Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
from the stop-digging dept
We had already suggested that Funnyjunk's lawyer, Charles Carreon, should stop digging after finding himself in quite the internet hole for threatening Matthew Inman, creator of The Oatmeal, over a scathing page mocking Funnyjunk. Inman's response was over the top, but was also pretty clearly protected free speech, including either factual statements or opinion. You would think that Carreon, who styles himself as a protector of the First Amendment, would recognize that. Yet, in response, Carreon has said that he was going to seek to shut down Inman's fundraiser for the American Cancer Society and National Wildlife Foundation.And, now, it appears that Carreon is continuing to act petulantly after the internet suggested he stop digging. Lots of people pointed out that Carreon pulled down the "contact" page on his own website after the original story went viral, but as some have noticed he's replaced it with a "temporarily unavailable" page that accuses Inman of instigating "security attacks":
If you can't read it, it says:
Due to security attacks instigated by Matt Inman, this function has been temporarily disabled.Really? Security attacks? And "instigated by Matt Inman"? Inman didn't instigate security attacks. He pointed out why he felt that your poorly thought out legal threat letter was, in fact, poorly thought out -- and he turned that into a force for good by setting up a fundraiser for some very popular charities (which, again, you tried to shut down). Considering how freely Carreon tossed around the threat of "defamation" claims against Inman for what he wrote about Funnyjunk, you'd think that he would be more careful before accusing Inman of instigating "security attacks" on his own website. I doubt Inman would fire back with a defamation lawsuit -- and you could argue which side of the defamation line this claim falls on -- but if we were to weigh the two, it sure seems like this statement from Carreon is a lot closer to defamation than anything that Inman said about Funnyjunk.
By the way, it's worth pointing out that the top blog post on Carreon's site is actually all about Chris Dodd's bad reaction to the internet rising up against him in the SOPA/PIPA fight. Carreon might want to read the first sentence of that post and figure out which character he's playing in this drama (or is it farce?):
The kittens kicked ass on Hollywood, and Hollywood, like every frustrated bully, is sounding like a sore loser.
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, chris dodd, defamation, free speech, matthew inman, security, the oatmeal
Companies: funnyjunk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hornbook Defamation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Finally, we'll answer the old question
We'll soon find out thanks to this brave pioneer!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hornbook Defamation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
What do you call a lawyer at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So Carreon is defaming himself?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"like every frustrated bully"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Self defamation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Kinda like putting out a brushfire with napalm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not a question of which side of the line this is on
Inman's statements have been in the form of purposefully humorous and over-the-top rants. This is a flat statement by a lawyer with no additional creative component that purely suggests that Inman is part of a conspiracy to - at the very least - violate the CFAA. There is not even a question of intent: the statement could only have been made with the express purpose of defaming Inman.
He should absolutely sue. This whole thing has been stupid, but nothing so far even compares to a lawyer threatening a meritless defamation case blatantly and unarguably defaming the victim of his extortion claim.
*contents of this post are purely opinions. There is no way to conclusively tell if Charles Carreon is intelligent enough to be accused of defamation: it is quite possible he doesn't know what words mean.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
Taking a quick look, this holds true for a large majority of the world.
In fact, no one in the US will show up on dry land.
However, if you dig from Chile or Argentina in South America you will indeed end up in China.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dumb and Dumber has a new sequel!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ow... Ow... Ow...
The word "lawyer" may be substituted where the gentle reader finds it appropriate to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
Though to be realistic, if you keep digging down, you'll just find a lost world of dinosaurs or Morlocks in the hollow earth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Even if the "security attacks" are real . . .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawyers, eh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
> Google maps to show you the exact
> opposite point on the globe of any
> position on the planet you selected
http://www.antipodemap.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lawyers, eh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
What do you call 10,000 dead lawyers with bullet holes in the back of their heads dumped into the ocean?
A good start!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
What do you call 10,000 dead lawyers with bullet holes in the back of their heads dumped into the ocean?
A good start!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
What do you call 10,000 dead lawyers with bullet holes in the back of their heads dumped into the ocean?
A good start!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
What do you call 10,000 dead lawyers with bullet holes in the back of their heads dumped into the ocean?
A good start!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
What do you call 10,000 dead lawyers with bullet holes in the back of their heads dumped into the ocean?
A good start!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
What do you call 10,000 dead lawyers with bullet holes in the back of their heads dumped into the ocean?
A good start!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
What do you call 10,000 dead lawyers with bullet holes in the back of their heads dumped into the ocean?
A good start!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
Most of Hawaii ends up on Africa, and the top of Alaska ends up in Antarctica.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lawyers, eh?
A dead one!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
Lawyers only have the power to ARGUE. They can't force the judge to do anything, they can't make up evidence (there's probably more cases of police than lawyers presenting fake evidence).
Lawyers argue, period.
When you hire a lawyer, you WANT him to do his best to represent you. You don't want him telling you "hey I could win this, but I think you don't really deserve to win so I won't represent you to the best of my ability".
There are two kinds of lawyers who take a lot of heat from the popular opinion: defense lawyers for helping criminals, and civil suit attorneys for suing people for outrageous amounts of money.
In both cases, it's unfair to get upset the attorneys.
