Slashdot Mirror
NRA Complaint Takes Down 38,000 Websites (vice.com)
Sarah Jeong, reporting for Motherboard:38,000 websites hosted by the automated publishing service Surge went down today, after the National Rifle Association sent a legal notice over a parody website created by the Yes Men. A few days ago, the Yes Men released the parody video, "Share the Safety" -- announcing a supposed NRA program to deliver firearms into the hands of those too impoverished to afford guns. The opening frame of the video says "Paid for in part by the National Rifle Association of America with additional support from Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation." "Systemic poverty and dumb laws keep the urban poor unable to acquire life-saving firearms," says the video, which is available on YouTube. "That's why we at the NRA are teaming up with Smith & Wesson to share the safety.â The YouTube description includes a link to the "official" website, ShareTheSafety.org.
Where do I sign up?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Dunno. The way the summary is written, it sounds a lot like impersonation.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Whoever killed 38,000 websites to get rid of the one the DMCA targeted is an idiot.
Call immediately to get your ObamaGun! Thanks, Obama!
here
I guess Freedom is only Absolute when it comes to being able to purchase Firearms?
I am all for parody, but isn't claiming to be supported by the organization you are parodying a bit much?
By blatantly stating that the NRA is sponsoring it and supports it, is not fine
There are rules. They exist for a reason.
Try doing a parody site on abortion and state plainly that the Democratic National Committee is paying for it and that Planned Parenthood is also sponsoring it.
I expect you will see the same thing.
But I don't expect that you will understand because you don't like the NRA
"Automated publishing" sounds a whole lot like spam to me. Disgusting.
Not a parody as I understand it, doesn't matter where you stand on gun rights this is a new low, I bet I can guess the party of who came up with this and I am just plain fed up with their mantra imposing their will onto others.
PARODY videos are protected by current copyright laws. I am not sure how they won this case, other than by legal bullying and intimidation. The NRA has need pockets, filled with gold, from the morons of the heartland.
Aside from any hate for the NRA, I see no issue with this. Some people pulled a stunt giving off the false impression that they represented the NRA and Smith & Wesson.* The NRA requested a takedown, Surge complied with the takedown but screwed the pooch and brought down 38,000 sites instead of just the target.
The wording of the the article implies the NRA should be held responsible. It is the fault of Surge.
*Yeah I know it was supposed to be a "parody", but watch the video on YouTube. They never mention that they are not affiliated with the NRA or S&W. In fact, the little disclaimer on the bottom at the end of the video even makes the claim that they do represent the NRA.
https://sharethesafety.org/ Is this a fucking joke? If not it should be called "Guns for thugs program"
A shame the NRA can't deal with being sliced into like this.
Watch the video. It starts off like a great parody but at the end, it asserts that it's sponsored by the NRA and Smith and Wesson and says that a gun is going to be donated (0:50). I think that is what set them off.
I think if they skipped that, this wouldn't have happened.
Then again, look at all the buzz they're getting. I bet the video hits a few million views by the end of the day and makes a Comedy Central show.
Perhaps the authors over-did it intentionally to trigger the Streisand Effect.
Table-ized A.I.
Satire is protected Fair Use. If there's no chance for a reasonable and prudent person to actually believe it's NRA produced propaganda, they're golden.
The following message sponsored by slashdot user pieterh.
Can you see why this is an issue now? This is closer to libel than it is parody
PARODY videos are protected by current copyright laws. I am not sure how they won this case, other than by legal bullying and intimidation. The NRA has need pockets, filled with gold, from the morons of the heartland.
Watch the video. The disclaimers at the bottom expressly state that they do indeed represent the NRA, which is false. The one at the beginning even says "Paid for in part by the NRA". That is not parody.
You can find the parody video here.
The video uses the NRA logo and [what appears to be] the Smith and Wesson logo, and there's absolutely no clue that it's a parody. It seems completely legit, as if those two organizations made a serious promo video.
I'm a big fan of fair use in all it's varied forms, but I think this is a really good case of "impersonation", and is easily viewed as slanderous or libellous.
On a related note, before everyone posts the cherry-picked, not-the-whole-story statistics, does anyone have any good studies and/or statistics about gun ownership?
