Glenn Beck Claims Watch Dogs Is Teaching Children How To Hack The Public For Realz

from the no-it-isn't dept

You know how fads are. They just get boring so fast. Take violence, for instance. Blaming video games for real-world violence is so yesterday. We need a forward-thinker, some kind of super-genius who can bring us into a new era of blaming video games for something way more hip than just blowing stuff up. You know, a real bullshit artist of the highest caliber.

My hero! Yes, Glenn Beck, upstanding journalist of freedom and 'Merica, has decided to expound on the dangers of video games in a way so completely backward and ill-informed, it sort of makes you wonder how everyone in whatever studio compound he tapes this drivel in didn't drown out the sound mics in laughter. Should you be unable to view the video, or simply don't want to waste the time and brain cells doing so, here's the relevant part of this illogical rollercoaster.

1. We start off with Beck quoting the coroner in that dumb story I just wrote about, with his shoot-from-the-hip remarks on how Call of Duty somehow made four teenagers kill themselves. He actually quotes the coroner fully, which is sort of nice for me, but bad for him, since the coroner helpfully noted that he had no actual evidence for anything he was saying.
2. He then goes on to note that Breivik, the Norway killer who murdered 77 people, trained to do so on Call of Duty, and apparently just decides to take the psycho's word for it and assume that this video game is every bit the murder simulator a real-life assassin needs.
3. We start the Watch Dogs portion of this discussion with Beck wondering why we always need an anti-hero. He asks why we can't have a Superman in our entertainment. I mean, it's been almost an entire year since Man of Steel came out. What the hell, people?
4. And then Beck gets to the culmination of this stupid screed, holding up his iPad and informing his listeners that Watch Dogs is training children how to hack into his tablet while he sleeps next to it.

Whoo-boy. Okay, let me make this simple, since I've actually, you know, played Watch Dogs: if the game teaches children how to hack people's tablets then someone is going to have to show me where the square-button is on my phone, because I can't find it. Hacking devices in the game is that simple. You push a button. Sometimes you actually have to solve a little navigation puzzle, too. That, I'm fairly certain, isn't hacking.

I've said this before: don't watch anything remotely resembling any cable news network or their talking mouthpieces. Beck isn't the only slinger of stupid out there and it's especially bad when it comes to video games. If people want to have a frank and open discussion on the impact of gaming on the lives of children and society as a whole, fine, let's do that. But the children have to shut up while we're having that discussion, because their wailing lies are getting in the way.

Filed Under: glenn beck, hacking, video games, violence, watch dogs

Glenn Beck Not A Fan Of Fair Use; Claims US Gov't Paying Remixers To Create Anti-Beck Propaganda

from the communists,-socialists-and-fair-use dept

One of the good things about intellectual property issues is that it's really a non-partisan debate. While, in practicality, this seems to mean that both of the major political parties support bad copyright and patent law, at the very least, it leaves ridiculous political rhetoric out of the debates on things like copyright. But, sometimes, weird things happen. Such as when Glenn Beck seems to think that "fair use" is a choice of some sort. Apparently, in political circles, there was a lot of attention paid recently to a video mashup showing Donald Duck being influenced by Glenn Beck -- created by Jonathan McIntosh, who I saw speak earlier this year at the first Fair Use Day in DC. The video, which I had not seen until this, apparently made the rounds in political circles.

But, now, Glenn Beck has seen the video and he's not at all happy about it. On his radio program, he condescendingly mocks the videos creator for being involved in "fair use activism." Beck's enunciation is really bizarre. He reads McIntosh's bio with odd emphasis, in a tone suggesting something sinister in ideas like "fair use activist" and "open video alliance." Then he puts on the super sinister voice and says that these remix videos are "getting federal funding to 'help culture understand culture.'" He promises to investigate further.

Um. Yeah, those evil remix artists are really federal stooges? That must be why the federal government keeps trying to make copyright law ever more stringent to wipe out remixes, huh?

Ah, and then we learn of Glenn Beck's basic confusion over the concept of fair use. Since the video involved Donald Duck, he starts talking about Disney, and how Walt Disney hated communists, and he finds it odd that they're okay with fair use:

Of course, it's all fair use! So they can use Disney... apparently Disney doesn't have a problem with Donald Duck cartoons now being remixed and politicized...

Um, hey, Glenn: the whole point of "fair use" is that it doesn't matter if the copyright holder is okay with it or not. That's why it's called "fair use." It's a situation where the users can use it no matter if the copyright holder has a problem with it or not. It's part of this thing called Free Speech found in the First Amendment of a document you seem to like, called the Constitution. And, of course, this is Disney we're talking about, the company that has single-handedly done more to expand copyright than just about any other company in its efforts to protect Mickey Mouse. To suggest that Disney has somehow gone soft on copyright is pretty laughable. Of course, someone else put together another brilliant remix showing Mickey Mouse reacting the "news" that the US gov't is using this sinister fair use to create propaganda remix videos:

Filed Under: copyright, donald duck, fair use, glenn beck, jonathan mcintosh, remix
Companies: disney

Glenn Beck Not Allowed To Rape And Murder An Internet Meme

from the nice-try dept

Back in September, we wrote about Glenn Beck's misguided attempt to gain control over the domain name used as part of an internet meme that is critical of Glenn Beck, GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com (it's a dead site now, keep reading). If you're unfamiliar with the meme, it's mocking a favorite tactic of various cable news talk show hosts, to "ask questions" that are accusatory in nature, whether or not there's any substance to back them up. Glenn Beck didn't accuse the site of defamation or anything, but filed a domain name complaint, saying that it violated his trademark. As we noted at the time, the trademark claim was really questionable -- and, of course, only served to draw more attention to the site and the internet meme.

