Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-16-2006, 05:33 AM   #1
DarkIce
 
DarkIce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Austria
Posts: 311
Corporate Blasphemy

Maybe you don´t know Max Barry. But he wrote two great books, Syrup and Jennifer Government. Here´s a statement of the author which I found interesting.

Quote:
Corporate Blasphemy
In many religions, it’s forbidden to speak the name of God. Or at least, the manner in which you can speak it is restricted: for example, Judaism forbids defacing the written name of God, and most prohibit the use of God’s name in a derogatory or insulting manner.

I thought about this when I heard about H.R. 683: the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last year and is now headed for the Senate. The most interesting part of this bill—to me, at least—is that it may make it illegal to use trademarked names in fiction. So I might henceforth be unable to publish a novel like Syrup (which is set partly within Coca-Cola) or Jennifer Government (which features Nike, McDonald’s, and others).

Many people seem to think that’s illegal already. When I was writing Syrup, I was often told it would never be published until I took out all the real company and product names. I remember one guy in particular telling me the “Golden Rule” of fiction writing: “Never use a Coke can as a murder weapon.” Because, apparently, Coke would descend on you with an army of lawyers. You could only get away with it, he said, if you used the product in a positive way—for example, your hero loves drinking Coke. But he doesn’t use it to kill anyone.

This sounded ridiculous even at the time. I wasn’t pretending that my novels exposed actual events that had taken place in Coke or Nike; I was just using them as a setting, in the same way I used Los Angeles and Melbourne. I could have invented fictional companies, just as I could have invented fictional cities, but then I’d also have had to work in descriptions and history to build up in your head the kind of company or city I wanted you to see. Coke, Nike, L.A., and Melbourne were all convenient shorthand.

And sure enough, I didn’t have any legal issues in the U.S. with either Syrup or Jennifer Government. In both cases the publisher wanted a legal disclaimer pointing out that they were works of fiction and not based on real events, but that was it. We were never contacted by any company and never sued.

(Things were different in the UK, where free speech laws are weaker. Syrup has never been published there, and the publisher got more and more worried about Jennifer Government the closer we got to publication. Eventually they got a whole bunch of lawyers together to come up with a legal strategy, and this was: wait six months and see if anyone sues the American publisher first. If you had gone to law school for six years, you too might be able to come up with brilliant tactics like this.)

Part of the reason Syrup and Jennifer Government were able to be published was trademark law. This allows one company to sue another if they think they’re using a confusingly similar name or logo; in essence, the goal is to prevent customers from being deceived by imitators. But that’s all: the law contains a specific clause—a clause that H.R. 683 will rewrite—denying companies the ability to block non-commercial uses of their name, such as when it’s incorporated into a novel.

The current situation is exactly as it should be. I don’t believe I should be allowed to deliberately make up lies about companies and pass them off as the truth, nor start selling my own brand of sneakers called “Nike.” But if I’m writing a novel about cola marketing, why should I have to pretend that Coke and Pepsi don’t exist? Companies have made themselves loud, intrusive parts of society; why should artistic depictions of the world have to scrub out any unsanctioned mention of them?

But this is exactly what companies want. They spend billions of dollars to get their names on our lips and their logos in our eyes, but letting us talk about them is dangerous: we might say something they don’t like. They want what Naomi Klein calls the “one-way conversation:” to be able to speak to us—endlessly so, through billboards and television and radio and product placement in your movies and the back of your bus ticket—without allowing us to speak back. Unless, that is, we’re saying positive things about them; unless we’re “on message.” And so they seek complete control over their names, to ban us from uttering them unless it is to speak praise.

