Clever Attack Ad Causes a Stir

A controversial political attack ad airing on YouTube has created quite the stir for 2008 Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

A 74-second video, that promotes Democratic Illinois Senator Barack Obama, remixes a classic advertisement from 1984 which introduced Apple computers to the world.

Senator Obama's campaign claims it has absoultely nothing to do with the ad which attacks Democratic rival, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "the video is a sophisticated new take on director Ridley Scott's controversial Apple ad that caused shock waves with its premiere during the 1984 Super Bowl, and shows the same blond young female athlete running with a sledgehammer toward a widescreen -- where an ominous Big Brother figure drones to a mass of zombielike followers."

However in this video, the "Big Brother" is Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the ad insinuates that Senator Clinton is spewing cliche nonsense to the drones.

At the end of the advertisement, a tagline for the attack reads, "On Jan. 14, the Democratic primary will begin. And you'll see why 2008 won't be like 1984", as well as an updated Apple symbol transformed into an O, and finally the logo

It seems as though the theme of the video is stressing a generational change to relationships of media, politics, candidates and voters.

While the creator of this ad is unknown, one may imagine a political activist on a laptop manipulating the content to serve his or her own campaign agenda.

While the Obama campaign maintains the ad is someone else's creation, voters may get the feeling that Obama can attack Clinton and not have to own up to it publicly.

Eric Jaye, a San Francisco political consultant, noted that Obama's campaign does reap a benefit from the ad, saying, "They get to call Hillary Clinton a pabulum-spewing pseudo-fascist, without having to own it."

Another angle is that a supporter for the Clinton campaign created the video to give Obama a bad image, in hopes of creating sympathy for Hillary, swaying voters in her direction.

Whoever the video's creator is, they've shown YouTube viewers, voters and bloggers the power of internet media.

The internet has become a less expensive way to promote a presidential candidate by spending a fraction of the usual millions in advertising and television attack ads.

The internet ads are edgier and far more entertaining, but generate more political issues and questions about each candidate's character.

Now every candidate will have to worry about some political activist creating negative ads without their authorization.

I can't help but wonder if team Hillary will think up something as ingenious, attacking Obama and her Republican opposition.

Posted by Dana J. Tuszke at March 19, 2007 3:58 PM
Comment #212729

Personally, I’m sick to death of the attack ads, the sneaky ads, the negative ads.

I just want each politician to talk honestly about what they want to do and/or have done, and NOT about their opponent. No fancy marketing ads implying anything just honest up front words.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 19, 2007 4:27 PM
Comment #212735

The face on the screen could have been anyone and it’s unfortunate it focused on only one person. Any and every candidate’s face could have been on that big screen.
The focus should be the woman with the sledge hammer. Perhaps she should be the one elected. She didn’t need any words to make her point.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 19, 2007 5:10 PM
Comment #212740


I just want each politician to talk honestly about what they want to do and/or have done, and NOT about their opponent. No fancy marketing ads implying anything just honest up front words.

That would be refreshing wouldn’t it.
“If elected I promise to cater to the special interest that gave me millions of dollars for my campaign and screw the taxpayers and voters that elected me”.
But I’m with ya. I want the candidates to come out and do some actual serious discussion on the problems facing this country and what they intend to do to solve them. But if they did that the voters just might hold them to it. And that’s the last thing they want.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 19, 2007 5:35 PM
Comment #212741

So what?

Posted by: Max at March 19, 2007 5:36 PM
Comment #212748

The Dems are going to rip each other apart. Last time, they concentrated on George Bush and left each other alone to some extent. This time, with no Bush to kick around, you will go after each other. The Clinton machine is the most effective engine of personal and political destruction yet devised by man or woman. Ombama will be lucky to stay out of jail when it is done with him.

I would not be very surprised if this anti-Hillary thing was created by pro-Hillary operatives.

Watching Bill at work was great eduation. His team would leak or emphasize bad news as a way to immunize against worse news.

