Last week, the pre-campaign PAC promoting Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy, Ready for Hillary, demanded that both Zazzle and CafePress, the rival print-to-order companies that designers use to fill orders for Tshirts and other paraphernalia displaying their designs, stop selling material displaying an "I'm Ready for Oligarchy" parody.
When the same artist's parody NSA and DHS logos were threatened at Zazzle, CafePress was a sanctuary. But this time around neither seem willing to stand up for free speech.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Clinton PAC DMCA's Parodies, CafePress and Zazzle Roll-Over without a Fight
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 52 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: -1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11 2014, @08:31AM
There you have it folks, when everyone rolls over because Hillary Says "roll over" that's how you know President Hillary is inevitable. The same happened for Obama, remember that guy?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Ryuugami on Wednesday June 11 2014, @09:51AM
Look at the bright side: it would go from obummer to hillaryous. I anticipate amusing changes all around.
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11 2014, @10:06AM
Obamacare or Hillarycare, WHAT DiFFERENCE AT THiS POINT DOES IT MAKE?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday June 11 2014, @02:56PM
C'mon people. Stop using the new monikers. It's Nixon Care (with the liberal parts stripped out). Seriously:
http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=obamacare+nixon [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11 2014, @10:26AM
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by velex on Wednesday June 11 2014, @01:24PM
Not so sure. Maybe hillaryous if you were assigned the female gender at birth or if you're a trans woman who's grovelled and white knighted her way into acceptance by womyn-born-womyn (I guess it's possible, look at Jennifer Finney Boylan).
The more I think about it, Clinton is running in 2016 in order to fail. That's right. I'll get my head examined if I'm wrong about this.
Why would somebody as ambitious, powerful, clever, and tactical as her run in order to fail?
Now, think about this. 51% of the population is womyn-born-womyn, probably even moreso if you add in trans woman white knights who go-go-ga-ga over feminism because they think that'll get them into the secret womyn-only spaces like the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival (whatever value that's worth). We could have a woman president tomorrow, no problem, if they'd get their act together.
So, clearly, "all women" do not want a president merely based on her body parts. However, there is an agenda to frame STEM and programming in particular as just full of a bunch of sexists. Male white knights love to jump all over this (presumably because they think it'll get them laid, I don't know, kinda feel sorry for them).
If the Ada Initiative and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation can't paint STEM as inherently sexist and full of evil assigned males who think women should be restricted to the kitchen, step it up a notch.
Run a woman president and have her fail. That'll "prove" that the patriarchy is still a "thing" and allow TPTB to shove even more sexism down our throats.
Remember, it's only the dynamic of the male white knight that enables this. Shame on male white knights. Also shame on feminists. Won't the feminists do something to actually get girls in STEM careers and shatter the sexism surrounding it all? Instead they just bring more sexism. What a pity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11 2014, @01:42PM
Uh, you might consider doing that anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11 2014, @02:01PM
As always, your responses are enlightening, lucid, and full of new and interesting ideas. If not for you, I wouldn't bother posting at all. I'm disappointed, though. You didn't threaten to punch me over my appropriation of the term womyn-born-womyn. Are threats of violence against assigned males who are unwilling to be good little white knights and intellectual whores falling out of favor? Thanks -Vel
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 11 2014, @02:53PM
What's up with all the Y's? Is this some chromosome joke or something?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday June 12 2014, @02:20AM
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=3&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define%3A+womyn [google.com]
A lot of the more moronic "feminists" like to insist on using it because they're offended that the word "women" contains the word "men". Because presumably there's no bigger issue they ought to be working on than being the language police.
(And I do consider myself a feminist; I just think such needless perversions of language are a colossal waste of time and, as shown by the parent's post, turn the whole damn movement into a joke.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11 2014, @02:08PM
Is this a parody like the t-shirts? If so, good job. If not, please research the real (non-folk) etymology of "woman" because you seem confused.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11 2014, @11:32PM
Check your privilege! That's etimology-born-etimology!
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday June 11 2014, @08:55PM
Just a guess, but do you by chance live in Colorado?
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Lazarus on Wednesday June 11 2014, @02:07PM
Well, that and the fact that the Republican party has been completely taken over by delusional Christian Taliban, making them totally unacceptable to anyone outside the far right-wing Christianist cult.
