Funnyjunk Lawyer Being Mocked Mercilessly, Makes Things Worse By Trying To Shut Down The Oatmeal's Fundraiser
from the stop-digging dept
As the famous saying goes, when you are in a hole, stop digging. Someone might want to send that message to lawyer Charles Carreon, who has (legitimately) worked on some good cases in the past. However, for reasons that are confusing even his friends, he seems to be trying to respond to a big mistake by hinting at an even bigger one. As you have probably heard -- since it's all over the freaking internet -- there's a little fight going on between funny webcomic site The Oatmeal (and its creator Matthew Inman) and the not very funny aggregator of things that people claim are funny site, Funnyjunk. You can read our take on the mess, if you'd like.The summary version is that Inman got annoyed at people posting his comics on Funnyjunk and spoke out publicly about it (to be honest, his statements seemed to be an overreaction and include lots of silly statements about "stealing" that aren't particularly accurate). However, he was clear that he had no interest in suing or using the law at all. He just wanted to speak his mind and shame the site. Funnyjunk overreacted back... and then waited a while before doubling (or perhaps tripling) down on its overreaction by hiring Carreon to send Inman a letter threatening a lawsuit on a bunch of claims, nearly all of which appear to be totally bogus (the defamation claim is the main one, which is simply ridiculous, but there's also an absolutely crazy trademark claim that seems to suggest that Inman's opinion of Funnyjunk is "false advertising"), as well as demanding $20,000. Inman then responded in true internet fashion, by posting the letter with his thoughts interspersed and (most importantly) setting up a fundraiser at IndieGogo to try to raise $20,000, not to pay off Funnyjunk, but to donate to charity. And it came included with a marginally NSFW drawing involving a mother (apparently "Funnyjunk's") and a bear. You've probably seen it by now.
Anyway, somewhere along the way the Streisand Effect took over, and the whole thing went viral. Now, as we've learned in previous Streisand Effect situations, this is the point at which the person who overreacted begins to recognize how badly they screwed up and how they've made things a lot worse. And then they apologize and grovel or something along those lines -- and we chalk up another hash mark on the big scoreboard on the internet showing how social pressure and the court of public opinion can keep excessive legal threats in check.
But, of course, there are always some people who can't stop digging. In fact, I would guess that the people who often find themselves on the wrong end of the Streisand Effect are probably slightly more prone to excessive-digging in response to said Effect, because the type of person who doesn't really know the Streisand Effect is about to hit them is likely the kind of person who doesn't realize that continuing to dig doesn't get one out of a hole.
And, here, it appears that Carreon has failed to stop digging. He spoke to MSNBC and said a few things so stupid that he might want to have someone who is more internet native act as a filter prior to talking to the press in the future about these sorts of things. Here's the big one:
He also explains that he believes Inman's fundraiser to be a violation of the terms of service of IndieGoGo, the website being used to collect donations, and has sent a request to disable the fundraising campaign. (The fundraising website has only responded with an automated message so far.)Yes. A large portion of the internet hates you... and your response is to threaten to shut down a massively successful fundraiser for the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society? Really? Is that really the smartest response to the situation?
"I don't think that what I did was unreasonable," Carreon says while discussing the initial demands sent to Inman. He tells me that while this situation is unique, he is typically open to negotiation. He ended the conversation with a promise to keep me updated on how things are resolved and on whether he takes any legal action against the folks who have been harassing him since Inman's "BearLove Good Cancer Bad" fundraising campaign started.
Then there's this:
"I'm completely unfamiliar really with this style of responding to a legal threat -- I've never really seen it before," Carreon explains.Indeed, I don't think anyone is quite familiar with the full extent of Inman's response, but for a lawyer who plays up his connections to various internet-related lawsuits, you would think Carreon would have, perhaps, spent some time on the internet. And the internet, in general, is not a fan of bogus legal threats. There's a pretty long history of that, and it shouldn't have been that hard to predict that this threat would backfire.
Either way, as another day goes by, one hopes that Carreon's more level-headed friends will suggest that it may be time to ditch the shovel.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: charles carreon, matthew inman, streisand effect, the oatmeal
Companies: funnyjunk, indiegogo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oatmeal getting trolled ?
Well done Funnyjunk for giving us the lulz.