The site brought on lawyer Marc Randazza who filed one of the most brilliant responses (pdf) to a legal threat that you'll ever see. It's quite amusing. Randazza takes the old "moron in a hurry" test up one level, using the "abject imbecile" test. And then there was this:

We are not here because the domain name could cause confusion. We do not have a declaration from the president of the international association of imbeciles that his members are blankly staring at the Respondent's website wondering "where did all the race baiting content go?" We are here because Mr. Beck wants Respondent's website shut down. He wants it shut down because Respondent's website makes a poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Beck by parodying Beck's very rhetorical style. Beck's skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he wants the site down.

Apparently, Randazza's letter worked wonders. The WIPO Arbitration Panel has rejected the attempt to take the domain, saying that it was a legitimate use of Beck's name:

In the present context, this Panel considers that if Internet users view the disputed domain name in combination with a visit to Respondent's website, the "total effect" is that of political commentary by Respondent, capable of protection as political speech by the First Amendment under the Hustler Magazine standard. Respondent appears to the Panel to be engaged in a parody of the style or methodology that Respondent appears genuinely to believe is employed by Complainant in the provision of political commentary, and for that reason Respondent can be said to be making a political statement. This constitutes a legitimate non-commercial use of Complainant's mark under the Policy.

Either way, now that the site's owner has prevailed, he apparently feels he has made his point, and has agreed to voluntarily hand over the domain (pdf), along with an explanation in the First Amendment and how not to respond to internet memes:

It bears observing that by bringing the WIPO complaint, you took what was merely one small critique meme, in a sea of internet memes, and turned it into a super-meme. Then, in pressing forward (by not withdrawing the complaint and instead filing additional briefs), you turned the super-meme into an object lesson in First Amendment principles.

It also bears noting, in this matter and for the future, that you are entirely in control of whether or not you are the subject of this particular kind of criticism. I chose to criticize you using the well-tested method of satire because of its effectiveness. But, humor aside, your rhetorical style is no laughing matter. In this context of this WIPO case, you denigrated the letter of First Amendment law. In the context of your television show and your notoriety, you routinely and shamelessly denigrate the spirit of the First Amendment....

Filed Under: domain name dispute, glenn beck, parody, trademark

Glenn Beck Didn't Rape And Murder Anyone... But He Doesn't Want Websites Discussing It

from the well,-this-should-be-fun dept

Ok, first off, I'll say this: I don't watch 24-hour cable news shows. In the rare moments when I catch any of the talking heads for any of those networks (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC), it makes me somewhat crazy, because none of them seem to have the slightest common sense. Frankly, they're all just a bunch of entertainers who appear to either be completely clueless, or exaggerate and lie for effect. I have little time for such people -- no matter what ideological bent they happen to come from. One of the popular tactics of such shows, is to use the ever popular "report on a rumor" setup, which lets them insinuate something, without ever officially stepping up and saying it themselves. The simplest form is the "some are saying..." lead in that lets these folks spend plenty of time discussing things without ever actually investigating if they're true. But, at times it goes much deeper into finding some random conspiracy theorist, and building them up into a "movement." It seems to happen pretty regularly, and it's rather silly.

In the last couple of weeks, a random internet meme apparently sprung up to highlight this sort of reporting, initiated in a comment on the ever-excellent Fark, it involved a commenter questioning: "Why haven't we had an official response to the rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990?" The idea, which seems plain to many involved, is not to actually suggest that Glenn Beck did such a thing -- but to highlight this tactic of making a totally bogus rumor into "news" by stating it, and wondering why there hasn't been a denial. A bunch of folks have picked up on this claim and run with it (apparently greatly upsetting some loyal Beck fans), turning it into one of those internet memes with legs.

Someone -- quite anonymous -- then set up a website to chronicle all of this, called (appropriately, given the meme): GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com. The site itself is clear that it's a parody, attempting to highlight this sort of "news" tactic, and the fact that it's often employed by Beck:

This site is parody/satire. We assume Glenn Beck did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990, although we haven't yet seen proof that he didn't. But we think Glenn Beck definitely uses tactics like this to spread lies and misinformation.

It turns out that Glenn Beck isn't happy about this either. He's filed a domain name dispute over the domain name, claiming that it violates his trademark: Now, you might see some sort of claim over defamation (but, even that seems iffy, given that it's clearly a parody), but a trademark claim seems really iffy -- and not particularly smart. First, the site in question doesn't have any commerce. It does link to another site that sells stuff, which is how Beck tries to claim that it's a commercial site. For a trademark violation to occur, the name needs to be used in commerce. It's also supposed to be confusing -- but as plenty of "gripes sites" have shown, it's perfectly reasonable to use a trademarked term in a domain name (and, hell, Beck's name isn't even fully registered yet) as a part of a gripe/protest/parody, when it's clearly not run by the actual mark holder.

As for why it's not particularly smart -- whether he wins or loses -- is because he just called a whole bunch of attention to some silly internet meme that clearly wants attention. Beck would have been better off just ignoring it. Instead, in legitimizing it by trying to take it down, many more people become aware of the meme -- and may start calling attention to situations where Beck (and others) make use of such tactics.

Filed Under: domain name dispute, glenn beck, parody, trademark