Defense attorney need to do the best job they can to guarantee that the police and prosecutor put up a solid case. That's the only way to keep innocent people out of jail. Two things to consider:
1: If a defense attorney can get his client acquitted, then it means either of two things: a) there was not sufficient evidence against his client, no matter how strongly society believes otherwise or b) the police botched the investigation (client got off on a technicality), which means the police either violated the suspect's rights when they couldn't be sure he was guilty, or the evidence they gathered could be contaminated, possibly have been planted there.
If you people ever have a power-tripping cop planting drugs in your car, you need to realize that the only way you can prove police wrong-doing might be by arguing that the search of your car during which they "found" the drugs was illegal to begin with. The moment we find that the police made a mistake during an investigation, we can't be sure there weren't other mistakes.
2: If defense attorneys decided to be nice and put up weaker defenses just so criminals don't escape justice, the police would soon do a poorer job too. Because why bother with evidence when you know the guy won't get a proper defense? A lot of cops wouldn't care THAT much about getting hard evidence when they think they know who the perpetrator is.
If you guys really have a problem with attorneys doing their job the best they can, blame the law or the judges.
I'd rather have a rapist roaming the streets than being thrown in jail for 20 years for a crime I didn't commit because the police couldn't bother to investigate my wife's lover when she was killed.
And if somebody has wronged me and owes me 20k in damages/reparation, you bet I'd want an attorney who'd be aggressive so that I don't waste too much time and money in court, getting the justice I deserve.
Let's make a law that only innocent people can have an attorney. That's what you guys want, isn't it? I'm sure that would be easy to implement, we could just judge people before we give them an attorney, to decide if they're guilty or not. Oh wait...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
On another note, if you ever need to build a secure base, build it at the North Pole. That way the only way your enemies can attack you is from the South. =P (Or the other way around if you build at the South Pole)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lawyers, eh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
Lawyers Lie for those who pay them, period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
North America / Indian Ocean
Europe / Pacific Ocean
Africa / Pacific Ocean
Australia / Atlantic Ocean
Antarctica / Arctic Ocean
South America / Asia (But still a lot falls on the South China and Philippine Sea)
Asia / South America (Most of Asia still in Pacific & Atlantic Oceans)
Guess it's to do with the fact that the Earth has a greater surface area of water, but does seem a little odd there isn't more of an overlap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
My rough estimate would put the center of the US coming out around the China / Pakistan border.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So Carreon is defaming himself?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
Carreon is on the plaintiff's side in this - Talking about "only defending the innocent" is completely unrelated to the issue. The appropriate metaphor would be that we still prosecute crimes committed against criminals, but that's not particularly relevant; I just want to make it clear that we are in no way suggesting that lawyers refuse to defend "guilty" people in condemning Carreon
Second, this is a civil case, and an utterly meritless one at that. Aside from the outright absurd claim about the pterodactyl, which is a whole bucket of crazy all on its own, every law cited is irrelevant and the sole purpose of mentioning them is to sound scary and legal (if you are at all familiar with the Lanham act then seeing it brought up in that context was truly spit-take worthy). Finally, the defamation claim is meritless all on its own, as FunnyJunk is in fact committing copyright infringement by not complying with the DMCA.
So, the upshot is: Charles Carreon seems to be either malicious or ruinously incompetent as an attorney for allowing his client to take this path. In either case, while I would never forego the privilege of an attorney were I accused of a crime I had committed, you can bet your ass I wouldn't want someone like Charles Carreon even remotely involved in my defense*
*he isn't a criminal defense attorney, obviously, but were he to change his specialty I still wouldn't trust him to represent my best interests given his actions here
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not a question of which side of the line this is on
Inman's statements have been in the form of purposefully humorous and over-the-top rants. This is a flat statement by a lawyer with no additional creative component that purely suggests that Inman is part of a conspiracy to - at the very least - violate the CFAA. There is not even a question of intent: the statement could only have been made with the express purpose of defaming Inman.
Eh. Inman qualifies as a public figure, in which case the bar is significantly higher. He'd have to show not only that Carreon's statements were false, but done with malicious intent. That might be hard to prove to any satisfaction. I just don't see it as defamatory.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How?!
He basically walked up to a wasp nest, whacked it with a stick, and then just stands there acting shocked that he got stung for his trouble.
He sends a $20K shakedown letter, I can understand that, he's a lawyer and he's been hired to do that, but to then try and shut down a fundraiser in what can only be spite... and then to act surprised that that last bit didn't go over too well. Just blows the mind someone apparently (previously) successful could be this lacking in common sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
An attorney has a duty to zealously defend his client, but he is an also an officer of the court sworn not to subborn purjury or to make any filings with no basis in law/fact. For example, according to the rules of professional ethics, a defense attorney who knows his client is guilty can have his client plea not guilty (because, interpreting the facts most favorably to his client, the police didn't meet the burden of proof for a guilty verdict), but he cannot put his client on the stand if he knows that the client will present false testimony (for example, making up in alibi.) In practice, this is really hard to police, but it doesn't change the fact that this is part of an attorney's duty.
The same goes for civil litigation. There's nothing wrong with playing hardball within limits of what is legal in order to get a settlement and avoid litigation (i.e., settle with me now on this patent infringement, because if you force me to take it to trial, I will search for everyone else you infringed and bring them in as witnesses and future clients), but again you have to follow the limits of professional responsibility. However, you can't intimidate someone into settling by threatening a lawsuit with no basis in either fact or law. Patent cases are notoriously expensive in terms of litigation/discovery costs, and they're so complex that it's hard for a third party to tell when they are completely without merit until the case is underway.
Let's say Carreon Industries and Oatmeal Tech both make cell phones. Any tech expert could tell you that Oatmeal's phones are nothing like Carreon's patents, but Carreon is a bigger company and wants to put Oatmeal out of business. The attorney brings a meritless suit against Oatmeal because he knows that if it goes to trial, Oatmeal will be forced to spend nearly as much as Carreon on expert witnesses and other litigation costs, or they may lose the case, and even once Oatmeal wins the case (which will likely be years later), they won't recover a cent of their legal costs (there are only a few types of civil cases where the law states the winning party can recover legal costs.) Oatmeal folds because they couldn't afford to sink $10 million dollars in legal costs, while Carreon easily spent $20 million, had another $30 million ready to burn, and expects to make another $100 million over the next few years with their main competitor out of business.
According to the rules of professional ethics in most states, Carreon's attorney had a moral obligation to refuse to take the case as soon as he realized that the case had no merit, the client knew the case had no merit, and the client wanted to file a frivolous lawsuit anyway in order to either extort a settlement or put the competition out of business. Your obligation to zealously represent your client ends when your client asks you to do something unethical.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
1) these sleazy lawyers aren't working on your own. I have no standing to sue you for violating Edison's patents. Only Edison can. If you're being sued for patent infringement, it's because somewhere out there, the sleazy lawyer has a client who, like you, is a software engineer who invented something new and got a patent on it. If your work doesn't infringe his patent, then the client, as the technical expert, is in a far better position to realize that the suit has no merit than the attorney, who for the most part needs to rely on his client's honesty and the technical advisers working for the firm (these advisers are also more likely to be software developers like you, and not attorneys themselves).
2) "Attorneys thrive on human misery"
The same can be said for police, soldiers, trauma surgeons, psychiatrists, and software developers, unless of course you provide your code for free and live off of welfare.
There are bad people out there in the world that do bad things to good people. If you read enough slashdot or techdirt, you'll find that software developers comprise a decent number of those bad people. There are also a lot of people who make a living by stopping these bad people, or protecting the good people, or fixing the damage these bad people cause. There are a lot of attorneys working for bad people like you, but there are far more who are prosecuting criminals, fighting for civil rights, helping creative people protect their inventions, or defending good people against bad law suits.
I'm a transactional attorney who served in the Marines before college. I pretty much help companies draft contracts that are clear and fair to all parties involved. When the economy is good, we get more business, and I get bigger bonuses. When I was on active duty, I was lucky to avoid any real wars, but if I had served a few years later, during Desert Storm, I probably would have had more chances for fast promotion. So in terms of these two phases of my career, the lawyer-me probably benefits financially a lot more from human prosperity, and not misery. So please, tell everyone here how you think U.S. service personel are greedy bastards who thrive human misery.
3) Correlation does not equal causation. Honestly, you can make the argument that when you see a lot of software developers, that's a sign something is amiss--I'm pretty sure that the months leading up to the dot-com bubble and bust saw a huge rise in their numbers. When you have a disease break out, you see a rise in doctors and epidemiologists. By your standards, they're a sign that something is amiss and they're thriving on human misery, too. Doesn't mean they're all bad people.
4) Your counterpoint actually fails entirely because it misses the point of the argument you respond to. All judges should be former attorneys or at least law professors--if you don't understand the law, how can you interpret it? The point is, once the judges robes go on, your duties and priorities change. Attorney A is paid by client A, and his job is to present evidence/arguments that favor client A, with no obligation to raise arguments that help client B, no matter how obvious they are. The judge is paid by the state, with no stake in whether client A or client B wins. His job is to examine the case as impartially as possible and to determine a just outcome. If he can't be impartial (i.e., he once worked as an attorney for client B), he can't judge the case.
Moreover, with regard to the specific point, it's completely asinine to get upset at judges because they were once attorneys over things like defending criminals because the vast majority of judges come from the prosecution side (district/county/state/federal attorneys) or from law school faculties. It's pretty hard to be confirmed as a judge when you were once a personal injury attorney, or made your fortune defending rich criminals from DUI charges.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So Carreon is defaming himself?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: So Carreon is defaming himself?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
There are certainly lawyers who lie for their clients. They make us all look bad, and it should be much easier than it is to have them disbarred. But we all took an oath that says, among other things, that every suit, every motion, every document we file to the court must have, as far as we know, a basis in fact.
Most attorneys I know are scrupulously faithful to this oath for three reasons. First, and most obviously, is that getting caught means the end of your career in a state, there aren't all that many other states to fall back on, and frankly, most of them are crapholes I'd rather avoid. When your client is dishonest, you lie for him, and you win, it's hard to get caught, but as soon as you lose, they tend to turn against you, which likely means the end of your career.
Second, most attorneys care about their reputation because they tend to specialize, meaning they'll see the same attorneys and the same judges over and over again. When you have a choice (in contract stuff, for example), most honest attorneys will recommend that their clients avoid dealing with people represented by notoriously dishonest lawyers. Even when you don't (i.e., getting sued, dealing with a defense attorney), your reputation has a huge impact on how the judge deals with you. When the judge is preoccupied wondering which of your filings are a lie this time, expect to fight an uphill battle the entire case.
