Funnyjunk's Lawyer Charles Carreon Just Keeps Digging: Promises He'll Find Some Law To Go After Oatmeal's Matt Inman
from the wow dept
Wow. Just... wow. Following the net fight between The Oatmeal webcomic creator Matt Inman, and aggregator of non-funny stuff, Funnyjunk, we've been pointing out that Funnyjunk's lawyer, Charles Carreon needs to stop digging himself deeper into the hole he's found himself in. Instead, he seems to have decided on the opposite strategy, and he's digging deeper and deeper every minute.If you don't recall, he was trying to shut down the fundraising effort that Inman set up in response to Funnyjunk's threat. And then he accused Inman of "instigating security attacks" against his website. The latest is that he's now redirected his own website to a sales page for his book, but also has done an interview with Dave Thier at Forbes, in which he's even more aggressive in fighting back against Inman and those who are mocking him. It's really quite incredible. Thier describes Carreon as being "excited about this bizarre new world he had stumbled into" and now focused on somehow pinning the blame on Matt Inman:
In his 20 years as a lawyer, he says, he’s written hundreds of letters like the one he sent Inman, but the response to this one was unique.Except, uh, nowhere has Inman "declared netwar" nor has he encouraged anyone to hack Carreon's website. If it's true that scriptkiddies have gone after Carreon's website, that's unfortunate, but it's a ridiculous (and obnoxious) stretch to pin the blame for that on Inman. Of course, associating someone with incompetence, with stupidity and with douchebaggery is broadly a statement of opinion. There's a First Amendment thing we have that generally says that's okay. People can call each other stupid douchebags, and we like that in America.
“So someone takes one of my letters and takes it apart. That doesn’t mean you can just declare netwar, that doesn’t mean you can encourage people to hack my website, to brute force my WordPress installation so I have to change my password. You can’t encourage people to violate my trademark and violate my twitter name and associate me with incompetence with stupidity, and douchebaggery,” he says. “And if that’s where the world is going I will fight with every ounce of force in this 5’11 180 pound frame against it. I’ve got the energy, and I’ve got the time.”
For color commentary, we turn to Ken at Popehat, who decides to educate Carreon on the First Amendment:
The implications of Mr. Carreon's position are profoundly chilling. Under the rule he seems to suggest, if you write about bad behavior by someone else, even if you don't urge action, you run the risk that you will be held liable when one of your readers is inspired to hack or threaten or harass. Perversely, this means that the more criminal or unconscionable or horrific the conduct you are describing, the greater legal risk you take by writing about it. That's not the law, thank God. The very suggestion is un-American and contemptible.But Carreon has decided that "there must be a law!" against this, and dammit, he's going to find it:
Moreover, note that Mr. Carreon is suggesting that it is actionable not only to inspire people to undertake (alleged) illegal action, but actionable to inspire people to "associate me with incompetence with stupidity, and douchebaggery." In other words, if your criticism of someone's conduct leads others to form an opinion of him, and express that opinion, that's actionable. That's true to the extent that someone states false facts about a person — for instance, by falsely accusing them of child abuse. But The Oatmeal offered satirically expressed opinions about Mr. Carreon's conduct in a letter which The Oatmeal presented to his readers to review. To the extent that The Oatmeal opined that Mr. Carreon is incompetent, stupid, and a douchebag, those are classic opinions absolutely protected by the First Amendment. Under First Amendment law governing defamation, they are particularly protected because The Oatmeal presented the facts based on which he drew his opinions — namely, the letter itself. Under the theory that Mr. Carreon seems to be advancing, if I wrote you a letter suggesting that your wife beds down with diseased ocelots and calling for your children to be flogged, and you publish the letter and say that it suggests that I am a disturbed person of low character, then I would be legally responsible if people formed the same opinion based on the evidence you provided. Indeed, under Mr. Carreon's apparent theory, if he criticizes The Oatmeal's response to him as vulgar or unprofessional or uncivilized, he's legally responsible for people agreeing with him. This is not law, this is madness. And bear in mind that Mr. Carreon markets himself as a First Amendment champion.
He may have a very difficult time proving that Inman “instigated attacks,” as he said on his website, but he’s certain he can find some legal recourse for what’s going on right now – “California code is just so long, but there’s something in there about this,” he says.Back to Ken at Popehat, who notes in response, why yes, there is a law:
Carreon tells Thier that he welcomes "the opportunity to confront legally the misuse of a new technology." First of all, it's not that new, and he might want to do some digging into other clueless lawyers who have sought to shut down online criticism of themselves. Carreon is still digging and he's going to lose very, very badly in court with the arguments he's making right now. Given his statements to various reporters, he's already made it clear that he's seeking to suppress speech and that he's willing to use any law he can find to do so. That's a particularly short-sighted thing to do, given California's relatively strong anti-SLAPP law, which one hopes Carreon familiarizes himself with.Oh, Mr. Carreon, indeed there is. There's California's magnificent anti-SLAPP statute, under which you'll be paying the attorney fees of anyone you sue. There's California's judgment debtor exam law, under which you can be interrogated about your income and assets in preparation for garnishing your income and, if necessary, seeking liquidation of your assets to satisfy a judgment for attorney fees against you. There's California's sanctions statute, under which you can be sanctioned for bringing suit to harass or without adequate legal or factual basis.
Read them carefully. And think. Think hard. Step back from the precipice. This can get better, by you letting it go. Or it can get worse. Much, much worse.
But, really, there's the bigger issue: what the hell is he thinking at this point? And isn't there anyone with a basic grasp of the internet who knows him who can sit him down and tell him to stop digging?
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: anti-slapp, attacks, charles carreon, free speech, matthew inman, slapp, the oatmeal
Companies: funnyjunk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Oatmeal's Legal Response
His attorney provides a solid background and thoroughly dismantles each of FunnyJunk's original claims, and suggests that FunnyJunk hasn't registered their DMCA agent with the copyright office. That oversight could negate their Safe Harbor defense regarding The Oatmeal's content being posted by FunnyJunk's users.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Herp derp"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You missed the quote at the end, where Carreon says he has "plenty of time and energy" to fight this thing out.
I'd submit that the internet is littered with the corpses (metaphorical ofc) of those who made the same mistake.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Those people said bad things about me on the Internet! Make it stop MAKE IT STOP MAKE IT STOOOOOOOOOOOP!"
