Miss Piggy's Grocery Store Checkout Headlines

[Aksannyi]

Do I actively wish for him to die?

No.

Would I be sad if he did?

No.

They're not quite the same thing. I don't actively go out of my way to wish death upon him or anyone else, that's just too wrong (even for me), but it would not cause me any amounts of grief if he had.

[Xantavia]

If only it wasn't a tv show.

[Nephlite]

[arus2001]

Made me chuckle.

[toqabowl]

Dear USA,

You can keep him.

Sincerely,
Canada

We take Beiber...only if you take Piers Morgan

y/n

[bluefan]

We take Beiber...only if you take Piers Morgan

y/n

I propose a counter offer.

You keep both...and we pony up an agreed upon quantity of Canadian Maple Syrup.

Drown them in it if you wish.

[toqabowl]

I propose a counter offer.

You keep both...and we pony up an agreed upon quantity of Canadian Maple Syrup.

Drown them in it if you wish.

We keep both, but we get 10 moose, 500 gallons of syrup, and Kids in the Hall lol

[Brill Weave]

I propose a counter offer.

You keep both...and we pony up an agreed upon quantity of Canadian Maple Syrup.

Drown them in it if you wish.

Or we just airdrop both of them into the wilds of Winnipeg in nothing but t-shirts and shorts. Let nature take it's course.

[bluefan]

Or we just airdrop both of them into the wilds of Winnipeg in nothing but t-shirts and shorts. Let nature take it's course.

This is acceptable.

Clean up would be left to the beavers as well.

[BaneTheBrawler]

and then in 60 years some poor family buys a chunk of land and goes out to try to build a new home for themselves only to be assaulted by the mutant offspring of the chaos theory. life, uh, uh, uh, life will find a way.

[Brill Weave]

Would have been better if you actually linked the clip. Son I am disappoint.

[Clash Perez]

All this talk of trades with Canada and Les Stroud didn't enter the conversation? For shame.

[Qalbert]

http://wtvr.com/2014/01/24/snoop-dogg-smoke/
http://distilleryimage0.ak.instagram...0e6b9648_7.jpg

MELBOURNE, Australia — Smoke from “an unidentified source” brought firefighters rushing to a room in a Melbourne hotel — where they encountered the rapper Snoop Dogg and his entourage.

“It was pretty funny,” firefighter Trevor Bowen told The Guardian. “We had a brush with Mr. Snoop himself.

A smoke alarm went off in the room about 10 a.m. local time on Friday, the newspaper reported. Firefighters met with Snoop Dogg, nee Calvin Broadus, Jr., and determined that there was no fire.

The rapper then posed for Instagram photos with the men.

“He asked us for a photo because he said he always wanted to be a firefighter,” Bowen said. ”It was an amazing chance encounter, which would probably be one of the highlights of my 26 years with the (fire department).”

Firefighters declined to comment about what the source of the smoke might have been.

[SamanosukeShiva]

lmao awesome

[Tajin]

Get photo, give no fucks about the smoke origin.

I can roll with that.

[shidobu]

Get photo, give no fucks about the smoke origin.

I can roll with that.

real niggas don't snitch

[notorious bum]

Prince Sues 22 Fans For $1 Million Each For Linking To Bootlegs In Laughably Confused Complaint

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...omplaint.shtml

There was a time, not even that long ago, when it seemed like Prince might have been the first musician to actually "get" the internet. He had done a few things that seemed really focused on embracing the internet, spreading his music more widely, and making revenue from alternate streams, such as concerts, sponsorships and fan clubs. But... it quickly became apparent that he was going in the other direction, and in an extreme manner -- in part, because it seemed like for all of his ideas, he failed at following through on most of them. Then, rather than blaming his own lack of execution, he seemed to lash out at the internet in almost every way possible. He insisted that the internet was over and that he'd never put any of his music online. He even claimed that digital music was bad for your brain.

He's also gone legal a bunch of times, suing a bunch of websites, threatening fan sites for posting photos and album covers on their sites, suing musicians for creating a tribute album for his birthday, issuing DMCA takedowns for videos that have his barely audible music playing in the background and 6-second Vine clips that are clearly fair use.