Companies used to be pieces of parchment. Then they gained more rights and more protections until they had the legal status of a person; you can now be sued for defaming them. But that’s not enough—of course not; nothing will be enough so long as their inbuilt goal is to endlessly expand. So now they want to be more than a mere person. They want the kinds of rights that have previously been reserved for the superhuman. They want to be gods.
SOURCE
__________________
"Jump off roofs with me"
DarkIce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2006, 10:20 AM   #2
WolfMoon
 
WolfMoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I own Pitseleh!!
Posts: 3,747
That's a very interesting read.
WolfMoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2006, 12:31 PM   #3
Godslayer Jillian
 
Godslayer Jillian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: El Paso, Texas/ Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Posts: 9,203
How can you kill someone with a Coke can?
__________________
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world.

I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
-Mikhail Bakunin

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
People who say they don’t care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don’t care what people think.
Godslayer Jillian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2006, 01:06 PM   #4
pitseleh
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,059
See "The Chronicles of Riddick" (the movie with Vin Diesel). Only he does it with a metal cup, which is harder, of course.

If you don't have that movie handy right now (it's good, I swear!), I'll tell you: You saw off one of the ends, so as to make it sharp and jagged. If you're Vin Diesel, you just tear it off with your teeth or something. Then, you jam it into the heart of your victim, give it a sharp twist, yank it out, and voilá - canned heart!
pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2006, 07:55 AM   #5
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Corporations in the states already have legal status outside the law. Making their names holy is just the next step.

For example, lets look at Lee Iaccocoa and Ford/Chrysler's Pinto line. The Ford Pinto was made back in the 70's/80's. It had a design flaw which was recognised after the first few thousand were already on the market. The flaw was, when hit from behind the doors 'accordianed', which means they crumpled like an accordian and ceased to open, and at the same time the bolts on the rear axle which were made too long in the factory deisgn would slam into the gas tank, penetrating it, and causing sparks with the metal-on-metal friction causing the gas tank and car to burst into flames.

With the doors jammed and the car in flames, the occupants were left to fry.

Now, this was discovered early on, and the solution was to put two small rubber grommets on the ends of the bolts to keep this from happening. The total cost of the grommits was $0.15. Of course to outfit all the cars already sold it would have cost a few hundred million for all those recalls, plus under the law they would have to refund sales if asked.

So what did they do? Nothing. New Pintos got the grommets, old ones already out there were left alone as it was too expensive to fix. Expensive how you might ask? Well it's like this...

A few dozen people were killed because of this exact flaw. A few dozen others were mained and almost killed. All together I think the number was 180 people that were effected. However, paying for their medical bills and lawsuits was 70% cheaper than issuing a recall.

Lee writes about this in one of his books. It's called 'good business' by the industry, and he is hailed as a leader in the corporate world.

He knew about the flaw, knew about the possible chance of death, but let this happen because of the bottom line. And, because the company did this, not an individual, there is no criminal penalty. Still isn't. If a company puts a dangerous product on the market, knowing of its dangers, they can be held liable for damages, but thats it.

So, corporations can legally kill people if it helps their bottom line, and the board of directors as well as the CEO can even know about it, say they know about it, and not have to worry about charges, as corporations can't be held on criminal charges because they are an 'idea', a theory, a collection of individuals doing business. They are not a real entity, so they can't be taken to court.

So yeah, making their names a 'holy' thing that can't be mentioned is the next step before letting them totally run the government. In a capitalistic society that opens its market to pure capitalism, your promised this will be the outcome in the end, as the companies will get enough money and power to control if not outright take over the government.

This is merely the next phase as they move up the food chain of power in the states.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2006, 12:38 AM   #6
DarkIce
 
DarkIce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Austria
Posts: 311
CptSternn

Thanks for adding your comment. Interesting and confirming things. *shiver*
__________________
"Jump off roofs with me"
DarkIce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Blasphemy Shamtare General 7 01-22-2011 07:34 PM
Corporate Goth Valerius Fashion 18 03-13-2008 09:22 AM
Blasphemy? NIN Vs. Bauhaus 24 Hours by Joy Division KontanKarite Music 23 10-16-2007 07:13 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:30 AM.