![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-170060-100x100.png\")
\"Hanging a moon is disgusting.... I plan to dig into it\"
Bad choice of words there.
\"Hanging a moon is disgusting.... I plan to dig into it\"
Bad choice of words there.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-43535-100x100.png\")
God Love Newfoundland!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
So, the franchise owner says that mooning is \"Just disgusting,\" and according to the reporter, he plans to \"dig into it?\"
Someone needs to start GOATSE checking his text!
\"How did I get here? This is not my beautiful house! This is not my beautiful wife! MY GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE?\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-270939-100x100.png\")
this reminds me of the saturday night live where they have the male ex-strippers working at a fast food restaurant. sadly though, no one i've ever talked to has seen this episode but me. \"oh so you want the nuggets huh....\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-72554-100x100.png\")
I love the \"he didn't wash his hands, either\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-169089-100x100.png\")
got a good laugh outta this one...especially the comments.............
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-177102-100x100.png\")
It says using meat the next day that was kept overnight in the cooler. Not meat that wasn't kept overnight in the cooler.
So, no proof of a major corporate consipiracy to hide evidence of using tainted meat. Instead, proof that teenagers goof off at work.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-59017-100x100.png\")
Am I the only one who found \"...hanging a moon out the drive through window...disgusting...Iplan to dig into it...\" HILARIOUS??
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-141147-100x100.png\")
Nice to see CBC reporting the hard hitting news. Excellcent use of tax dollars. I kid, I kid. CBC carries The Hour and Hockey Night In Canada, so no complaints for me.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-286801-100x100.png\")
Honestly? If I got mooned by a drive thru worker, I would be on the phone with the owner and/or the police/health dept. SO FAST.
They have Dairy Queens in Canada??????????
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6838-100x100.png\")
yeah, this is one of the reasons I really really REALLY don't trust teenagers and my health.
A complete lack of understanding of the consequences of proper food handling is just the beginning.
But it's not just teens. I've seen adults wearing plastic gloves doing unspeakable things (well, I can speak of them):
- wiping down counters with dirty rags, then pulling tortillas out of the bags for the next order.
- smoking: while wearing the gloves.
- wiping their noses -- on the gloves.
- shaking a friends hand, then going back to carving meat at a Vegas casino buffet carving station.
- handling cash, while wearing gloves.
It would be one thing if they then changed gloves, but in all these cases (except the smoking) I observed the employees touching food products with the soiled gloves.
It's important that we as consumers take an active interest in our health -- because we can't trust the government, the stores, or the employees to do so.
So, if you doubt the employee has clean gloves, ask him or her to change them prior to your order, be it at Dunkin Donuts, the burrito cart, the big supermarket deli, or the buffet carving station.
And TELL THE MANAGER. If the manager doesn't give you a satisfactory answer, TELL THE LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH.
There's nothing like being shut down for even a day to make a restaurant take safe food handling procedures more seriously.
Goofy Newfies.
Penn and Teller's Bullshit! did an episode on germs. Your butt is much cleaner than your hands.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-169958-100x100.png\")
\"Where do you draw the line between goofing around on the job, and goofing around on the job then posting it on the internet for anyone to see\"
well, i'd say that the line is drawn somewhere around the posting on the internet for everyone to see, but the reporter may not realize that.
@Antediluvian: - handling cash, while wearing gloves.
i can't STAND it when i see someone try to make me a sandwich (or whatever) after handling cash... i'll ask them to change their gloves.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-90329-100x100.png\")
You know, I thought Clerks II was just a movie... Apparently it is based on a true story...
should NOT ahhh, damn no wonder I've been unemployed for the last 12 years...
j/k
@trollkiller I was thinking exactly the same thing! Reminds me of Tobias' constant 'poor word choices' on arrested development.
The owner called the mooning disgusting?
Does Joe Buck happen to own this DQ?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-295660-100x100.png\")
This probably goes on at 90% of cheap food places...thememployees just aren't stupid enough to post it on Facebook. One of the cafeteria cashiers at my school almost got fired for surfing porn sites on the touch-screen-cash-register-computer.
will someone please tell me how these videos are NOT copyrighted by the person who took them?!? Why does the news media get to show any person's video they want?
Staged?
@meneye: will someone please tell me how these videos are NOT copyrighted by the person who took them?!? Why does the news media get to show any person's video they want?
It is called \"Fair Use\".
[www.copyright.gov]
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered \"fair,\" such as criticism, comment, news reporting,, teaching, scholarship, and research.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-257922-100x100.png\")
@trollkiller: Aaaaand also because they were posted on to a public site. You have to actually own the copy rights before you can claim them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-179639-100x100.png\")
@youbastid: Thats not correct, at least for American copyright laws. Protected items are copyright upon creation. The person who owns the copyright can post where they choose and still not lose that copyright.