He cannot deal with the idea that not only do people disagree with him and his legal "shakedown" tactic ("pay FunnyJunk $20,000 or something…bad could happen to you"), and not only did The Oatmeal call him out on that tactic ("fuck both you and FunnyJunk -- I will raise that money for charity"), but he really can't deal with the idea that they have the absolutel legal right to disagree with him.
Someone who calls himself a "champion of the First Amendment" often finds himself tested when people use those First Amendment rights to say things within their rights that paint him in a poor light. The true test of their self-appointed "champion" status comes from their reaction.
From his reaction to The Oatmeal's rebuttal, "Mister" Carreon appears to support the First Amendment only if people say nice things about him, and that hardly justifies his "champion of the First Amendment" label. A true "champion" would let the insults and bullshit roll off their back instead of resorting to a weaponized use of the legal system.
If The Oatmeal had intentionally defamed him or asked others to intentionally attack Carreon, I'd support Carreon in his attempts to have legal sanctions brought against The Oatmeal and his "co-conspirators" -- but that didn't happen, and if Carreon brings any sort of actual legal challenge towards The Oatmeal, I will indulge in a heaping helping of schadenfreude when Carreon's career comes crashing down around him.
"Champion of the First Amendment", my ass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I love this show!
I want him to keep digging. I can't wait for the next episode!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That's not an expression of sympathy, just an assessment of his skills handling this...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Carreon - keep digging, you dumb fuck!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
New Carreon Interview
http://www.ramblingbeachcat.com/2012/06/not-backing-down-rambling-beach-cat.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
History keeps repeating itself...
Watch as Carreon ends up the same way: still being a lawyer and totally clueless of what just happened to him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
*sunglasses*
Funny junk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
But the real question is: does he have the money? Cuz when he loses, he's going to be paying sanctions ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Keep digging
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
He thinks one person is responsible for the difficulties he's currently experiencing, when in reality, it's probably several hundred thousand. His mind simply can't comprehend just how many people he has pissed off that want to make him suffer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Oatmeal's Legal Response
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Get your foil hats
"1. An accounting of all the ad revenue generated from the advertising that appeared on the search page during the entire time the search page was operative.
2. Full disclosure of the identities of each and every person or governmental or business entity that has communicated with Google, directly or through intermediaries, concerning American Buddha, the Library Site, or Tara Carreon.
3. Full disclosure of all statistical and other information stored in the Google system concerning the Library Site.
4. Full disclosure of the identities of all persons and entities to which Google has disclosed information concerning the Library Site, including all communications in electronic or other format received from or sent to:
a. Google employees, agents, or contractors
b. Third parties, including:
i. Government entities including law enforcement agencies
ii. Corporations or businesses
iii. Individuals
iv. Attorneys for any of the above
5. Full disclosure of all information that Google disseminated internally or disclosed to any such third parties.
6. Full disclosure of every occasion when any Internet user has inputted a search for “American” and “Buddha” or “Buddhist” in any search request since the Library Site was purged from the Google search index. "
For the full version of this cray you can read it all from his wife's and his "library" here: http://www.american-buddha.com/ambu.ltrkentwalkergoogle1.htm
In my opinion, we are talking about someone with narcissistic personality disorder at best, and paranoid delusions at worst. This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better for all involved. I feel mostly sorry for Inman, who is going to have to spend even less time doing what he loves (writing hysterical ORIGINAL content), while he endures Carreon's pathologically egocentric nervous breakdown. Even FunnyJunk has to be shaking their heads. They signed up for the legal powerhouse who got the sex.com guy his $15 million. Not a government conspiracy theorist with bad hair, and not even a rudimentary knowledge of how the Internet works. Fail all around. At least the bears win.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hundreds of times?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He just keeps pissing into the wind even AFTER he's already soaked himself in it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The comics author is a rights holder who has accused another site of infringing his rights.
The other site fights back.
Ordinarily the former would be vilified, and the latter praised.
Not sure why the 180 turn supporting the rights holder against the other site that has raised a defense.
Is it safe to assume that copyright holders are now finding favor with the TD community? It certainly appears to be the case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get your foil hats
popcorn.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Oatmeal's Legal Response
That was quite well done. I do so love the ending were he flat out says it isn't a good idea if FunnyJunk sues ad the will lose, and lose badly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
strange goings on in the last article's comments...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"I like Techdirt and all, but does this mean you guys like copyrights now?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: strange goings on in the last article's comments...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get your foil hats
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Frankly, blaming the lawyers is short-sided - they're a symptom of the problem. You might as well blame accountants for tax law. The real problem is with the system itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawyers who live in glass houses should not throw stones
So here it is:
CHARLES H. CARREON
OSB #93469
Ashland - 60-day suspension
Effective Oct. 24, 2005, the disciplinary board approved a stipulation for discipline suspending Ashland lawyer, Charles H. Carreon, from the practice of law for 60 days. Carreon admitted violations of DR 3-101(B) (unlawful practice of law) and DR 9-101(A) (failing to deposit or maintain client funds in trust).
From Fall 2001 to Spring 2002, Carreon was employed by SEG as house counsel for its U.S. legal matters and business operations in British Columbia, when Carreon was not admitted or licensed to practice law in any province in Canada. Carreon did not apply for or obtain a permit to act as house counsel for SEG, in violation of British Columbia rules.
As counsel for SEG, Carreon held in his trust account settlement proceeds for the benefit of SEG, received in connection with a litigation matter. Without consulting with SEG or obtaining its express consent, Carreon utilized $1,400 of the settlement proceeds to pay a portion of a money judgment that had been entered against Carreon and his wife for a residential lease they signed in connection with his employment in Canada, believing that SEG would ultimately be responsible for his lease obligation.
In the stipulation, Carreon admitted that acting as house counsel in Canada was in violation of regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction, and that by utilizing the client settlement funds, he failed to properly maintain client funds in his lawyer trust account.
Carreon’s sanction was aggravated by a selfish motive, multiple offenses and his substantial experience in the practice of law. Carreon was admitted in Oregon in 1993 and in California in 1987. However, in mitigation, the stipulation recited that Carreon had no prior discipline and that he displayed a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Get your foil hats
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I came here wanting to trash this article but I kinda agree with it and now I'm all confused and cognitively dissonant..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is familiar
He got a long way before being truly slapped. Wonder if he idolizes him. :3
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This story has very little to do with copyright. Initially, it did, as some copyrighted content was taken from one site and posted to another without attribution or permission, but this story has since evolved into a tale of a madman lawyer destroying himself in the attempt to find a (non-existent) law he can use to take down Inman (who is completely innocent of everything this lawyer accuses him of).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I love this show!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Here we've got a great example of a rightsholder being human and the sharer playing the bully. And, of course, the audience roots for the human against the douchebag.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The rights holder here may or may not have had a point originally, but funnyjunk's response is appalling and deserving of ridicule.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: hundreds of times?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: strange goings on in the last article's comments...
I love dealing with people who make themselves look crazy, even if they only do so to troll others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"oh the humanity"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
malicious prosecution
Also, checking for updates via Google, I think, I stumbled across an interview Carreon supposedly did at http://www.ramblingbeachcat.com/2012/06/not-backing-down-rambling-beach-cat.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
forgot...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57452652-501465/the-oatmeals-matthew-inman-rejects-le gal-threat-raises-over-$150000-for-charity/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Connecting with his fans?
If his goals are to get his name out into the media, to get some brand recognition, to become infamous, you could say his strategy is working pretty well. He's gotten some screen time on some high-profile sites.
You might think all of this negative press would hurt him, but don't forget that not everybody really understands what's going on. While he's made a lot of enemies, he may also have garnered some kind of respect among a certain targeted audience. Perhaps this is his way of connecting with his fans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: History keeps repeating itself...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Connecting with his fans?
Did Inman intend to use the rebuttal as an attempt to spread his name across the Internet and gain a measure of fame? You can make the argument, but unless you direcly ask Inman about the reasons he posted the rebuttal, you can't know for sure.
Did Inman intend for his fanbase and other outraged/sympathetic Internet patrons to start attacking Carreon's site or Carreon himself? I seriously doubt it.
Inman strikes me as a shrewd, intelligent individual -- but he doesn't seem overtly egotistical or malicious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Carreon is working on his own defamation suit
His own claims about Inman may be defamatory.
He apparently failed to take note of the fact that Inman has very quickly and easily raised over $170,000. If Carreon actually sues Inman, he should expect that Inman will raise a warchest for legal defense immediately. It's possible that fewer people will be willing to donate to a non-charitable cause, but it is also likely that just as many will be motivated to donate to see a scumbag lawyer get his ass kicked for a SLAPP lawsuit, especially given the rapidly increasing publicity. Inman would likely find some really great lawyers itching to take the case and I think it is unlikely that either Funnyjunk's owners or Carreon himself are willing to commit more money to this fight than Inman has already proven himself able to raise. I suppose if Carreon goes Jack Thompson style crazy and dedicates his life to suing Inman, maybe being his own free full-time lawyer will be enough to make a nuisance of himself. But with Inman's fundraising ability he can afford to have a lawyer work defense (or even offense) full time and get back to making comics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Connecting with his fans?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Carreon is working on his own defamation suit
His best action at this point is to apologize fully, get off the Internet, change his name, move to a third-world country, and live out his life in peace.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
o_O
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You did that yourself, Carreon. The grammar in that very sentence is yet another example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: History keeps repeating itself...
So many things to keep working on....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This next part I felt best I explain it in Chinese.
Charles Carreon Wai Yu So Dum? Yu Lei Lo!! Fa Kin Su Pa!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That's why it's particular shocking to see him behave this way, in the past he was one of the good guys. Now... now he seems to have gone nuts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
One need only look at the antics of Candice Schwager to understand the stiff competition he is facing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
好感謝你，&# 20877;見。
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I love this show!
He's a douchebag because he's a douchebag. Simple, yet compelling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The copyright abolitionist would not like the original complaint by the copyright holder. However, as soon as the lawyer asked for twenty thousand dollars, things change; the original copyright holder is still wrong, but the lawyer is much much more wrong, so even the copyright abolitionist, which is one of the most extreme positions in copyright you could find, will be rooting for the copyright holder in this case.
Most people are not copyright abolitionists, so their reaction in opposition to the lawyer would be even stronger.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I bet he's never even used the Chewbacca defense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
BTW, the response from the other person's counsel was likewise unnecessarily prolix, and he too fell prey to the the enticement of droning on incessantly to impress his client with his supposed mastery of law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Favorite quote
Ooooh, 5'-11" 180lb. SCARY! He's going to get all WWF on the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: strange goings on in the last article's comments...
Either that really is Charles's wife, or that's the best trolling I've seen in all my life. I'm leaning towards the former.
But in her posts, I found this little gem of a quote:
"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."
Hey, Charles, if you happen to read this, here's some free advice from the internet: Listen to your wife.
P.S. The only thing worse than baseless and mindlessly aggressive legal flailing/bullying is baseless and mindlessly aggressive legal flailing/bullying that just doesn't know when to quit. Just ask SCO and Oracle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Favorite quote
That sounds more like Inman's "Operation Bearlove Good. Cancer Bad" fundraiser.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't forget who Inman is. ( it's well documented )
Ignore it or don't even bother looking into him.
Your choice.
Carreon on the other hand is a tool.
He played it wrong. His opponent didn't help him either.
Inman being so versed in "internet" (look into him) has played this very well.
He spams all the social networks regularly and I am 100% positive he spammed HIS BIASED SIDE of the story everywhere, to put the public on his side. (again...look into him)
Carreon doesn't stand a chance against Inman.
If he wins legally...he still loses.
Inman is far smarter at "internet" and PR than 99% of people.He uses it, all the time. (look into it)
Inman doesn't give a shit about you unless you are useful to him.(look into it)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Inman shouldn't call people copying THIEVES.
[ 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:
It's ok now to say copying is stealing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The right, not to be called a "thief" ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
fuck.... Inman's PR is good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Right.. got it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
or
Inman should have to ????? for claiming funnyjunk are criminals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
He probably believes he's gotten in so deep that there is nowhere else to go but down. Righteous indignation can drive people to do bizarre things after all. Whatever the specific reason, I'm sure it all boils down to delusional reasoning, something we humans excel at. For example, tell a lie long enough and you begin to believe it. In this case Mr. Carreon probably believes Inman threw the first stone, the old "but mom, he started it!" mentality that a lot of folks never seem to grow out of. At this point taking responsibility for his actions and apologizing would be the sane way to go, but I doubt we'll see that happen. He'll just have to learn his lesson the hard way I suppose. Nobody ever takes the easy way by simply listening to the advice of experienced people older and wiser than you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Keep digging
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WHO is playing people well
Call people "thieves". Not an issue.
Call them pedophiles , why not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
He has the knowledge in manipulating the "internets".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The Oatmeal's Legal Response
Inman has to pay the $20,000 punnishment
For calling filesharers "Thieves"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You just sound kinda jealous that Inman has succeeded.
Welcome to the internet. It's not like previous media. You can get noticed pretty easily with 'cheap gimmicks', but there's so many other good things around that you can't keep that attention unless you actually do have something that people like.
Inman isn't good at the internet, he's good at having a fanbase. The many, many, many times he has been pitchforked against indicate this pretty clearly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Carreon - carrion - coincidence?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Frankly, this is theft. This isn't file-copying for private use, this is plagiarism for the point of profit against the stated wishes of the author. (Many authors, actually)
And what did Inman do after funnyjunk refused to change . . .?
Nothing. He could definitely have taken a route that would have us here at techdirt riled, but instead just shrugged and continued creating, which is really a much more productive path.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Ignorance holds no bounds.
YOU ARE ALL being PLAYED...... fools
The Guardian ( 2008 )
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/14/searchengines.blogging
Inman
SEOmoz he knows nothing about manipulating Social media... right !
SEO -- no knowledge about generating traffic either.
THERE IS MORE ... if you care to look.
You wont but, will you ? ( happily a puppet of Inman )
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://badwebcomics.wikidot.com/the-oatmeal
There are people who create comics because they love the stories, the artwork etc...
The success of good comics goes far beyond Inman's work.
But that is besides the point... Inman is playing people, gaming the system for his profit.
Inman is all about the cash via traffic.
Other comic artists have know it for a long time.
(2010)
http://unfunnythings.tumblr.com/post/1312737586/theoatmeal
http://badwebcomics.wik idot.com/the-oatmeal
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There are people who create comics because they love the stories, the artwork etc...
The success of good comics goes far beyond Inman's work.
But that is besides the point... Inman is playing people, gaming the system for his profit.
Inman is all about the cash via traffic.
Other comic artists have know it for a long time.
(2010)
http://unfunnythings.tumblr.com/post/1312737586/theoatmeal
http://badwebcomics.wik idot.com/the-oatmeal
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If you look at the FACTS.
The side that shills the most, spams to all the social networks and blogs.... is Inman. There is a PROVEN history. It is his area of expertise.
Your choice, be a puppet if you want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But don't disregard the power of Inman to manipulate the internet.
He is fucking good at being sneaky.
( for a start read )http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/14/searchengines.blogging
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He is good.
Calls people "thieves" for copying...ok
Lies about credit being removed by funnyjunk...ok
Publicly slanders funnyjunk...ok
Get's defamation threat...ok
This is a DEFAMATION case
What has it been manipulated into ?
by whom ?
It's NOW not about the defamation is it !
Charity !
Evil funnyjunk admin !
Evil Lawyer !
Stupid Lawyer !
Unreasonable Lawyer !
To say Inman has not used his skills of "manipulation of the internet" would be really quite naive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Inman didn't like feeling like a douchebag, so he stopped participating in things that are douchey. Your husband would be well served to learn that lesson. Stick to what you know. Bad poetry and government conspiracy theories.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Favorite quote
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Everyone knew that Inman was "Giving to charity to stop the evil funnyjunk"
Inman is just a poor cartoonist
Funny how everyone knew at the same time.
Wouldn't be Inman using his internet skills to push this NARRATIVE ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2007/dec/05/getacashadvanceformyblog
htt p://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/07/blogreadability
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/ blog/2007/dec/14/loanscompanyexploitingblogg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Inman didn't like feeling like a douchebag, so he stopped participating in things that are douchey. Your husband would be well served to learn that lesson. Stick to what you know. Bad poetry and government conspiracy theories.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Carve your own path and think for yourself.
WHY would a lawyer and his wife give a shit about one of the hundreds of articles about this ?
paranoid as fuck !
YOU have been played. ALL the fact's point to it.
(be honest with yourself)
It's your choice.
Look at the facts or believe the spin, it's up to you.
Why would you believe Inman after the things he said and the things he has done ?
He is a master, even a genius at what he does.
What he does is play people and internet sites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd expect the damage to funnystuff should be entertaining as many content creators are now well aware of their work being hosted on the site, and will be sending many notices to have their work removed from the site.
oh that's right funnyjunk doesn't have a DMCA agent registered, so they don't have the protections of the DMCA provided for sites.
So would you care to comment on Carreon's loss of the right to practice for violating the law? Or maybe the insane letter he sent to Google to uncover the conspiracy about his wife's scraping of crazy theories from the internet being delisted?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Carve your own path and think for yourself.
http://www.american-buddha.com/poet.donttalkaboutmother.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Favorite quote
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
$20,000 damages for...calling fileshares "thieves" is win win.
1) Inman doesn't win his obvious internet manipulation.
2) We filesharers get a victory against the MAFFIA propaganda.
Can imagine the TF article now...
Call Filesharers Thieves And Get $20,000 Fine
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that would be a licensing issue. Not a defamation issue.
This really has been twisted by Inman's genius PR.
It's a defamation case...Plain and simple.
Inman is just a genius at manipulation. FACT
There is lot's of proof of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
yea... that would be similar BUT different.
Calling people criminals, saying they committed a crime is not the same as saying someone wants to shut a site down with legal means.
b. the effect to funnyjunk... Look at all the fucks I give
c.Why would I "care to comment on Carreon's" phaggotry ?
( don't tell me your assuming Anon )
DENIAL ANON
Plain and simple.... You may be CURRENTLY fooled but I am not.
I have seen this before, YOU will see it again.
Proxies by the hundreds for gems like Scrapebox , Inman knows what the fuck that is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Carve your own path and think for yourself.
( looks like Inmans work of what he is FAMOUS for )
Forgot you ignore what he has done previously.
I am Barack Obama
Prove me wrong ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It's NOW not about the defamation is it !
Charity !
Evil funnyjunk admin !
Evil Lawyer !
Stupid Lawyer !
Unreasonable Lawyer !"
Is just stupid. He posted a letter that Carreon wrote, and refused to give in to bogus legal claims. There is nothing nefarious about how he has handled the situation. There may be a big crowd of people that for right now think Carreon is some super evil lawyer, but they will be talking about something else by next week. If anything, this series of events plays out more like a funny documentary then sound-byte ridden news broadcasts that you are likely to hear on tv.
I bet you love conspiracy theories.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Will remember that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is NOT theft. Nothing was stolen.
Funnyjunk Admin did not upload it.
That has got FUCK ALL to do with it.
DEFAMATION CASE IS DEFAMATION CASE.
YOUR OPINION was GIVEN TO YOU. (by Inman)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
also he needs a wambalance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Last attempt at intervention
Publish an article calling your local Corporation a group of Paedo's then.
Do It.. Dare you.
As for conspiracy.
I am not the one who believes bullshit stories a person says without looking into the facts.
Yous are the people who believed the....
GOOD, SMALL, CHARITABLE, POOR cartoonist
against the
EVIL, BIG, STEALING, RICH, EXTORTIONIST funnyjunk
How WRONG is that narrative and impression ?
FACT's tell you what ?
PEEPS BEEN PLAYED ! ( no shame , it happens )
Still can't see it ? shame on you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Violating a Twitter name
Eh, what??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Except that without lawyers...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next you are going to tell us he has been putting subliminal messages in his comics and we have all been turned into his personal interwebz zombie army.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Brains.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
the crap you have spammed here -EVEN IF 'TRUE'- is beside the point...
seems like you don't like the guy, fine...
from what you've shown so far -'real' comic artiste- i don't like you...
i have more evidence to base that opinion on than you do of the oatmeal guy...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Last attempt at intervention
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Carve your own path and think for yourself.
Or continue to post cretinous nonsense so we can continue to laugh at you. Choice is all yours...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No conspiracy here, other than the conspiracy to keep you off your meds, you paranoid nutcase...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Except that without lawyers...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The Oatmeal's Legal Response
some words
in bold
stuck in a comment. You couldn't be further from a coherent point if you tried.
Please find your medication and take some of it - you are probably making your close family sad with these contemptuous displays.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2012/06/jay_lee_candice_schwager_lawsuit_threats. php
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Keep digging
It is a fact that Funnyjunk was removing the attribution from Matt Inman's work in an attempt to drive ad revenue. (This is presumably because nobody who works for Funnyjunk has any actual creativity or talent to draw their own damn cartoons.) When Inman rightfully complained about this (the removal of the copyright), then rather than do the right thing, Funnyjunk began to behave as if they were the ones who were being wronged. This escalated to the point that Funnyjunk's nutcase-for-hire, Carreon, tried to bully Inman into paying him $20,000 (for what? Compensation to Funnyjunk for suffering the indignity of being called thieves, when they were caught stealing?) This is when Inman went public on this and Carreon went into conniptions, and started to have what seems to be some kind of mental breakdown.
The above is indisputable, but allow me to offer my opinion as well. For people like Funnyjunk and Carreon, lying and bullying is just their modus operandi - they do this day in, day out. They're so used to people rolling over and appeasing them, or just giving up and walking away, that they are genuinely upset that Inman has called them on their bullshit. These people are no better than the Mafia. I wouldn't do business with them - I wouldn't even piss on them if they were on fire. But the whole world can now see them for the reprobates that they are. If they do end up damaging their careers (if aggregating unattributed cartoons even qualifies as a career), then good. The only thing they can do to make amends is to apologize at the very least, and maybe match Inman's charity contributions. They brought this on themselves and they deserve every last moment of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Keep digging
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Inman should donate the charitable donations to the bear loving and cancer hating charities he has proposed to raise funds for.
I think maybe the offered pictures as settlement ought to be foregone in the name of avoiding further drama whoring. Everyone should go to their respective corners and cool off.
The law-chap should have a good hard think. Whether out of narcisstic self interest or because he has genuine hopes of being a better person, he should persist in this deep thinking until he figures out where he went wrong and incorporates this learning into his future conduct.
And then they might all live happily ever after.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Please, for the love of g-d, come up with something, anything to say with some substance to it. Being first is a rare opportunity, and you've utterly wet the bed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seriously, it's a crappy globe with a mouse, a monitor with an "@" on it, a CD, a copyright symbol and a trademark symbol orbiting around it. With "ONLINE MEDIA LAW" written on a banner across the middle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Carve your own path and think for yourself.
I can't wait for these posts to be sourced for the litigation, and to see who their author is. It's just too wonderful.
Sometimes schadenfreude is a guilty pleasure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Keep digging
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: WHO is playing people well
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Keep digging
Is this some kind of effort to get "stealing" mentioned in every single comment thread on Techdirt?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Carve your own path and think for yourself.
Why? Noone gives a damn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Connecting with his fans?
I'm gonna go with Occam's Razor here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The post on Houston Press is just the tip of the iceberg, a sockpuppet from "Australia" supporting Candice in the comments but using a TX IP address.
She was much more vocal in the thread about her on petapixel, and her 6th "DMCA" notice to GoDaddy against petapixel is hysterical.
She continues to call Jay Lee fag and other wonderful names from her Twitter account trying to make it trend. Making allegations about her car being stolen by the hackers, and so much more.
She is less than pleased that multiple copyright infringements were found on her blogs and I hope Anne Gedees crushes her.
I might have been following this case just a little bit and exposing her sockpuppetry, her inactive "non-profit" from which she was making political statements, and so many other little devious tricks shes been using for years to slander and libel people. One can only hope the Texas Bar got to see her handy work before she started trying to cover her tracks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Keep digging
NO .. that is a lie ( told by ? )
Show us proof or it is a lie
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: WHO is playing people well
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Last attempt at intervention
ONLY then you can claim "delusional".
Evidence against emotion, you chose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Carve your own path and think for yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Carve your own path and think for yourself.
http://www.american-buddha.com/poet.donttalkaboutmother.htm
is as Legit... as me saying I am Barack Obama. Get it ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Carve your own path and think for yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's now paranoid to look into things without emotion informing your judgement.
Bad, immoral, assholes, evil, bullying, extortionate funnyjunk.
Do you lot, watch FOX news ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
end of.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Oatmeal's Legal Response
People can read.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He has the blog, the cartoon, all the news sites reported that.
Zombie army is a bit extreme, but traffic to his site ?
Now this is conspiracy... just a question.
If you found out that this was a publicity stunt by funnyjunk and Inman ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personal insults are funny....
I hate hate hate funnyjunk.
Fox news told me
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shame on you.... run along and watch Fox news
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
List of other things Fox news told you to hate ?
It was fox news who set out this NARRATIVE ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Don't forget who Inman is. ( it's well documented )"
You presented the position, you present your citations.
We'll wait.
" He spams all the social networks regularly and I am 100% positive he spammed HIS BIASED SIDE of the story everywhere, to put the public on his side. (again...look into him) "
Again, you presented the position, the onus of proof is on you. Citations please.
