Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
vansmack wrote:
I really only hope that Fernando Salas is good…..
David Freese traded to Angels
Updated: November 22, 2013, 2:52 PM ET
By Jerry Crasnick | ESPN.com
The St. Louis Cardinals have traded third baseman and former World Series MVP David Freese to the Los Angeles Angels for outfielder Peter Bourjos as part of a four-player trade, the teams confirmed Friday.
In addition to Freese, the Angels also will receive reliever Fernando Salas. The Cardinals, meanwhile, also will receive outfield prospect Randal Grichuk.
you should be honored to have a member of the great st. louis cardinals join your squad!
stevewizzle wrote:
you should be honored to have a member of the great st. louis cardinals join your squad!
I am, I just wish it were two starting pitchers that they drafted out of high school.
vansmack wrote:stevewizzle wrote:
you should be honored to have a member of the great st. louis cardinals join your squad!
I am, I just wish it were two starting pitchers that they drafted out of high school.
i'm sure you'll grow to love your weak-hitting, injury prone third basemen just as much.
speaking of corner positions… is albert assuming the DH role pretty much full-time this season? what's the long-term trumbo/pujols plan?
stevewizzle wrote:
i'm sure you'll grow to love your weak-hitting, injury prone third basemen just as much.
Anaheim hasn't had a power hitting third baseman since Troy Glaus. High hopes for the untradeable Dallas McPherson and Brandon Wood proved to be incorrect. We've grown accustom to table setting 3B's….ugh.
stevewizzle wrote:
speaking of corner positions… is albert assuming the DH role pretty much full-time this season? what's the long-term trumbo/pujols plan?
Supposedly Pujols going to be 100% by Spring Training and Trumbo is going to be dealt for starting pitching. Despite what the papers have been saying about Bourjos, Trumbo is our most tradeable asset. I hate to see him go, but we need starting pitching in the worst way, and only have $8m dollars left to do it, so we have to deal.
vansmack wrote:
Beastie Boys sue Toymaker over use of "Girls"
Legally speaking, it's an interesting one.
my very limited knowledge of copyright law leads me to believe that fair use will not cover this. the intent is clearly a commercial pursuit of something other than the parody itself.
i think the more interesting issue is moral (and, by extension, public perception). how do you think suing an icon of girl-empowerment is going to play out? "the beastie boys don't want girls to become engineers!!!"
Couldn't have the toy maker just asked for permission to use it first? I don't think the Beastie's are that heartless are they, that they wouldn't have granted the use of it. The whole toy maker suing them first, is like a page out of the Robin Thicke playbook. Seems to me the toy maker bit off more then they could chew…
The Beastie Boys simply don't want their music (whether their own recordings or someone's cover) used in commercials. Copyright law allows anybody to cover the songs of others; if they issue a recording of their cover then they pay a fixed royalty (~6 cents per copy) to the copyright holder of the composition. But copyright law does not allow one to use their cover in other contexts (commercials, films, etc.) without the permission of the composition copyright holder. That's where sync licenses happen and P4K babies get six figures for selling their souls to Target and McDs.
That toymaker has some shitty lawyers.
That toymaker has some shitty lawyers.
kosmo wrote:
Couldn't have the toy maker just asked for permission to use it first?
yes, and they would have been told no.
my conspiracy theory: they toymakers knew they would be told no, so they took a calculated risk: don't ask, use the song anyways, hope the BBoys don't get all lawyery (because who would sue adorable little girls fighting gender stereotypes?), and pull the "parody" card if they do have to go to court. BBoys called their bluff.
Would any of you have ever heard of the product if it weren't for the Controversy?
That's probably why even the video had Beastie Boys in the title. They knew what they were doing… And welcome this too.
That's probably why even the video had Beastie Boys in the title. They knew what they were doing… And welcome this too.
the beastie boys can put out a record where they steal everything . . . and they want to complain about this. and they totally forgot about tibet, too. and nobody cares about the beastie boys any more. good lord, what is this, the eighteen hundreds?
sweetcell wrote:vansmack wrote:
Beastie Boys sue Toymaker over use of "Girls"
Legally speaking, it's an interesting one.
my very limited knowledge of copyright law leads me to believe that fair use will not cover this. the intent is clearly a commercial pursuit of something other than the parody itself.
i think the more interesting issue is moral (and, by extension, public perception). how do you think suing an icon of girl-empowerment is going to play out? "the beastie boys don't want girls to become engineers!!!"
If you listen to the lyrics of the original song it is pretty clear that the Beastie Boys are Misogynists who would never want women to be anything more than barefoot and pregnant.
vansmack wrote:
Would any of you have ever heard of the product if it weren't for the Controversy?
i had. the video got 8 million hits because of its message - girl empowerment - not because of the beasties song. when i first saw the video i noticed the song but didn't think twice about it, i focused on the girls doing creative things (my initial pleasure at seeing the "girls can do it too" content was eventually replaced with a sense of nagging and mild annoyance. it got really trite.) this copyright brouhaha emerged a good 2 or 3 days after the video went viral.
Toy maker GoldieBlox backs down from Beastie Boys fight
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/27/showbiz/beastie-boys-girls-ad-pulled/index.html
"We don't want to fight with you," founder Debbie Sterling wrote. "We love you and we are actually huge fans."
The song has been removed from the video, which went viral this month and gained millions of online viewers, she said.
"When we made our parody version of your song, 'Girls', we did it with the best of intentions," Sterling said. "We wanted to transform it into a powerful anthem for girls." The company did not realize that Beastie Boys member Adam Yauch, who died last year, had in his will that he wanted his songs to never be used in advertising, she said.
"Although we believe our parody video falls under fair use, we would like to respect his wishes and yours," she wrote.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/27/showbiz/beastie-boys-girls-ad-pulled/index.html
"We don't want to fight with you," founder Debbie Sterling wrote. "We love you and we are actually huge fans."
The song has been removed from the video, which went viral this month and gained millions of online viewers, she said.
"When we made our parody version of your song, 'Girls', we did it with the best of intentions," Sterling said. "We wanted to transform it into a powerful anthem for girls." The company did not realize that Beastie Boys member Adam Yauch, who died last year, had in his will that he wanted his songs to never be used in advertising, she said.
"Although we believe our parody video falls under fair use, we would like to respect his wishes and yours," she wrote.
sweetcell wrote:
my conspiracy theory: they toymakers knew they would be told no, so they took a calculated risk: don't ask, use the song anyways, hope the BBoys don't get all lawyery (because who would sue adorable little girls fighting gender stereotypes?), and pull the "parody" card if they do have to go to court. BBoys called their bluff.
conclusion: toymaker calls woopsies.
sweetcell wrote:
conclusion: toymaker calls woopsies.
…but got all the attention they wanted.
This strategy is known as seeking forgiveness rather than permission. I implore it often as it can be very successful.
vansmack wrote:sweetcell wrote:
conclusion: toymaker calls woopsies.
…but got all the attention they wanted.
This strategy is known as seeking forgiveness rather than permission. I implore it often as it can be very successful.
I think toymaker won this one…
Well…my nexus 4 hit the in laws' driveway on Thanksgiving and smash. I am getting a new phone tonight. Will likely get nexus 5, but am very tempted by the lg g2 with its great battery life and IR blaster.
What does smackie think?
What does smackie think?
chaz wrote:
Well…my nexus 4 hit the in laws' driveway on Thanksgiving and smash. I am getting a new phone tonight. Will likely get nexus 5, but am very tempted by the lg g2 with its great battery life and IR blaster.
What does smackie think?
Smackie is caught between the Moto X and the Nexus 5 for his next phone. Today the price points are the same, but I couldn't pull the trigger on the Moto X.
The G2 and the Nexus are similar phones save for the 2 things you pointed out - but I rarely struggle with battery life and haven't found a good use for IR blasters. The volume button on the back is something I think folks will get used to, but LG's bad skin job cannot be overlooked. If only they would have taken the Moto track before Moto did:
Enhance your OS to make Android more efficient, not to compete with or replace Google's services.
where does cano go? espn insider had an article about why nats/cano is a perfect match (didn't read, not an insider. you are tho, right? /winkyface). i'm under the impression the nats don't need to do a damn thing (some years, it just doesn't work out like you drew it up…), but that's my own biased opinion.