Posting content online does not give consent to redistribute or reduce or remove a person's rights a as copyright holder unless they explicitly state otherwise. This is why creative commons is used for a lot of what is posted online. That gives the people who created some form of media that is under copyright an easy way to grant some use permissions beyond the standard fair use (and even what trollkiller mentioned, the examples of fair use are still somewhat restricted.)
@tolldog: So what constitutes that what they created is a protected item?
They created a video with a cell phone. If I make a video with a cell phone, it's only mine as long as I don't post it somewhere. In order for it to be both mine AND for me to post it somewhere, I have to copyright it. What they posted wasn't copyrighted material, under any definition of the term. This is why \"One Night in Paris\" is perfectly legal to buy.
@youbastid: You are a bit confused about copyrights, let me see if I can help clear it up for you. This pertains to just Copyrights in America.
You own the copyright on any original work that you \"fix\" to any median. Example: You tell a story you do not own the copyright to the story. You write the same story you own the copyright the instant pen touches paper. You record the story you own the copyright on the recording as well as the story.
In the case of a video each frame along with the entire recording is copyrighted automatically.
You do not need to register a copyright. The only advantage to doing so is if there is a copyright infringement.
The copyright owner for \"One Night in Paris\" would be the person that pressed the record button on the camera. Paris sued for invasion of privacy not copyright infringement. World Wide Red Light District now owns the copyright.
@mgyqmb: I didn't see the Penn and Teller show, but since feces is mostly made up of bacteria, and there have been reported cases of Hepatitis being transmitted because someone didn't wash their hands after using the bathroom, I'm gonna go ahead and call \"Bullshit\" on Penn and Teller. (The shows I did see were hack pieces anyway.)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-252038-100x100.png\")
I've had \"dinner roll\" fights with kitchen staff before.... but using meat that has been left out overnight to feed to customers is just dangerous.
I guess this is what happens when you pay rebellious, resentful angst-ridden teens practically nothing for a highly stressfull, demanding, demeaning job like fast food service.
Btw.... Had no idea there were Dairy queens in canuckia.
@goller321: The episode in question included a bit on the usefulness of paper toilet seat covers. They attempted to \"prove\" that these covers were unnecessary by doing petri dish experiments with swabs of people's hands, faces, and buttocks, only to discover that yes, there was more bacteria on people's hands than on people's butts.
Trouble is, paper toilet seat covers are there to protect people from contact with bacteria from the FLUSH RESIDUE on the toilet seat, not the bacteria from other people's butts. The scientific thing would have been to take a swab of the toilet seat cover, but they didn't, which rendered that particular episode BULLSHIT indeed.
@trollkiller: and I believe that Rick Solomon sold the video in the case of Paris Hilton.
but that still does not explain why I can't upoad content from television networks to youtube and count it as 'news reporting', 'teaching', or 'commenting'.
From my experience with that region of Canada, they don't seem to be the sharpest pencils in the box.
From what I saw, the teen demographic's main pastimes were dropping out of school, getting drunk and breeding.
@meneye: Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1.
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2.
the nature of the copyrighted work;
3.
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
BTW Canadian law are different. I do not know what constitutes fair use in Canada.
@trollkiller: \"You do not need to register a copyright. The only advantage to doing so is if there is a copyright infringement.\"
Well that would be pretty much the only reason to register would it not? Why else would you register a copyright for any reason other than to protect yourself against infringement? How is this different than the case here?
@kashmirkong: Wow, way to propagate a stereotype that all Newfoundlanders are stupid, inbred drunks. I'm sure teenagers don't do stupid things ANYWHERE else.
@youbastid: Registering your copyright gives you certain extra protection against infringement, but you can still sue someone for infringement even if you don't register your copyright; it's just easier to win.
Here's a link, and the FAQ from copyright.gov:
[www.copyright.gov]
Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section \"Copyright Registration\"[1] and Circular 38b,[2] Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.
Great, my beautiful and totally insightful comment hasn't shown up. Usually if you post about that, it magically appears. Let's see if the pattern holds true.
Ah-ha! Magic FTW!
To answer the question about how can the news station show this given the copyright, while I can't answer directly for Canadia, the US Copyright office offers this:
\"...summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report...\"
Since this was codified in 1969 from court decisions, I would personally hope -- but not necessarily expect -- that it would be interpreted (in the US) to include \"brief scenes\" from a film or video.
But even more importantly, \"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.\"
Source: [www.copyright.gov]
-----
*Unless you're the NBA and think you own copyright on game scores:
[www.iusmentis.com]
Them crazy Canadians. They are going to \"digg\" into the mooning.
