Slashdot Mirror

Is it really that hard to put 2 and 2 together?

The opening line said "child abuse images". The rest of the article described them as "pornographic images".

Did it ever occur to you that the headline might - just might - have been correct? And then, as the relevant fact had already been stated, it wasn't repeated later in the article?

Heck, you could even do some due diligence and look up a few other sources, mr. "skip the blurb and get to the source". Here's a couple:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110921/Council-bans-daughter-contact-Nigel-Robinson-child-porn-images.html
"A father has been banned from being alone with his eight-year-old daughter after telling police he accidentally accessed child porn while attempting to download music from the internet."

http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=170852
"a British man has been banned from being alone with his eight-year-old daughter for up to a year after he accidentally downloaded images of child pornography while attempting to download an album from former GUNS N' ROSES guitarist Slash"

Bono comes off as a pious f*ck when U2 is more than happy to dodge taxes. Reality Check: Bono is a business folks.

There are some artists that have left the major lables for this reason or other stupid things. I remember a few that left major lables last year, is the one I remember off of the top of my head. this is probably one reason.

another example but the artists might be upset with the RIAA but few are doing anything to stop it. If the fans were to appeal to the major artists of these lables and have them do what reznor did they I think they might get the message or acually slump in sales(because their major money makers are making their own money independantly).

I know I didn't give a link to the actual law, I rushed the post and didn't see that it wasn't the real deal. But it did have the reference there and a quick googling would have shown you this:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/36/220506.html

Read this first, if you haven't already. There are two very specific exceptions. One is for someone who was using the trademark before the original version of this law was passed in 1950. That's a no-brainer. The other is a VERY targeted exception that only applies to companies located in the state of Washington west of the Cascade Mountains where "operations, sales, and marketing outside of this area are not substantial". Additionally, they must specifically be referring to the Olympic Mountains there.

All of your examples fall under these two narrow exceptions:

• Olympic Arms - located in Olympia, WA. emblem includes a mountain.
• Olympic Paint - founded in 1938
• Olympic College - founded in 1946
• Olympic Paint Horses - "Nestled in the 'Rainshadow' of the majestic Olympic Mountains, the beauty of the Cascade Mountains and the charm of a Victorian seaport you will find Olympic Paint Horses."

The Olympic Hopefuls were doomed, even without the tracksuits or admitted similarity. Read the law. It's all there. Or don't believe me and try to start a business with Olympic in the name. Better hope you're in Washington.

PS: Here's a link to yet another lawsuit by the IOC:
http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/blog/2008/7/31/olympic-cellars-and-usoc-settle-olympic-trademark-dispute.html
Basically, you had someone who fit the exception on being in WA, but they started selling outside the area. They got smacked down and forced to limit their marketing to what the law says. And here is a link about the demise of a company mentioned by another poster, Olympic Recordings:
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/BlabberMouth.Net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=41620

Hell, even Henry Rollins ran into trouble in Australia. Some guy saw him reading the book Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam In Central Asia on a plane and turned him in as a terrorist. And you think AMERICANS are touchy.

They're on tour (or going to be soon) with Slayer, apparently.

No, I'm not kidding.

Perhaps they're following in the footsteps of Slipknot, though I'm not sure if either group ends up looking cool.

Yeah, because death/black metal musicians are really a crowd to fuck with

In Flames are track 18 with "Trigger" on the Freddy vs Jason soundtrack (horrible quality of the streams off the site... yuck!) apparently. Hope they can reach a bigger audience that way -- they deserve it.

I'd like to see more content from Roadrunner records. They own Slipknot, Machine head, etc.

Admittedly, these record labels run along the more extreme vein. However, if you are into heavy/angry music, the bands you can find through these labels produce albums FAR better than the dreck you'll find getting shoved at us through the major labels.

As poot_rootbeer said, perhaps you should try some alternate sources of music for better quality artists! :)

Bryan