I believe Hillary is unstoppable. Next year nobody will believe it was even possible to consider someone w/o experience (Obama) or a personal injury lawyer (Edwards) or a governor of a poor state (Richardson) over the experience of a “co-president”, Senator from a complicated state and all around successful woman.

My prediction is after she has tamed him, Hillary will reach out to Obama and make him VP. He may want to consider the Gore experience before making a choice.

Posted by: Jack at March 19, 2007 5:48 PM
Comment #212749
So what?

I think the point is that there this coming election is going to be nasty because anonymous users can now post whatever attack ad they want to places like Youtube without the campaigns having control over it, so the plausable deniability is even worse now that it has been in the past. Why give millions to a 527 group that has to list their members and donations when you can give a few thousand to a slick marketing guy and have it put up on youtube?

Seems like a no brainer to me, and the end of trying to curb attack ads through campaign finance reform.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 19, 2007 5:48 PM
Comment #212751

This ad is just a sample of what we have to look forward to. As this medium developes I anticipate easy, cheap, wide distribution of political ads with little or no responsiblity for accuracy since it won’t be the actual candidate sponsoring them.

Posted by: Carnak at March 19, 2007 6:12 PM
Comment #212754

When’s the last time you’ve heard someone in the media say that people in the USA talk to their neighbors? Not gossip, but one neighbor talking to another about a common problem and a solution emerging as a result. How often do you hear about something like that happening in the media?

I think an absence of real life, day to day experiences that are boring and redundant, are missing from the media and the void is filled with emotion and minute sensationalism. It has to be able to sell the time, to get attention.

Youtube is free and someone just landed a left hook. The crowd roars.

Another perspective would look at this as a flash in the pan of the flintlock that fell generals.
Either way it is born of the media and is mass produced. It relates to everyone on a broad level yet relates to no one individually. As a result you get the grey, dust covered zombies in front of the big screen.

We have been hypnotized by the boob tube and it wasn’t hard for the hypnotist because his only achievement was a new watch. The hypnotist could swing the watch, the tv, the sledgehammer and still achieve the same results. A hypnotized subject.

Why shouldn’t we consider voting for the sledge-hammer yeilding hottie in the gym suit? She is providing the only ligitimate alternative to the big screen.

That wouldn’t work because all the dust covered zombies would let her know forthwith it was not her big screen tv! She doesn’t have the right to throw that sledge-hammer in a crowded theatre!

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 19, 2007 6:38 PM
Comment #212756

This add seems a direct rip off of someone else’s intellectual property.
Theoretically someone should be paying royalties for not only the use of the add, but the use of the Apple logo as well.

It seems kind of early for someone to unleash the hounds with this type of add.

Swift boat anyone?

Posted by: Rocky at March 19, 2007 6:50 PM
Comment #212759

Someone got caught off guard!

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 19, 2007 7:16 PM
Comment #212760

No one has claimed responsibility for producing this video. By default it’s the property of the current owners, who ever they are.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 19, 2007 7:24 PM
Comment #212765

Couldn’t we produce a “Deer in the Headlights” photo right about now? Shouldn’t there be a “Deer in the Headlight!” episode here? Isn’t it fair a “Deer in the Headlights” Photo should be produced right about now?
C’mon! No lack of imagination? No motivation? Where’s the fairness you media claim to vomit every day?
If it is not produced by the main stream media (danrather) it is not legitimate.

(there are many ways to spell lifitameate.)

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 19, 2007 7:32 PM
Comment #212768

The shot heard ‘round the world?

I saw the vid and thought several things at once.

1.) It was funny. A direct rip-off and fairly clever use of the ad.

2.) Insightful. Smash the pablum we have been spoon-fed for far too long. Destroy the double-talk…the use of our language to take up time and seem to say something when actually nothing is being said.

3.) A portent of things to come in 2008. Those that represent the “old line” or “old guard” politicians are directly in the bull’s eye. The message of this election is that fresh blood will either take the election or scare hell out of those at the top of the different parties’ power structure. Don’t forget the the Reps are screaming for new blood (Fred Thompson…or somebody, anybody except what the have now).

4.) The old truth that whoever is the front runner is walking around with a bull’s eye painted on their back.

I can hardly wait until the campaining REALLY starts, and all the truly creative and inventive people out there drag out their copies of Photoshop and Flash.

Posted by: Jim T at March 19, 2007 8:16 PM
Comment #212770

It’s called a copyright violation. The material belongs to Apple, and besides the use of Hillary’s image and voice instead of that old man’s, everything was taken wholesale from Ridley
Scott’s original 1984 commercial. I have nothing against Barack Obama, but the commercial is just an uninspired rip-off.

The irony is, is somebody could probably improvise something similar today with a little computer graphics skill, ten volunteers, and a little imagination entirely from scratch.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 19, 2007 8:28 PM
Comment #212771
the use of our language to take up time A portent of things to come in 2008 I can hardly wait

I own every inch of my property. You will have to fight me on that level.

I am secure in every basic way.

Somehow I think “Bring it on” has a solid foundation. Because no thing will make me change my mind. If you are against me then you will have to learn to live with me. I’m not going away and I’m not giving in.

I blew off without having any foundation. It’s true your neighbor knows you the most but it’s people who watch you know you the best.

Isn’t that scary?

But most of you will say “I don’t have anything to worry about because I’m not doing anything wrong.”

When I heard a news story about some city or county or some government entity wanting to enforce a “NO SMOKING” ordinance in a person’s residence, ?
How do you do that?

Geesh! Listen to me! I’m begining to sound like you guys!

I think our government has bitten off more than it can chew. I think that we can take care of ourselves and we don’t need to look at the tv to see what we should think or do next.

How many of any of you can quote any source or fact without using the media to do it?

HMMM? Is any source not from the media?

What is that saying? “90 persent of what you hear is bullshit and you can’t believe 10 percent.”

What does that leave you?

A babe in a gymsuit swing’n a sledge hammer.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 19, 2007 8:51 PM
Comment #212773


As a dem I have to say I ate the whole Billary anything, especially after how her views favor this war and the wompload of sh*t her husband put us through with all his crap, zippergate being the least of it.

BUT…I will throw a positive one Hilly’s way, some of her more recent speeches (off the recent stump that is) are actually quite good as of late—Whereas Obama—might I add “Ughhhh”?—is such a wishy-washy Brandy swirler it’s a wonder that peckerwood even got in the room at all. HE IS SO F*CKING DULLLLL—The only way to improve his speeeches are to have him give one while bouncing on a trampoline and even that would be a near cure for insomnia—Ughhh boooooring stuff, bad deliveries, speeches that run pointless circles and go way off down towards nowhere land and come back empty handed. Whoever thought John Kerry was so interesting afterall???!!!!

I am a democrat who hates Obama—is there anyone in my corner here????

Posted by: Gleep the chimp at March 19, 2007 8:57 PM
Comment #212774

Whoopsiee Typo: it was “hate” as opposed to “ate” in reference to Hillary—thanx! (Monkey not type so well while swinging from tireswing.)

Posted by: Gleep the chimp at March 19, 2007 9:04 PM
Comment #212775


Posted by: wearywillie at March 19, 2007 9:06 PM
Comment #212779

Everyone seems to have missed the point of the ad… we all can see the possibility of it being prophetic! “Hillary is 1984 (Big Brother, Nanny State).”

Posted by: Don at March 19, 2007 9:24 PM
Comment #212791


Which way did he go? Which way did he go?

The only reason this clip has made an impression is because it has been allowed to make an impression.

I think it should be thought of as a template only. Don’t let any entity gain control of it. Don’t let anyone claim it. It is anonimous. Insist it stay that way.
Use it as a conduit, a way to let the sledgehammer have her say. Is it too much to ask?
Global warming be damned, we still have enough time to talk to each other.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 19, 2007 10:06 PM
Comment #212800

It’s a shame we live in a world that has the ability to comunicate, yet it’s all falling on deaf ears. It’s fed to us and interpreted for us. We believe it until it disappears and we accept what appears in it’s place.
Sounds like that utube thing doesn’t it? It’s a good thing that a supreme court can determine what is on utube!

