Vanity - We've Got Him! (way to deal with Al Franken?)

Vanity | 8/28/02 | Myself

[Phsstpok]

Al Franken has won in court. He is free to use the copyrighted and trademarked phrase "fair and balanced" in a commercial enterprise to sell his book under the theory that he is satirizing it. He gets to use Fox's intellectual to sell his book.

[Phsstpok]

My first vanity - be kind (MFV-BK, is that like "ditto's" for Rush, or Hugh and sirius on FR?)

Why don't we satirize Al Franken's book by copying the whole thing onto the web and telling people that he's lying and that he's wrong and that they just have to read it (with our help) to see for themselves? OK, we probably need to intersperse the parts of his book with our commentary to make that work. How about it? We each borrow one copy from the library (no royalties to Franken). We divy it up among Freepers and each of us takes a chapter and solicits contrary evidence to post with it. We'll be able to refure him, point by point, and we'll steal sales from him by making it available on line. After all, he doesn't respect Fox's intellectual property, why should we respect his?

I volunteer for one chapter. Who's game? I'll need help organizing this, as I've never done anything like this before. Any volunteers?

[Phsstpok]

that's refute not refure. Sorry for the fat fingers.

[Sloth]

I don't think he's worth that much attention, myself... but more power to you.

[Normal4me]

Al who? Why waste a second on this dolt? WE all know he is full of it and the liberals believe what they want too anyways, whether true or not.

[I got the rope]

Who is Al Franken? LOL! Let it die.

[xJones]

You might want to ask Jim Robinson, the owner of Free Republic. That would only be decent, y'know, before appealing to his whole website.

Or better yet, you could start your own website and take on the legal risks of your proposal. But I doubt you'd want to risk that.

[Paul Atreides]

"Waaaahhhh! You ol' meanie.."

[weegee]

There will be a lot of work.

I did a point by point counter post to a lengthy Bill Clinton interview (I was cleaning up the HTML, I had highlighted all Is, MEs, MINEs using a bulk replace of code and it needed some fine tuning). The only way I was able to make it through that task was to vent my distaste at his lies.

Your task will be lengthy, not just researching to counter his points but to provide sources to your information. There are things that I know, but when it comes time to find an old FR thread or other bit of information online, I can spend hours looking for it (with little sidetracking).

At times when I did that research and posted to FR, the trolls I was responding to ignored my posts and went back to their talking points.

Plus, you won't need to give rebuttal... Al Franken went to court to claim that his work really was Fair and Balanced. I'm sure that he gave all viewpoints an equal and honest airing.

[Servant of the Nine]

It would be only fair and just if Ann Coulters next book were titled "Al Franken is a Turd in the Punchbowl of Life"

After all he has made a fortune ripping off the fame of Rush and Fox.

So9

[Redwood71]

Intellectual and Franken in the same paragraph. Kind of stretching it?

[Jim Robinson]

Fat fingers are a terrible thing to waste. I think I'll pass and save mine for a better day.

[Phsstpok]

actually, my assumption would be that the discussion would be here, but the "publishing" would be elsewhere. That's one of the things I wanted help to figure. out.

But I doubt you'd want to risk that.

What's your problem, troll?

[MaxHawk]

Fox doesn't have much of a leg to stand on regarding "fair and balanced" as being trademarked. It was not in its best interest for the case to actually go to court for it would have surely had the trademark in all its forms invalidated. I suspect the lawyers at FOX knew this or they wouldn't have dropped the suit.

[Phsstpok]

Actually they had a "leg to stand on," namely the fact that they were granted (I understand) both a trademark and a copyright on the phrase "Fair and Balanced" as a promotional tool for news and political commentary. Trademark law requires them to defend that trademark or lose it. Yes, they lost, in the context of political satire (unless they choose to appeal), but if they didn't even try to defend it they would have lost all rights to challenge MSNBC or CNN if they used the phrase to sell their programming.

[Phsstpok]

IT'S MILLER TIME!!!!

Uh, Dennis Miller's attorney's want to talk to you...

[xJones]

What's your problem, troll?

Troll? Now that's a laugh. Since you're new around here you must not know about previous lawsuits.

[Phsstpok]

Yes, I know about lawsuits, this site and the related issues. I've been attacked for unneccessary extracts since I recently started posting instead of lurking, which I've done for many years, as well as being attacked about chiding others to protect Jim Rob and the forum. You assumed an incorrect expectation on my part that FR would be the host of this effort. You made a snide remark about it that smacked of ulterior motives. I'm not new around here, just new to posting. Get over it and stop making judgements that you have no basis to make. Me thinks thou dost protest too much. Me thinks thou may have other agendas than protecting Jim Rob and FR. Frankly, I don't care.

30

[xJones]

Me thinks thou may have other agendas than protecting Jim Rob and FR.

And me thinks you're still riding the short bus asking "Does me get off here?".