<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;jokes&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 6 May 2013 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Ads Gone Wrong</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110222/02530313202/dailydirt-ads-gone-wrong.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110222/02530313202/dailydirt-ads-gone-wrong.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Commercials are always trying to get people's attention -- sometimes by being controversial and sometimes by being shocking. But even when a company tries to broadcast only sensitive and feel-good messages, there will always be some folks pointing out that companies <a href="http://bellejarblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/dove-does-not-give-a-shit-about-whether-or-not-you-feel-beautiful/">don't really care</a> about people as much as profits. Here are just a few advertisements that might have <i>just</i> missed getting their message across.

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/03/22/ford_india_should_probably_fire_its_ad_execs_for_depicting_bound_and_gagged.html" href="http://slate.me/18iS4hm">Why is it that car companies seem to have a hard time NOT making offensive ads? Ford India recently apologized for some terrible ads depicting bound and gagged women in the spacious hatchback trunk of a Ford Figo.</a> But Ford wasn't the only example, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130503/07291422934/hyundai-tries-fails-to-make-its-awful-suicide-ad-disappear-internet.shtml">Hyundai</a> and <a href="http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-MM4LWO1A74E901-62QJI53CLS35K5JJL3U98HUR3O">GM</a> also had some horrible commercials to retract recently. [<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/03/22/ford_india_should_probably_fire_its_ad_execs_for_depicting_bound_and_gagged.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://mashable.com/2012/09/13/dr-pepper-facebook-controversy/" href="http://on.mash.to/18bfPYB">Dr Pepper posted an ad on Facebook with a common geeky joke, showing the evolution of humans -- starting with a chimp-like ancestor and ending with a modern upright person holding a can of his favorite beverage.</a> Poking the beehive of anti-evolution religious folks might be a fairly safe way of creating some controversy, but it probably doesn't sell that much more sugar water. [<a href="http://mashable.com/2012/09/13/dr-pepper-facebook-controversy/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.good.is/posts/why-should-women-read-the-economist/" href="http://bit.ly/18bdwEW">The Economist once ran an ad for itself, asking "Why should women read The Economist?"</a> Maybe publications written by -- and read by -- mostly men should be a bit more careful when trying to step away from being a "Maxim for nerds"..? [<a href="http://www.good.is/posts/why-should-women-read-the-economist/">url</a>]</li>

</ul>

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a> via StumbleUpon.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110222/02530313202/dailydirt-ads-gone-wrong.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110222/02530313202/dailydirt-ads-gone-wrong.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110222/02530313202/dailydirt-ads-gone-wrong.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110222/02530313202</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 23:58:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Major Media Fails To Fact-Check iPhone Joke</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130128/06174321807/major-media-fails-to-fact-check-iphone-joke.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130128/06174321807/major-media-fails-to-fact-check-iphone-joke.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Since some <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/17302821613/cbs-sports-writer-feels-its-ok-to-issue-stealth-corrections-because-its-just-internet.shtml">folks</a> in traditional media still love to pretend that they are part of a select group of information filters that can provide fact-checked news items and that their internet counterparts cannot, I'm going to keep driving this point home: internet news groups and blogs are no more susceptible to hoaxes than major news media. We saw a wonderful example of it recently with the Manti Te'o story, in which major news not only bought the BS hook, line and sinker, but through their <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/06322821722/deadspin-shows-again-that-new-news-media-can-do-investigative-journalism.shtml">inaction</a>, actually perpetuated the story. Still, while that was a story that was, at best, a very sad case of someone lying their tail off, some examples can provide a little more levity.
<br /><br />
Such as, for instance, when the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-iphone-cup-hoder-case-20130124,0,2822603.story">L.A. Times</a> and <a href="http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Technology/2013/01/25/Dutch-firm-envisions-iPhone-cup-holder/UPI-71511359144230/?spt=hts&or=6">UPI</a> write up very real accounts of a <a href="http://www.indiegogo.com/uppercup">very fake iPhone case</a> that includes a retractable cup-holder. The kicker being that Network World's blog <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/uppercup-coffee-drinking-iphone-owner%E2%80%99s-pipe-dream">dismissed it as a prank</a> days earlier. Writer Paul McNamara <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/press-bloggers-fall-iphone-cup-holder-%E2%80%98joke%E2%80%99">didn't miss the chance to point this out</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>Hate to say I told you so ... No, wait, I'm fine with saying I told you so: That combination cup holder/iPhone case (right) that was mocked here on Friday is indeed a joke, or a publicity stunt if you prefer (and I do), according to the Dutch marketing firm that pitched it to reporters and the crowdsourcing site Indiegogo.</i>
</blockquote>
<center>
<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/57148280" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>
</center>
Yet, despite their forewarning, and despite the pure ridiculousness of a case for a phone where the largest part of the equipment holds a Starbucks coffee cup, the L.A. Times <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-iphone-cup-hoder-case-20130124,0,2822603.story">wrote about it in all seriousness</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>In a video that can go toe to toe with any of the best infomercials ever made, Natwerk shows off its "Uppercup." The case is more than two inches thick, but it has a slide out cup holder that iPhone owners can use while they text with two hands or play a video game. Natwerk says the Uppercup will hold any size cup.</i>
</blockquote>
They go on to note that the Dutch company has thus far only raised $765 of their $25k goal, which probably should have been a sign that something might be off. They note that it might be something of a publicity stunt, but it wasn't. It was completely made up. That did not stop UPI from <a href="http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Technology/2013/01/25/Dutch-firm-envisions-iPhone-cup-holder/UPI-71511359144230/?spt=hts&or=6">writing up their own piece</a>, based entirely off of the L.A. Times article. UPI does not note anywhere that it might be a hoax or a publicity stunt.
<br /><br />
So how much fact-checking would have been required to find out that this was all a joke? Apparently one email from McNamara, asking the marketing company responsible for this if it was a joke. Their response?
<blockquote>
<i>Yes, pretty much. For instance, the fact that we've made the whole thing about 3 times as thick as necessary we hoped would give away we weren't all that serious. Nevertheless, we really think it is a cool device and we would really want to have it produced so we can walk around and be cool with it attached to our iPhones.</i>
</blockquote>
It was a joke. So, it would appear, were the fact-checking abilities of two writers for major news media. Good thing there are blogs around to filter out their nonsense.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130128/06174321807/major-media-fails-to-fact-check-iphone-joke.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130128/06174321807/major-media-fails-to-fact-check-iphone-joke.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130128/06174321807/major-media-fails-to-fact-check-iphone-joke.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>egg-on-face</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130128/06174321807</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:45:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>How Do You Say 'Twitter Joke Trial' In Chinese?</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121122/04184921123/how-do-you-say-twitter-joke-trial-chinese.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121122/04184921123/how-do-you-say-twitter-joke-trial-chinese.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Techdirt wrote about how the UK's <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100118/1051427801.shtml">Twitter Joke</a> conviction dragged its slow way through the various appeals before finally being resolved with the defendant's <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120727/03045019854/uk-court-comes-to-its-senses-realizes-tweeting-joke-about-blowing-up-airport-is-not-threat.shtml">acquittal</a>. As you will recall, the issue was somebody making an ill-advised joke about blowing up an airport if he couldn't fly out of it:

<i><blockquote>Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!</blockquote></i>

It's great that Paul Chambers, the person concerned here, finally emerged victorious in his fight against this ridiculous conviction.  But of course the danger that a thoughtless joke on Twitter might have serious consequences remains, as this report from The Epoch Times about <a href="http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/got-a-joke-about-party-in-china-jail-awaits-315991.html">a recent case in China</a> highlights:

