Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Barney Surrenders To the EFF

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the big-purple-capitulation dept.

Censorship 125

davidwr writes, "Earlier this year, EFF sued the Barney the Dinosaur people for harassing a Barney parody web site. Well, Barney finally surrendered, err I mean, learned to share. For more, read the case history at the EFF site."

cancel ×

125 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

this is a 'Good Thing'... (2, Funny)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027158)

oh, and if you have tried to trademark 'Good Thing' don't worry, I won't sue....

Its good to see the EFF winning anytime... everyone should support them

Can it be? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17027160)

First

Re:Can it be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17027236)

No, Kerry, you're doomed to second.
Quoth Judge Smails: "Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too."

Hang on, wait.. (5, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027164)

The EFF actually won a case? What, did they get new lawyers or something?

Re:Hang on, wait.. (4, Funny)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027212)

They're like the Imperial Stormtroopers of litigation.

Re:Hang on, wait.. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17027576)

What, do they get owned by teddy bears too?

Re:Hang on, wait.. (1, Redundant)

Redlazer (786403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17029452)

I, for one, welcome our teddy bear overlords.

-Red

Re:Hang on, wait.. (4, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028044)

good thing they were up against Barney's Trek redshirts of litigation

Re:Hang on, wait.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17028820)

meaning they miss 98% of the time too?

Re:Hang on, wait.. (2, Funny)

OldManAndTheC++ (723450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17029064)

They're like the Imperial Stormtroopers of litigation.

"TK-421, why aren't you at your desk?"

Re:Hang on, wait.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17029196)

as opposed to their previous Inferial Troopers...

Re:Hang on, wait.. (5, Funny)

Neoncow (802085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027410)

Well, they were up against Barney the Dinosaur.

Re:Hang on, wait.. (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028358)

Are you sure you understand what you're dealing with [dustyfeet.com] ?

(I get bonus point for using the actual website the case is about)

Re:Hang on, wait.. (0, Troll)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027524)

Yeah that sounded unlikely... well, unless Barney is French.

Re:Hang on, wait.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17028112)

Which begs the question: did the French government just surrender to Tux, or is it a variation on the theme of Thai panhandling?
Recall, the Thai government just punted on OLPC for reasons that defy any overt reasoning.
Will Redmond make a counter-offer, or is Vista incapable of beating escargot?

Re:Hang on, wait.. (5, Informative)

ntk (974) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028144)

Sigh. Is that old "Bonhomie Snoutintroff [theregister.co.uk] " canard still kicking around? A story that gave as its warped reasoning for the idea that "EFF always loses" two cases that EFF didn't actually conduct (Eldred v. Ashcroft and Gilmore v. Gonzales), and one that we actually won: ("They defended two amateur online journos against Apple's ham-fisted effort to silence criticism, and got beat down severely: another bad precedent." - odd, that's not quite what the Appeals Court decided when the California state appeals court upheld our defence, and held that our clients were protected by California's reporter's shield law and the constitutional privilege against disclosure of confidential sources: http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Apple_v_Does/ [eff.org] ).

And as to the Snoutintroff claim we somehow "persuaded" Ed Felten to withdraw from a talk as a media stunt, it's worth reading what Felten himself had to say [freedom-to-tinker.com] about that period. Chilled speech, baseless legal threats, people losing jobs because they stand up for their right to reveal security flaws. That's what EFF fights.

It's worth spending time reading EFF's actual track record - either from our list of victories [eff.org] , or from the Wikipedia list [wikipedia.org] .

(Or hell, just read our press releases from the last week [eff.org] where we were filing an amicus brief to defend constitutional protection for stored email, began a case to investigate and correct some 18,000 missing votes in an apparent e-voting mess-up in a Florida seat that was won by less than 400 votes, and filing an FOIA request to uncover the details of EU passenger records being handed over to the US government. And that's what we did on a Thanksgiving week - with a staff of around 30, and a budget that's a fiftieth of the size of the ACLU, and a twentieth of what the MPAA spend on Washington lobbying alone. And consider becoming a member [eff.org] if you're impressed - you have no idea how much every extra membership helps, nor how much there is left to do.)

