RANDOM QUOTE
Americans are so enamoured of equality they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

-Alexis de Tocqueville
Search
Sticky Posts
•The Ghettotenna
•SVG Icons
•KNetworkLED
•Brew Your Own Damn Beer
Latest Comments
•linkapalooza (5 comments)
•Objects in the Mirror (4 comments)
•Doo Dah Doo Doo Doo Dah Dah Doo... Big News Coming Your Way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (3 comments)
•SVG Icons (7 comments)
•A Revolution in Taco Consumption (5 comments)
Links & Friends
•Reddit
•Kotaku
•Hardgeus
•PVP Online
•Boing Boing
•The Sneeze
•Penny Arcade
Resources
glitch13.com :.::.: ..:.::. :.:::... Home | About | Feedback | Archive | RSS
I REGAINED MY VIRGINITY @ GLITCH13.COM
Category: Music
Tuesday, July 17th, 2001 @ 09:44 pm
Posted By Brent
Well, Theres bigass news ladies and gents! I may be a little late on this, but I have exclusive news, if by exclusive I mean me and everyone else who reads sites about the self-proclaimed Greatest Band on Earth, that the one, the only Tenacious D is currently making their first album which will be released on September 25th. And get this shit, its being produced by the not so one and only Dust Brothers of Paul's Boutique and Beck fame. Not only that thought, they also have a motherfucking movie(!) in the works.

In celebration of this grand announcement, I have found the D's first video, and internet only release (yes, I am aware of the stigma attached to internet only releases), created by non other than that dude whom no one can ever remember his name, that makes Ren & Stimpy and Spumco and all that sick shit:

Fuck Her Gently


Its in Flash, and its a biggin (bout 3 megs), so give it some time, I don't know how long it will take to download on the shitty ass upload speed I get on cable. In other news, as if there's news comparable to that, .... wait there isn't.

But anyhow, I was reading Penny Arcade the other day, and they had shot out a link to this little tidbit about this industry secret lawsuit about this guy who got fucked up the ass by Coca-Cola and the Federal Courts(figuratively, of course). I think this guy is my new hero. Its a long read, but well fucking worth it if you are at all interested in the depths that a multinational corporation will sink to cover up its own fucking retardation. Its fucked up that no mainstream news organization is covering it in the least.

Comments

NAME: glitch13
Saturday, July 21st, 2001 @ 12:03 am
Sorry for the insulting one liner, I just realized that I think you misunderstood my point. Let me clarify.
If a person steals a tv and sells it to me, if they cops find it, I don't get to keep it.


NAME: glitch13
Thursday, July 19th, 2001 @ 10:16 pm
Now that is a blantant lie and you know it.


NAME: foo
Thursday, July 19th, 2001 @ 10:06 pm
If you have the receipt, they do.


NAME: glitch13
Thursday, July 19th, 2001 @ 07:11 pm
No, that would imply that you were in possesion of the tuna, which would implicate you in the crime.
If somebody sells me a TV for 5 dollars, then the cops find me and tell me its stolen, do they let me keep it because I bought it in good faith?


NAME: foo
Thursday, July 19th, 2001 @ 03:50 pm
?
That would imply that the Tuna was mine.


NAME: glitch13
Thursday, July 19th, 2001 @ 02:08 pm
Possesion is 9/10th's of the law...


NAME: foo
Thursday, July 19th, 2001 @ 11:07 am
> Unless the bum comes up to you, and says, "Hey mister, I got this tuna fish fucking sandwich, you look kinda hungry. How about I sell you the sandwich, you give me 2 dollars."
No, the analogy would be that PETER told the bum he'd buy the sandwich for 2 dollars, then kicked his ass without paying, and then sold it to me. Then the bum comes to me and sues me for $5,000,000 because he technically owns the tuna I used in my new "Jesus-Fucking-Tuna" display at the museum that I've made my living off of for the last 5 years.


NAME: GirlyGirl
WEBSITE: http://Glitch13.com
Thursday, July 19th, 2001 @ 10:35 am
I love it when a plan comes together.


NAME: evilpimpstar
WEBSITE: http://www.dr01d.com
Thursday, July 19th, 2001 @ 09:56 am
Update: I do not endorse buying/taking tuna fish sandwiches or any other food substance from bums.


NAME: evilpimpstar
WEBSITE: http://www.dr01d.com
Thursday, July 19th, 2001 @ 09:54 am
>I can afford to give a bum 20$ a day. That doesn't mean it's right to force me to do it.
I agree. Unless the bum comes up to you, and says, "Hey mister, I got this tuna fish fucking sandwich, you look kinda hungry. How about I sell you the sandwich, you give me 2 dollars."
To which you reply," Nah. How about since you're a bum... I'll just take your fucking sandwich, pay you nothing, and give you a swift kick in the ass. I mean, you're a bum. What are you going to do? Sue me?"


NAME: foo
Thursday, July 19th, 2001 @ 09:43 am
> How many times do you think Coke has sued other corporations for technicalities?
I bitch about it when Microsoft does it, when Coke does it, and I'll bitch about it now. Just because this is the little guy abusing the law to get the big guy doesn't make me happy. Part of me is secretly glad that absurdities like this happen to demonstrate the flaws in our copyright system, but it doesn't change the fact that I think what he is doing is wrong.
> But, he did have the idea. They used it. They owe him something.
Once again, it seems to me that the ad agency owes him something. Am I misunderstanding what happened? Wasn't it stolen by someone other than Coke, and then passsed off as original work?
> I'm sure they can afford to pay him a nice hefty sum for his idea, for his concept.
I can afford to give a bum 20$ a day. That doesn't mean it's right to force me to do it.
> What's more amazing to me is the fact that these large corporations are completely immune to the law.
Preaching to the choir. This doesn't change my opinion that his suit is BS.


NAME: ian the trogydae
Thursday, July 19th, 2001 @ 08:45 am
ummm...

i actually thought that homosexuals loved the D more than us straight folks.


NAME: glitch13
Thursday, July 19th, 2001 @ 12:01 am
evilpimpstar: w3rd.
Hardgeus: yes, I distinctly heard 'I'm a little faggy bee-otch" somewhere in there.
Ian: You are gay, and it is a known fact that gays cannot enjoy the D as much as heterosexuals.


NAME: evilpimpstar
WEBSITE: http://www.dr01d.com
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 08:38 pm
Okay, the way I see it anyone that actually believes that Coke had nothing to do with screwing over this guy is pretty naive.
> I don't really get the coke thing. I mean, he's filing a law suit on a technicality.
Yes. It was a technicality. When I run a yellow light that changes to red it's a technicality, when I am going 50mph in a 45mph zone it's a technicality. It's still against the law. If I get caught, I face the consequences. Coke got caught. How many times do you think Coke has sued other corporations for technicalities?
I agree 4 billion dollars is stupid. I think the whole idea of him being able to copyright a design that coke designed in the first place is stupid. He's a hack. But, he did have the idea. They used it. They owe him something. I'm sure they can afford to pay him a nice hefty sum for his idea, for his concept.
What's more amazing to me is the fact that these large corporations are completely immune to the law. Shit, they're making up their own laws. AOL-TIME WARNER, COCA COLA, MICROSOFT, WAL-MART, PHILLIP-MORRIS, the RECORDING INDUSTRY... these companies are deciding what YOU and I CAN and CANNOT do. And the government enforces it. Shit, decrypt a DVD and federal agents show up at your house and arrest you and your fucking neighbors.
Get ready, here comes the new government, one based on mass-marketing and fortune 500 companies. Oh wait, it's already here.


NAME: foo
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 08:01 pm
Glitch,
I distinctly heard ian say that he's a little bitch.


NAME: ian the trogydae
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 07:43 pm
tenacious d is not the coke thing and so i'll freely argue about it all day and night.


after regressive hypno-therapy, i remembered actually seeing what in some way could be a video entitled "POO-POO TIME!" i only mention this because it goes to prove a point i will make time and time again. my ass is a better band than tenacious d. i don't care how many songs the d have recorded and how many comedy specials (added emphasis on the special part) they have shot, my ass (with it's stupendous record of no songs and one very limited release video) is at least a bazillion times better a band than tenacious d could possibly think of being.



NAME: foo
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 07:31 pm
I couldn't watch that flash at work, so I just watched it at home.
The D is the geatest band in the world.


