SCdem@MU vs. MUScoop - a law primer

[SCdem@MU]

They do selling advertising the JSOnline website. If you all value his insight so much I would strongly suggest reading his blog over there rather than here. Or use your own RSS reader (like I do) to grab it whenever he publishes a new post as that will also drive up his the web stats for his blog.

I find it funny that you all won't allow people to copy and paste anything from a paid site like rivals, but are completely fine with copying and pasting (or importing via RSS) an entire article from a site that depends on ad revenue.

Part of this is the JSOnline's fault. If they were smart they would either include ads in their RSS feed or have the RSS feed only publish a summary or the first couple paragraphs with a link to read more.

Anyway, if you value what Rosiak does so much, please consider reading his stuff both places and commenting on his blog too. I'm sure his bosses also look at the number of comments he gets.

[mu_hilltopper]

I find it funny that you all won't allow people to copy and paste anything from a paid site like rivals, but are completely fine with copying and pasting (or importing via RSS) an entire article from a site that depends on ad revenue.

That's the difference between public and private content. "Free" content tends to get redistributed.  (And yes, I know that nothing is free.)

That's why I made the comment above.  Rosiak's blogs are too good for internet distribution.  They should keep that for the paper / non-rss feed / summary rss feed.

Why they do not, I do not understand.

(Of course, it's only a matter of time before the JS cuts make Rosiak take a buyout.  Maybe he'll write for Cracked Sidewalks someday and pay his rent by .. selling blood or something.)

[SCdem@MU]

That's the difference between public and private content. "Free" content tends to get redistributed.  (And yes, I know that nothing is free.)

That's why I made the comment above.  Rosiak's blogs are too good for internet distribution.  They should keep that for the paper / non-rss feed / summary rss feed.

Why they do not, I do not understand.

(Of course, it's only a matter of time before the JS cuts make Rosiak take a buyout.  Maybe he'll write for Cracked Sidewalks someday and pay his rent by .. selling blood or something.)

Whether the content is free or not has nothing to do with whether or not MUSCOOP is violating copyright law and stealing Rosiak's and the JSOnline's content. Just because they make his blog available via RSS does not mean that MUSCOOP has a distribution right to republish that content here.

Technically the same rules should apply towards content from JSonline, Rivals, Scout, or any other site that produces original content.

The AP in particular is going to start stepping up enforcement and taking action against websites that republish their content without proper distribution licenses. I highly doubt that Rosiak and the Milwaukee Journal would go after this site over a few blog entries, but they could.

If there is a way that you guys can automatically import his blog with just the headline or only the first couple paragraphs, I would recommend giving it a try.

Also when the JSOnline tried disabling RSS for a brief period of time you guys decided to blatantly steal his content by using a service (http://feed43.com/) that literally scrapped/stole the words off the pages.

And then you admitted in another post that you used RSS to "steal" Rosiak's content:

Todd, why can't we steal your blog content via RSS feed any more?

Stealing is stealing whether the content is free or premium.
 

[SCdem@MU]

(Of course, it's only a matter of time before the JS cuts make Rosiak take a buyout.  Maybe he'll write for Cracked Sidewalks someday and pay his rent by .. selling blood or something.)

This is why sites like this should do everything they can do support Rosiak and help direct more traffic to his blog rather than take traffic away from him.

If/When the next round of buyouts and layoffs come do you want some stupid intern taking over his coverage of Marquette Basketball?

[mu_hilltopper]

If we all read Rosiak's blog via an RSS reader, there would be no advertising revenue for the JS.

Some websites' RSS feeds do indeed inject advertising, so they have a revenue stream.  The JS could do that as well.

In the end ...  The JS has full RSS feeds for their blogs, of which we are republishing exactly as if we were Google Reader (or 100 other RSS readers).   If the JS wants webhits or other ad revenue, they should switch to summaries or inject ads into their RSS feeds.

Truth is, RSS feeds are not a good idea for newspaper sites unless they drive eyeballs back to their site. -- (And of course, who are we fooling.  Even if the JS's web traffic went up 1000%, they would still be losing money.)

[SCdem@MU]

If we all read Rosiak's blog via an RSS reader, there would be no advertising revenue for the JS.

Some websites' RSS feeds do indeed inject advertising, so they have a revenue stream.  The JS could do that as well.

In the end ...  The JS has full RSS feeds for their blogs, of which we are republishing exactly as if we were Google Reader (or 100 other RSS readers).   If the JS wants webhits or other ad revenue, they should switch to summaries or inject ads into their RSS feeds.