Re:Hang on, wait.. (-1, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028436)

My uncle wins a fortune at the track. Of course, he's not a rich man, cause he loses more than he wins, but if you just take a look at his list of victories [myuncle.org] , you'll see his track record is pretty good too.

Re:Hang on, wait.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17028760)

Hey, your link didn't work!

Re:Hang on, wait.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17028824)

Yeah but can he kick Barney's ass like *my* uncle? [eff.org]

Re:Hang on, wait.. (4, Informative)

ntk (974) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028870)

Which is why I gave the Wikipedia list [wikipedia.org] too. It's pretty comprehensive; I'm sure there are omissions, but it should give you an idea of the ratio of successes -- something that the original piece didn't even attempt. If somebody wrote a piece claiming that it was obvious your uncle was a bad gambler, and included bets he hadn't made, and some he didn't lose, wouldn't you be suspicious of the conclusion?

Re:Hang on, wait.. (-1, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028906)

No, but that's not the issue. The issue is that the EFF website doesn't provide a list of cases they have fought and which ones they have won, it only provides a list of victories. That's just like my uncle (who doesn't exist BTW), you ask him how well he does at the track and he'll give you a long list of his winnings, and casually not mention his losses. So I think the point stands, if you wanna lose your case, get the EFF to help you out.

Re:Hang on, wait.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17029028)

No, but that's not the issue. The issue is that the EFF website doesn't provide a list of cases they have fought and which ones they have won, it only provides a list of victories.
Which. Is. Why. He. Also. Linked. To. The. Wikipedia. List.

Re:Hang on, wait.. (-1, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17029218)

Which. Doesn't. Change. The. Point.

Learn. Reading. Comprehension.

Re:Hang on, wait.. (2, Informative)

Puff Daddy (678869) | more than 7 years ago | (#17029798)

Learn. To. Read. Things. And. Not. Just. Be. An. Asshole. The. Wikipedia. List. Includes. Defeats. Idiot.

Re:Hang on, wait.. (-1, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17029872)

What is so hard for you to comprehend here? Here is what I said, and you quoted:
No, but that's not the issue. The issue is that the EFF website doesn't provide a list of cases they have fought and which ones they have won, it only provides a list of victories.
The fact that Wikipedia does provide this list is immaterial. The EFF is standing up and saying "look what we have achieved!" by listing their victories. Well they've achieved a heck of a lot more than just their list of victories would suggest. Their list of failures shows us things they have achieved that they didn't intend to. Things like legal precidents.

Re:Hang on, wait.. (1)

ntk (974) | more than 7 years ago | (#17029036)

Of course - what a perfectly reasonable and logically grounded conclusion to draw. Thanks for your input.

Re:Hang on, wait.. (1)

Redlazer (786403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17029478)

As amusing as it may be to kick the underdog (I do enjoy making fun of French people), I do appreciate the work EFF has done, or is at least trying to do, for whatever it may be worth.

After all, they could be on the RIAA's side, in which case wed all be screwed.

-Red

Re:Hang on, wait.. (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 7 years ago | (#17029688)

It's things like this that keep me contributing to the EFF. Thank you for your efforts.

Re:Hang on, wait.. (1)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 7 years ago | (#17029078)

Hopefully this will get their spirits up for battles against bigger Dino [riaa.com] saurs [mpaa.org] .

Finally, a success against copyright bullshit! (4, Interesting)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027166)

Someone get these lawyers on the RIAA's case. The sooner we're rid of copyright abuses, the sooner we can put a sane system in place. Though the other way around may work better.
Actually enforcing fair use is a good start.

Re:Finally, a success against copyright bullshit! (2, Insightful)

cultrhetor (961872) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027610)

What does enforcement of actual "fair use" have to do with enforcing piracy claims? The RIAA suits are a different ball of wax.

Re:Finally, a success against copyright bullshit! (2, Insightful)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027726)

Step 1: Recognize fair use Step 2: Recognize that the copyright laws (and patent laws, but that's another matter) as they exist today are ridiculous Step 3: REFORM!

Re:Finally, a success against copyright bullshit! (1)

BootNinja (743040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027826)

You forgot Step 5. Profit!!!

