I came across a Medium article by one David Wineberg, who has given the above title to a collection of essays based on a thousand non-fiction reviews. I know, I haven’t been a mod here for a long time, but I do still have my Staff Mug, and as one who began reading the column in the 1970s, and joined the message board in 1999, I feel … I don’t know … violated . As long as the column and/or the message board have been around I feel that something has been taken from us.
He’s even set up a page to sell the book, complete with a blurry view of the table of contents: www.thestraightdope.net.
When we don’t even know how much longer this place can hang on, this does hurt a little. It’s painful to see that, as long as the column and SDMB have been around, Wineberg didn’t bother checking to see if anyone else was using the name.
I don’t believe you can copyright a title. Is The Straight Dope here - or as it applied to the previous column - more than a title? Is it a brand or trademark? Will this book contribute to market dilution or brand confusion?
I am a member of a band that seldom plays out, but we are readily searchable by name on-line. Before we chose the name, I conducted a pretty extensive on-line search and found not duplicates. Was a tad displeased when I saw that an improv group across the country started using the same name on-line. Struck me as rude, not to mention non-creative.
Yeah, this, and not only is it acceptable but it’s extremely common. You can even find book lists for people who want to read a bunch of books with identical titles.
Self-published, #3,559,731 on the best seller list, put out several years ago…and (judging from the preview on the Amazon Prime page) not very well researched. Not impressed.
Yeah. The whole point was that the phrase was such common usage 50 years ago that everybody reading it would instantly know what they were getting.
I never see it any more and the drug allusion almost certainly overwhelms the truth connotation. Only someone who didn’t know or care much about words would use it as a title today.
I see that an Amazon review from the UK has mistaken Wineberg for Cecil Adams:
I’ve been a fan of Wineberg’s since I discovered the “Straight Dope” column, which has itself been running for decades.
No fact is too arcane to be uncovered or checked by Wineberg and his charming - not to say quirky - writing style mean that taking in this otherwise bewildering buzz of information is easily accomplished.
There are a total of 7 reviews, and one of them seems to be about a Cecil book. Pretty sad, really.
I noticed that too, but it was only yesterday that I saw a current column of his on Medium, still under “his” Straight Dope banner. The book may be old but the column continues.
It’s also not the same thing. The phrase “straight dope” did derive from knowing which horses were drugged before a race, but the connotation was “correct information” and that was the way the phrase moved into the language. That connotation is what has largely been forgotten. All people see is dope, stripped of the former context. A generalization, but I believe a correct one.
ETA: I responded to the earlier post which now reads Never Mind, but originally had just the first sentence of the later post. Confusion ensued.
Still, the word “dope” has been used to mean various narcotics since the 1880s. It’s not a recent usage.
According to the Etymology Online site the meaning of true facts or inside knowledge may have actually originated indirectly from the drug-related meaning. Apparently “straight dope” came from the world of horse racing and had to do with knowing which horses were being drugged to improve performance.
I thought it was lost in cyberspace so I reposted.
I sure do miss being able to post from Tapatalk. Life was easy then.
In 1973 when the SD column started, “dope” usually meant marijuana if it meant any specific drug. Hard drugs like heroin (smack) and cocaine (“snow”) usually had their own nicknames.
As part of a brand, sure. But I don’t think that means nobody can use that as a book title. They just can’t infringe on the brand. IANAL but I’m pretty sure if the only similarity is the name, there’s nothing actionable.