 |
| Is that sexy, or WHAT? |
Bobby Beausoleil = Herbert the Pervert? - Click to Read
Sassy Bottoms, or Sassy Deputy District Attorney? - Click to Read
Sassy Bottoms - Click to Read
Available...Bobby Beausoleil's 1985 Parole Hearing Report with mention of Sassy Bottoms - Click to Read
Questionable Questions from B&B Enterprises Questionnaire! - Click to Read
10 comments:
How sweet, he even included the old fashioned skip a row tie up on the Converse high-tops. He doesn't miss a sick detail, does he?
What a wonderful world
Sometimes it's just better to let things slide, eh Beth?
Sounds like Patty would drag me into a copyright controversy. So here's an interesting story where I thought the LA Times didn't have the balls to print my commentary.
Some time ago, the LA Times published a half page disertation by some "college professor" who wrote a complaining article about the greedy kids of Martin Luther King, because they were charging money for use of his personal materials. He was especially unhappy that they were charging $80,000 for use of King's image for a giant statue to be made public somewhere. The "professor" even commented that after-all - King intended for EVERYONE to enjoy his good works for FREE. That King stuff really belonged to the people.
NOW, bare in mind, this is a "law" professor who pan-handles $$$ from unsuspecting folks like Patty, under the CON that "I'll teach you a thing or two."
My rebuttal to the "professor's" written masterbation, was actually printed by the Times, with some authentic Hendrickson humor edited out - and can still be found on the internet.
In short I explained that Dr. King intentionally "copyrighted" most all of his materials, including his "I have a dream" speech. In fact, he even sued 20th Century Fox for infrinement of his most famous "I have a dream" speech. The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court and the court's Decision is still studied by real "law" students - even to this day.
That the above mentioned "law" professor apparently never even heard of the famous King Copyright case is most telling. That he did NOT understand Dr. King's INTENT by copyrighting his good works, simply means that another "college professor" is out there FUCKING kids or their parents out of their hard-earned money.
It also means that much college instruction is merely STATE sponsored proaganda. Dr. King was as much a "conservative" promoter of his own media materials and personna as he was a "civil rights" pioneer. In fact - HE was both combined. BUT we only hear one side of a story - the one that screams the loudest. . A protected copyright is but a means for a father to pass on something like a pension to his wife and kids. It is also a great way to keep a pissed off author from shooting an infringer - like in the good old days.
Of course, IF we went back to the days of "Frontier Justice" life would be a lot more exciting.
NO drugs, just "give me a wiskey, barkeep." Unfortunately, in the old West, there were no movies to "pirate," but you could "share" any woman you wanted - after sundown - and nobody gave a HOOT - cause every society gets the LAW it deserves.
I was sitting in a theater a year or so ago. The series of ads they ran included one that sported the slogan "come to now!". I sat there thinking that they obviously didn't know who thought that one up first and that Manson shoulda copyrighted that one.
In college I was surprised to learn that any term paper, essay or thesis I wrote was not my property, but the property of The University of Arizona. I'm sure that doesn't surprise Mr. Hendrickson one bit.
In the case of photographs, the copyright goes to the photographer and the photographer only - even if you paid him/her to take the photo. As Starship pointed out, once you post a pic in a public forum it becomes free game for parody and such, as long as you aren't selling it.
Come to Now: isnt that something he borrowed from Scientology?
Patty also agrees with Robert that much of higher education is irrelevant at this point. For instance, a BA in English? Philosophy? Art History? Don't waste your time, unless you have money to burn. Or unless you are going in to academia yourself, like Clare Watkins who, though spectaculary talented, is one of the very lucky ones for getting where she has got. Like a pro basketball player.
Here's a really good one: You're 7 years old and have a real talent, In art class you paint a picture. The teacher keeps it or it goes into the school's storage room for many years, until YOU become a known artist. One day your paintings are worth upwords of $100,000. Who owns YOUR "painting" made at school? Better yet, who owns ALL the creative "works" stored in the schools' store rooms?
BUT, don't be so sure about the copyright legality regarding "paradies" "free use' etc. The famous OBAMA "Hope" picture was declared an "infringement," by the Federal Court. Unfortunately, many great works will NEVER be seen or read, because of the rampant "piracy" in the world.
I never heard the one that posting a picture on Facebook dedicates IT to the world for free. Do you have a Federal Case number where that decision was rendered?
Most likely, the Helter Skelter copyright would be the most interesting and controversial. Bugliosi OBTAINED the material elements while on the government's payroll.
How about this one: You are arrested and YOUR photo is taken by the cops for YOUR mug shot.
WHO owns the copyright to YOUR mugshot? That's kind of like: Who owns the "bullet" still lodged in Bernard Crow?
What makes "Intellectual Property Rights" so interesting is THEY are the foundation of a civilized society. Obviously, in the "caveman" days, such rights were a moot issue.
My very first day before a Federal Judge on my first copyright case, the stern old Judge asked: "What kind of experience do you have in the justice system." "None" I responded, with the addition that: "I am somewhat of an historian on the Old West" and he quickly cut-in with: "Oh, we'll have no "frontier justice" in here." That prompted me to realize there was a new game in town called: Lawyers and judges gott'a make a living too !!!
YES Patty, but IF "Little" Paul did NOT suck on Charlie, would her book have been that the same success?
As a filmmaker, I can tell you: it is THAT scene that will SELL the movie rights. And for the straight folks authentic sex scenes by Sadie = will explode on the wide screen.
Patty agrees that Clare's notoriety as the kid of the guy that gave Charlie that infamous beej probably did not hurt her writing career. HOWEVER, she is still very talented and didn't get her professorship on notoriety, alone.
That being said, Robert, did you notice that we are agreeing with Leary in a roundabout sort of way - it IS about sex! Hey, Leary!
Post a Comment