s/AVoiceForMen/some feminist site/Notung wrote:Having just defended MRAs (sort of):
Er... is that a good idea?justinvacula wrote:...I am working on a guest post for AVoiceForMen...
Would you say the same thing?
s/AVoiceForMen/some feminist site/Notung wrote:Having just defended MRAs (sort of):
Er... is that a good idea?justinvacula wrote:...I am working on a guest post for AVoiceForMen...
This reminds me of Elevatorgate. I went over to baboonland to see what the fuss was all about and some of the "MRA" comments had me going:Notung wrote:Yes, I think she's mainly on 'our side' but disagrees with a lot of the stuff that is also on 'our side'. That could apply to other people too - for instance Russell Blackford doesn't like a certain 'c' word and D4M10N agrees with RW on elevatorgate...
I think I'm a similar case. Sometimes I see things on Twitter from 'our side' that make me shake my head.
In answer to the first question, yes. That's exactly it. I recently saw Blackford make a post about that Aan fellow - the atheist jailed in Indonesia. Apparently they couldn't get the 25,000 signatures needed to get the white house to (maybe) try to do something about him. I commented there and wondered if the harassment/MRA/t-shirt/DMCA etc bit distracted people. Going by what I remember in my RSS feed, I saw way more posts on the latter than the former. I also wonder (now) if someone will try the same thing with them, and how well will it be promoted?Za-zen wrote:Marcotte is a fuckwit.
What has the pussy riot case got to do with feminism? What because they have tits? The pussy riot case is all about the right to protest, offend! and free speech, something benson marcotte and the rest of the fftb fuckwits oppose.
Amazing. According to the attachment, Ophelia Benson apparently said this:CommanderTuvok wrote:Have any of you guys seens this insanity on Twitter. It ends with Opheliar saying linking the term "virulent" with "feminism" (even a certain type of feminism as specified) is "misogynist.
....
I guess she must think that since all women sit at the right hand side of God Herself, the only crime they can possibly be guilty of, as individuals or as groups, is an excess of niceness and spiceness.Ophelia Benson wrote:Connecting the word “feminism†with the word “virulent†... is misogyny.
And whether or not that might not qualify as an example of “virulent feminismâ€, if at the extreme end .....Solanas wrote:â€Life" in this "society" being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of "society" being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex.
—Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto
Misogynists are the new "red scare" and "satanic panic". I think I had a few misogynists in my neighborhood, but I ratted them out to the Sisterhood, and they burned their homes and families alive. I got a cookie. I did good, right? :liar:AndrewV69 wrote:This reminds me of Elevatorgate. I went over to baboonland to see what the fuss was all about and some of the "MRA" comments had me going:Notung wrote:Yes, I think she's mainly on 'our side' but disagrees with a lot of the stuff that is also on 'our side'. That could apply to other people too - for instance Russell Blackford doesn't like a certain 'c' word and D4M10N agrees with RW on elevatorgate...
I think I'm a similar case. Sometimes I see things on Twitter from 'our side' that make me shake my head.
WTF? Where did these people come from? Since then I have done some research and my current working hypothesis is that they are not really "MRAs" but mainly victims of institutionalized misandry in schools and institutions.
Something I was not aware of previously.
Apparently, what the radfems and their ilk have apparently indirectly created, is steady stream of misogynists over the last two generations with no sign that it is going to stop any time soon.
That is going to have some serious repercussions over the coming years. If the FfTBullies think that misogynists are everywhere now, just wait. Because if my understanding of the demographic situation is correct, 40 years from now they are going to be living in a nightmare.
I'd suspect that she would either say that "she wasn't a feminist", "she was/is crazy", or something like that. I'd be extremely surprised to see her disavow such things in any meaningful way. Maybe she'd call them "gender traitors who are only doing it to get laid with the menz" (gotta be some real parallel logic in that derail of a train of thought). :lol:Steersman wrote:Amazing. According to the attachment, Ophelia Benson apparently said this:CommanderTuvok wrote:Have any of you guys seens this insanity on Twitter. It ends with Opheliar saying linking the term "virulent" with "feminism" (even a certain type of feminism as specified) is "misogynist.
....
I guess she must think that since all women sit at the right hand side of God Herself, the only crime they can possibly be guilty of, as individuals or as groups, is an excess of niceness and spiceness.Ophelia Benson wrote:Connecting the word “feminism†with the word “virulent†... is misogyny.
But as I don’t have a Twitter account and have been banned at Ophelia’s Place, someone might want to ask her where Valerie Solanas fits in her understanding of the apparently monolithic and homogenous entity known as feminism:
And whether or not that might not qualify as an example of “virulent feminismâ€, if at the extreme end .....Solanas wrote:â€Life" in this "society" being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of "society" being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex.
—Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto
Of course. Just like connecting the word "Yes" with "but".Ophelia Benson wrote:Connecting the word “feminism†with the word “virulent†... is misogyny.
You mean would I say the same thing if it was a guest post on a feminist site? No, I wouldn't. It wouldn't be a risk for his reputation, and couldn't be used against him. IMO.Dilurk wrote:s/AVoiceForMen/some feminist site/
Would you say the same thing?
Hilarious! Of course she'll cling stubbornly to her beliefs about fair use, like a religious person clinging to superstitions.Tigzy wrote:Heehee - Stefunny is now finding that the Vacula-Amy-DMCA thing isn't as clear-cut as she thought (this comment, and those below): http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-109738
Virology is a kind of science. Science is misogyny (according to Pamela Gay). So viruses are misogynistic.Notung wrote:Of course. Just like connecting the word "Yes" with "but".Ophelia Benson wrote:Connecting the word “feminism†with the word “virulent†... is misogyny.
I was doing some reading on the divorce statistics and it seems like there are about 2 million marriages per year in the US and a divorce rate of about 40% so I estimate something close to 1 million men and 1 million women who join that cohort every year. And if the tales over at A Voice for Men are any indication, and even discounting the “sour grapes†brigade, I would say there are a significant number of men who, with varying degrees of justification, are seriously bent out of shape over being shafted by a feminist bias in the divorce courts. Not likely to bode well for the goals of feminism. And, more problematically, for those of humanism ....AndrewV69 wrote:...Notung wrote:Yes, I think she's mainly on 'our side' but disagrees with a lot of the stuff that is also on 'our side'. That could apply to other people too - for instance Russell Blackford doesn't like a certain 'c' word and D4M10N agrees with RW on elevatorgate...
I think I'm a similar case. Sometimes I see things on Twitter from 'our side' that make me shake my head.
Apparently, what the radfems and their ilk have apparently indirectly created, is steady stream of misogynists over the last two generations with no sign that it is going to stop any time soon. ...
As someone married to a photographer, and as a blogger who occasionally uses images in her work...
Then you have this one from (guess who - no fair peeking!)BarnOwl wrote:Hilarious! Of course she'll cling stubbornly to her beliefs about fair use, like a religious person clinging to superstitions.Tigzy wrote:Heehee - Stefunny is now finding that the Vacula-Amy-DMCA thing isn't as clear-cut as she thought (this comment, and those below): http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-109738
Honestly, the amount of internet righteous indignation that's been expended on self-involved Surly Amy and her perpetual butthurt is enough to choke the ghosts of all the aurochs that ever walked this planet.
You know how the FTBers are always whingeing about how much good could be accomplished with the time and effort spent criticizing them? Yeah, don't get me started.
Yep, Surly had no choice but to issue a DMCA complaint. She really didn't want to do it, but the intellectual property regime (how do we join, I hear they have great coffee and danish socials) forced her to.Jason Thibeault says:
August 17, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Giliell@10: I think she might not actually have a choice in the matter — she has copyrighted works that she needs to defend under the States’ current (and odious!) intellectual property regime. I think if she filed the DMCA over misuse of her copyrighted works without permission, and they claim that their burning indignation alone grants them fair use, then she HAS to fight. Like, no choice in the matter.
