At the end of the piece, the narrator quotes Judge Alex Kozinski of the Federal 9th Circuit Appellate Court. I've included the extended version of that quote here. His opinions on the "right of publicity" are best summed up in his White v. Samsung Electronics Dissent. The entire opinion is worth reading, but the critical summary is found in the first section which reads:

"Saddam Hussein wants to keep advertisers from using his picture in unflattering contexts. Clint Eastwood doesn't want tabloids to write about him. Rudolf Valentino's heirs want to control his film biography. The Girl Scouts don't want their image soiled by association with certain activities. George Lucas wants to keep Strategic Defense Initiative fans from calling it "Star Wars." Pepsico doesn't want singers to use the word "Pepsi" in their songs. Guy Lombardo wants an exclusive property right to ads that show big bands playing on New Year's Eve. Uri Geller thinks he should be paid for ads showing psychics bending metal through telekinesis. Paul Prudhomme, that household name, thinks the same about ads featuring corpulent bearded chefs. And scads of copyright holders see purple when their creations are made fun of.

Something very dangerous is going on here. Private property, including intellectual property, is essential to our way of life. It provides an incentive for investment and innovation; it stimulates the flourishing of our culture; it protects the moral entitlements of people to the fruits of their labors. But reducing too much to private property can be bad medicine. Private land, for instance, is far more useful if separated from other private land by public streets, roads and highways. Public parks, utility rights-of-way and sewers reduce the amount of land in private hands, but vastly enhance the value of the property that remains.

So too it is with intellectual property. Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Creativity is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it's supposed to nurture.

The panel's opinion is a classic case of overprotection. Concerned about what it sees as a wrong done to Vanna White, the panel majority erects a property right of remarkable and dangerous breadth: Under the majority's opinion, it's now a tort for advertisers to remind the public of a celebrity. Not to use a celebrity's name, voice, signature or likeness; not to imply the celebrity endorses a product; but simply to evoke the celebrity's image in the public's mind. This Orwellian notion withdraws far more from the public domain than prudence and common sense allow. It conflicts with the Copyright Act and the Copyright Clause. It raises serious First Amendment problems. It's bad law, and it deserves a long, hard second look."

-- Judge Alex Kozinski

DIRTY DIRY----You are obviously a racist scum-bag considering the fact you twisted my "WAKE-UP CITIZENS" comment into racist statement of your very own vile little self.

Just try to remember the issue here is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, not immigration, and yes they should go through "due process of the law" and then get deported for the CHOICE they made for committing an illegal act. There are already many legal Mexican Americans citizens here who do respect America and follow the law and know how to speak English. They are not RACIST AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE like you apparently are.

Seems like your arbitrary definition of an "Orwellian Troll" is AN EXACT DESCRIPTION OF YOURSELF---just look at Dirts string of comments.

Everyone should watch the "60 Minutes" interview with Mr. Lou Dobbs who is one of the few who has the courage to speak out against illegal immigration! I hope there will be many more. Anyone reading these comments who is against this illegal activity of illegal immigration should have the courage to speak out NOW --log on--- share your views.

There are way too many illegal immigrants who are racist, uneducated and vile who are speaking out. They need to be put in there place--which is out of this country before they ruin it for everyone.

You must be a simple troll to not respond to any questions posed to you. Also, instead of refuting the economic claim cited by someone from a reputable peer-reviewed journal, you just babble on from your own limited knowledge in a lame attempt to dismiss facts with your own version of truthiness. Why not cite your references into how poor California and Texas are being bankrupted by illegals, who pay taxes from sales tax, DMV fees, property tax, and thanks to Bush and the US Chamber of Commerce, most pay income taxes. (You do know the govt withholds income tax, and if you don't file... like illegals probably don't, they keep it all)

It is a fact that Social Security is being added to by legal and illegal aliens and foreign students who pay into the system and never collect from it.

(BTW, the Border Patrol has unprecidented authority and power thanks to the Patriot Act. Don't you think the formation of a new DHS with unprecedented funding and a tripling of the Border Patrol would be the opposite of what you say. The Border Patrol is welcome to do their job and fight illegal border crossing, no one is against that. Everyone wants a secure border.. everyone but Bush and his corporate friends... and people like you that use it as a rasicist boogeyman)

"WAKE UP AMERICA" must be your code for "WAKE UP WHITE PEOPLE"

Anyways, I pegged you as a Moran and I will edit the VideoSiftopedia to reference Moran to mean an "orwellian troll who uses their hatred of 'others' and Constitutional Rights to defend their position and attack critics"