<i><blockquote>Four days before the [Chinese Communist] Party's 18th Congress, when a new set of Chinese leaders was sworn in to rule China, Zhai Xiaobing mocked the event by suggesting it was the latest installment in the Final Destination film franchise. The 2000 supernatural horror movie depicts a teenager whose plane explodes, killing all but a few survivors, who then begin mysteriously dying.</blockquote></i>

Here's a translation of what Zhai tweeted (Chinese tweets can contain more content than those written in Western languages because just a few characters can represent a whole word):

<i><blockquote>Final Destination 6 will be in cinemas on November 6. The Great Hall of the People suddenly collapses, and only seven of the over 2000 people holding a meeting inside survive -- but afterwards, they each die, one by one. Is it the game of God, or the fury of the Grim Reaper? How did the mysterious number 18 unlock the gate of hell? The earthshaking world premier opens on November 8!</blockquote></i>

Obviously, not exactly a rib-tickler, and rather unwise given <a href="http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/security-bears-down-in-beijing-before-congress-310930.html">the extreme sensitivity of the Chinese authorities about this crucial handover of power</a>.  But even against that background, the response seems to be unduly severe: arrested and "disappeared".

<i><blockquote>Zhai had been accused of "spreading false and terrorist information," and was taken away by security forces, according to netizen @iamhudi who called Zhai's wife. The fact that he has been disappeared was later corroborated by two other individuals who visited the family's house, according to Yaxue Cao, a writer and blogger who maintains contacts in China.</blockquote></i>

Worryingly, <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/1014998/chinese-twitter-user-arrested-wife-missing">people have also lost contact with his wife</a>, although it's not yet clear whether she has been arrested too.  Zhai's friends, and supporters of a more liberal approach to Chinese state control of online activities, are doing what they can, which is pretty much limited to online petitions.  The precedent for what might happen to him isn't good.  As The Epoch Times story explains:

<i><blockquote>The first "Twitter criminal," as she was called, was Wang Yi, an activist who in 2010 mocked hypernationalist young people with the tweet "Angry youth, charge!"

<br /><br />

This was determined to be a case of "disturbing social order." The punishment? One year of re-education in the Henan Women's Labor Camp.</blockquote></i>