Re:Finally, a success against copyright bullshit! (1)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027986)

Actually, they'd stop profiting from this bullshit, but that's a profit for society. I guess it depends on who you ask.

Singalong (5, Funny)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027168)

I love you, you love me,
This is bestiality...

Re:Singalong (4, Funny)

vwjeff (709903) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027420)

I sue you, you sue me.

Re:Singalong (1)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027698)

Or from my rock & roll days...

I hate you, You hate me, We're a dysfunctional family!

Re:Singalong (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028094)

What's with all the legalese?

Re:Singalong (1)

nickheart (557603) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027800)

You want to start up school-yard Barney parodies...*clears thought*

(to the tune of Yankee Doodle)

Barney is a Dinosaur,
'Looks like a grape on steroids.
He turns young kids' brains into mush
And gives old people hemeroids.

fin.

From the settlement agreemenr ... (4, Informative)

foobsr (693224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027226)

"... Conditioned upon the parties' compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the parties, and their respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, parents, subsidiaries, affiliated companies, attorneys, successors and assigns, hereby release each other from any and all claims, demands, damages, losses, liabilities, rights or causes of action, including but not limited to any claim for attorneys fees, arising out of or relating to the Action and/or the allegations asserted therein. ..."

Reading this please make your own conclusions about the inner structure of the underlying legal system (IMAGINE YOU WOULD STRUCTURE CODE THE SAME WAY!).

cc.

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (3, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027642)

The code might not look this way, but the EULA sure does.

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (5, Informative)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027644)

"... Conditioned upon the parties' compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the parties, and their respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, parents, subsidiaries, affiliated companies, attorneys, successors and assigns, hereby release each other from any and all claims, demands, damages, losses, liabilities, rights or causes of action, including but not limited to any claim for attorneys fees, arising out of or relating to the Action and/or the allegations asserted therein. ..."

Reading this please make your own conclusions about the inner structure of the underlying legal system (IMAGINE YOU WOULD STRUCTURE CODE THE SAME WAY!).


Reading this sort of legalese is actually quite simple: whenever you see an agglomeration of terms like that, read the first one, and mentally replace the rest of them with "or similar". It's actually quite similar to programming, since you need to explicity enumerate the cases. Neither computers nor lawyers are very good with fuzziness.

The code equivalent would be

if(is_party($complainant) || is_party_director($complainant) || is_party_agent($complainant) || is_party_servant($complainant) || is_party_employee($complainant) || is_party_parent($complainant)....)

Yes, you need to include all the clauses in order for the if() statement to work properly.

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (4, Insightful)

nosredna (672587) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027904)

To be more accurate, lawyers are very good with fuzziness. That's why you never ever ever ever want to leave them any to exploit.

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (2, Funny)

zurmikopa (460568) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028048)

So perhaps all legalese needs to be comprehendable is proper indenting (and maybe some syntax highlighting).

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028174)

if(is_party($complainant) || is_party_director($complainant) || is_party_agent($complainant) || is_party_servant($complainant) || is_party_employee($complainant) || is_party_parent($complainant)....)


I think I would rather do this:

// Make this a nice neat config file and include it obviously
@parties = (respectiveOfficers,directors,agents,servants,empl oyees,parents,subsidiaries,affiliatedCompanies,att orneys,successors,assigns);
if (in_array(@parties, $complainant))
{
die('released each other from any and all claims, demands, damages, losses, liabilities, rights or causes of action, including but not limited to any claim for attorneys fees');
}


Ok, so that MAY look like perl, and MAY use a php function, but you get the jist of it

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (1)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028396)

hump notation? in perl?

DIE!!!!

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028514)

I already put a disclaimer up about that, what more do you want from me! :(

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028608)

I think perhaps the following should proceed every code posting by users here:

"... Conditioned upon the parties' compliance with the terms and conditions of this Comment, the parties, and their respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, parents, subsidiaries, affiliated companies, attorneys, successors and assigns, hereby release each other from any and all claims, demands, damages, losses, liabilities, rights or causes of action, including but not limited to any claim for attorneys fees, arising out of or relating to the Action and/or the allegations asserted therein. ..."

