Olympic organisers shut down “Space hijackers” protest Twitter account
blog.indexoncensorship.org
blog.indexoncensorship.org
If you are a business customer just tell them that you aren't buying from them because you don't like the olympics attitude. Then wherever-the-f* 2016 will have a little more difficulty finding suckers.
If someone like Cisco got the message that Olympics = expensive / anti-social / corrupt, then they might not be rushing to sponsor it. That's why `cool` web companies don't sponsor golf or yachting
You think? Somehow I don't imagine BP or P&G or Cisco saying 2016 Olymipcs committee: "sorry, we couldn't sponsor you anymore, that excuse-me guy from Hacker News really got us in the tough spot, so we have to choose between being associated one of most watched and admired events in the world and his business, so we can't really do anything here. Maybe in 2020..." Olympics are popular, probably vastly more popular than the Hijackers bunch, that describe themselves as "We're a bunch of fuck-wits". I have nothing against them having their fun, provided they don't hurt anybody, but given the existing trademark laws, it is hard to expect a different outcome. And if you plan to boycott every business that defends their trademark, you have a lot of boycotting to do...
Formula 1's image used to be exclusive/glamour/rich and so had Rolex type sponsors. Then when tobacco adverts were banned it went after young/adventure/excitement types. But do RedBull really want their cool/hip/trendy young customers in Seattle to picture RedBull with police shooting democracy protesters at the Bahrain GP?
For example, IBM sponsor golf - Apple don't. IBM's customers don't care that the golf tournament is being held at a course that doesn't let women in - Apple's certainly would!
BP - frankly they could put baby seals into a wood chipper on national television without damaging their public image!
But CISCO are the most vulnerable to image. Up to now they sold to big business who just bought on a salesman's word. But now they are trying to be the face of the internet to regular buyers. Having their name plastered across news reports about visitors to the olympics being banned from posting twitter/youtube/facebook doesn't look so good.
I had a parody twitter account which was accused of trademark infringement last year. Twitter just asked me to change the logo to make it more clear that it wasn't the official one (I changed the shape of it rather than just one of the words), and everything carried on as normal. The whole thing was over in a couple of days and my account stayed online the whole time.
Edit: Their account is temporarily suspended and not shutdown. If they change the branding and verify their account they will be reinstated.
As Livingstone prepared to sign, he paused for a moment. Then he looked up at the I.O.C.’s executive director, Gilbert Felli, who was standing by his side, and said, “My lawyers advised me not to sign this contract. But I don’t suppose I’ve got any choice, have I?”
“No,” Felli answered, “you haven’t, really.”
From the 2012 Olympics "Using The Brand FAQ" [2]
>4. Who is allowed to use the Games' Marks? Official commercial partners, sponsors, suppliers and licensees are allowed to use the Games' Marks in accordance with the terms of their agreements with LOCOG or the IOC. See our current partners. > >We have also granted a number of non-commercial partners helping to deliver the Games the right to use our brand. This includes central government departments, the Greater London Authority and boroughs hosting various events for the Games.
So it's more likely than anything they were taken down just for using the Olympic name and modified logo
[1] http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-05/D9UTL52G0.htm [2] http://www.london2012.com/about-us/our-brand/using-the-brand...
A bit like the Anti-Nazi league, presumably Nazi is a registered trademark of "3rd Reich inc" and so they should be banned for copyright infringement.
"This legislation offers a special level of protection to the Games and their sponsors over and above that already promised by existing copyright or contract law. A breach of these acts will not only give rise to a civil grievance, but is a criminal offence."
I live in London and the city has turned to shit since it was announced. Everything is literally broken and being fixed up and convered in turd polish.
The last 5 times I've bothered to commute in rather than sitting on my arse at home, the public transport is screwed.
Nonsense. The enforcement of the Olympic Games trademarks is overly broad. And this is a parody, they would be wise not to sue them.
The protestors couldn't have asked for a better aid to their cause than the suspension.
Wow. Way to give the legitimate and serious issues around censorship a bad name.
Does book burning still count or have we raised the bar to extreme renditioning before we can be concerned?