|
|
|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
|
"Here comes "I'm A Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here!""
 |
AyaK 9956 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-14-03, 07:06 PM (EST)
 
  |
|
2. "An interesting spin" |
I didn't put this in the article (which is still in the queue to be posted), but ...during the "People's Choice Awards," Mark Burnett was asked about doing a celebrity version of "Survivor." He said that he'd only do it if he could get all "A-list" celebrities, without any C-list filler, because "Survivor" is an "A-list show." Rest assured, "Celebrity" will not have all A-list celebrities. The show "strips" -- it runs every night, and at the end of the show, members of the public can call in to vote someone off (like the original "Big Brother" ... or like "American Idol"). ... One issue in the injunction request was whether the difference between call-in voting and cast voting was a difference significant enough to make "Survivor" and "Celebrity" different. I have not seen the judge's opinion (it's not on the Southern District of N.Y. Web site yet), but I have to say that, if she ruled in favor of this argument, then (in effect) "Big Brother 2" is so different from "Big Brother 1" that they were two different shows for copyright purposes. Seems like a silly position to me -- we'll see what she actually said. ... One more point. Although I don't mention it in my article, the judge apparently used "Bewitched" and "I Dream of Jeannie" as examples of shows that were as much alike as "Survivor" and "Celebrity." An interesating take, considering that "Jeannie" was a gender-reversed version of Aladdin's Lamp, while "Bewitched" was a ripoff of a movie entitled "Bell, Book and Candle" (starring Jimmy Stewart, Kim Novak and Jack Lemmon). Despite the common elements, the shows could point to very different sources (and Aladdin's Lamp is definitely in the public domain, so "Jeannie" can't be a copyright infringement, can it?). On the other hand, there is a common source for "Survivor" and "Celebrity" -- it's "Survivor." If this is the best logic that the judge could muster, I have a feeling that her opinion is going to be very weak indeed.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
survivorscott 2191 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Roller Coaster Inaugurator"
|
01-14-03, 09:05 PM (EST)
|
|
4. "here is an article talking about it" |
LAST EDITED ON 01-14-03 AT 09:06 PM (EST)
New ABC Show is ‘Survivor’ of CBS Challenge
(NY Post) -- After an almost forensic study of worm-eating contests and exotic film sets, a federal judge has rejected the CBS network's claim that ABC's new celebrity reality show is a rip-off of megahit "Survivor." Nervous ABC execs breathed a sigh of relief yesterday after CBS failed to prevent its rival from screening "I'm A Celebrity . . . Get Me Out of Here!" -- the show the House of Mouse hopes will lead a ratings revival during the February sweeps. Judge Loretta Preska found a series of critical differences between the two reality shows -- down to the fact the worms are black on "Survivor" and white on "Celebrity." Preska said the mood on "Survivor," with its host Jeff Probst, was "tense and competitive" as its contestants performed physically demanding tasks, while "Celebrity" was light-hearted and relied on "gross" challenges, such as wrestling pigs. "I find the work to be substantially different in concept and feel," she said. Preska also noted that dramatic tribal music accompanied "Survivor" contestants when they were booted off the show, while on "Celebrity" the vanquished got to jump onto a "silly looking barge" and drink champagne 
Come in a stranger,leave a little stranger
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
AyaK 9956 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-15-03, 12:01 PM (EST)
|
|
8. "Good word choice" |
Webby, you have it just right -- "so-called" celebrities. Good heavens, what a group of never-weres (with the exception of Bruce Jenner, most of these people aren't even has-beens).
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Outfrontgirl 6830 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-16-03, 10:51 PM (EST)
|
|
10. "RE: Good word choice" |
What a pathetic list, indeed...I want to see Susan Sarandon, Michelle Pfeiffer, Courtney Cox, Drew Barrymore, Demi Moore, Julia Roberts, and Catharine Zeta-Jones and Jane Fonda. If Fonda's not available, Lily Tomlin.
vs.
Robert de Niro, Quentin Tarentino, Jack Nicholson, Stephen Spielberg, Martin Scorcese, George Clooney, Mel Gibson, and Woody Allen. If Allen's not available, Danny de Vito.
