Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   GDog, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 5:24pm

   
   

   How Far...?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   jeremy, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 5:34pm

   
   

   "How far has the entertainment industry pushed its luck when even its local paper is pushing back?"
   
   Umm, I'm sorry, but the movie Industry doesn't own the LA Times, if the LA Times stated that they support eating kittens would techdirt post it? There is a wide variety of opinions, and I think what will cause change in copyright laws is not some newspaper with a small group of people babbling, but with the consumers, which, in the movie industries' eyes is potential profits.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   John, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 5:45pm

   
   

   They Eat Kittens?

   I would read the article if TechDirt posted La times eats kittens. I am always looking for new kitten recipes.
   BTW...Those small groups of people babbling are consumers too.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Corey, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 6:00pm

   
   

   Eating Kittens

   Bastardizing a Sheila Jackson Lee-ism: I thought those where biscuits.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Trvth Jvstice, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 6:02pm

   
   

   IMO

   This isn't a very "tech-like" article. I would expect it to be on a Hollywood news site, or an entertainment site. I vote it gets removed from this site ASAP.
   All in favor, say aye
   Thx.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   ehrichweiss, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 6:19pm

   
   

   LA Times and kittens

   jeremy,
   
   What the hell IS your point?!?!? The movie industry doesn't own the LA Times, so why is that important? Nobody said they owned them, only that the entertainment industry's own *local* paper didn't support their propaganda.(emphasis mine, duh)
   
   And at least someone is making some noise about this. That's how consumers find out about this and realize that there are other points of view than what they might have previously considered.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Mike (profile), Jul 10th, 2006 @ 7:13pm

   
   

   Re:

   Umm, I'm sorry, but the movie Industry doesn't own the LA Times
   
   No, they don't... but they do advertise a lot in the paper. Also, it's pretty typical for local newspapers to support the views of the big local industries. So, it absolutely is significant that the LA Times would say this.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Alan MadLeese, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 7:53pm

   
   

   The times and the kittens

   Well, one wonders about the Times and its kitten policy and whether it is in the pocket of this or that industry. I have minor relations with the L.A> Times. I worked there briefly in the Sixties and got drunk and left, not necessarily because the copydesk job was boring but I got into the bubbly. So that's in the nature of full disclosrue, but in the past two months, sober and in Maine, retired and so forth, I found out, in conjunction with an L.A. blogger named Trent Lapinski, a lot of bad stuff about MySpace, which will soon become apparent to any Californian who can read, courtesy of ValleyWag and some other blogsites, that MySpace was problematic beyo0nd the extremes that critics have noted, and all that can be clared up, for the doubting Thomases, by googling m name or Konspiracy Korners or Scobleizer or Catbird Forum or Buzzmachine, that I seem to be in possession of a lot of uncirculated information about MySpace and the spam and sham and scam of it all, and I have called the L.A> Times on at least wo occasions, tipping them off toi the biggest news biz story of this cycle and the next two or three, and the folks at the L.A. Times, including their investigative team, heard my bleats over the voice machnine, and via the e-mail and deigned not t reply, but then they were not alone, and of course they are probably not in anyone pocket but their own little world which not admit of people calling at night to tell them what the fuck is going under their noses. Check it outl,, googlers may use the names Ted I. Wiederhorn, Andrew Alan Wiederhorn, Clarence B. (Uncle Bud) Coleman, and, to be sure, just lcheck out what your find when you ghoogle Christopher DeWolfe and Tom Anderson, andplease exuse the fucking ty0posd because I habve been writing shit like this for fouth months and still havent' made a dent in the armor of the fragile ego of themsm. al macleese hallowell, maine, and you do know how to google, no?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Joe, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 8:00pm

   
   

   What the fuck was that?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Missing, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 9:42pm

    
    

    Re: The times and the kittens

    You sure you are off the bubbly, Alan?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Matt, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 9:57pm

    
    

    Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee

    You MUST be in Houston to make a reference to Ms. Lee.
    