The Simpsons, S22E22, 'The Ned-Liest Catch':Steersman wrote:I was doing some reading on the divorce statistics and it seems like there are about 2 million marriages per year in the US and a divorce rate of about 40% so I estimate something close to 1 million men and 1 million women who join that cohort every year. And if the tales over at A Voice for Men are any indication, and even discounting the “sour grapes†brigade, I would say there are a significant number of men who, with varying degrees of justification, are seriously bent out of shape over being shafted by a feminist bias in the divorce courts. Not likely to bode well for the goals of feminism. And, more problematically, for those of humanism ....
Bart: If theres anything fairy tales have taught us is that first wives are perfect and second wives are horrible.
Homer: The exact opposite of real life.
:lol:cunt wrote:Stephanie Zvan is here to lecture on the finer points of the american legal system. I know what you're thinking "who the fuck is Stephanie Zvan" As it turns out she is a freethoughtblogger who knows much about laws and shit. How? Well...
As someone married to a photographer, and as a blogger who occasionally uses images in her work...
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.htmlUnder the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.
I reminded of last Saturday's cartoon in the Guardian Weekend magazine by the excellent Stephen Collins:http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Gua ... -D-002.jpgTigzy wrote::lol:cunt wrote:Stephanie Zvan is here to lecture on the finer points of the american legal system. I know what you're thinking "who the fuck is Stephanie Zvan" As it turns out she is a freethoughtblogger who knows much about laws and shit. How? Well...
As someone married to a photographer, and as a blogger who occasionally uses images in her work...
InstantExpert (tm) - a wholly pwned subsidiary of the Dunning-Kruger (c) company.
Which is, of course, sufficient reason to discount anything that might come after that, to put one’s head in the sand on the off chance that it might actually oblige one to give some consideration to the argument presented.Notung wrote:Of course. Just like connecting the word "Yes" with "but".Ophelia Benson wrote:Connecting the word “feminism†with the word “virulent†... is misogyny.
British citizens are covered by the European Convention on Human Rights which states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. But don't take my word for it, Becky. Please, honestly - don't!Andrew Holding Andrew Holding â€@AndrewHolding
@rebeccawatson @Hayleystevens Well just remember anyone who’s British openly doesn’t have freedom of speech, despite what many think/claim.
Quite possibly the source for the aphorism that while love is blind, marriage can be a real eye-opener .... :-)ERV wrote:The Simpsons, S22E22, 'The Ned-Liest Catch':Steersman wrote:I was doing some reading on the divorce statistics and it seems like there are about 2 million marriages per year in the US and a divorce rate of about 40% so I estimate something close to 1 million men and 1 million women who join that cohort every year. And if the tales over at A Voice for Men are any indication, and even discounting the “sour grapes†brigade, I would say there are a significant number of men who, with varying degrees of justification, are seriously bent out of shape over being shafted by a feminist bias in the divorce courts. Not likely to bode well for the goals of feminism. And, more problematically, for those of humanism ....Bart: If theres anything fairy tales have taught us is that first wives are perfect and second wives are horrible.
Homer: The exact opposite of real life.
To be fair, there are a few things we are not allowed to express in Europe, such as hate speech. Godwining this comment, in Germany it is verboten to show nazi insignas (which is a good thing, all considered). In France, certain talks about former colonies are also very verboten. Etc...Tigzy wrote:I do hope Becky-Boos takes this to heart, and makes an ass of herself should she ever repeat it (as per her Galileo mishap): https://twitter.com/AndrewHolding/statu ... 8853013504
British citizens are covered by the European Convention on Human Rights which states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. But don't take my word for it, Becky. Please, honestly - don't!Andrew Holding Andrew Holding â€@AndrewHolding
@rebeccawatson @Hayleystevens Well just remember anyone who’s British openly doesn’t have freedom of speech, despite what many think/claim.