Given that, many may not be surprised about his his latest lawsuit against 22 fans who posted links to apparent bootleg recordings of Prince concerts, suing each of them for $1 million. However, the lawsuit takes it all up a notch from the insanity of his earlier actions. The lawsuit was first spotted by Antiquiet and got some attention from Spin, though neither seem to understand just how nutty the lawsuit actually is. Spin, incorrectly, claims he's suing "webmasters," but even that's not true. He's suing a bunch of users of Google's blogger platform and Facebook for linking to apparent bootlegs.

And that's not even the most bizarre part of the lawsuit. The lawyer who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Prince, Rhonda Trotter, claims to be an expert in copyright law, but you wouldn't get that from reading the lawsuit. First off, the main charge is for direct copyright infringement, but nothing in the complaint actually describes direct copyright infringement. At best (and even this is a stretch), you could argue that linking to files, all hosted on other sites, represents indirect infringement. Multiple courts have repeatedly made clear that linking is, at best, indirect infringement. And this lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California, meaning it's in the 9th Circuit, which decided the Perfect 10 v. Amazon case that very clearly says that linking is not direct infringement. You'd think a copyright lawyer -- especially one based in the 9th circuit -- would know that.

Then there's the fact that Prince is suing each of the defendants for $1 million. The complaint seems quite confused about what it can ask for. While it does point to 17 USC 504, which lays out the damages that an infringer may be liable for, Trotter doesn't seem to understand how that section of the law works. It's pretty clear upfront that you get to ask for either "actual" damages or statutory damages. Most people ask for statutory damages, which can range from $750 to $150,000 per work infringed. Note that this is less than $1 million. How Trotter gets this up to $1 million seems to be... well... by magic:

In addition, Prince has suffered and is continuing to suffer damages in an amount according to proof, but no less than $1 million per Defendant and, in addition, is entitled to recover from Defendants costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.

Prince is also entitled to recover statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 in an amount according to proof, but no less than $1 million per Defendant.

So... that first paragraph suggests there's some made up formula, by which they're going to claim that he's suffering actual damages over $1 million -- an argument that would almost certainly be laughed out of court, because proving actual damages in copyright infringement is no easy feat -- especially when it's a fan linking to a bootleg, where the "damage" is likely to be next to nothing. But then the lawsuit seems to incorrectly suggest that they can also get statutory damages. But you can't. The law is pretty explicit that it's an either-or thing. A copyright lawyer should know that. A copyright lawyer should also know that the limit on statutory damages is $150,000 per work. It is true that some defendants are listed as linking to multiple songs, so you could try to add up the $150k on each to get over a million, but at least one of the defendants is only accused of sharing 3 songs, which would cap the possible damages at $450k. But not in this lawsuit.

Oh yeah, and to get over $30,000, of course, you have to show willful infringement. The lawsuit claims that the "defendants' actions are and have been willful within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 504(2)." That's interesting and all, especially since there is no such section in the law. Trotter almost certainly means 17 USC 504(c)(2), but leaving out the (c) kind of shows just how ridiculously confused and sloppy the entire lawsuit is.

But even stepping back from how poorly drafted the complaint is, let's take a step back and ask the basic question: what sort of musician, in this day and age, thinks it makes sense to sue nearly two dozen fans for sharing bootlegs of their music on the internet -- an action that tends to be both the pinnacle of fandom, combined with almost certainly no actual loss of revenue. Fans interested in bootlegs tend to be the kinds of fans who buy everything and spend tons of money on live shows as well.

Once again, this seems to just be the nutty mind of Prince in action, concerning his ridiculous desire to control absolutely everything combined with someone who is not entirely in touch with reality. Every time I hear a story like this about Prince, I'm reminded of Kevin Smith's absolutely hilarious story about his experience with "Prince World."

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md...qlyko1_500.gif

[SamanosukeShiva]

http://www.recenteats.blogspot.com/2...al-brings.html

tldr; Japanese whiskey company, Suntory bought Jim Beam, people are complaining that it's not American anymore.