" Inman is far smarter at "internet" and PR than 99% of people.He uses it, all the time. (look into it) "
Seriously ?
See above.
No proof, no credibility. Might as well be methane.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
First Amendment
I am sorry to say, but it does NOT allow you to call someone else a douchebag.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Details are important
The point of Techdirt isn't "Copyrights are bad".
The point of Techdirt is "Copyright abuse is bad".
Most of the time, rights-holders are abusing their granted monopoly powers. That's why Techdirt seems like it hates copyright. But it doesn't, and this is a perfect example: when Matt Inman uses his copyrights correctly, everyone wins. Except FunnyJunk, but they brought this on themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
False dichotomy
FunnyJunk is not liable for anything (assume they can claim DMCA safe harbor - Inman's lawyer seems to think they may have screwed up here, but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're safe).
Inman has broken no laws.
This isn't a court battle. The courts aren't even involved, and they shouldn't be. This is a media battle, a fight for public opinion about "right" and "wrong". No matter what happens, no one is going to jail, and the only people being paid are lawyers. Oh, and that charity than Inman set up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you found out that this was a publicity stunt by funnyjunk and Inman ?
Personally, I would continue on my merry way, not giving a shit.
People do stunts for publicity all the time, so what? The only reason any of this is on my radar at all is because of all the amusingly stupid comments here on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Keep digging
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Carve your own path and think for yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Except that without lawyers...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: First Amendment
As far as I know, the only things that aren't covered by the first amendment are those that would cause a clear and present danger(yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater being the classic example).
Free speech doesn't mean 'free speech as long as it doesn't offend someone', so calling someone a douchebag is indeed protected speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: First Amendment
[ 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 get-go in favor of Matt Inman's bogus claim of "copyright infringement." They don't care what Charles has to say. Their stories start and end with threats towards Charles Carreon, and an appeal to the Internet to rise up against him. You should be aware that this story broke at the very moment that the Department of Justice was settling with the publishing industry 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 honor of Leo Strauss, Simonides. Remember how I said that to understand modern history you had to know about the 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 they 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.
Not one reporter has considered this fracas as a real story in the real world. No, this is "Internet" news. Which can be analogized to our unconscious, the real world being our conscious mind. 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, and most likely, no one will even be conscious of it. Because, as I said, 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 all that is inbetween, float together randomly in a marvelous soup of potential and actual DOUBLETHINK.
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 religious campaign, cynically disguised as THE LAW, to marshal people's unconscious forces for your own purposes. That end up with the very people you as the Publishing Industry are trying to control fighting in your own army, arguing your cause.
Now, THAT'S strategy. And a marvelous response to a big defeat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ROFL!
Some of you ACs have the funniest quotes. I'd love to be able to attribute them properly. As it is, the fairest thing to do is link to this page and let people find them by themselves. They work better in context anyway.
Oh, and props to Ann, minerat, [citation needed or GTFO], Nate, mrdarkrai, and Lurker Keith for the epic digging up of pertinent information.
First prize, however, to the troll/Mrs.Carreon/whatever, for the funniest contributions to this "debate."
This is the most entertaining comments section I have ever read. :D
Congratulations, all, on a job well done. *Applauds*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Keep digging
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Last attempt at intervention
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're the worst human being I've ever encountered and I take solace in knowing that you'll be the author of your own downfall, which you'll still probably blame Matt Inman for, you sketchy stalker weirdo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Only the AC is immune to Inman's jedi mind tricks, but no-one will take him seriously...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
On the other hand, I don't think I've had this much fun since the days of Usenet...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ROFL!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All I am really saying is that none of us should give a shit now.
Wow, the hate that has brought my way : )
As you said to my hypothetical question "I would continue on my merry way, not giving a shit."
That's just what I'll do in this instance : )
I give up trying to point out facts about PR and perception manipulation with some of the people here.
Edward Louis Bernays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: TaraCarreon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Don't go on. Go back while you still can. This is not the way. Take heed and go no further. Beware. Beware. Soon it will be too late."
And Hoggle answers: "Yeah! Don't pay any attention to them. They're just false alarms. You get a lot of them in the labyrinth. Especially when you're on the right track."
And a rock interrupts: "Oh, no, you're not."
Hoggle tells him to shut up.
The Rock explains: "Sorry. Just doing my job."
And Hoggle says, "You don't have to do it to us. Just forget it."
Rock says, "Oh, please, I haven't said it for such a long time."
Finally, Hoggle gives in: "Oh, all right, but don't expect a big reaction."
Rocks -- grateful -- says: "No, no, no, of course not -- (DUM DA DA DUM!) For the path you will take will lead to certain destruction."
He's so very, very grateful to be able to do his job.
http://www.naderlibrary.com/labyrinth.screen.toc.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Maybe I should contact the studio and find out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Show me the exact wording in any relevant judicial case or active part of copyright law that creates a "library exemption", and I will believe you.
Until then, you'll have to excuse me -- I need to start finding the email addresses of some major book and film publishers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
***** REPOST FOR RETARD *****
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: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You might find your husband willing to make the argument for you in court, but any competent attorney would tell you to shut up, take the infringing content down, and pray that those publishers don't seek restitution for your infringment upon copyright law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an aside, no music publisher or movie studio has ever submitted a DMCA notice. It would seem that the RIAA accepts the library-lending exemption, which is buttressed by a downloading blocker that prevents more than one MP3 from being played at any time by any user, such that it is no different in its operations from the old-fashioned listening booths, i.e., a room with a turntable and a speaker, that were available for years at public libraries before the collapse of informational services at the neighborhood paper bricks and mortar level.
With regard to transcriptions of screenplays and illustrated screencap galleries, American Buddha first became a huge resource in this field with its ground-breaking illustrated screenplay method of presenting Richard Linklater's "Waking Life," and became the go-to-source for students of that seminal post-modern work. Should any question of legal action arise, the statute of limitations, three years for copyright infringement, has long ago expired on virtually all of the motion picture content, since I was most prolific in that field a few years back, and have lately concentrated on archiving rare and otherwise unavailable works such as Jung's recently-published "Red Book," which will not be found outside a few rare-book reading rooms in American libraries. Thanks to my oversized scanner and trusty Dell Quad-Core, students of Jung can have access to this all-important work, that was kept unpublished for many years after his death by his literary executors, which I bought at the first opportunity.
Perhaps it is a mark of your own insufficient self-worth, perhaps due to not giving away enough of your labor, and instead holding forth spitting bile in digital fora, that you speak of things regarding which you have no understanding. Indeed, I will assume this and as a scholar, commend you to your books.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I thought I'd seen literally all the crazy before this comment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...wait. Did you just vaguely threaten to try and out me to the general public using a subpoena and use that as a tool to embarass and humiliate me?
WOW. You, darling, have sunk lower than your husband.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Awe-Inspiring Levels of Douchebaggery
HE HAS FILED SUIT AGAINST THE WORLD WILDLIFE FEDERATION AND THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY.
http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/17/the-oatmeal-v-funnyjunk-part-iv-charles-carreon-sues-e verybody/
@TaraCarreon - care to comment on your husband's robbing cancer patients of resources (I.e. his impending disbarment)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Awe-Inspiring Levels of Douchebaggery
I need to go buy about half a ton of popcorn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ROFL!
Here is the latest crazy. Hope you're not in public, because you are about to start screaming.
http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/17/the-oatmeal-v-funnyjunk-part-iv-charles-carreon-sues -everybody/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Outing?" That's so pre-Obama! Who could "out" anyone for any sexual proclivity short of pederasty now, and claim any kind of "left" credentials? You're not suggesting something truly outre, are you?
And about the subpoena, JK. I have no control over what Charles does. He's an officer of the court, who would never abuse his authority.
http://www.american-buddha.com/italian.spank.htm
http://www.american-buddha.com/love. discipline.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He filed a lawsuit against Matthew Inman, IndieGogo, the National Wildlife Federation, and the American Cancer Society over supposed "trademark infringement" this past Friday.
http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/17/the-oatmeal-v-funnyjunk-part-iv-charles-carreon-sues-ev erybody/
It sounds like he wants to abuse his authority as an officer of the court and a practicing attorney to silence a critic.
You can stomach the First Amendment until it lets someone else say mean things about you, huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you'll excuse me, I need to go find some contact information for some major publishing houses. Toodles!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an aside, for anyone who feels like answering, do any of anti-SLAPP laws include jail time, or just censure and fines?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: TaraCarreon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: TaraCarreon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Carve your own path and think for yourself.
I mean, I got the Obama thing. That was inane, and thanks for hipping me to it unnecessarily. But I'm still hung up on the "it's pathetic to shill like that" thing. Can you work me around that one?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RE: mostly post 213: Tara on her library's download blocker
(note, if you don't want to post the above, just delete it, rather than not post the rest, please)
Now for my reply to Mrs. Carreon, regarding her website's download blocker... It can be bypassed, w/o hacking! I went there to see how secure it was against downloading, & it isn't. I won't post how here, as I doubt this would get posted if I did. (if it's OK to post, let me know by adding a character at the bottom of this post or posting or something -- I'd like to point out to Tara that Techdirt does not have a means to neither contact me nor identify me. :p Best they might have is an IP address, which doesn't necessarily mean that's where I live. :p).
I searched her "library" for ".mp3" & the first thing listed that looked like it was a song was the Beastie Boy's Rhymin & Stealin (note, it is a bit slow to load). The site asked me join & to accept their ToS, but I got around that, too (the link above will probably just skip that & go straight to the song), again w/o hacking. I did NOT save the song, as I didn't need to to see if I could save it to know that I could, I didn't want Tara yelling at me about that, & I don't want anything associated w/ the Carrions (sic).
Wendy, thanks, even though that was my first post (that got through).
As to Popehat's Oatmeal coverage Part IV, I asked a friend for a word or phrase that goes beyond "moronic idiot" & he eventually sent me this:
"There is no curse in Elvish, Entish, or the tongues of men for this treachery. --Treebeard [LotR: tTT], found via IMDb (he used "stupidity" instead, but considering what happened, I think the original fits better)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Awe-Inspiring Levels of Douchebaggery
http://i689.photobucket.com/albums/vv254/4dri4ntxu/Gifs/1243444310255.gif
This whole situation reminds me of that.
Also reminds me of Jack Thompson. How'd pushing his ego into everyone's faces turn out for his career?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Awe-Inspiring Levels of Douchebaggery
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the really crazy thing is...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: the really crazy thing is...
Unless you are him?
Nothing would surprise me at this point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RE: Post 213 regarding Tara's Library being download safe
In short, your site needs to be programmed better, as your supposed security is easily bypassible w/o doing anything to the site itself (again, absolutely no hacking required, just a general understanding of how streaming works w/ a given user Browser/ OS).
I'm not stupid enough to post how I could take a song if I were a content Pirate... Though, if you ask NICELY, I may consider enlightening you. However, keep in mind, if I post how it's done, anyone (at least Windows users, but I'm sure most OSes & Browsers work similarly w/ this) who sees that post will be able to do it (it's really that simple).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RE: Post 213 regarding Tara's Library being download safe
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: RE: Post 213 regarding Tara's Library being download safe
That isn't exactly correct. I've seen sites, where the stream isn't as easily located. It may work the same way, but there are ways to hide it in a manner that requires more advanced skills to find.
I don't see how its relevant.
Give me a break. I don't just lash out at someone like some people. & I don't want to rehash stuff that's already been said. This was something in my field of knowledge I could point out to her.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But no, he doesn't abuse his position as an attorney at all. Ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: the really crazy thing is...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's why it's particular shocking to see him behave this way, in the past he was one of the good guys. Now... now he seems to have gone nuts."
According to Popehat, Marc Randazza had similar things to say. His initial reaction:
"I have known Charles for a few years, and know him to be one of the good guys. I did ask him "what the fuck were you thinking?" when I first saw his letter.
I think he just made a judgment error, which is different from saying that this event exposes a latent character flaw. I've never known him to do anything like this before, and I am prepared to give him a First Amendment mulligan. Let he who has never fucked up before cast the first stone. Well, ok, cast stones even if you have fucked up — since he might have asked for it and he can likely handle it, but I ask everyone to try and remember that Charles has been on the right side of the good fight far more times than he's been on the wrong side. On balance, he's one of the good guys, and I think he's engaging in some valuable self-reflection right now — which is itself a sign that he is one of the good guys."
But after Carreon tried to shut down the fundraiser he followed with this:
"Despite my earlier charitable comments, I can not find any words to defend trying to shut the fundraiser down. I can't even gin up a minor benefit of the doubt on that one. I can see an ill-considered demand as a mistake in judgment while hoping to gain an advantage for your client. But taking a shot at the fundraiser would not do that – it would just be lashing out to hurt bears and cancer patients? 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."
