Tags:

minor threat, major rip-off
June 23, 2005 1:37 PM Subscribe

Minor Theft: Somebody at the ad agency for Nike Skateboarding must be a Minor Threat fan -- they recreated one of the band's album covers for the marketing of Nike's Major Threat Tour. Did they ask permission, though? No.
posted by me3dia (73 comments total)

Assholes. Ian Mckaye is a really smart guy, but not very litigiously inclined (unlike say, Jello Biafra). I am very curious as to what he'll do.
posted by psmealey at 1:44 PM on June 23, 2005

I wish I were surprised by this, but, of course, I am SO not.

In fact, I am so unsurprised that I'm not even as sickened as I ought to be.

Ugh.
posted by dersins at 1:44 PM on June 23, 2005

I was going to read that page, until I realized it was having an epileptic seizure. It seemed impolite to stare. So I closed the browser.

(What sort of moron thinks that multiple flashing ads around their content is going to encourage reading it. Human vision is motion-sensitive.)
posted by bitmage at 1:46 PM on June 23, 2005

The tiger-style kung fu of Minor Threat's lawyers is strong, but the dragon-style kung fu of Nike's lawyers will defeat it!
posted by sexymofo at 1:47 PM on June 23, 2005

Your outrage is misplaced, I think. How many ad agencies have swiped from Roy Liechtenstein? How many dress manufacturers have swiped from Mondrian? This kind of appropriation happens all the time, and it's not necessarily stealing.
posted by MegoSteve at 1:49 PM on June 23, 2005

good god.
posted by mcsweetie at 1:50 PM on June 23, 2005

Well, they also stole the band's name and the text style in the band's logo. There's no originality here at all.
posted by punishinglemur at 1:51 PM on June 23, 2005

MegoSteve,
The difference is that I (and I hope most people) know who Lichtenstein and Mondrian are. I've never heard of Minor Threat.
posted by Robot Johnny at 1:56 PM on June 23, 2005

it's not necessarily stealing.

Yeah it's borrowing without asking. Actually unless there was a buy-out arranged or {god-forbid} a work-for-hire, the photographer owns the photo and the graphic designer owns the final composition.

This doesn't bother me, in the music industry it happens often
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 1:56 PM on June 23, 2005

this is really, really deep under my skin. dischord and minor threat represent something kind of pure and precious to me, something that taught me to question this sort of thing in the first place. and now, to see this appropriated this way 20 years later is really infuriating.

i know, i'm making a mountain of a molehill..but kids today do not get it. fuse-addled teens are going to see this and assume minor threat is back together and will be throwing nike's into the audience on the next warped tour or something.

then again, this is probably meant to be viral so people like me will talk about nike for a day. fuck.
posted by glenwood at 1:56 PM on June 23, 2005

glenwood I don't think kids today are any stupider than they were 20 years ago. If anything they're far more media and advertising savvy. Considering that, this was a hopelessly stupid thing to do and pretty much guaranteed to piss off the very people they are trying to attract.
posted by fshgrl at 2:05 PM on June 23, 2005

Not a big deal? Oh, that's good to know. In that case here's my new logo:

posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:06 PM on June 23, 2005

MegoSteve & MiltonRandKalman: The difference is that this picture is just about the same, and the writing style is the same. This is not an homage to a famous image-- it is an appropriation of a non-famous image.

MiltonRandKalman: an homage to the music industry?
posted by ibmcginty at 2:08 PM on June 23, 2005

Wasn't it Nike who used The Beatles recording of Revolution for one of their TV adverts without permission? If The Beatles and their crack team of lawyers don't scare Nike then Minor Threat will seem appropriately titled.
posted by dodgygeezer at 2:08 PM on June 23, 2005

//cleans puke off monitor//
unfortunately, i dont think there's anything dischord can do. It's not the exact cover photo/art. And as MJ and OJ have proven, the (in)justice system only works for whoever has the most $$MONEY$$. I think the only thing to do is to join in the anti-nike effort put forth by people like blackspotsneaker.org
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 2:11 PM on June 23, 2005

Funny, Ian didn't mention anything about this last night during The Evens' show in Atlanta. And he talked ALOT. Maybe it's breaking news.

