23 Jun 05
Originally posted by darvlayHmm, looks like the Nike image theft is pretty blatant. Underhanded yes (because they stole the image), but hardly a digusting ploy. It's an ad, plain and simple.
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/news/05-06/23.shtml
Hopefully this target market is not stupid enough to fall for such an underhanded, disgusting ploy.
You really should read that critique of counterculture book, "The Rebel Sell: Why The Culture Can't Be Jammed".
23 Jun 05
Originally posted by PBE6It may not be disgusting to you but it is to me.
Hmm, looks like the Nike image theft is pretty blatant. Underhanded yes (because they stole the image), but hardly a digusting ploy. It's an ad, plain and simple.
You really should read that critique of counterculture book, "The Rebel Sell: Why The Culture Can't Be Jammed".
And why should I read that book?
23 Jun 05
Originally posted by darvlayBecause it touts the opposite view point to yours about the "appropriation of cool", and it's always nice to have a second opinion. I'm guessing the fact that the image Nike stole represents rebellious culture, and is now being used to serve Nike's corporate interests, makes you madder than the actual theft itself. This book discusses situations like that.
It may not be disgusting to you but it is to me.
And why should I read that book?
23 Jun 05
1 edit
I think people will see right through it. Maybe if they had left out the similar wording, it wouldn't be so obvious.
Still I don't think Dischord should be able to claim the image, with or without the combination with whatever text.
Cause in that logic, going down the line, they should pay Rodins descendants (inheritants?) for it, and he in his turn probably got it from some guy taking a dump.
By the way, I don't know the band, maybe if I did I would be mad as hell.
23 Jun 05
Originally posted by PBE6Well, you're right on the point, really. Will this book belittle my pious beliefs? 😉
I'm guessing the fact that the image Nike stole represents rebellious culture, and is now being used to serve Nike's corporate interests, makes you madder than the actual theft itself. This book discusses situations like that.
23 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by darvlayNah, you're mostly safe. The book is a critique of the counterculture (extreme left) from a socialist stance (still left, but definitely to the right of counterculture rebels). The main point the authors want to make is that the counterculture passes up practical solutions to problems (ie. gun control) in favour of total revolution of the system (ie. eliminating the "culture of fear" in America - an example taken from the book discussing Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" ).
Well, you're right on the point, really. Will this book belittle my pious beliefs? 😉
But consumerism, and the competitive nature of consumption (buying things that are cool to make you cool, thereby distinguishing yourself from other poor slobs) gets discussed quite a bit too. That's the relevant bit.
24 Jun 05
Originally posted by PBE6I was interested in the book that you mentioned so I googled it and this happened:
Hmm, looks like the Nike image theft is pretty blatant. Underhanded yes (because they stole the image), but hardly a digusting ploy. It's an ad, plain and simple.
You really should read that critique of counterculture book, "The Rebel Sell: Why The Culture Can't Be Jammed".
http://www.geist.com/endnotes/index.php?ID=71
They say it's the crappest thing since second hand toilet paper, though I was sceptical of the review because the guy used the word 'polemical', which I hate.
The Major Threat poster is blatant plagiary though, nike should be ashamed of copying Minor Threat's cover considering the lengths that nike go to in protecting their trademark swoosh. More evidence of corporate hypocrisy doesn't really surprise anyone though does it? We've already made our beds.
