Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Whiskey Rebellion

brokenpianoforpresident.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 112 posts

Re: The Whiskey Rebellion

#81

Post by jfoutz »

ConstantineXVI wrote: post #79
corin_ wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm a scotch man myself (get that "e" out of me whisky), largely because of taste but I do also like the fact that so many great scotches come from family-owned distilleries - of course, even "family-owned" can be a big company with lots of money, but it's still nice that most of them aren't huge companies. Edit: worth pointing out that there are a bunch of independent distilleries in America, which I'm led to…

It doesn't help much that you're required to be licensed in the US to distill spirits at all (beer/wine brewing sans license is legal to a point, think a few states might disagree though), and the regulations involved make setting up shop a bit more difficult than setting up a still in the garage.

Well, we also license drivers and doctors. I don't know what a craft distiller's license actually involves, but hopefully it requires a certain amount of cleanliness and correct separation of the alcohol.

Re: The Whiskey Rebellion

#83

Post by excuse-me »

mikeash wrote: post #80
excuse-me wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the strict first amendment sense - no he isn't (with the possible exception of the Nirvana one) The parody protection is very narrowly defined, mainly to stop the target using it to squash opposition. You can't automatically use artist X's tune/style/etc to parody politician Y. And just making your own funny version of something is definitely not

The first amendment has nothing to do with this, as far as I know. The question of parody is entirely in the realm of copyright/trademark law. Can you give more information about how parody is defined in the context of fair use here? My understanding is that Weird Al would be completely within his rights to make all of his parodies without permission from the original artists, and that he only seeks there permission…

In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc. the 'live2 crew' won on their parody of "Pretty Women", because they were making a comment on the original song. While family guy lost "when you wish upon a weinstein" because they merely appropriated the "when you wish upon a star" song to comment America's stereotype of Jews. But they weren't saying anything about the song.

Basically I can parody your work to make a comment on it. I can't appropriate it to parody someone else.

Weird Al gets permission from the artist - but that's mainly a, don't cause trouble, keep the record company happy.

He would still have to pay for the rights to the music owners when the song is used, although the owner of the music rights may well not be the artist. Which is why some songs are performed live but not on the albums - the payment for singing "happy birthday" at a concert is very different from putting out a cd of it.

ps - I am not a lawyer - although my dog has been trained to piss on their BMWs

Re: The Whiskey Rebellion

#84

Post by excuse-me »

corin_ wrote: post #74
excuse-me wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The speyside was a nod to anyone out there that can pronounce Edinburgh and doesn't think that Scotland is in londonshire ;-) And yes Islay malts are wonderful. I could never understand the "knocking back a drink with a grimace" type drinks though.

Heh, I've spent 95% of my life living in Oxford, I got pretty used to "excuse me, can you tell me how to get to Oxford University?" What sort of thing are you talking about with the "knocking back.."? For most people the first time you drink any whisky is like that, for many so is the first time you drink beer.

Things like tequilla or vodka. The way people seem to drink the stuff despite the taste - rather than inhaling a good scotch

Re: The Whiskey Rebellion

#85

Post by tptacek »

jfoutz wrote: post #81
ConstantineXVI wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't help much that you're required to be licensed in the US to distill spirits at all (beer/wine brewing sans license is legal to a point, think a few states might disagree though), and the regulations involved make setting up shop a bit more difficult than setting up a still in the garage.

Well, we also license drivers and doctors. I don't know what a craft distiller's license actually involves, but hopefully it requires a certain amount of cleanliness and correct separation of the alcohol.

It's an artifact of prohibition that was later captured by commercial distillers as a way of reducing competition.

Re: The Whiskey Rebellion

#86

Post by ktizo »

excuse-me wrote: post #42
tptacek wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you look into it, you'll find that almost every American whiskey --- both the stuff you can get at Safeway and the enthusiast bottles --- rolls up somehow to a large corporation.

Well they are obvisouly going to be worth a few $$$ just because they sell so much of it. But the cynical engineer in me assumed that all the "Billy-Bob still pisses in every barrel just like his grand-pappy did in 1869" type advertising, meant that it was actually made in a chemical plant in New Jersey by Union Carbide! Must admit I've never tried the stuff - always worked on the principle that if it's not a single…

There's many good malts outside Speyside. Many of the distilleries round the Western Isles are awesome.

Re: The Whiskey Rebellion

#87

Post by ktizo »

excuse-me wrote: post #72
electromagnetic wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've trademarked vowels, I intend to sue J.K. Rowling, and all major authors for every AEIOU and occasional Y used. I figure it could be worth millions per novel.

The new laws introduced for the OxxxxxxxICS are ridiculous - it's now a criminal offence to use: ..any two of the following: Games, 2012, Two Thousand and Twelve Twenty Twelve Or use of any one of them alongside any mention of: gold, silver, bronze, London, medals, sponsor, sponsors http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/news/3983.asp

Someone should change their name to "Olympic Games 2012 Two Thousand And Twelve Twenty Twelve Gold Silver Bronze London Medals Sponsor Sponsors Mister Smith", or "Olympic Games Sponsors Mister Smith" for short. Then set up a burger van in collaboration with the Clan MacDonald, somewhere in central London.

Re: The Whiskey Rebellion

#88

Post by ascendant »

cwp wrote: post #18
excuse-me wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's worth how much in free advertising and brand image? Assuming that JD is actually owned by some mega-corp fizzy beer maker (they are not "brewers"!) it's a clever way of giving the impression that they are still good ol' boys. Compare that to the Disney corps hunting down of every sick children's hospital that paints cartoon characters on it's walls.

Yeah. They're behaving like reasonable human beings to fool us into thinking they're reasonable human beings. But they can't fool us. Imagine the evil they could accomplish if we gave them the benefit of the doubt.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not here.

Re: The Whiskey Rebellion

#90

Post by smithian »

excuse-me wrote: post #84
corin_ wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, I've spent 95% of my life living in Oxford, I got pretty used to "excuse me, can you tell me how to get to Oxford University?" What sort of thing are you talking about with the "knocking back.."? For most people the first time you drink any whisky is like that, for many so is the first time you drink beer.

Things like tequilla or vodka. The way people seem to drink the stuff despite the taste - rather than inhaling a good scotch

There are plenty of tequilas that are eminently drinkable on taste. Try some top-shelf anejo tequila, it will surprise you.
Post reply on HN