A good statistic would be one that relates chance of death by all causes to gun ownership, and compares to similar areas with similar social structure.
In other words, saying "owning guns increases your chance of an accidental shooting" might still be statistically good if it lowers your chance of dying from all causes (like not having money for medicine because you got robbed), or comparing America with the UK (because the UK has good health care while the US has almost none).
Anyone have any, you know, actually good statistics?
(We're the smart people in the room. People expect us to distil the good info from the bad.)
It's a simple case of trademark violation. `Yes Men' used NRA and S&W trademarks illegally and the trademark holders did what they're expected and required to do to protect their trademarks. Libtards are self inflicting the necessary cognitive dissonance to make this somehow the NRA's fault, just as they've been trained to do.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
I suspect the "dumb laws" comment, which was out of character for a video of this type (although I'm sure in line with the NRA's thinking), was put in so that people would know it's a parody. This video demonstrates the extreme positions and statements that go beyond the ridiculous that illustrates the NRA's fear mentality (their fear that their sales will dry up while selling fear to the people).
I'm sure the NRA longs for the '80s, when a president (Reagan) could be shot and there was so much fear of them that nobody said "boo" about how John Hinkley (somebody under psychiatric care and was on anti-depressants and tranquilizers) was able to get weapons with the express purpose of killing the president to make Jodie Foster notice him.
Now, people are starting to question the position of the NRA that *anybody* regardless of who they are should be able to procure guns and the NRA and their supporters (which Mr. Trump is a good example of someone who hurts their cause in the attempt to show that he is on their side) which leads them to make more and more extreme statements and videos like this one (which is interesting to watch) see less extreme and not much of a parody of the NRAs own videos and published statements.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Nobody could, it was flat out impersonation. If they didn't respond that's dilution of trademark.
It was also horribly racist work by the Yes Men. Not parody making fun of racists but actual racism.
More like the amateurish "Yes Men" pulled a dumb JV league stunt with this parody by adding legal wording that could easily get it taken down. Back to the AV club with them.
At least from my econ 101 understanding: if we agree with More Guns, Less Crime, then public security from gun ownership is a positive externality and ought to be subsidized. A nonprofit isn't enough - taxpayer money should go into this! Before some guy says "lololol that's cops"; the point is that anyone can and should be able to defend themselves - a criminal wouldn't know if the person they were about to threaten was armed.
Not too sure many people will agree with gun socialism, though... The Venn diagram looks like boobs.
When I saw the "Paid for in part by the NRA", I wondered if somehow NRA funds were used in the video.
With how extreme the NRA and the people involved with it are, I wonder if somebody got a grant from the NRA for the video by somebody who wasn't bright enough to recognize that it was a parody. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, positions taken by the NRA are really not out of line with the one in this video - find the right manager within the NRA, with the right line of bullshit to go with this and I'm sure this idiot would say "Fuck yeah, minorities in urban cores need to defend themselves more than anybody else in the country."
If that's the case, then I'm sure that's why the NRA jumped on this with both feet (in lead boots) and squashed it as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. The DCMA reasoning is probably to avoid the embarrassment of having to disclose that they actually paid for the video.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Clear sign of being on the winning side, your best argument is that your opponents are idiots.
Why SHOULDN'T the poor be able to exercise their right of self defense against unlawful force? Or, are rights only for those who can afford to defend them?
As parodies go, it's pretty clever. I'm wondering if Yes Men were clever enough to intentionally cause the NRA to issue a takedown and put the video in the public spotlight. Had this been a normal, "Saturday Night Live" type of parody, it's unlikely I would have seen it or that it would make any news at all.
But here we are. I've seen the video, and the satire illustrates some potential holes in the rhetoric of the NRA and pro-gun side of that particular issue.
Golf clap.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Libtards are self inflicting
Pretty sure there were no Libertarians involved in this
I can't tell if that was an overly subtle attempt a parody, but don't confuse Liberals (a.k.a. Democrats or Libtards) with Libertarians. Completely different philosophies.
Maybe libel or slander. If it is too authentic looking, the production could be viewed as intentionally trying to harm a brand.
l am not sure if it would be considered libel or slander. Videos are usually have "spoken" words but a video maybe considered as sort of a "written" record by the law.
