USOC asks Bush to pull campaign ad

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Umm - no. Excatly how is the Olympics promoting or being political? Seems to me that the "political" issue here is the fact that the two countries are free to participate in things like the Olympics. You don't seem to be able to seperate the issues again. You seem to have lost that ability when you "changed"

Again, the Olympics is what has to be non-political and the Olympics can't promote a candidate. That isn't the case here.

CkG

Holy crap man! Are you freaking blind?!? The olympics appearing in a Bush/Cheney re-election ad is CLEARLY political! How much more clear does it need to be?

Christ, you're seriously losing it...

Read again junior Just because it's in Bush's ad doesn't mean the Olypics is promoting a candidate or the Olympics are being political.

CkG

But it does mean that the Bush campaign has illegally used the term Olympic since the USOC has "exclusive rights to such terms as ?Olympic,? derivatives such as ?Olympiad? and the five interlocking rings."

no reponse CAD?

Buahahaha - yes little johnny you can now sit back down in your seat and quit yelling "pick me...pick me"...

Question for you, is this "illegally" using the word too?

Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said: ?The Bush Administration seems confused about what records it should be setting during the Olympics. You don?t get gold medals for record oil prices, record deficits, or record health care costs. ...

CkG

Is Kerry using this as an ad?

Did the USOC say he could use the term? :roll:

CkG

No, and they do not need to no more than you or I.

If I run an ad with them in it, then I have violated the law like the Bush campaign.

Damn, cut bait and run. Of all the things you decided to defend this is the dumbest.

Evidently Bush can break the law and it's ok with you. So be it.

You are going to ignore the press release? Figures...

CkG

Little bites for you then

The Olympics is copyrighted/trademarked. They have the the right to restrict it's use in advertising, just as Pepsi cannot just use CocaCola without Coke's permission.

The officials of the Olympics say they do not want their event used by the Bush campaign in this way. Why does not matter any more than when the Dixie chicks were asked not to appear and play. I suppose you were first to argue for the Chicks and how laws do not apply for them? Right...

You are arguing that the Olympic officials cannot excercise their legal rights to because it is for the Bush campaign.

Your credibility on this issue is shot.

If a company or organization has the legal trademark or copyright and all the legal rights that go with it (Which they do), does the Bush campaign have the right to ignore the law and continue to use it?

Yes or no?

I bet you will come back with something else and ignore the question, which is the central one regarding the issue, not what Kerry did on a swiftboat.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Ah, so the rules somehow state it can't be used in an ad now...but it's OK for someone else to use in a press release? Figures.

CkG

You still haven't defended your position. The law is the law. Everyone knows you can talk about the NBA but you can't use it in an ad. How is it different, CAD? You've got nothing.

And you haven't answered my question either. Here, I'll put it to you another way. Where in the law does it state that word can't be used in a political ad. Then if you find that law - does it also say whether political press releases are exempt? Basically - is there a difference between a political ad by a candidate and a political press release by a candidate - except for that one is on purchased time and the other one is rebleated by the press for free?

CkG

Use your brain CAD. The USOC that owns the rights explicitly asked bush to stop. If he refuses they have the authority to take legal action. If kerry starts to use the olympics as a talking point then the USOC will make the same request of him. He will then have to stop or get sued. Neither of them is above the law. Bush screwed up, he should obey the law and this will go away. Its simple. Now that I've stated the obvoius, perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain why you think bush is above the law.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Did the USOC say he could use the term? :roll:

CkG

I see you like to play diversion games too. Nice try. :thumbsdown:

Can you answer the question?

CkG

Why should I Cad? Why should I let you divert the thread? I don't think so.

Face it man, you were stupid to attack my statement that the USOC could very easily sue the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign for illegally using their footage/name in their politcal ad. It's quite clear your adoration of everything Bush has blinded you to the basic facts of this thread which you cannot refute:

1.) The Bush/Cheney campaign illegally used the olympic name and footage without the express permission of the USOC.

2.) The Bush/Cheney are politicizing the olympics by using their footage in their re-election campaign ad.

Since you're as stubborn as your man Bush, I'm sure you will go down flailing to your last breath trying to defend him. Fine, hold your ignorant positions, but you're half-assed attempts to deflect these two points are as lame as they are amusing.

Carry on.

Hehe - sure DM. Except for the fact this is a non-issue. You all want to try to make this into something more than it is and spin it into "breaking the law". The fact is - the Olympics weren't being political nor do they support a candidate.
1. Not unless you think kerry's press release is "illegal".
2. The law is against the Olympics being political or supporting a candidate - which isn't the case here.

Like I said before - "I guess you'll all believe whatever you want anyway, despite the obvious."

*shrug*

CkG

 

[TuxDave]

WTF????

If the USOC says no, then Bush can't use it in his advertisement. What the hell is the problem? They have exclusive rights over the name and if they say fsck off, you better fsck off.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Hehe - sure DM. Except for the fact this is a non-issue. You all want to try to make this into something more than it is and spin it into "breaking the law". The fact is - the Olympics weren't being political nor do they support a candidate.
1. Not unless you think kerry's press release is "illegal".
2. The law is against the Olympics being political or supporting a candidate - which isn't the case here.

Like I said before - "I guess you'll all believe whatever you want anyway, despite the obvious."

*shrug*

CkG

non-issue? How is copyright/trademark infringement a non-issue?

How is the Bush campaign's complete and utter arrogance a non-issue?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Ah, so the rules somehow state it can't be used in an ad now...but it's OK for someone else to use in a press release? Figures.

CkG

You still haven't defended your position. The law is the law. Everyone knows you can talk about the NBA but you can't use it in an ad. How is it different, CAD? You've got nothing.

And you haven't answered my question either. Here, I'll put it to you another way. Where in the law does it state that word can't be used in a political ad. Then if you find that law - does it also say whether political press releases are exempt? Basically - is there a difference between a political ad by a candidate and a political press release by a candidate - except for that one is on purchased time and the other one is rebleated by the press for free?

CkG

Use your brain CAD. The USOC that owns the rights explicitly asked bush to stop. If he refuses they have the authority to take legal action. If kerry starts to use the olympics as a talking point then the USOC will make the same request of him. He will then have to stop or get sued. Neither of them is above the law. Bush screwed up, he should obey the law and this will go away. Its simple. Now that I've stated the obvoius, perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain why you think bush is above the law.

This isn't about being above the law and your insinuation that I think he is - is asinine.
The FACT is - if you think that using the word "Olympics" is illegal for Bush to use in that political ad then you must believe that it is illegal for kerry to use it in his political press release. Or do you want to admit to being a partisan hypocrit?

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Umm - no. Excatly how is the Olympics promoting or being political? Seems to me that the "political" issue here is the fact that the two countries are free to participate in things like the Olympics. You don't seem to be able to seperate the issues again. You seem to have lost that ability when you "changed"

Again, the Olympics is what has to be non-political and the Olympics can't promote a candidate. That isn't the case here.

CkG

Holy crap man! Are you freaking blind?!? The olympics appearing in a Bush/Cheney re-election ad is CLEARLY political! How much more clear does it need to be?

Christ, you're seriously losing it...

Read again junior Just because it's in Bush's ad doesn't mean the Olypics is promoting a candidate or the Olympics are being political.

CkG

But it does mean that the Bush campaign has illegally used the term Olympic since the USOC has "exclusive rights to such terms as ?Olympic,? derivatives such as ?Olympiad? and the five interlocking rings."

no reponse CAD?

Buahahaha - yes little johnny you can now sit back down in your seat and quit yelling "pick me...pick me"...

Question for you, is this "illegally" using the word too?

Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said: ?The Bush Administration seems confused about what records it should be setting during the Olympics. You don?t get gold medals for record oil prices, record deficits, or record health care costs. ...

CkG

Is Kerry using this as an ad?

Did the USOC say he could use the term? :roll:

CkG

No, and they do not need to no more than you or I.

If I run an ad with them in it, then I have violated the law like the Bush campaign.

Damn, cut bait and run. Of all the things you decided to defend this is the dumbest.

Evidently Bush can break the law and it's ok with you. So be it.

You are going to ignore the press release? Figures...

CkG

Yes it is perfectly legal. You may not like it, but it's just so. When did your sensibilities change establish law? Since Bush it seems.

Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it.

All you would have had to say was nothing. You could have said it was a mistake on the Bush campaign and that they should rectify it. That has nothing to do with the issues Bush represents. What you DO is submarine whatever valid points you may have by blindly apologizing for everything this campaing does. You decided to defend the indefensible with obfuscation and are getting called on it. You cannot explain nor have even put forward a reasonable argument on how ANY political party can use a copyrighted event or name against the owners will.

Sorry, but you lose on this one.

 

[DealMonkey]

Who here agrees that Cad had his ass handed to him?

:thumbsup:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Ah, so the rules somehow state it can't be used in an ad now...but it's OK for someone else to use in a press release? Figures.

CkG

You still haven't defended your position. The law is the law. Everyone knows you can talk about the NBA but you can't use it in an ad. How is it different, CAD? You've got nothing.

And you haven't answered my question either. Here, I'll put it to you another way. Where in the law does it state that word can't be used in a political ad. Then if you find that law - does it also say whether political press releases are exempt? Basically - is there a difference between a political ad by a candidate and a political press release by a candidate - except for that one is on purchased time and the other one is rebleated by the press for free?

CkG

Use your brain CAD. The USOC that owns the rights explicitly asked bush to stop. If he refuses they have the authority to take legal action. If kerry starts to use the olympics as a talking point then the USOC will make the same request of him. He will then have to stop or get sued. Neither of them is above the law. Bush screwed up, he should obey the law and this will go away. Its simple. Now that I've stated the obvoius, perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain why you think bush is above the law.

This isn't about being above the law and your insinuation that I think he is - is asinine.
The FACT is - if you think that using the word "Olympics" is illegal for Bush to use in that political ad then you must believe that it is illegal for kerry to use it in his political press release. Or do you want to admit to being a partisan hypocrit?

CkG

Yet again, it isn't a matter of purpose. It's a matter of permission. The Bush campaign was told explicitly to quit it. They won't. That means they are violating the law, and are liable to be sued and lose.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Who here agrees that Cad had his ass handed to him here?

:thumbsup:

:thumbsdown: - you can all think what you wish, but it doesn't mean you are right. You were shown where your accusations were wrong on the politics/support issue and then you all seem to want to ignore(or be a hypocrite) on the issue of the press release.
If the use of the word is illegal in Bush's political ad, then it's illegal in kerry's political press release.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Hehe - sure DM. Except for the fact this is a non-issue. You all want to try to make this into something more than it is and spin it into "breaking the law". The fact is - the Olympics weren't being political nor do they support a candidate.
1. Not unless you think kerry's press release is "illegal".
2. The law is against the Olympics being political or supporting a candidate - which isn't the case here.

1. Using a trademarked/copyrighted broadcast without the express written consent of the owner (in this case the USOC) is illegal. Your little attempt at diversion MATTERS NOT.

2. The olympic footage and name appearing in a poltical election advertisement is tantamount to claiming support of said candidate.

Now go slink back to your shadowy realm and stop trying to defend the indefensible. You're as pathetic as you are wrong. Moonie was right, you're just like those punching clowns that you smack down and they pop back up, ad infinitum.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Ah, so the rules somehow state it can't be used in an ad now...but it's OK for someone else to use in a press release? Figures.

CkG

You still haven't defended your position. The law is the law. Everyone knows you can talk about the NBA but you can't use it in an ad. How is it different, CAD? You've got nothing.

And you haven't answered my question either. Here, I'll put it to you another way. Where in the law does it state that word can't be used in a political ad. Then if you find that law - does it also say whether political press releases are exempt? Basically - is there a difference between a political ad by a candidate and a political press release by a candidate - except for that one is on purchased time and the other one is rebleated by the press for free?

CkG

Use your brain CAD. The USOC that owns the rights explicitly asked bush to stop. If he refuses they have the authority to take legal action. If kerry starts to use the olympics as a talking point then the USOC will make the same request of him. He will then have to stop or get sued. Neither of them is above the law. Bush screwed up, he should obey the law and this will go away. Its simple. Now that I've stated the obvoius, perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain why you think bush is above the law.

This isn't about being above the law and your insinuation that I think he is - is asinine.
The FACT is - if you think that using the word "Olympics" is illegal for Bush to use in that political ad then you must believe that it is illegal for kerry to use it in his political press release. Or do you want to admit to being a partisan hypocrit?

CkG

Don't complain to me. I didn't write the law so I don't see how I'm being hyprocritical. I've never had the police department come here to ask me if they should lock some one up. The law is the law. Talk to any lawyer and they would tell you using a term like that in a conversation is very different from using it in your political ad. Another example, If I'm selling cars, I can't have mickey mouse walking around in the commercial, but when people come into my store there's nothing illegal about me asking them about that trip to disney they went on.