I got a loser and a bitch for you right here.sacha wrote:DownThunder/DT: "It is the worship of the feminine, present anywhere, anywhen, any culture. It is a warped hyper-philogyny, a belief where feminine is beyond reproach, fallibility, accountability, or even facts or reasoning and explanation - a flawed position."
"There is also the question as to why sycophants latch onto certain kinds of women, those who display helplessness, distress, a never ending list of demands for appeasement, general mental immaturity.
The question is why do men put up with it? The type of men I'm attracted to, are those that would never.
I don't understand the draw, it has to be more than pussy, these are women that the men marry. Then they really have to put up with it, and they are not even getting laid. I am always amazed at just how many men resign themselves to a life with a demanding bitch, who constantly emasculate them. It is the majority of relationship dynamics. I have no patience for either of them.
Why can't you go on Twitter and get the information you want? If you are blocked, log out, and go to Google, type in Sally Strange Twitter and get access to her account. What is so difficult?Steersman wrote:
Pretty hard to “get the flow of events†when one doesn’t have access to her “twitter feed†and how the time-stamps therein relate to the posts on Thunderfoot’s blog. You, perchance, have that to back up your argument?
And I note that you never did provide me a timestamp for the Twitter post in the Pharwrongula page when I asked for it sometime back ...
In the UK, there are provisions against hate speech, which fall under the umbrella of public order offences. On the face of it, it initially seems quite restrictive (from the cesspit):Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: To be fair, there are a few things we are not allowed to express in Europe, such as hate speech. Godwining this comment, in Germany it is verboten to show nazi insignas (which is a good thing, all considered). In France, certain talks about former colonies are also very verboten. Etc...
However, there is an amendment to this:(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
So what might be classified as hate speech does not necessarily involve honest criticisms; hence freedom of speech is protected - though as these statutes suggest, it will often be a court which has to decide if an expression is actually hate speech or an honest criticism.Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
Doesn’t seem difficult at all (thanks) – now that you have explained that that is a possibility. But I simply did not know that that was the case. You, and franc and many others here, seem not to realize that what seems a piece of cake to you is anything but that to other people who aren’t familiar with the arcana that might be second nature to you.sacha wrote:Why can't you go on Twitter and get the information you want? If you are blocked, log out, and go to Google, type in Sally Strange Twitter and get access to her account. What is so difficult?Steersman wrote:
Pretty hard to “get the flow of events†when one doesn’t have access to her “twitter feed†and how the time-stamps therein relate to the posts on Thunderfoot’s blog. You, perchance, have that to back up your argument?
And I note that you never did provide me a timestamp for the Twitter post in the Pharwrongula page when I asked for it sometime back ...
Well, yeah, I would cut Steersman some slack here. Not all of us are internet savvy. That Aesop line was a bit off, though.Steersman wrote:Doesn’t seem difficult at all (thanks) – now that you have explained that that is a possibility. But I simply did not know that that was the case. You, and franc and many others here, seem not to realize that what seems a piece of cake to you is anything but that to other people who aren’t familiar with the arcana that might be second nature to you.sacha wrote:Why can't you go on Twitter and get the information you want? If you are blocked, log out, and go to Google, type in Sally Strange Twitter and get access to her account. What is so difficult?Steersman wrote:
Pretty hard to “get the flow of events†when one doesn’t have access to her “twitter feed†and how the time-stamps therein relate to the posts on Thunderfoot’s blog. You, perchance, have that to back up your argument?
And I note that you never did provide me a timestamp for the Twitter post in the Pharwrongula page when I asked for it sometime back ...
You might want to take a look at the Aesop fable about the fox and the stork – in spite of being an illustration of “privilegeâ€, it is not less cogent ....