Otherwise, we would all be damned!

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 19, 2007 11:29 PM
Comment #212819

I wish people would refrain from calling this an “ad”. As far as I can tell, nobody paid to distribute it. It is more like an opinion piece.

I don’t think this is a trivial issue, because it implies that there is an organization behind the so-called “ad” when there isn’t. Imagination that I made an “ad” showing Rudy Giuliani with a Hitler mustache and said “Vote McCain”!

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 20, 2007 8:45 AM
Comment #212849

It may be intellectual theft, legally speaking, but is that what we want our laws to be?

It is parody of the Apple Commercial, granted they probably used digitized content to produce it.

I think YouTube is one of the greatest things to come along. Viral video allows a much more democratic use of media.

The clock was a great idea, but should we never allow anyone else to make a clock, without a lawyer? I think we have allowed intellectual property rights to be tyrannical.

Thr myth that failure to protect intellectual property will cause creativity to dry up, is actually disproven by ideas like YouTube.

RCA didn’t invent TV you know.

Posted by: gergle at March 20, 2007 11:53 AM
Comment #212857

How about an ad with Hillary meeting with Israeli terror groups on tour and playing spitlittle to the pro-zionist lobbies such as (well namely) AIPAC—a pure waste of money, billions annually thrown into a useless till for something that will never, never, never be anything close to anything we remotely want—ever. Why? Out of a manufactured softplace our form of Americanized and westernized christianity has for the movie Shindler’s list one would have to suspect.

That is who really supports Hillary, that and naddering coddling hippie-minded dip-sh*ts who don’t think about anything but a wishlist of having a female president hive-mindedly—‘er sum’thing like that.

Tell me how she can actually hold a red state anywhere??—with her and Barak Odullard dems are doomed to lose—again—yup!!

Posted by: Gleep the chimp at March 20, 2007 12:29 PM
Comment #212861


“The clock was a great idea, but should we never allow anyone else to make a clock, without a lawyer? I think we have allowed intellectual property rights to be tyrannical.”

If one uses a known business logo, regardless how it has been modified, in a “pirated” parody, one should have to pay for that use.

My point is that it is one thing to create something new from an old idea, it is entirely something else to steal (yes steal), a well known advertisement and simply modify it without the owners permission.

Obviously permission to use the commercial hasn’t been granted. If it had why hasn’t the “creator” of this “clever add” stepped forward so that they could bask in the applause.

Posted by: Rocky at March 20, 2007 12:53 PM
Comment #212883

I have a question: Why are all the dems defending Hillary against these attack ads, despite the claims of “clever” which they aren’t (hackneyed would be more like it)? Hillary is candidate we want outta’ there in the first round with Barak. Who wants these two? Dems please respond as to why any self-respecting democrat would want Hilary to run for anything. She is not winner material, Barak is just a starlet thrust into the limelight because he’s reasonably attractive to female voters—that is all it is—fanfare done.

Republicans please bash Hillary harder and this time actually be “clever”!!!

Posted by: Gleep the chimp at March 20, 2007 2:37 PM
Comment #212889

For a presidential candidate the political world has become one in which a photograph is taken every moment and every statement is dissected down to the meaning of individual words, and a single photograph, a single word or phrase can sink a candidate. witness “maccaca” or “I voted for it before I voted against it”, or “bring it on”. Access to information is shaping how political races will be run in the future: candidates putting on their best face, never showing emotions that could end up as a photograph in your opponents campaign ad, and, above all, never allow yourself to be blind sided by the unexpected, a question you haven’t rehearsed, an insult that can not be turned aside. w’s handlers understood this full well after seeing him perform as governer
I like many of the candidates on both sides because they are at least willing to put themselves out there for examination. One can tell the front runners by how careful they have become.
I do like Ms. Clinton. She is smart, capable but perhaps too careful. Edwards is a turn off, Obama, i don’t understand, Biden is very good, smart, outspoken and willing to put himself out there.
On the republican side I like Hagel very much (not because he has turned against the war but because he speaks his mind). McCain is good, Guilliani says what he thinks. I’m glad Allen self-destructed. He is as big a phony as they come; same with Gingrich. It is heartening to see the stiffs fall by the wayside early on.
I think republican voters, that hard core group that, in essence says: “don’t confuse me with the facts, George Bush is my president and I support him”, need to take a hard look at themselves and understand the damage that is done through loyalties to an individual rather than to their own principles.

Posted by: charles Ross at March 20, 2007 3:04 PM
Comment #212895


I would be more than happy with the next president being as successful as Bush. Tax cuts, confronting radical islam instead of sweeping it under the rug and great judges, along with his social stances I couldn’t ask for much more from my president.
I wish he defended himself more and he lost points with me for throwing Rumsfeld under the bus but all in all I’d grade him a B.
I guess what I’m saying is I don’t need that long look into myself.

Posted by: andy at March 20, 2007 4:32 PM
Comment #212896

I forgot the economy.

Posted by: andy at March 20, 2007 4:33 PM
Comment #212906


All ideas come from old ideas…they call it progress.

I’m certainly not a lawyer or copyright expert, but if you alter a logo in parody, I don’t think it qualifies as infringement. There has to be reasonable belief that it may confuse a consumer, and that a loss may result.

Hell, Mad Magazine was based entirely on parody,and logo/identity mimicry, as are many SNL skits. The world would be worse off without them.

I think the copyright and intellectual property crowd are way wrong. It won’t be long before you tell me I’m breathing someone’s copyrighted air.

I think the whole copyright of software and music as well as video is a croc. If you have something of real value,and charge a reasonable price, no one will steal it.The consumer will want the real deal. Some may improve it. That’s a good thing. The whole idea of copyright, as it has evolved, I find monopolistic and a threat to society.

I’m for allowing someone to protect a name or reputation, but trying to own an idea is absurd on it’s face.

Posted by: gergle at March 20, 2007 5:16 PM
Comment #212918


“I’m for allowing someone to protect a name or reputation, but trying to own an idea is absurd on it’s face.”

When some one’s life is their art, their ideas are all they have, that is their livelihood.
A true artist doesn’t plagiarize, or steal other people’s works, for profit, or other gain.
This “add” isn’t parody, and it isn’t satire. It’s a hit piece to make someone look bad.

Ridley Scott’s Apple add is an original work of art. If the unknown artist that ripped off Scott’s art was truly talented, he/she could have taken the original copyrighted material to another level with the permission of the artist.

Apparently they chose not to do so, and while you are entitled to your opinion, the law isn’t on your side.

Posted by: Rocky at March 20, 2007 7:07 PM
Comment #212921

“I would be more than happy with the next president being as successful as Bush. Tax cuts,”

Tax cuts? We haven’t had any tax cuts! We’ve engaged in deficit spending. That is, we’ve taken a dollar, paid four cents back to the person we borrowed it from, in the year we borrowed it, and then used the ninety-six cents left to prop up the economy.
W did this four trillion times. This was his tax policy. This was his economic policy.

“confronting radical Islam”

You’ve got to be kidding with this one. During w’s years, radical Islam has been greatly strengthened. W has become a poster boy for radical Islamic recruiters. In his six plus years he not only presided over 9-11 with 3000 dead, he sent another 3000 + men and women halfway around the world to do 9-11 part two!!
We’ve lost in Iraq. It’s done. What’s going on now is just a little window dressing to give us the time to withdraw with some dignity. Does anyone seriously think, that come election time next year, that the republican big boys aren’t going to go into w’s office and tell him the future???
You say, andy, in your second post that you “forgot the economy”. Yes, finally some truth, you and w both.

Posted by: charles Ross at March 20, 2007 7:20 PM
Comment #212948


“3000+ dead” it would be nice if you worded that more like when 3000+ American citizens who were murdered on our soil by a national threat, not with the thoughtless frenzy they seemed to have been typed. As far as the 3000+ volunteer soldiers who were sent to avenge and keep us fat, whiny, wealthy, lucky slobs safe. I think of them as the ultimate heroes not a political number. If in fact the “we’ve lost in Iraq” promise comes to fruition all I can offer you and the left is a hollow clap because that defeat will be yours, and only yours to own, hope the plan to get the whitehouse works for ya’all.
If the left really believes what it say then CUT THE DAMN FUNDING or shut up, just quit tying the military’s arms just to get an upper hand for political power.

Posted by: andy at March 21, 2007 1:00 AM
Comment #212957


Well, since you are defining true art for us, I guess you can define parody as plageurism.

Sounds a little on the autocratic side…but, personally I think true art IS often parody. I guess SNL nor most editorial cartoonists wouldn’t make it in your “art state”.

Posted by: gergle at March 21, 2007 1:53 AM
Comment #212963


“Well, since you are defining true art for us, I guess you can define parody as plageurism.”

Ok, you want to play, I’ll be your huckleberry.

From Merriam Webster online;

“1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
2 : a feeble or ridiculous imitation”

This “clever attack ad”, as Dana puts it, isn’t an imitation, it’s the real deal, the actual ad as Ridley Scott directed it 23 years ago, except someone has “cut and pasted” out the original speaker.
Now, if this was a parody done by say, SNL, they would have used Gilda Radner as the athlete running, and throwing the hammer, and John Belushi as the talking head, and they would have used something other than the “rainbow colored” apple with a hole in it to use as the logo at the end.

Sorry, this “clever attack ad” isn’t just a “feeble or ridiculous imitation”, nor is this a caricature, as in an editorial cartoon. Because if it were any of those, it would be merely similar to, but different from the original.

This “clever attack ad” is the equivalent of going to the Louvre, taking a bucket of black paint, and a brush, and painting a mustache on the actual “Mona Lisa”, not a cartoon of it.

Parody isn’t plagiarism. Parody is an original thought that is loosely based on some one else’s work.

That said, while you and I may disagree on what is the definition of “art”, surely we can find some common ground on the definition of theft.

Posted by: Rocky at March 21, 2007 3:07 AM
Comment #212965


BTW, SNL would have placed a disclaimer somewhere around the performance, as NBC’s lawyers would have forced them to do, giving credit to the original work.

And yes, I stole that “huckleberry” line from “Tombstone”.

Posted by: Rocky at March 21, 2007 3:42 AM
Comment #212976
The Clinton machine is the most effective engine of personal and political destruction yet devised by man or woman.

What a bunch of hooey. If you mean both Clintons, they beat George HW Bush, Bob Dole, and Rick Lazio. Tell me how they played dirty against any of these people. The Clintons are always the ones who want to talk about “the issues” instead of their personal lives. It is their Republican opponents who want to drag things into the personal arena.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 21, 2007 7:57 AM
Comment #213040

Gee Huck, (Rocky)

I was thinking more of “Breafast at Tiffany’s”, as in “my hucklebery friend”, although I did see Tombstone.

The Parody was of an Apple Commercial, which in itself was a parody (or homage, if you like)of 1984 and possibly Chaplin in The Great Dictator or even Modern Times. Yes, even professional directors “steal” their ideas from others (shock!!!)

Apple was trying to highlight the independence and novelty of it’s computers. So was the promoter of Obama. Emblematic of breaking free of convention.

Was the Apple computer commercial clever? Yes. Was it great art suitable for the Louvre?….well probably not.

Was it theft? Yes, as law is done currently. Did apple suffer a loss? I doubt it. They haven’t sought to sue or asked YouTube to remove it that I’m aware of. Actually they got a little free air time.

BTW, Gilda and John have long been dead. You’ve gotta watch TV more often.:)

Posted by: gergle at March 21, 2007 4:00 PM
Comment #213191


Ridley Scott—um didn’t he do the last Batman sequel??? Batman Returns. Genius m-iiiiight be a little strong a word there Rocky (???) Louvre barely. Nike advertising nonsense—yeah. Look at the woman throwing the sledge—it’s an idiotic ad.

How about Condi Rice as the “where’s the beef” lady???

Posted by: Gleep at March 22, 2007 10:08 AM
Comment #213192

Barak Obama as the big buckin’ chicken maybe?

Posted by: Gleep at March 22, 2007 10:09 AM
Comment #213216


Oops, was it a Nike commercial? Oh Well, I’m not a real film critic, I only put on the pretense of being one here:)

I actually haven’t watched the ad, except bits run on news stories . I’m going by recollection of the original ad. Funny thing about those iconic commercials…you often forget what the product is.

The image I remember is the runner throwing the hammer backlit by a huge set. I recall the imagery of a small man against a large machine. That’s the connection to Modern Times.

Posted by: gergle at March 22, 2007 1:44 PM
Comment #213224


It was an Apple McIntosh ad.

The problem that I have is about the imitation. It is about using the footage from the original ad without crediting the original.
I see now that there is another ad on you-tube that rolls credits first acknowledging the Apple ad.


Ridley Scott, you know Blade Runner, Gladiator, etc…

Posted by: Rocky at March 22, 2007 2:02 PM
Comment #213265

Gergle, Nike, Apple, Taco Bell—ehh yeah whatever. The woman olympian with the sledgehammer threw me off—aaaaand that has to do wiiiiiith—oh yeah right personal computers, but ofcourse!!! Oooopsie! Sledgehammer, female olympian running in gym shorts, Orwellian theme, Big brother says, I guess, computers should be outlawed (?????). Those daring rebellious mega-corporations just breakin’ loose!! Finally after all these many years of strife and repression in a zealously capitalist marketplace on Wallstreet. Huzzah!

Bladerunner was actually Ridley Scott? Gladiator sure, hmmmm, what the hell happened?!! Did he suffer a head injury? Bladerunner on down to Gladiator—wow. Who knew?

Posted by: Gleep at March 22, 2007 6:10 PM
Comment #213283


The ad was made in 1984.

Posted by: Rocky at March 22, 2007 9:06 PM
Comment #213301


I understand that you are arguing about using the digital avi and and not crediting the maker.

While I fully can understand suing someone who uses your art, work product, or data without credit and who is attempting to profit through misdirection and confusion. I don’t understand why anyone would sue a YouTube user.

Much of the recently well publicized copyright infringment cases have been about monopolies attempting to extend their monopolies. That’s bad law, in my opinion. It’s the huge coporations with big law firms that generally win these things. RCA stole Farnsworth’s TV invention and used patent law to run him out of business. Come up with a good idea, and trust me you’ll either be bought out or sued into extinction.

This is my frustration with these media giants suing over fair use. I think most YouTube pieces ARE fair use. Even if they “steal” content. Jim Cramer recently stated that the reason behind Viacom’s lawsuit was because management is not meeting revenue expectations. Of course, they’ll state more esoteric and etheral reasons, but that’s what it’s about.

You Tube is a great creative outlet and computers are allowing average joes to alter content for their own uses. I think that is great. It’s something art students would do in their workshops, sharing it on the net simply allows others to share in the art.

I don’t believe anyone really owns an idea. Ideas begat other ideas. The problem is trying to bottle that. A good musician will always be able to sell his performances. Will he be able to become a bazillionaire and support a huge bureaucracy? Maybe not. Maybe that’s a good thing. When you produce a Paris Hilton album, maybe that’s a sign of sickness in that industy.

Posted by: gergle at March 23, 2007 12:46 AM
Comment #213320


That would explain the female olympian running in and throwing the sledgehammer through the largescreen TV (????). Do get a sense of humor, you make this such a chore.

Posted by: Gleep at March 23, 2007 9:46 AM
Comment #213329


“When you produce a Paris Hilton album, maybe that’s a sign of sickness in that industy.”

Actually I think that sickness began with Millie Vanilli.
Paris Hilton, however, has taken lameness to yet a higher level. There was a time when you had to actually accomplish something (besides being born), to become famous.

Prior to the “digital age” film making techniques were recognizable because they were hard to do. Curiously though, as those same techniques become easier, they become more expensive to produce.

