cases where it obviously isn't and in cases where other factors such as smearing a critic and satisfying a star matter.
Oh... that's just bullshit that it's not a free-speech issue. If Fox had won, then satire wouldn't have been a form of protected speech. Yes-- it would be painful to admit that. Gladly- I don't have to.
Glad that's over with-- now it's SDW's turn.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem not only with me, but with yourself. I said that the nature of trademarks, since the often involve common words or phrases is that once granted, you must show strong enforcement. CNN stands for cable news network. I assure you that if Ann Coulter produced a book called "A look at the reporting of cable news networks(CNN's)" she would be immediately sued. It is the nature of trademark. They are taking common things and giving them special significance and if they don't defend them, they are allowed their common usage.
As for claim of bullshit on the free speech issue. I challenge you to show where Fox was suing while declaring that satire wasn't a protected form of free speech. Here is what they were suing about and you might even trust the source on this one. It is a guy I call...Shawn and from the very first post.
Fox objects to Franken's use of the words "Fair and Balanced" in the title of his book, "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right". Fox is suing for copyright or trademark infringement.
The only person even in the links you posted that said it was a free speech issue was the publisher.
You contended not that the case was right or wrong but that I should be "upset" about the case of which I was not and am not.
Here is what I first posted.
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.
It was a trademark case. Companies have to defend their trademarks, even in ridiculous instances. They took their shot and had it tossed. At least now if another news company tries to proclaim they are "fair and balanced" they will have a case history.
If Fox had won, satire would still exist and so would free speech. The only thing that wouldn't have existed were the words "fair and balanced" in the title of Al's book. Take your hysterics and save them for a real cause.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I assure you that if Ann Coulter produced a book called "A look at the reporting of cable news networks(CNN's)" she would be immediately sued. It is the nature of trademark.
This makes so little sense it is sickening.
Originally posted by giant
This makes so little sense it is sickening.
Care to explain or do you just get off making comments with no reasoning or rational?
Hope your vomiting at my expense right now.
Nick
How about you just use an example that a) makes some amount of sense and b) uses a trademark in a comparable way to the subtitle of franken's book?
Originally posted by giant
I don't know where to start.
How about you just use an example that a) makes some amount of sense and b) uses a trademark in a comparable way to the subtitle of franken's book?
My example makes perfect sense. Ann Coulter's writing borders on satire in my opinion. At a minimum it is a bit over the top. Likewise she appears on shows like Politically Incorrect and Real Time with Bill Maher. CNN and pretty much any large corporation today has lots of very generic words that they own the trademark on when used in a certain contexts. Cable News Network is generic for example. On NBC you have... the Today show, the Tonight Show and Later. CNN has shows called Crossfire and American Morning. All are fairly generic terms.
If someone, like say Ann Coulter, titled a book: Cable News Networks, caught in the Crossfire of lies and a liberal agenda. I have no doubt there would be a trademark lawsuit.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
If someone, like say Ann Coulter, titled a book: Cable News Networks, caught in the Crossfire of lies and a liberal agenda. I have no doubt there would be a trademark lawsuit.
Nick
I don't doubt there would be a lawsuit if the book title, as suggested, had a capitalized 'C' on Crossfire.
By doing that you have obviously recognized that Crossfire is being used as a proper noun. A proper noun that denotes a trademarked title of a television show.
Don't forget the little trademark symbol next time you try to be clever, or at least don't capitalize the words that ae obviously pushing the buttons.
Originally posted by audiopollution
I don't doubt there would be a lawsuit if the book title, as suggested, had a capitalized 'C' on Crossfire.
By doing that you have obviously recognized that Crossfire is being used as a proper noun. A proper noun that denotes a trademarked title of a television show.
Don't forget the little trademark symbol next time you try to be clever, or at least don't capitalize the words that ae obviously pushing the buttons.
I wasn't trying to hide the fact that it was CNN's Crossfire. That is the point. Franken's case not only featured the words, it featured them in the same style and typeface as they appear on Fox.
Eitherway I didn't say it would be a good lawsuit even in my own example, however I have no doubt there would be a lawsuit.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
My example makes perfect sense. Ann Coulter's writing borders on satire in my opinion. At a minimum it is a bit over the top.
You're kidding, right?