We desperately need a second sane political party to counter the Democrats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 12 2014, @12:24AM
>We desperately need a second sane political party to counter the Democrats.
We desperately need a third to actually gain traction to counter both the dems and the repubs.
Both have gone absolutely bat-shit crazy lately to the point that the are both often just awful choices.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LookIntoTheFuture on Wednesday June 11 2014, @10:12AM
Parody my ass. More precisely, we are witnessing the rise of a "Corporate oligarchy" in the US. (From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy [wikipedia.org])
"Corporate oligarchy is a form of power, governmental or operational, where such power effectively rests with a small, elite group of inside individuals, sometimes from a small group of educational institutions, or influential economic entities or devices, such as banks, commercial entities, lobbyists that act in complicity with, or at the whim of the oligarchy, often with little or no regard for constitutionally protected prerogative. Monopolies are sometimes granted to state-controlled entities, such as the Royal Charter granted to the East India Company. Today's multinational corporations function as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected officials."
(Score: 2) by Oligonicella on Wednesday June 11 2014, @11:30AM
So I'm presuming you are against those companies caving, correct?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Mike on Wednesday June 11 2014, @04:30PM
Plutocracy is really a better term.
Oligarchy is more general of a term than you need. Plutocracy is more accurate. And the term Corporate Oligarchy actually misses the very few extremely rich individuals that also have vastly disproportionate influence because of their wealth. It also implies inclusion by the many corporations that are far too poor to have much influence. Money is the deciding factor for our Oligarchy.
Plutocracy \Plu*toc"ra*cy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? wealth + ? to be
strong, to rule, fr.? strength: cf. F. plutocratie.]
A form of government in which the supreme power is lodged in
the hands of the wealthy classes; government by the rich;
also, a controlling or influential class of rich men.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Wednesday June 11 2014, @10:19AM
I wonder what this means? Is it that with Hillary Clinton being a clear frontrunner for the Democratic 2016 candidacy these companies have identified what could be a crippling potential enemy and quickly scattered from its path? Or is this the first taste of blood for a campaign, and potential President, that will continue to feed on more and more fear until only a few are left to defend themselves and what rights are left to us?
I am still surprised at the number of surveillance bills, secret laws and unconstitutional programs that have been established and/or continued since 9/11. As many have echoed, what used to be the comments of paranoid conspiracy theorists are now given the weight that they seem to genuinely deserve. The erosion of privacy at the hands of the government and corporations has such momentum that slowing its progress will take several election cycles (at a minimum). The assumptions of government that anyone and everyone is a potential threat - ranging from a being a "terrorist" to being the "opposition" to being a "libertarian" to being a "whistleblower" - can't end soon enough. Unfortunately those on the political fringes who strongly advocate returning to the Bill of Rights [documentcloud.org], removal of spying programs programs and other unequal practices by and for politicians are the same as those who would remove programs [soylentnews.org] that help ensure [bbc.com] the equality and freedoms for others, as well as establish some rather extreme programs of their own.
What we have here is the precipice of political decay and the destruction of the Founding Fathers' original intent. It's not going to change through a sweep, so it's going to need to happen a few candidates at a time. Hopefully there will be a few incumbents who either stand up for what they truly believe in or at least change their positions based on (what I hope will become) the prevailing political winds. The problem is corporate and status quo money will interfere for the foreseeable future.
To paraphrase Bender, "the meat bags are doom. Who wants another beer?"
(Score: 2) by velex on Wednesday June 11 2014, @12:52PM
Moreover, why would Clinton run in 2016? I had been thinking right up until the Snowden brouhaha that if she ran in 2016 it would be a disaster for her hopes for winning the office. Why would any Democrat with serious political ambitions run in 2016 when we'll be feeling the full impact of Obama/Romneycare?
I'm betting the next president will be a Republican due to the fallout of Obama/Romneycare (just because it was a Democrat who happened to be occupying the Oval Office when it finally was rammed down our throats) and also the VA situation, which, politics being politics, is being conveniently blamed on whoever regardless of how we got into the mess. Of course, that doesn't make a difference wrt your points--there clearly needs to some kind of groundswell support for either the Libertarian or Green parties, maybe both, before things can change.