NAME: ian the trogydae
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 07:26 pm
okay. i really am on this guy's side, if only because i'd like to see what happens in the long run. thinking about this whole issue right now isn't something that i feel like getting into but i guess i have to weigh in on it all in order to be in the kool kidz' klub. this is all i'm going to say about it and i ain't responding to anyone. so here we go.


the bottle on the can i'll give him. he's old enough to remember the first time it happened and thought it would be a good way to signify an anniversary. if it finally comes down that coke pays up (more on that later) i think they'll have to give him that one. now the car thing, i'm not so sure of. cars are very signifigant to our culture. it's not like he's one of the very few people in this country that attaches something to them. it seems entirely plausible to me that someone else could have come up with a coke/cars promotion. so i think he might have to budge on that one.


now for the coke thing. i know that coke got mixed up in all this when they started backpedalling trying to keep their trademark or copyright or whatever the hell they're protecting, and they certainly owe this guy something or other. but i'll have to agree with foo that the primary entity at fault here is the design firm he orignally dealt with. that said, i like the idea that coke is mixed up in this if only because they're a hugilious company and they could maybe get their deck shuffled by this one guy.


if none of that made sense, i don't really care. we of the montucky contingent seem to be renowned for our babbling anyway. good day.



NAME: glitch13
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 07:15 pm
That is so incoherent it made my balls hurt.


NAME: foo
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 07:10 pm
> it would be the same as if I got busted for having drugs and my defense in court is that drugs should be legal anyway, so the case should be thrown out.
?
Using your (insane?) analogy, in order for it to be similar, I would have to be investigating you because Peter borrowed my Tenacious D CD and he claims he gave it to you. So I go over, and while you're pissing I notice the Tenacious D CD and a bunch of Coke (not cola). I tell you to give me my damn CD back. You say you paid money for it to Peter. Rather than kick Peter's ass, I go to the police about the Coke. However, instead of pressing criminal charges I sue your for 5 million dollars because there's a law on the books that says if you have cocaine within 50 feet of a Tenacious D CD, all visitors to your house are entitled to all your property.
To justify this to everyone I explain to them that you are a giant corporation and you took my fucking Tenacious D CD.


NAME: glitch13
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 06:58 pm
Oh yea, and don't forget this. Ya, after ten years of litigation, they had still never heard of his original pitch.


NAME: GirlyGirl
WEBSITE: http://Glitch13.com
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 06:56 pm
It's not like some lawyer talked him into suing for big money, he was defending himself and couldn't even find a lawyer willing to take his case.


NAME: glitch13
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 06:48 pm
John, I see your argument, but its horribly flawed.
Point 1: Speculatively (and with A LOT of cirumstantial evidence to back it up) it was his marketing ploy (putting the bottle image back on the can) that coke began using. While this could have been the marketing companies fault, they categorically denied any point he ever made surrounding it and never made mention of the marketing company's role in it at all(which would have been any sane person's knee jerk reaction in the situation, you know, passing the blame).
Point 2: When they realized what this guy had unwittingly done (by copyrighting his work and becoming the de facto owner), they LIED to copyright office TWICE and countless times in court to cover for the fact that they were collecting untold riches from licensing the design to who knows how many bottlers when they could have just sorted it out there.
Keep in mind that he was conducting deep investigation into them using his idea of reincorparation of the bottle on the can before at the beginning of their reuse of the design. There was no $4 billion at stake, and they hadn't even begun using it when they passed the phoney copyright application through. Clearly they're attitude towards it was "What is this little dumbfuck gonna do? Were Coca-Fucking-Cola!"
Now you can continue to pick heated sentiments out of my argument and quote them without their original context to take the wind out of my argument's sails, but those are perfectly constructed points that are hard to destroy.
And if you continue to use the same platform for your argument, it would be the same as if I got busted for having drugs and my defense in court is that drugs should be legal anyway, so the case should be thrown out.


NAME: GirlyGirl
WEBSITE: http://Glitch13.com
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 06:33 pm
The D. totally roxorz. And I am considering following them on tour. ROAD GIG!!
I especially want to see them come naked out of the side hatch, with the oils and perfumes...and incense.


NAME: ian the trogydae
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 06:21 pm
good christ... those is some long damned comments. i almost feel like i'm at slashdot.


and i'll have to back up miss a.


I'm very sorry that you think this is the best band ever.



NAME: foo
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 02:52 pm
> I see him as someone that was just trying to right a compounded wrong that was done to him, and not to mention the judicial system.
Oh REALLY? So let me get this straight...he gets fucked by an ad agency...and in researching the case against the Ad Agency his lawyer notices a technicality where he can sue Coke.
So now there's a 5 BILLION dollar lawsuit against Coke. How is this righting any wrong? Coke didn't do anything but fuck up their paperwork. Of course they're covering it up. They don't want to be fucked out of a multibillion dollar industry because some paralegal at their IP firm made a filing error.
Explain to me how the hell this guy receiving 5 billion from Coke rights any wrong? Shouldn't he be suing the ad company? Isn't that the "noble" thing to do?
Let me tell you something, if some little shit popped out of nowhere and tried to steal my company's trademark based on a legal technicality, I'd have the fucker killed. You're not going to get me on this asshole's side because Coke is fucking him. I'm glad they're fucking him. He's WRONG.


NAME: glitch13
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 01:48 pm
You're correct, Coke never *stole* from him persee, but saying the transfer of de facto ownership of the copyright is a technicallity doesn't change the legality of what Coke did to cover up their mistake.
Would I have done what Coke did and is doing? Shit ya I would, if I was dumb enough to let a copyright that brands my world-famous company lapse.
But none of that changes the fact that WHEN IT DID LAPSE, there was 3 things that could happen a) Coke renews it based on the prexisting copyright, b)it falls into public domain, c)another person copyrights it. That's just the law. Its the most efficient possible way for things to work in the arena of intellectual property.
Anyhow, I'll digress... the monetary damages and this guy 'owning' the copyright isn't the point *to me*, its the fact that Coke pushed a false copyright through the copyright office, all the while charging lisencing fees to bottlers for 12 years for an image that they didn't own for a time, then they illegally owned for the rest -- all the while perjuring themselves out the fucking wazoo to cover the whole mess up. Whether or not you think he *should* own it or not, or that his ownership is a loophole in the law, he is the only person with a legal copyright on the design.
Do i think he should be the solitary owner of the design? Of course not, its Coke's design. Is that what the law says? No. Did Coke go through legal means to press their case? No. Did they break countless laws that me, as John Q. Public, would have been held accountable for in the process of falsely proving their case? Yes.
Keep in mind that he didn't copyright it to try and usurp it from Coke, he didn't even know about all of it till '94 when he was researching his Cherry Coke claim and trying to get is storyboards back. It was just then he realized that they had fucked him over to cover up their blantant retardation. I don't think companies should be allowed to do that. Call me an idealist, but I don't think that it was an excusable act.
So where you see him as a money grubbing opportunist, I see him as someone that was just trying to right a compounded wrong that was done to him, and not to mention the judicial system.


NAME: foo
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 12:04 pm
> Is a $4 billion technicallity still just a technicallity?
Just because he's sueing for 4 billion doesn't mean his case is any more moral.
> There is no way for Coke to assert that he is not the de facto owner of the copyright
It's a bullshit technicality. I hate copyright law and abuses of it, and just because he's the little guy and Coke's the big guy I don't see how that makes what he's doing noble.
> Hell, who knows what he would have wanted in relief for just stealing his idea at the time
If I understand the article correctly Coke *didn't* steal from him. It was the ad agency, therefore his gripe is with them, not Coke.
> And as far as Coke just forgetting some legal red tape surrounding their copyright, why have they continued to lie about it to their investors and the copyright office for 12 years (not to mention federal courts)?
They're caught up in a bullshit law that they're trying to use their muscle to get around. You know me, you know I'm no friend of big business, but this is a case where I side with Coke.


NAME: glitch13
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 10:47 am
Is a $4 billion technicallity still just a technicallity?
And like it said in the article, the cover-up is ALWAYS worse than the crime. There is no way for Coke to assert that he is not the de facto owner of the copyright. They only way they could keep the stability of their company was to commit perjury and lie to their shareholders. Hell, who knows what he would have wanted in relief for just stealing his idea at the time, but now that they've dug a hole this deep for themselves, was he just supposed to let it go?
And as far as Coke just forgetting some legal red tape surrounding their copyright, why have they continued to lie about it to their investors and the copyright office for 12 years (not to mention federal courts)?


NAME: foo
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 09:20 am
DID MISS A QUESTION THE GODHOOD OF THE D?!?!?!?!?!?
By the way...
I don't really get the coke thing. I mean, he's filing a law suit on a technicality. Coke didn't screw him initially, the ad company did. Coke just forgot some legal red tape with their copyrights.


NAME: glitch13
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 08:27 am
Did you not get enough attention as a child?


NAME: Miss A
Wednesday, July 18th, 2001 @ 03:33 am
I'm very sorry that you think this is the best band ever. Do you think Blink 182 is the second best?


NAME:
EMAIL: *OPTIONAL*
WEBSITE: *OPTIONAL*
WEBSITE: *OPTIONAL*
Comment:
    
|