The next administration will show us the true colors of an oligarchy's dominance over another....semantics and their roots aside, what we have in America in a failure to communicate....this is due greatly to a calculated re-wiring of semantics by a dedicated and persistent effort on the part of Newspeakers.....constant barrages until phrases become implanted in order for tolerance, justice, and meaning to be programmed and manipulated....try these on for size, and decide what meaning they have for you:

Hate Speech
Right to Life
Millitant Fundamentalist
Necessary Downturn

So many on the left are quick to describe right as using Orwellian Newsspeak tactics and on the right they do the same, they are both using it to affect and to sell, agendas that are out of touch with all men, and the continuing battle of ideas and words grounded in contrived sensibilities and reasoning, is the box the people in the middle are kept in.....quite insidious, really, give people a team to root for, a coliseum to showcase and unite in a common arena...... the diversion to keep the rabble happy and fucking and making new meat-bots....and paying their bills with monopoly monies,happy to perform when whipped.....up....and diversion will keep them together.....



"The Rectification of Names consists in making real relationships and duties and institutions conform as far as possible to their ideal meanings.... When this intellectual reorganization is at last effected, the ideal social order will come as night follows day - a social order where, just as a circle is a circle and a square a square, so every prince is princely [and] every official is faithful..."

Confucius (as described by Hu Shih)

how about Orwell describing what is being done today, the young energetic minds sucking it up and spitting it out.....(Lot of it around here)
...."Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever."

When I smell shit, I say it stinks and demand it be dealt with, and look for the perpetrator now-a-days, to whine and wonder why they would possibly be expected to clean it up.......

Look at yourself, willing to give away actual freedoms for unknown securities. Willing to give away actual ideals for unknown benefits. Nothing but Orwellian pawns with high school vocabularies.

For the second time (you have to repeat everything to Morans)... It is not a crime or criminal offense to exist and breathe air in a foreign land. It is a policy issue. INS is welcome to deport them all. Heck the border patrol is welcome to turn people away. But it is not a matter for police or redneck vigilantes.

What you fail to understand is that only a few state see large influx of "Mexicans" (said in your derogatory tone). And of the total illegal immigrant population, Mexicans only make up barely of half (54%?). Your classification of Mexicans as criminals who want to break into homes is a sad attempt used by western Europeans for ages against Jews and Gypsies. It is sad that your Moran brethren has resorted to drumming up this kind of fear and loathing because the Schiavo thing didn't work, and the gay marriage thing didn't work (well it did give us Bush.. which again backfired). So "illegals" is the last refuge of the desperate.

I care about this country enough to want there to be a First Amendment
(even if that means a few illegal Mexicans can spend a day in a public park).

I'm desire to live in a USofA that doesn't have militarized police shooting women and children
(in spite of perfectly good Mexican women and children that *could* have been shot)

I want to live in a proud nation that doesn't imprison people without the centuries old Writ or torture people (even Mexicans and muslims)

I wish we could live in a free country without Orwellian concepts as NCLB (No Child Left Behind), HAVA (Help America Vote), "fiscally responsible Republicans", compassionate conservatism, intelligent design, etc. (even an internet free of hate filled, small minded people who can't recognize a parody of themselves)

heh heh heh...a little lesson on Orwellian newspeak:

Creating a phrase and injecting it into a society is calculated and infective...

the term, "Hate Speak", as commonly now recognized has not always been around.....it is a construct of a group that has an agenda....Free Speech is what this bill is about, and i writhe and wriggle, at the very idea of a so-called representative bringing some sheit like this to the table.....now....Why do you ask....figure it out I say, and see through a cloud of horse shit.....a never ending one I might add.......

what is..."Hate Speech"?? and what are the penalties?...as you give away your free will to a machine.....who calls a hate crime a hate crime???What is Hate??How the hell has this bullshit gotten this far out of hand, that monkeys need worms to tell them how to jump?? This country is near characaturishly surreal......ahhhh t'bed t'bed...letm eat cake....

"Free speech zone" is just another Luntzian (not Orwellian, according to Luntz himself) relabeling of terms from unpopular to more acceptable. "Free speech" and "zone" don't describe or imply the same thing. "Global warming" is now the less ominous "climate change". "Estate Tax" is now "death tax". School "vouchers" are now school "scholarships", and "school choice" is now "parental choice in education". An oldie, "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion", depending on which side of the issue you fall. Republicans can dismiss an "environmentalist", yet champion "conservationists" who may have the same goal. Some describe "Free speech zones" as "free speech cages". To me, it just means every where else is a "Freedom restricted area", or a "controlled speech zone".

This shouldn't be happening in this country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
http://webserve.govst.edu/pa/Political/Not-So-Great%20Expectations/luntz.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0226-27.htm

"Free Speech Zone"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

Is that Orwellian or Kafkaesque? I just can't decide????

@looris: you are right, of course. And that's my point really, that regulation is not necessarily good or bad by itself--it depends, and the sort of automatic rejection of the notion of regulation, such as we hear from Mr. Paul, suggests a person who uses slogans as a substitute for thinking. This is not what I look for in a leader. For example, I would consider government regulation of media content to be bad, but regulation on the disposal of dangerous chemicals to be good (some people have the opposite opinion).

I recognize the term "unregulated internet" as one of those Orwellian phrases that gets repeated again and again to imply the exact opposite of what it actually is, with the goal of convincing people to agree to something that is against their interests (like the "clear skies initiative", which actually increases air pollution). So it triggers my BS detector.

I'm interested. What is the Patriot Act for in your opinion? And how Orwellian is its name?

I'm sorry gorillaman, but I respectfully disagree: intention is mostly irrelevant. If someone bonks you on the head with a tennis racket while you were just standing there minding your own business, is it important whether the person who bonked you did it because you were of a certain racial background or because he simply didn't like your yellow shirt? The crime is the bonk, not the intent behind it.


A little history lesson for the woefully ignorant on the origins of hate crimes:

During 1988, the predominant architect of “Anti-Hate” legislation, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, helped sponsor a nationwide, law-student competition to write a model “Anti-Hate” law for America. This law would criminalize not just physical acts of racial violence but statements that might lead to violence.

On April 20-22, the ADL helped sponsor a conference at New York’s prestigious Hofstra University entitled “Group Defamation and Freedom of Speech: The Relationship Between Language and Violence.” Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich), also a pioneer of the hate crimes legislation now before Congress, was the keynote speaker. The winner of the hate crimes competition was announced as Joseph Ribakoff, a law student from Whittier College in California.

In his prize-winning proposal, Ribakoff asserted that with the upsurge of “Hate Crimes” in America, it will no longer suffice for the government merely to outlaw acts of physical violence; it must ban those forms of verbal communication which cause hatred, suspicion, and possible violence against groups of people. Ribakoff recommends that federal and state censorship boards be established to review all films and videotapes before they are shown publicly, determining if they contain statements which might stimulate hatred or contempt for some group of people. If so, an immediate court order would ban the film in America. Ribakoff: “Any person, persons, or organizations which publicly shows a film or movie before it has been submitted and reviewed by the agency shall have committed a misdemeanor.”

Further, if anyone is a member of an organization that has publicly shown such a film and intends to remain a member, supportive of its goals, he also will have committed a misdemeanor.

Ribakoff’s prize-winning “Group Libel Statute” was not limited to verbal criticism of Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, etc., but would indict anyone who criticized homosexuals as a group, causing “mental anguish” to members of that minority.

And so it began. Other countries are far deeper into this Orwellian nightmare than the USA.

Preachers in Canada and Europe can now be jailed for preaching the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality.

Whether you agree with the Bible or not, that's far scarier than the boogeyman liberals are trying to make out of the Patriot Act.

Waiting for the many sift watchdogs to scream that FOX NEWS is bia--oh wait--this is CNN? The Crescent News Network? Founded by a socialist? In league with SLIME magazine in league with the seditious New York Slimes? Never mind, CNN is a REAL Orwellian fair and balanced news source.

Both Northern and Southern Iraq are stable. Baghdad is the last holdout for insurgent scum, who will lose.

Yes, it will be on Iraqis to hold their new country together and they'll ultimately decide their own fate, but it's unlikely they'll be reverting to a Saddam-type psycho.

The American left owns defeat, they want America to lose this war. Truly pathetic.

"Anyone find it ironic or a little bit Orwellian that Dems are begging Republicans for another $124 BILLION in war funding??"

It's not the war funding they're asking for. What Murtha is not telling you is that this bill is loaded to the brim with pork and pet projects such as:

-- $25 million for payments to spinach producers
-- $120 million to the shrimp industry
-- $74 million for peanut storage
-- $5 million for shellfish, oyster and clam producers
-- $24 million to sugar beet producers
-- $283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract program
-- $120 million to compensate for the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the shrimp and menhaden fishing industries
-- $100 million for citrus assistance
-- last but not least...A minimum wage increase

And that's the short list. None of these have anything to do with the war, but they have everything to do politicians getting local projects passed that they couldn't get through otherwise to please their constituents. It's not about the war, it's about getting reelected.

Anyone find it ironic or a little bit Orwellian that Dems are begging Republicans for another $124 BILLION in war funding??