This is particularly unsettling because Minor Threat and Fugazi have always been so anti-merch. Even to the point of never offering their own. But that's probably precisely why they chose MT to riff on. Burroughs in the 90s, now Minor Threat. Jesus! (Or at least J. Lennon too I think.)

Hey maybe a lawsuit could fund a new "Dischord Foundation." Now that would be delicious...
posted by micropublishery at 2:14 PM on June 23, 2005

posted by gwint at 2:14 PM on June 23, 2005

One, two, three... GO!
posted by basicchannel at 2:15 PM on June 23, 2005

Get 'em, Ian. Sue 'em to pieces and donate the money to some good causes.
posted by keswick at 2:19 PM on June 23, 2005

When we have nothing left to give
There will be no reason for us to live
But when we have nothing left to lose
You will have nothing left to use
We owe you nothing you have no control
Merchandise keeps us in line
Common sense says it's by design
What could a businessman ever want more
than to have us sucking in his store
We owe you nothing
You have no control
You are not what you own

- "Merchandise" by Fugazi
posted by basicchannel at 2:21 PM on June 23, 2005

Minor Threat lyrics for inspirational Nike commercials that get you through that next mile:

I can't keep up,
Can't keep up
Can't keep up
Out of step with the world

When I first met you girl you didn't have no shoes

You see me and you laugh out loud
You taunt me from safe inside your crowd
My looks, they must threaten you
To make you act the way you do

You're on top, you're on the ball
You think you've seen it all?
THINK AGAIN

All I want to know is
Am I holding on? Am I moving on?
What can we do, what can we do?

There's something racing
Inside of me
I'm waiting, I'm waiting
For a sign
Waiting for something
Got nothing but time

All as predicted in "Cashing In" of course...
I’m taking a walk on the yellow brick road.
I only walk where the bricks are made of gold.
My mind and body are the only things that I’ve sold.
I needed the money cause I’m getting old
posted by VulcanMike at 2:33 PM on June 23, 2005

Well, they also stole the band's name and the text style in the band's logo. There's no originality here at all. --Punishinglemur

Yeah. But how fucking punk rock is that?
posted by Rawhide at 2:34 PM on June 23, 2005

Nike: just steal it(tm).
posted by clevershark at 2:51 PM on June 23, 2005

glenwood I don't think kids today are any stupider than they were 20 years ago.

I didn't mean to imply that kids are stupid, but from my aged perspective kids are probably more accustomed to the idea that "punk" bands regularly sell their songs and images to commercials and participate in corporate-sponsored activities.

And that is not how it was 20 years ago.
posted by glenwood at 2:59 PM on June 23, 2005

GO IAN GO IAN GO IAN!!!

*starts humming "Merchandise" along with basicchannel*
posted by scody at 3:00 PM on June 23, 2005

I tried looking for pics of the dead Heavens' Gate folks with the "Just do it" tag line, but GIS couldn't help me with that...
posted by clevershark at 3:07 PM on June 23, 2005

than to have us sucking in his store

I always thought it was "sucking in his SORE", which while less direct was just an awesome image. Hmph.
posted by freebird at 3:10 PM on June 23, 2005

It's visually so close (and the whole concept is based upon the bands name) it's surely intended as a deliberate homage, or nod to the band and album cover. I'd be suprised if this was an 'let's chance it and hope noone will notice' effort.

Like the pitchfork article suggests - seeing as the Nike product range it's promoting is aimed at skaters who - in the UK at least - are big punk fans it looks to be a deliberate (clumsy?) attempt to appropriate Minor Threat's authenticity.

In terms of copyright, well the thing is the photograph has been restaged (it looks like) so it's not 'technically' a copy - although it's so close to the original that it's not likely to sidestep accusations of plagiarism.