Perhaps Zhai's best hope is that the new Chinese leadership might decide to be lenient in this matter so as to create a positive atmosphere among the Chinese people for the start of its ten-year rule over them.  Equally, it might not want to sour relationships with the West through imposing a harsh punishment for such a trivial matter, although that is less likely to be a consideration given China's rising self-confidence.  Whatever the reason, let's hope the outcome of this Chinese Twitter joke story is ultimately the same as that in the UK.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121122/04184921123/how-do-you-say-twitter-joke-trial-chinese.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121122/04184921123/how-do-you-say-twitter-joke-trial-chinese.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121122/04184921123/how-do-you-say-twitter-joke-trial-chinese.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-not-funny</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121122/04184921123</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:34:39 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Hall &#038; Oates Convince Super PAC Named After Them To Shut Down</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/08091820180/hall-oates-convince-super-pac-named-after-them-to-shut-down.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/08091820180/hall-oates-convince-super-pac-named-after-them-to-shut-down.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's been plenty of talk this election season about the rise of PACs and SuperPACs -- and the ease of creating them.  Of course, that can lead to some bizarre situations.  Take, for example the <a href="http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00527499" target="_blank">creation of the Hall and Oates Fans for America</a> SuperPAC, which was recently approved by the Federal Election Commission (found via <a href="https://twitter.com/onthemedia/statuses/240461627739209728" target="_blank">On the Media</a>).  The <a href="http://politicker.com/2012/08/how-hall-oates-got-their-very-own-super-pac/" target="_blank">thinking behind it might not surprise you very much</a>:
<blockquote><i>
&#8220;It was really just kind of a joke a couple of us came up with drunk one night. I wish I could say there was more to it, but that&#8217;s about it,&#8221; said [William] Hansmann.
</i></blockquote> 
Hansmann stated that the goal of the SuperPAC was "to create parody videos on YouTube."  Seems like as good a use of a SuperPAC as any.  As for why they chose famed rock duo Hall &#038; Oates?  Well, that was easy:
<blockquote><i>
&#8220;When we hit on Hall &#038; Oates, we were just like, who doesn&#8217;t love Hall &#038; Oates?&#8221; Mr. Hansmann explained.
</i></blockquote>
That may be true... but while everyone may love Hall &#038; Oates... it turns out that Hall &#038; Oates don't really love being associated with a SuperPAC.  They had their people "get in touch" with Hansmann and convince him <a href="http://politicker.com/2012/08/hall-oates-got-rid-of-the-super-pac-that-was-named-for-them/" target="_blank">to shut down the SuperPAC</a>, which had raised all of $0.  According to Hall &#038; Oates' manager, the duo was wary of any political connection whatsoever, even one involving parody videos:
<blockquote><i>
"Daryl Hall and John Oates recognize that the personal view points of their fans cross all political spectrums and are honored to be supported by their fans everywhere regardless of political affiliation... The PAC's founders recognize that the use of the &#8216;Hall&#8217; and &#8216;Oates&#8217; names for the purpose of raising funds is not an appropriate fan activity no matter what the goal of the fund raising activities might be.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
Thankfully, it appears that the dynamic duo and their manager resolved this in a friendly manner, rather than the all-too-typical reaction of some to immediately rush to legal nastygramming.
<blockquote><i>
"Daryl Hall and John Oates are pleased that the amicable dialog with the founders of the Super Pac have brought an expedient resolution to this matter and achieved a result both sides are pleased with."
</i></blockquote>
Of course, what's unclear is if the SuperPAC has just been shut down, or is being renamed.  Any suggestions on what else it might be called?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/08091820180/hall-oates-convince-super-pac-named-after-them-to-shut-down.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/08091820180/hall-oates-convince-super-pac-named-after-them-to-shut-down.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/08091820180/hall-oates-convince-super-pac-named-after-them-to-shut-down.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-now-where-will-the-hall-&#038;-oates-fans-put-their-money?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120828/08091820180</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:33:06 PDT</pubDate>
<title>TSA Declares Themselves Fashion &#038; Funny Police</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/16245520196/tsa-declares-themselves-fashion-funny-police.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/16245520196/tsa-declares-themselves-fashion-funny-police.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While we were just discussing an accusation against the TSA for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120813/08275320006/tsa-racial-profiling-may-hide-larger-constitutional-problem.shtml">racial profiling</a> (GASP!), did you know that they were also the official state-sponsored fashion and humor police? I mean, who couldn&#39;t see these guys adjudicating your local fashion show?
<center>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mobileedgelaptopbags/4119819621/" title="TSA Screener with Checkpoint Friendly Laptop Case by Mobile Edge Laptop Cases, on Flickr"><img a="" src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2689/4119819621_8d5246c47c.jpg" width="300" /></a></center>
<center>
<p>
<span style="font-size: 10px">TSA uniforms: like Michael Jackson, but creepier<br />
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mobileedgelaptopbags/4119819621/">Image Source</a>. CC BY-SA 2.0</span></p>
</center>
<p>
Reader <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=pixelpusher220">pixelpusher220</a> writes in about the tale of how <a href="http://boingboing.net/2012/08/21/delta-refuses-boarding-to-poop.html">one man's shirt got him booted off of a Delta airplane</a> <i>after</i> passing through TSA security, as recounted by Cory Doctrow.
<blockquote>
<i>Back in 2007, I <a href="http://shirt.woot.com/offers/threat-level-doctorow">designed a shirt</a> for Woot! that featured a screaming eagle clutching an unlaced shoe and a crushed water bottle, surrounded by the motto MOISTURE BOMBS ZOMG TERRORISTS ZOMG GONNA KILL US ALL ZOMG ZOMG ALERT LEVEL BLOODRED RUN RUN TAKE OFF YOUR SHOES. Among the lucky owners of this garment is Arijit <a href="http://boingboing.net/2012/07/28/poop-strong-young-cancer-pati.html">"Poop Strong"</a> Guha, who proudly wore it this week as he headed for a Delta flight from Buffalo-Niagara International Airport to his home in Phoenix. </i>
<p>
<i>But it was not to be. First, the <s>TSA</s> <b>Delta agents</b> questioned him closely about the shirt, and made him agree to change it, submit to a secondary screening and board last. He complied with these rules, but then he was pulled aside by multiple Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority cops, more TSA, and a Delta official and searched again.</i>
</p></blockquote>
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/VPRsr"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/VPRsr.jpg" width="500" /></a></center>
<center>
<br />
<span style="font-size: 10px">Apparently the new terror plot is to make you laugh so hard your face explodes</span></center>
</p><p>
<br />
It&#39;s worth noting that these shirts were designed by Cory Doctrow and <a href="http://shirt.woot.com/offers/threat-level-doctorow)">sold as part of a charitable program</a>.<br />
<br />
Now, I&#39;ll restate it again, Arijit had already gone through the TSA screening when he and his wife were then approached by Delta employees at the gate who informed him that he had committed the crime of making other passengers "uncomfortable". When Arijit informed the Delta employees that he was wearing the shirt specifically to mock the security theater we call an airport these days, he was put through another round of screening at the gate by several TSA and local agents and then told that he would be allowed to board. The Delta pilot, catching wind of this, requested Arijit <i>not</i> be allowed to board, because laughter would not be tolerated on his enormous hunk of flying metal. Oh, and they also refused to allow his wife to board the plane too. No reason was apparently given for this, but I&#39;m guessing there may have been some plaid mixing with pin-stripes in her outfit, and the pilot found it to be lacking in fabulousness.<br />
<br />
Or maybe there was another reason. According to Arijit, <a href="http://arijitvsdelta.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/on-saturday-august-18-2012-delta.html" target="_blank">the officer wanted to interrogate him further</a>, saying that Arijit had given a "stupid answer" and "looked foreign":
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;Certainly he wasn&rsquo;t implying that dark-skinned people are not real Americans and that white people are the only true Americans,&rdquo; Arijit writes in part of his snark-filled synopsis.</i><i> &ldquo;Fortunately, Mark&rsquo;s request was denied. Apparently, someone at NFTA recognized this bigoted meathead for the bigoted meathead he was and that nationality is simply a concept that exists solely on paper and cannot be discerned from just looking at someone.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