Yeah, after all, the NRA and Ronald Reagan were all for the Black Panthers carrying around [scary-looking-guns] to defend their neighborhoods. /s
The reality behind this socialist produced "mocumentary" tells a much different story! In Detroit the Police Chief with massive government cutbacks advised local citizens to arm themselves! http://hotair.com/archives/201... It really bothers these Yes Men that the result of citizens arming themselves has been steep declines in Detroit crime! From the article: >>Detroit has experienced 37 percent fewer robberies in 2014 than during the same period last year, 22 percent fewer break-ins of businesses and homes, and 30 percent fewer carjackings. Craig attributed the drop to better police work and criminals being reluctant to prey on citizens who may be carrying guns. “Criminals are getting the message that good Detroiters are armed and will use that weapon,” said Craig, who has repeatedly said he believes armed citizens deter crime. “I don’t want to take away from the good work our investigators are doing, but I think part of the drop in crime, and robberies in particular, is because criminals are thinking twice that citizens could be armed. “I can’t say what specific percentage is caused by this, but there’s no question in my mind it has had an effect,” Craig said. Compare Detroit's scenario to Chicago's: Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the U.S. and the highest gun homicide rate! Murder citie's crime rates are off the charts, because citizens can't defend themselves, while the criminals have all the guns. These "Yes Men" are so far from reality, it makes their little joke video much funnier, as they have no idea what they are lampooning!
So there's the problem.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Among the other outright stupidities that humans in general, especially here in the U.S., where I was born, raised, and have spent my entire life: Thinking that putting more barriers up to discourage and outright prevent the acquisition of firearms by law-abiding citizens is going to in any way shape or form reduce the occurance of mass-shootings like we've been seeing; it won't. What it'll do is roughly equivalent to a car alarm, or a deadbolt lock on the front door of your house: It'll deter the most casual criminals, but the professionals and those truly dedicated to their course of action will find a way to get the tools they want to perform whatever mayhem they have in mind. If it's not guns, they'll obtain or make IEDs of some kind and blow people up (Boston Marathon bombers) or just get knives or even swords or other hand-to-hand weapons to attack people with, or for all we know something more exotic.
Now, to all you SJWs and hysterical types who are now so triggered that you need to go take a Xanax so you can be calm enough to write your insults and death-threats against me: Don't even bother. I don't give a fuck what you think, because I think you and your gun-control rhetoric are utterly and completely wrong, and a snowball's chance in hell is still greater than you've got to try to even begin to change my mind. Oh, and by the way: I don't even own a single gun myself; but I support the Constitutional right every U.S. citizen has with regard to firearms, and if you don't then I think you're a bad citizen and should consider renouncing your citizenship and finding somewhere else to live.
Oh, and also: I'm not voting for either Trump or Clinton, because I don't trust either one of them or think either one of them is in any way shape or form suited to being POTUS, so don't bother hanging that 'Republican' bullshit on me, either; save your bandwidth for someone who gives a fuck what you think.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
To be clear, the NRA didn't take down 38,000 websites. Incompetent hosting company took down 38,000 websites.
But like good liberals, you blame something else, instead of the actual culprit.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I agree with the other posters that these videos are likely to cause confusion to the average viewer, and are probably in violation of trademark law. That said, the way to handle that is in the courts.
DCMA takedown requests only apply to copyright infringement, not trademark law. It is a violation of the law to use the DCMA this way, both according to the USPTOs guidelines(See B.4), and existing case law.
From the article, it is unknown whether their lawyers sent a DCMA request or a some other sort of cease and desist letter. But either way, Digitalocean had no legal obligation to take down the content, or any legal liability if they didn't take it down. The fact that they shutdown an entire service over a toothless complaint about one page on that service is unacceptable, and people should seriously reconsider doing business with them in the future.
So, minorities in the urban core SHOULDN'T defend themselves? Why is racism so rampant on Slashdot these days?
Then use the proper name instead of ambiguous insults?
Yeah, after all, the NRA and Ronald Reagan were all for the Black Panthers carrying around [scary-looking-guns] to defend their neighborhoods. /s
"Defending their neighborhoods"?
