Advertisement

jedre

Follow

Comment history

Joe-College.com ordered to pay Kansas Athletics more than $660,000

In response to many -

there's a fair use right to parody. Otherwise, MAD magazine wouldn't exist, and many an SNL sketch would be illegal.

September 29, 2009 at 10:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Joe-College.com ordered to pay Kansas Athletics more than $660,000

that's just an outstanding rebuttal.

I'm not reading 100 replies. I do have a day job that I don't want to quite.

September 29, 2009 at 10:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Joe-College.com ordered to pay Kansas Athletics more than $660,000

Does the Jayhawk Food mart still exist?

The Jayhawk Inn/Hotel?

September 29, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Joe-College.com ordered to pay Kansas Athletics more than $660,000

And I suppose you guys have never seen the "Muck Fichigan" shirts at Ohio State in the last 10 or more years?

September 29, 2009 at 7:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Joe-College.com ordered to pay Kansas Athletics more than $660,000

NOTHING they sell uses any KU trademarked logo or KU official font.

"Kansas" is the name of the state, last I heard, and is public domain.

Their store is RIDDLED with signage saying that nothing is trademarked or endorsed by the University.

There's no infringement, plain and simple.

Appeal! There was an obvious conflict of interest on behalf of the judge.

And they outsell because the shirts are cheaper. Make the licensed product for sale without ridiculous licensing FEES, and I'll buy more. I'm sure all of that money goes directly to the student athletes, too.

September 29, 2009 at 7:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Break Obama infatuation

Cal Thomas is an idiot. And he quoted Adam Smith - the grandfather of capitalist pig-ism. Read a book, Cal, you'll learn something.

February 6, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ban on drivers' use of phones weighed

Everyone should be aware of the discussion on this issue that started yesterday:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/may...

Many of your questions will be discussed.

May 2, 2006 at 10:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Drivers' use of phones draws city's attention

Against my better judgment...

This seems, perhaps, to be an issue of conflicting rights. Some feel that they have a right to use a cellular phone while they drive. Perhaps this is true. But I also have a right to a safe roadway, free from things we know to be harmful. This includes sober, licensed drivers driving at the speed limit, in vehicles that meet safety requirements - adding the lack of cell phones isn't a stretch. I have a right to health, probably first and foremost.

It's the old "your right to swing your arm ends at my nose" concept. By talking on a cell phone while driving, you're swinging your arm/car right into my nose/car. Again, I'll point out that others doing so (even if they don't hit me) increases accident frequency, which increases what I pay to my insurance company. So I'm personally paying for your "right" to talk on a cell phone.

I honestly believe people (city, state, and national governments worldwide - this isn't just a Lawrence thing) are trying to reduce potentially fatal risks to drivers in this instance, not to take away our rights.

May 2, 2006 at 1:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Drivers' use of phones draws city's attention

Just another topic for discussion - something that I think both "sides of the aisle" can agree on.

My car insurance is based in part on the likelihood of me getting into an accident - the company has to make enough money to pay claims back out, right? Things unrelated to me as a good, attentive driver figure into my insurance rates - like whether my car has an anti-theft device (it cuts down on theft - company saves $), and how many accidents people in my region get into on average (I had to pay a heap more when I lived in a mountain state with chronic ice, snow, falling rock, and other regional hazards).

So if the research is to be trusted - and I think that there's enough from different sources that it can be - and not talking on a cell phone while driving reduces overall accident rates... my insurance company doesn't have to pay out as much money to claims - and they can charge me less.

I like this.

It might be my right to talk on a phone and drive (it might be my "right" to drink and drive, or to not wipe the snow off my windshield) - but if people reduce known risks... then I don't have to pay money for other people taking those risks.

Law or no law, stopping cell-phone conversations while driving can keep us from paying for other people's mistakes. I think Liberals, Moderates, Conservatives, and Martians can agree with that? In all seriousness, stop me if I'm wrong here.

May 1, 2006 at 11:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous