Christ on a unicycle. And here I thought all the stuff that was crammed into the ACA was outrageous. At least the stuff they put in ACA was vaguely related to healthcare. But in what sane universe is cyberbullying related to terrorism and cable theft?
Getting a technical foul for swearing in sports games sounds rather realistic and something that could happen in the real world as well. Of course, I'm basing this on my 9 years experience as a baseball umpire for various little league, where if a player/coach is heard swearing within earshot of an umpire the offender receives one warning to stop and gets thrown out of the game if the umpires hear them swearing after that. Don't know how much of that that translates over to the professional leagues of basketball and soccer, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Is it kinda dumb since it's a video game? Eh.
On the flipside, those PS4 users in the playroom are probably going to end up as "why we can't have nice things" within a year or so.
Not s fan of XB1's swear-filter, but considering the potty-mouthed teenagers I've encountered while playing Halo 4's multiplayer on live, I can't say I'm too surprised this happened.
Hopefully Microsoft will relax the swearing restrictions at some point in 2014. Let's just pray they don't grow that disturbing brand of puritanism that seems to permeate Apple's walled garden these days.
When I think the most obsessive, hyper-focused gamers, the country that usually pops into mind first is S. Korea. Do I think they're "addicted" to gaming? No.
Having a PSA promoting a healthy lifestyle telling people to take 30-60 minutes a day to exercise/eat sounds much more reasonable than classifying video games in the same boat as gambling/alcoholism/drug addiction.
Yeah, this definitely smells of the government trying to steal its "fair share" of the South Korean gaming industry's profit pie through regulation.
Last I checked, atheist groups don't have much of a reason to block religious content. I mean, what harm can (from an atheist perspective) having access to Christian/Hindu/Jewish/Buddhist/Muslim/Rastafarian texts do? I mean, they're all just imaginary sky-gods and superstitious mythology, just like the Greek/Roman religions of old, are they not?
But on topic: Considering that those Christian schools block anything you might consider "controversial", it must be one hell of a boring view of the Internet from the school networks. I mean, doesn't the Internet practically run on controversy these days?
Was actually looking forward to seeing how this might've turned out.
My only comment on the whole permission culture issue is that permission isn't something that should be required/demanded. It should be up to the parody artist to decide if they should ask the original creator or not.
In fact, it shouldn't be so much 'asking permission' as it should be giving the creator (provided they're alive/actually known) a heads-up that you created something based on their art. The remixer/parody artist can ask the original artist if they have any problems with the parody work, if only so that the creator of the content parodied isn't completely blindsided by the whole affair.
However, it should be more a nice gesture than an actual requirement (in other words, completely optional).
The question then is: at what point does a work go from "slightly modified" to "transformative"?
That's the question that this court in California has to decide. And if they take into account the Liebovitz case, one would be inclined to think that they would agree with Goldieblox on their parody being fair use (I still find it in poor taste, but that's just my view on the whole thing).
To be fair, one of the excuses that one of the more recent jackasses tried to use was parody, claiming that because she took the original picture and quickly scribbled over it in one area with MS Paint that it was parody under fair use and not plagiarism.
The defense didn't hold up under scrutiny.
Like I said, I've gotten a little sensitive to the whole "respecting the wishes of the artist" thing, so this commercial parody of Girls just feels... off in my mind. Yeah, you don't need a license and you don't need permission to do so because it's fair use, and normally I wouldn't complain, but trying to make a buck by parodying a song from a recently deceased artist who went out of his way to make sure that his music wasn't used for commercials seems kind of insulting.
That being said, I like listening to the Beastie Boys, so my view is probably slightly biased on this issue.
Guess I've just become sensitive to the whole "asking permission" concept now that the artist/writer in me woke up last year and I started writing Creepypasta stories.
There seems to be an unwritten rule on artist sites like DeviantArt where it's considered normal to ask the creator for permission to use a character instead of just using it and crediting the original creator afterward. I've had people ask me for permission to use my characters in their stories (I let the. So I guess my feeling that respecting MCA/Adam Yauch's wishes over fair use stem from the strange, "permission mentality" so frequent in those places.
Fair Use still trumps permission culture any day of the week in my book.
I still have a problem with GlodieBlox parodying the song for purely commercial benefit, but if it's the law says it's fair use, then it's fair use. Still won't approve of it, but then again, I don't approve of that absurd $150,000 per file amount they use when calculating damages in copyright infringement trials either, and it's part of the law too.
Guess I'm a little sensitive to respecting the wishes of the artist after having several of my fellow artists getting their artwork stolen by hacks who repost it ON THE SAME SITE and claim it as their own work after removing the creator's signature, or reposting it on places like Tumblr without the artist's permission.
Convince someone that Gates and Jobs are losers because they dropped out of college? That'd be an extremely hard sell, since you'd have to leave out the part where they, um, founded two of the world's most iconic tech companies.
Zuckerberg? Might be a little easier to sell to the jury (since you can bring up the whole spat between him and those two brothers over who owned Facebook), but the lawyers would still have their work cut out for them.
As I recall, MCA's last will & testament stated that he didn't want the Beasties Boys' music to be used for advertising. And since this clearly is an advertisement and slightly shaky on the fair use angle, I can understand why Beastie Boys would be doing this.
Considering that no one knows what's in the other 20+ chapters, and that the last time someone said "you have to pass something to know what's in it!" The GOP got to watch the Democrats pass the ACA and are now watching (while eating popcorn by the bucketload I'd imagine) the Dems rip their hair out over the complete disaster their opponent's biggest legislative achievement in recent memory's turning out to be so far, I think the GOP's more than aware of the problems that passing something they know nothing about might result in at the moment.
That said, one should never underestimate the stupidity of politicians these days.
That "something" being the fact that Tea Party controls the GOP-run House of Congress. Considering that group of nutters (bless their loony hearts) pretty much seems inclined to do the opposite of whatever Obama wants these days just to spite him, and given how the article about Hoyer was written on the 19th, which was 3 days ago, the TPP's chance getting its precious FTA within the next 5 days are getting lower and lower.
Especially when the House has so much better work to do. Like bringing up a bill to repeal the ACA. AGAIN.