You mean from those dangerous "cracker babies"?
https://youtu.be/2Y3Cd9gnvlw
https://youtu.be/-S2MIqgI-ic
So much hate.
So much cognitive dissonance on the Left.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
They really should lay off considering how unintentionally funny this "parody" is.
This issue is more about poverty and crime than it is about a particular scary bit of technology. They have accidentally stumbled closer to the truth of the matter here than they usually ever manage.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The article seems to be claiming that Youtube cares about Fair Use and false content claims like this one.
Unless you are from a big media company, then its rubber stamp ban anything you like.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
While it's not good that so many sites were taken down quite honestly the anti gun people are much worse. They turn tragedies into their own political soap box to further their cause. They regularly attack people online and are quite vicious about it.
Regardless of what you believe when you bend the the rules and common decency to "push your cause" you are no better than the other side. Whatever happened to reasonable people sharing an opinion?
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
Again, as ArylAkamov mentions, this was a CDC study.
The Obama Admin disappeared it for all practical purposes. It wasn't on any morning news shows, the View, any of the late night Snark shows, none of the Sunday Morning shows, nothing.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
People believe stuff in the tabloid is true. So yes, simply stating "paid for by the NRA" well it stopped being satire at that point. It's takes someone of intellect to realize that something like this is satire. The sad part is that intelligent people make up less than 50% of the population, probably less than 30% of the population. As you can see in Britain, the problem with a lack of intelligence is a global pandemic and not something restricted to the bible belt in America.
There was nothing ambiguous about it. Liberal retards. Libtards. It's your comprehensive abilities that are in question here.
When Slashdot was filled with nerds and tech geeks that would have been outraged at the idea of websites being pulled over speech. Now we are being trolled by Trump Nazi and every argument is about how their Savior will ban all brown people, kill off blacks and shut up whites who dare to speak up for them. Sad times.
It is distinguishable from the NRA, because the NRA promotes safety first. This video does not promote safe firearms ownership.
The actual purpose of the NRA is teaching the citizens of the country how to safetly own and operate firearms in the ultimate defense of the country in direct support of the Constitution and the documented intent of the Constitutions authors. The political side of the NRA stems from this charter to support the Constitution, which is currently under attack by domestic enemies. The intent of the founding signatories of the Constitution is well documented in their own written word in parallel documents. These documents are not part of the Constitution to avoid overly complicating what should be a simple document. The NRA asserts these position papers as evidence that their mission is in support of the Constitutions intent.
The attack comes from power brokers that would undermine the strength of the People to hold their government accountable. One need not look hard through modern discourse to see evidence of our government working counter to this accountability (domestic spying, lack of prosecution for unexcusable officer shootings, Clinton's email-gate (she's in office, Trump isn't yet), etc).
The NRA isn't an enemy of the People, but it stands opposed to those who would see the People disarmed and made subservient to our government. History says opposition to being made a subject of any government in the long term is a good thing.
Please wake up and see the long term play here. Honestly, a few crimes and accidents are worth it to avoid the entire USA becoming slaves. The Negro's didn't like slavery, and it took a very bloody armed protest to break that system (Civil War). Why not learn from that unfortunate time in our history where the weak were exploited by the rich and powerful under the color of law (enforced by our government) for their own comfort?
So, lemme get this straight.... If "Saturday Night Live" created the exact same video and broadcast it, we'd all laugh, and then go back to ignoring it.
But if some clowns post this video to the internet, it's a takedown via the DMCA -- and 38,000 sites also suffer due to someone's fat finger mistake.
So once again, citizens have no rights, but corporations do. Meanwhile, the GUN NUTS are screaming about their second amendment rights, but guess what, that's apparently the ONLY right you have, because that was the only one you cared about.
The politicians and corporations have you so FOCUSED on your gun rights, they have secretly deprived you of all other rights, and guess what? YOU FELL FOR IT.
I hope you've got your gun, because you're going to need it real soon.... This country has been usurped by the wealthy and greedy and your gun, which was supposed to protect you from tyrants, well, that pop gun won't do squat against drones and tanks and RPGs. Good luck with that.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Actually, Chicago doesn't have the strictest gun laws in the nation. In 2010, the gun ban was struck down.
