ftfy There's no way the fleadom mag could ever get the views that the original article got, let alone the additional interest it will spawn.
For moar lulz on this magnificent OSA footbullet http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/cob-loses-it-for-the-1-000-0001th-time.93017/#post-1868730
I thought it strange to see that the cult has forked over cash to add a link to this via Google AdSense; it seems somewhat reckless and desperate. I suppose it might be standard operating procedure for them every time they generate online content.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/busi...de-church-scientologys-fake-new-yorker/41971/ "Members of the Church of Scientology handed out New Yorker-like copies of their in-house magazine Freedom in front of Condé Nast's midtown Manhattan offices on Wednesday. The new issue consists exclusively of a "special report" on The New Yorker's sprawling February profile of ex-Scientologist Paul Haggis written by Lawrence Wright. "In a pretty snotty tone, Freedom calls the Haggis article "a 24,000 word odyssey to nowhere" and accuses Wright of shopping a book deal before the Scientology article came out and calls his sources "admitted perjurers and criminals." One article even goes after the New Yorker factcheckers who spent an epic eight hours going through 971 statements in Wright's original article. In the end, the magazine implores readers not to look to spectators who sit around commenting on how 'interesting' it all is as the lives of others pass them by. Instead, ask a Scientologist…" "You have to give Freedom some credit for attention to the New Yorker look and feel. The Eustace Tilley-inspired cover sports a surly-looking Wright with Haggis crawling out of his hat. The fonts and the layout are spot-on. There's even a cartoon caption contest! And a DVD! Animal New York posted some scanned images of the print edition's pages, but you can read the whole thing (and watch the corresponding videos) online." Only nine comments so far, some obviously from OSA.
I think so, but I got annoyed when I was doing a keyword search for Scientology on hollywood411.com yesterday and got that g-d ad. I proceeded to shoot off a complaint to Google, first for the auto-starting video if you click on the link, and second, for taking Scieno money. I admit, I am biased. If you run my real name through Google, RFW is the first two links. So yeah, I'm bitter and it's personal.
Good idea, will do New coverage: Scientologists target magazine – Albany Times Union Scientologists Publish Fake 'New Yorker' After Critical Article – Death and Taxes Darren Aronofsky Told a Bad Joke, and 6 Other Stories You'll Be Talking About ...– Movieline Church of Scientology registers protest over New Yorker story – National Post
too lazy to check if this has been posted yet Huffington Post weighs in http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/31/scientologists-new-yorker-lawrence-wright_n_944099.html
pic of it Scilons passing out the rag http://animalnewyork.com/2011/08/scientologists-defile-eustace-tilley-for-new-yorker-parody-mag/
Its trademark law not copyright law. But there still is fair use. I'm not a lawyer, but I understand that a news publication could use someone elses trademark logo in a report on a company or you could use it in a fictional publication book or movie for realism. I think so long as you aren't trying to pass off, i.e. counterfeit/misrepresent then there isn't a problem. However, that hasn't stopped small time webhosts in the past, shaking in fear and threatening to take down scientology critics pages after frivolous complaints from the cult about use of its trademarks. In these circumstances, I think the owner of the trademark probably enjoys the extra publicity.
some basic traffic stats from past 6 months on freedom dot org vs. The Apostate article URL (just as a baseline... will be interesting to see if there's any major changes by the end of September)
They did the same thing with SPTImes & AC360 vengeance exposes. insanity is doing the same thing over & over and expecting different results
The derail posts have been moved to garbage: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/thre...n-paul-haggis-new-yorker-derail-thread.93028/ Let me know if you want to continue the bickering - I can then put them in the OT derail graveyard.
Alexa numbers don't mean shit (sorry but it's true). They're only showing you page views by people who have their toolbar installed - which is practically nobody. Can't even use it as a trend-indicator, it's so skewed.
I'm looking for the bits in freedumb rag where they comment on the actual facts that are supposedly "59% dead wrong, 36% neutral and mudane, 4% mostly wrong and 1% incomprehensible". For example, I was looking for the bit where they prove that hubbard did in fact earn all those military medals on the photo they supplied to the New Yorker. Can you help me out?.... Oh wait.....it's a fucking comic. How are those trollshoes fitting?
I was going thru that as well, and personally i think they did a far better job on this slamfest at being so insanely out in the left field that its sure to drive public scilons to go look at the original article than they did on the SPtimes & AC360 slamfests. Atleast on the earlier ones, you could somewhat follow what freedom slime was talking about & grok what must of been said by the media outlet being attacked. but this one - its so far out there, it makes no sense whatsoever unless you are quite familiar with the original article. Overall, the amount of FAIL is quite impressive.
A comment in the State article: http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011...yorker_church_volunteers_protest_lawrenc.html
...and more... Scientologists Publish Fake ‘New Yorker’ After Critical Article Death & Taxes 1st Sept 2011 http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/137...blish-fake-new-yorker-after-critical-article/ ^ok, right, but this.... ... is doubtful. I mean they haven't actually followed through and litigated against the media in a very long time. They've only threatened, whined and baawwed.
You're not a lawyer but that's a pretty good summary, and yes, it all comes down to parody being very protected. I worked for Conde Nast's legal department actually and can speculate with some certainty that they would have no interest in going after Scientology for this on any legal basis, especially as a major media publisher they have significant disincentives to push the law in any direction other than pro-publisher/defendant/free-speech. A favorable ruling for CN in a hypothetical Conde Nast v. Freedom Magazine lawsuit would ultimately be bad for Conde Nast's business.
God Discussion picks up the story: Scientologists' angry response to New Yorker article--it's all out war now – God Discussion
Another one Bizzarre: Scientology Goes All Out on Nasty New Yorker Parody Issue Nothing much new except rehash of other sources, but I'm really liking this new trend the later articles are starting to pick up on:
If they say that Haggis only won an Oscar because of the anti-gay vote, do they say anything about why Tom Cruise has never won one?
This link should be added to OP, preferably at the top of the list since Tony broke it. Mods stepped on my post disabling me from updating it myself.