 That would be entertaining. AyaK, there's another glaring difference between the two shows that I wonder the judge didn't cite, since it's the biggest differnce of all: One show is on CBS and one is ABC. Oh, right.   "your pattern is different than what it implies
the words may be true, but I realize--it isn't description so much as disguise"
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
AyaK 9956 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-17-03, 07:44 PM (EST)
|
|
15. "At least recognizable" |
Hey, I thought Al Gore might do it. It would give him an excuse to grow his beard back. Or Trent Lott could go on and talk about race with one of the black contestants. How about O.J. for that role? A little fear in the contestants' eyes would make the show more dramatic, right? Among the women, we could get Winona Ryder -- nothing to shoplift here, Winona, so you're safe!Instead, ABC came up with the weakest list of celebrities ever. This makes "Celebrity Boot Camp" and "Celebrity Mole" look star-studded by comparison. Seriously, I've never even heard of three of these losers (Tyson Beckford, Melissa Rivers and Stuttering John) or the host (John Lehr). I've heard of but wouldn't recognize Downtown Julie Brown. So that leaves three, count 'em, three, people I would actually recognize: Alana "the Bimbo" Stewart; Robin "the Dweeb" Leach; and Olympic gold medal winner and man-whore Bruce Jenner, whose sordid personal history has been obscured by his relentless publicity campaign. Jenner's first wife Chrystie, his college sweetheart, financially supported him for five years while he was training for the Olympics --- remember, back in those days, Olympians were true amateurs --- but, after he won the gold medal, he dumped her (despite the fact that she was pregnant with their second child at the time!) to marry Elvis' ex-mistress (and former Miss USA runner-up) Linda Thompson. Bruce and Linda had two more kids ... then got divorced (Linda married pop songwiter extraordinaire David Foster in 1991 and is listed as co-writer of several songs with him). Bruce then remarried Kris Kardashian, the ex-wife of O.J.'s pal and attorney Robert Kardashian (and one of Nicole Brown Simpson's best friends), and became close friends with O.J. and Nicole -- both Bruce and Kris ended up as witnesses at the O.J. civil trial. Kris had four children from her first marriage and has two more with Bruce. So, six kids, two divorces, heavily involved in one of the most infamous events of our lifetime -- all-around nice guy, isn't he?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Drive My Car 20045 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-28-03, 08:57 AM (EST)
|
|
25. "RE: At least recognizable" |
So, six kids, two divorces, heavily involved in one of the most infamous events of our lifetime -- all-around nice guy, isn't he?And my sister was their nanny. What a hoot, I didn't realize he was gonna be on this show. 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
Drive My Car 20045 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-29-03, 08:41 AM (EST)
|
|
27. "RE: Really?" |
The current one ( and I hear she was a real b*tch).My sister worked for them for only a few months. It was kinda surreal I guess, since it was right after the OJ trial ended, and they socialized with people she had seen on TV. Faye Resnick was at the little ones Birthday Party as were the Garveys. My sis said the strangest thing was when she had to go over to Kardasians house to pick up the older kids( she kept thinking about the day OJ left there to go on his Bronco run)
She said Robert K, seemed like a nice guy. The Jenners were odd.
I thought between the 2 of them, they had 10 kids. I could be wrong. I did get a Sports Illustrated Cover photo, with Bruce on it, signed to my Daughter.
Wish I could remember all the stuff about the Jenners. The children were terribly spoiled though ( not a surprise) Being a nanny in LA can be pretty interesting, she has over the years worked for some pretty Famous people. Spent some time on a movie set with one employers Family ( the Specialist)
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
AyaK 9956 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-29-03, 12:46 PM (EST)
|
|
28. "10 kids, but..." |
Yeah, Bruce & Kris have 10 kids between 'em, but Bruce only has 6, and only 6 live with them.Bruce & Chrystie: 2 kids, both in their 20s. Chrystie had custody. Bruce & Linda: 2 kids, both college-aged. Linda has custody. Kris & Robert: 4 kids. Kris has custody. Bruce & Kris: 2 kids.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
Outfrontgirl 6830 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-17-03, 02:07 AM (EST)
|
|
12. "RE: Here comes "I'm A Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here!"" |
Loved your latest snarky-lawyerly article, AyaK!Reading it, I was struck by curiosity as to what this judge would rule if say, AyaK were to claim that FlyingSquirrel's Mole 2 Finale summary was infringing on his (AyaK's) intellectual property. Do the two posters really express different opinions?
Or would the judge rule they are different due to certain distinctive "tones of voice" the two employ? Would she declare there was a substantial difference by contrasting AyaK's username (shortened from the name of a living dictator) to FlyingSquirrel's (a cartoon hero) because one is a human being (so to speak) and the other a fictional animal? Would she pooh-pooh the fact that they both are domiciled in the Boston area as too general a similarity? I think she would discount AyaK's claim that the two are substantially the same beast, in fact person. In rebuttal, I would submit that there is a fundamental similarity between the writing of AyaK and FlyingSquirrel--which is that, despite some superficial differences, NEITHER can write an entire article or summary without taking a good swipe at the Disney Empire. I rest my case.  "your pattern is different than what it implies
the words may be true, but I realize--it isn't description so much as disguise"
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
AyaK 9956 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-17-03, 08:00 PM (EST)
|
|
16. "Good analogy" |
I hadn't thaought about the analogy of the similarities between AyaK and flying squirrel to the similarities between Survivor and Celebrity --- very good point, OFG!As far as the shot at Disney, you may have noticed that THE VERY NEXT DAY the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Disney's favor in the copyright case (the challenge to the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" (no joke!), which extended U.S. copyrights from life of the creator + 50 years to life of the creator + 70 years, and from 75 years to 95 years for works created before 1978). Disney was the main party lobbying for the extention, because it protects Disney's copyright to Mickey Mouse. The U.S. copyright regime for most of the 20th Century was only 56 years (28 years + a 28 year renewal). Thus, Mickey Mouse, who was created in 1928, would have been out of copyright in 1984 --- but Disney got active back in the 70s to head that off. In 1978, they succeeded in getting the law changed from the 56-year term to life + 50, with 75 years as the term for anything produced after 1923 and before 1978. That meant Mickey was safe until ... 2003. As the 21st Century approached, Disney once again went to work with its lobbyists and its pocketbook (about $6.3 million in campaign contributions in 1998), and it got the term extended again in the Bono Act. The friggin' mouse has eaten up the public domain. Anyone know of a hungry cat?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Outfrontgirl 6830 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-17-03, 08:13 PM (EST)
|
|
17. "RE: Good analogy" |
The loss of public domain does suck, AyaK! As usual with you, I have learned something about which I had no prior clue. Very interesting.How far it has come!
I forget all the legal details, but I do know that James Joyce didn't get a penny from U.S. sales of Ulysses, even though he was very much alive and needing the money. For some reason, they were able to publish it here without copyright and he wasn't able to change that. NOW, on the other hand, his jerk of a grandson has such an iron fist on Joyce's writings that even academic scholars cannot quote from Joyce's work without getting Stephen Joyce's permission. And he withholds permission from anyone who has ticked him off by writing about some of the more sensational Joyce family history. This forces scholars to try to write about something without quoting from it, which is a total no-no in academia, so it's quite an issue amongst the select group of obsessive Joyce freaks who care about such things. The pendulum swings... "your pattern is different than what it implies
the words may be true, but I realize--it isn't description so much as disguise"
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Outfrontgirl 6830 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-17-03, 08:28 PM (EST)
|
|
18. "RE: Good analogy" |
Not to hijack your thread, AyaK, but because I know you are interested in the convolutions of intellectual property law:
I just found these articles while googling for the copyright details I had forgotten (my books dealing with it must still be in a box from my move, arghh).Anyway, I found different, current debate you might find interesting IF you don't already know all about it, BIG IF.
_____________________ http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/2001-02/0548.html While checking the Irish Times for an unrelated reason, I ran across an article about a copyright controversy relating to the filming of James Joyce's "Ulysses" (excerpt below, full story at
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2001/0619/hom8.htm) The director (Walsh) of the new film claims that because he started this project before the copyright term was extended, he is not bound by the fact that the underlying book, Ulysses, subsequently left the public domain. However, the director (Strick) of the first film of this book claims that his copyright in the film runs to 2042, and that any new film by Walsh presumably would infringe upon that copyright. This begs the question of whether a derivative work (a film) can infringe upon an earlier derivative work in the same media yet without infringing upon the underlying original work (the book), notwithstanding that both have copyright protection.