Currently, ordinary people can own guns (FOID card needed) and carry them (FCCL needed).
The reason why we have such ridiculous crime is because the cops arrest the thugs with guns, the prosecutors plea bargain down tons of cases and courtrooms turn into revolving doors back into society. Or if the prosecutors DO bother to prosecute, they do so selectively (i.e. white guy from suburbs got a gun? nail him. Gangbanger? Can't be racist! Put up a crappy case which the judge dismisses or sentences to time served.) And if they bother to prosecute anyone who is an actual thug, the judge is hesitant to throw the book at them due to jail overcrowding.
Sort of like how Donald Trump blames man-made climate change on the Chinese?
Good Liberals! Thanks for the ack!
Cool post, bro! Where can I get paid to astroturf? Mine will blend in better than yours and read more like a real person even.
Because Slashdot has a high percentage of Liberals and any time you get into real detailed discussion about a topic that may contain an ACTUAL racist viewpoint, the liberal racism that has plagued the democratic party for decades or more suddenly comes shining through.
Illegal immigrants are traditionally exploited as farm hands that allows most of the America to enjoy cheap farm produces.
If we really start deporting them and building that wall Trump seems to be fixated on, we can expect our produce cost to go up a few notch almost immediately.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
How do we know that the 38k websites weren't taken down _intentionally_ in order to get that particular "NRA is heavyhanded" knee-jerk reaction?
I love how all the NRA sycophant Randites here will make the most tortured arguments for fair use in almost any other situation, but when it comes to their precious guns, they'll hold forth at length about how a clear parody should be taken down because, you know, "libtards."
Hypocrites.
Poe's Law states,
The fact that this video is indistinguishable from a sincere expression of the NRA says more about the NRA than it does about the Yes Men.
The fact that you believe that about the NRA say more about you than the NRA.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Not lack of intelligence, lack of incentive. Lmftfy education is the weakest link, there is so much misinformation its hard to even sound intellectual and not be reciting something manufactured and processed.
So do you also agree with the Founders that standing armies are inherent threats to liberty? How are you on the Swiss military/militia? How would you feel about disbanding the Army and Navy?
The second Amendment was intended to protect the ability of the People to defend their nation. It can certainly be argued that it also includes a guarantee of personal safety, but if you're going to argue Constitutional integrity, then you should be prepared to reconcile the vast difference between our current society and that document intended. Personally, I see a trained, professional cadre of soldiers as being an absolute necessity, and consequently would look favorably on either some variant of the Swiss system, or a far greater restriction on gun ownership. Either way, I'm fine with taking an empirical approach to the situation, and since this seems to be a national issue the CDC seems well situated to conduct such studies. If you would like to take issue with empirical findings, do your own study. If your position is that this is a moral or rational issue not subject to empirical findings, then again, you are forced to reconcile past intentions with present conditions.
This isn't a huge issue with me. I'm from Alaska and know my way around a hunting rifle, and don't see any reason for those to be particularly restricted. While the military has at times been employed against the People, generally it hasn't been the huge issue that our Founders thought, at least in terms of domestic freedom, and most of the incidents of military violence against citizens have involved the National Guard, which at least approximates a militia. With the current conflict of personal safety versus national safety versus the strict adherence to the Constitution and the Founder's intentions, I think the most likely scenario is that the Constitutional right to bear arms will be further eroded and restricted, or preferably but less likely it will be amended to make explicit that we have turned aside from the path of the citizen soldier.
We as a nation need to have a talk about these issues. We have a lot of dead citizens, a huge standing army, and we are not being true to our founding principles in any sense. Something needs to give. Taking the empirical approach may in fact not be the correct path to a solution, but we do have a problem and we do need to solve it somehow.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The sad truth is that "liberals" haven't been liberal for a generation or more. In today's modern vernacular, "liberal" actually means fascist progressives and they are in no way liberal. Libertarians have to varying degrees taken over the liberal mantle, and most of them have moved to the Republican party. The "liberals" of today aka fascist progressives want to take away your 2nd amendment rights, they want to limit your freedom of speech by banning "hate" speech (who the fuck knows what that even means, the definition is different for different people). They want to limit your freedom of religion (if your religion doesn't bow first at the PC/SJW altar, prepare to lose your business or your job (see the Christian bakers in Oregon, any number of non PC CEOs, actors, and news/sports casters who have been persecuted and lost their jobs because they said something that wasn't PC. They want to take away your freedom of association (no more all male fraternities, all male sports teams or all male anything). They were trying to violate our right to no unreasonable search and seizure with the massive NSA data center that was to store the meta data about every phone call made in the US, as well as every email and God knows what else that they didn't tell us about. They have been seizing ranchers property (land) using the EPA and wildlife protection act, which is a violation of due process.
