DescentBB

I don't really object to the level of coporate involvement in the Olymics these days but it does seem wrong some how when they are concerned about what brand of water bottle you are carrying into the stadium. Where will it all end? Will the spectators have to wear an approved uniform?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3565616.stm

Reminds me of that kid who got kicked out of school for wearing a Pepsi shirt on Coke day.

...lol. Society is a joke sometimes.

If some security goof wanted my water bottle because some sponsor paid him to, I'd shove the bottle down my pants and tell him to go ahead and take it,

While he's trying, (I'm way tougher than I look)
I would tell the goon that I bet I could find a dozen Lawyers that will sue him into oblivion for illegal search and seizure.

I'd make such a huuuuge scene then go straight to the press, and shout out so much ★■◆● that'd it would be fit for print in the National Enquirer.

I'd make sure to write the CEO of the Companies that tried to go Nazi on me and let them know I'll never buy a product or brand that's associated with their comglomerate evar... Even if they make my favourite beer.

I'd be Mr. Squeaky wheel.

It's just just about sponsors. I found this amusing page linked off slashdot today, which expressly forbids linking here without specific text or an unaltered image provided by them, and with a request in writing.

And there's also a lot of rules in place to essentially silence athletes and their support personnel from sharing their experiences with other people. I guess because they can sell it later? Beats me.

I'm not sure what's wrong with these people.

Tetrad wrote: And there's also a lot of rules in place to essentially silence athletes and their support personnel from sharing their experiences with other people. I guess because they can sell it later? Beats me

I smell China.

Smells like corporate greed.

I know that the Olympic organization agressively protects it's copyrite of the name and symbols connected to the games. When the games comes to your home town every company that uses the name Olympic as part of it's company name gets a threatening letter from the organization about unauthorized use of the name. If they respond and can show they have used the name for a long time and do not attempt to associate themselves with the games they usually get an exemption but it scares the crap out of some mom and pop operations and there are always articles about it in the papers.
Vancouver will host the winter games in 2010 and I know at least one long time greek resturaunt that is sure to get a letter.

Homer should rise from the grave and sue the IOC for prior art; the adjective Olympic clearly derives from Mount Olympus.

Haha, I wonder what would happen if they held the games in Olympia, WA.

Since this thread is getting tons of views and this is "kinda sorta" on topic;

In the 302nd Issue of EFFector:

* EFF Scores Landmark Win for P2P
* Hypocrite, Thy Name Is Real
* Texas Secretary of State Backs Down, Agrees to Postpone
Closed E-voting Meetings
* EFF Releases "Best Practices" Guide for Online Service
Providers
* EFF Weighs in on Plan to Improve Public Access to
Government Documents
* EFF Welcomes Four New Hires
* MiniLinks (7): Blacklisted Lately?
* Administrivia

For more information on EFF activities & alerts:
<http://www.eff.org/>

To join EFF or make an additional donation:
<https://secure.eff.org/>

EFF is a member-supported nonprofit. Please sign up as a
member today!

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

* EFF Scores Landmark Win for P2P

Ninth Circuit Declares Grokster, Morpheus Not Liable for
Infringement

Pasedena, CA - Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made
a crucial decision in support of technology innovators by
declaring that distributors of the peer-to-peer software
Grokster and Morpheus cannot be held liable for the
infringing activities of their users. The Electronic
Frontier Foundation argued on behalf of Streamcast, the
creators of the Morpheus software, in a case that pitted
dozens of entertainment conglomerates against two small
software companies.

The Ninth Circuit decision is based in part on the fact
that P2P networks have significant non-infringing uses, and
that they can help artists earn money. The ruling is
similar to the Supreme Court's decision in the 1984 Betamax
case, which determined that Sony was not liable for
copyright violations by users of the Betamax VCR.

"Today's ruling will ultimately be viewed as a victory for
copyright owners. As the court recognized today, the
entertainment industry has been fighting new technologies
for a century, only to learn again and again that these new
technologies create new markets and opportunities," said
EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney Fred von Lohmann.
"There is no reason to think that file sharing will be any
different."

The court's decision was unanimous.

"This is a victory for innovators of all stripes," added
von Lohmann. "The court's ruling makes it clear that
innovators need not beg permission from record labels and
Hollywood before they deploy exciting new technologies."

It is likely that the entertainment companies will appeal
the Ninth Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court.

Decision:
<http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID=234>
(EFF, PDF)

For this release:
<http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_08.php#001833>

And ya Corporate greed sux and they all should be struck by Lightning.

[img]oops%20I%20have%20to%20edit%20that[/img]