Way funnier than Oatmeal calling people thieves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh quit reverse trolling
anyway, I thought Oatmeal's original response was funny. Womanbearlove? Figured it might be a rip on manbearpig.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oh quit reverse trolling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reverse trolling ? what's that ;�]
(brb) off to view Inman's "stolen images" on 4chan ... Funnyjunk sucks
** Hope Inman can cure the cancer in /b/...
** and that "third-world country" wildlife thingy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oatmeal getting trolled ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Useful idiot to the rescue ?...yep, nailed it
He is still crying....... listen....
quick, go help him, he needs your help , hear his cries ?
Quick..go DONATE, to help him beat the big bad, Funnyjunk thief.
Spare me from the manufactured idea, that YOU got sucked into.
I've seen too much, man made drama already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Useful idiot to the rescue ?...yep, nailed it
This is not reverse trolling - just plain bad commenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assume I am on a side ?.....wrong
That is what you call.... true
1.) "cried like a baby"
"funnyjunk steal my images"
"makes a comic berating funnyjunks business and it's users"
"your admin is a moron who chooses his words about as carefully as a mule chooses where to take a shit. "" Irony ?
"stolen images"
"I just wanted my stolen comics removed "
etc.... general crying
2.) "unwarranted self importance"
Reason for the crying....amiright ?
3.) "buying public opinion "
"my comics being stolen"
"donate to charity"
Funnyjunk "admin is a moron"
etc....
Doesn't use dmca which would solve the issue, rather posts public response
""This is just plain bad commenting.""
I await your sentence judge !
Remember in my defense , I am just as tough if not more so on the side you are against (funnyjunk).
Be lenient : )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Assume I am on a side ?.....wrong
Second, the public response was a response to a response. It wasn't the original contact. Doubt it was even the second contact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Research B4 U regurgitate
Oh but Inman said "he was told that they would ignore his requests of removal"
EVEN after funnyjunk removed content at Inman's request.
I have some magic beans... want to buy some.
#gullible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Research B4 U regurgitate
aaand:
1. "cried like a baby": so every blog is crying? "I had a bad day" ---> pussy!
Try again.
2. "unwarranted self importance": Fail by default (opinion of a bad troll? Who cares.)
3. "buying public opinion": his readers are influenced by his opinion, sure. I don't see that as buying. Nobody does, except maybe for Carreon. And you, if you actually believe your words.
You sound like that 12 years old admin - hoping to turn public opinion with bad trolling - #gullible
(see what I did there?)
ps: Oh and you should read up on irony since you obviously don't know what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Assume I am on a side ?.....wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Assume I am on a side ?.....wrong
No lose argument is faggotry X 100.
Remove images = liar. Keep images = thief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Assume I am on a side ?.....wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Assume I am on a side ?.....wrong
(if anyone's a fisherman - I'm sorry)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oatmeal getting trolled ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oatmeal getting trolled ?
A group which generally includes most regular named TD commenters, despite the attempts of anonymous morons to distort and lie about their positions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
level-headed friends ??
Do you really think they are level-headed? If they are, why would they be his friends?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: level-headed friends ??
Holy fucking shitballs inside a burning biplane careening toward the Statue of Liberty, Captain! I hope that the reporter merely got the story wrong, because if not, that's more fucked up than a rhino raping a chinchilla while dressed up in unicorns' undergarments.
/who knew lawyers could have a sense of humor???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: level-headed friends ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: level-headed friends ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In any case, lawyers sure are dumb. And that's hilarious given how much schooling they have to pay for. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're joking, right? Matthew Inman was against SOPA.
http://theoatmeal.com/sopa
I know you're trying very hard (and failing very hard) to be sarcastic, but your complete lack of understanding is showing. Even more than usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Reading Fail :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is bloody stupid because Inman's stance on SOPA was well-known enough to get airtime on national television.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"No, no, dig up, stupid!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do you expect from the leeches?
Everyone around here has polished off too much of the Kool Aid. The lawyer has probably read too much TechDirt and he wants to frame the cartoonist as one of those evil branches of the RIAA or MPAA, out to censor the world. It sure seems like the lawyer is a member of the Kool Aid drinking tribe because Mike says he's worked on some legit cases in the past.