The fascist progressives now in power are violating or want to violate about half of the bill of rights. If you are OK with that, you are the problem. If you didn't know, it is time to pay closer attention. We must throw these criminals out of office, and once out, they need to be charged according to their crimes and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Barak Hussain Obama has been slapped down by the supreme court 22x, more than any other president by 2 or 3x on executive orders that have been in violation of the constitution. Most of these slap downs have been unanimous, meaning even the progressive partisans on the court realized that what he was doing was a massive overreach of his authority. The "constitutional law" professor clearly knows better, he just doesn't care about violating the constitution.
So, if this video is, as you seem to indicate, easily distinguishable from a real NRA video, then their takedown notices are nothing more than bullying. If they're making the case that someone could mistake the Yes Man video for a real NRA statement, then Poe's Law applies. It's one or the other.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Holy shit, the video doesn't just claim to be supported by the organization; it contains zero hint that it's a parody, at all. It looks very authentic...
When you can't tell the difference between parody and reality, you have to ask yourself if maybe reality have gotten too crazy...
The funny thing, if you actually bother to go read the actual factual history, is that when the Panthers originally carried shotguns openly, IT WAS LEGAL. They'd found a legal loophole and carried loaded weapons while patrolling their own neighborhoods to prevent criminal activity (and to keep the cops from running rampant as they'd been doing, AKA "copwatching").
Frightened the HELL out of the white folks, though!
IIRC, that loophole got closed RIGHT QUICK! Yep, I was right: "The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill which repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill was crafted in response to members of the Black Panther party conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods while conducting what would later be termed copwatching".
THEY WERE EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, specifically to DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THEIR HOMES AGAINST INTRUSIVE AND CORRUPT GOVERNMENT AGENTS (the cops). And you right-wing nuts should APPLAUD THAT.
But you don't.
l am not sure if it would be considered libel or slander. Videos are usually have "spoken" words but a video maybe considered as sort of a "written" record by the law.
It is a published, copyrightable form, therefore it meets the definition of libel.
I wonder how loud the complaints would be were someone to produce a Hillary ad containing a Hillary impersonator who says libelous things, and then has "her" saying "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this ad" at the end.
but don't confuse Liberals (a.k.a. Democrats or Libtards) with Libertarians.
I'm glad you explained that. I was wondering what the problem with Librarians was....
It's a country and although they enforce their own immigration laws, the country of Mexico doesn't do diddly about those traversing their country to come here.
Not that the country of Mexico could do much since it is the Narcos that run the border.
Yes, because we've seen what all those responsible gun owners have done to support all of the other amendments of the constitution. We've seen recent laws piss all over the 1st, and 4th-8th amendments, yet I havn't heard of the armed insurrection that "The People" have launched "to hold the government accountable". Just a lot of frothing around any attempt to even have any kind of discussion about what can be done about the epidemic of gun violence in the US. Of course these same frothing folks are more than willing to talk about gutting other amendments because "terrorism"
So, if this video is, as you seem to indicate, easily distinguishable from a real NRA video, then their takedown notices are nothing more than bullying.
This wasn't a DMCA takedown. It was a trademark complaint. Protecting a trademark is REQUIRED by law, otherwise the trademark owner can lose it. If you don't want to be "bullied" by trademark owners, don't use their trademarks, and don't use their trademarks in a statement that the content YOU produced was paid for by them. It's pretty simple. It doesn't matter if anyone can tell that the content was not actually produced by the trademark owner.
2nd Amendment > 1st Amendment.
Duh, 2's bigger.
