Judge Decides X-Men Aren't Human 458
An anonymous reader points to this Wall Street Journal article, writing "According to the U.S. Court of International Trade, the X-Men (along with other figures from the Marvel universe) aren't human. The presiding judge subjected the figures to "comprehensive examinations" which included "the need to remove the clothes of the figure." Ironically, the X-Men, whose struggle for human acceptance has been a key theme in the series, were more easily classified as non-human than Kraven and Mole Man.
On MLK day... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
Non human? (Score:5, Funny)
Soooo... am I demented for wanting to bed Rebecca Romijn-Stamos?
Re:Non human? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Non human? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that Ken and Barbie would be non-human by this criterion ...
Re:Non human? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Non human? (Score:5, Funny)
Barbie has pretty inhuman proportions as well...
You say that like it's a bad thing...
Re:Non human? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Non human? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Non human? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but remember that 76% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Dolls?!? (Score:5, Funny)
what about barbie ? (Score:2, Redundant)
This begs the question
what about barbie? (Score:5, Insightful)
This begs the question
Re:what about barbie? (Score:5, Informative)
Does anyone know the name for the logical fallacy of incorrectly attributing a logical fallacy to an argument as a counter argument?
Or perhaps I'm missing where the judge assumed the conclusion. As far as I can tell Judge Barzilay's argument goes as follows:
1) "Kraven exhibit[s] 'highly exaggerated muscle tone in arms and legs.'"
2) To have exaggerated or extra-human traits is to be non-human
therefore, Kraven is non-human.
Of course, I think being made of plastic is quite inhuman in itself.
Re:what about barbie? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:what about barbie? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dolls?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like a typical /.er (Score:5, Funny)
From the article: "The judge found him to be "stout and thick," with "exaggerated troll-like features" and very pale skin -- fitting for someone who lives underground." Ok, all you guys sitting there in your parents basement, are you more mole than human?
Also from the article: "In her chambers at the U.S. Court of International Trade, in New York, the judge examined Prof. X and the rest of his band of X-Men, all of them little plastic figures " 'Nuff said.
Pigs might fly, but don't make breast landing [xnewswire.com] Weird News
obligatory reference (Score:5, Funny)
Article Text (Score:3, Informative)
Decides X-Men Aren't Human
Marvel Fought to Have Characters Ruled
Nonhuman to Win Lower Tariff on Toys
By NEIL KING JR.
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Judge Judith Barzilay huddled late last year with a telepathic professor and a cast of mutants to ponder an age-old question: What does it mean to be human?
In her chambers at the U.S. Court of International Trade, in New York, the judge examined Prof. X and the rest of his band of X-Men, all of them little plastic figures at the heart of a six-year tariff battle between their owner, Marvel Enterprises Inc., and the U.S. Customs Service.
Her ruling thundered through the world of Marvel Comics fans. The famed X-Men, those fighters of prejudice sworn to protect a world that hates and fears them, are not human, she decreed Jan. 3. Nor are many of the villains who do battle with Spiderman and the Fantastic Four. They're all "nonhuman creatures," concluded Judge Barzilay.
Marvel subsidiary Toy Biz Inc. pushed Judge Barzilay to declare its heroes nonhuman so it could win a lower duty rate on action figures imported from China in the mid-1990s. At the time, tariffs put higher duties on dolls than toys. According to the U.S. tariff code, human figures are dolls, while figures representing animals or "creatures," such as monsters and robots, are deemed toys.
To Brian Wilkinson, editor of the online site X-Fan (x-mencomics.com/xfan/1), Marvel's argument is appalling. The X-Men -- mere creatures? "This is almost unthinkable," he says. "Marvel's super heroes are supposed to be as human as you or I. They live in New York. They have families and go to work. And now they're no longer human?"
Chuck Austen, current author of Marvel's "Uncanny X-Men" comic-book series, is also incredulous. He has worked hard for a year, he says, to emphasize the X-Men's humanity, to show "that they're just another strand in the evolutionary chain."
Marvel issued this statement: "Don't fret, Marvel fans, our heroes are living, breathing human beings -- but humans who have extraordinary abilities
The X-Men series broke new ground when it began in 1963 by confronting racism and intolerance head-on. The good-hearted mutants rallied around their mentor, the wheelchair-bound Prof. Charles Xavier, to protect mankind, even as humans shunned and despised them.
In 1996, Toy Biz sued Customs in the Court of International Trade, which arbitrates foreign-trade disputes between U.S. companies and the government. Toy Biz said its pantheon of action figures should be classified as toys instead of dolls. Customs insisted the figures are dolls, and thus subject to 12% import duties, instead of the 6.8% rate for toys. Duties have since been eliminated from both categories.
Thus began the great debate over the figures' true being. Barbie is a doll. Pooh Bear's a toy. That much is easy.
But what about Wolverine, the muscular X-Man with the metal claws that jut out from his fists? Wolverine has known many forms in his more than 40 years as a Marvel character. In some comics, he resembles a futuristic robot. In the movie "X-Men," he's a scruffy Canadian who drives a camper until falling under the protection of the telepathic Prof. Xavier, dean of an academy for gifted mutants in suburban New York.
But is he human?
To weigh that question, Judge Barzilay sat down with a sheaf of opposing legal briefs and more than 60 action figures, including Wolverine, Storm, Rogue and Bonebreaker.
Toy Biz, in its filings, pulled no punches. The figures "stand as potent witnesses for their status as nonhuman creatures," the company argued. How could they be humans, Toy Biz said, if they possessed "tentacles, claws, wings or robotic limbs?"
Toy Biz had good cause to pursue this line. Having its action figures declared toys would mean a hefty reimbursement of past duties, though the company declines to give specifics on how much was at stake.
The U.S. government showed more feeling. Each figure had a "distinctive individual personality," the federal legal team argued. Some were Russians, Japanese, black, white, women, even handicapped. Wolverine, the government insisted, was simply "a man with prosthetic hands." Justice Department lawyers who handled the case didn't return calls seeking comment.
Judge Barzilay, through a spokesman, said that she would let her 32-page decision speak for itself. But she described in her ruling how she subjected many of the figures to "comprehensive examinations." At times, that included "the need to remove the clothes of the figure."
The X-Men, oddly, gave her the least trouble. They are mutants, she declared, who "use their extraordinary and unnatural
Thus the X-Men are "something other than human." Case closed.
Tougher for the judge were figures from the Fantastic Four and Spiderman series. Judge Barzilay wrestled at length with Kraven, a famed hunter who once vanquished Spiderman, thanks in part to the strength gained from drinking secret jungle elixirs.
The judge found that Kraven exhibited "highly exaggerated muscle tone in arms and legs." He wore a "lion's mane-like vest." Both features helped relegate him, in the judge's mind, to the netherworld of robots, monsters and devils.
Judge Barzilay conceded that the closest call was the Mole Man, who once blinded the Fantastic Four with searing beams of light. The judge found him to be "stout and thick," with "exaggerated troll-like features" and very pale skin -- fitting for someone who lives underground. Given all that, Judge Barzilay concluded, the Mole Man was more mole than man.
Veteran comics fan Christian Cooper, who once worked as a Marvel editor, thinks Judge Barzilay got carried away. If Kraven isn't human, what about the twisted villains in Dick Tracy? Or worse yet, Superman himself?
"Here's a guy who changes his clothes in a phone booth and flies through the air," says Mr. Cooper. "Does that mean he's now an animal?"
Write to Neil King Jr. at neil.king@wsj.com
Superman is not SUPPOSED to be human! (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, Spider-man IS human, in fact according to the plot of the comic, he was a perfectly normal person up to the point in the story that he was bitten. Peter Parker dolls definitely should have been subject to the tax, according to the (admittedly very dumb) rules.