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028934)

Neither computers nor lawyers are very good with fuzziness.

Computers may be more flexible [bugwriter.net] .

CC.

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (2, Insightful)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027940)

"... Conditioned upon the parties' compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the parties, and their respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, parents, subsidiaries, affiliated companies, attorneys, successors and assigns, hereby release each other from any and all claims, demands, damages, losses, liabilities, rights or causes of action, including but not limited to any claim for attorneys fees, arising out of or relating to the Action and/or the allegations asserted therein. ..."
Reading this please make your own conclusions about the inner structure of the underlying legal system (IMAGINE YOU WOULD STRUCTURE CODE THE SAME WAY!).
Oh, that's easy:
Compliance(Terms_Conditions(Agreement));
Conditio n(Parties || '/.*/g');
Release('/.*/g' || claims('/.*/g'));

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028860)

Compliance(Terms_Conditions(Agreement));
Conditio n(Parties || '/.*/g');
Release('/.*/g' || claims('/.*/g'))

This would read more like: "Both parties agree to withhold from any further action regarding the case in focus.". That is, you have predefined classes (lists, maybe objects, whatever) that you do not care to reiterate (what lawyers, as the example shows, obviously need to do, which fosters the implication that the system is highly inefficient).

Perhaps lawyers should be run through some formal language education.

CC.

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ... (2, Funny)

macemoneta (154740) | more than 7 years ago | (#17029374)

Oh, that's easy:

Compliance(Terms_Conditions(Agreement));
Condition(Parties || '/.*/g');
Release('/.*/g' || claims('/.*/g'));

Well why didn't they just say that? Sheesh, lawyers make everything so complicated. If laws were written this way, you could replace the judicial system with a compiler. Ah.

I would hope code is structured in this way... (1)

chrwei (771689) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028034)

... because it's very thorough, covers all the bases for a way around exclutions. if only more coders were so diligent.

take a look at a security update pach some time, in many cases the diff shows 5 lines of original code expanding to 10-15 lines of "secure" code, just to prevent a single type of exploit. that legalese manages to cover 11 types of expoits, if you will, in one single sentance. nice, i say.

HIS Lawyers.. surrendered. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17027260)

It was his lawyers that surrendered, those damn slackers.. Barney will be out kicking ass and giving hugs in no time.

Re:HIS Lawyers.. surrendered. (5, Funny)

Jello B. (950817) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027336)

And he's all out of hugs.

barney's revenge... (4, Insightful)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027270)

I quote the famous barney addage:



I love you,
You love me,
We're a happy family,
with a great big hug,
and a kiss from me to you,
Won't you say you love me TOO!

I love you,
You love me,
We're best friends like friends should be,
With a great big hug,
And a kiss from me to you,
Won't you say you love me too


I guess Barney is one of those Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde kind of guys with a split personality. While he sings sweet happy songs to young children who absolutely adore him, he has a darkside he shows to those who don't like him. When someone doesn't respect the lines "We're best friends like friends should be", and "Won't you say you love me TOO", the big purple dinosaur sends them the not-so cuddly wrath of the purple-D's lawyer team.

Re:barney's revenge... (2, Funny)

zip_000 (951794) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027746)

I prefer SmootchY songs:
"My Stepdad's Not Mean (He's Just Adjusting.)"
KIDS:
'Stepdads are people too/ They
have bad days, like we all do/
Be patient and help them through/
Stepdads are people too...'

SMOOCHY:
(singing) ... 'So three cheers for the man
that I proudly call Stan... He's
not quite a dad or a brother...
Yes, he gets cross, but still he's
the boss... And besides he takes
care of my mother!'

SMOOCHY:
Remember, kids. First
impressions, good or bad, are not
always what they seem. Just like
a new puppy, new dads need to
adjust to their surroundings. So
give 'em time! But always
remember... if he becomes abusive
to you or Mommy... what are the
magic numbers?

KIDS IN BLEACHERS(shouting in unison: Nine-One-One!
SMOOCHY: Right-o-riffic!

Confused? (2, Funny)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027284)

I thought Barney was a parody? Isn't a parody website redudant?