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Bourbon Bigotry: Suntory/Beam Deal Brings out the Worst in Beam Fans



I was pretty unmoved by the big news that got the whiskey world humming yesterday. If you've been sleeping under a whiskey stone, Japanese drinks giant Suntory is buying Jim Beam. There were very good articles about the sale by Chuck Cowdery and Janet Patton.

I sympathize with many critiques of global capitalism as it's practiced these days, but one big multi-national corporation buying another big multi-national corporation just isn't that exciting to me. It seems pretty par for the course in the world of business. And, of course, I'm not much of a Jim Beam fan. I even named them as a runner up in my Worst Whiskey Company of 2013 award.

These days, corporations don't really have nationalities in any real sense of the word. Both Suntory and Beam own multiple properties around the world. Beam owns three Scotch distilleries including Laphroaig, the Cooley Distillery in Ireland, Canadian Club, Courvoisier Cognac and Sauza Tequila. Suntory owns a number of Scotch distilleries, including Bowmore, along with its Japanese distilleries. No big deal, money traded back and forth between really rich people. And it's not like you can outsource bourbon. It's a unique product of the United States that must be made here.

What I found surprising was the reaction of Jim Beam drinkers, at least as displayed on the Jim Beam and Maker's Mark Facebook pages. A shocking outpouring of xenophobia was on display, complete with racial epithets. As shouldn't be surprising, many of these folks were not too bright and clearly knew very little about Beam, Suntory, the whiskey industry or anything else. Here are a few of the genius comments, all of which are copied verbatim.

• Yall got some nerve. Where are the american made products??? I vote to boycott every american made product that has sold out. Yall should be ashamed if yourselves. It is now a Japanese whiskey. Whiskey is an American drink! Now im switching to knob creek. They are still American! Everyone boycott with me until they bring great whiskey back to the states!!!! Sound off in the comments section. Oh and make known you'll be drinking Fukushima.liquid.

Whisky is an American drink? It was invented by the Irish. And I hate to burst your bubble, but Knob Creek is made by Jim Beam.

• who the hell wants to buy bourbon from Japan. i am disgusted.

I do! It's called Four Roses and it was crap until it was bought by a Japanese company that cleaned it up. It now makes among the best bourbon around. Beam should be so lucky.

• Omg wth I just heard y'all sold out to the chinese I will no longer buy or drink jim beam. I'm am sorry cannot support china

I. am. speechless.

• Sell out! How could you sell out to a Japanese company! I am no longer supporting this product. You could have atleast kept in the states! I am truly disgusted!!!!!

This was on the Maker's Mark page. Before it was owned by Beam, Maker's Mark was owned by a British company, and before that, a Canadian company. I don't remember a lot of outbursts about those sales.

• Maker's - now owned by the Japanese. unlike. Check out Bullet or Blanton's for tasty alternative burbons at a similar price point

USA! USA! USA! Oh, and FYI, Bulleit is owned by Diageo, a British company. Blanton's is owned by Age International....a Japanese company.


In her excellent article about the sale, Janet Patton pointed out that Maker's had previously been British owned, to which one commenter responded, "At least the Brits were our allies." Um, last time I checked the Japanese are our allies. It's true that the we fought a war against Japan, a war which ended nearly 70 years ago, but I think we fought some wars against Britain too. Oh, and Wild Turkey is owned by an Italian company...you know Italy, that country that fought with Japan in World War II. It's funny, I can't recall any outcry at all a few years ago when Campari bought Wild Turkey.

It's easy to make light of this type of idiocy, but I don't mean to make light of the sentiment behind it. A huge number of these comments referred to selling to "the Japanese" or "the Asians" as if a whole race were purchasing the company. It is a disturbing "yellow peril" type of reaction that feels more like something from the 1940s than today. I guess I naively thought we were beyond this type of blatant bigotry, and it's jarring to have it so clearly on display. I guess we still have a long way to go.

I think I'll drown my sorrows in some Four Roses...Japanese owned, American made, and delicious!

[Clash Perez]

...Bigotry? In these internets?! I won't believe it.

[Aidin]

Reminds me I still need a bottle of Yamazaki.