The issue, as I see it, is that each generation seems less willing to pay homage to that which made their art possible.
Perhaps it is just our unwillingness to study history (or anything else, for that matter), that is the source of the problem.
There are, after all, two written versions of the book of Genesis (the book not the rock group) that predate the Bible version by millenia, yet they are not accepted as the truth. All three are the same, yet slightly different.

It would seem that plagiarism isn’t a recent phenomena.

Posted by: Rocky at March 23, 2007 11:00 AM
Comment #213331


“Do get a sense of humor, you make this such a chore.”

I have been told that I have a fantastic sense of humour.
I just choose to ignore that which I find un-funny.
Oh, and BTW, nobody said this would be easy. If it was easy, anybody could do it. ;)

Posted by: Rocky at March 23, 2007 11:06 AM
Comment #213350

Yes Rocky, it was such a momentous American event; the airing of that commercial, it’s like spitting in the eye of Harriet Tubman to even speak ill of it. Yes it was such a turningpoint in American Commercial history—ughhh shut-up!

Please DO NOT share any opinions of the Dunkin Donuts guy, pleeeeease! Yer’ killin’ me with this phony reverence stuff. The people who do that are the same people who think Katie Couric is a journalist.

Posted by: Gleep at March 23, 2007 1:37 PM
Comment #213388


For the portion of your rant that makes at least some sense;

“Yer’ killin’ me with this phony reverence stuff.”

It’s not reverence as much as it is respect. You know, the kind you earn, not demand.

Speaking of respect;

“The people who do that are the same people who think Katie Couric is a journalist.”

Whether or not I think Couric is a good journalist, I respect the hard work and dedication that she has shown through a career in the news departments of local TV and Broadcast networks.

Were you aware that Couric won an Associated Press award and an Emmy before she joined NBC News in 1989?
She has been in the News business since 1984, and has worked her ass off to get where she is.

It’s too bad that other Americans can’t be just as dedicated to their work.

Posted by: Rocky at March 23, 2007 5:26 PM
Comment #213395

Ohh Gawwwd Rocky, Rocky pleeeeease I give up, I give up. The overwhelming deafening din of mindlessly splitting hairs in pointless circles is killin’ me—aaaaghhhh…vomit (flush).

Matt Lauer is brilliant I suppose too—but ofcourse he is he won an emmy for banality and pointless questions I suppose too—aaaahggghh. Lou Dobbs has more than two topics they just never make it to his show—yes. Genius, brilliant all. John Tesh is a very talented musician he just likes him a little Jesus, Jack black is funny he just can’t express his humor that well on screen but he went to Julliard to study Operetic German—blechh (flush).

I know how this goes, I say someone and he’s great:


Oh Hitler was a great dictator in his own right, I wish other dictators had that kind of world dominating determination. Ya’ just don’t see that kind of rallies these days..

(Please do not post back and tell me how great Matt Lauer or Hitler is—have some mercy on me)

Posted by: Gleep at March 23, 2007 6:18 PM
Comment #213402


I speak of respect and apparently you have none for anyone.

I don’t see where you have added anything other than childish rants to this discussion, so what exactly is your point.

And please get to it without all the blather.

Posted by: Rocky at March 23, 2007 7:06 PM
Comment #213410

My first point, republican aren’t all that sly or clever, 2nd point hit Hillary harder so we don’t see her in the primaries as it would serve the democratic agenda (also somewhere got into my loathing of this over-hyping of Obama as viable). 3rd point the eighties were odd as to what it was we celebrated. 4th point the ad makes no sense when you break it down. 5th point someone has a sacred cow in the fight. 6th point sacred cow well-done. 7th point enough with all the sacred cows tough guy. 8th point the guy with the sacred cows is still going on about his sacred cows. 9th point he’s just doing this to get under my skin, I’m sure of it. 10th point holy crap he totally frickin’ is!!!!

Posted by: Gleep at March 23, 2007 7:54 PM
Comment #213412

Jeez, grow up, please.

Posted by: Rocky at March 23, 2007 8:00 PM
Post a comment