It's so true! I hate how Liberals are always blaming immigration and Muslims on our domestic problems. It's so obvious that Americans keep voting bad politicians in and have no sense of responsibility but somehow the Liberals keep saying it's Mexicans and that they'll build a wall. Great point!
Don't be dense. Nobody refers to libertarians as "libtards." That moniker is reserved for regressives, SJWs, Democrats, and other related vermin.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Why do you hate humanity?
Liberals blame everything on White Heterosexual Christian Males. They are the devil! Vote Hillary 2016!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Vapid Emotionalism. Nice Job Snowflake.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Trademarks are not protected from parody.
http://corporate.findlaw.com/i...
The standard is whether or not the use is "likely to cause confusion". If the use of the NRA and S&W trademarks by the Yes Men are "likely to cause confusion", then they have a bigger problem than their trademarks (see Poe's Law).
And if it's not likely to cause confusion, then they don't have a cause of action. It can't be both ways.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Here's the new text: "The obligation of citizen to bear arms shall be enforced. Every citizen shall receive a basic weapon, and allowed to upgrade at own cost. Every citizen shall be compelled to participate in mandatory weapons training for four weekends a year."
If your rhetoric is true, this should be your objective. I took the idea for that last sentence from Switzerland who, apparently, also have lots of guns, but not anywhere near as many mentally unstable citizens. Or maybe... although they do, they know they're going against a target which is very trained in the use of firearms?
"Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
I don't like to join any organization, but crap like this might be enough to make me join and support the NRA.
Liberalism would collapse if they realized the most bigot'd people are Liberals. Then again... that would take intelligence.
Bigot: Hate of something different than yourself. For Reference: See Trump protesters.
Conservatives don't hate Obama because "Black" or Hillary because "Vagina". They hate them because of the shitty job they've done and the horrible direction this country is headed. It is absolutely disheartening that the first Black President is such a God Awful Turd and the first Majority Candidate Woman is THE example of Corrupt, Rich, White, Career Politician.
But ask yourself... if Conservatives are sooooooo racist... why did the 16 candidates actually come from a diverse pool of individuals while the Democrat party had Rich White people? Why, if we are so racist, was the #2 for the first few months a Black Doctor? If Trump is soooooo racist, why hasn't it been an issue for the decades he's built a global company? Why is his stance against illegal immigration racist while that same stance from Bill Clinton wasn't? Why is Trump racist when Hillary "Blacks are Super Predators" Clinton isn't?
Hypocrites. That's why.
First off pointing out that most conservatives are racist doesn't mean that there aren't democrats whom are also racist.
It HAS. You know we all know Donald Trump is a racist. This isn't NEW for him. He used to ban black applicants from his housing buildings. We've been beating this drum for decades and no one listens to people who say Trump is racist until suddenly he's a viable candidate while Sprewing literally insane things. Don't blame the messenger because you're finally ready to hear the message.
You think it's a strong stance on illegal immigration? Not maybe "Mexicans are rapists and murderers"? Oh wait.. not all mexicans ... just the ones in America. Literally saying the only good mexican is on the other side of the border. Do you have mystery footage of Clinton saying Muslims should be banned from entry?
Oh it's HUGELY racist for Clinton to say that. It's almost as if we have issues with Clinton too.. but do feel free to ignore all the articles on Superpredator (something Clinton HAS apologized for unlike Trump.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronda-lee/hillarys-superpredator-comment_b_9655052.html
http://time.com/4238230/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-superpredator/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/8/1467336/-Hillary-Clinton-Gangs-of-kids-are-super-predators-with-no-conscience-no-empathy
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/racial-justice-failures-hillary-clinton-cant-ignore
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I think this is more a form of Libel than Parody. Parody is using likeness to something else but not representing it as something else. Think "Eat It" by Weird Al as opposed to "Beat It" by Michael Jackson. The likeness is there in the same music and video concept but the lyrics are different and Weird Al takes attribution for the work. This peace changes the message completely around and gives attribution to someone who is not affiliated with it. A good parody might have a similar sounding name and website. This one is using a legitimate organizations name and website to infer association. This content deserves to be taken down - especially because the creators don't take ownership of it. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they are sued for defamation and libel as well.