We don't have free speech here. Not like you do in the US anyway. For example, not long ago, a guy got arrested for being racist on Twitter. He got 56 days in prison. We're restricted by hate speech laws.Tigzy wrote:I do hope Becky-Boos takes this to heart, and makes an ass of herself should she ever repeat it (as per her Galileo mishap): https://twitter.com/AndrewHolding/statu ... 8853013504
British citizens are covered by the European Convention on Human Rights which states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. But don't take my word for it, Becky. Please, honestly - don't!Andrew Holding Andrew Holding â€@AndrewHolding
@rebeccawatson @Hayleystevens Well just remember anyone who’s British openly doesn’t have freedom of speech, despite what many think/claim.
The "Aesop line" - could use some work? The right ball-park? I thought it might have been a little wide of the mark, but I figured that if people squinted a little, then maybe of some relevance, at least in a generalizing sense ....Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Well, yeah, I would cut Steersman some slack here. Not all of us are internet savvy. That Aesop line was a bit off, though.Steersman wrote:Doesn’t seem difficult at all (thanks) – now that you have explained that that is a possibility. But I simply did not know that that was the case. You, and franc and many others here, seem not to realize that what seems a piece of cake to you is anything but that to other people who aren’t familiar with the arcana that might be second nature to you.sacha wrote:Why can't you go on Twitter and get the information you want? If you are blocked, log out, and go to Google, type in Sally Strange Twitter and get access to her account. What is so difficult?Steersman wrote:
Pretty hard to “get the flow of events†when one doesn’t have access to her “twitter feed†and how the time-stamps therein relate to the posts on Thunderfoot’s blog. You, perchance, have that to back up your argument?
And I note that you never did provide me a timestamp for the Twitter post in the Pharwrongula page when I asked for it sometime back ...
You might want to take a look at the Aesop fable about the fox and the stork – in spite of being an illustration of “privilegeâ€, it is not less cogent ....
So? There are restrictions to freedom of speech in the US, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... exceptionsNotung wrote:We don't have free speech here. Not like you do in the US anyway. For example, not long ago, a guy got arrested for being racist on Twitter. He got 56 days in prison. We're restricted by hate speech laws.Tigzy wrote:I do hope Becky-Boos takes this to heart, and makes an ass of herself should she ever repeat it (as per her Galileo mishap): https://twitter.com/AndrewHolding/statu ... 8853013504
British citizens are covered by the European Convention on Human Rights which states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. But don't take my word for it, Becky. Please, honestly - don't!Andrew Holding Andrew Holding â€@AndrewHolding
@rebeccawatson @Hayleystevens Well just remember anyone who’s British openly doesn’t have freedom of speech, despite what many think/claim.
A-fucking-men to that - about the Christians, particularly fundamentalists ... programmed minds addled by nonsense. Reminds me of this bit of zoology:Za-zen wrote:Holy fuck, i just finished watching the whole vid, and i'm revising ehat i think of it.
Rogan fucking ate him alive, i mean while, and then soat out his clothes. Jamie was empty, and it's a great demonstration of a feminist empty head who has nothing but their dogma.
My favourite bit was after rogan demolished his arguments, with jamie acknowledging his points, jamie said "yeah well we disagree" and rogan tore into him, what the fuck do you disagree about, you just spent the whole fucking time agreeing with me.
It's infuriating dealing with these woo heads, in the same way you soend ages knocking a fucking xtians nonsense out of the ball park, only to find out that the is nothing you could habe done to show them what they believe is bullshit, because they want to believe and so they are convinced of the truth of their belief
Ahhhhh fuckwits!
But you might be interested in this article by Massimo Pigliucci on The limits of reasonable discourse. There’s a nice graphic showing a “fitness landscape†with several peaks in it such that a narrow-focus search for them could wind up with several different sub-optimal “solutions†depending on slight differences in starting points. His argument:Even apparently sophisticated and intelligent sequences of behaviour can turn out, on closer investigation, to be surprisingly rigid. There is the well-known example of the Sphex wasp who leaves a paralyzed cricket in a burrow with her eggs so that her offspring will have something to feed on when they hatch. When she captures a cricket, she drags it to the entrance of the burrow, then leaves it outside for a moment when she enters, seemingly to check for intruders. However, if an interfering experimenter moves the cricket back a few inches while the wasp is inside, she repeats the sequence: dragging the insect to the burrow’s entrance, then entering once more alone. And this sequence can be made to “loop†indefinitely many times over. [The Architecture of the Mind; Peter Carruthers; web review]
I think, as he suggests, we all start from quite reasonable premises and hypotheses and argue, quite “reasonably†and “logicallyâ€, to different “peaksâ€, different “truthsâ€, and fail to realize that most people have done the same: we have seen the enemy and he is us. Or, maybe, east is east and west is west ....Massimo Pigliucci wrote:Consider the hypothetical landscape in the figure accompanying this post. That particular graph is meant to illustrate the idea of multiple adaptive peaks in genotypic space, with natural selection pushing a population of organisms up the closest available peak (high fitness) and away from any valley (low fitness). Similar situations occur in computer science, mathematics, economics, and — I maintain — in rational discourse more generally.
Think of every peak as a particular, viable solution to whatever the problem happens to be (survival in a given environment, efficiency of a computational algorithm, or the search for a good political or ethical system). In the graphic example above, there are three peaks: one is taller, the other two are of about equal height. The taller peak represents the optimal solution across the landscape, while the other two stand for suboptimal but viable solutions. If we were talking about politics or ethics, this would correspond to saying that one political or ethical system is in fact “best†(under whatever criteria one is using) and therefore rational, while two more are also rational, but not quite as good. So reasonable people could make an argument for one or the other, or the third, of the proposed solutions, particularly when practical considerations may exclude, or make less likely, the implementation of the optimal solution represented by the highest peak.
Learn something new everyday:Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I just don't know how this "Aesop" (like that's a real name) who stole all of La Fontaine's work come into play!
Can you see it's past 2 am yet?
:D
“Learn like you were going to live forever; live like you were going to die tomorrowâ€The Fables of Jean de La Fontaine were issued in several volumes from 1668 to 1694. They are classics of French literature.
Skeeve wrote:Fair Use: Hold that DMCA, missy!
Namco Bandai are watching it now, that's for sure! *looks all innocent*Pac-Man is a very recognizable icon. I'm sure Namco watches for any unauthorized use of its characters very closely. Using the above information, would anyone care to opine as to the legality of using these figures in a commercial venture without acquiring a license?
Yeah, but nowhere near as many. A good illustration of this was with the Koran-burning incident. In the US they just asked him not to do it. In the UK (with nowhere near as much publicity) 6 people got arrested for it.Tigzy wrote:So? There are restrictions to freedom of speech in the US, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... exceptions
Trigger warning next time, please, cunt!Skeeve wrote:Fair Use: Hold that DMCA, missy!
Triggers are for pussies. :lol:Lsuoma wrote:Trigger warning next time, please, cunt!Skeeve wrote:Fair Use: Hold that DMCA, missy!
Also, you'll note on where Amy sells her Pac Man necklace -http://www.etsy.com/listing/99261745/i- ... eramic-pac - she has this:Tigzy wrote:Skeeve wrote:Fair Use: Hold that DMCA, missy!Namco Bandai are watching it now, that's for sure! *looks all innocent*Pac-Man is a very recognizable icon. I'm sure Namco watches for any unauthorized use of its characters very closely. Using the above information, would anyone care to opine as to the legality of using these figures in a commercial venture without acquiring a license?
And they're not the only ones taking an interest in Amy's work, either. Erm...so I've been told. *halo doesn't slip one bit*
So according to her, the ghost designs from Pac Man are Amy's copyright.All jewelry designs and images shown are © Surly-Ramics™.