Asinine? You're the one implying his illegal activity is ok since you think someone else did it too.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Who here agrees that Cad had his ass handed to him here?

:thumbsup:

:thumbsdown: - you can all think what you wish, but it doesn't mean you are right. You were shown where your accusations were wrong on the politics/support issue and then you all seem to want to ignore(or be a hypocrite) on the issue of the press release.
If the use of the word is illegal in Bush's political ad, then it's illegal in kerry's political press release.

CkG

Divert, divert, divert. :roll:

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Who here agrees that Cad had his ass handed to him here?

:thumbsup:

:thumbsdown: - you can all think what you wish, but it doesn't mean you are right. You were shown where your accusations were wrong on the politics/support issue and then you all seem to want to ignore(or be a hypocrite) on the issue of the press release.
If the use of the word is illegal in Bush's political ad, then it's illegal in kerry's political press release.

CkG

:laugh: So now knowing the law makes us hypocritical!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Who here agrees that Cad had his ass handed to him?

:thumbsup:

Yes, sometimes the best way to get out of something is to say "Oops" and beg off. There are others who insist on standing on the deck of a burning ship and pretending it isn't.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Hehe - sure DM. Except for the fact this is a non-issue. You all want to try to make this into something more than it is and spin it into "breaking the law". The fact is - the Olympics weren't being political nor do they support a candidate.
1. Not unless you think kerry's press release is "illegal".
2. The law is against the Olympics being political or supporting a candidate - which isn't the case here.

1. Using a trademarked/copyrighted broadcast without the express written consent of the owner (in this case the USOC) is illegal. Your little attempt at diversion MATTERS NOT.

2. The olympic footage and name appearing in a poltical election advertisement is tantamount to claiming support of said candidate.

Now go slink back to your shadowy realm and stop trying to defend the indefensible. You're as pathetic as you are wrong. Moonie was right, you're just like those punching clowns that you smack down and they pop back up, ad infinitum.

You seem to want to debate the footage but I didn't comment on that. I'm talking about the use of the word "Olympics", so your little diversion means nada

No, the ad doesn't claim the support of the Olympics - that is all in your heads. "tantamount to..." Ah yes... the great leftist sliding scale argument again... go figure.

No, you've just fell for moonies baffling BullSh!t. You all can flail away and think you are landing blows but you're just swinging in the wind.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Hehe - sure DM. Except for the fact this is a non-issue. You all want to try to make this into something more than it is and spin it into "breaking the law". The fact is - the Olympics weren't being political nor do they support a candidate.
1. Not unless you think kerry's press release is "illegal".
2. The law is against the Olympics being political or supporting a candidate - which isn't the case here.

1. Using a trademarked/copyrighted broadcast without the express written consent of the owner (in this case the USOC) is illegal. Your little attempt at diversion MATTERS NOT.

2. The olympic footage and name appearing in a poltical election advertisement is tantamount to claiming support of said candidate.

Now go slink back to your shadowy realm and stop trying to defend the indefensible. You're as pathetic as you are wrong. Moonie was right, you're just like those punching clowns that you smack down and they pop back up, ad infinitum.

You seem to want to debate the footage but I didn't comment on that. I'm talking about the use of the word "Olympics", so your little diversion means nada

No, the ad doesn't claim the support of the Olympics - that is all in your heads. "tantamount to..." Ah yes... the great leftist sliding scale argument again... go figure.

No, you've just fell for moonies baffling BullSh!t. You all can flail away and think you are landing blows but you're just swinging in the wind.

CkG

ok, so you agree then that the use of the footage was illegal?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Hehe - sure DM. Except for the fact this is a non-issue. You all want to try to make this into something more than it is and spin it into "breaking the law". The fact is - the Olympics weren't being political nor do they support a candidate.
1. Not unless you think kerry's press release is "illegal".
2. The law is against the Olympics being political or supporting a candidate - which isn't the case here.

1. Using a trademarked/copyrighted broadcast without the express written consent of the owner (in this case the USOC) is illegal. Your little attempt at diversion MATTERS NOT.

2. The olympic footage and name appearing in a poltical election advertisement is tantamount to claiming support of said candidate.

Now go slink back to your shadowy realm and stop trying to defend the indefensible. You're as pathetic as you are wrong. Moonie was right, you're just like those punching clowns that you smack down and they pop back up, ad infinitum.