If Clinton is running in 2016 there has to be something I'm missing. We've got a black president now. Then we'll have a woman president. That will clearly transform us into happy land, clearly, obviously. Srsly, Clinton wouldn't run unless she knew she could win. Well, unless the point is to demonstrate just how sexist and evil all assigned males are by running and losing in order to bolster the agenda of the Ada Initiative and its ilk.
Who knows. I sure don't care. This life isn't for me. Maybe the next one. I'm sick of humanity. Humanity had promise, oh well.
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Wednesday June 11 2014, @01:55PM
At this point, regardless of whether it's a Demopublican or a Republicrat who wins, we the citizens of the United States will be the losers.
I cordially invite evidence to the contrary.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday June 11 2014, @02:06PM
One party's corrupt and incompetent. The other is corrupt, incompetent and batshit crazy. So yeah, there actually is a difference.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday June 11 2014, @03:11PM
Wrong. They're both batshit crazy. Once upon a time there was a code pink video of HRC prior to the Iraq war vote, practically spitting she was so rabid to follow GWB (without even reading the National Security Estimate calling into question evidence). All that is left now is some sanitized version half as long with all the meat stripped out of it on the wayback machine. What we have now are two right wing neo-con parties, one which is pro-abortion/gay marriage, the other against. That is the sum total difference between them. And while important issues to be sure, they really pale when compared due process free execution or detention -- death squads and gulags.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Wednesday June 11 2014, @03:21PM
Actually, It's back -- maybe only for a short time -- get it while you can:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtK9AzcU42g [youtube.com]
At 14:10 HRC is wrapping up some politicized BS about GWB cutting and going to war at the same time (she clearly thinks we should go to war and not cut taxes -- as if taxes are the issue with illegal immoral wars). A Code Pink lady hands her a pink slip while she is walking out, and HRC goes off on her. Who was right in the end? HRC of course. Yes, thousands of people have died and tons of money wasted -- but it's all been good for HRC.
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday June 11 2014, @03:39PM
Well, you're not wrong about that bitch - but you're also forgetting one big thing: global warming. In the long run, that's probably a bigger problem than the NSA, Iraq and Guantanamo. The Goppers aren't just refusing to fix the problem, they're loudly proclaiming that the problem doesn't exist.
The "they all suck" line leads to apathy, which is exactly what They want. Don't fall into that trap.
And don't assume that HRC will be the nominee. The primaries are still a long ways off.
(Score: 3) by hemocyanin on Wednesday June 11 2014, @05:05PM
I'm not apathetic -- I've done plenty of political stuff out in the real world, protests, marches, go to my House Rep's office (it's only 3 floors up from mine), even hosted a cryptoparty. I vote for any third party candidate on my ballot, and if no third party is challenging an R or D, I vote for my cat to make it clear I'm protest voting (i.e., I vote a straight neither Dem nor GOP ticket). I'm also realistic -- all this stuff I do has absolutely no effect.
(Score: 1) by cbiltcliffe on Wednesday June 11 2014, @03:29PM
The GP didn't say there wasn't a difference; just that the people of the US will be the losers, regardless of which party wins.
For that, you offered no contrary evidence. I'd also argue that there really is none, regardless of the superficial differences between the two parties.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11 2014, @10:32AM
What you are probably seeing is political bias on the part of Zazzle and CafePress.
Both probably support Hillary, and so they caved, not because the letter was legal, but because of their own bias.
Both probably dislike republican candidates, and so it was fine to fight for the right to parody those candidates.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Wednesday June 11 2014, @11:01AM
How anyoner could support a politician that did this to them is beyond me, but then again, I'm still amazed that people in the US tolerate something called "Homeland Security" and the "Patriot Act".
(Score: 1) by SixGunMojo on Wednesday June 11 2014, @12:43PM
How anyoner could support a politician that did this to them is beyond me
Judging by the creators other work I'm pretty sure he doesn't support Hillary.
I'm still amazed that people in the US tolerate something called "Homeland Security" and the "Patriot Act".
Most people in the US are probably unaware of, or more disturbingly don't care, how Homeland Security (nope, couldn't type that with a straight face) or the Patriot Act affect their lives.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday June 11 2014, @03:01PM
No -- they don't support oligarchy, so they removed the products relying on the Streisand effect to massively increase publicity. If HRC had not demanded these be removed, or the sites not complied, I might never have heard of these. Now however, I'm feeling pleased that people are sick enough of having our presidents come from two families, that they're making stuff people will pay money for that complains about that.