Suddenly Mike is caught in a logical conundrum. Lawsuits are supposed to be evil because, well, I'm not sure but apparently we're not supposed to defend our rights unless they're rights blessed by Big Search. But suddenly the lawsuit is being threatened by the Big Search acolyte, eager to ensure his free content supply isn't shut off!
Is your brain hurting? It should be if you drink too much of this web site's Kool Aid. Isn't leeching off someone else's hard work supposed to be innovation? Isn't it a fair and noble act to infringe? If so, shouldn't we be able to sue anyone who questions our right to just take what isn't ours?
Argh!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
Yeah, we really shouldn't be relying on posting hyperlinks to other sites or images we fancy to make a point on Facebook.
> The lawyer has probably read too much TechDirt and he wants to frame the cartoonist as one of those evil branches of the RIAA or MPAA
Inman has done nothing remotely close to the RIAA's modus operandi. He hasn't gone after individual users or threatened to shut down the site. At best he's made a mockery of it. Your anti-TechDirt shilltail is showing.
> Isn't leeching off someone else's hard work supposed to be innovation? Isn't it a fair and noble act to infringe? If so, shouldn't we be able to sue anyone who questions our right to just take what isn't ours?
Clearly you haven't been reading up on the case. Funnyjunk users were proven to have removed Inman's attributions on his own work. Inman requested takedowns, and suddenly Funnyjunk users were in an uproar insisting that Inman was demanding Funnyjunk's takedown. On the other hand, for every "pirate" copy of software, music or games, no one has ever claimed that the original was created by whatever release or warez group that released it. Your point is stupid, as always.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
And they probably thought that they were fighting the good fight against censorship with this law suit. All the Funnyjunk leeches probably thought they could paint this cartoonist as another RIAA or MPAA for even daring to question their "right" to take whatever they can.
It doesn't look like it's working out that way. I'm just enjoying Mike punish the copyright-sucks crowd, albeit with a wet noodle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
Why don't you try some of that "innovation" celebrated around here and at least pirate someone else's opinion. It might be more effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
some of the poop leaks out and you are kind enough to share it on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
You are very much still off your rocker. Anyone with an IQ over 20 can see that. I don't need to justify anything. But please, continue to dig.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
Like I've said, you're an idiot if you think that's what's being driven here. Go ahead, find a warez group that's released "The Pirate Bay Photoshop CS5.1".
> And they probably thought that they were fighting the good fight against censorship with this law suit. All the Funnyjunk leeches probably thought they could paint this cartoonist as another RIAA or MPAA for even daring to question their "right" to take whatever they can.
You, very clearly, have not been following or even reading on the case. Inman made fun of Funnyjunk users' overreaction. Stupidly enough, Funnyjunk decided to overreact even further.
If anything, Funnyjunk is acting very similar to the RIAA.
- Insisting that whatever they're running/have in possession has been devastated several times over, despite that not being the case.
- Insisting that existing law allows them to do things not written in existing law.
- Getting a lot of ridicule, thanks to going on a path competely devoid of goodwill.
Your attempts at sarcasm and digs at this site are pathetic at best, and disingenuous - bordering on slanderous - at worst. But then again, we know how you insisted that John Steele was a fine, upstanding citizen yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
And speaking of noodles, I'm getting hungry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
bob doesn't believe in sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
Rule number 1 at Big Search is never give the creators a dime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
so in a sense, they are taking money from you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
You do know the exact argument can be made for the labels as well. So when "Big Search" does it its baaaaad, but when the recording industry does it its ok. Right boB?
Didnt know funnyjunk was big search, thanks for letting me know LOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
Really? Well first off YouTube's (owned by Google) monetization program seems to do a pretty good job of giving dimes to creators.
And you are also forgetting the other side of that equation - getting ranked higher on Google drives customers to your site. Maybe Google should start charging you for the "advertising" when you show up on thier search results and on the number of views they send to your website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
bwa ha ha ha ha-a-a-a-a
EXCELLENT point, gwizzer
+3 inertnets
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
Rule number 1 for Illuminati is to have some nut spout crazy stuff to keep Scotland from winning UEFA.
Do I win the crazy off?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
Actually, it's "Rule number 1 at Big MEDIA is never give the creators a dime."
Ask Jack Kirby's family. (You can't ask Kirby. He's dead.)
Ask Dave Prowse (who played Darth Vader in the original trilogy)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
Reading the bullshit you spout? Always. At least you didn't start ranting about paywalls this time.
"Lawsuits are supposed to be evil because, well, I'm not sure"
If you actually read the articles and comments, you might understand (hint: well-targeted lawsuits that don't try to replace innovation and adaptation to new markets are perfectly OK).
"It sure seems like the lawyer is a member of the Kool Aid drinking tribe because Mike says he's worked on some legit cases in the past."
"Isn't leeching off someone else's hard work supposed to be innovation? Isn't it a fair and noble act to infringe? If so, shouldn't we be able to sue anyone who questions our right to just take what isn't ours? "
An impressive array of useless strawmen and ad hominem attacks. Don't you get tired of attacking fictional characters instead of the real opinions in front of you?I mean, we're right here, distorting our actual opinions won't work when the people holding those opinions know you're lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
You're just seeing the true face of the pirate crowd. They'll do anything to keep that flow of unpaid, unlicensed content coming. In this case, the leecher decided to sue, no doubt hoping that the Internet crowd would treat him like an anti-SOPA hero and see the cartoonist as just another RIAA or MPAA.
Face it bud. You're on the side of a lawsuit designed to defend an aging business model-- the business model of a pirate who doesn't want to share any of the ad revenue with the people who do the hard work of creating the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
The comics posted on Funnyjunk were likewise hosted on TheOatmeal. For free. I don't know why you think this makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
If people act like jerks they will be treated as such. Regardless of who it is. You trying to paint this as some "Big Search" failure and link it to some calamity derived from copyright anti-enforcement is failing. Extremely hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
+1 insightful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
Wait, Funnyjunk is part of the Big Search crowd?
If so, then can you at long last define what you mean by "Big Search?" Who is part of that crowd? Because I really can't tell what you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
I believe things where evidence is presented to me, and no other explanation seems reasonable. For example:
"Face it bud. You're on the side..."
You haven't bothered to ask my opinion on this lawsuit. You haven't bothered, in fact, to get my actual opinion on this or any related subject. You attack me as part of the "pirate crowd" despite me stating over and over again (with evidence) that I'm no such thing. You attack what you think my opinion is, without evidence of what that is, you simply assume a position is held and attack that.
In other words, a strawman.
I believe truth, you believe fiction. You'll forgive me if I give my ideas more credence, unless of course you grow some intellectual honestly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
I'd also like you to point out when and where a similar site - or anyone from Big Search, I know how you love to incriminate them - has ever filed such a lawsuit against anyone. Do you really think Google has sued the RIAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
I admire your way of agreeing with Mike, but still making him sound like a truely unlikeable extremist. That is quite revealing about how you feel about yourself, sir. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
So it seems like the rules around here are:
1) Never sue anyone.
2) Never pay for content.
But (1) trumps (2). Fascinating. Why bother having the court system at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
Come on, bob, you can do it. We believe in you, bob. Read it, bob. Try and understand it, bob. Bob bob bob it, bob!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
http://pokemon-online.eu/forums/showthread.php?5132-Creative-Play-V1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
And how did you reach this conclusion? Evidence, please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
Also, could you seriously stop saying Big [insert word here]. It's fucking stupid and doesn't mean a thing. A more truthful use of the bob phrase, "Big [etc]" would be something like Big Content. A term I saw in use recently on a reputable technology related article by a reputable author. I'm thinking it was over at BGR this week.
Seriously bob, if you put as much effort into actually thinking things through logically and coming up with facts to support whatever stance you have as you do into apparently being able to pierce the vast conspiracies being unleashed on the world by Big Search and Big Hardware and Big Etc you would first off shock all of us and secondly, and more importantly, actually make a fucking well reasoned and easily understood point.
To summarize, back away from the keyboard until you've either taken your meds or you actually start using that brain that whatever mythical deity you believe in gave you for something other than retarded rantings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
And get a clue. Big Search is 10 times bigger than Big Content. The biggest Hollywood studios are tiny compared to the market cap of Big Search. Big Search is run by billionaires.
This case shows how the creator is really the little guy in the whole ecosystem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
I think it's pretty telling that a business that's been around less than 15 years is bigger than an industry that's been around over 100 years. Makes me think that they might want to emulate Google and give customers what they want. But no. That's just crazy talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
Feed the troll!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
I said "fucking" twice. That is "swear so much" to you? Wow. Poor virgin eared, delusional bob.
