{"id":50955,"date":"2003-03-14T16:27:41","date_gmt":"2003-03-14T16:27:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.soulhuntre.com\/items\/date\/2003\/03\/14\/bringing-the-media-to-its-knees\/"},"modified":"2003-03-14T16:27:41","modified_gmt":"2003-03-14T16:27:41","slug":"bringing-the-media-to-its-knees-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/legacyiamsenseiken.local\/2003\/03\/14\/bringing-the-media-to-its-knees-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Bringing the media to it\u2019s knees\u2026"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
\n<\/a>
\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
lov them…
\n sneakers?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

Some fake ads draw a lot of attention… it seems like those really cool ads
\nthat claim<\/b><\/i> to be for "Puma" are sadly not the real article. We
\nknew that of course but we can always hope. I think the ads are pretty funny and
\nkind of hot. They are causing quite a stir out there on the web with legal
\nletters flying and all sorts of people up in arms. This is a good example of
\ntrademark law clashing with editorial speech and non-commercial use. <\/p>\n

ed. note: this is an editorial commentary on advertising, the law and
\nweblogs. It’s also damn funny. Puma didn’t do these. puma <\/i>hates<\/i><\/b>
\nthese. Puma would never imply that people in sneakers have sex.<\/i><\/p>\n

Anyway, keep up with it all:<\/p>\n