PMBD

(http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee128/OooldGreg/s2sbudweiser.jpg)

http://www.sims2-studio.de/premium/imagepages/image2.htm

Of course not. When I get in a snitty mood, probably sometime later this week, I will be sure to report them to Budweiser. Nothing will probably happen, but I will be more cheerful toward the weekend. :wink:

Good thing it is already in the Booty. I quite like it.  8)

She will never learn it. She already had that "subway" set she renamed to "foodway" and now Budweiser?

Maybe she enjoys the attention...

What? Is it the same person that had that subway/foodway set?

She really does not get it, does she?  :lol:

Wonder what she'll rename this one as. Pudweiser,Beerweiser.......?

I vote for Bootyweiser

Report here: http://contactus.anheuser-busch.com/contactus/email.asp

Personally, I’ve always referred to it as Buttwiper.

Hey! European Budweiser is pretty good! :lol:

American, not so much...  :roll:

Oh, I beg to differ. Budweiser doesn't like anyone infringing on their territory. Remember that lawsuit Budweiser made against the florist in Ohio who used their catch phrase "This bud's for you"? Here's a link to the suit for those who don't remember: http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/TTAB_Decisions/TTAB_Appeal_73259.asp

Budweiser will definitely do something about their logo being used, I have no doubt.

ETA: I went to the site to get the actual url of the set to put in the report to Budweiser and... It's gone. I can't find it. ROFL!!

What about this one:
http://www.sims2-studio.de/premium/imagepages/image12.htm
Visa, Mastercard, and Bank of America, all in one little set. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that those have also been uploaded to TSR. So triple the copyright infringement, unfortunately not double the targets.

and yet it WAS present on her site when this was posted this morning. Odd.  :?

How does she sell premium items on HER site that you have to get from TSR? Is one supposed to pay twice? Odder.  :?

I saw those too. Stuff like that is why I only try to download stuff in simlish. It is the sims world I don't need anything from mine in my fantasy game.

Looks like she also has Olivia's artwork up for sale as well, and Olivia offers a licensing agreement for 10 whole bucks, to use her art. I don't get these people. I honestly don't. :( I know she's not using a licensing agreement because she doesn't have it posted, which is pretty much all they ask.

Here's her package plans. You can get the images to this package, tubes, plus close-up's for 30 dollars and your granted a limited licensing agreement. It's not a strict one either.

http://www.creativeimagelicensing.com/a-n-p/o/olivia/oliviapackagea.shtml

Oh and PS you can get a lot of great artists licensing agreements at this site.

marilu is very badly :twisted:  :twisted:  it our guest book of Tarox visited :D  :D

cheers Budweiser :D  :D  :D

Oh she's a right dimwit.

Good grief.

Is it wrong to delight in the fact that we have the photographic evidence of her dimwittedness? She may pretend it never existed, but we won't.

Not only photographic proof - I have the set. ROFL!

Not just that, but we do have the set in the booty.

Now that's just fantastic.

And if she even DARES to deny its existence.....we have not only photographic but packaged proof.

Muahahahahahahaha!




(I think I am enjoying this a little too much.)

Oh I say enjoy it.

If she tries to weasel out of this she has a snowball's chance in hell of doing so.

http://www.thesimsresource.com/downloads/sims2/sets/571134/

Here it is. And no more Budweiser. I wonder if she will refund TSR members that paid for the set on her site.

I concur.  And if I did want RL stuff to intrude, it certainly wouldn't be...Budweiser!  Yes, I am a beer snob, I'll admit it!      :lol:

I think this pretty much confirms that this forum is being closely monitored by all sorts of TSR trash (and Jan, of course) because the moment we fix on a problem, it gets corrected. Of course, this pisses me off, because I haven't gotten around to reporting this and thus insuring a wonderful weekend for myself.  8)

Oh, there's still a chance to salvage your weekend - there's always Exnem's Disney stuff to narc on!

You folks tickle me pink, which is pretty hard to do considering... :P
I thought someone already reported exnem's Disney stuff.

All the better! Pescado has new IPs to watch, as they dip into the booty files.

It is also more convenient for us, as they apparently are all about testing to see how far they can push the boundaries and break the law, and self-correct when they are (inevitably) caught, and it's convenient for me, as I hardly ever go to their sites, but get to see the paysiter stupidity all gathered in one convenient place.

Well, I will have a wonderful weekend.  Sorry if I scooped you.

I wonder if she changed them because she read about it here or if she changed them because of the reporting to Budweiser?

Not to mention "Uncle Buck's" Disney stuff. :roll:

I wonder which of the personae came up with this name.   It sends out some pretty alarming vibes.  "Listen to Uncle Buck,  Cissie Mae, and don't tell anyone about those little massages I give you when we're alone."  :shock:

Remember that John Candy movie, Uncle Buck? That's what I think of when I hear that name.  :lol:

I reported Uncle Buck's Disney stuff. I feel great! :lol:

I can't really do much supporting the booty, but I figure every little bit helps.  I did "narc" on exnem to Disney a couple of weeks ago.  Here is the reply I received:



Re: copyright infringement of Disney
Designated Agent <designated.agent@dig.twdc.com>
ViewTuesday, August 28, 2007 5:53:49 PM
To:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Guest,

Thank you for your correspondence. We want you to know that we very much
appreciate the time you took to bring this matter to our attention. We
protect our intellectual property rights vigorously and we take reports
of suspected infringements very seriously. However, as you can
appreciate, our investigations are confidential. We neither reveal our
sources nor do we generally correspond further with them about the
investigation.

The information you provided has been forwarded to our legal department.


Best regards,
Disney Online Guest Services

oooooooo, exnem's in trouble now. Micky may come of as being all hugs and snuggles, but he's a real motherfucker when it comes to protecting his turf.

:lol:   Snarky, you kill me!  :lol:

You ain't shittin', Snarky.  I remember when I was in 6th grade back in the 70's, a girl I went to school with painted her family's garage door in Disney characters.  She did such an awesome job, it was covered by the local paper.  Needless to say, Mickey sent some henchmen to Michigan and made her family paint over them or face a lawsuit.... over an 11 year old painting their own garage door.

That's fucked up. Greedy bastards.

Disney also busted a daycare for the same infringement. An amateur artist painted Mickey and friends on the outside of the house and it took mere days for them to get a C&D order.

Apparently, they tried to do that to some childcare place in the UK that was using Winnie the Pooh characters.  However, as Disney doesn't OWN the rights to Winnie the Pooh, A.A. Milne's estate does, that got them in hot water.  As the estate threatened to revoke Disney's rights to the characters for being jerks.

But hell yes, Disney's overprotective about IP shit.  Anytime Mickey's anywhere near getting into the public domain, they manage to get the country's copyright laws extended, which is probably a very bad thing.

That is one reason I hate Disney. Sure I like some of the stuff the create, but I hate Mickey, always have, and the fact that they fuck up the whole system for everyone else really shits me. It won't be much longer before nothing ever comes out of copyright in USA, and the countries with leaders moronic enough to sign up to their shit (Thanks Johnny). Imagine if you had to pay someone every time you wanted to play some Mozart? That sort of thing is going to be a reality if governments continue to allow themselves to be "persuaded" by greedy corporations, and we all know that's going to stop.

Their hardassedness extends to their parks as well. A friend of mine worked at DisneyWorld in Orlando, part time in one of the shows, part time on one of the rides. He told us that they were SO anal about how their employees looked and acted at all times, and people would get disciplined for the smallest things....himself included:

He was working his ride, and a woman got suddenly and violently ill. Of course, he went to help her, to help her clean up, get out of the ride, etc. He got a tad disheveled in the process - go figure - but as soon as the woman walked away, his boss wrote him up because his shirt was untucked and his collar was messed up.

!!!!

He said if it wasn't for the show, he'd have quit right there.

Personally, I think that most of these companies should take advantage of the free advertisement.
Painting Mickey on a garage door shouldn't be reason to call their legal dept!
And Hec, that's ridiculous. I'd have stripped nakee and told him to fuck off...lol

Yeah, I've heard they're nasty to their employees. I imagine they have an obsecenly high turnover at their parks. All that forced enthusiasm with a bunch of inflexible bastards watching your every move would make life pretty depressing.

My neice worked in a Disney retail store in Las Vegas. After 3 months, she quit and my sister wrote to everyone in the family: "We now officially hate Disney. No more Disney items may be purchased by members of this family." They never did tell me what happened, but she was so angry, we all obeyed instantly. So we never went back to Walt Disney World, but visit Universal Studios Orlando instead.  :lol:

I don't know why anyone would want to work at a Disney theme park, when you could go work at Cedar Point, where they throw after-hours roller coaster parties for the employees.

And it gets hot enough on Lake Erie in Ohio, I can't imagine working in Orlando.

Apparently there was a comment by a "midge" there that was censored out. From what I can tell from the other posts, she was complaining that others had paid for it on the original site and now it was being offered at TSR...the sheep arguing that since it's also pay at TSR it's a non-issue. Yeah. That's logical.

Sure, makes sense to me. I mean why would it be a big deal if some people paid for it at one site, but never got it, and now have to go and pay for it at a different site. What could possibly be wrong with that?
 :roll:

I would have challenge them as fan art that was not being sold, if it had been my garage. A lot of people here in CA have Disney characters on their homes, cars. But, I think some of that stuff is just show to keep true idiots from trying to sell stuff with their copyright on things. The little elementary school here, right down the street. Now remember I am not far from Disneyland. They did a show on Beauty and the Beast from the cartoon. They charged 2 dollars per person, the proceeds were to take the children that couldn't afford it to Disneyland at the end of the year. So they could go with all the other children. Disney went after them by the throat. They only got to do one show, the second night got cancelled. It cost the school more than they earned. They had to pay for the licensing agreement to do the show, and had to cancel any future showings. They didn't care about threats of boycotts, etc.

But guess what? Myseriously at the end of the year all those children went to Disneyland from a non mentioned donar. Plus, they all got a free picnic. My children were long gone from the school, but one of the teachers told me it was Disney. The school wasn't allowed to disclose who did it to any of the children or their families. They didn't care if everyone boycotted them, they were making a statement. Or why else would they have turned around let the whole school go for free, pay for a picnic. You know good and well that cost them way more than what it cost the school for the licensing agreement. Then, not allow them to tell who the mysterious donar was?

When I was a teenager, I applied to all the stores at the mall that were hiring. The Disney Store hired me. They "strongly encouraged" girls to wear certain makeup, nail polish, and pantyhose. I was naive, I thought it wouldn't be a problem if I didn't do that and just showed up clean and neat, in the proper clothing, and did my job.

Well, I was naive, but not naive enough. The day I went in to sign the papers was the day I quit. I'm a lawyer's daughter, and I read every single line in the THIRTY or so pages they wanted me to sign. Included: a page saying anything I created while I was working for them belonged to Disney, whether it was for Disney or not. I read that page about 5 times. As far as I could tell, it meant that my stories, my doodles, my papers, my diary -- everything would belong to Disney if I made any of it while working for them for minimum wage.

I've never had to sign more than 5 pages for any other employer, and none of it has been that complex, including the stuff for working in a law firm where I handled confidential documents all the time. Disney paperwork for a kid working in a mall was longer and more complex than a mortgage. It was harder to understand than financial aid. Disney sucks.

Disney does indeed suck. Glad I don't work for them or endorse them (except for the fact that I love Kingdom Hearts even though I want to kill off the Disney characters).

And about that bar...midge's comment got deleted? All because they were upset about the item being free and now pay? So people can't have opinions on TSR? They're the definition of sheep.

HA!!  We're watching a film in Sociology called "Mickey Mouse Monopoly" and it talks about how Disney manipulates its image of itself, how Disney manipulates the public view of innocence, and what kind of perspective they put into our young girls.  It's quite disturbing.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=byaMd_PNyIY

The worse was the Beauty and the Beast.  I loved that movie, and it started talking about how it teaches girls to accept abuse and look for the prince.

Well, you can't entirely blame Disney for that as "Beauty and the Beast" is based on an older fairytale (although you can blame them for advocating the acceptance of the behaviour encouraged by the older story).

You might want to listen to this episode (http://www.logicallycritical.net/podcast/08%20Once,%20Twice,%20Thrice%20Upon%20a%20Time.mp3) of Logically Critical, as it is all about fairytales (but not about Disney, sorry) and is, I promise, very funny. I think he might even mention Beauty and the Beast at some point in it.

In the original fairytale, the Beast was a complete gentleman, kind and gentle the whole time Beauty was with him. He did con Beauty into living with him by threatening her father, but considering his position, it's kinda hard to blame him. He redeemed himself by letting her go to simply visit her family, which nearly killed him. Disney's Beauty needed to justify leaving because her father was dying, but that wasn't in the story. Gaston was, of course, totally Disney.

