Boycott Magic Hat Brewing Company...

[mr x]

Oh god isn't much of a conversation. Go back and listen to your Lagunitas podcast where they discuss what happened with the Frank Zappa series and then come back and tell us your interpretation of what happened.

[thatguy314]

the name is Number 9. and if that were true, Heinz 57, A-1, and others like that would not be around.

Heinz can't trademark the #57. They might be able to prevent other ketchups however, from prominently portraying #57 on it as it could create brand confusion.

A-1 might be different as it's a unique combination of numbers and letters, where as 57 or 9 or 1/10 or 1,000,000 are actually numbers that can't be trademarked.

[thatguy314]

Oh god isn't much of a conversation. Go back and listen to your Lagunitas podcast where they discuss what happened with the Frank Zappa series and then come back and tell us your interpretation of what happened.

You mean the Frank Zappa series where they not only ADMIT that it's based on Frank Zappa but actually PROCLAIM IT IS A TRIBUTE TO HIM (thus showing culbability), use FURTHERMORE Frank Zappa's alum names and artwork (COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THAT THE ZAPPA ESTATE OWNS) from the albums? I can't possibly see how that's different than calling a beer #9 (which is a subtle beatles reference) and not using any beatles artwork or directly referencing the beatles at any point.

I don't think it's that we don't understand the similarities. It's that you don't understand the glaring differences.

[mr x]

The point is, all that Zappa material was protected, even though it wasn't a beer, and would not be confused with beer. The Beatles material is no different, lyrics/musical scores are copyrighted material. I don't think it's that you understand the differences, you don't understand your hypocrisy. There is no way that Magic Hat's beer is not a direct reference to that song, not for a certain generation anyway.

[thatguy314]

There is no way that Magic Hat's beer is not a direct reference to that song, not for a certain generation anyway.

Maybe it was the 9th recipe they tried for an apricot beer. Or the 9th beer they produced as a brewery. I see lots of conceivable ways its not a beatles reference.

The point is, all that Zappa material was protected, even though it wasn't a beer, and would not be confused with beer.

Laguinitas did the Zappa series with the permission of Zappa's estate. They stopped doing it when the estate recinded permission when they gave zappa beer to an ex band member who tried to sue frank. Are you sure you listened to the episode?

[mr x]

Once again, if you believe that the Magic Hat #9 is not a direct reference to the Beatles song, you need to put down the bottle. And there is no real need for further 'conversation'.

As far as the Zappa incident, I remember it well. Are you sure you understand it? Permission to use references to Frank were required. Does Frank have legal powers above other musical artists?

[TheDarkSide]

Rat Pad!!!

Oops...wrong thread.

[thatguy314]

Once again, if you believe that the Magic Hat #9 is not a direct reference to the Beatles song, you need to put down the bottle. And there is no real need for further 'conversation'.

As far as the Zappa incident, I remember it well. Are you sure you understand it? Permission to use references to Frank were required. Does Frank have legal powers above other musical artists?

Actually yes. Frank Zappa has the power to not be copyright infringed. If the Beatles were to take his goo, they also could not be infringed upon. You'd need a machine like the one shown below extract Zappa's goo and give it to the beatles.