-----------------
Also this: http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/bplist/archive/2000-01-20$1.html A link you might find interesting on how Jameson's Distillery was blocked by Joyce's estate from celebrating Joyce's work on Bloomsday via the Internet, even though Bloomsday has been celebrated for decades and has become a sort of National (in Ireland) and even worldwide event. And the brouhaha may actually lead to loosening the copyright stranglehold, which would be cool. "your pattern is different than what it implies
the words may be true, but I realize--it isn't description so much as disguise"
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
AyaK 9956 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-17-03, 09:42 PM (EST)
|
|
19. "Old copyright law" |
Intellectual property history time! (diamond, if you're out there, feel free to pitch in at any time...)OFG, I actually know something about the Ulysses copyright history. It's a great issue. Bear with me... The U.S. (and the U.K. until 1986) used to follow a system in which registration was required for copyright. If you didn't register your work, it was in the public domain, too bad for you. There were certain requirements for registration, including supplying a copy of the work to the Library of Congress within two months of publication for a work first published outside the US. The 1978 copyright law changed that. Disney pushed the law's copyright extension as a "harmonization" with the European system (except, again, for the U.K.), and its cash carried the day. However, the European system was a natural right system, not a registration system. Under the European system, YOU HAD A NATURAL RIGHT TO OWN YOUR OWN WORK. Thus, no registration was required. However, the 1978 copyright law only applied to works published in 1923 and later. Ulysses was never registered for copyright in the US. It was first published in France in 1922, and Joyce failed to deposit a copy with the Library of Congress within two months of that date. The reason for his failure was that publication of Ulysses in the US was banned in 1921 by a NY state court due to its "obscenity," so he never lined up a US publisher. Therefore, no US copyright. The first US version was published in 1926; Joyce sued for copyright infringement but lost. The first authorized US version of Ulysses was published by Random House in 1934 (when the obscenity ban was lifted). Thus, in the US, Ulysses was in the public domain until 1978. However, when the new copyright law was passed, Random House and the Joyce heirs argued that Ulysses was published in 1934; therefore, the '78 act applied to it, and so it was now under copyright until 2009 (75 years after publication). The Bono Act would keep it under copyright until 2029 ... or maybe only until 2017, if we use the 1922 date. Or would it? If we're on a "natural right" system for determining copyright dates, then the date of first publication should be 1922, shouldn't it? In that case, the 1978 act never applied to Ulysses, and it's in the public domain. Or maybe it's been in the public domain even longer? How could Ulysses be banned in the US a year before it was published? Well, the simple answer is that it was originally published as a serial in 1918, not as a novel. Thus, there is a lot of reason to believe that Ulysses is NOT under copyright in the US. Or maybe it is actually under copyright. In the Uruguay Round of GATT in 1995, the US agreed to restore copyrights to works that had been adversely affected by past protectionist policies. If that provision applies to Ulysses, then the Bono Act may apply to it after all, meaning that its copyright is valid until either 2013 (95 years after 1918) or 2017 (95 years after 1922), despite the fact that it was in the public domain prior to then. (In this case, the 1934 date wouldn't apply at all, though.) Nobody has chosen to test these theories, for obvious reason. You'd need a lot of resources behind you, because Random House and the Joyce estate would wage a very expensive battle to defeat you, and you might lose on the merits anyway. Certainly no English scholar has the money needed for such a battle. Only a law school legal clinic focused on intellectual property COULD take it on, but so far, no one has. In the UK, the law is clear, which is why the Joyce estate has chosen to sue there. Ulysses has been out of copyright twice in the UK. Its original copyright was 50 years, which expired in 1972. However, in 1986, as part of the UK's admission to the EU, a new copyright law was passed that changed copyrights to life + 50, period, and which "revived" expired copyrights. Joyce died in 1941, so the copyright now expired in 1991. It remained out of copyright uthrough 1996. However, in 1997, under heavy lobbying by The Mouse (which saw buying Europe support as crucial to buying US support for a term extension), the EU changed the copyright term to life + 70. This revived Ulysses's copyright yet again, and the copyright there now runs until 2011. It may not expire even then, if The Evil Mouse has its way.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
dabo 24956 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-17-03, 11:36 PM (EST)
|
|
21. "RE: Here comes "I'm A Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here!"" |
Let's see...Grade F cast: Tyson Beckford (international sex symbol/model; don't know the name but possibly I will recognize her when I see her, or is it a her?), "Downtown" Julie Brown (formerly of MTV, oh those where the glory days), Bruce Jenner (Olympic champ from way way way back), Robin Leach (appropriately surnamed host of "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" and butt of a multitude of jokes), Melissa Rivers (daughter of comedienne Joan Rivers), Alana Stewart (ex of Rod Stewart and George Hamilton *snicker*), and Stuttering John (Howard Stern cohort) -- CHECK! Daily Episodes: (Live or same-day edits or both?) *snicker* CHECK! Viewer Voting: (by phone or internet; first week for who does the we want food challenges, second week for who gets the blessed boot) yeah, the Vegas oddmakers know how to rig such things I'm sure: CHECK! Airing During Heavily Competative Sweeps Month: CHECK! This turkey is gonna be a train wreck of major proportions.  ARRRRRRR!!!!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