You seem to want to debate the footage but I didn't comment on that. I'm talking about the use of the word "Olympics", so your little diversion means nada

No, the ad doesn't claim the support of the Olympics - that is all in your heads. "tantamount to..." Ah yes... the great leftist sliding scale argument again... go figure.

No, you've just fell for moonies baffling BullSh!t. You all can flail away and think you are landing blows but you're just swinging in the wind.

CkG

Landing blows? Hardly. I like when you argue issues even if I don't agree with them. Your best argument on this is that if someone uses a term in a public speech then that is the same as someone using coverage and trademarks protected by law against the express wishes of it's owners.

We aren't swinging. We are watching you flail against pink elephants.

Dude, let this one go. Pick another battle.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Who here agrees that Cad had his ass handed to him?

:thumbsup:

Yes, sometimes the best way to get out of something is to say "Oops" and beg off. There are others who insist on standing on the deck of a burning ship and pretending it isn't.

I guess Cad is one of those Captains of BS that insists on going down with the ship.

<salutes>

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

:thumbsdown: - you can all think what you wish, but it doesn't mean you are right. You were shown where your accusations were wrong on the politics/support issue and then you all seem to want to ignore(or be a hypocrite) on the issue of the press release.
If the use of the word is illegal in Bush's political ad, then it's illegal in kerry's political press release.

CkG

I think you're right, to a point, but I still fee you're being amazingly disingenuous on the subject. The Bush ad apparently uses copyrighted material (the name "Olympics," in this instance) to promote President Bush's campaign, in a mass-market broadcast commercial. This is a fairly clear (IMO) copyright infringement, and also violates the spirit of the USOC charter, which states the Olympics won't be used as a promotional tool for any political entity.

Sen Kerry's press release, OTOH, does not imply (as President Bush's arguably does) any tie to the Olympics, and indeed it uses the word "Olympics" only in the context of refuting the Bush campaign's use of the Olympics as a promotional tool. It is not part of any subsidized advertising campaign whatsoever.

Leaving aside the legality fo all this (since I am far from being a copyright/trademark attorney), it strikes me as fairly classless for the Bush campaign to use the Olympic name this way, against the wishes of the IOC/USOC AND the Iraqi Olympic team, and it frankly opens the door for moveon.org to make its own commercial with a disgruntled Iraqi athlete, describing his feelings on the subject. It just seems like poor form to me.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tss4
ok, so you agree then that the use of the footage was illegal?

I didn't say that. I've seen the ad but I don't know where the footage used in it came from. You see, this is the same old "illegal" chant from the left when they haven't yet provided the evidence to back it up. Prove that it was Olympic footage and that it's use was illegal and then I'll believe you. At this point I haven't seen any "proof" that this footage is illegal. Now that doesn't mean isn't - no one has provided it yet - thus me not commenting/deciding on it..

The other two points aren't going to fall in your favor but if you can prove that the use was illegal and the images were from Olympics you may have 1 out of 3. You could earn 2 of 3 if you admit that kerry's use in that political press release was "illegal" also. The third you will never get because you can't prove it since the claim is "tantamount to..." or sorta kinda "implied" support.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Hehe - sure DM. Except for the fact this is a non-issue. You all want to try to make this into something more than it is and spin it into "breaking the law". The fact is - the Olympics weren't being political nor do they support a candidate.
1. Not unless you think kerry's press release is "illegal".
2. The law is against the Olympics being political or supporting a candidate - which isn't the case here.

1. Using a trademarked/copyrighted broadcast without the express written consent of the owner (in this case the USOC) is illegal. Your little attempt at diversion MATTERS NOT.

2. The olympic footage and name appearing in a poltical election advertisement is tantamount to claiming support of said candidate.

Now go slink back to your shadowy realm and stop trying to defend the indefensible. You're as pathetic as you are wrong. Moonie was right, you're just like those punching clowns that you smack down and they pop back up, ad infinitum.

You seem to want to debate the footage but I didn't comment on that. I'm talking about the use of the word "Olympics", so your little diversion means nada

No, the ad doesn't claim the support of the Olympics - that is all in your heads. "tantamount to..." Ah yes... the great leftist sliding scale argument again... go figure.

No, you've just fell for moonies baffling BullSh!t. You all can flail away and think you are landing blows but you're just swinging in the wind.

CkG

Landing blows? Hardly. I like when you argue issues even if I don't agree with them. Your best argument on this is that if someone uses a term in a public speech then that is the same as someone using coverage and trademarks protected by law against the express wishes of it's owners.