Re:Confused? (4, Funny)

undeaf (974710) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027604)

No, it's recursive. Haven't you ever wanted a beowulf cluster of beowulf clusters?

Re:Confused? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17029664)

Where I come from, we call that a grid.

You don't want to sue us anymore... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17027322)

http://www.textfiles.com/art/barney.txt [textfiles.com] ...Subliminal Barney has spoken. (anyone remember this classic?)

Re:You don't want to sue us anymore... (1)

9Numbernine9 (633974) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028332)

http://www.textfiles.com/art/barney.txt ...Subliminal Barney has spoken. (anyone remember this classic?)

I couldn't get that to compile with 'use strict'. Any suggestions?
 
:-)

Barney isn't stopped! (5, Interesting)

autophile (640621) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027338)

While the Big Bad Barney has agreed not to pursue Frankel any longer, the settlement document on the EFF website does not claim that Barney will not try to harass anyone else. Apparently Barney has to pay Frankel $5,000, which is a drop in the bucket. Barney will probably accept the risk of going after other, more likely to be intimidated, sites.

--Rob

Re:Barney isn't stopped! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17027432)

Actually, going after a "likely to be intimidated" site is exactly what Lyons was doing. The EFF stepped in to help "the little guy". Unless the EFF agreed not to involve themselves in future litigation, Lyons will always have to face the risk that the EFF will sue.

Re:Barney isn't stopped! (1)

darkonc (47285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028254)

The EFF is only representing Frankel in the suit. If Barney tries to stomp on another web site, the EFF should have no problem representing any future harassee as well.
Unless the EFF agreed not to involve themselves in future litigation, Lyons will always have to face the risk that the EFF will sue.

Re:Barney isn't stopped! (3, Interesting)

multisync (218450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027916)

Barney will probably accept the risk of going after other, more likely to be intimidated, sites.


From the EFF's response [eff.org] to the Barney lawyers:

Finally, we would like to remind you that New York State Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-102 [1200.33] and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides for sanctions for litigation undertaken without support in existing law or sufficient evidentiary support.


IANAL, but if the law firm sending me a C&D was from New York, I would find the above very interesting.

Re:Barney isn't stopped! (4, Informative)

geckoFeet (139137) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028944)

The way EFF explained it to me (I'm Frankel or, as EFF and my mother call me, Dr. Frankel. Also my old school when they're asking for money), if Lyons (the Barney company) keeps sending around nastygrams, that will establish a pattern that courts will probably look on very unfavorably. And the $5000 may be a drop in the bucket to them (it goes to EFF, incidentally), but the negative publicity was priceless. EFF would love to represent any future recipients of Barney's nastygrams.

EFF was Bound to Win (5, Insightful)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027382)

...because this case had no basis.

Even though I really hate Britney Spears, I must admit that before she got pregnant, she actually looked kind of hot. However, after she got pregnant, she gradually turned into a monstrosity (or was it years of lyrical and systematic infection of our American youth finally striking back...?). If the value premise of the case were true, that meant that if I used Photoshop to exaggerate her hideous appearance to blatant unrealistic proportions, then posted it back on my MySpace, I have used the image of Britney Spears illegally under copyright law and will be subjected to all sorts of governmental discipline. Does this make any sense?

I'm glad that the court realized the flawed logic of this case. It would have been a shame if that person had to pay some consequence solely for using merely the image of a character humorously (or not). I knew the dinosaur had some evil in it...

Re:EFF was Bound to Win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17027532)

Arg, I didn't come to Slashdot to hear about Britney Spears and Myspace.

Re:EFF was Bound to Win (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028182)

Then you've come to the wrong place, sir.

Britney Lost (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17027674)

Agreed on Britney. I don't even recognize her face any more. Just look at these [taxidrivermovie.com] . Looks nothing like her in the second pic.

Re:Britney Lost (1)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027766)

BARF!
(Warning: the above link contains NSFW images.)