SPAM
Victoria's Secret
CNN not amused
Nick
Originally posted by midwinter
You're kidding, right?
You're saying you take her columns completely seriously?
From her latest column....
Liberals simply refuse to consider thoughts that would interfere with their lemming-like groupthink. They hold their hands over their ears like little children who don't want to listen to mother.
More..
Clinton's statesmanlike response to Islamic fanatics was to do nothing -? except when he needed to distract from his impeachment and would suddenly start bombing foreign countries at random. In eight years, the only domestic Muslim terrorist Clinton went after was a blind cleric sitting outside a mosque in New Jersey behind a card table with an "Ask Me About Terrorism" sign.
I consider her straddling the line much like Maher which is why he has her on his show. Instead of doing a 50%-50% though she is probably 80%-20% with the 20% being statements like I quoted above.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
If someone, like say Ann Coulter, titled a book: Cable News Networks, caught in the Crossfire of lies and a liberal agenda. I have no doubt there would be a trademark lawsuit.
Good job. This one has relevance and coherence.
However, that one (sans capped 'crossfire,' which would not make it on to the presses because it's clumsy and dumb) would probably be OK. Cable news networks is general enough and in the context would be appropriate for a book title on cable news networks.
As much as this may be debatable, this is also a very different situation from the use of a slogan in a subtitle.
Originally posted by trumptman
You're saying you take her columns completely seriously?
Wow, why do you even care to be so consistently dishonest? Does this board have a dishonesty prize I'm not aware of? Do you get extra posts for sustained obfuscation?
Not taking someone seriously may equal satire, but it can obviously mean other things too. Like Ann Coulter, unlike Al Franken, does a poor job researching and fact-checking her book.
Originally posted by bunge
Crap. Does this make me a conservative?
It's all in the walk.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Wow, why do you even care to be so consistently dishonest? Does this board have a dishonesty prize I'm not aware of? Do you get extra posts for sustained obfuscation?
Not taking someone seriously may equal satire, but it can obviously mean other things too. Like Ann Coulter, unlike Al Franken, does a poor job researching and fact-checking her book.
Shawn you are funny. You keep calling people "dishonest" for giving their opinion in matters or for matters in which there is an honest disagreement. Likewise when you can't prove someone wrong, you just resort to shouting liar, liar.
You are just ticked off becuase I proved your wonderful "CNN" is just like Fox. I stated that I had no idealized thoughts about either of them. You go from thread to thread claiming that CNN is only about news. Larry Flynt on Larry King is all about news, not ratings or cash. Yet here they are stopping parody just like... oh every other large corporation I claimed would do the exact same thing.
If anyone here has been a liar it is you. You have claimed certain people or organizations are above the normal operations of business. You have been proven totally dishonest in this regard. People are not going to mistake an email product for Hormel's Spam nor are they going to mistake CNNdn, a parody, for CNN's real financial page.
If I were saying the Earth didn't go around the Sun or some nonsense like that, I could understand your dishonesty claim.
Yet now, (and you do this pretty consistantly) I am "dishonest" because I don't take Ann Coulter seriously all the time. Whatever dude. I hope you get that nearsightedness checked because you are having a little trouble seeing past the end of your nose.
As for Franken, he does plenty of lying on his own.
However I don't really worry about him. I don't take him or his satire seriously. Why would I, they and he are a joke.
I do think I will do some more reading on Franken though, how about I start here?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Shawn you are funny. You keep calling people "dishonest" for giving their opinion in matters or for matters in which there is an honest disagreement. Likewise when you can't prove someone wrong, you just resort to shouting liar, liar.
No- just you actually.
And no- just your posts actually.
liar.
Originally posted by trumptman
Yet now, (and you do this pretty consistantly) I am "dishonest" because I don't take Ann Coulter seriously all the time. Whatever dude. I hope you get that nearsightedness checked because you are having a little trouble seeing past the end of your nose.
Well, I don't really care.
Quote:
What I suspect is more painful for you to do, is admit that a trademark case isn't about free speech. Even if Fox had won all the publisher would have done is taken off the words "Fair and Balanced" and still published the book. The comments that it is "censorship" and a "free speech issue are nonsense.
^This is censorship.
Fox couldn't have won because satire is basically protected- hence the case is a free speech issue (as well as a trademark issue). In fact, it's many issues--