The third, which is something you may not understand, is that a lot of us are naturally honorable people who take our oath seriously. If you look at practicing attorneys, you'll find that a lot of us are either 1) ex-military who became attorneys through the GI bill or the JAG program or 2) idealistic lefties/righties who wanted to fight for civil rights, the environment, pro-life rights, pro-choice rights, prosecuting criminals, etc. One thing these disparate groups have in common is that they tend to value their own integrity more than financial gain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
Sum: The only thing we really have is our reputation and a computer. Computers are easily replaced.
I'll add that for nearly every bad-guy lawyer appearing on this site, there's a good-guy lawyer representing the other side, or several (Cue EFF, etc.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So Carreon is defaming himself?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Carreon is defaming himself?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well in Charles Carreon's case I think the bitch threw him out the 3rd story window.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Carreon is defaming himself?
It's generally for the same reason people may be rather wary of police, while the majority is almost certainly composed of good people, the 'bad apples' tend to ruin, and seriously so, people's opinion of their profession and those that practice it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Go on, we dare you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not a question of which side of the line this is on
Though Carreon's statement which is on his official and professional practising attorney's website is very much bordering on ethical & professional misconduct since he is acting as counsel in a matter that is against Inman.
At the very least he needs to be censured by his State abr association, though I think the amount of attorneys in the USA who are speaking out publicly about what he has done and shining the sunlight on his actions (and his clients actions) speaks volumes more than an ethical violation decision could.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not a question of which side of the line this is on
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The internets... he is doing it wrong...
Peace Offering to the Net! Download free copies of The http://Sex.Com Chronicles http://charlescarreon.com or http://sex.comchronicles.com
Because people will forgive you being a raging fool, by rushing out to get a free copy of your book all about how cool you were that one time in the sex.com case?
o_O
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
-- Rainmaker
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The internets... he is doing it wrong...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Schadenfreud?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
On the other side of the coin, we have folks like Carreon. FJ approached him, told him what happened and what they wanted done, and Carreon accepted the job. It is this voluntary acceptance that makes him complicit in shaking down someone his client clearly wronged. He's not a public defender and he's not trying to help someone that might have been fucked over. He volunteered for this knowing full well what he would be doing and what money and publicity he might get out of it. That is what makes him such a piece of shit.
Just sayin.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If there are any "intelligent" people here, do you think you could get to work finding out if Matthew Robert Inman is related to Bobby Ray Inman? Perhaps he's a grandson. The Net has been thoroughly scrubbed of any personal information on Matthew, and that's such a sign, ya know? When you can't find anyone from his past talking about their childhood, or something that happened when they went to high school, and no parents, or brothers and sisters. And -- I mean, I don't want to jump to conclusions -- but they look almost exactly alike! It could be a coincidence, but it would be really nice to know one way or the other. Couldn't one of you hack Bobby Ray Inman's personal computer -- I DIDN'T SAY THAT! -- and find out the truth for us? It could make the world of difference!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Matt Inman talks about a lot of cartoonists he emulates, but he's no Gary Larson! He reminds me more than anything of Al Capp, and I'm pretty sure he was part of the conspiracy to kill John Lennon. He came to him and Yoko just before he died, and ridiculed the hell out of him. Got a big kick out of it, he did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not a question of which side of the line this is on
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not a question of which side of the line this is on
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dumb and Dumber has a new sequel!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ow... Ow... Ow...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Even if the "security attacks" are real . . .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lawyers, eh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And don't forget Jung. He had foreknowledge of World War I. That means "conspiracy" kids. Jung was one of the very, very bad guys.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This nonsense has gone on long enough. I posted this statement at Forbes, but I'll say it again here: "The law is like math; it has an exactitude about it that is not friendly to irrational, mindless, stabbing in the dark." You're deluding yourself that anyone thinks you're cool. You're just stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If there are any girls reading this, I will say the same thing I said on the Richard Dawkins board, which caused an Internet gang-bang against me which didn't make my statement any less true: "Evolution is in our hands. Don't mate with the violent. It will only turn against you. And it's really hard to get away from an abusive mate. Lots of times they get killed on the courthouse steps right when they're filing for divorce." I mean, look at what happened to the wife of William "Will" Inman: He garroted her and stuck her in a septic tank. I'm sure the other Inman could make a cool picture from that image that you would all love. Why not get into snuff films while you're at it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The internets... he is doing it wrong...
And walking down the sidewalk was like, "Hey, Charles." "Hey, Charles, how ya doin'." "Hey, Charles." Never stopping. The most famous people at ASU: football stars, big beautiful black guys, all the beautiful people LOVED him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
when all funnyjunk did was remind oatmeal, they are not responsible for what the users upload, and did not take lightly being called a thief by oatmeal, and you agree with that right??, since you side with megaupload about users did the infringement, not that fat piece of shit kim
but yet here you flip flop faster than obama, you are now aginst the ones sharing culture and are for them being bullied by oatmeal, telling them to stop trying to protect themselves and just be quiet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
deranged lunatic
At this point I can only see a downward spiral in their near future. To any sane person here, these rantings may be a source of bewilderment and cheap entertainment, but to me they represent a full-blown tragedy in the making.
Here we have two very well educated people who aren't stupid, merely unable to see reason. If their condition(s) are at all similar to mine, then the only way for them to recover from this episode would be to sever themselves from the trigger. i.e. Public criticism.
I don't think this will happen. The Internet is ruthless and never forgets. This will ruin their lives forever. They aren't stupid, just irrationally convinced that they are right. They literally can't consider the possibility that they might have made a mistake. To do so could cause a depressive episode that might very well be lethal. So in a way, this self-destructive behavior is a twisted form of self-preservation.
Disclosure: IANAP
This shit could happen to me someday and it terrifies the hell out of me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: deranged lunatic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: deranged lunatic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Do you really believe Carreon's "pay up or else you get sued" shakedown tactics and baseless "you hacked me!" accusations against The Oatmeal make him look like a competent civil litigator who supports every aspect of the First Amendment?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: deranged lunatic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Dumb and Dumber has a new sequel!
2.) The owners of FunnyJunk made money from their site while hosting unauthorized uploads of The Oatmeal's comics, then dragged their heels about getting rid of the comics until The Oatmeal put a spotlight on their behavior. You could argue that FunnyJunk stole profit from The Oatmeal. (I don't think you'd win that argument, but you could make it.)
3.) Yes, Inman posts his own original works on his website and through the rest of the Internet.
4.) I honestly have no clue what you said in the rest of your batshit insane rant. Purple monkey dishwasher.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Ow... Ow... Ow...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Even if the "security attacks" are real . . .
Go ahead.
I'll wait.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The internets... he is doing it wrong...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: deranged lunatic
So when can we expect the both of you to drive off a cliff?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The site's owners knew content from The Oatmeal existed on FunnyJunk due to his original complaints, and instead of taking action to protect his copyright (which Matthew Inman has a full right to do under the law), they allowed his content to continue getting reposted to their site.
I support sharing and remixing, and I support copyright reform from the ground up, but I also support following the law -- and since FunnyJunk users infringed upon Inman's copyrights and the site owners did nothing about it despite knowing Inman had filed requests to have his content taken off the site, I'd say FunnyJunk's owners should find themselves on the hook for civil copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: deranged lunatic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: deranged lunatic
Thank you. Things are so much clearer now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: deranged lunatic
But I can tell you this:
Вы можете сделать только ваш муж появляются хуже.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
They also point out that the article is lacking citations from reputable locations and looks like it was written by the subject or someone close to the subject.
And as of me posting the original comment his article hadn't been defaced, would you care to elaborate or is this just something you see in your mind?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The internets... he is doing it wrong...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Please support your statement of him being a good guy, show references without trying to quote ancient texts not relevant to the current situation. Try to refrain from adding in deranged thoughts about mind control and the like.
He sent a letter that had no real basis in the law.
He demanded money not due to him or his client in an attempt to scare a settlement to a lawsuit he would lose.
He was schooled by a much better lawyer, and then in a huff attempted to destroy a charity fundraiser.
He then attempts to cast himself as the victim of some organized attack being run by someone who doesn't care about him.
He then doubled down on his claims, and runs dangerously close to finding himself sued for defamation.
Maybe the first couple of times he was suspended from the bar wasn't enough for him to learn.
So spin your conspiracy theory all you'd like, all of the resulting actions are caused by his actions and not some drone army controlled by someone he targeted with an ill conceived letter.
If you are infact his other half he might need to take away your internet connection because your not helping.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, let's make some rules that cover cyberbullying and mob incitement and make sure cyberbullying includes making threats designed to intimidate someone to stop using their constitutionally-guaranteed rights to free expression.
So are we agreed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: deranged lunatic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about something specific? First a name, then your position on violence, so that the whole world can hear. What do you think are the consequences of imagining bad things happening to other people? The consequences of drawing bad things happening to other people? The consequences of doing bad things to other people? Is there any connection between them? Does one lead to the other? Would you teach your children these thoughts?
What about humor? Is it rational, or does it have a peculiar way of getting under the radar, going straight for the emotional centers, the centers conditioned by a lifetime of hearing canned laughter on TV? Going to a place of automatic acceptance where thoughts are forbidden?
Put yourself on the line here, and state your opinion, so we can all discuss it. Because this ad hominem shit is boring.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You have a site like me, you put up content, or in the case of other sites that allow content to be posted, others put up content. Some copyright owner thinks it infringes his copyright. He sends a DMCA notice. I have to take the content down for 10 days. Then I put it back up.
But if no one sends you a DMCA notice, no law is broken. For me, running a library, it's simply a formality I have to follow, because I always put the content back up. Once a woman wrote to me and said, "Take down my content(generic)on your site." I wrote back to her, and said, "What content? Where?" I'm not going to read my whole damn site! I have over a million files. That was before I had a search engine. But even if I had a search engine, I wouldn't take the trouble of searching her name. It's not my responsibility. Either she points to the specific content, or fuck her. She wrote me back again, with the same bullshit. At that point, I did tell her to go jump off a cliff. And that was the end of it.
Point being, no DMCA notice, no responsibility for content. From what I've heard, Matt Inman never sent ANY DMCA notices. So there was never any violation of his copyright. Violations only occur with a DMCA notice? Capiche.
Will that end this stupid conversation? Obviously no, because you guys are way too attached to your ignorance. Ignorance is just so much fun for the ignorant. It all goes back to the tautological nature of the mind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
When we lived in Oregon, lawyers would come to listen to Charles' arguments in the courtroom, and you could see them gradually slinking down into their chairs and covering their faces with horror at what they heard him saying. They would NEVER have the guts to say that to a judge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also, you sound rather like a petulant child with the whole, "I don't have to respect your content, I'm a librarian, neenerneener" thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is no "library exemption to copyright."
You have a site like me, you put up content, or in the case of other sites that allow content to be posted, others put up content. Some copyright owner thinks it infringes his copyright. He sends a DMCA notice. I have to take the content down for 10 days. Then I put it back up.
That's not how the DMCA works. You seem to have left out the whole counternotice part. Also, if you're putting up the content yourself, as you suggest, that the DMCA safe harbors do not apply. They only apply to content post by others on your site.
But if no one sends you a DMCA notice, no law is broken.
This is simply not true. The law can absolutely be broken without a DMCA notice being sent.
For me, running a library, it's simply a formality I have to follow, because I always put the content back up.
You probably shouldn't admit that in public, because that sentence will likely be used against you when someone seeks to prove you don't deserve DMCA safe harbor protections.
From what I've heard, Matt Inman never sent ANY DMCA notices. So there was never any violation of his copyright. Violations only occur with a DMCA notice? Capiche.
This is, simply speaking, 100% wrong. What might be more accurate is that without DMCA notices, the chance of any liability being placed on the host is minimized. However, it has no bearing (at all) on whether or not there was direct infringement or if the original poster is liable for infringement.
I would suggest understanding the difference between direct infringement and secondary infringement, because that appears to be a large gap in your understanding of the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'll take a shot in the dark here: you either post works with the permission of the authors, post works whose authors have passed on (and have no estate to handle their copyright), post orphaned/public domain works, post works covered by Creative Commons licenses, or don't post anything that you know would bring a copyright lawsuit from a major publisher down on your head. Did I land in the ballpark, or knock it out of the stadium?
There's a library exemption to copyright. There's also a fair use exemption to copyright.
Yes, but the Internet doesn't exist as a library (and I doubt you'd find any litigator willing to make the argument in a court of law), and Fair Use only goes so far.
You have a site like me, you put up content, or in the case of other sites that allow content to be posted, others put up content. Some copyright owner thinks it infringes his copyright. He sends a DMCA notice. I have to take the content down for 10 days. Then I put it back up.
If a copyright holder files a DMCA takedown notification, the content targeted by the takedown notice must come down for good unless the person or website targeted by the notice files a counternotification. The person/website can return the content to its former published status only if the copyright holder does not decide to pursue further legal action ten days after receiving the counternotification.
The DMCA takedown system works as a "notice, takedown, and counternotice" system, not as a "notice, fuck you, content goes back up in ten days" system. You may wish to restudy the language involving the DMCA's notification system.
If no one sends you a DMCA notice, no law is broken.
Under your logic, if no one sees me execute a person with a gunshot to the back of the head, I haven't broken any laws.
As you can see, your logic contains a major flaw.
Once a woman wrote to me and said, "Take down my content(generic)on your site." I wrote back to her, and said, "What content? Where?" I'm not going to read my whole damn site! I have over a million files. That was before I had a search engine. But even if I had a search engine, I wouldn't take the trouble of searching her name. It's not my responsibility. Either she points to the specific content, or fuck her.
This marks the only point in this whole rant where I agree with you.
Point being, no DMCA notice, no responsibility for content.
Your logic once again has flaws. If you willingly serve up copyrighted content that you know people want taken down, you could either have a sense of goddamned human decency and take the content down (once the author points directly to it) or you can look like an entitled ass and keep it up under the "you didn't send me a DMCA notice so I didn't break the law" logic you spouted earlier.
Ignorance of the law, whether yours or someone else's, does not excuse you from following the law -- or even acting like a decent person.
From what I've heard, Matt Inman never sent ANY DMCA notices. So there was never any violation of his copyright.
Inman did not have to send DMCA notices for someone to have violated his copyright. According to the US-recognized Berne Convention, his works all have copyright upon publication, and anyone who knowingly reposts his works -- or hosts copies of his works -- without his permission has infringed upon his copyright. The DMCA didn't magically change the law to strip people of their copyrights unless they used the DMCA's takedown system.
Ignorance is just so much fun for the ignorant.
Do you find yourself having fun in Wonderland, darling?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Holy shit, where do I sign up to see that magic act?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Under the DMCA, you must take down any content listed in a proper takedown notification as soon as possible -- and keep it down unless the copyright holder does not respond to a proper counternotification after ten days.
Your understanding of the DMCA takedown system has…flaws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Petulant doesn't come into it. How I sound doesn't come into it. It's simply a matter of conforming to the DMCA guidelines. Who or what I am is irrelevant. Keep your eye on the ball, or get hit in the head.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Spare me your ignorant warnings. I'm advised by the best DMCA lawyer on the Net.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally, we'll answer the old question
Right, which is: you don't have a clue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
2. Do you know how far fair use goes? Why don't you discuss that issue, and tell us all you know.
3. With a library, the DMCA process IS notice, counternotice, and putting the content back up. I've been doing it for 12 years. If it was bad, don't you think I would have been taken down by now. Penguin just keeps losing and losing and losing, and eventually they are going to lose for good. Knock on wood.
4. Your gunshot analogy does not apply. The law is made. It is what it is.
5. There's something called "notice" that's very important in the law. People can't be called into court unless they are "served." That's what the DMCA notice is all about. No blame until service. That's the rule, despite you apparently wanting it to be different.
So you're arguing a lot of analogies that don't apply. Again, sad to think that your pride demands that you be right and me be wrong, when the fact is, I'm right and you're wrong. You think because you're a man, I should stand down? Not a chance, honey.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
You'd have a point if the law didn't say it does.