@Antediluvian: If registration isn't that important, why is the \"poor man's copyright\" (mailing yourself your own ideas and writings in a sealed envelope for the timestamp) ineffective?
Pretty much says if you plan on winning anything in court, you need to register, regardless of what you may or may not \"own\" automatically.
And to me, the only reason to \"own\" something is so others don't use it without my permission, something I can't really prevent if it's not registered.
@youbastid: to me, the only reason to \"own\" something is so others don't use it without my permission, something I can't really prevent if it's not registered.
You can't really prevent if it is registered either. All registering does is give you an easier time proving your ownership. Think of it as having a receipt for your work.
@youbastid
You're making a couple of points here. Let me try to respond.
You write,
\"If registration isn't that important, why is the 'poor man's copyright'... ineffective?\"
You're piecing together two unconnected -- but both true -- statements and trying to use one to disprove the other.
1. Registration isn't that important. True, for most people.
2. \"Poor Man's copyright\" is ineffective. Also true.
from [www.copyright.gov]
\"There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection [mailing yourself a copy], and it is not a substitution for registration.\"
This also meshes with the source you cite.
Also from the copyright.gov site, and the FAQ I posted earlier, \"You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a US work.\"
Which leads to this link: [www.copyright.gov]
which states, in summary, that you must register before filing suit but that you can register at any time. If you register early on, if you win your suit you may be able to get statutory damages awarded (think RIAA) rather than just actual damages awarded.
Which is sort of what you said (\"if you plan on winning in court, you need to register\") -- but it's even more precise: if you plan on filing with the court -- never mind winning -- you need to register.
Early registration is also prima facie evidence that the copyright is valid. That means it is presumed valid, and the defendants will need to disprove (rebut)that presumption. Think of how defendants in the US are presumed innocent until proven guilty -- same basic concept of presumption.
Read on for Part II.
Part II coming right up.
Part II:
@trollkiller answered the big question already: registering your copyright does not do anything extra to prevent someone from infringing.
But the question you almost asked:
Why would you not register your copyright?
- The biggest reason: it costs money. It's at least $45 per item, and the fees go up from there: [www.copyright.gov]
Other reasons:
- You have to mail in the forms -- you can't file online, and not all fees can be paid with a credit card. [www.copyright.gov]
- Registering will not prevent people from taking advantage of Fair Use. [www.copyright.gov]
- You may not care enough about your work, or expect it to be misused. For example, I've taken lots of digital photos (several thousand). Most of them are crap. All of them are copyright by me (by default), but I haven't registered any of them because it's highly unlikely someone will infringe.
And to reiterate, all of the applies only to the US, IANAL, YMMV, yada yada yada. Oh, Canada?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-70169-100x100.png\")
\"Snowball fight behind the counter, where food is prepared. It gets worse\" NO! It can't get worse than that! How has our country fallen so far? Where people fling balls of frozen water, the most dangerous substance on earth, where food is prepared!
I agree with the not-washing hands after mooning the drive through though. If he had, I would have had no problem at all. I would probably have also been sarcastic about the mooning if he had.
@Antediluvian: You do know you can place all of those photos on a dvd then register the dvd. That will in effect register all the photos. 700 for the price of one.
@trollkiller: Actually, I think that will only register the compilation, as far as I understand it (based on my reading of the copyright.gov site). I certainly could be mistaken.
But since I wasn't intending to register them (or likely ever any of my \"work\"), I've not looked into super-closely, but will revisit if I create something register-worthy. :-)
Yay, my city made it on the Consumerist site.
Anyone else here from St. John's?
Chrisfromnl
nl=newfoundland
@Antediluvian: A movie is also a compilation of still photographs but the copyright still protects each frame.
@faust1200: I'm sorry we should have stuck to our disgust of the moon. Did you have anything constructive to add or did you just want to bitch about something?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-9117-100x100.png\")
@bbbici: Which restaurants do I have here in Tampa, FL? Cant answer? How about in Mexico? What's that? I swear, you guys forget you're a different country, we can't keep track of every restaurant and retail stores you have up there in the attic.
ON POINT - This is why I don't eat fast food anymore, and rarely eat out. Ever seen Kitchen Nightmares? That little ma and pop place you go eat at is probably worse off than most fast food places.
P.S. folks, stop threadjacking here, there is a perfectly good consumerist message board you can use for off-topic conversation at [consumerist.proboards88.com]
@trollkiller: It funny, your name is TrollKiller yet you seem to be one yourself. Faust contributes much to this site and runs the boards. He's just trying to keep things on-topic.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-101046-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-53106-100x100.png\")
Wait, Employees SHOULD NOT drop their pants behind the counter??? I want to see where in the lawbooks it says that!