And yet he still wasn&#39;t allowed on the plane. Was it because of his t-shirt? Was it because the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/11022720048/this-t-shirt-has-been-seized.shtml">motherfucking eagle</a> on it caused concern amongst passengers? Or, as has been previously accused, was it because too many TSA agents find brown-skinned people suspicious and alarming?</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/16245520196/tsa-declares-themselves-fashion-funny-police.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/16245520196/tsa-declares-themselves-fashion-funny-police.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/16245520196/tsa-declares-themselves-fashion-funny-police.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>bombs-zomg</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120828/16245520196</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 1 Feb 2012 03:32:34 PST</pubDate>
<title>Homeland Security Denies Entrance To UK Tourist Because Of Twitter Joke</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/00454517597/homeland-security-denies-entrance-to-uk-tourist-because-twitter-joke.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/00454517597/homeland-security-denies-entrance-to-uk-tourist-because-twitter-joke.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I am actually writing this post sitting in a French airport, getting ready to board my flight back to the US... but I think I'll hang onto it and post once I'm back in town.  That's because it's about some UK tourists who were taking a little vacation to the US... <a href="http://boingboing.net/2012/01/30/brits-deported-from-u-s-for-t.html" target="_blank">until Homeland Security refused them entrance</a>, because one of them had joked on Twitter about digging up the grave of Marilyn Monroe and "destroying" America (by which he meant partying).  Apparently, DHS has figured out how to monitor Twitter... but hasn't figured out what a sense of humor is.  (And yes, I made it home and through customs without any trouble).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/00454517597/homeland-security-denies-entrance-to-uk-tourist-because-twitter-joke.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/00454517597/homeland-security-denies-entrance-to-uk-tourist-because-twitter-joke.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/00454517597/homeland-security-denies-entrance-to-uk-tourist-because-twitter-joke.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>so-sorry,-too-bad</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120131/00454517597</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 7 Jun 2011 19:05:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Yes, Multiple People Come Up With The Same Joke; It's Not 'Stealing' And Not Even Copying</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110521/16034014377/yes-multiple-people-come-up-with-same-joke-its-not-stealing-not-even-copying.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110521/16034014377/yes-multiple-people-come-up-with-same-joke-its-not-stealing-not-even-copying.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few times in the past, we've had posts looking at the issue of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070219/010207.shtml">comedians copying each other's jokes</a> and whether or not that's "stealing."  Of course, as discussed at length here, this is clearly a misuse of the word "steal," but a larger point is that, like so much else in this world, there's a world of difference between idea and execution.  In fact, if you look back at the history of joke telling it was <i>all about</i> "joke stealing," where people would tell and repeat jokes heard elsewhere.  The real question was who could tell it better and perhaps change or embellish it to improve it.  In fact, even comedians who complain about "joke stealing" seem to know this intrinsically, as can be seen in the movie <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436078/" target="_blank"><i>The Aristocrats</i></a>, which involves a ton of comedians all telling the same joke in very, very different ways.
<br /><br />
But there's another angle to this as well: which is that certain joke ideas are so basic that it's likely many people came up with the same idea.  Jackie sent over this great blog post by  Irwin Handleman, a TV comedy writer, pointing out <a href="http://notesfromahack.blogspot.com/2011/05/let-joke-stealing-go.html" target="_blank">how silly it is for people to complain about "joke stealing"</a> involving those types of jokes.  He gives an example:
<blockquote><i>
A few weeks ago, after President Obama showed his birth certificate to Donald Trump and the other racists, The Onion's headline was: "Afterbirthers Demand To See Obama's Placenta." 
<br /><br />
A fine joke. But then Bill Maher went on twitter and wrote: "I see The Onion stole my placenta joke that I did in Feb 2010 HBO special"
<br /><br />
Wow. Okay. I've never heard of The Onion being accused of stealing in the past. It also seemed a bit presumptuous that everyone has seen that HBO special. 
<br /><br />
Well, it turns out that The Onion headline was actually a link to something they wrote in August of 2009. Apparently The Onion recycles its content when news stories pop again. They actually did the joke 6 months before Bill did!
<br /><br />
Does this mean that Bill stole from The Onion? Of course not. Just like it was dumb to think they stole from him. It happens all the time. In fact, just to show how ridiculous the whole thing is, The Daily Show ended up doing the exact same joke, and Rupaul tweeted it a variation of it as well. 
<br /><br />
Bill Maher should've done what all comedians should do when it comes to this shit: shut the hell up. Let your work speak for itself. The hacks will fade, the talented will succeed. 
<br /><br />
This whole episode was very interesting to us at our show. Because last year, we wrote a line: "Life starts at the erection". And then 2 months later, Bill Maher said "Life starts at the erection". Did we say anything? No. It was a coincidence, and we knew it, and we moved on. 
</i></blockquote>
Some things aren't about copying at all, but just about the natural humor of the situation.  And Handleman has it right.  Getting upset about that kind of thing is ridiculous.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110521/16034014377/yes-multiple-people-come-up-with-same-joke-its-not-stealing-not-even-copying.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110521/16034014377/yes-multiple-people-come-up-with-same-joke-its-not-stealing-not-even-copying.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110521/16034014377/yes-multiple-people-come-up-with-same-joke-its-not-stealing-not-even-copying.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>let-it-go</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110521/16034014377</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:28:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Scientists Finally Tackle The Age Old 'That's What She Said' Problem</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110429/16134914088/scientists-finally-tackle-age-old-thats-what-she-said-problem.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110429/16134914088/scientists-finally-tackle-age-old-thats-what-she-said-problem.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Forget the traveling salesman problem or p=np, some computer scientists have finally tackled the <i>really</i> big challenge for computers: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/04/software-works-out-whether-tha.html" target="_blank">teaching them how to understand the innuendo and double entendres necessary to make a "that's what she said" joke</a>.  Yes, all other computer science pale in comparison, so kudos to Chloe Kiddon and Yuriy Brun for tackling such a difficult challenge:
<blockquote><i>
Automating this process means identifying sentences that contain potential euphemisms and follow a particular structure - a "hard natural language understanding problem", say the researchers.  Kiddon and Brun began by analysing two different bodies of text - one containing 1.5 million erotic sentences, and another with 57,000 from standard literature. <br /><br />They then evaluated nouns, adjectives and verbs with a "sexiness" function to determine whether a sentence is a potential TWSS. Examples of nouns with a high sexiness function are "rod" and "meat", while raunchy adjectives are "hot" and "wet".
<br /><br />Their automated system, known as Double Entendre via Noun Transfer or DEviaNT, rates sentences for their TWSS potential by looking for particular elements such as nouns that can be interpreted in multiple ways. The researchers trained DEviaNT by gathering jokes from <a href="http://www.twssstories.com/">twssstories.com</a> and non-TWSS text from sites such as <a href="http://www.wikiquote.org/">wikiquote.org</a>.
</i></blockquote>
Apparently, the system is about 70% accurate so far, but they believe they can get it up to 99.5% accuracy before too long.
<br /><br />
I'm sorry, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110302/02425613325/finally-found-human-that-can-beat-watson-it-turns-out-to-be-rep-rush-holt.shtml">Watson</a>, but this may be the biggest computing/artificial intelligence story of the year.  And, already, the race is on to come up with the appropriate jokes.  My <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/annfriedman/statuses/64030683512848384" target="_blank">favorite</a> so far was this quote for the researchers on this project: "It was hard and it took forever."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110429/16134914088/scientists-finally-tackle-age-old-thats-what-she-said-problem.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110429/16134914088/scientists-finally-tackle-age-old-thats-what-she-said-problem.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110429/16134914088/scientists-finally-tackle-age-old-thats-what-she-said-problem.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it-was-hard-and-it-took-forever</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110429/16134914088</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:36:49 PST</pubDate>