"And get a clue."
bob, when you get one first then you can tell others to get a clue. Til then, just stay quiet.
"Big Search is 10 times bigger than Big Content. The biggest Hollywood studios are tiny compared to the market cap of Big Search. Big Search is run by billionaires."
Google and other tech companies might be bigger overall, but that's because they have a much bigger global audience to reach and because they also are pretty much fueling everything. Almost everything nowadays involves technology in one way, shape or form. Be it hardware or software. How is that their fault? They didn't orchestrate any vast globe spanning conspiracy to make people use computers or the internet. What they did do though was take a look at what people needed and wanted and then met those needs/wants.
The biggest Hollywood studios might be tiny compared to the boogeymen you fear exist, yet they wield much more power and influence and have far more sinister intentions than the boogeyman ever has. Or should we discuss who wants the power to monitor everything any of us does on the internet to make sure we're not all thieving pirates? Because I'm pretty sure that is Hollywood studios wanting that, not Big Boogeyman.
"This case shows how the creator is really the little guy in the whole ecosystem."
I still don't know wtf you're talking about. Seriously.
The Oatmeal's content was being used elsewhere with no credit given whatsoever, so they made a comic about it. FunnyJunk overreacted and then did so again when they were mocked for their reaction, thus making their situation worse. FunnyJunk in this case was not the creator and by waving their arms around and shouting hysterics and "defamation" and whatnot have only added fuel to the fire. That fire being them being mocked by the internet for overreacting.
There, I believe I summarized the situation quite accurately and sensibly. Go ahead, read it. Then read it again. And realize nothing you've said so far has even remotely related to the situation at all.
bob wouldn't your time be better off elsewhere? I know for a fact there are quite a few conspiracy theory websites and forums. Go amongst your people. Or start your own. You can rant about Big Search and Big Hardware and Big Piracy and whatnot to your heart's content and maybe find a few like minded (aka "completely delusional") people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
And I'm little? Compare to the size of the Internet, yes that's true. But from what I can remember, it takes one to start something, no matter how small they are. Yeah, don't see how size is a matter here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What do you expect from the leeches?
Northfield, IL 60093-2753
Good day...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
small mistake?
shouldn't that be "then"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: small mistake?
Oh, the irony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: small mistake?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: small mistake?
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's time for Carreon to stop digging, get out of the hole and admire his work then fill it in before he drowns.
Just closing his yap would go a long, long way to ending this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet is Serious Fuking Business
First I was like...????? seems legit !
Then I was like...... LOL
[IMAGE]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's assume that they actually win their case and get their $20.000. So what? Their reputation will be forever destroyed (more than it already is) and an extra $20.000 in the bank isn't much of a compensation IMHO.
Given how "vengeful" the Internet is (it doesn't forgive nor forget), I very much doubt that the owners of the site will ever be able to build any sort of meaningful Internet presence. They'll always be "those douchebags that sued the Oatmeal".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to the Internet, where trolls are abound and anything you say can (and might) start a flame wars. Choose your words carefully or get out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bear punch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bear punch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's his email!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But then, you probably love Justin and wonder why we all slag him :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A honest lawyer
At least he is admitting to being a bully by saying "legal threat" as opposed to the weaselly "legal action" phrase normally used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hilarious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vultures, all of 'em
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vultures, all of 'em, speaking of names
By the by, "bob" is a rather apt name as well it reminds me of some flotsam in the sea of life , aimlessly wondering, with no real purpose, other then to be brushed off repeatedly.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The explanation for this idiocy is.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The explanation for this idiocy is.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is just hilarious. I can see the headline now: "Crusty old law-chap surprised by internet's internetyness"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
before all of this mr lawyerman's Wikipedia article was on the chopping block for deletion, someone very "close" to the subject wrote most of the article, and it needed more citations and verifications from reputable sources.
The things SOME people will do for Wikipedia fame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because in bob's eyes, Matthew Inman is the villain. Not only did Matthew Inman have the gall to protest SOPA, he even made a comic about how bob's paywall masters made legitimate products such an ass to get and how directly downloading it proved to be much more convenient. Matthew Inman is the devil to bob and nothing would make him happier than if people started demonising him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to the Internet. Embrace the mockery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]