4 ms·
Because it would ruin the whole point. Satire aims to evoke an emotional response, to point out moral failures and inconsistencies as crassly as possible. Soc
by myrmidon 2y ago
Because it would ruin the whole point.
Satire aims to evoke an emotional response, to point out moral failures and inconsistencies as crassly as possible.
Social criticism that first and foremost avoids offending anyone is a waste of paper in my opinion always.
- echelon 2y agoIt's still trademark infringement and both the activists and the middlemen (Netlify, in this case) can be sued. This "satire" all comes across as "I'm 14 and this is deep." We get the joke. Just use a fictitious logo.
- myrmidon 2y agoNo it's not. There are trademark exemptions for satire/parody, and have been for a long time. Sure the companies could have sued, but chances would have been about exactly 0% for those companies to win the case against the EFF on the back of their trademarks, and they knew that very well (my opinion), that case would've probably just been dismissed immediately.
- sitkack 2y agoPlease give up in private and not spread your apathy across the internet.
- echelon 2y agoJust because you believe in the cause of these activists, doesn't mean this isn't a two-way street. Watering down trademarks opens the can of worms for all forms of trademark abuse by all kinds of parties: https://www.businessinsider.com/proud-boys-trump-march-dc-comics-washington-lawsuit-trademark-investigation-2020-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/proud-boys-trump-march-dc-co...
- int_19h 2y agoThis isn't an example of parody or satire.
- throawayonthe 2y ago[dead]
- skeaker 2y agoYou not finding it amusing doesn't mean it should be illegal.
- Gibbon1 2y agoA suggestion for California would be to update it's SLAPP law to include fraudulent DCMA take down actions. Best would be make both the carrier and the entity filing the DCMA complaint equally liable.