Jump to content

Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Body in Congress? Oh you mean Marjorie!

Pancho

By Pancho
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

956 Worldwide
956 Worldwide

Your graph is wrong, it’s showing 1983 as 40 years ago. Pretty sure the 80s are always about 20 years ago. 

HenryJames
HenryJames
NWBuck
NWBuck

Probably just pulled it out of her ass...

Posted Images

Pods

Pods 7637

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

There’s no way that’s the crime he expects will take her down 

I hope that's not all it is, but I've learned not to get my hopes up for consequences for any of these pieces of shit. He's a seditious liar, who will say whatever he needs to in order to get attention, so this could all be bullshit anyway. 

Quote

“In the coming days, I’m going to reveal that Marjorie Taylor Greene, in my summation and the summation of lawyers, committed a crime,” Alexander continued. “That crime is going to be handed to the state of Georgia, and the state of Georgia will decide whether they adjudicate that crime or not.”

Alexander added: “The House ethics committee and House rules must expel Marjorie Taylor Greene when this evidence comes to light.”

Whatever it is is likely not a clear cut crime, based on the way he described it. "in my summation and the summation of lawyers, committed a crime."

If he was going to out her as the pipe bomber, for example, he wouldn't need lawyers to surmise that was a crime. 

The offense involves Georgia somehow, but he's not confident Georgia will prosecute it.

He says the House "must" expel Greene, not that they will.

He spent the rest of the rant calling her a "whore" and harlot", which makes pretty clear whatever he's upset about is of a sexual nature.  

Quote

“Everyone will know about your drunken nights because the consultants who have drunk with you will have to choose whether they fear me or they fear you,” Alexander said. “And they fear me, Marge. They fear me a lot more than they fear you.”

This strongly implies that whatever it is, it involves drunken nights, MGT and consultants.  

That all reads drunken MGT cheating on her husband and fucking consultants.

I hope I'm wrong and it's actually something much bigger. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Chooky

Chooky 13340

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
54 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Trying to soften her look... 

 

"I was once very stupid. I looked into a few things and reconsidered some stuff. I am no longer as stupid. I look forward to a new year not being so stupid. There will be some who resent me for being less stupid. I understand. But I hope those people will remember how stupid I was willing to be and maybe they'll allow me to be stupid, albeit less stupid, with them moving forward."

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smax

Smax 3800

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not overly impressed with the letter, it's a little cringe-y (as my kids would say), but it delivers the point.

Question of the IP lawyers aka @TwiceHorn:  how is it possible to claw back IP-violating content that's already on the web?

There's DMAC take down notices, sent to the website, host and ISPs. There are services that content creators can subscribe to that run bots looking for NIL's of their clients and send out the letters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not overly impressed with the letter, it's a little cringe-y (as my kids would say), but it delivers the point.

Question of the IP lawyers aka @TwiceHorn:  how is it possible to claw back IP-violating content that's already on the web?

You can't.  Typically, acts of patent, copyright and trademark infringement are volitional acts that can't be "taken back" and give rise to liability on their occurrence.  For copyright that is making a copy of the work, and for certain works, including recorded music or phonorecords, the act of publicly performing the work.  Certainly, at least one copy of the song was made to produce that video, and each performance of the song by playing the video is an act of infringement.  And, because each time the video is played, a local copy is made, there maybe thousands upon thousands of infringements by copying, as well.  

Monetary liability usually attaches to each act of infringement, especially when the act, in this case copying and public performance, costs the owner money, small though it may be.  So, stopping the copying and public peformance does limit the damage, but doesn't absolve the liability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90650

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not overly impressed with the letter, it's a little cringe-y (as my kids would say), but it delivers the point.

Question of the IP lawyers aka @TwiceHorn:  how is it possible to claw back IP-violating content that's already on the web?

Not a lawyer, but have dealt with IP take-down notices on YouTube and twitter on my content and content I help others with (and also on sites I used to work for in the past), and in the past some services actually put a lot of time in effort in going after everything, no matter how inconsequential it was. They were getting paid for finding violations, not for how serious the violations were, so they were hitting up Google like crazy looking for anything and everything.

These days as TwiceHorn pointed out, a lot of it is automated with bots, and they are checking YouTube videos and other social media platforms as they are uploaded, and they are missing a lot of stuff, but still catching a big chunk of it on social media, and the letters are pretty boiler-plate.  So it's easier for them to find stuff and the reporting tools are easier to use, but they also overlook a lot of stuff simply because in the past they hit the sunk-cost fallacy problem with chasing everything down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Not a lawyer, but have dealt with IP take-down notices on YouTube and twitter on my content and content I help others with (and also on sites I used to work for in the past), and in the past some services actually put a lot of time in effort in going after everything, no matter how inconsequential it was. They were getting paid for finding violations, not for how serious the violations were, so they were hitting up Google like crazy looking for anything and everything.

These days as TwiceHorn pointed out, a lot of it is automated with bots, and they are checking YouTube videos and other social media platforms as they are uploaded, and they are missing a lot of stuff, but still catching a big chunk of it on social media, and the letters are pretty boiler-plate.  So it's easier for them to find stuff and the reporting tools are easier to use, but they also overlook a lot of stuff simply because in the past they hit the sunk-cost fallacy problem with chasing everything down.

Shoot, most services have a fill-in form for takedown notices.  That particular one is probably not one you leave to the DMCA bounty hunters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90650

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Shoot, most services have a fill-in form for takedown notices.  That particular one is probably not one you leave to the DMCA bounty hunters.

And in the case of twitter/MTG, a shitload of people probably reported her for it before any services ever noticed it.

Edit: And not to derail, but they are abused like crazy - plenty of people try and abuse YouTube's mechanisms for copyright infringement, and get takedown notices, or take the monetization for songs/movies/etc., they don't even own or represent.  Plenty get away with it until somebody gets pissed off and starts digging around and notices that some dude in India is not actually Sony Studios in New York or whatever.

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47205

Posted
Posted

Just so everyone understands my perspective: I am a legit patent holder who cares about his IP in that regard, and I'm a hack (read: amateur) musician who I guess cares about his copyrighted material (that no self-respecting musician would want to steal).

I just wonder how realistic it is for Dre to truly get Marge acolytes from using his music.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90650

Posted
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Just so everyone understands my perspective: I am a legit patent holder who cares about his IP in that regard, and I'm a hack (read: amateur) musician who I guess cares about his copyrighted material (that no self-respecting musician would want to steal).

I just wonder how realistic it is for Dre to truly get Marge acolytes from using his music.

Depends on the platform.  I'm oversimplifying it, but at least with YouTube, you can easily get somebody a copyright strike, which is a Big Fucking Deal, since a few more can get a channel taken down, or you can monetize that particular video (you allow them to use your music, but you get the advertising revenue from it).

Dre can't stop all Margolytes (?) from using it, but he can make it costly for those on the major social media platforms by getting their social media accounts suspended, etc.

If it's some little person on a low-traffic blog, it gets harder because it's going to get into contacting the person, contacting the hosting provider (if they are big enough, they should have a decent reporting system or at least somebody you can reach easily), and because websites get so much fucking spam, emails get lost in the shuffle.  If they have domain privacy turned on, you can't get a physical address or a name to serve them without a court order, which means going to court in the first place, and that's assuming that they are even based in the US - it's extremely easy to host overseas with some provider who gives no shit about DMCA takedowns.

One of the more popular music analysis channels sent the YouTuber LegalEagle some questions about copyright stuff, and he answered (he has a few other videos about such things).

 

Edit: most of my experiences were either with background music being mislabeled/not cleared (just because you get permission from one entity's right hand, doesn't mean the left hand won't go after you), or with information that I obtained about products that had not been publicly announced (LEGO were dickheads) or dealing with tech manufacturers and unreleased products.  And getting threatened over using the term "netbook" back in the 2000s (thankfully Intel had my back on that).

Edited by atomheartbevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 6166

Posted
Posted
On 1/8/2023 at 3:12 PM, Chooky said:

"I was once very stupid. I looked into a few things and reconsidered some stuff. I am no longer as stupid. I look forward to a new year not being so stupid. There will be some who resent me for being less stupid. I understand. But I hope those people will remember how stupid I was willing to be and maybe they'll allow me to be stupid, albeit less stupid, with them moving forward."

From very to mildly.  That's progress.  She's a progressive now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mole

Mole 4340

Posted
Posted

I’m not saying he’s wrong and there’s obviously a difference, but it feels strange when hip hop artists get protective of their intellectual property. Historically, the genre is built on extensive borrowing with little to no concern for copyright. Again, he’s not wrong but it’s a little odd considering where the music came from.

Also, music copyright law as it currently exists is insane and completely divorced from how music is and has ever been made. It’s a completely broken system. Music copyright lawsuits are typically pages of nonsense filled with incorrectly used jargon to dazzle non-musicians into making terrible conclusions.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 6166

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mole said:

I’m not saying he’s wrong and there’s obviously a difference, but it feels strange when hip hop artists get protective of their intellectual property. Historically, the genre is built on extensive borrowing with little to no concern for copyright. Again, he’s not wrong but it’s a little odd considering where the music came from.

Also, music copyright law as it currently exists is insane and completely divorced from how music is and has ever been made. It’s a completely broken system. Music copyright lawsuits are typically pages of nonsense filled with incorrectly used jargon to dazzle non-musicians into making terrible conclusions.

Sampling and using someone's music for their campaign or brand is very different.  She's using the song to accompany her views, and Dre's saying hell no, I don't support those views.  I can sample another artist visually as long as I alter the meaning.  She's not doing that.  

Edited by Mdhorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19458

Posted
Posted

Yeah, Marjorie.  Like an organization that looks just at coronary attacks and cardiovascular disease.  It could be like an a council, or association.  And for ease of language, we could name it after the human heart.  And it could be like a national group, with international outreach and research, but based in the United States?  

Why, we could call it the American Heart Association.  They could do like fundraising, and public messaging, and research.  Whoah.  You could be the head of it!  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 6166

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

If trump make it to the 2024 election, she’s going to be his vp 

And should that unholy political union play out and win, we will fully deserve the plagues that will follow.

Melania will cringe every time she has to share the stage with that sloth footed cro-mag.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...