I know, rite?? I posted something along these lines on Facebook--Tigzy wrote:Skeeve wrote:Fair Use: Hold that DMCA, missy!Namco Bandai are watching it now, that's for sure! *looks all innocent*Pac-Man is a very recognizable icon. I'm sure Namco watches for any unauthorized use of its characters very closely. Using the above information, would anyone care to opine as to the legality of using these figures in a commercial venture without acquiring a license?
And they're not the only ones taking an interest in Amy's work, either. Erm...so I've been told. *halo doesn't slip one bit*
I'd never come across Kilstein before, but after watching that I can't believe he's a comedian at all. He has no charisma, and no presence at all. Rogan just walked all over him. Aren't comedians supposed to have witty retorts and be able to hold their own in an argument? I'd hate to see this guy go against a heckler...Za-zen wrote:My favourite bit was after rogan demolished his arguments, with jamie acknowledging his points, jamie said "yeah well we disagree" and rogan tore into him, what the fuck do you disagree about, you just spent the whole fucking time agreeing with me.
Namco Terms of UseTigzy wrote:Skeeve wrote:Fair Use: Hold that DMCA, missy!Namco Bandai are watching it now, that's for sure! *looks all innocent*Pac-Man is a very recognizable icon. I'm sure Namco watches for any unauthorized use of its characters very closely. Using the above information, would anyone care to opine as to the legality of using these figures in a commercial venture without acquiring a license?
And they're not the only ones taking an interest in Amy's work, either. Erm...so I've been told. *halo doesn't slip one bit*
Copyright and Trademark Notices.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Terms of Use and all Content provided by Company are copyright © 2008 Namco Networks America, Inc. All rights reserved.
Alpine Racer®Brain Exercise™, Dig Dug®, Galaga®,Galaxian®, Galaxian Mini®, MAPPY®, Mouse Puzzle®, Mr. Driller®, MS. PAC-MAN®, NEW RALLY-X®, PAC-MAN® Arcade Golf, PAC-MAN®, PAC-MAN Casino™, PAC-MAN Casino™ Slots, PAC-MAN Pinball™, PAC-MAN PLUS™, PAC-MAN Puzzle®, PAC-MAN®, MS. PAC-MAN®, PAC-MANIA®, PAC-MAN's Arcade Corner™, Game That Tone!™, PAC-Match! ®, POLE POSITION II™, POLE POSITION™: REMIX, Pool Pro Online™
Pool Pro Online II™, POPEYE®, RIDGE RACER®, Rolling with Katamari™, SubMerged™, SUPER PAC-MAN, TAIKO: Drum Master™, Tekken® 2, TIME CRISIS MOBILE™, Xevious® mini and Xevious® are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Company. The names of actual companies and products mentioned at the Sites may be the trademarks of their respective owners.
That list wins the argument. She's making money off the intellectual property of others. All Justin did is use an image of one of her products in a blog post (in part) about her products.ERV wrote:There is the American Atheists A and RDFs Scarlett A, which Im sure she does have permission to use.
But then there is the IPU and Flying Spaghetti Monster logos (she copied them, she didnt imagine them).
And Darwins Tree of Life (again, copied).
And images/phrases from Namco, EA, and LucasFilm (totally copied).
If EA went after her for 'The Cake is a Lie', say a year ago, I would totally have had her back. But now? Fuck it. Shes a dumbass.
I predict the following phrase will be uttered for the first time in human history:bhoytony wrote:Just been reading that post on Shitty Canuck about Scurvy Amy. I loved this by some idiot on there:
"My wife and I are committed to doing the majority of our Xmas shopping from the Surlyramics store."
Oh, I'd love to be sat round the table during that christmas dinner. Can you imagine everyone's face as they unwrap their blobs of clay. You'd need an Oscar winning performance to look convincingly pleased with those gifts. I bet the kids will be over the moon.
Huh?Dilurk is close....
....very close....