Disney made the Beast into a violent, spoiled brat. And they made the Prince in The Little Mermaid into a Prince Charming and turned the Witch into an evil fat ugly monster (she's a fat and ugly woman, obviously she's evil!), thereby completely turning the story on its head. I'm sure if they made The Snow Queen, they'd make the queen turn into a huge yeti in the end so Kay could kill her with a giant icicle.

I hate Disney a lot.

You know their new little meal ticket, just got posted on the net in the buff. They are freaking out trying to do damage control. What's worse is they think it was her boyfriend that did it. He's also her boyfriend in the High School Musical movies. Zac Efron?
http://tinyurl.com/2adagr

We watched the second half today.  It talked about how Disney perpetuates racial stereotypes.  The only representation of African-American people was in the Lion King, and they were the evil hyenas.  You know who I identified with growing up?  Pocahontas.  She was the closest thing to my skin color.  My mom didn't think there was anything wrong with tv and Disney until I told her I was white (which I'm not).  She went crazy and made me watch "Imitation of Life" and gave me a Kenya doll for my birthday.

*edit* BTW, yeah, when I read the original fairy tales, I was shocked.  More violence and gore in some, less in others.  Beauty and the Beast was better in the fairytale version.

More damage control since it seems sweet Vanessa has sent these types of photos twice before, once when she was just 15. Poor Disney.  :lol:

I'm not an expert on Beauty and the Beast (either the original or the Disney version), but your reading seems solid. The fact that they change old fairytales to fit certain societal ideas of proper behaviour and what makes a fulfilled life (or at least the Disneyfied version of them) is not a shock. I shudder everytime I see an ad for one of their "Princess" series pieces of garbage, as I see a lifetime of unhappiness for kids that buy into it (both girls and boys). However, you have to give them some leeway, as having Cinderella's step-sisters cut off their toes and get their eyes pecked out by birds, though accurate, would probably bring it up above a "G" rating :lol: .

The message within the original "Little Mermaid" is a much better one than the Disney version, I think (although, I will admit that it was some time ago that I read it...like, erm, 20 or 25 years :lol: ). While where I'm from the belief that reaching for your dreams even against reason and better judgement is put forward as an excellent goal, I think a dose of reality along with your dreams is not a bad thing. In the Little Mermaid, the mermaid is so fascinated by the life beyond the waves and the man she saved from drowning that she doesn't appreciate her own circumstances or that things may not work out as planned (and of course, they don't).

The fact that the Prince ends up marrying the woman who actually found him on the beach he'd been carried to and not the mermaid who saved him tells the reader that waiting for someone to appreciate you and your fantastic qualities or that there is a "Prince" somewhere out there for you are futile and unrealistic hopes. Plus, Disney made the woman that the Prince in the original story married and loved into an evil shrew (and she was turned into the witch who gave the mermaid the potion to change her into a human? And the "witch" was evil? What?! I was highly annoyed by that in the Disney film), in order that the mermaid's silly dream would come true. In the original the mermaid decides to sacrifice herself rather than kill the prince and his new wife, and accepts that that is result of her foolish fantasies and that she, and only she, is responsible for her own choices. Disney films, on the other hand, set kids up for a lifetime of disappointments and bizarre gender roles.

Of course, though, the Brothers Grimm actually originally censored the tales - and were in turn censorsed themselves.  The original story of Red Riding Hood had her being called a slut by one of the kettles in the house, and it wasn't a happy ending either.  Some of the other things are left in - like the name Rumpelstiltskin (the stilt with the rumpled skin - penis) and the original tale, was a metaphor for him plugging her vagina.

When the Brothers brought out their tales there was a big uproar and parents called for censorship, for fear of damaging their little children.  Here's one tale you won't read apart from in the older versions - this one is from 1884. It's called "The Jew among the Thorns" http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~wbarker/fairies/grimm/110.html Not quite the morality tales we're used to.

The thing about that is that those tales were not originally "fairy tales" in the sense they were meant for children.  These stories started out as folk tales that adults told each other.  When the brothers Grimm originally collected these stories, it was a scholarly effort at recording them--they had not yet realized that they could market them for children.

Tim