Ralph Nader's group Public Citizen represented us at one crucial point.
That has no bearing on the actual case law and wording of the law known as the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe Inman asked Funnyjunk to take down his content while assuming the site's owners would want to do the right thing and avoid looking like assholes by prompting legitimate legal action against them.
Nobody wants to sue others (or get sued). Lawsuits suck. Inman went to Funnyjunk and asked the site to take down his content to avoid starting legal action against the site. He wouldn't have needed to file a DMCA if the site's owners had acted like decent people and taken his content down when he asked them to.
Now Inman has to deal with potential legal action on Chucky C's behalf because Chuck thought his "shakedown" routine would work on Inman.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have footage of him becoming a cowboy movie?
I've never seen a guy become a cowboy movie. Does he transform into a whole movie theater, or just the reels and projection screen? Which cowboy movie does he become? Does he become a cowboy movie with the expressed consent of the copyright holder for said movie?
DETAILS, WOMAN! I want to know all about his magic show!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you post content that you know can bring a lawsuit or other legal action down on you. Gotcha.
Let me go see if I can find out who holds the rights to all the copyrighted, non-public doman, non-Creative Commons books you have up on your site; I bet those rightsholders would love to know that you've reprinted their protected works without their permission.
Do you know how far fair use goes? Why don't you discuss that issue, and tell us all you know.
Last I checked, Fair Use doesn't involve reprinting books in their entirety on the Internet and calling yourself a "library" in order to escape copyright law. Like Mr. Masnick said above: no "library" exemption exists in copyright.
With a library, the DMCA process IS notice, counternotice, and putting the content back up.
You didn't initially say you needed a counternotice to put the content back up. And I quote:
“Some copyright owner thinks it infringes his copyright. He sends a DMCA notice. I have to take the content down for 10 days. Then I put it back up.”
I see no mention of the counternotice aspect of the takedown system. You can backpedal all you want, but that doesn't erase your own words.
The law is made. It is what it is.
Under the Berne Convention and all applicable United States copyright law, copying a copyrighted work in its entirety without the permission of the copyright holder for a purpose not covered under Fair Use statutes/case law represents an infringement of copyright law, even if you do not receive a DMCA notification. The law is made. It is what it is.
There's something called "notice" that's very important in the law. People can't be called into court unless they are "served."
Going back to my gunshot analogy: if I murder someone (not out of self-defense or any other "justifiable" reasoning) and I don't get arrested for it, that does not mean I haven't committed murder -- I simply haven't gotten caught. I still committed the overt act of murder, regardless of whether or not anyone saw me or the police and the courts can prove I did it.
The law is made. It is what it is.
No blame until service. That's the rule, despite you apparently wanting it to be different.
A copyright holder can blame a site for breaking his copyright all he wants. Blame without a legal notification happens all the time.
No legal liability falls upon a service provider until a DMCA lands in their inbox, though. At that point, the service provider must comply or risk losing its DMCA safe harbor and find itself legally liable for allowing (or potentially inducing) copyright infringment.
The law is made. It is what it is.
sad to think that your pride demands that you be right and me be wrong
I will openly and willingly admit to having my facts wrong when you can disprove what I've said here beyond any doubt.
You think because you're a man, I should stand down?
Your gender holds no relevance to your argument.
Your skewed reading of several important pieces of copyright law do, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now appealing to people's subconscious religious conditioning, subtly transferring that understanding to a non-understanding of the law, is a real good trick for mind controllers in the pay of large corporations, in this case the Publishing Industry. It's obvious that that is what this whole story is about: the Publishing Industry. It can be compared to the Recording Industry's beat-up of mp3 file sharing. Every reporter who has written about this story has been distinctly biased from the beginning in favor of Matt Inman's bogus claim of "copyright infringement." They don't care what the lawyer Charles Carreon has to say about it. Anything he says is just to embellish their premeditated spin. Their stories start and end with threats towards Charles Carreon, and an appeal to the Internet to rise up against him. Everyone should be aware that this story broke at the very moment that the Department of Justice was settling with the Publishing Industry, led by Penguin Books, Charles and my chief nemesis, after prosecuting them for a giant conspiracy against the People to set e-book prices. We've talked a little about strategy here, Sun Tzu and Machiavelli, and I would add, in sneering honor of Leo Strauss, Simonides. Remember how I said that to understand modern history you had to know about Jewish Nazis?
So when you suffer a big defeat, it's time to marshal your forces and wage another campaign. And the Matthew Inman/Oatmeal/Funnyjunk fight provided just the ammunition and fresh soldiers the Publishing Industry needed. They got all their compromised reporters lodged in various news agencies' "Internet departments," which is to say, young people who don't know anything, who aren't making REAL news, just gossiping about the Internet, to jump on this issue and make a martyr of -- who is the real martyr here? -- Charles Carreon. Matt Inman is only the COVER martyr, the mask. Every intelligence operation has to have it's covers.
Not one real reporter has considered this fracas as a story for the real world. No, this is "Internet" news. The Internet can be analogized to our unconscious, the real world to our conscious mind. Excuse me, but I've been reading a lot of the fascist Carl Jung lately. In the "Internet" things can happen that can't happen in the real world. Like transferring religious understanding to the law. What an opportunity for those who know how to use it. In this realm, you can wage a Crusade, a bloody, racist, irrational, fascist campaign, and most likely, no one will even be conscious of it. Because, as I said in a post above, people are not educated in philosophy. Not being educated in philosophy, various ideas, pro and con, positive and negative, up and down, in and out, and everything inbetween, float together randomly in a marvelous soup of potential and actual DOUBLETHINK, aka known as "reconciling the opposites."
And that's what you're doing when you decide that some entity is simply "WRONG" if someone's copyrighted works end up on their site. You don't care about DMCA, you don't care about THE LAW, you care about your campaign to transfer subconscious religious understandings to THE LAW. To the end that the very people you as the Publishing Industry are trying to control end up fighting in your own army, arguing your cause.
You get to lash back at the Department of Justice, and you attack the Carreons, one of your main enemies, who keep advocating for copyright exemptions.
Now, THAT'S strategy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'll just quote the statute and add a comment and explain how it applies in the online context. Of course, you could have googled "copyright + library" and found it yourself, but that is apparently above your grade level.
17 USC § 108 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives
Current through Pub. L. 112-128. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
" (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if—
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
(2) the collections of the library or archives are
(i) open to the public, or
(ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and
(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section."
At the American Buddha Online Library (ABOL), we have a notice posted that applies this section to the reproduction of transient digital copies on the user's computer, and voila, we have immunity from copyright infringement liability. No court has ever pronounced on the viability of this theory of copyright infringement immunity, and our legal counsel, Charles Carreon, has thusfar carried the day in defense litigation directed at ABOL by Penguin USA. Litigation is the test, and ABOL has passed it. Theorize in a knowledge vacuum if you are so inclined. In space, no one can hear you bloviate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Subject:
Closing argument in the Multnomah County Circuit Court case of Ann Robins v. Felix Capo and Linda Kay.
Trial Judge: Hon. Anna Brown (now elevated to the US District Court of Oregon)
Opposing Counsel: Former Oregon State Bar Litigation Section head Denny Rawlinson of Miller Nash appearing for plaintiff Ann Robins.
Nature of the Case: Capo and Kay sued for $800,000 for allegedly absconding with the proceeds of the construction fund for a mobile-home development.
Carreon's Defense: The mobile-home development ran short of cash because Robins underfunded it, and in order to deflect blame for claims by home buyers who didn't get the homes they paid for, she was falsely accusing Carreon's clients of "conversion," i.e., theft.
Closing Argument: Charles delivered his closing in a folksy, cowboy style, beginning with "Miz Robins, she owns most everything 'round here. Now Miz Kay, she's a mighty hard workin' woman, make a profit from most anything she turn her hand to. Now Felix Capo, he's like a long, cool drifter, with a smile that would charm most anyone. Miz Robins she decides to send 'em out on the road with the wagon, sellin' goods for her for a share of what they sell ... etc.
Result: Verdict for Robins, far below damages sought: $20,000 against Kay, $100,000 against Capo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, damn, and I already had a few people lined up to pay to see that magic act.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
open your mind
but not so far that your brain falls right out into your word salad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crazy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The internets... he is doing it wrong...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Please return our property
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm also left very curious to watch how Penguin v. ABOL works out. The only issue decided so far is one of jurisdiction, and ABOL lost that round at appeals. I rather expect that when all is said and done ABOL is going to get a legal thumping.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who's not only suing Inman, IndieGoGo, but also the charities Inman is sending money to?
Yeah, color me not-convinced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Second, my position on violence should be clear--I am against all forms of violence and abuse especially from those that have greater power than others. For example, lawyers that should know and support the law, rather than find ways to pervert it to stifle speech.
I am also for the proper application of liability. I don't think baseball bat makers should be accountable for ruffians beating people with them, video games for violence, movies for smoking, or discussion forums for the exchange of illicit information. Nor do I think that those that take advantage of free expression should be held accountable when others engage in bad acts that may or may not be related.
I believe in free will and a bad act is the responsibility of those engaging in it and words do not suffice as a proximate cause.
I will ignore the rest of your post other than to point out that for someone so focused on "ad hominem" you might want to a) note that there was no such "attack on the person" in my prior post, b) there were plenty of "attacks on the person" in your own post, and c) "check yourself before you wreck yourself."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Considering the spread between rich and poor was wider in India in 1976, that is a very nice story about watching a poor man's wears withering away while you two watched! :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
This is a very silly assertion. The law is nothing of the sort.
1 + 1 = 2, 3 x 3 = 9, et cetera. There's no debating these things.
But we could spend hours, days, years, debating the proper application of a statute, the correct interpretation of a constitutional clause/amendment, what a reasonably prudent person is, or the efficacy of a judicial opinion (this is a short list of what it is to practice law). Different views on the same issue doesn't mean one is right and the rest are wrong -- more times than not there's an exception or reasonable counter-position to the prevailing rule.
. . . .
Now having said that, let me just opine on the petulant, ass-damp lawyering we're witnessing from Mr. Carreon -- it betrays minimal competency and is rife with frivolity. Maybe an exception to my assertion above, which kind of drives my original point home.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And if you really ARE Mr. Carreon's wife, please: Remember that love makes blind. We are all only human, after all.
Oh and that about the library exception law thing, it's nice to fianlly see something that supports your claims! Now, can you please tell me where I can find a cached verision of this law on the internet or in a real library? You shouldn't trust the Internet, you know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]