<title>Unicorns And Leprechauns Aren't Real... But Trolls Are (And They Have Lawyers)</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/12332513464/unicorns-leprechauns-arent-real-trolls-are-they-have-lawyers.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/12332513464/unicorns-leprechauns-arent-real-trolls-are-they-have-lawyers.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A whole bunch of you have been sending in the silly story of Liberty Media's latest antics.  As you may know, the porn producer has been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=liberty+media">crazy aggressive</a> in going after file sharers, even going beyond the standard mass pre-settlement threat campaign, with a ridiculous <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110126/02580412829/new-twist-mass-pre-settlement-copyright-shakedown-letters-porn-company-asks-downloaders-to-confess-pay.shtml">amnesty offer</a> to get people to pay $1,000 even if they haven't been accused of file sharing.  Someone in Sweden, a guy named Ryan, apparently decided to taunt Liberty Media, sending an email to them <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/movie-studio-goes-after-self-proclaimed-pirate-his-unicorn-and-leprechaun-110310/" target="_blank">"confessing" to regularly sharing Liberty Media works... along with mentioning the unicorns and leprechauns advising him</a>.  The whole thing was clearly a joke, but Liberty Media's parent company, Corbin Fisher, is apparently without much of a sense of humor and issued a subpoena to try to get the guy's info, claiming that they're taking his "confession" seriously.  The guy says he's never shared or downloaded any Liberty Media stuff and isn't in the US anyway.  Of course, Liberty is able to do this as a part of the discovery process, but do they really think this is going to go anywhere?  I think, in the future, there should be some measure of how much of a sense of humor a company has, and people should learn to only deal with companies who can take a joke.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/12332513464/unicorns-leprechauns-arent-real-trolls-are-they-have-lawyers.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/12332513464/unicorns-leprechauns-arent-real-trolls-are-they-have-lawyers.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/12332513464/unicorns-leprechauns-arent-real-trolls-are-they-have-lawyers.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>reality-bites</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110311/12332513464</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 11:37:59 PST</pubDate>
<title>A Lesson In Venn Diagrams... And Who Gets Paid To Touch Your Junk</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101228/23111112441/lesson-venn-diagrams-who-gets-paid-to-touch-your-junk.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101228/23111112441/lesson-venn-diagrams-who-gets-paid-to-touch-your-junk.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Recently on Reddit, a link to a "Venn diagram" about <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/eqnyx/all_about_your_junk/" target="_blank">"people paid to touch your junk"</a> got pretty popular (even though it was apparently a repeat post of one that <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/epyym/tsa_agents_are_in_the_wrong_profession/" target="_blank">didn't get nearly as popular</a>.  You can see it here:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/awSgf.png" />
</center>
The image then got plenty of attention with links from a variety of much bigger sites that I'm not going to mention, and it seemed to get a good chuckle out of folks who have been following the whole TSA/junk touching situation.
<br><br>
Well, that is unless you actually understand what a Venn diagram is supposed to show.  Those people were somewhat horrified.
<br><Br>
<a href="https://twitter.com/#!/skrenta/" target="_blank">Rich Skrenta</a> points us to an absolutely hilarious <a href="http://eblong.com/zarf/thod/38.html" target="_blank">deconstruction of the problems with this graphic</a> and how it's not actually an accurate Venn diagram at all written by <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/zarfeblong" target="_blank">Andrew Plotkin</a>.  As he notes, the overlapping parts of circles on a Venn diagram are supposed to include <i>both</i> sets.  In other words, if those three original sets formed a Venn diagram like the one above, the real categorization would be as following:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Q0nSq.png" />
</center>
You have to imagine that the set of "airport-guarding hookers with medical degrees," is somewhat small.  Or non-existent in all likelihood.  So if we were to draw the chart above <i>to scale</i>, there likely would be almost no overlap between any of the three circles.
<br><br>
As Plotkin then points out, what the original creator of the diagram <i>meant</i> for the diagram to show, is that all three of those professions are paid to touch your junk -- and thus a more accurate -- but not at all funny nor understandable, version of the Venn diagram would be the following:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/P6TRF.png" />
</center>
I might quibble with that one a bit, seeing as not <i>all</i> TSA agents or doctors are necessarily paid to touch your junk (and I guess there could be a tiny subset of prostitutes who aren't either, but I can't imagine that's a very large number), but still, the overall point is there.  Though, um, it's not funny.  Or really all that understandable.
<br><br>
So, if you wanted to create a Venn diagram that actually makes the same point (sorta) and does it without being the mess above, what would you do?  Well, Plotkin comes to the rescue again with the following:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/75BBL.png" />
</center>
Plotkin then goes on to do a few more diagrams and teach folks a bit about how Venn diagrams are supposed to work -- which is totally worth checking out as well.
<br><Br>
They say that if you have to deconstruct a joke, you've probably ruined it, but if that joke contains a Venn diagram, and that Venn diagram is <i>wrong</i>, but still becomes popular with people claiming it's an accurate Venn diagram, suddenly that deconstruction can be a lot funnier than the original.  Kudos to Plotkin for breaking it down...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101228/23111112441/lesson-venn-diagrams-who-gets-paid-to-touch-your-junk.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101228/23111112441/lesson-venn-diagrams-who-gets-paid-to-touch-your-junk.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101228/23111112441/lesson-venn-diagrams-who-gets-paid-to-touch-your-junk.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>deconstructing-a-joke</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101228/23111112441</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Dec 2010 22:02:55 PST</pubDate>
<title>Oh Look, Police Can Investigate A Satirical Online Comment About Mythical Violence And Not Overreact</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101226/23513112416/oh-look-police-can-investigate-satirical-online-comment-about-mythical-violence-not-overreact.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101226/23513112416/oh-look-police-can-investigate-satirical-online-comment-about-mythical-violence-not-overreact.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've recently covered <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100923/01464111127/more-stories-of-people-arrested-for-making-joke-threats-on-social-networks.shtml">two separate stories</a> of guys who made (perhaps in poor taste) jokes online about a violent activity they were considering (one a joke about blowing up an airport, and another taking a line from Fight Club and applying it to an Apple Store).  In both cases (one in the UK and one in the US), police came to investigate.  I have no problem with that part of it.  If someone legitimately feels threatened, it's good that the police will go investigate.  The <i>problem</i> was that even after they realized that the person was just making an offhand joking statement online, they <i>still pressed charges</i>.  The guy in the US eventually got off, but the guy in the UK <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/13002411972/paul-chambers-planning-to-blow-his-twitter-joke-trial-sky-high.shtml">did not</a> and is still appealing his case higher.
<br /><br />
However, it's nice to know that sometimes the police recognize a silly online comment for being a silly online comment.  <a href="http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/111496/more-to-read-64/" target="_blank">Romenesko</a> points us to a recent story of a blogger who writes (somewhat satirically) about the giant NYC apartment complex <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_Town%E2%80%94Peter_Cooper_Village" target="_blank">Stuy Town</a>, who recently had a post entitled <a href="http://stuytownluxliving.com/2010/11/tenant-to-children-stfu.html" target="_blank">Tenant to Children: STFU</a>, complaining about kids making a lot of noise early on Saturday morning, and telling parents to keep their kids quiet however possible.  It also illustrated the post with "a crying child in a rifle scope's crosshairs," -- an image that was changed after people complained.   Either way, all of this got some residents to call the police, worried that someone was "targeting" their children, and so <a href="http://evgrieve.com/2010/12/13th-precinct-pays-visit-to-local.html" target="_blank">the police actually stopped by the blogger's apartment</a> to make sure he wasn't really planning to shoot children:
<blockquote><i>
Detectives from the 13th Precinct  stopped by today to check on my lucidity and be sure there were no guns in my apartment after some tenants complained that I was inciting violence by posting an email sent to me for the "Tenant to Children: STFU!" post. They were really nice and understood the Lux Living post in question was satire but they had a job to do. After a tour of my apartment and some light conversation about my art collection and antique furniture it was clear to them that I am just a writer with a dark sense of humor and not a threat to society.
</i></blockquote>
While one assumes that this should be the standard way that police respond to such complaints, just the fact that we've seen a few stories that went in the other direction made me realize we might as well highlight when things go the right way also.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101226/23513112416/oh-look-police-can-investigate-satirical-online-comment-about-mythical-violence-not-overreact.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101226/23513112416/oh-look-police-can-investigate-satirical-online-comment-about-mythical-violence-not-overreact.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101226/23513112416/oh-look-police-can-investigate-satirical-online-comment-about-mythical-violence-not-overreact.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>if-only-others-did-so-as-well</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101226/23513112416</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:16:27 PST</pubDate>
