Barney Surrenders To the EFF 125
davidwr writes, "Earlier this year, EFF sued the Barney the Dinosaur people for harassing a Barney parody web site. Well, Barney finally surrendered, err I mean, learned to share. For more, read the case history at the EFF site."
this is a 'Good Thing'... (Score:3, Funny)
Its good to see the EFF winning anytime... everyone should support them
Hang on, wait.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:1, Redundant)
-Red
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:3, Funny)
They're like the Imperial Stormtroopers of litigation.
"TK-421, why aren't you at your desk?"
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:1)
(I get bonus point for using the actual website the case is about)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:2)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:2)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:5, Informative)
And as to the Snoutintroff claim we somehow "persuaded" Ed Felten to withdraw from a talk as a media stunt, it's worth reading what Felten himself had to say [freedom-to-tinker.com] about that period. Chilled speech, baseless legal threats, people losing jobs because they stand up for their right to reveal security flaws. That's what EFF fights.
It's worth spending time reading EFF's actual track record - either from our list of victories [eff.org], or from the Wikipedia list [wikipedia.org].
(Or hell, just read our press releases from the last week [eff.org] where we were filing an amicus brief to defend constitutional protection for stored email, began a case to investigate and correct some 18,000 missing votes in an apparent e-voting mess-up in a Florida seat that was won by less than 400 votes, and filing an FOIA request to uncover the details of EU passenger records being handed over to the US government. And that's what we did on a Thanksgiving week - with a staff of around 30, and a budget that's a fiftieth of the size of the ACLU, and a twentieth of what the MPAA spend on Washington lobbying alone. And consider becoming a member [eff.org] if you're impressed - you have no idea how much every extra membership helps, nor how much there is left to do.)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:2)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:1)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:1)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:1)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:2)
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:1)
After all, they could be on the RIAA's side, in which case wed all be screwed.
-Red
Re:Hang on, wait.. (Score:2)
Finally, a success against copyright bullshit! (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually enforcing fair use is a good start.
Re:Finally, a success against copyright bullshit! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Finally, a success against copyright bullshit! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Finally, a success against copyright bullshit! (Score:2)
Re:Finally, a success against copyright bullshit! (Score:1)
Singalong (Score:5, Funny)
This is bestiality...
Re:Singalong (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Singalong (Score:1)
I hate you, You hate me, We're a dysfunctional family!
Re:Singalong (Score:2)
Re:Singalong (Score:1)
lawyers make lots of money,
the bastards.
Re:Singalong (Score:1)
(to the tune of Yankee Doodle)
Barney is a Dinosaur,
'Looks like a grape on steroids.
He turns young kids' brains into mush
And gives old people hemeroids.
fin.
From the settlement agreemenr ... (Score:4, Informative)
Reading this please make your own conclusions about the inner structure of the underlying legal system (IMAGINE YOU WOULD STRUCTURE CODE THE SAME WAY!).
cc.
Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (Score:5, Informative)
Reading this sort of legalese is actually quite simple: whenever you see an agglomeration of terms like that, read the first one, and mentally replace the rest of them with "or similar". It's actually quite similar to programming, since you need to explicity enumerate the cases. Neither computers nor lawyers are very good with fuzziness.
The code equivalent would be
if(is_party($complainant) || is_party_director($complainant) || is_party_agent($complainant) || is_party_servant($complainant) || is_party_employee($complainant) || is_party_parent($complainant)....)
Yes, you need to include all the clauses in order for the if() statement to work properly.
Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (Score:1)
I think I would rather do this:
Ok, so that MAY look like perl, and MAY use a php function, but you get the jist of it
Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (Score:1)
DIE!!!!
Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (Score:1)
Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (Score:1)
"... Conditioned upon the parties' compliance with the terms and conditions of this Comment, the parties, and their respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, parents, subsidiaries, affiliated companies, attorneys, successors and assigns, hereby release each other from any and all claims, demands, damages, losses, liabilities, rights or causes of action, including but not limited to any claim for attorneys fees, arising out of or relating to the Action and/or the allegations asserted therein.
Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (Score:1)
Computers may be more flexible [bugwriter.net].
CC.
Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (Score:1)
This would read more like: "Both parties agree to withhold from any further action regarding the case in focus.". That is, you have predefined classes (lists, maybe objects, whatever) that you do not care to reiterate (what lawyers, as the example shows, obviously need to do, which fosters the implication that the system is highly inefficient).
Perhaps lawyers should be run through some formal language education.
CC.
Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (Score:3, Funny)
Compliance(Terms_Conditions(Agreement));
Condition(Parties || '/.*/g');
Release('/.*/g' || claims('/.*/g'));
Well why didn't they just say that? Sheesh, lawyers make everything so complicated. If laws were written this way, you could replace the judicial system with a compiler. Ah.
I would hope code is structured in this way... (Score:1)
take a look at a security update pach some time, in many cases the diff shows 5 lines of original code expanding to 10-15 lines of "secure" code, just to prevent a single type of exploit. that legalese manages to cover 11 types of expoits, if you will, in one single sentance. nice, i say.
HIS Lawyers.. surrendered. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:HIS Lawyers.. surrendered. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:HIS Lawyers.. surrendered. - wheaton photo (Score:2)
barney's revenge... (Score:5, Insightful)
I quote the famous barney addage:
I guess Barney is one of those Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde kind of guys with a split personality. While he sings sweet happy songs to young children who absolutely adore him, he has a darkside he shows to those who don't like him. When someone doesn't respect the lines "We're best friends like friends should be", and "Won't you say you love me TOO", the big purple dinosaur sends them the not-so cuddly wrath of the purple-D's lawyer team.
Re:barney's revenge... (Score:2, Funny)
"My Stepdad's Not Mean (He's Just Adjusting.)"
KIDS:
'Stepdads are people too/ They
have bad days, like we all do/
Be patient and help them through/
Stepdads are people too...'
SMOOCHY:
(singing)
that I proudly call Stan... He's
not quite a dad or a brother...
Yes, he gets cross, but still he's
the boss... And besides he takes
care of my mother!'
SMOOCHY:
Remember, kids. First
impressions, good or bad, are not
always what they seem. Just like
a new puppy, new dads need to
adjust to their surroundings. So
give 'em time! But always
remember... if he becomes abusive
to you or Mommy... what are the
magic numbers?
KIDS IN BLEACHERS(shouting in unison: Nine-One-One!
SMOOCHY: Right-o-riffic!
Re:barney's revenge... (Score:2)
Re:barney's revenge... (Score:1)
I hate you
You hate me
Let's hang Barney from a tree
With a stab in the back
And a bullet to the head
Aren't you glad that Barney's dead?
Re:barney's revenge... (Score:1)
Confused? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Confused? (Score:4, Funny)
You don't want to sue us anymore... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You don't want to sue us anymore... (Score:1)
I couldn't get that to compile with 'use strict'. Any suggestions?
:-)
Barney isn't stopped! (Score:5, Interesting)
--Rob
Re:Barney isn't stopped! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Barney isn't stopped! (Score:2)
Re:Barney isn't stopped! (Score:3, Interesting)
From the EFF's response [eff.org] to the Barney lawyers:
IANAL, but if the law firm sending me a C&D was from New York, I would find the above very interesting.
Re:Barney isn't stopped! (Score:5, Informative)
EFF was Bound to Win (Score:5, Insightful)
...because this case had no basis.
Even though I really hate Britney Spears, I must admit that before she got pregnant, she actually looked kind of hot. However, after she got pregnant, she gradually turned into a monstrosity (or was it years of lyrical and systematic infection of our American youth finally striking back...?). If the value premise of the case were true, that meant that if I used Photoshop to exaggerate her hideous appearance to blatant unrealistic proportions, then posted it back on my MySpace, I have used the image of Britney Spears illegally under copyright law and will be subjected to all sorts of governmental discipline. Does this make any sense?
I'm glad that the court realized the flawed logic of this case. It would have been a shame if that person had to pay some consequence solely for using merely the image of a character humorously (or not). I knew the dinosaur had some evil in it...
Britney Lost (Score:1, Informative)
Agreed on Britney. I don't even recognize her face any more. Just look at these [taxidrivermovie.com]. Looks nothing like her in the second pic.
Re:Britney Lost (Score:1)
(Warning: the above link contains NSFW images.)
Re:Britney Lost (Score:1)
Re:EFF was Bound to Win (Score:2, Interesting)
http://thesuperficial.com/2006/11/britney_spears_
but then they come right back round(Not at all safe for work, in any way):
(again NSFW!)
http://thesuperficial.com/2006/11/britney_spears_
Not that she looks all that fantastic in the first set; the second set is just hilarious though.
Re:EFF was Bound to Win (Score:1)
If the value premise of the case were true, that meant that if I used Photoshop to put a bowl of hot grits in her hands and blatantly put my back in place of her, then linked to it on slashdot, I would have used the image of Natalie Portman illegally under copyright law and will be subjected to all sorts of governmental discipline.