Retarded, or slow, librarians take far too long going through your books at the checkout desk.
It is China who leads with CO2 emissions....
They might do some dumb shit sometimes, but im glad there is someone lobbying for one of MY interests for a change. None of my other hobbies have any lobbies in their favor. Im not a multinational corporation that wants to frack. Im just a simple law abiding person that likes firearms. Yet i have a powerful force in the NRA that makes sure MY interest is not infringed upon.
My understanding from John Oliver's show is that one reason there isn't good data on gun violence is that the CDC is not allowed to fund studies pertaining to it.
There's plenty of good data and analysis on gun (and other) violence, and how private ownership of guns affects it.
But it's researched and published in the relevant field. That field is criminology, not medicine.
Some of their conclusions include: ...
- Guns are used several times (sixish last I looked) more often to prevent a crime than to commit one.
- Increasing private ownership and carrying of guns (drastically!) decreases victimization: Murders, assaults, robberies, rapes,
- Defending against an attack using a gun (per FBI stats) substantially reduces chances of injury or death of the victim, compared to completely cooperating with the attacker. Any other mode of self-defence INcreases chances of injury or death.
- Most self-defence with a gun does not even involve the gun being fired. (Being confronted with a gun usually makes the bad guy back down right away.)
- When someone is shot in the defender's belief the shoot is proper (e.g. self-defence), cops are about five and a half times more likely to be found to have shot someone they shouldn't have than armed private citizens. (Not a law-of-small-numbers thing: Civilians shoot MORE in self-defense than cops. Main factor may be that they just are more likely to know what's going on when they have to act.)
With results like this, of course, it's no wonder that you never hear a mention of the field of criminology or its work in the press. B-b
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
))
Sorry, not closing your parentheses is a terrible thing.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
...has been said in jest. I think this is one of them.
Trademarks are not protected from parody.
I didn't say they were. Don't lecture me on that topic.
The standard is whether or not the use is "likely to cause confusion".
No, the standard is if you are using someone else's trademark pretending to be them. That's what happened here.
If the use of the NRA and S&W trademarks by the Yes Men are "likely to cause confusion", then they have a bigger problem than their trademarks (see Poe's Law).
When the "parody" starts out by claiming that the NRA and S&W paid for the content, then there is a good likelyhood for confusion no matter who produces the material. Poe's statement -- not a law -- notwithstanding.
Listen, you can hate on the NRA all you want, but they aren't the guilty party here.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A program that gives guns to people who need to defend themselves but can't afford to buy them is not "parody": this would be the kind of program that is consistent with what the NRA advocates and many gun owners believe. In fact, such a focus on minorities would be quite smart for conservative and libertarian causes.
People would do well to remember that some of the first gun control laws in the US were Jim Crow laws. Tubman (new $20 bill), the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, Douglass, and many others carried guns and viewed them as important to black liberation and self-protection.
So a link to this article and to the Yes Men NRA video on YouTube were tweeted with appropriate hashtags.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=history+of+trump+racism
"What a shabby site this has become."
wellbye.gif
That's the job of the left and secular humanists.
You got a trademark on that word, guy? If not, I think I'll start using it to apply to libertarians of the stupid variety. I suppose I could use Libertards, but that still seems ambiguous.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Indeed. Libertardians are all about removing age of consent laws because people are essentially property if you can exert enough force on them. LIBERTY FOR ME, SLAVERY FOR YOU!
Well, even a low cost, basic entry model AR-15 is around $600,
and to many people that 's rent, that's food money, that's car payments right there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx-e3ugkgy8
The government gave out coupons for light bulbs with your Tax Return,
why not a $300 coupon towards a decent AR-15 for everyone who files their Federal Income Tax on time ?
Free guns is a bit much to ask from the government, but a 50/50 split seems fair enough, for legal lawful citizens who have Income...
Ammo is still on you though... and training...
Fascinating coincidence (?) that my view of this article came accompanied by an advert from the NRA promoting Concealed Carry terrorism as a "right".
I think the parody video is brilliant in it's subtlety. Tempts me to start the MRA -- the Murdering Rifle Assassination -- and do some parody of my own.