Re:EFF was Bound to Win (2, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028016)

The wheels on the bus go:

http://thesuperficial.com/2006/11/britney_spears_b oobs_are_huge.html [thesuperficial.com]

but then they come right back round(Not at all safe for work, in any way):

(again NSFW!)

http://thesuperficial.com/2006/11/britney_spears_r eally_wants_yo.html [thesuperficial.com]

Not that she looks all that fantastic in the first set; the second set is just hilarious though.

Re:EFF was Bound to Win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17029246)

(Score:2, Interesting)

Only on Slashdot.

Re:EFF was Bound to Win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17028752)

However, after she got pregnant, she gradually turned into a monstrosity (or was it years of lyrical and systematic infection of our American youth finally striking back...?).


Actually, I'm pretty sure this was bound to happen no matter what.

OMG (4, Interesting)

BlahSnarto (45250) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027476)

You know ive had one of the shittiest days
in my life, this made me laugh out loud..

i dont know why...

but thanks ;)

sing along (0)

Some_Llama (763766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027568)

I hate you, you hate me, we all hate tele-tubbies.. do I owe the that old man some money now?

Am I the only one here (2, Funny)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027656)

who thought of the policeman from Half-Life 2 before reading the summary?

Re:Am I the only one here (1)

popeye44 (929152) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027728)

Well if it helps.. I thought of Barney from the first Half Life.. because everyone called em that but I don't think they had a name hehe.

Ye Olde Skoole. (2, Funny)

Darlantan (130471) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027962)

I've got you both beat. My first mental image was of Barney Fife furiously trying to load his single bullet into his revolver, dropping it, then throwing his hands into the air in front of a bunch of suit-clad agent types.

Original Barney FTW.

Re:Am I the only one here (1)

Andrew Kismet (955764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028004)

"The EFF? Is that the group that took over the Combine or somethi... oh, wait, it's just the nice people with the inept lawyers."

Remember, kids, Sharing is Caring! (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027664)

and have a big sloppy hug from Me to You!

No parallel with most RIAA cases (2, Interesting)

Virtual_Raider (52165) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027818)

IANAL. This is a case of fair use, whereas most RIAA cases are for copyright infringement. In the Barney case the purple lawyers wanted to make it appear as if this guy was making illegal reproductions of copyrighted work, which he was not.

"Piracy" copyright infringement means that you are unlawfully stepping over somebody's exclusive "right to copy", that is, to produce duplicates of a work. When the RIAA sues (whether with merit or not) they claim that you are illegally making a copy of something for which you don't have the right to reproduce. If I download a song from a P2P network for which I didn't pay the legal copyright holder for the rights to do so, then I'm breaking the law because I created a copy without authorization.

If I make a copy of a CD that I purchased through legal channels (including second-hand purchases) and then make a copy of that its fair use.

Parody is somewhat different because I'd be producing a copy or an altered copy of something in order to make a statement. In this case, what matters is not the copy itself but the intent. In the case of the music it's the other way around because one wants to have an exact replica of the "original".

Please, if you reply to this, take into account that I'm not saying whether I'm for or against the status quo, merely trying to depict it.

What a significant case! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17027956)

Making fun of a silly children's character is an important right we wouldn't want to lose. I'm glad they didn't spend their time and money on less important issues.

Why not? (0, Flamebait)

BishonenAngstMagnet (797469) | more than 7 years ago | (#17027996)

It's their copyright, why can't they sue?

Mod me to -1: Flamebait all you want, but I don't care. I think it's absolutely stupid when someone sues over a copyright violation (which they are more than entitled to do), and the entire internet community goes "omg, information/music/images/barney should be free, no suing." Now of course I don't necessarily agree with this particular case; it was stupid to be suing over a parody site, and I do believe that parodies have a certain level of artistic freedom, but they do need to tread the line carefully between parodying something and defacement of that something.

Basically, I thought it a stupid case, but a perfectly legitimate case nonetheless.

Re:Why not? (1)

DavidRawling (864446) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028280)

Someone should have modded you "-1 Idiot" because you failed to understand that the owner of the copyright sued a parody site. Parody is protected speech I believe (no, IANAL either) and the lawsuit therefore has no basis.