All in all, this is an awesome outcome.
(Score: 1) by MostCynical on Wednesday June 11 2014, @11:50AM
Why are the tshirts so offensive?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11 2014, @12:00PM
> Why are the tshirts so offensive?
They are not offensive. They hurt Hillary's delicate feelings, and because she's hurt and sad, her lawyers shot off a dmca letter to take them down.
Or, more likely, they fear the message on the shirts will have impact for undecided voters. And they are shutting down valid political debate and free speech. I.e., exactly what the 1st amendment was intended to prevent, the quashing of political speech by those in political power to do so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11 2014, @01:18PM
> Why are the tshirts so offensive?
They aren't.
What they are is taking power from the powerful through parody. The powerful never respond well when their power is threatened. There is something about having power that makes people feel weak, and so they over-react.
Here's the original logo.
http://www.justfreestuff.com/categories/stickers/free-im-ready-for-hillary-bumper-sticker/ [justfreestuff.com]
(Score: 1) by MostCynical on Wednesday June 11 2014, @07:41PM
Thank you - out in the rest of the world we hadn't been exposed to those bumper stickers.
Does this mean Obama has thicker skin? http://www.zazzle.com.au/oligarchy_obama_logo_stamp_tee_shirts-235172916398440146 [zazzle.com.au]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11 2014, @05:24PM
The T stands for terrorist, obviously.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11 2014, @12:14PM
T-shirts, obviously the weapon of choice of the terrorists...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11 2014, @01:47PM
"Land of the [censored], home of the [redacted]" would make a nice t-shirt slogan. You should see if Zazzle of CafePress could print some up for you.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday June 11 2014, @05:24PM
That's brilliant.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday June 11 2014, @12:54PM
We should be using another word, a word that has frankly been used far too little these past few decades...fascism. What we are seeing is the rise of a fascist world order, where a handful of rich elite are deciding who lives and who dies on a scale not seen since the days of WWII.
When you have a former POTUS telling jokes about what in a sane society would have been war crimes (look up "Bush WMD jokes" if you haven't seen it, its pretty disgusting) in front of those that profited from said war crime ("ahh my people, the have and have mores") it is time to stop pussyfooting and call a spade a spade and what it is is fascism, a handful of uberrich that thanks to insider access have it set up so that they simply cannot lose. A perfect example if Goldman Sachs, when the housing bubble burst they made 125% on the dollar by making the American taxpayer pick up the tab, while many lost everything they made a nice profit.
For those that have not seen it a good video that shows how what is happening now compares to the rise of previous dictatorships is Naomi Wolf's The End Of America [youtube.com] and when you watch it remember TWO things...1. This was made 7 years ago, its gotten MUCH worse since then when it comes to domestic spying and chilling effects thanks to the Snowden revelations, and 2.- Naomi Wolf is now on the watchlist and subject to intimidation when she tries to travel...her crime? Giving a lecture on your constitutional rights and how to invoke them.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by velex on Wednesday June 11 2014, @01:03PM
Naomi Wolf? That sexist? You always hit the nail on the head, so maybe I need to evaluate the message instead of shooting the messenger here. Will watch this evening. Thanks
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday June 12 2014, @08:08PM
I think Wolf is a whackjob on a LOT of things but even a broken clock can be right twice a day and on this subject she did her homework. Its well researched, lists historical examples of current behavior and draws parallels between previous and current regimes based on behavior.
So in this case simply listen to the lecture and draw your own conclusions, you can easily cross check the data if you like and at least on this subject she did the legwork and came up with a pretty interesting thesis supported by evidence.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11 2014, @01:22PM
> When you have a former POTUS telling jokes about what in a sane society would have been war crimes in front of those that profited from said war crime
No, that's like telling racist jokes to racists. It isn't remarkable other than the fact that he's telling the jokes at all. When he starts telling the jokes in front of the families who died in the war crimes, that will be crazy.
(Score: 2) by quadrox on Wednesday June 11 2014, @02:32PM
Wow to that Bush video - I am not exactly shocked about his/their behavior, but I am surprised that he/they behave this way in public.