Re:Superman is not SUPPOSED to be human! (Score:4, Insightful)
Picard and Riker dolls = Human
Data and Worf = Not Human
Tax the first two, but not the second?
Or how about this...
Alien from Venus Barbi...?
This rule leaves too many loopholes, and more importantly doesn't explain WHY something that is "Human" should be taxed more than something that is, say, "Something Else".
If something is superhuman (such as Spiderman) does it get supertaxed?
Re:Superman is not SUPPOSED to be human! (Score:4, Informative)
AFAIK, the only time Spider-Man was stronger than ole' Hulky was when he temporarily inherited the powers of Captain Universe [marveldirectory.com].
Re:Mr. Spock (Score:3, Funny)
wow (Score:4, Informative)
X-Men fans should stop whining and go play with their dolls.
Re:wow (Score:2, Informative)
Not only is there not any relevance to the fictional characters, but there's no financial difference, either ...
Now Simpsons characters, well those are collectables, dammit ...
Re:wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Not only does this follow reasoning, it follows the text of the article:
Toy Biz had good cause to pursue this line. Having its action figures declared toys would mean a hefty reimbursement of past duties, though the company declines to give specifics on how much was at stake.
Re:wow (Score:2)
Doesn't matter, the cloning ban is still in effect.
Re:wow (Score:2)
That's exactly what the case was about -- whether or not the fictional characters depicted by the X-Men figurines were human characters or not.
Re:wow (Score:4, Interesting)
Not really. The WSJ is actually a good, well-rounded paper which generally has at least one relatively fun/interesting column down the center of the front page. And, as an aside, their tech section is one of the best in the industry, which should be really embarassing to other tech news outlets (CNET, The Register, ZDNET, Wired, etc.), considering that this is primarily a business newspaper.
Re:wow (Score:3, Funny)
Not dolls. Toys. Didn't you read the article at all?
Damn you, Senator Robert Kelly (Score:5, Funny)
I guess it's just a matter of time until the Sentinels arrive. Better start filling out that application to the Hellfire Club right about now...
~jeff
Sir, are you classified as human? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sir, are you classified as human? (Score:2)
Semanticists unite! (Score:5, Funny)
Brotherhood of Mutants
when as we all know the proper, grandiose, toungue-in-cheek name was
Brotherhood of EVIL Mutants
I mean, of course they're not human. The question is, are they eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil?
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Funny)
No? BY hook or by crook, it is!
Deeply, deeply ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
<comic geek pedant mode>
It's Spider-Man, not Spiderman
</cgpm>
And Superman was never human - he was always Kryptonian!
you must be new here . . . (Score:3, Funny)
It's not a big deal (Score:5, Informative)
The taxes have since been repealed. Nothing to see here.
-B
Re:It's not a big deal (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, so this shouldn't be the spark for the Mutant Uprising. But it's a little more relevant than you seem to think. To be "dolls", the figures had to depict humans. Otherwise, they were "toys". So the issue actually was, "Do the X-Men count as human?" This in turn demands we answer, "What makes a human human?"
And that's more important than you might want to admit. Sure, we're probably not likely to see Xavier and his cohorts on the streets of Manhattan. But how about cloned people? Or genetically modified -- even genetically enhanced -- people? What about, say, a weightlifter who's been designed from before birth to be the world's best weightlifter ever? What if the genetic modification was done under the sponsorship of a corporation? What if that corporation later asserted "property rights" to the modified person?
I found the judge's criteria, as quoted, quite disturbing. Apparently differing abilities was enough to classify the mutants as "non-human". The judge focused on their mutant powers, such as the ability to control storms or to withstand injury. Apparently she did not focus on their ability to speak, to reason, to create, to love
Although the actual case is a bit of a joke, the issues raised are deep and pressing. We're heading to a place where the very notion of "human" will be under strain as never before. Perhaps it's good that somebody is reasoning about it ahead of time -- though I could have wished for a better result.
This was ridiculed in 1905: "Pigs is pigs" (Score:2, Interesting)
Disney made a marvelous little cartoon [bcdb.com] of the story in 1954.
Re:It's not a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, you're right, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter all that much, but it's still something to be upset about. The X-Men, for many people, aren't merely characters in a great piece of fiction, but also a metaphor [everything2.com] for those in humanity who have felt the sting of oppression by fellow human beings [uh.edu].
This comic also shows that oppressed people are still human. Being oppressed does not necessarily provide justification for all actions used to break that oppression. The comic shows the complexity of human nature and its affairs, rather than trying to make clear distinctions between good and evil.
Re:Strongly disagree. (Score:3, Insightful)
If scientists say they can trace origins of the human race by genetic means, then they should be able to tell the races apart.
Real races I mean. Not silly arbitrary amalgations like the USA's "Pacific Islander + Asian" or UK's "Asian".
I daresay I have more in common with Asian women than _you_ think.
Why should talking about human races cause conflict? To me it's just like talking about people with different characteristics. Or different breeds of dogs for that matter - and we know though a dog is a dog is a dog, different breeds have different characteristics. The differences are less marked for humans (we're mostly "mongrels" that separated out ages ago), but they're there.
Just avoid the politicians and bigots, and we should be fine talking about racial differences.
Ron Jeremy's human status called into question (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, Ron, back to the farm with you.
Mutants? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, but aren't all humans mutants? (I guess it all depends on which theory you believe: evolution or creation.) Humans use their powers for good and evil.
But she described in her ruling how she subjected many of the figures to "comprehensive examinations." At times, that included "the need to remove the clothes of the figure."
Doesn't this sentance make you think the whole article is fake?
Re:Mutants? (Score:3, Funny)
"I was just using the naked toys for research on a legal judgement"
Overfuckinglawyered. (Score:5, Insightful)
OK kids. A 32-page ruling on whether or not the X-Men are human or non-human, due to a 6.8% vs 12% import duty differential charged seven years ago, a duty that isn't even in effect anymore.
How many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of dollars got spent on lawyers - both from Marvel's shareholders for their lawyers and our tax dollars being spent on the Government's lawyers - in the case leading up to this ruling - a ruling that took seven years after the initial dispute hit the courts?
In the world of the X-Men, something would have broken by now, but the real world has no superheroes to save us.
Isn't it time we called our Congressmen/women and demanded, on pain of our voting for third parties, that they put the tax law genie back in the bottle?
Anyone? Bueller?
Re:Overfuckinglawyered. (Score:2)
It's also the corporations' fault. Every time they try to levy a standard tax the lobbyists come out and beg, wheedle, and bribe to get loopholes in the law. They should just set a standard import/export tax, no exceptions.
Re:Overfuckinglawyered. (Score:3, Insightful)
True, that's what they (corps) do. But it's our fault for voting such pushovers into office. Elect some people that stand for principle over politics [constitutionparty.org] and you'll get fair across-the-board standards.
As long as the 16th Amendment allows the gov't to squeeze "the rich" for whatever they want to give it to "the poor", they can continue to buy their votes in November. As long as they have the power of office, they will continue to get money from corps for these special favors. And as long as the 17th Amendment removes State gov'ts from having any balancing influence at the federal level, nothing will change. Money and power are powerful and perverse incentives.
However, the solution isn't "campaign finance reform" or "term limits". Some of the most expensive races are US Senate, which removing the 17th Amendment would solve. Besides, we ought to be able to spend our money how we please. There's been more money in politics now since the "reforms" of the 70's than before. And we already have term limits - you get to "vote the bums out" every November. What we need is voting method [electionmethods.org] reform so that we have a real choice, so that non-Dem/Rep votes make a difference.
Re:Overfuckinglawyered. (Score:2)
Re:Overfuckinglawyered. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm already voting for third [constitutionparty.org] parties [lp.org]. Of course, we need these same Congress-critters to enact Condorcet voting [eskimo.com], so that such "protest" votes get noticed...
Re:Overfuckinglawyered. (Score:5, Informative)
No, I haven't gotten my wish. Calling the elimination of the differential tariff on toys-vs-dolls "getting my wish" is like tossing a hanful of sand into the Grand Canyon and claiming you've "filled" it.
Another symptom - the IRS has seven defintions for "dependent child". I don't have kids, nor do I want 'em, but that doesn't stop me from thinking that that's a crock of shit, and an unfair burden of extra paperwork on those who do, even if understanding those multiple contradictionary definitions results in a tax break for 'em.
Likewise, there have been times when I've wanted to start my own business. One glance at the tax forms for the self-employed, and I'm disabused of that fucking notion with a quickness. I'll never start a business because any enjoyment (and even the huge list of possible tax deductions!) I'd get from spending some free time producing things of value would be sucked dry by my having to fill out hundreds of pages of forms every year. (Or worse, paying thousands to a CPA to fill the hundreds of pages of forms out for me, and then have to sign under penalty of perjury that something I don't even comprehend (or I wouldn't have hired the fucking CPA in the first place!) is a true and faithful representation.
With compliance costs being approximatly 50% of tax collected (1999 - $650B in income tax collected, and $300B in compliance costs), I really do think an overhaul of the ludicrous monstrosity called the Internal Revenue Code is important. And not next time, but this time.
As for threatening to vote for his opposition - tax rates may rise under Democrats and fall under Republicans, but the Internal Revenue Code grows in complexity no matter which major party is in power. I therefore have no reason to believe that either major party has any intention of reforming the Code, and the only way I can see the Code being changed is for third parties to gain enough votes to be a threat to the majors. (In closely-run Democratic races, I'd advise voters interested in third parties to threaten to vote Green, and in closely-run Republican races, I'd likewise advise such voters to threaten to vote Libertarian.)
Re:Overfuckinglawyered. (Score:5, Interesting)
*grin* - good point :)
As for the guy who mentioned 1040-C - it, like 1040 - is deceptively simple. The forms are all two pages, but each line typically involves multiple questions about putting things into slots, just like the "is it a toy or is it a doll" question.
Quickly now, can you tell me whether that new alternator's a valid car and truck expense (II-10, 1040-C)? How about whether or not it was a Section 179 expense deduction? Quickly now, are you renting or leasing your office space and equipment, and what effect does that have on your after-tax income? What percentage of your home were you using for your business? Is it more tax-efficient to use LIFO or FIFO accounting for your inventory? (What does "inventory" mean if part of what you sell is software? :-)
It ain't the math - it's basic arithmetic. It's figuring out which of the myriad rules apply to one's situation or not.
> Consider also that the taxes you pay helps to construct a legal and infrastructural framework under which businesses can operate quite safely and easily. Last I heard, the Soviet Union did not have any sort of effective tax law (or government either).
Last I heard, Russia instituted a flat tax and tax revenues skyrocketed because people were actually able to comply.
But I digress - my rant wasn't principally about the amount paid, but of the ludicrous complexity involved in figuring out how much is owed.
My "I'd have started a business" was a straw man -- but do you really thing we need seven definitions of "dependent child" (families), to draw a distinction between the taxation of a stock held for 359 days and 360 days (long-term vs short-term gains, and the host of "straddle/spread" rules required to preserve this distinction in the face of hedging strategies made possible through the use of exchange-traded options), to draw a distinction between "Section 1250 contracts" and normal securities (trading the S&P 500 is not the same as trading an S&P-500-based mutual fund - it's treated as 60% long-term-gain and 40% short-term-gain), so make sure you've checked off Form 4952 if you invested on margin, and Forms 4797, 2439, 6252, 4684, 6781, and 8824, (Line 11, 1040-D) whose purposes I've forgotten about, and don't even get me started on the Alternative Minimum Tax - in which you get to do it all over again? Those aren't strawmen - those are picked from just a casual glance at 1040C and 1040D.
At no points on this thread have I whined about the dollar amounts taken by the government, only ludicrous volume of paperwork involved in complying with the legal requirements of the taking.
In Soviet Russia... at least the damn tax system is comprehensible. And whether they're digging up the copper or not, that puts them light-years ahead of us.
To indulge in a little bit of traditional /. anti-corporatespeak: when only multibillion-dollar corporations can afford to hire the army of lawyers and CPAs required to comply with the tax laws, the only legal businesses will be multibillion-dollar corporations.
I am no longer a man once I gain an ability? (Score:4, Funny)
Sure, you can laugh and say it will never happen, but IT COULD.
Photo caption (Score:5, Funny)
Well, it's obvious the WSJ reporter didn't do the examination. Beast has blue fur (whenever the Marvel writers aren't messing with his mutation), and there's no way in the world could he be confused with Wolverine.
Not too difficult to decide (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not too difficult to decide (Score:2)
Look at the bright side.. (Score:5, Funny)
Judge's decision (Score:2)
Bill Gates not human, either (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, the case has not been properly concluded; when Judge Barzilay was asked to subject Gates to the same "need to remove the clothes of the figure" test, she reportedly turned green and shook her head violently in a "no" gesture before fleeing the room.
In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission Monday, Microsoft reported that the aborted ruling would save the company $1.2 billion in duties, prompting analysts to wonder if many Microsoft employees besides Gates had also sacrificed their humanity long ago.
2 questions (Score:2)
The official definition of a member of a species is one who can successfully interbreed, hence huskies are of the same species as poodles, whereas cats cannot. Has Marvel addressed this key question?
Re:2 questions (Score:2)
Re:2 questions (Score:2)
Wonder what he would think about this mutant? (Score:2)
Faster loading link [utk.edu] of article in text format.
All mutant tetrachromats are female, so keep your eye on em!
Must... Lash... Out.... (Score:5, Funny)
No,it means HE AIN'T REAL!
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to walk my Incredible Hulk.
All I can say is... (Score:2)
These are toys, not people. Weather deemed "human" or not, they are not alive.
Are these people so engrossed in this fantasy life that this ruling concerns them? If so, why don't they just light up the bat signal or whatever and have their X-Men go take care of this judge?
Oh, that's right....they're not real. i almost forgot.
Non Issue (Score:3, Informative)
This is an affront to the X-Men theme of intolerance in only the most semantical, BS way imaginable.
This is a Travesty! (Score:2)
If we don't defend their rights, Who Will Be Next?
Re:This is a Travesty! (Score:3, Funny)
This is insane (Score:2)
The title could have also been: (Score:2)
Jeez people, it's just a ploy by Marvel to get a lower tarif on the toys that are made in China.
And finally,
Jeez people, its a fictional work, not your Opus.
no longer human? (Score:2)
Somehow I doubt the X-Men are as human as I am. They live in glossy 8.5x11 pages, not NY. They have subplots, not families. And they are no longer (nor have they ever been) REAL. This is beside the point, though. A toy company wants payback for tariffs because it thinks its product was incorrectly classified as representative of humans. I think its safe to say that the X-Men have some elements outside of humanity.
Wolverine's 'Age" (Score:2, Informative)
"Wolverine has known many forms in his more than 40 years as a Marvel character."
Wolverine's first appearance was in 1974, in The Incredible Hulk #180. That would give him about 28 years in the Marvel universe.
How surreal (Score:2)
Damn...sometimes life seems like nothing more than a perverse source of material for episodes of "The Simpsons."
the real problem (Score:2)
This is all absurd. The real problem here is that the United States has absurd laws that punish the consumer and some companies and give special favors to other businesses who have paid off corrupt politicians by continuing the lie that there should be any difference in import tax on a Barbie toy than an X-men toy. Marvel didn't have the balls to argue this in court, they played along with the system and let the big issue that the taxes are blaitantly unfair and uneven. They were rewarded for playing along and not questioning the fundamental corrupt system by beng allowed to pay the lower tax.
Slow news day? (Score:5, Interesting)
The article is actually on the front page of the deadtree version of the WSJ, a place I really thought I'd never see a little plastic Wolvie.
It's either an incredibly slow news day over there, or the wacky assistant-front page editor is filling in while the boss takes a three-day weekend or something. Wow.
Even more shocking (Score:2)
To Brian Wilkinson, editor of the online site X-Fan, Marvel's argument is appalling. The X-Men -- not real? "This is almost unthinkable," he says. "Marvel's super heroes are as real as you or I. They live in New York. They have families and go to work. How could they possibly be figments of someone's imagination?"
Superman Not Human, *gasp (Score:4, Insightful)
Veteran comics fan Christian Cooper, who once worked as a Marvel editor, thinks Judge Barzilay got carried away. If Kraven isn't human, what about the twisted villains in Dick Tracy? Or worse yet, Superman himself? "Here's a guy who changes his clothes in a phone booth and flies through the air," says Mr. Cooper. "Does that mean he's now an animal?"
No, he's Kryptonian you nitwit. What a kneejerk reaction!
THIS IS OVER IMPORT DUTIES CLASSIFICATION FOR CRIPES SAKE! Who gives a groundhog's fanny if they call Superman a "cup of water with a straw hanging off the end?"
Looking forward to the real thing (Score:2)
I'm kind of looking forward to cases over whether robots and uplifted meerkats and kids with tendencies toward dyslexia deleted from their genome and such are human. Cuz' It's The Business of the Future to Be Dangerous.*
Stefan
* Alfred North Whitehead.
I don't believe the judge can make a ruling, (Score:5, Funny)
Ha! Just remember Judith! I've got the Daily Bugle on my side, and if there's any funny business going on, these pictures that Parker took are going in the afternoon edition!!
Angrily Signed with Desk Pounding Action,
J. Jonah Jameson
Jean Grey (Score:2)
Only a mutant could sustain a bust like Jean's for all these years.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled weblog.
The Voices... (Score:2)
Did anyone else hear Stan Lee's voice in the back of their head when reading that?
Followed by hearing comic book guy say: "Worst...comment...ever".
Barbie doll is human? (Score:2)
Ow (Score:2, Interesting)
This is one of those articles that really raises the question "As an American, am I morally required to kill the people and politicians who make such brain numbingly stupid things possible?"
I don't even want to know how much money was spent by the government on this case. While, yes, from a business perspective, it is an issue of some small import, this is the type of thing that should make any self-respecting judge literally throw the gavel at the plaintiffs. And I mean literally throw the gavel at them. Instead she sits around and plays house with Wolverine and Mole Man. Which is disturbing in and of it self.
Yes, I'm sure this will be modded down, but damnit, it needed to be said.
Re:Ow (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't speak for your moral obligations, but what burns me up is that as an American, you're not legally obliged not to kill them, you're also legally obliged to pay them for the privilege. Talk about insult to injury.
"Them", being "accountants and lawyers", to figure out which of the 7 million words of the Internal Revenue Code (and no doubt similarly-massive Customs regs in this case) apply to you.
In 1999, tax compliance costs [google.com] in the US were $300 billion per year. The goddamn income tax collected only $650 billion that year.
Think about that for a minute. For every $1000 in tax collected by the Federal Government, CPAs and lawyers raked in $500.
I'll argue for lower taxes every chance I get - but I want the whole package lowered. End phaseouts. End special exemptions. Bring in a flat tax, or scrap the income tax in favor of a consumption tax. If that means my sacred ox gets gored, and I have pay $1250 to the government every year, versus $1000 to the government and $500 to a CPA, I'm still $250 ahead of the game.
By reforming the Internal Revenue Code and eliminating this overhead, even the goddamn government would be ahead of the game. (At worst, they'd break even, considering they currently take half - $250 - of the $500 spent on compliance costs for every $1000 in taxes paid :-)
The judge was right (Score:3, Insightful)
Superman (and any other alien--and yes, I know full well Superman is a DC creation, so I'm not mixing companies here) would fall into the family of 'extraterrestrialis.'
So with that, it's clear that they are not human, and their plasic representations, although possessing humanoid forms, are not humans (as are you and me.)
You are all Freight (Score:2)
As that description covers most geeks, it would appear everyone now has to use freight services, rather than human transports. That's right, you have to take freight elevators, and when traveling, be stowed away under the seat or in the overhead compartments.
Despite the effects of this ruling, no-one but the EFF is appealing. Members of the ACLU say they are quite happy with the arrangement.
What does this say... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What does this say... (Score:3, Funny)
Dude! You didn't buy an action figure! You bought a f*ckin' DOLL!!! The judge said so. I don't know about you... Although I guess it's OK if you're a girl or something.
Superman (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not trying to troll here, I grew up on Superman. But really, these are "just" comic book characters, not actual people of any sort, anyway, hear me out...
The court case carries an undertone that's not just spacific to comic book characters. It's the definition of "What it is to be human" itself. I believe that's what alot of people are thinking--how can a judge declare something human or not human? What does this mean to genetically altered people or human clones? *that's* what people should be concerned about here.
A link to the Judge's 32-page opinion (plus mine) (Score:4, Insightful)
I went to see if I could find Judge's opinion online. Indeed, it is! In PDF form, I bring you Toy Biz, Inc. v. United States [uscourts.gov].
For those of you decrying our taxpayer dollars going to waste on such a suit, it appears some at least is being used to make such decisions more accessible, a fact which I hope we can all agree upon.
Personally, I think it was worth every penny to expose a fantastic example of corporate hypocracy. I read maybe a dozen X-Men comics (and didn't see the movie) and the main philosophical point I saw that the series revolved around (besides raw action) was that the X-Men should in fact be considered human despite their 'mutant' powers.
Given that, what could be more hypocritical than turning around and claiming that, while for storyline purposes the X-Men should be considered human, but for tax purposes, they are not.
But maybe I should read the Judge's opinion first. It's long, so I'm posting the link here before I read. Based on the first paragraph, it looks like the matter never went to a full trial and was decided in a pre-trial 'summary judgement'.
--LP
What about... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:X-Men lose their rights (Score:3, Funny)
I'm pretty sure that both Rachel and Nathan (Cable) are old enough to be able to look after themselves now, don't you think?
Re:X-Men lose their rights (Score:3, Insightful)
They are what they always were, merchandise.
Of course 40 years ago I had a slightly different view whilst putting my paper route profits into Stan Lee's pocket.
Re:X-Men lose their rights (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is, that it has not "ceased to matter". Read the article, and you will see that the toy company is seeking refund of paid import duty... no doubt with interest. And no doubt with legal costs.
The American public is ultimately going to lose out. If you bought one of these X-Men figures during the period in question, you paid the higher duty on it. Now,
Toy Biz is going to get back some of that duty... from the government; ergo, from the taxpayers.
You get screwed twice.
Re:What the X-men need... (Score:2)
He's got experience with this stuff.
Yeah, right! That old tub of lard wouldn't last five seconds against Jubilee, let alone Wolverine!
Re:The New X-Men kick ass. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ain't that the truth!
Re:the law is weird (Score:2)
I also wonder why there's a different tax rate on "human" versus other toys.
Re:Jeez... (Score:2)