Like others, I have my doubts there will be legal repercussions but the art director responsible should hang their head in shame.
posted by stumcg at 3:14 PM on June 23, 2005

a) Minor threat was influential and very necessary to be familiar with, but proponents of a conservative and straight-edge lifestyle. if we want to get into why that in itself is bad, we can.

b) Isn't it funny the double standard we mefites hold? aren't a lot of us supporters of copyleft, or even, absence of copyright? yet, when the corporations do it, we are indignant and want to puke. i hate corporations like nike as much as you do--but not for reasons like this. because though they are insidious bastards in every sense of the word, they are no more guilty than negativland, at least in principle, in this situation. Without giving credit? Who cares? If you start a band and all you're concerned about is the credit you could potentially be robbed of, you should retire immediately. The problem is people use the same line of argument with anti-filesharing--this is only valid if the band starts out with delusions of grandeur, which most do. I'll quote my personal template on wikipedia:

"I am content releasing my work completely to the public without conservative, territorial, possesive, and capitalistic need to claim some sort of stake in it. I do not need thousands of cleverly written loophole-"some rights reserved" licenses, nor do I need to debate about the superiority of any of them, rather, as psuedo-anarchist, I toss the entire equation out the window and render it effectively useless. I fully realise that a man in Nicaragua could profit wildly from my efforts and gain the millions of dollars I never did under this current system, and could theoretically hunt down every copy and burn it, leaving him as the sole distributor; however, this does not offend me, rather, I allow all to be shared, taking the risk and fully knowing the potential repercussions, rather than let the menace that is copyright conquer yet another soul."
posted by Lockeownzj00 at 3:22 PM on June 23, 2005

As lame as Jane's Addiction in the Coor's ad, yet while a little more depressing, not as "in my face," so bleh. I'd be surprised if the band did anything about it.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:29 PM on June 23, 2005

This is wrong on so many levels. Nike might as well walk up and kick Ian McKaye in the balls.
posted by trbrts at 3:39 PM on June 23, 2005

Good point, Lockeownzj00. If this was the case of an artist recreating artwork copyrighted by a major corporation, I'm sure no one would be cheering for the corporation to sue the artist.

And Pitchfork should shut up, too. They've appropriated album art themselves.
posted by driveler at 3:41 PM on June 23, 2005

re:b)
You're argument references (what you seem to think is) consistent support for all kinds of piracy, which misses the reasons behind that. Generally, we're all for the little guy in his ongoing war with The Man (unless they're goths, in which case we hate them).

Opposing Nike for their tactless misappropriation of a dead band's album cover is perfectly in line with the idealogy behind much of the pro-piracy rhetoric here, even if it seems to contradict one of the forms it has previously manifested.

Generally.
posted by hototogisu at 3:41 PM on June 23, 2005

I wouldn't worry too much about what kids these days will think. They've never even heard of Minor Threat. They think Green Day is "old school."
posted by stenseng at 3:45 PM on June 23, 2005

Completely different case driveler--Pitchfork is satirizing the band responsible for that album cover with their image and the subsequent content o the article. Pitchfork also didn't use that image as a prime component of a revenue-generating ad campaign (how many people even read their columns? Me and you? yeah). Nike is.

(btw, Optimus Chyme, could we make some bumper stickers with that on it? Cause that is gorgeous)
posted by hototogisu at 3:45 PM on June 23, 2005

I think Nike would more likely call it an homage, since it's pretty unmistakable what it's referring to, and the target audience for the ad will more than likely be familiar with the original work. Not to mention that there's a precedent for recreating cover art.
posted by stefanie at 3:48 PM on June 23, 2005

Yeah. But how fucking punk rock is that?
posted by Rawhide at 2:34 PM PST on June 23 [!]

I thought about how the Sex pistols stole their amps, speakers, wires and microphones from... Elton John? Deep Purple? Queen? David Bowie? somebody like that.

I tried looking for pics of the dead Heavens' Gate folks with the "Just do it" tag line, but GIS couldn't help me with that...
posted by clevershark at 3:07 PM PST on June 23 [!]

All I gould find was this amusing pic for searching 'just do it koresh'..
posted by Balisong at 3:58 PM on June 23, 2005

As much as I dislike Nike and despite all of my warm feelings for Minor Threat, Ian, Fugazi, etc., if some smaller skateboard-related company did something like this, I think I'd find it funny, somewhere between parody and an homage. A number of years ago, I remember seeing a skateboard deck with artwork that looked a lot like a ripoff of Big Black's "Songs About Fucking." I thought it was great.

I'd be willing to bet money that the rip-off was deliberate. Minor Threat may not be so well known in all circles, but if you've ever gotten into punk rock even a little bit deeper than Green Day, there's a good chance that you've heard of Minor Threat, and if you haven't, there's no time like the present to go out and buy their "Complete Discography."
posted by bucko at 3:58 PM on June 23, 2005

This is a betrayal of everything punk ever stood for.
posted by flashboy at 4:13 PM on June 23, 2005

flashboy, you're too slow.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:35 PM on June 23, 2005

There's a difference between a kickass group paying homage to a kickass musician and an amoral multinational corporation appropriating a non-corporate band's aesthetic, flashboy.

And Lockeownzj00: despite the song, MacKaye and Minor Threat never associated themselves with the straight-edge movement.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:38 PM on June 23, 2005

flashboy, you're too slow.

Oh, bum. Always the bridesmaid, me.

There's a difference between a kickass group paying homage to a kickass musician and an amoral multinational corporation appropriating a non-corporate band's aesthetic

Response 1) The Clash are better than Nike, definitely, yes.

Response 2) No, there isn't.
posted by flashboy at 4:52 PM on June 23, 2005

And Lockeownzj00: despite the song, MacKaye and Minor Threat never associated themselves with the straight-edge movement.

that's true--but they were clearly the springboard, and obviously they couldn't have associated themselves with a movement that didn't exist yet. furthermore, all the idealogies that they promote can be defined within the straightedge lifestyle. so i'd say, as a word of reference, they are straight edge.
posted by Lockeownzj00 at 6:13 PM on June 23, 2005

proponents of a conservative and straight-edge lifestyle. if we want to get into why that in itself is bad, we can.

I'm a person just like you
But I've got better things to do
Than sit around and fuck my head
Hang out with the living dead
Snort white shit up my nose
Pass out at the shows
I don't even think about speed
That's something I just don't need

I've got the straight edge

I'm a person just like you
But I've got better things to do
Than sit around and smoke dope
'Cause I know I can cope
Laugh at the thought of eating ludes
Laugh at the thought of sniffing glue
Always gonna keep in touch
Never want to use a crutch

I've got the straight edge

A bit OT, but I'm curious as to why you think that's bad. "Straight Edge" was, I thought, a reaction against the nihilistic drinking and drugging that had resulted in so much loss and unhappiness for so many people among their comtemporaries, as well as a statement about the ridiculous cliches that wasted rock stars are.

I'd never associated this with conservatism in any way, as MT/Fugazi's politics seemed far from conservative to me, but I am curious as to what your perspective is on this.

I loved MT when I was in high school... and still do (they are about my age), but admittedly, I may have missed some nuance here and there.
posted by psmealey at 6:14 PM on June 23, 2005

they were clearly the springboard, and obviously they couldn't have associated themselves with a movement that didn't exist yet. furthermore, all the idealogies that they promote can be defined within the straightedge lifestyle. so i'd say, as a word of reference, they are straight edge.

This is what Ian MacKaye has to say about being credited for the straight edge movement/lifestyle:

"I'm credited because I coined a phrase and wrote a song about it. I'm not going to spend any more energy than I already have explaining that. From the very beginning I've tried to say that this is not my opinion. That whole thing just makes me realize I don't have any control over what people think of me. And I don't really give a fuck."
posted by Jairus at 7:53 PM on June 23, 2005

"proponents of a conservative and straight-edge lifestyle."

WTF are you talking about? Conservative? These guys spent their entire fucking careers fighting consumerism and the excesses of capitalism. They also found time to write songs against racism, cops, flags, pollution, date rape, the treatment of native americans, U.S. foreign policy, etc., etc. By any normal usage of the word "conservative" in modern politics, MT and Fugazi are exactly the opposite.
posted by Mid at 8:27 PM on June 23, 2005

In the corporate world, laws stand in for morality, and as far as I can tell, this is perfectly legal. Mad magazine has been spoofing movie posters etc for over 40 years, and been sued more times than anyone, and each time the courts found that there is a right to satire/homage/whatever.

Wrong:absolutely.
Legal:most likely.
posted by Edible Energy at 8:54 PM on June 23, 2005

"That whole thing just makes me realize I don't have any control over what people think of me. And I don't really give a fuck."

Somewhat off-topic, but this was my major issue with the "straightedge" kids back when I was in high school. Those who were inspired to take on the name and eschew drugs, liquor and sex missed the whole point. It was about thinking for yourself and making your own decisions.

Changing your clothes, your friends, your musical interests and your habits to a very narrow and trend-defined set was not about thinking for yourself -- for those who actually paid attention to the lyrics, becoming "straightedge" in its eventual form was about as despicable as "snort[ing] white shit up your nose."
posted by VulcanMike at 9:12 PM on June 23, 2005

Wow. This is rich. I'm totally baffled. I can't imagine why Nike would decide to run with this. It's a powerful image, but Nike is great at coming up with their own.. None of the rationales I can think of hold water. And for those mulling over the technical aspects of the copyright, what about that logotype?

I feel bad for anyone associated with MT.. I can imagine it feels like a very personal violation, hell.. it offends me.

It appears to me, the first step should be getting these guys:

NIKE SB RIDERS SCHEDULED TO APPEAR
Brian Anderson
Paul Rodriguez
Todd Jordan
Wieger Van Wageningen
Danny Supa
Dan Murphy
Grant Taylor
Omar Salazar
Lewis Marnell

To refuse to ride, or perhaps schedule wardrobe failure.

Info from Skateboarding.com
posted by Jack Karaoke at 9:17 PM on June 23, 2005

Just a thought about the earlier idea of this fitting the MeFi "Down with copyright" musings...

If it was a cool band or organization ripping off a big faceless corporation, that's cool.

If it was a big faceless corporation ripping off a cool band or organization, out come the torches and pitchforks.

As I said, just a thought.
posted by Samizdata at 9:35 PM on June 23, 2005

legally, this would do nothing but cut into Discord's operating costs, which benefit any artist on the label more than most bands on major labels who haven't already released two platinum records.

I think the only one who could win the fight would be Nike, who probably never thought it would come to this. A lawsuit could easily be turned around as being all about money.

And it took a long time for me to discover that the Minor Threat T-shirt that came out with this image wasn't sold by the band or discord, and should be considered a bootleg. If anything, NIKE could use that as an example that the image wasn't a copyrighted image.

There's something perverse about this, but the best way to fight this is to educate the little 'uns.
Good luck with not (I say not because I think they're stupid, either, I just question their interest levels. Surely some would understand, and that's a hell of a lot better than none.)

[on preview]: Wow, Jack K. already did better research than I. (stupid FindLaw). Those skaters would be a great place to start educating, assuming they don't know, or wouldn't resent people fucking with their sponsor.
posted by Busithoth at 9:39 PM on June 23, 2005

afterthought.. if Nike team riders were in touch with their "inner Mckaye", they wouldn't be riding Nike. Oh well.
The vast majority of the people who are going to be upset by this already have a negative opinion of Nike, so it's not like they're driving people away.. that's what's funny about this, the peope who feel strongly about that image aren't the target audience. They are appealing to a very specific demographic - kids who are familiar with the image as an empty icon. Even if they know the music, it's also an empty relic (for lack of looking) to plenty of people. The more I think about this, the more it makes sense, in an "embrace entropy" kind of way.
posted by Jack Karaoke at 9:59 PM on June 23, 2005

Does anyone who know anything about copyright law and such care to comment on this?

It seems the set up making "satire" permissible has nothing to do with what Nike is doing--this isn't satire under anyone's definitions...
posted by hototogisu at 10:02 PM on June 23, 2005

7/2/05
OKIE STREET SKATEBOARD DEMO
1350 Okie St. N.E. (IN FRONT OF DREAM NIGHTCLUB)
Washington, DC 20002
Demo 3:00PM-4:00pm
Signing: 4:00PM-6:00PM

For more contact these Nike SB dealers:
Elite Boardshop @ 703-591-3003
Pit Crew @ 301-698-1813
Dominion @ 804-359-7384

posted by tsarfan at 10:16 PM on June 23, 2005

I'm not too sure but some of the issues may be: Does it create confusion in the market place? Will those looking to purchase Minor Threat products be fooled into patronizing Major Threat? What are the damages? What income due to Minor Threat was taken away by Major Threat? If Major Threat never happened, how much more money would Minor Threat have made? Anyone?
posted by StickyCarpet at 10:23 PM on June 23, 2005

It does create confusion, as it has here, because it is unclear as to whether Minor Threat is in any way participating in Major Threat.

I would argue that if I was a kid whose interests include skateboarding and punk rock, I would likely assume that this tour either had the blessing of the band or might include music from the band otherwise why all the similarities?

The damages would at least equal what Nike pays other bands for their liknesses, images, or endorsements. The arguement isnt that Minor Threat is losing money because of MJ, it's that MJ is leeching off MT to legitamize an event and/or Nike product(s) without MJ's approval.
posted by tsarfan at 10:33 PM on June 23, 2005

... without MT's approval.

i am, obviously, far from straightedge
posted by tsarfan at 10:36 PM on June 23, 2005

Minor Threat have to be in on this, in which case it would be sad that if they were to sell out it would be to a sneaker company who uses indonesian sweatshops to produce shoes that retail up to $700 a pair

I say MT is in on this because the second stop of the skate tour is in their hometown, the nations capital. If Nike was going to blatantly rip off such a iconic image, would they be so dumb as to rub it in the punkers' nose in their own backyard?

This is what Dischord Records (AKA Ian MacKaye) had to say on it:

"No, they stole it and we're not happy about it. Nike is a giant corporation which is attempting to manipulate the alternative skate culture to create an even wider demand for their already ubiquitous brand. Nike represents just about the antithesis of what Dischord stands for and it makes me sick to my stomach to think they are using this explicit imagery to fool kids into thinking that the general ethos of this label, and Minor Threat in particular, can somehow be linked to Nike's mission. It's disgusting."
posted by Jairus at 11:03 PM on June 23, 2005

source, Jairus? I'm interested, as are others, what on Earth Ian might do about this. I looked at the Dischord site for information on this, too, and came up empty.
posted by mwhybark at 11:28 PM on June 23, 2005

The source is Pitchfork.
posted by drpynchon at 11:49 PM on June 23, 2005

ian mackaye better look in his closet
posted by sixtoes at 12:52 AM on June 24, 2005

Meh.

I really can't understand the outrage here. Like a couple of earlier posters, I'm a strong believer in the freedom to sample, and this freedom should apply to corps and lame marketing.

Let them do it and let them be ridiculed when their attempt falls flat, as this sort of thing usually does when used for marketing, but calls for legal action are really over the top and violate the 'free reuse' ethos most of us have.
posted by pandaharma at 1:25 AM on June 24, 2005

Best example of this is Tom Waits' legal battles.

I'm all about copyleft, but I can't help but side with Waits when I hear about the companies that try to take his heartfelt songs and use them to sell toilet paper.

I guess to me copyright infringement is like grafitti: when it's a good piece on an abandoned building, it's no problem. When somebody tags up my favorite bookstore, they should arrest the vandals. Maybe it should be illegal in both instances, but prosecutable only for the second - when there's an interest in the crime. Does anybody care when Nike's Swoosh get's appropriated? besides Nike?
posted by destro at 10:04 AM on June 24, 2005

Yes, conservative. It does not seem like the time or place, but the hatred towards drugs and drinking is misguided--yes, it is. Drugs as a whole have had a history of being misrepresnted, factually and socially for years now, and it seems like they'll never get a chance with sXe'rs.

I don't doubt that MT had some good ideas, but I can't listen to a song with the line, "But I've got better things to do than sit around and fuck my head." It implies that there's this sort of moral high ground, where all the intelligent people spend their time doing arts and crafts instead of getting high. The point is: getting high isn't 'better' than "doing" something, and "doing" something isn't 'better' than getting high: they're both justified and both things that people do.

adults should have the right to put what they want in their own bodies--and to lump all drugs together is incredibly ignorant, since half of the "drugs" in the world are literally harmless.

there are people that "destroyed" their lives because of drugs. or was it the drug? the drug was a catalyst--if you are using drugs to the point where it is excessive, to the point where you don't want to deal with reality anymoer, you are using them for the wrong reasons and giving the rest of us a bad name. i won't deny that they haev some very valid mentally therapeutic effects, but when you start drinking to drown your sorrows is when you're doing it wrong. and that's why half the rehabilitated drug users relapse: we focus on belittling the person, and demonizing the drug, not fixing the problems in their lives that lead them to excessive drug use.

"I'm credited because I coined a phrase and wrote a song about it. I'm not going to spend any more energy than I already have explaining that. From the very beginning I've tried to say that this is not my opinion. That whole thing just makes me realize I don't have any control over what people think of me. And I don't really give a fuck."

Yes--he isn't associated with the straightedge movement. Those opinions are not his own. But in the simple definition of the term straightedge, if he doesn't drink smoke etc. and actually looks down on those who do, I consider that straightedge.

It's interesting what we define as conservative. The worst blow for me is when someone goes to great lengths to be progressive and still falls short on something like this. It's like, you say they haven't, but they've still got a hold of your brain. Lot's of what we "do" is traditional and conservative and people don't realise it.

As for the sXe movement itself, separate of this, it is an objective, stubborn movement that I laugh at. I laugh at because it's not different from any other blind institution.

And as for the wonderful issue at hand:

Let them do it and let them be ridiculed when their attempt falls flat, as this sort of thing usually does when used for marketing, but calls for legal action are really over the top and violate the 'free reuse' ethos most of us have.

well said.
posted by Lockeownzj00 at 10:15 AM on June 24, 2005

time or place to argue this, i meant.
posted by Lockeownzj00 at 10:15 AM on June 24, 2005

I think this whole thing is just fucked up.

Nike is clearly using muscle to do whatever they want. It's can't be a mistake.

I went to Nike's site today and learned all about "Nike Skateboarding". I don't giver a shit about them and normally would never even be interested in anything by Nike, but I imagine there a quite a few other people, like myself that went to their site today becuase of this whole fiasco.

And what can Dischord do? I don't see them having the money to fight against a giant like Nike. It would be nice if a group of lawyers got on their side and helped them out.

I'm not sure if anyone remembers a while back, George Tabb from MRR had a band called Furious George. His album covers looked like a Curious George record, but it was clear it was something else. He got sued by Haughton-Mifflin and ended up having to change his band name. (Heh, even though his name is George and he is quite Furious!)

This Minor Threat thing is almost the reverse. I hope someone can stick up for Dischord here and help them out. They deserve it.

Oh, and when this tour actually shows up in DC, I hope those kids raise hell and show Nike they shouldn't fuck with them.

For the record, I firmly believe that Dischord had absolutely nothing to do with this. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain dumb.
posted by punkrockrat at 11:38 AM on June 24, 2005

who's the agency? odopod?
posted by specialk420 at 2:20 PM on June 24, 2005

Wieden + Kennedy is Nike's agency of record. I'd look to them before Odopod in re: to assigning culpability.
posted by hapax_legomenon at 8:05 AM on June 25, 2005

Update: Nike apologizes; pulls flyer.
posted by scody at 11:52 AM on June 28, 2005

Some worthy legal commentary here, for the record.
posted by mwhybark at 4:49 PM on June 28, 2005

ehhm, for poserity:

posted by Edible Energy at 6:30 PM on July 7, 2005

[sic] posterity
posted by Edible Energy at 6:31 PM on July 7, 2005

« Older CENSORED! BY U.S. GOVERNMENT! Changes to our phot... | US House passes flag-burning b... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

minor threat, major rip-off June 23, 2005 1:37 PM Subscribe

minor threat, major rip-off
June 23, 2005 1:37 PM Subscribe