Reminds me of a clip from the german news where a journalist who had his last day stationed somewhere at NATO was asked what his most interesting experience was, and he said "when Rumsfeld presented the claims about WMD in Iraq, and EVERYONE knew it was fake" (emphasis mine). Wow. And this got no public attention whatsoever. Disgusting.
(Score: 1) by multisync on Wednesday June 11 2014, @02:02PM
Why so possessive?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by SuperCharlie on Wednesday June 11 2014, @02:37PM
I made a quick "I'm ready for oligarchy" text shirt with their wizard and it served it up like anything else, ready to buy. I imagine if you dig some it may have to do with a copyright issue on the design...which is still douchy.. but not quite the same as shutting down the whole phrase in any form.
(Score: 1) by broken on Wednesday June 11 2014, @07:46PM
I believe that you're correct: this is a copyright issue. Everyone else seems to be focusing on the political conspiracy angle because that induces the most outrage.
The linked article states that this "is an obvious parody of Ready for Hillary's own design". However, it does not actually appear to be a parody of the design, but a parody of the message that uses the exact same design. This seems analogous to copying a song, but changing the lyrics - something that is not normally allowed by current copyright laws.
It seems to me that there is at least enough of a gray area here that to jump to the conclusion that something scandalous is occurring is unwarranted. Disagreement about the extent to which copyrights should be protected is a significantly different story from someone using their political influence to suppress speech.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11 2014, @11:12PM
I believe that you're correct: this is a copyright issue. Everyone else seems to be focusing on the political conspiracy angle because that induces the most outrage.
It is conveniently a copyright issue.
This seems analogous to copying a song, but changing the lyrics - something that is not normally allowed by current copyright laws.
Parody is not "allowed" by current copyright laws either. Parody is a form of the fair use defense. Simply copying a song and changing the lyrics isn't likely to qualify as parody. But copying the song and changing the lyrics to parody the original song has a decent chance. For example, CAMPBELL v. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC. [findlaw.com] in which 2 Live Crew copied the music of Ray Orbison's "Oh Pretty Woman" but changed the lyrics.
There scandal here isn't one of party politics, it is one of corporate wimpitude. These sites who need people to create content that they can then sell aren't standing up for those same people even when they would certainly prevail in court.
(Score: 1) by broken on Thursday June 12 2014, @01:34AM
For most people, saying fair use is a valid legal defense against copyright infringement lawsuits means it's "allowed". You seem to be arguing against the claim that a parody is not a copy - a claim I did not make.
As for whether this case can be considered a fair use parody, I'm not convinced. One word was changed in order to present a different message and the remainder of the design was unchanged. The modified text itself undoubtedly qualifies as fair use, but using exactly the same fonts, text layout, and graphics is not a parody of the design, but a direct copy of it. A fair use defense hinges partially on "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". Note that the song the case you cite made not just change to the lyrics, but also to the music. That seems to be a more significant change from the source material than we are currently discussing.
I see enough risk here such that it is not unreasonable for the hosting companies to take down that particular item for fear of losing a copyright infringement lawsuit.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 11 2014, @02:57PM
I used to work for Bill Clinton, about 6 years ago now. At that time they were building relationships with progressive bloggers, the kinds of people who led the charge for Obama in 2008. They began paying them to blog. They also started deepening their relationships with PR firms who were building astro-turfing operations. Their current Chief Marketing Officer, Valerie Alexander, previously worked at Edelman, a Chicago-based PR firm. So all this is them trying to forestall a repeat of last time by knifing their competition and online resistance to Hillary early.
It will fail. Hillary was too waspish for Republicans and Independents 8 years ago. She was too corporate for the progressive base of the Democratic Party then, too. She has done nothing since then to either get a personality transplant or convince Democratic primary voters she will work for them. And there are too many excellent progressive candidates to choose from to posit that the progressive voters will have no choice but to vote for her. She has, however, f-ed up (according to most Republicans and many Independents) with Benghazi, so you could argue that her chances are worse in 2016 than they were in 2008.
I hope a strong progressive wins the nomination, but the point is probably moot because the entire system may collapse before then.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday June 11 2014, @05:28PM
What do you think of Elizabeth Warren?
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 1) by EQ on Wednesday June 11 2014, @07:57PM
Warren is unelectable. It would be like the GOP running RON Paul.