Truth is, RSS feeds are not a good idea for newspaper sites unless they drive eyeballs back to their site. -- (And of course, who are we fooling.  Even if the JS's web traffic went up 1000%, they would still be losing money.)

Here is where you are wrong. The base rate of the JSOnline's cost per impression advertising plans is probably done off how many total hits their website and various parts of their website get.  The more hits they get, the more they can charge for advertising.

Eventually the JSOnline and advertisers will probably figure out that people are getting their content without viewing ads through RSS. However, even if they add ads to their RSS feeds that still wouldn't give this website the right to republish Rosiaks content without paying for a distribution license.

Suing this site would be pretty easy from the JSOnline's point of view, especially since you have admitted to stealing Rosiaks blogs. Then they could get a court order demanding that you hand over your site traffic numbers and calculate the lost ad revenue that occurred from the blogs being posted here and add on damages.

RSS gives individuals the right to read Rosiaks content through their individual RSS reader, not for a website to unlawfully republish Rosiak's content.

[GOO]

I try to go to JSonline so that Todd gets the clicks, but half the time or more I just read his blog here on muscoop.  One problem with the blogs on JSonline, is that they don't show up on my iphone for some reason, so then I just read them here.  All other content on JSonline works on my iphone, but the blogs do not show up for some reason after I click to get to them.

But, it probably would be best if muscoop just posted the link so that Todd gets the benefit of 100's of more hits.

[SCdem@MU]

MU_Hilltopper's cavalier attitude towards intellectual property theft actually upsets me more than the actual act of stealing Rosiak's content.

It really bothers me that your main defense is "The JSOnline makes stealing easy, so I have a right to steal it" and "The JSOnline is losing money and Rosiak will have to donate blood to pay for rent because so many people steal, so that makes it ok for me to steal too."

I almost want to call up all your old Marquette Professors and have them double check all of your papers for plagiarism.  

[mu_hilltopper]

The hell we are "stealing" their content.  It's an RSS feed.  We are displaying it, just like Google Reader, Pageflakes, NewsGator, FeedShow, Bloglines, NetVibes, Yahoo's front page, etc, etc, etc.

We're not re-selling it nor making advert money off it with our own ads, since we do not have ads.  We're just a different type of feed reader, republishing an RSS feed the JS puts out.

[SCdem@MU]

The hell we are "stealing" their content.  It's an RSS feed.  We are displaying it, just like Google Reader, Pageflakes, NewsGator, FeedShow, Bloglines, NetVibes, Yahoo's front page, etc, etc, etc.

We're not re-selling it nor making advert money off it with our own ads, since we do not have ads.  We're just a different type of feed reader, republishing an RSS feed the JS puts out.

Wrong. Your google feed reader allows you to see the content that you subscribe to, not anyone and everyone on the internet. Also when you "share" content on Google Reader, the friend that views that feed counts as another hit for the JSOnline website/RSS feed. On this site all of the activity on this thread will only count as one hit for Rosiak's blog, making all of the views generated here stolen.

And the Google News/Yahoo News homepages actually pay the AP and other news sources a licensing fee for the stories they display there.

Your argument certainly doesn't cover you for when you used feed43 to scrape Rosiak's content off of JSOnline when they disabled the RSS feed.

And copyright law/fair use has nothing to do with whether or not you are making money off this site or his content. You are stealing eyeballs/hits/views/clicks/ad revenue/money from the JSOnline website by displaying Rosiak's content in its entirety without permission.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

MU_Hilltopper's cavalier attitude towards intellectual property theft actually upsets me more than the actual act of stealing Rosiak's content.

It really bothers me that your main defense is "The JSOnline makes stealing easy, so I have a right to steal it" and "The JSOnline is losing money and Rosiak will have to donate blood to pay for rent because so many people steal, so that makes it ok for me to steal too."

I almost want to call up all your old Marquette Professors and have them double check all of your papers for plagiarism.  

By all means...any excuse to tell people you're a lawyer...we're all very impressed!!

[SCdem@MU]

By all means...any excuse to tell people you're a lawyer...we're all very impressed!!

Actually I'm not, but what we are discussing here is a very hot topic right now given what the AP is rolling out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/business/media/07paper.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[mu_hilltopper]

RSS feeds are for delivering content SOMEWHERE ELSE in a nice neat package.