Re:Why not? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17028308)

You mean, -1 Uninformed? Seriously, do you not even know what fair use is? Copyrights have limits, despite what copyright holders like to pretend. They are an artificial monopoly created to reward artists, not a God Given Right. Don't believe me? Here you go, the law itself [copyright.gov] . And before you get confused, parody is a form of "criticism" and "comment"--laws are always a bit vague because the world isn't black and white. Yes, there is also a limit to what is considered a parody, but parodies are legal. Determining if something is a parody is up to the courts.

Obviously, I am not a lawyer and you should not use this as legal advice. Otherwise, I would have smacked you down with much more wit and knowledge, that which is gained from more than five seconds on google.

Re:Why not? (1)

posterlogo (943853) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028468)

I would argue that Barney is a celebrity. As such, he has no right to privacy WHEN HE PUTS HIMSELF IN THE SPOTLIGHT. Thus, it is fair game to make fun of him.

Five years ago, I got C&D'd by Barney... (5, Interesting)

oskay (932940) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028078)

Five years ago I had a website [oskay.net] with a collection of jokes collected from mid-1990s humor mailing lists. Naturally, there was a whole page of Barney jokes. The same stupid ones that you've seen a million times. You've seen all the song parodies (here, if nowhere else), and then there was the giant ASCII-art-Barney-being-killed-by-something. I think that it might have been a face hugger.
At the time, the web site (for stupid, complicated reasons) was registered in my father's name. So, imagine my old man's surprise when one day HE gets a letter from Barney's lawyer threatening (purple) fire and brimstone. Without much of a good alternative, we caved. I was really, really mad, and I suppose that I still am. To this day, it's the only legal 'trouble' that any of my web sites have stirred up, which is actually somewhat surprising.

Now that someone has finally stood up to the purple bully, can I finally dig into my old backups and put up the page of Barney jokes again? Whether or not Barney jokes are still relevant at the end of 2006, I suppose that I should, merely on principle.

Re:Five years ago, I got C&D'd by Barney... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17028200)

Barney may not be your friend, but www.archive.org is.

I love you... (1)

leamanc (961376) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028410)

...you love me, we're best friends like friends should be. Or apparently NOT!

Dang, Barney, follow some of your own lessons. If my 18-month-old didn't love that purple freak so much, I'd be putting up a boycott. But as any parent of an 18-month-old will agree, anything that makes them happy is worth it.

Re:I love you... (1)

rossz (67331) | more than 7 years ago | (#17029746)

Oh come on. Tell the whole truth. Anything that keeps your kid from crying long enough for you to take a nap is f*ing miracle! :)

Barney (-1, Redundant)

jbertling1960 (982188) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028442)

I hate you
You hate me
Let's hang Barney from a tree

OHMYGOD. (4, Funny)

GeneralEmergency (240687) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028560)



I truly thought I would never live to see the day,

I mean actually witness,

SOMEBODY pulling FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS OUT OF A DINOSAUR'S ASS!

I can die in peace now.

Here's the site in question (1)

ragingmime (636249) | more than 7 years ago | (#17029456)

The site they're talking about [dustyfeet.com] seems pretty harmless (and even a little immature), but I guess the case isn't about one particular site as it is about setting a precedent. Still, I think it's kind of silly that a bunch of high-powered lawyers spent so much time arguing about a Barney parody page.

I'm glad the EFF won, and I'm glad the EFF exists, but there have to be more important problems to spend time and money on than this one - like human rights [amnesty.org] and hunger [oxfam.org] , to name a few. Nothing against the EFF... it's just that this whole case rates a 9 on the WTF? meter.

Re:Here's the site in question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17029780)

What's more interesting is that almost all the links to external Barney parody sites from there are 404s now. Seems like most site owners bent over...

Sing-A-Long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17029842)

All they needed was a sing-a-long. The one Barney episode I remember being forced to watch (in 1998 or so) had a part in it where he said:

"Everyone wins with a Sing-A-Long!"

I've been tormenting my friends (and fellow US Marines*) with that phrase ever since..

(*yes really - 2171 Electro-Optics Repair, USMC 1st Battalion/8th Marines, Camp LeJeune NC, H&S Co. You would probably be suprised at the looks and laughs it gets to this day..)

=)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?