    My favorite Lee-ism is STILL when she was in the control room at JSC when they had one of those Mars missions tooling around the surface. She asked the mission commander if it would be possible to drive the rover over to where Neil Armstrong landed.
    
    Ahhhh... Can you smell the democracy?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    jsnbase, Jul 11th, 2006 @ 12:09am

    
    

    So, it absolutely is significant that the LA Times

    I completely disagree. If we were talking about Variety or some other trade publication I'd be with you, but no one out here considers the Times an 'industry' rag. Nobody in Hollywood is looking towards the Times as any kind of public opinion bellwether.I think you're over-estimating the importance of proximity.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    Grumpy Old Man, Jul 11th, 2006 @ 5:03am

    
    

    Re: The times and the kittens

    As one old Geezer to another, brother what you on, and where can i get some? I haven't rambled on like that sence the 70's
    
    GOM

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    Who are you kidding, Jul 11th, 2006 @ 10:36am

    
    

    I question the L.A. Times

    Californians can read? WOW!

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    dan, Jul 11th, 2006 @ 12:44pm

    
    

    Re: The times and the kittens

    Congrats, Alan!! You just set the world record for the longest run-on sentence in written history-- 218 words!
    
    Not a word of it was salient, cogent or coherent, but 218 words in one sentence is 218 words in one sentence. i couldn't do that.
    
    i think i now know why you really lost your job at the Times as a copy editor.
    
    And Hemmingway rolls in his grave.....
    
    -- dan

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    

    Jimbo, Jul 11th, 2006 @ 2:07pm

    
    

    Editorial

    This was an editorial . . . views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the opinion/bias/sellout of the publication. I don't see much relevance. The LA Times is circulated from Santa Barbara down to San Diego - that's a lot of territory, bub.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    

    Alan MadLeese, Jul 13th, 2006 @ 6:57pm

    
    

    Cabin Boys on Parade

    Danny, boy, yeah, I do run on but at least I have passion while all you seem to got is snark and a very worrisome lack of imagination. And, oh, if you read other than my sort of drivel on line,have you noticed that every motherhumping thing I said is standing up, and yeah, danny, I was a little overtaken that nice, but it wasn't the saucce, it was the pipes that had been calling. almac from hallowell, where snarks are politely ignored but I am only a relative newcomer. Hallowell Maine. U.S.A. Nice town. Good eats, fine lobster. Short enuf sentence, Danny?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    

    Starky, Jul 14th, 2006 @ 10:26pm

    
    

    When they make new devices that block the analog hole, I just won't buy them. Are they going to force everyone to update their VCRs, DVRs, and Cameras? What if someone refuses? Or, better yet, just "removes" the people pushing for this.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    

    Alan MadLeese, Jul 23rd, 2006 @ 8:54pm

    
    

    Oh Danny boy, the pipes are ....

    Aside to Danny boy: Once I wrote a column for the FLint Journal all in one sentence, about 700 words. Before that, a friend of mine, a noted columnist for the Miami News, wrote a column all i one sentence, and before that a guy named Ben Stein wrote a column all in one word. Allof these columns were more than twice as long as the lousy 218 words that you counted, Danno, and, all things considered, I would guess if you couldn't handle a measly 218words a whole column would defeat you. Since it usually only takes me about five minutes to write some shit lsuch as that, and since I was high as a Georgia pine, and didn't realize that purists would be listening, why I just went on and on and on....and incidentally, me and Lapinski are going to put a big hurt on the bad folks that spawned MySpace on the wrong side of the blanket, well, who gives a rat's posterior about such niceties as being salient, cogent or worse, terse. al macleese from Hallowell Maine,where bears and moose mate athwart the white lines on the roads high above the Kennebec, and sometimes a moose willconfuse a bear with one of its own kind!!!

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment