+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 39
General Chat Thread, Possibly NSFW: Anyone else following the BearLove sillyness? in General; Starts here: FunnyJunk is threatening to file a federal lawsuit against me unless I pay $20,000 in damages - The ...
  1. #1


    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In the server room, with the lead pipe.
    Posts
    4,630
    Thank Post
    275
    Thanked 777 Times in 604 Posts
    Rep Power
    223

    Possibly NSFW: Anyone else following the BearLove sillyness?

    Starts here: FunnyJunk is threatening to file a federal lawsuit against me unless I pay $20,000 in damages - The Oatmeal
    Legal writeup begins here (involves some swearing): FunnyJunk Issues Bogus Legal Threat To The Oatmeal, Hilarity Ensues | Popehat

    Ars coverage: The Oatmeal vs. FunnyJunk: webcomic copyright fight gets personal | Ars Technica

    TLDR:
    1) Streisand effect invoked.
    2) Streisand effect extended by "Internet Lawyer".
    3) "Internet Lawyer" goes full Streisand.
    4) Everyone runs out of popcorn.

  2. #2

    ZeroHour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    5,643
    Thank Post
    895
    Thanked 1,314 Times in 798 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    444
    Yeh I have been following it myself, the Streisand effect is in full force lol.

  3. #3


    AMLightfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hampshire, England
    Posts
    2,136
    Thank Post
    370
    Thanked 615 Times in 392 Posts
    Rep Power
    250
    Yeah I've seen some stuff about it but all the legalese is a bit over my head. From what I've seen and understood, FunnyJunk are in the wrong here as they have taken content that is presumably subject to intellectual copyright and normal copyright laws and edited it to remove the copyright information. This in itself is surely an infringement? Hosting of Oatmeal content aside, even if they had a point about hosting content from the Oatmeal, and even if the Oatmeal doesn't have a right to dictate removal of content on an ad-infested site, surely the removal of citation alone is enough to overturn this?

    Edited to add: User uploaded content is no excuse. It is the sites responsibility to moderate its content and ensure it remains within the law. It is even MORE unacceptable to then defame the originator of the work... Should he feel so inclined (and I'm certain some lawyer somewhere will step forward) I would not be surprised to find that Inman (aka The Oatmeal) wins his case.
    Last edited by AMLightfoot; 18th June 2012 at 04:54 PM.

  4. #4


    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In the server room, with the lead pipe.
    Posts
    4,630
    Thank Post
    275
    Thanked 777 Times in 604 Posts
    Rep Power
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by AMLightfoot View Post
    Edited to add: User uploaded content is no excuse. It is the sites responsibility to moderate its content and ensure it remains within the law. It is even MORE unacceptable to then defame the originator of the work... Should he feel so inclined (and I'm certain some lawyer somewhere will step forward) I would not be surprised to find that Inman (aka The Oatmeal) wins his case.
    WRT Funnyjunk and user-generated content, the best part is that their DMCA agent isn't registered with the copyright office, so they have no protection from the "hey it was our users" defence.

    As Oatmeal's lawyer noted here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/96850920/F...tmeal-Response

    It is also possible that FunnyJunk hasn’t complied withthe requirements of the DMCA and thus cannot take advantage of its protections. Among otherthings, the DMCA requires a service provider to designate an agent, provide contactinformation, and file a notice of designation with the Copyright Office. Without taking a positionon the other issues, I’ll note simply that FunnyJunk does not appear to have a notice ofdesignation on file with the Copyright Office. This alone would be enough to undermine anydefense of immunity to claims of infringement that The Oatmeal (or third parties) may assert.
    That's a schoolboy error.
    Last edited by pete; 18th June 2012 at 05:16 PM.

  5. #5


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,578
    Thank Post
    924
    Thanked 342 Times in 263 Posts
    Rep Power
    206
    It's nice to see all this money getting raised (and FunnyJunk getting their come-uppance), but easily the best part of BrearLove Good Cancer Bad is the picture of the lawyers mother attempting to seduce a bear xD

  6. #6

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,033
    Thank Post
    591
    Thanked 1,945 Times in 1,345 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    813
    Quote Originally Posted by Garacesh View Post
    the picture of the lawyers mother attempting to seduce a bear xD
    It's not the lawyers mother....

    It's FunnyJunk's mother.



    TBH, this is beyond stupid. This all started because Inman wanted credit for his work.

    Not takedowns, not compensation... Just credit.

    FunnyJunk are acting like babies. For example, they changed all references to "The Oatmeal" to something which escapes me at present, but would be inappropriate anyway.



    Also, the lawyer donated to Bearlove good, Cancer bad.

  7. Thanks to X-13 from:

    Little-Miss (19th June 2012)

  8. #7


    AMLightfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hampshire, England
    Posts
    2,136
    Thank Post
    370
    Thanked 615 Times in 392 Posts
    Rep Power
    250
    Ha ha haaaa I've just caught up with the latest 'twists and turns' in this case. The lawyer is a tw*t (then again, aren't they all?), although the point about unsolicited fundraising may be valid but it seems neither the plaintiff or his client are fully cognisant of the context of state laws. I really think FJ and Carreon are going to be pwned. They may win minor victories in the form of a point being conceeded here and there, but overall they've dug themselves a hole they will struggle to get out of. I am surprised that Carreon is risking so much reputation with the frivalous suit though.

    Although is it just me or does the letter from the Oatmeal lawyer sound 'weak' by using statments like 'Everybody knows....' - this cannot be backed up with verifiable fact so IMO phrases like this do not belong in legal documentation. Then again, perhaps I'm too conditioned into 'proving' and 'supporting' every statement in academic writing (blah blah blah in accordance with Heeby & Jeeby, 2009. Etc etc etc as postulated by J.Bloggs, 2011 (also, I know the citations are incorrect, I just cbb to check the syntax))? That being said, there are a great deal more citations than the original letter - guess someone didn't do their homework. lol.

    I love that this has exploded - it's so much fun to lurk around and laugh at the trolls.

  9. #8

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,033
    Thank Post
    591
    Thanked 1,945 Times in 1,345 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    813
    Quote Originally Posted by AMLightfoot View Post
    the point about unsolicited fundraising may be valid
    It isn't. Inman isn't making ANY money from the fundraising, his argument is invalid. 100% of the money raised is going to charity.

    He's even adding another couple of charities because it's gone over by so much. [Last I saw it was nearly $200k.]

  10. #9


    AMLightfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hampshire, England
    Posts
    2,136
    Thank Post
    370
    Thanked 615 Times in 392 Posts
    Rep Power
    250
    I've just got down to page 5 of the response letter:

    "At the end of the day, a lawsuit against TheOatmeal in this situation is just a really bad idea."
    This is from a LAWYER? REALLY?

    @X-13 don't forget that laws about fundraising are many and complex and Oatmeal has essentially said 'If you donate to the litigation fund, I will photograph the money and give it to charities' but he is not a registered fundraiser for these charities so it is the internet equivalent of one of us going out into the street rattling a tin and saying 'I'm not homeless but if you donate to me, I'll give the money to a homeless shelter' without actually being affiliated with or registered as a legitimate fundraiser. Soliciting others to donate is probably legislated in some way, and I believe that Oatmeal is probably walking a narrow line here and the plaintiffs lawyer MAY have a point. But I don't know enough about US fundraising law to speculate. As I said, it MAY be valid. Equally it may not. I don't know.
    Last edited by AMLightfoot; 19th June 2012 at 11:22 AM.

  11. #10

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,033
    Thank Post
    591
    Thanked 1,945 Times in 1,345 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    813
    @AMLightfoot The Lawyer is arguing that as they aren't registered with [whoever], that the fundraising is illegal.

    He's forgetting/ignoring the fact that that only applies if they are fundraising FOR PROFIT.

    Inman isn't making anything out of this, therefore his argument is invalid.


    Whether or not there is another aspect at play, I can't comment on. But as for this specific part, it's carp, and the lawyer more than likely knows it. [If he doesn't, he needs to learn how to read.]



    Disclaimer: I am not, nor have I ever been, a lawyer.
    Last edited by X-13; 19th June 2012 at 11:28 AM.

  12. #11


    AMLightfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hampshire, England
    Posts
    2,136
    Thank Post
    370
    Thanked 615 Times in 392 Posts
    Rep Power
    250
    To be fair, it seems that FJ seems to be making a lot of incorrect assumptions and basing the suit on these - they are assuming profit is made from the fundraising, but they have no statement of proof (although I know that in the UK, even non-profit fundraising must be done with licenses and registrations and stuff), they are also claiming protection from some government department that they themselves have not correctly registered with. That hole is getting deeper methinks. Will be interesting to see how it plays out and who 'wins'. My money is on Oatmeal tbh.

  13. #12

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,033
    Thank Post
    591
    Thanked 1,945 Times in 1,345 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    813
    Quote Originally Posted by AMLightfoot View Post
    Will be interesting to see how it plays out and who 'wins'. My money is on Oatmeal tbh.
    Regardless of the question, the answer is always ponies. [or some variation of ponies.]


    Therefore, the winner is ponies.


    I was going to write a long rant, while also trying to drop in as many fish puns as I could, but I really can't be bothered.

    Attachment 14364

  14. #13

    CHR1S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    4,489
    Thank Post
    1,575
    Thanked 479 Times in 302 Posts
    Rep Power
    215
    One thing that gets me, this seems so stupid and OTT that its a publicity stunt, albeit one that is benefiting charities.

    The world is full of idiots and that FJ lot along with Charles Carreon could fall into that category!

  15. #14

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,033
    Thank Post
    591
    Thanked 1,945 Times in 1,345 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    813
    Quote Originally Posted by CHR1S View Post
    The world is full of idiots and that FJ lot along with Charles Carreon could fall into that category!
    Attachment 14372

    Seems appropriate.

  16. 4 Thanks to X-13:

    CHR1S (20th June 2012), mwbutler (20th June 2012), TheRedGuy (20th June 2012), ZeroHour (21st June 2012)

  17. #15

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,033
    Thank Post
    591
    Thanked 1,945 Times in 1,345 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    813
    This is getting redonkulous...


    So, apparently, according to Carreon, Disney is responsible for Hiroshima.

    "It might not have seemed very dehumanizing when Walt Disney made Japanese people look silly with buck teeth and big glasses who could not pronounce their 'R's or their 'L's," he said. "But it was dehumanizing, and the purpose was to direct evil intentions against them, which ultimately resulted in the only nuclear holocaust that ever occurred in the history of humanity. I don't think Truman would have ever done that if we hadn't so dehumanized the enemy. When you dehumanize someone, that is the first step to inciting people."

    And what's happening to him is exactly the same... Yup, he's comparing himself to [Japanese] holocaust victims.


    Everything this guy says just make me want to slap him...

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 17th May 2011, 02:34 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 9th September 2008, 06:23 PM
  3. Anyone else want to hum the Robocop theme
    By cookie_monster in forum General Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11th April 2008, 03:19 PM
  4. [Video] For anyone following the US elections
    By Geoff in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 9th March 2008, 03:27 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11th May 2007, 09:18 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •