Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

CNN Doesn't Like Being Spoofed 70

Posted by timothy from the littered-with-what-now dept.
scrm writes "After being online for only a week, the Fake CNN News Generator, a spoof of the CNN.com website, has been shut down after CNN sent them a threatening legal letter alleging copyright and trademark infringement. (Although the real reason is more likely to be because people were actually believing that the fake stories were true.)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CNN Doesn't Like Being Spoofed More

CNN Doesn't Like Being Spoofed

Comments Filter:

  • Shouldn't the headline be: (Score:3, Funny)

    by leviramsey ( 248057 ) on Monday February 03, 2003 @03:29PM (#5216916) Journal

    "CNN Doesn't Like Being Spo0fed", considering the domain name of the site in question?

    • Re:Shouldn't the headline be: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Damn a logged-in user got fp and 7 minutes after the story was posted.

      Us ACs need to get on the ball!

    • Slapp suits suck. Parody is free speech, but it could cost millions to fight this frivolous suit until the courts to rule against CNN. I guess the news agency that annonced that the Space Shuttle was traveling nearly 18 times the speed of light [shafted.com.au] is a parody of itself already, And doesn't want any competition.

      • CNN is a joke... there's more substance at Fox News (and whenever Rupert Murdoch's property is the "substance" property in a market, that's a fucking bad sign!). Hell, MSNBC has more substance than CNN.

        • don't mistake opinions voiced on-air as substance. raw, un-opinionated news always has the most substance because you're forced to think of the real meaning yourself. fox news especially suffers from the "here, let us do your thinking for you" syndrome.

          • It's true that Fox tends to have more talking-heads with their opinions. But Fox also tends to have a higher density of actual facts in their coverage. Also, since their biases tend to be so absurd (when they're present), it's pretty easy to filter the noise from the signal...

  • Pop-ups galore... (Score:5, Informative)

    by retards ( 320893 ) on Monday February 03, 2003 @03:29PM (#5216923) Journal
    .. if you go there. Better have a browser with brains or enjoy "Hot Adult Entertainment" ads.

    How irritating.

  • The Olsen twins are not attending my local University?

  • Pop ups. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wzm ( 644503 ) on Monday February 03, 2003 @03:31PM (#5216934) Homepage

    I realize that this will get lots of "Use Moz!" type comments, but I'm at work right now, so it isn't a possibility. Spo0fed.com unleashed a slew of pop-ups on me, and a number of them attempted to install some sort of software. Slashdot seems to be fairly united in its hatred of pop ups, so why support them by linking to sites that use them in such an aggressive manner? I feel that its just as annoying as registration required sites, and should be avoided in the same way.

    I suppose I may just be on a system thats already been hit with spyware, and if thats the case, please mod this down into oblivion.

    • Re:Pop ups. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by crow ( 16139 )
      Slashdot seems to be fairly united in its hatred of pop ups, so why support them by linking to sites that use them in such an aggressive manner?

      Perhaps because the people at Slashdot who decided to post the story use Mozilla and turned off pop-ups? Or maybe they use IE and have a pop-up blocker?
      • I didn't know that site generated any popups.

        OTOH, popups are no longer as hateful to me, since they went away :)

        (popup ads are quite bothersome though, when sitting at a computer without a worthy browser installed.)

        timothy

    • Wait till you're at school and you get a "I've got a secret website that I'm ...." at full volume.

      BTW, the teacher was giving lecture so it was extra quiet.

      • rofl....

        That sucks a nut, dude.

        Back in high school, I neglected to turn down the sound on one memorable occasion when I was at home, and an unruly popup blasted one of those out while my parents were in the room.

        I think I shut the speakers off fast enough so they didn't know what it was.... Unless they'd been surfing porn sites, and didn't want me to know that they knew what it was... urgh.

    • It's worth getting admin access if you're on Win2K or XP, to have a non-shitty browser.
    • Maybe because popups are no-problem for a long time.

      Popups don't bother me since I turned the knob saying ``open popups in tabs'' in Galeon. Additional measure would be

      user_pref("capability.policy.default.Window.open", "sameOrigin");

      in prefs (or even noAccess, but this would break my ebanking).

      I believe there are several browsers with tabbed browsing for every platform these days. For windows good chance would be Opera.

      Robert
    • I realize that this will get lots of "Use Moz!" type comments, but I'm at work right now, so it isn't a possibility.

      What are you doing reading Slashdot at work?

  • True stories are the metric? (Score:4, Funny)

    by bellings ( 137948 ) on Monday February 03, 2003 @03:34PM (#5216966)
    Although the real reason is more likely to be because people were actually believing that the fake stories were true.

    If that's the case, perhaps Slashdot should cast a very critical eye on the bbspot slashdot random story generator. [bbspot.com]

  • You can see how this works... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by missing000 ( 602285 ) on Monday February 03, 2003 @03:35PM (#5216967)
    here [fakednews.com]

  • Yep... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ..Bound to happen sooner or later.

    I checked spo0fed.com (or whatever the URL is) yesterday and by the way the letter read (on their front page, not from CNN but from Spo0fed itself) was that they took it down because people were using it to make defamoratory 'news stories' about people.

    Still, it was a dead-on generator. If it weren't for the URL, one might not've known it was fake.

    I never could get to see the archives of generated stories though...

  • Fake CNN article about Olsen Twins hits local news (Score:3, Interesting)

    by briglass ( 608949 ) on Monday February 03, 2003 @04:51PM (#5217655)
    A fake CNN new article, generated with said news generator, featured a story claiming that Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen (the infamous twins who began their carreer starring on Full House as an single, individual girl) had decided to attend Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield, Missouri. The story spread like wildfire on the campus, and around Springfield.

    **The rumor was so widespread (thanks to the genuinity of the fake CNN news generator) that the story actually hit local news that night!**

    I tried to stomp out the rumor in it's infancy explaining to everyone that sent it to me that it was fake, but to no avail.
    • I know there was an Iowa State version floating around, in addition to (most likely) a version for every major university.

      What would have been really cool is if the generator page used your IP address to determine your location, then used a local university name in the "story". I don't know if that's how it was done, but it would be much more consistent in a given area than randomly generating a college name.

  • infringement (Score:5, Informative)

    by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Monday February 03, 2003 @04:59PM (#5217738)
    Although the real reason is more likely to be because people were actually believing that the fake stories were true.

    Oh, come on. The web site generated pages that included the CNN logo! The real reason is obviously because whomever created this little toy was using the CNN logo without permission.

    This falls into exactly the same category as the Dow Chemical thing from a few weeks back. Parody is fine as long as you don't actually use somebody else's logo. That crosses the line from fair use into trademark infringement.

    Comments including the phrase "chilling effect" will be summarily ignored for the senseless drivel that they are.
    • If Spo0fed was doing things the way fakednews.com is, they only redirect images from cnn.com's actual site.

      If that is the case, wouldn't the best course of action be to block spo0fed.com's ip address?

      I don't think a link can be infringement, especially if it links to a public site.
      • You're mixing technical and legal issues. That never works too well.

        These guys were using the CNN logo without permission. They were doing so in a way that was intentionally deceptive. (Whether it was intended as a parody or not isn't the point; the point is that they intended for the generated page to look like it came from CNN's site.) Whether they were doing this via a link or through other means isn't relevant. It's still infringement.

        So, in other words, a link most definitely can be infringment.
      • You expect people who can't even get the weather predictions right to be able to figure that out? Ha?

        I don't know what CNN has against random news generators - after all... they already seem to use ones for their weather reports.
    • "Parody is fine as long as you don't actually use somebody else's logo. That crosses the line from fair use into trademark infringement."

      I don't think that's entirely true. I believe you can use a trademark in a parody, but you should be sure your work actually falls under the legal description of a parody, i.e. it makes a critical commentary or statement about the original work. It isn't enough to just be funny.

      'course, ianal.
    • Sad times are these when three letters in a row are special - "cable news network." Wow. Such a novel and interesting name, kind of like Mickey Mouse. Let us rabidly protect CNN from the very public by which CNN makes all of its money. I deprecate CNN. Incredibly poor biased incomplete conjecture laden reporting with little background information on the players in the situations or the economics of the situation, and a lame fetish for Real gold pass. The Economist, The Wall Street Journal are "real" news sources.

      I don't seem how this use of parody falls under this king of scrutiny, but one of the most important things about parody is that it is done in jest, not for profit, you cant sell things under the guise of another's trademark. While I don't like shitty pop-ups (I shut the filter off to see it, what crap), I seriously doubt anyone would buy into that porn crap because they think CNN sanctions or backs it.

      It all comes down to a Jeffersonian thing. Can you light another's candle without vanquishing your own? Sure. Will CNN die or lose one penny because of parody? No. In fact, they spent more on the lawyers to write that stupid letter than all the damages they could have ever accrued from this "evil parody."

      Lawyers are the real bottom feeding scum. Everyone's asses hurt around them. I've personally been take for a lawyer-ride (without lubrication), shareholders get raped by lawyers, Enron still has lawyers on the payroll to date while 401ks lie empty (due to foolish investment strategies and ignoring reality, but still, its a bit unfair to think lawyers take precedent here har har). In fact the inexorably complex US tax code is created, administered and massively profited off of by lawyers. Judges are lawyers. Politicians are lawyers. Anyone who isn't a scientist, a manager, a doctor, a musician, in the military, well, there is a class of people who are really ancillary to everything around them. This class finds themselves needing work because they are inherently useless. So instead of sticking to trial law, lawyers band together to form raping bands of hyenas that rove the corporate and political landscape raping everything in sight. Why cant Ted Turner just call the webmaster and say, Hey, can you cut the shit? Mano a mano? These fucking lawyers have no face, no use and no spine. BAR. What a crock. Barrister. Some crappy construct leftover from the days of King George of England.
      • What if this template isn't used for parody? What if it is used to create a believable bogus story that get forwarded around and reprinted in a local newspaper? When people find out it is bogus, don't you think some of them will think CNN screwed up? This isn't theoretical, it happened. So doesn't this unauthorized use of the CNN trademark hurt CNN's reputation? That shouldn't be allowed. Even if CNN is only 3 letters and their reporting sucks they still deserve the same protection of the law that we all enjoy.

        "Why cant Ted Turner just call the webmaster and say, Hey, can you cut the shit? Mano a mano?"

        So you just hate lawyers. Okay, go ahead, but it still doesn't make sense to say it would be fine if Ted Turner wrote a letter himself instead of having someone do it for him. And at this point, all CNN has done is write a letter, despite the article's claim that CNN "shut them down."
        • CNN has circulated horribly wrong information themselves. They come off as a final authority when they have made mistakes. They manipulate the public with dis-infotainment. It is sensationalized entertainment, not science based reporting (see: WSJ, The Economist, and a few others - you know it when you read it, it reads like news not like a Hollywood script).

          CNN also reported that the Shuttle was going 18 times the speed of light.
          See people talking of it here [google.com].

          CNN said of the shuttle disaster: "officials were searching a 500 square mile radius"
          See some Usenet-age on that here [google.com].

          I nailed them two times already on one recent issue and I barely read them.

          I could go on and on, especially on consistent failure to properly report historical facts.

          CNN = disinfotainment

          People who mislead the public are essentially committing either treason against them or are parodying the real news. Either way, I fail to see the need to protect them. CNN is a mega moneymaking media machine. They are the rainmakers. Feel not for them but for the rights of us to make fun of their complete and total shit reporting.
          • "I could go on and on, especially on consistent failure to properly report historical facts. CNN = disinfotainment"

            I agree.

            "People who mislead the public are essentially committing either treason against them or are parodying the real news. Either way, I fail to see the need to protect them. CNN is a mega moneymaking media machine. They are the rainmakers."

            Right and wrong shouldn't depend on how much you like the people involved. This isn't about making fun of CNN, or of the "news" industry, you're still free to do both. But none of that makes it okay for anyone to use and abuse their trademark, even if they are bastards. I'm not defending CNN, I'm defending the law.
      • Lawyers are the real bottom feeding scum. Everyone's asses hurt around them. I've personally been take for a lawyer-ride (without lubrication), shareholders get raped by lawyers, Enron still has lawyers on the payroll to date while 401ks lie empty (due to foolish investment strategies and ignoring reality, but still, its a bit unfair to think lawyers take precedent here har har). In fact the inexorably complex US tax code is created, administered and massively profited off of by lawyers. Judges are lawyers. Politicians are lawyers. Anyone who isn't a scientist, a manager, a doctor, a musician, in the military, well, there is a class of people who are really ancillary to everything around them. This class finds themselves needing work because they are inherently useless. So instead of sticking to trial law, lawyers band together to form raping bands of hyenas that rove the corporate and political landscape raping everything in sight. Why cant Ted Turner just call the webmaster and say, Hey, can you cut the shit? Mano a mano? These fucking lawyers have no face, no use and no spine. BAR. What a crock. Barrister. Some crappy construct leftover from the days of King George of England.


        You're an idiot. Do you think lawyers are really going around magically making money off the backs of "the little guy" without having someone to pay for their services? Do they do it for fun? Are they all independently wealthy?

        If anyone should be on the receiving end of your vitriolic rant, it's the people who hire lawyers.

        Of course, maybe we'd all be better off not having anyone to protect our rights from the government [mediageek.org].

        • Oh, well, because the law is overly complex and Judges that were lawyers once will invariably screw the shit out of anyone representing themselves means that lawyers are okay. Look, if you can't see that lawyers helped to ensure the growth of their industry by doing things that protect the existence of their jobs then you are blind. The problem in that enterprising lawyers creating more and more complicated laws to wade through, and the people pay the price. Now listen, I was making a fairly blanketed statement against lawyers, but I'm tired of them. Seriously. I know a few good ones, I'm sure. (I can't seem to recall anyone I'm friends with that is one however - oh wait, someone I know, Karen, she is a good lawyer, but she works for a philanthropy now in management.)

          Sure I like the people working for EFF. But by the same token, lawyers will help to promulgate concepts that their own children would *never* want to live with and they do it. They do it for the money. If you don't admit that the archetype, "lawyer", is riddled with a greed stereotype for no reason, you are on crack. I have had to pay for lawyer services. Believe me I wasn't impressed. Lawyers know Judges as friends. That's most how it works. You get the wink and the nod half the time. For bigger civil and criminal stuff, the judges can't be so obvious, but im sure there is still room for greasing palms in any situation.

          We have vastly departed from the original legal system envisioned by the framers of this country, assuming the US here.

          An interesting take on law: George Copway (Kah-ge-ga-bowh) Ojibwa Chief 1818-1863 - "Among the Indians there have been no written laws. Customs handed down from generation to generation have been the only laws to guide them. Every one might act different from what was considered right did he choose to do so, but such acts would bring upon him the censure of the Nation.... This fear of the Nation's censure acted as a mighty band, binding all in one social, honorable compact."

          Now, having said what I said, you know full well I don't hate all lawyers. It is amazing that employing melodrama and overstatement, a tactic used by every lawyer on the face of the earth, you fly out of your corner and try to maul me publicly. I hate when people get defensive.

          It is the fundamental theory of all the more recent American law...that the average citizen is half-witted, and hence not to be trusted to either his own devices or his own thoughts.
          H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

          Lawyer: One who protects us against robbery by taking away the temptation.
          H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

          Judge: A law student who marks his own papers.
          H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

          It is inaccurate to say I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.
          H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

          A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar.
          H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) (being mostly lawyers, I have to agree)

          If...the machine of government...is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
          Henry David Thoreau

          In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place.
          Mahatma Gandhi (12 jurors, a lawyer and a judge have let incontrovertibly guilty members of the KKK off back in the day - its documented. Only when they guilty were tried for civil rights violations did they finally get jail time.)

          Laws are like sausages. You sleep far better the less you know about how they are made.
          Otto Von Bismark (new laws usually get someone a new contract, and a few lawyers some money)

          The more corrupt the state, the numerous the laws.
          Tacitus           (and boy do we have so many, made by lawyers)
  • That's all I really got to say. People just cave in way to quick under the threat of litigation.

    • Re:Pussies! (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Sure is easy to say stuff like that when you live in your mom's basement. Grown-ups have finite quantities of money... and no matter how right you are, it'll probably cost you personal bankrupcy to defend yourself in court.

      Why do you think we keep seeing companies employing the same heavy-handed "scary lawyer" approach? Because it works, thats why. And why does it work? Because most people don't have the free available income to defend against a large company's attack lawyers.

      I have an idea: why don't *you* step up and pay their legal defense fees? Whats the matter, are you too much of a "pussy" to put your money where your mouth is??

      • Re:Pussies! (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ninjadroid ( 622900 )

        Well, aparently YOU didn't visit their website. When /. was threatened by the Church of Scientology because of DMCA infringement, CmdrTaco posted a large story detailing why they didn't like the fact that they had to give in, but were doing it anyway. In this case, not only did they give in, but they consented that they deserved to be shutdown, and offered to provide whatever information they had on users who had posted false information.

        That is why they are pussies; not because they realized the practical infeasibility of a court battle, but because they so completely gave up. You, on the other hand, are an Anonymous Dumbass.

  • ...is that nobody knows that I am out of the closet? Sweet!
    g

  • That's not fair... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tuxinatorium ( 463682 ) on Monday February 03, 2003 @05:45PM (#5218222) Homepage
    A parody is all in good fun. If local news outlets were decieved, they should blame themselves for being morons by not even looking at the bloody URL, to say nothing of getting confirmation from other sources. Seriously. Do they just search on google and report the first interesting thing that they find if the site looks semi-official? These are the kind of morons who would parrot an Onion [theonion.com] article as if it were real news. There's a huge difference between parody and character assasination, and using registered trademarks or copyrighted material for parody or criticism purposes is PERFECTLY LEGAL without permission, hell, even if the "owner" of the material explicitly forbids you to use it.
    Bringing the legal smackdown on this site for "libel" and "copyright infringment" is not only absurd, but simply fascist. This is an affront to free speech, which includes the right to criticize and parody anything you damn well please.
    • *EEEEEOOOOEEEEOOOEEEEOOOEEEOOO* -- annoying siren

      Godwin's Law is in effect. Return to your homes. Resist the urge to add further posts to the conversation. Repeat, do not continue this thread.

      *EEEEOOEEEOOEEEEEEEE*
    • using registered trademarks or copyrighted material for parody or criticism purposes is PERFECTLY LEGAL without permission.

      Well, to a certain extend. IMO, parody is fine, as long as it is rather clear for an 'average' person to see that it is parody indeed. It does not have to appear unabiguously (that would be no fun anymore), but it would have to appear.

      However, this was not the case in this case, from what I have heard. When really imitating CNN, you're going the same way as selling fake Rolexes (statement without any prejudice, BTW). And I can imagine that CNN will sue you in that case for tort and trademark infringement.

      • Tort, since people will take CNN stories (probably unconsiously) less serious, meaning damage for CNN
      • trademark infringement, well, that's obvious.

      As a intellectual property advisor in education, I would advise my client (when CNN) anyway to do so.

      Then again, if I were to defend Spo0fed, I would make up a different story :-), but the above is my personal neutral opinion.

      Of course, this is no legal advise, IANAL yet.

  • However, as we are sympathetic to character assassination and never intended the site to be used for defamation of character, we are more than willing to work with authorities to track down individuals who posted abusive content.

    If this is their way of avoiding potential liability, and I were sued, I'd make sure they were dragged in somehow, legally or otherwise.

  • They do such a wonderful job providing comic fodder all by themselves. Proof? Click here [cinematique.net].
  • CNNNN [cnnnn.com] had better watch out, they'll be next. It's a spoof on ABCTV in Oz.

  • The ABC (Australias Public TV Network) runs a commedy show called "CNNNN" which is a spoof of the CNN 24-hours News coverage.

    A "mock" CNNNN news tickers is available from here:

    http://www.cnnnn.com/

    Jon

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Close