MGM shuts down volunteer "Rocky" charity run

boing
21

I took a crap this morning, and didn’t notify or send a letter to anyone requesting permission to do so. Why would anyone be required to request permission to do something simply because something similar happened to be depicted in a movie?

Copyrights and other intellectual property only protect certain very constrained things. Why should anyone be forced to request permission for something pretty far afield of anything those were designed to protect? Also, google “Prior Restraint”, it applies in much the same way here, you shouldn’t generally have to ask permission for things that are not constrained. And you don’t have to ask the rights holder what their rights are.

4 Likes
22

You really are failing to realize that this was not a charity.

Not a charity. Not a corporation of any kind. No paid employees. Nothing.

It was a bunch of folk who decided to run together, and who also happen to individually donate to charities.

You had your panties in a wad from the start about being “sick of charities…”. Well, it’s not a damn charity. So either say that you’re sick of friends informally getting together under a name from a movie or get over it. You are clearly angry about something else.

9 Likes
23

I 100% explained why this was not done.

That is why no email was sent. Because it would be absurd to do so.

There is absolutely no conflict in this situation to “de-conflict.” Some people did something good that they had every right to do. MGM wrote them a letter and told them not to do it again even though I can’t imagine any right that MGM has to do so. The people said, “Oh well, we don’t do that nice thing again.” That’s not a conflict, it’s just MGM thinking it they have a right to profit off of everything.

5 Likes
24

Yeah, but they are not being cautious about the use of their IP. They are attempting to police people mentioning one of their movies. That’s not being cautious, it’s gleefully living the reality that when you are richer than someone you get to tell them what to do.

4 Likes
25

Best case scenario, they say, “sure, go ahead” in a timely manner. Then, you can have the event, maybe for a few years, but the moment they feel that it’s one dollar more profitable for them to run it themselves, or you decide to promote something the slightest shade off message (say your charity for one year becomes the EFF), they swoop in, end it or decide to take it over, rendering your hard work and the sense of tradition meaningless.

Much more likely, their e-mail gets no response at all, in which case either you do the event anyway and are in the exact same situation you’re in now (with the added complication that in any legal action that might come against you, they can point out that you asked but were never given permission, bolstering their dubious claim that permission is NEEDED), or you don’t do the event, in which case you’ve wasted time planning (and you’ll never know if you’re GOING to get a response until the time for the event comes) and a fun thing that helps others doesn’t go on.

Or, still more likely than a yes, you get a no from some drone who’s job it is to refuse everything people to ask. Same thing, only worse.

There is no win here, short of the corporation deciding not to be asshats. There’s only ways to lose less.

If you ask me, they did absolutely the smart thing by not asking permission first. Corporations are sociopaths, and it’s best not to deal with one unless you absolutely have to. And if you’re going to, you might as well use their tactics: a cold cost/benefit analysis says it’s one situation where, assuming the event is one you want to do, it’s better to ask forgiveness than ask permission in advance. Or better yet to not ask forgiveness either, just do what you’re going to do and ignore them unless they force you to do otherwise. And when they do, you have the small chance of public outrage when the corporation cracks down on people doing something for fun and charity.

But it’s nice to know you have no sympathy for people being charitable, and apparently reserve all of it for an entity legally required to pursue maximum profit at all times, at all costs.

4 Likes
26

That’s right. That is exactly what I said.

Btw, nice rant.

27

The first half is pretty much exactly what you said, that you had no sympathy for them, and everything after the “apparently” part is my inference based on you choosing to focus all your precious time attacking them and never saying anything against the other side.

Was I unfair? Perhaps. Sorry. But considering how, in this thread alone, you’ve already spoken for other people with wildly exaggerated characterizations of their positions, you’ve certainly not got much room to throw stones.

1 Like
28

Alright, no one is addressing any of your points, which none of us seem to be able to fathom anyway. What look like cogent explanations of why no one would have phones MGM (nothing good can come of it, they aren’t going to be using any copyrighted MGM material anyway, etc.) are just rants and sidetracks that are not worthy of response.

Looks like you win this discussion, congratulations.

29

I’ve never been able to empathize with the sort of hurt feelings a corporation must have when these spontaneous neighborhood celebrations for a good cause happen. Well done.

1 Like
30

Yes, yes! Someone finally gets it! That is exactly, 100% what I meant! Thank you! I could kiss you! You are a genius! Why can’t anybody else see that my entire point was that charities need to be crushed by corporations for profit? Was I not clear?

(Btw, I’m not mocking you. But if I were, I might note that multiple exaggerated strawman arguments might result in me giving more exaggerated sarcastic responses. And if you wanted a realistic response you would focus on the points I started out with about 28 posts above.)

1 Like
31

Perhaps if YOU wanted a realistic response, YOU would have focused IN the posts you started out with, 28 posts above?

33

Every time one of your “points” has been addressed, instead of replying, you’ve ignored it, sometimes to launch into an attack on exaggerated strawman arguments you created, sometimes just dismissively. This happened before I got involved, and continued after, and continued in this very post I’m replying to.

Every person who’s responded to one of your own attempts to strawmen them have pointed out the differences in what you seem to think they’re saying and what they’re actually saying. You resort to sarcasm and abuse and repeatedly ignored any points made. I’m forced to conclude you’re not arguing in good faith. Maybe you’re simply tired and cranky and defensive because you got challenged and were unable to back your argument up with actual points of your own. I don’t know, I’m guessing here. You’d probably accuse that of being a strawman, when no, it’s just an impression I’ve gotten, that you’ve contributed to, intentionally or not, with your replies. When you wake up, try to be better, and you might create a better impression of yourself.

Btw, even though I think you’re wrong, I do have sympathy for you. Sympathy’s not that hard.

1 Like
34

image.jpg1014×714 93 KB

Say “straw man” one more time.

5 Likes
35

Star Man

Straw Nam

Saw Man

Raw Man

Straw Flan

???

2 Likes
36

silage sir
fodder fellow

4 Likes
37

ants warm

1 Like
38

1 Like
39

My bad.

3 Likes
40

You may soon find yourself in trouble with lawyers representing Sony for infringing on the last Indiana Jones movie.

5 Likes
41

Wait… is that a young Sylvester Stallone?

1 Like