As a content provider, you have the OPTION to create a feed (or not) with whatever you want on it SO IT CAN BE DISPLAYED SOMEWHERE BESIDES YOUR WEBSITE.   That's the whole freaking point of having a RSS feed:  to have your content displayed elsewhere, either fully or in summary.

If the JS wants to have tighter control over their content, they have simple choices (that they've already made.)  They can choose not to have RSS feeds, so people are forced to the website.  They can choose to have RSS summaries, like they do for print stories.  Or they can inject ads on their feed like tons of feeds do.  (And imagine if they did, and they showed up on Scoop, the JS would be thrilled their ads would be being hit from users on our server.)

There is ZERO difference between Google Reader and MUScoop displaying a RSS feed, your "hit count" argument is just wrong.  If 500 people subscribed to Rosiak individually on Google Reader, or 500 people read it on MUScoop, the JS has zero eyeballs, zero revenue. -- Can some RSS managers (like feedburner.com) calculate the eyeballs reached by rss?  Yes.  But so what?  So they can measure how many eyeballs aren't seeing the ads they don't attach to their feed?  Or measure the people who click through to see the full content they don't need to click through to see?

Now, it DOES make a difference that MUScoop isn't making revenue off someone else's content.  If we were, I'd agree, that's an offense.

And yeah, I will admit that while we were using Feed43 for a few weeks while they migrated their platform, you would have been entirely correct. 

.. And as an aside, you might want to look up the definition of plagiarism before you go "calling (my) old professors,"  since we clearly have Rosiak's name attached to his prose.

[SCdem@MU]

RSS feeds are for delivering content SOMEWHERE ELSE in a nice neat package.

As a content provider, you have the OPTION to create a feed (or not) with whatever you want on it SO IT CAN BE DISPLAYED SOMEWHERE BESIDES YOUR WEBSITE.   That's the whole freaking point of having a RSS feed:  to have your content displayed elsewhere, either fully or in summary.

If the JS wants to have tighter control over their content, they have simple choices (that they've already made.)  They can choose not to have RSS feeds, so people are forced to the website.  They can choose to have RSS summaries, like they do for print stories.  Or they can inject ads on their feed like tons of feeds do.  (And imagine if they did, and they showed up on Scoop, the JS would be thrilled their ads would be being hit from users on our server.)

There is ZERO difference between Google Reader and MUScoop displaying a RSS feed, your "hit count" argument is just wrong.  If 500 people subscribed to Rosiak individually on Google Reader, or 500 people read it on MUScoop, the JS has zero eyeballs, zero revenue. -- Can some RSS managers (like feedburner.com) calculate the eyeballs reached by rss?  Yes.  But so what?  So they can measure how many eyeballs aren't seeing the ads they don't attach to their feed?  Or measure the people who click through to see the full content they don't need to click through to see?

Now, it DOES make a difference that MUScoop isn't making revenue off someone else's content.  If we were, I'd agree, that's an offense.

And yeah, I will admit that while we were using Feed43 for a few weeks while they migrated their platform, you would have been entirely correct. 

.. And as an aside, you might want to look up the definition of plagiarism before you go "calling (my) old professors,"  since we clearly have Rosiak's name attached to his prose.

Here is the ToS agreement from JSonline:

http://www.jsonline.com/general/27227149.html

4. Copyright.  Everything on or used in connection with our Websites, including but not limited to text, images, graphics, logos, audio and video content, software (collectively, "Content") – with the exception of User Generated Content as defined below – is owned by us and/or our affiliates, subsidiaries, licensors or suppliers. This means that you cannot use the Content without our permission.

Here’s what permission we do give you to use the Content. You may only use the Content online for purposes of visiting and using our websites, and only for your personal, non-commercial use. This means that you may not download any of our Content, give copies to your friends, display the Content publicly, or charge anything for it (these are only meant to be examples and are not an exhaustive list of things you can’t do with our Content). Also, you may not use the Content to construct any kind of database or your own website.

The clause that states you cannot "DISPLAY THE CONTENT PUBLICLY" is what MUSCOOP is in direct violation of by importing Rosiak's blog in its entirety on this website.

You also clearly do not understand copyright law, fair use, or how RSS readers are supposed to work (yes there are RSS readers there that cache content and that is why the AP is looking into suing a number of them), so continue to steal Rosiak's content and tell yourself whatever you want so you can sleep at night.

[Skatastrophy]

Here is the ToS agreement from JSonline:

http://www.jsonline.com/general/27227149.html

4. Copyright.  Everything on or used in connection with our Websites, including but not limited to text, images, graphics, logos, audio and video content, software (collectively, "Content") – with the exception of User Generated Content as defined below – is owned by us and/or our affiliates, subsidiaries, licensors or suppliers. This means that you cannot use the Content without our permission.

Here’s what permission we do give you to use the Content. You may only use the Content online for purposes of visiting and using our websites, and only for your personal, non-commercial use. This means that you may not download any of our Content, give copies to your friends, display the Content publicly, or charge anything for it (these are only meant to be examples and are not an exhaustive list of things you can’t do with our Content). Also, you may not use the Content to construct any kind of database or your own website.

The clause that states you cannot "DISPLAY THE CONTENT PUBLICLY" is what MUSCOOP is in direct violation of by importing Rosiak's blog in its entirety on this website.

You also clearly do not understand copyright law, fair use, or how RSS readers are supposed to work (yes there are RSS readers there that cache content and that is why the AP is looking into suing a number of them), so continue to steal Rosiak's content and tell yourself whatever you want so you can sleep at night.

While you quoted JSOnline's copyright clause accurate, it apparently precludes me from using their RSS feed at all as an individual since using an RSS feed would involve violating the whole "This means that you may not download any of our Content..." clause of their copyright.  In fact, that clause would preclude me from visiting their website at all since that would also involve me downloading their content.

The JS obviously threw out a TOS that is overreaching (much like most of the employer's non-compete agreements that I've encountered).  A clause stating that you can't download any of the content from a website is unenforceable, which brings into question the rest of their copyright agreement.

So... stop acting like an *insert dirty name here* because "You also clearly do not understand copyright law, fair use, or how RSS readers are supposed to work."

[SCdem@MU]

I agree that their ToS is overreaching and probably needs to be updated in a number of ways. But it clearly states that you can use their content for "for purposes of visiting and using our websites, and only for your personal, non-commercial use."

Nowhere does it give MUSCOOP or any other website the right to redistribute/republish content without the permission of Journal communications. 

[Skatastrophy]

I agree that their ToS is overreaching and probably needs to be updated in a number of ways. But it clearly states that you can use their content for "for purposes of visiting and using our websites, and only for your personal, non-commercial use."

I think that because MUScoop isn't making anyone a lot of money it would be very difficult for JSOnline to put together a solid case agaiinst us on this.

On the other hand it would probably never get that far.  I'm sure that if JSO or Todd asked MUScoop to stop redistributing their content in this way we would cater to their desires.

Nowhere does it give MUSCOOP or any other website the right to redistribute/republish content without the permission of Journal communications. 

This is part of a far greater discussion/argument that's still getting figured out legally between content publishers and news aggregation sites.

I'm not saying that you're incorrect in your statement.  I'm just saying that a lot of other sites are doing what MUScoop is doing on a far greater scale, plus they're profiting from it.  Am I saying that because everyone else is doing it that it's okay?  Not at all.  But all of this sort of stuff is getting out between real lawyers in real courtrooms.

[ChicosBailBonds]

At the end of the day, all content is going to be charged for.  It's going to happen.  The powerful media companies are moving in that direction because they have no choice.  What's ok today or on the fringe today, will not be down the road.  The question is when does that day arrive.  Is it next year, 5 years, 10 years down the road?


I can tell you in our industry it's a huge deal on the video side and it's equally huge on the print side....the idea that everything on the internet is free is going to change and pretty much both parties in gov't agree (so you won't see a lot of them stepping in to stop it).

There are some very interesting technologies being created right now on the tracking end for content that will blow your minds away.  It will allow enforcement and protection of content....and ultimately prosecution for those using it outside of what is allowed by the content owners.

Sure, there will always be some free content by anyone that wishes to publish, but the content owned by large media companies is going to be protected fiercely...it's just a matter of time.

[Nukem2]

Hey boys, just link items like this as a matter of practice.  I really hate having an entire article or blog show up on these threads as they just make the threads physically longer especially when a posted "quotes" another poster.  A link is simple to click on.

[mu_hilltopper]

Just got a call from the White House.  The President has invited us, Rosiak, and Marty Kaiser to DC to discuss the matter over beer.

(Of course, Rosiak might not make it since layoffs are happening at the JS early next week, so in his stead the Ghost of Lori Nickel will attend.)

[mviale]

I try to go to JSonline so that Todd gets the clicks, but half the time or more I just read his blog here on muscoop.  One problem with the blogs on JSonline, is that they don't show up on my iphone for some reason, so then I just read them here.  All other content on JSonline works on my iphone, but the blogs do not show up for some reason after I click to get to them.

But, it probably would be best if muscoop just posted the link so that Todd gets the benefit of 100's of more hits.

+1

[ChicosBailBonds]

Just got a call from the White House.  The President has invited us, Rosiak, and Marty Kaiser to DC to discuss the matter over beer.

(Of course, Rosiak might not make it since layoffs are happening at the JS early next week, so in his stead the Ghost of Lori Nickel will attend.)

Obama is going with a Bud Light, what are you going with?

[mu_hilltopper]

I think I'm the Blue Moon drinker in that group.

Served in one of these:

[AZWarrior]

Just got a call from the White House.  The President has invited us, Rosiak, and Marty Kaiser to DC to discuss the matter over beer.

(Of course, Rosiak might not make it since layoffs are happening at the JS early next week, so in his stead the Ghost of Lori Nickel will attend.)

The following week features "Jello shots for global hunger"   

[Lighthouse 84]

What's SMO drinking?

[muwarrior87]

I think I'm the Blue Moon drinker in that group.

Served in one of these:

DAS BOOOOOOOT!!

[SCdem@MU]

I'm not saying that you're incorrect in your statement.  I'm just saying that a lot of other sites are doing what MUScoop is doing on a far greater scale, plus they're profiting from it.  Am I saying that because everyone else is doing it that it's okay?  Not at all.  But all of this sort of stuff is getting out between real lawyers in real courtrooms.

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/relax_bloggers_the_ap_isnt_out.php

Jane Seagrave, who is the AP's senior vice president of global product development, specifically mentioned that they are going after sites that take and republish RSS feeds without their permission:

“We want to stop wholesale misappropriation of our content which does occur right now—people who are copying and pasting or taking by RSS feeds dozens or hundreds of our stories.” Seagrave tells me. “Are we going to worry about individuals using our stories here and there? That isn’t our intent. That’s being fueled by people who want to make us look silly. But we’re not silly.”

He also mentions that its not likely that the AP would go after individuals and bloggers who lift an article here and there, but that doesn't mean that they won't. However, it is fairly certain that they will go after sites that consistently republish entire articles.

I agree its not likely that the JSOnline would take MUScoop to court, its more likely that they would just email the moderators telling them to stop, but there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't.

As Chicos said its a big issue right now and how content is paid for and distributed online is going to fundamentally change in the near future (which could be a few months from now or a few years from now). If I were a webmaster, especially one that has an archive that runs over a year long of stolen articles, I would change my act sooner rather than later (especially since users in this thread say they would prefer links instead of entire articles).

Or I could continue to act oblivious to the changes that are happening to online content, ignore the advice of others, continue to steal content, and act surprised when I get served with a big fat lawsuit and have to send my kids to UW-Milwaukee instead of Marquette because I owe Journal Communications all my net-worth and more in damages.

I'm sure that Joel Tenenbaum didn't think that downloading 30 songs on KaZaa would cost him $22,500 per song or $675,000 total either.

The AP currently charges $2.50 per word for stories republished on the web (http://mashable.com/2009/08/02/associated-press/). So if we apply that to the latest JSOnline Blog entry you stole from Rosiak on Tony Miller, which is about 1,900 words you would owe Journal Communications $4750. Lets say that the average Rosiak blog is half that and you have illegally republished around 100 of Rosiak's blogs. That would put MUSCOOP on the hook for $200,000.

 

[🏀]

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/relax_bloggers_the_ap_isnt_out.php

Jane Seagrave, who is the AP's senior vice president of global product development, specifically mentioned that they are going after sites that take and republish RSS feeds without their permission:

“We want to stop wholesale misappropriation of our content which does occur right now—people who are copying and pasting or taking by RSS feeds dozens or hundreds of our stories.” Seagrave tells me. “Are we going to worry about individuals using our stories here and there? That isn’t our intent. That’s being fueled by people who want to make us look silly. But we’re not silly.”

He also mentions that its not likely that the AP would go after individuals and bloggers who lift an article here and there, but that doesn't mean that they won't. However, it is fairly certain that they will go after sites that consistently republish entire articles.

I agree its not likely that the JSOnline would take MUScoop to court, its more likely that they would just email the moderators telling them to stop, but there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't.