<title>Paul Chambers Planning To Blow His Twitter Joke Trial Sky High...</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/13002411972/paul-chambers-planning-to-blow-his-twitter-joke-trial-sky-high.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/13002411972/paul-chambers-planning-to-blow-his-twitter-joke-trial-sky-high.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Paul Chambers, who has now <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101111/17014011820/guy-who-was-arrested-convicted-for-joke-tweet-loses-appeal.shtml">lost twice</a> in court for making a joke on Twitter (talking about "blowing [an] airport sky high!!" if it didn't reopen from weather delays), which everyone (including the police) agree was a joke, is now threatening to blow the case sky high, by <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11809185?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">appealing to the UK High Court</a>.  One would hope that the folks at the UK High Court recognize the chilling effects of prosecuting someone for making a silly statement on social networks that clearly had no intent behind it.  Again -- before people accuse otherwise -- I have no problem with the message being <i>investigated</i> by police to make sure it wasn't serious.  However, once it was clear that it was not a real threat, then no charges should have been brought.  In the meantime, I'm still wondering what kind of terrorists first Tweet that they're actually going to blow up an airport... Perhaps the folks behind the TSA's security team can answer that...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/13002411972/paul-chambers-planning-to-blow-his-twitter-joke-trial-sky-high.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/13002411972/paul-chambers-planning-to-blow-his-twitter-joke-trial-sky-high.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/13002411972/paul-chambers-planning-to-blow-his-twitter-joke-trial-sky-high.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-a-joke...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101122/13002411972</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 07:53:45 PST</pubDate>
<title>Guy Who Was Arrested &#038; Convicted For Joke Tweet Loses Appeal</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101111/17014011820/guy-who-was-arrested-convicted-for-joke-tweet-loses-appeal.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101111/17014011820/guy-who-was-arrested-convicted-for-joke-tweet-loses-appeal.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We found it ridiculous that UK law enforcement <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100118/1051427801.shtml">pushed forward</a> with a plan to prosecute Paul Chambers, a guy who made a bad joke on Twitter. After hearing that his local airport was closed and noting that he was supposed to fly out of there in a week, he stated that if the airport didn't "get [its] shit together" he was going to "[blow] the airport sky high!!"  It's a bad joke, no doubt.  And I don't even mind that law enforcement felt the need to check the whole thing out.  But where it gets insane is that they pushed forward with prosecuting him.  Of course, even law enforcement was smart enough to recognize that they <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100511/2341419387.shtml">couldn't charge him with making a bomb threat</a> (which is illegal), because they knew he really didn't make a bomb threat.  So instead, they charged him with an obscure part of the UK's Communications Act which outlaws sending a message "of menacing character."  It got even more ridiculous when he was found guilty of this.
<br /><br />
Now, to turn a ridiculous situation into a pure farce, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-11736785?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">an appeals court has upheld the earlier ruling</a>.  Comedian/actor Stephen Fry, who had promised to pay the original fine has again promised to pay whatever Chambers owes.  The BBC coverage doesn't explain the court's ruling for upholding the original conviction, but it certainly seems to make the UK judicial system look like a joke.  At some point, shouldn't common sense enter into the discussion?  It's fine to investigate the comment, but even the officer who investigated it noted that the statement was obviously a "foolish comment posted on Twitter as a joke for only his close friends to see."  That's the point at which they tell him maybe he shouldn't make stupid jokes and send him on his way... not go through with a trial.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101111/17014011820/guy-who-was-arrested-convicted-for-joke-tweet-loses-appeal.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101111/17014011820/guy-who-was-arrested-convicted-for-joke-tweet-loses-appeal.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101111/17014011820/guy-who-was-arrested-convicted-for-joke-tweet-loses-appeal.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>common-sense-isn't-so-common</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101111/17014011820</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:24:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Italy Demands Apple Remove Joke iTunes App; Starts Legal Action Against App Author</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100930/10124211240/italy-demands-apple-remove-joke-itunes-app-starts-legal-action-against-app-author.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100930/10124211240/italy-demands-apple-remove-joke-itunes-app-starts-legal-action-against-app-author.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=btr1701">btr1701</a> passes on the news of how Italy's tourism minister apparently has absolutely no sense of humor.  There's an app in the Apple iTunes store for iPhones and iPads called "What Country," which summarizes every country in quick stereotypical snippets.  It's meant to be amusing.  For example:
<blockquote><i>
Britain is characterised by "tea, weird sense of humour, football hooligans and rain", while Germany is summed up with "beer, discipline and autobahns". China is reduced to "overpopulation, kung fu, Great Wall, Tibet and tea ceremony", while the most defining characteristics of the US are "melting pot, hamburger and the American dream".
</i></blockquote>
As for Italy, well, it's summarized as "pizza, the Mafia and scooters."  And, apparently, Italy's tourism minister, Michela Vittoria Brambilla, has such a lack of humor that she declared the app "offensive and unacceptable," demanded that Apple remove it from the store <i>and</i> (most ridiculous of all) is asking the state's attorney to <b>take legal action</b> against the author.  Apparently, someone thinks it's illegal in Italy to make a joke about Italy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100930/10124211240/italy-demands-apple-remove-joke-itunes-app-starts-legal-action-against-app-author.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100930/10124211240/italy-demands-apple-remove-joke-itunes-app-starts-legal-action-against-app-author.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100930/10124211240/italy-demands-apple-remove-joke-itunes-app-starts-legal-action-against-app-author.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>humor-sensors?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100930/10124211240</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 05:38:40 PDT</pubDate>
<title>More Stories Of People Arrested For Making Joke Threats On Social Networks</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100923/01464111127/more-stories-of-people-arrested-for-making-joke-threats-on-social-networks.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100923/01464111127/more-stories-of-people-arrested-for-making-joke-threats-on-social-networks.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this year. we wrote about a guy in the UK, Paul Chambers, who was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100118/1051427801.shtml">arrested</a> after he tweeted a message about blowing up his local airport if it didn't reopen in time for the flight he had to take the following week.  The message was clearly a joke.  Now, as I mentioned at the time, I have no problem with the police doing a quick check to make sure it's really a joke, but that's as far as it should go.  Instead, the police ended up arresting him under the Terrorist Act and eventually <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100511/2341419387.shtml">charged him with a crime</a>.  They did <b>not</b> charge him with making a fake bomb threat (which is a crime) because they knew that such a charge wouldn't stand up in court.  Instead, they charged him with using the internet to send a "message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character."  Chambers is back in the news, as he's now <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-11408239?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">appealing his ridiculous conviction</a>.
<br /><br />
If you thought such things only happened in the UK, it turns out you'd be wrong.  I was just listening to a <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/414/right-to-remain-silent" target="_blank">recent episode of <i>This American Life</i></a>, which covered an amazingly similar situation, involving American comic <a href="http://www.joelipari.com/" target="_blank">Joe Lipari</a>.  After having what can charitably be described as a "bad" Apple store experience, he went home and was watching the movie <i>Fight Club</i> -- and got "inspired" by <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/quotes?qt0479184" target="_blank">a famous line from the movie</a>, and paraphrased it into a Facebook status reading:
<blockquote><i>
Joe Lipari might walk into an Apple store on 5th Avenue, with an Armalite AR-10 gas-powered semi-automatic weapon and pump round after round into one of those smug, fruity little concierges.  This may be someone you've known for years.  Someone very, very close to you.