Does this make any sense? Yes. But is it of any relevance to the case except in some fucking remote weird sense? No. Is Natalie Portman hotter than Britney Spears? Yes.
gg
Re:EFF was Bound to Win (Score:2)
OMG (Score:4, Interesting)
in my life, this made me laugh out loud..
i dont know why...
but thanks
sing along (Score:1)
Am I the only one here (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Am I the only one here (Score:1)
Ye Olde Skoole. (Score:3, Funny)
Original Barney FTW.
Re:Am I the only one here (Score:2)
Remember, kids, Sharing is Caring! (Score:1)
No parallel with most RIAA cases (Score:2, Interesting)
"Piracy" copyright infringement means that you are unlawfully stepping over somebody's exclusive "right to copy", that is, to produce duplicates of a work. When the RIAA sues (whether with merit or not) they claim that you are illegally making a copy of something for which you don't have the right to reproduce. If I download a song from a P2P network for which I didn't pay the legal copyright holder for the rights to do so, then I'm breaking the law because I created a copy without authorization.
If I make a copy of a CD that I purchased through legal channels (including second-hand purchases) and then make a copy of that its fair use.
Parody is somewhat different because I'd be producing a copy or an altered copy of something in order to make a statement. In this case, what matters is not the copy itself but the intent. In the case of the music it's the other way around because one wants to have an exact replica of the "original".
Please, if you reply to this, take into account that I'm not saying whether I'm for or against the status quo, merely trying to depict it.
What a significant case! (Score:1)
Re:What a significant case! (Score:2)
Which is a statement more true than you intend it to be. Otherwise, it would follow that we want some branch of government deciding what topics are the proper objects of satire.
Five years ago, I got C&D'd by Barney... (Score:5, Interesting)
At the time, the web site (for stupid, complicated reasons) was registered in my father's name. So, imagine my old man's surprise when one day HE gets a letter from Barney's lawyer threatening (purple) fire and brimstone. Without much of a good alternative, we caved. I was really, really mad, and I suppose that I still am. To this day, it's the only legal 'trouble' that any of my web sites have stirred up, which is actually somewhat surprising.
Now that someone has finally stood up to the purple bully, can I finally dig into my old backups and put up the page of Barney jokes again? Whether or not Barney jokes are still relevant at the end of 2006, I suppose that I should, merely on principle.
Re:Five years ago, I got C&D'd by Barney... (Score:1, Informative)
I love you... (Score:1)
...you love me, we're best friends like friends should be. Or apparently NOT!
Dang, Barney, follow some of your own lessons. If my 18-month-old didn't love that purple freak so much, I'd be putting up a boycott. But as any parent of an 18-month-old will agree, anything that makes them happy is worth it.
Re:I love you... (Score:2)
OHMYGOD. (Score:5, Funny)
I truly thought I would never live to see the day,
I mean actually witness,
SOMEBODY pulling FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS OUT OF A DINOSAUR'S ASS!
I can die in peace now.
Here's the site in question (Score:2)
I'm glad the EFF won, and I'm glad the EFF exists, but there have to be more important problems to spend time and money on than this one - like human rights [amnesty.org] and hunger [oxfam.org], to name a few. Nothing against the EFF... it's just that this whole case rates a 9 on the WTF? meter.
And the EFF's new lawyer just in for this case. (Score:1)
I hate Barney and those child actors (Score:2)
By contrast when you see the kids run into Miss Hooley's school in Ballamory (for example), you know those kids really think they're meeting Miss Hooley for real. Or Sesame Street which had a few actors but usually had plenty who weren't, who really thought they were talking to Big Bird. There is something more powerful and innocent about that kind of kids TV.
In summary Barney and his massive marketing machine sucks.
Re:I hate Barney and those child actors (Score:2)
Re:I hate Barney and those child actors (Score:2)
Just remember... (Score:1)
Bloody Hell! (Score:1)
They better watch their ass! Barney's one mean bastard when you piss 'em off.
Ean St Eian
EFF praise/criticism SUPPORT? (Score:1)
Re:Can it be? (Score:0)
Quoth Judge Smails: "Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too."
Re:Why not? (Score:1)
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Informative)
Obviously, I am not a lawyer and you should not use this as legal advice. Otherwise, I would have smacked you down with much more wit and knowledge, that which is gained from more than five seconds on google.
Re:Why not? (Score:2)