As Chicos said its a big issue right now and how content is paid for and distributed online is going to fundamentally change in the near future (which could be a few months from now or a few years from now). If I were a webmaster, especially one that has an archive that runs over a year long of stolen articles, I would change my act sooner rather than later (especially since users in this thread say they would prefer links instead of entire articles).

Or I could continue to act oblivious to the changes that are happening to online content, ignore the advice of others, continue to steal content, and act surprised when I get served with a big fat lawsuit and have to send my kids to UW-Milwaukee instead of Marquette because I owe Journal Communications all my net-worth and more in damages.

I'm sure that Joel Tenenbaum didn't think that downloading 30 songs on KaZaa would cost him $22,500 per song or $675,000 total either.

The AP currently charges $2.50 per word for stories republished on the web (http://mashable.com/2009/08/02/associated-press/). So if we apply that to the latest JSOnline Blog entry you stole from Rosiak on Tony Miller, which is about 1,900 words you would owe Journal Communications $4750. Lets say that the average Rosiak blog is half that and you have illegally republished around 100 of Rosiak's blogs. That would put MUSCOOP on the hook for $200,000.

 

Dude, give it up.

[TallTitan34]

I'm guessing the very very crappy Journal Sentinel would go for a lower rate than the Associated Press.  Maybe $0.01 per thousand words if they are lucky.

[Skatastrophy]

I'm guessing the very very crappy Journal Sentinel would go for a lower rate than the Associated Press.  Maybe $0.01 per thousand words if they are lucky.

And don't forget that this is a blog that is distributed freely.  It isn't printed content that they charge for.

I am technically stealing all of the content that I read everywhere on the internet because I block all of the ads.  May baby jesus have mercy on my soul.

[ChicosBailBonds]

As I mentioned the other day, some major players plan on changing the dynamic and the first major shoe dropped today.  The internet is "free" notion is going to change and the companies that spent billions of dollars are going to protect their rights they paid so dearly for.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/news-corp-swings-to-loss-on-charges-2009-08-05

[ChicosBailBonds]

And another

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/277046

[Skatastrophy]

Reuters seems to have their head solidly on their shoulders.  I'm glad that someone called out the Associated Press for being a bunch of asshats in this situation.

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/08/06/reuters-please-feel-free-to-link-to-our-stories

[TallTitan34]

If the Journal Sentinal was so concerned over losing hits, they would either eliminate their RSS feed or incorporate ads as Hilltopper suggested.

This wouldn't fall on Scoop at all since the JS is one sending the info out via RSS feed.

[mu03eng]

Unless I'm greatly mistaken(which happens often so who knows), JSOnline would have to demonstrate that they attempted to prevent the "theft" of their content for the ToS to be enforceable.  For example, I work at a technology company with lots of patents, we have to follow ridge information control protocols because we have to show we are protecting our information to allow us to sue someone for using our info.  If JS is going to give it away, they can't come back and sue you for taking it later.

[ATWizJr]

I'm from the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" school so my advice to ScDem would have been to let sleeping dogs lie.

PS  Das Boot means, the boat, not the boot.

[Robyrd5]

PS  Das Boot means, the boat, not the boot.

It's also from the movie Beerfest.

[muwarrior87]

PS  Das Boot means, the boat, not the boot.

no scheiss sherlock. Ever seen Beerfest?? It wouldn't really make sense to say Das Stiefel, would it? no one would get that.

[ATWizJr]

no, I'm not 12 and have not seen Beerfest.  But, I know a boot from a stein dummkopf.

[muwarrior87]

wow, so you're going to the point of calling me a dummyhead and 12?? very mature.  I wasn't the only person to make the Beerfest reference and I'd hardly say calling me a prepubescent fits.  "Das Boot" is what they say in the movie when referring to the boot like drinking glass (not a stein which is technically made of porcelain or clay) that hilltopper posted a picture of earlier in this thread.

[ATWizJr]

wow, so you're going to the point of calling me a dummyhead and 12?? very mature.  I wasn't the only person to make the Beerfest reference and I'd hardly say calling me a prepubescent fits.  "Das Boot" is what they say in the movie when referring to the boot like drinking glass (not a stein which is technically made of porcelain or clay) that hilltopper posted a picture of earlier in this thread.
[/qu

but, I meant it in the nicest possible way.

[rocky_warrior]

Was just at an Octoberfest brew tapping party tonight (I know, a little early).  Nonetheless das bootnever made it to the table I was drinking at (though it was coming back for another round just as I was leaving).

[muwarrior87]

to counteract the dummyhead and 12 year old comment based on the most recent post from rocky...