</i></blockquote>
It's a pretty direct paraphrase from the movie.  Yet, it took all of about an hour for a bunch of NYC police at his door, carrying machine guns and wearing bullet proof vests.
<br /><br />
Just like the case of Chambers in the UK, rather than recognizing that this throwaway social media message, charges were filed against Lipari -- and they were pretty serious charges.  There were two felony charges -- including one for "making terroristic threats."  Rather than dropping it after recognizing this was joke, the case actually started out by going to court -- where the ADA even admitted to the judge that they knew Lipari was a comedian and this was a joke intended for his friends... but they still wanted to push forward.  Lipari, to his credit, turned down various plea deals, believing that the whole concept of him being arrested and charged with this was ridiculous.  The story ends with the ADA finally backing down, and the case is currently likely to be dismissed (though it hasn't fully been dismissed yet).
<br /><br />
The similarities between Chambers' situation in the UK and Lipari's situation in the US seem pretty clear -- and neither are particularly flattering for law enforcement folks.  Yes, obviously we still live in a time where "heightened awareness" to potential threats makes sense.  But, at some point (and probably some point really, really early on), it should have become clear in both of these cases, that these were just two guys making stupid jokes via their social networking status tools -- and that's the point at which everything should have been dropped.  That both cases went much, much further is a travesty, and suggests that law enforcement is wasting time on things like this, rather than real threats.
<br /><br />
On a separate note, if you keep listening to the second story on that same episode of <i>This American Life</i>, it's yet another depressing tale of really questionable police activity, and how the police didn't just turn on a guy who tried to fix the system, but literally came up with trumped up charges to get him locked up in a mental institution without telling anyone.  Folks in law enforcement talk about the respect that they deserve, but by doing things like this, they show they haven't earned such respect.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100923/01464111127/more-stories-of-people-arrested-for-making-joke-threats-on-social-networks.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100923/01464111127/more-stories-of-people-arrested-for-making-joke-threats-on-social-networks.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100923/01464111127/more-stories-of-people-arrested-for-making-joke-threats-on-social-networks.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>investigate-and-let-it-go</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100923/01464111127</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 15:42:25 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Smart: Graduating As Valedictorian Of An Ivy League School; Not Smart: Plagiarizing Part Of Your Speech From A Famous Comedian</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100525/1454349568.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100525/1454349568.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As a bunch of folks have been sending in, it appears that the valedictorian of Columbia University's General Studies program, Brian Corman, thought that <a href="http://spectrum.columbiaspectator.com/spectrum/gs-valedictory-class-day-speech-plagiarized" target="_blank">no one would notice if he copied -- verbatim -- a joke from popular comedian Patton Oswalt</a>.  First, here's Oswalt's joke in two parts:
<center>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9LjfsFOxwfA&#038;hl=en_US&#038;fs=1&#038;"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9LjfsFOxwfA&#038;hl=en_US&#038;fs=1&#038;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<br /><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fLvWuODLoEk&#038;hl=en_US&#038;fs=1&#038;"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fLvWuODLoEk&#038;hl=en_US&#038;fs=1&#038;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
</center>
Then, there's the clip of the part of Corman's graduation speech, which, you'll note is covered by a giant message from a dean at Columbia apologizing for the mess:
<center>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MIsid1JKxK0&#038;hl=en_US&#038;fs=1&#038;"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MIsid1JKxK0&#038;hl=en_US&#038;fs=1&#038;start=2316" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
</center>
The dean's apology reads:
<blockquote><i>
It has come to our attention that a portion of our Valedictorian's remarks at this year's School of General Studies Class Day was taken from a comedy routine by Patton Oswalt.  As an institution of higher learning that places a core value on respect for the works of others, we were surprised and disappointed to have learned of this matter today. Columbia University and the School of General Studies do not condone or permit the use of someone else's work without proper citation. The student speaker has appropriately issued an apology to his classmates and to Mr. Oswalt for failing to provide such attribution.
</i></blockquote>
Oswalt, for his part, wrote on his own site that while the kid apologized, he wonders about what sort of valedictorian <a href="http://www.pattonoswalt.com/index.cfm?page=spew&#038;id=146" target="_blank">would copy in such a manner</a>:
<blockquote><i>
Brian Corman apologized to me. Flat-out admitted his thievery, his stupidity. Owned it all. Good man. Still makes me wonder what he might have done to become valedictorian -- I mean, if he's willing to steal material for something as inconsequential as a speech, how rubbery did his boundaries become when his GPA and future career were on the line? Oh well. 
</i></blockquote>
Quite a story all around, and it raises a bunch of different points that we'll hit in bullet form:
<ul>
<li><b>Joke copying</b>: This is a popular topic that we've <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070219/010207.shtml">discussed</a> a few times in the past. While it certainly does piss off comedians, they seem to ignore the fact that it's not just quite common among comedians, but, historically, it was considered <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/0131277046.shtml">quite normal</a>.  That's because people realized that there is no monopoly on being funny -- and that it's usually <i>the timing</i> and <i>the delivery</i> that matter much more than the joke itself (which can be seen in the clips above -- where Oswalt's version comes off much funnier than Corman's copy).
</li><li><b>Social mores</b>: But, more importantly, it's the <i>social cost</i> to copying that keeps this from getting too far out of line.  In the comic world, comedians who have a reputation as big time joke copiers tend to get shunned.  That's not to say that many haven't been successful still, but there is an effort within the community to self police, without any sort of legal regime needed.
</li><li><b>Reputation</b>: Related to that, what this really comes down to is a reputational issue.  While Oswalt is wrong to call Corman's actions "stealing," he's right to question the kid's decision, and raise questions about his reputation.  For a long time, now, Corman will be tagged as the guy who didn't have the good sense to (a) know that it's inappropriate to copy someone else's work in a valedictiorian speech (b) realize that people would notice and (c) to realize that it would get a lot of attention, including a condemnation from the original comedian in the first place. 
</li></ul>
Notice, of course, that all of this is happening without the need to get the law involved, and the situation gets resolved quite nicely.  Oswalt, deservedly, gets more attention for his act and his jokes.  The kid gets a public shaming and his reputation (and job prospects?) take a hit.  And, Columbia also gets a bit of a reputational hit as well for having a valedictorian who made these sorts of mistakes.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100525/1454349568.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100525/1454349568.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100525/1454349568.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>did-he-think-no-one-would-notice</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100525/1454349568</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 23:09:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>McDonald's Laughs Off Criticism Embedded In April Fool's Joke</title>
<dc:creator>Joyce Hung</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100404/2120478872.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100404/2120478872.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ On April 1st, Grist posted an <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2010-04-01-mcdonalds-scraps-composting-program-food-decompose/">April Fools story about McDonald's</a> that claimed the fast food chain would no longer follow through with its global composting initiative after scientists at the University of California-Berkeley found that none of the items on McDonald's menu were suitable for composting -- and none of the "food" would break down even after 1,000 years. 
<br /><br />
The story was certainly inspired by a recent <a href="http://www.babybites.info/2010/03/03/1-year-happy-meal/ ">blog post</a> by Joann Bruso claiming that the Happy Meal she had purchased and placed on a shelf for an entire year looked virtually unchanged -- no mold, no decomposition or smells. In this case, McDonald's reacted by posting a response on its website, calling Bruso's story an <a href="http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/students/did_you_know/dispelling-rumor-about-mcdonalds-usa-happy-meals-march-2010.html ">urban legend</a>.
<br /><br />
Apparently, many people fell for Grist's joke because it just seemed so plausible. Allison Arieff, a writer for <i>GOOD</i> and <i>The New York Times</i>, tweeted the news -- and just minutes later, McDonald's Twitter contact tweeted back a very odd reply:

<blockquote><em>
<b>Arieff:</b> "McDonald's scraps composting program because the items on their menu WON'T DECOMPOSE. Yikes. http://ow.ly/1tClQ (via@edibleIA,@edibleSF)"
<br /><br />
<b>Molly at McDonald's:</b> "They say April Fools jokes are a form of flattery! This one had us laughing too! ^Mol"
</em></blockquote>

Here's a story that's further spreading the idea that the food at McDonald's is so unnatural that it won't even decompose, and what does McDonald's do?  Laugh it off, of course. Was this the right response? Well, it was definitely not one that people were expecting. McDonald's had a chance to address the criticism, but instead they chose to just brush it off. Maybe they didn't want to open a can of worms, and since they're so big, they figured that they could get away with it.  And they're probably right -- the number of people who were turned off by their response (or even aware of the story) was likely to be insignificant for the fast food giant. 
<br /><br />
However, it's likely a different story for smaller businesses. They really need to pay attention to and deliver what their customers want. It's probably not a good idea to attempt to brush off customer complaints with "humor."  Perhaps even McDonald's should be more careful with its tweets now that everything they say will be <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100414/1346519014">archived for posterity</a>.  We'll see how long it takes for tweets to decompose.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100404/2120478872.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100404/2120478872.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100404/2120478872.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>inappropriate-responses</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100404/2120478872</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:36:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Comedian Has To Retell Joke 2nd Time, Because Viacom Couldn't Have Him Sing Four Words: 'We Are The World'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100208/0209318075.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100208/0209318075.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Copyright insanity continues.  Stephan Kinsella posts an email from Luke Mroz, who recently attended a Comedy Central taping of some standup comics, that is going to be used in an upcoming TV show.  Mroz explains how <a href="http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?perm=593056000000002535&#038;utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">copyright law got in the way</a> and forced one comedian to have to come back out and tell a joke a second time:
<blockquote><i>
One of the performers was one of my favorite comedians named Robert Kelly. He told a really good joke about how he rarely used the word love because it loses its strength if you use it to much. When his wife tells him she loves him, he shrugs it off. When his father told him he loved him, for the first time in his adult life when he graduated high school, he feigned breaking down into tears and acting like an emotional wreck. While doing this, he feigned being hugged and sang the phrase "We are the world". He then went on to his next joke.
<br /><br />
After another comedian, the taping ended. We were informed that the crowd had to stay put because Bob Kelly had to come out and re-film a joke. It was the joke I just mentioned. They said it had to be re-taped because Comedy Central didn't have the rights to the song "We Are The World". 
</i></blockquote>
Remember, all he did was "sing" the four words in the title once.  He didn't break out into a full rendition of the song.  Just "We Are The World."  That's it.  And he had to come back out and tell the joke a second time to avoid Comedy Central (really: Viacom) having to clear the rights on that song -- a song that was written for charity.  But copyright isn't stopping free expression?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100208/0209318075.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100208/0209318075.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100208/0209318075.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>copyright-insanity</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100208/0209318075</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:23:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Our Litigious Society: Woman Sues Daughter-in-Law Comedian Over Jokes</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/1621026044.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/1621026044.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In-law jokes are a pretty standard staple of the standup comedy business.  They can be pretty funny too... even if the concept is a bit dated.  But, apparently, they're not so funny to the in-laws of comedian Sunda Croonquist.  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=churchhatestucker">ChurchHatesTucker</a> alerts us to the news that Croonquist's mother-in-law and sister-in-law <a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/08262009/news/regionalnews/mother_in_law_in_gag_order_186566.htm" target="_new">are suing the comedian for cracking rather typical "in-law" jokes</a>, which, apparently the in-laws didn't find to be all that funny.  They're suing for defamation, even though you have to wonder if anyone actually takes such jokes seriously.  I mean, it's a comedian.  Of course the jokes are either made up or exaggerated for comedic effect.  Still, probably makes for a frosty family gathering.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/1621026044.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/1621026044.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/1621026044.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>no-laughing-matter?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090828/1621026044</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:41:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Thin Skin: SMS Political Jokes In Pakistan Can Get You 14 Years In Jail</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090721/1115195611.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090721/1115195611.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It would appear that the typical late-night TV comedian in the US would face serious jailtime in Pakistan, were he based there.  MK alerts us that President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan is so annoyed by people passing around jokes about him via SMS that the gov't has started <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/news/world/sms_joke_on_zardari_may_land_you_in_pak_jail.php" target="_new">threatening to charge people for passing around such jokes</a>, as "slandering the political leadership of the country" under a vaguely worded Cyber Crimes law, that could lead to 14 years in jail.  It seems that should only lead to <i>more</i> jokes.  How does one get to be a political leader with such a thin skin?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090721/1115195611.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090721/1115195611.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090721/1115195611.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>can't-take-a-joke?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090721/1115195611</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:48:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Comedian Smashes Mobile Phone; Fearing 'Joke Stealing'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090216/1607473785.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090216/1607473785.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The concept of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080130/020249125.shtml">stealing jokes</a> seems pretty <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070219/010207.shtml">ridiculous</a> to us.  Jokes are something that people pass around, and the real challenge is in how well you tell the joke -- not in the joke itself.  Yet, it's no secret that some comedians have been going on <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/230046.shtml">tirades</a> about joke stealing recently -- with one comedian in the UK, Lee Hurst, going so far as to <a href="http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/comedy/article5745510.ece" target="_new">smash someone's cameraphone</a> during a show, after he accused the phone's owner of filming him to steal jokes (thanks to everyone that sent this in).
<br /><br />
Talk about paranoid.  It seems equally likely that whoever was filming it just wanted to show some friends.  Besides, if you want to "steal" jokes, can't you do so simply by <i>remembering them</i>.  Smashing someone's phone isn't going to stop that.  Unless they invent one of those science fiction devices that erase short-term memory, no comedian will ever be able to fully stop others from making use of their jokes (and, in that case, I'd bet the comedian wouldn't do too well, since no one remembers his act).
<br /><br />
In this case, Hurst plead guilty and paid a fine for destroying the camera... but says he'll do it again.  Then he demanded stronger copyright protection over jokes and said he thinks YouTube should be banned:
<blockquote><i>
"I don't regret what I did because the police wouldn't turn up to defend me, would they? It was in anger, but it is like having your tools stolen if your material is taken.  We just need the same protection that is afforded to the cinema on copyright theft.... Ban YouTube -- it is the biggest piece of c*** ever."
</i></blockquote>
  Perhaps he really doesn't like that up-and-coming competing comedians are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081105/0206172742.shtml">using YouTube</a> to their advantage, while he's stuck wallowing in the past.  It must suck not to be able to compete with upstarts who know how to embrace modern technology, but that's no excuse for getting violent.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090216/1607473785.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090216/1607473785.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090216/1607473785.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ok,-this-is-going-too-far</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090216/1607473785</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:51:55 PST</pubDate>
<title>Pink Panther Studio, Producers And Star Sued For Joke Theft</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090212/0352313745.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090212/0352313745.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Historically, jokes have always been things that were shared and passed on.  The power of a joke is not in the idea behind the joke, but in the telling.  Yet, in this era when people have it drilled into their brains over and over again that every creative thing is "ownable," we're now seeing this great tradition of joke sharing and joke telling <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070219/010207.shtml">stifled</a> by claims of "ownership."  The latest such example, found via <a href="http://twitter.com/CopyrightLaw/status/1199334978">Michael Scott</a>, is that two people are <a href="http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2009/02/idea-theft-in-the-age-of-youtube.html" target="_new">suing over jokes in the <i>Pink Panther</i> movies</a>.  Specifically, Jean Epstein and Gary Stretch have sued "MGM, Sony, Fox, producer Robert Simonds, star Steve Martin and others" because they say the Pink Panther movies violate their copyright on certain jokes.  Apparently, Epstein and Stretch made a short film that they placed on YouTube and iFilm, which included a few jokes that are similar to jokes in the movies.  So, be careful next time you're "performing" a joke you heard somewhere else.  Perhaps you'll get sued for copyright infringement.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090212/0352313745.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090212/0352313745.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090212/0352313745.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>a-lawyer,-a-copyright-and-a-loser-walk-into-a-bar...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090212/0352313745</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:58:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>No Laughing Matter: Can You Copyright A Joke?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080130/020249125.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080130/020249125.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year there was a bit of a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/230046.shtml">fuss</a> when comedian Joe Rogan accused Carlos Mencia of stealing jokes.  Amusingly, Mencia responded to the claims of plagiarism by using a copyright infringement claim to get Rogan's video of the accusation taken down.  However, in a more <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070219/010207.shtml">detailed</a> discussion of the issue, we pointed out how silly it is to claim a copyright on a joke.  There are a ton of joke books out there, many of which collect all kinds of jokes that have been told by many people, without bothering to find the originator and pay them (or even credit them).  In fact, with most jokes, it's not the joke that matters, but the delivery.  As I noted, I had recently read Isaac Asimov's "Treasury of Humor" where he admits that almost all of the jokes are ones he heard from others -- and no one seemed to think it was infringing.
<br /><br />
However, that didn't stop Jay Leno and some other comedians from suing a woman who published a recent joke book that included some Leno jokes.  Rather than go through a lawsuit, the woman and her publisher <a href="http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=74002b6d-3300-4af0-b8c0-943431bda943&#038;entry=index">quickly  settled the lawsuit</a> paying an undisclosed sum and publicly apologizing.  This leads William Patry to put together some details of <a href="http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/01/jokes-and-copyright.html" target="_new">other court cases looking into the copyrights of jokes</a>, noting that Jeff Foxworthy sued someone for using his jokes, even though he admits people send joke ideas to him that he uses.
<br /><br />
All of this seems to be an unfortunate extension of the increasing use of copyright to "control" every last use of content.  Telling jokes is a social experience, often having little to do with the material itself, and quite a lot to do with the performance and delivery.  Witness the movie <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436078/"><i>The Aristocrats</i></a>, where the entire premise is getting a bunch of different comedians to all tell the same joke, and looking at the different performances and embellishments.  No one screamed about copyright infringement in that case -- and the comedians seemed to relish the chance to tell the same joke in many different ways.  It's unfortunate that we're now reaching the point that something that used to be a shared experience is also going down the path to being protected and limited.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080130/020249125.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080130/020249125.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080130/020249125.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>knock-knock</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080130/020249125</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:24:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Latest Thing To Blame On The Internet: The Death Of Jokes</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071127/021408.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071127/021408.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ People love to blame the internet for "the death" of things (newspapers, music, social lives, grammar, etc., etc.).  Those claims are rarely (if ever) accurate -- but at least you can sort of understand where they're coming from.  However, this latest study makes almost no sense at all, claiming that the internet <a href="http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=77132&#038;in_page_id=34&#038;ito=newsnow">is killing the ability to tell jokes</a>.  According to the short blurb about the study, 40% of people would rather forward an internet gag such as a video or a rambling joke email than tell a joke themselves.  Of course, given the joke-telling ability of many people, this might not be a bad thing.  Furthermore, it seems like, if anything, this has simply expanded the market for humorous content, rather than shrunk it.  Perhaps, instead, we should be more worried about the decreasing ability for people to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060625/2335239.shtml">understand</a> jokes than the desire to tell them.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071127/021408.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071127/021408.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071127/021408.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-just-aren't-funny-any-more</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071127/021408</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>