We aren't swinging. We are watching you flail against pink elephants.

Dude, let this one go. Pick another battle.

Umm, no. This isn't about public speech vs traderight. My statements were about the term. Both used them in political material. One was an ad and the other was in a political press release. The only difference is one is free and the other is paid for. So yes, drop the "term" BS because it doesn't fly....if you are to be consistent

Flail away if you wish though...

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

:thumbsdown: - you can all think what you wish, but it doesn't mean you are right. You were shown where your accusations were wrong on the politics/support issue and then you all seem to want to ignore(or be a hypocrite) on the issue of the press release.
If the use of the word is illegal in Bush's political ad, then it's illegal in kerry's political press release.

CkG

I think you're right, to a point, but I still fee you're being amazingly disingenuous on the subject. The Bush ad apparently uses copyrighted material (the name "Olympics," in this instance) to promote President Bush's campaign, in a mass-market broadcast commercial. This is a fairly clear (IMO) copyright infringement, and also violates the spirit of the USOC charter, which states the Olympics won't be used as a promotional tool for any political entity.

And then you'd also feel that kerry's use of the "name 'Olympics'" to promote his campaign(actually bash Bush's) in an official press release. I think you are missing the point about who can/can't be political. From what I've seen reported - the Olympics can't be political nor support a candidate, which is different from what you seem to be suggesting.

Sen Kerry's press release, OTOH, does not imply (as President Bush's arguably does) any tie to the Olympics, and indeed it uses the word "Olympics" only in the context of refuting the Bush campaign's use of the Olympics as a promotional tool. It is not part of any subsidized advertising campaign whatsoever.

Umm...no. Please read the official press release. It is not refuting the Bush campaign's use. It's a press release(free ad) to blast Bush about oil and invokes the Olympics.

Leaving aside the legality fo all this (since I am far from being a copyright/trademark attorney), it strikes me as fairly classless for the Bush campaign to use the Olympic name this way, against the wishes of the IOC/USOC AND the Iraqi Olympic team, and it frankly opens the door for moveon.org to make its own commercial with a disgruntled Iraqi athlete, describing his feelings on the subject. It just seems like poor form to me.

I don't understand how anyone could call the ad "classless" though. It was a very respectful and uplifting ad to some. You can argue the legalities but as far as it's "class" I think one's ideology may have the most bearing on that.

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Hehe - sure DM. Except for the fact this is a non-issue. You all want to try to make this into something more than it is and spin it into "breaking the law". The fact is - the Olympics weren't being political nor do they support a candidate.
1. Not unless you think kerry's press release is "illegal".
2. The law is against the Olympics being political or supporting a candidate - which isn't the case here.

1. Using a trademarked/copyrighted broadcast without the express written consent of the owner (in this case the USOC) is illegal. Your little attempt at diversion MATTERS NOT.

2. The olympic footage and name appearing in a poltical election advertisement is tantamount to claiming support of said candidate.

Now go slink back to your shadowy realm and stop trying to defend the indefensible. You're as pathetic as you are wrong. Moonie was right, you're just like those punching clowns that you smack down and they pop back up, ad infinitum.

You seem to want to debate the footage but I didn't comment on that. I'm talking about the use of the word "Olympics", so your little diversion means nada

No, the ad doesn't claim the support of the Olympics - that is all in your heads. "tantamount to..." Ah yes... the great leftist sliding scale argument again... go figure.

No, you've just fell for moonies baffling BullSh!t. You all can flail away and think you are landing blows but you're just swinging in the wind.

CkG

Landing blows? Hardly. I like when you argue issues even if I don't agree with them. Your best argument on this is that if someone uses a term in a public speech then that is the same as someone using coverage and trademarks protected by law against the express wishes of it's owners.

We aren't swinging. We are watching you flail against pink elephants.

Dude, let this one go. Pick another battle.

Umm, no. This isn't about public speech vs traderight. My statements were about the term. Both used them in political material. One was an ad and the other was in a political press release. The only difference is one is free and the other is paid for. So yes, drop the "term" BS because it doesn't fly....if you are to be consistent

Flail away if you wish though...

CkG

So if a political party wishes to use any protected copyrighted material in an advertisement, it's ok whether it's legal or not?

That's the question. In effect you say damn the law. OK we know where you stand on this issue.