More here in the post updates:
http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/12/hey-did-somebody-say-something-was-going-on-with-the-oat meal/
I wonder what he'll say after Friday's lawsuit being filed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So now he is suing the beneficiaries of the Oatmeal
If he keeps this up his career will be Carrion. Is he the Don Quixote of the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Keep digging
Cause knowledge is power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"ENGLISH, MOTHER(bleep) DO YOU SPEAK IT?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: RE: Post 213 regarding Tara's Library being download safe
Wait, you didn't know there was more security available than you know about? Color me shocked.
So it is not true for all sites and always has been. As for relevance, thats for you to decide.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Translation for everyone who isnt as highly-literate as Mrs. Carreon here: this is a self-important way of saying, "lol u don't know what ur talking about stfu"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So your husband files a complaint preaching about how he is always respectful of others online, while you call people on the Internet "RETARD"?
If the case is about "us", maybe he should amend that part of the complaint.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you honestly saying that you want to Carreon to win just because you don't like how Inman operates? Try to think of the wider picture here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or the more obvious, you didn't appear in any search engine at the top, because the RIAA is not known to respect anything, ASCAP and BMI also may want to have a talk with you about some due royalties.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And no, I don't give a flying monkey if there was a second gunman. Not caring is nowhere close to 'buying into'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What's annoying us as a group is Carreon's cluelessness, from the original $20k demand a year later (wtf?) to then starting to attack legitimate charity fundraising.
Stop trying to support your bias by assuming things here have changed totally from one post. If the MPAA went after a criminal DVD gang, we'd probably cheer on the MPAA. If they go after grandmothers and laser printers - we call their idiocy like it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Favorite quote
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Seriously, someone so 'atheist' that they accuse Dawkins of 'religion' (gnosticism)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My response: You childish, aggressive, Un-American, contemptible, obnoxious, incompetent, constipated, bankrupt, hypocritical, stupid, carnivorous, wolverine, ranting, foaming at the mouth, smeghead scumbag thugs (you believe in tit-for-tat, right?)here at TechDirt claim that these types of statements are not actionable because they aren't "false facts," just "satire." Where is the dividing line?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Andrew: How do you respond to someone who says, “This is the worst comic I ever saw in my life”?
Matt: When I used to work for people I had this sense of diplomacy. I had to respond like, “Well, I’m sorry you feel that way. I appreciate your criticism,” and blah, blah, blah. Now I work for myself and really no one can control what I say. So usually I tell them that I slept with their mom or I say the most vile, awful thing I can think of. If you read my Twitter account, it is like Hitler’s port-a-potty. It’s the worst thing that you’ve ever seen, just this awful stuff that I say to my critics on there. Just to troll them, mostly. So that’s usually how I respond to it. Like a drunk 15 year old, I think, is the best way to put it....
Andrew: What about in the beginning when you were going into Digg and you knew that if you won this group of people over, they’d send you massive traffic and if you turned them into haters, they’d bury you and you wouldn’t get anything from them. At that point, weren’t you nervous?
Matt: Yeah. At that point, I wouldn’t have gotten on Digg and been like, “Hey, your mom and I made love under the stars. Ha ha ha. I liked it.” That probably wouldn’t go over so well. But now I’m kind of at this comfortable level. And part of my writing style and the persona that I have online is sort of this crass, bloated, obese, drunk monster. So, in the beginning, you’re absolutely right, probably insulting my critics wouldn’t have gone over so well....
Matt: I think the feedback that has changed my comics somewhat wasn’t from comments, it was from traffic. I found that certain themes, that if I attack, will actually drive traffic like crazy and that other things won’t.
In particular, writing about a gripe. It’s the stand-up routine where someone gets up there and says, “What’s the deal with airline food?” You take that and you apply it to a comic. Those ones go crazy. Like, “Things That You Shouldn’t Do In E-Mail,” “How to Suck at Facebook,” “Words You Should Stop Misspelling,” these are all gripes. That was one that changed. But that is, hopefully the one that stands alone. I try to make things that I think are funny and that I enjoy. But the gripe one is one that I sort of embellished a little more because it seemed to resonate with people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lawyers who live in glass houses should not throw stones
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Carreon is working on his own defamation suit
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Tell us how you really feel about yourself, Tara.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You can't rebut a single comment with facts and logic, so you resort to a barrage of insults in the hopes that someone will react by saying something "actionable" and allow you to sue them out of house and home.
You really are Carreon's wife.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sad.
http://www.ragingblog.com/2009/05/pornographers-infringe-emily-trademark-and-mattel-is-sile nt-how-swell-is-that/
He also claims there is no other way to contact him, however on the above link up until today (when presumably Charles erased the evidence that he lied to the court) you could click "contact" and you would get his email address. Though in the below link there are many images and links to his information still or previously available. :)
More reading:
http://charles-carreon.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you really think Matt Inman has paid people off to rip into you here on Techdirt?
You can't have this kind of hatred and self-delusion without it harming your mind.
Says the woman who called posters here "retards", "phaggotish", and...well, I'll let your own words bury you.
I hope you enjoy digging holes, Tara. You seem to have dug a rather large one for yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The Oatmeal blacked out his information in his blog, however Charles Carreon still insists The Oatmeal gave out his email. However Mr. Carreon has done exactly what he is suing over to someone else:
http://www.ragingblog.com/2009/05/pornographers-infringe-emily-trademark-and-mattel-is-sile nt-how-swell-is-that/
He also claims there is no other way to contact him, however on the above link up until today (when presumably Charles erased the evidence that he lied to the court) you could click "contact" and you would get his email address. Though in the below link there are many images and links to his information still or previously available. :)
More reading:
http://charles-carreon.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now, onto your "philosophical point of order." I'd like to list two points of contention regarding this claim. First, I'm sure you're familiar with Buddhist philosophical concepts (familiar with, but whether or not you comprehend them seems to be another issue entirely), in which a thing can both be and not be at the same time, such as with language in which a word, at once, means something and is meaningless. Second, Hegel's Geist perfectly applies to this situation, the "spirit" a community becomes a material thing itself, while having no materiality per se.
Finally, I'd like to point out that I am no way in the pay of Matt Inman, nor, I believe, are any other individuals posting on this site. His lawyer certainly is, but that's probably the extent of it (at least regarding this particular case). Now, you should probably listen to the person who is in the employ of Matt Inman, as he is offering you Very Good Advice regarding the Very Bad Situation in which you and your husband have found yourselves.
That advice was, to reiterate, that a lawsuit would be a Very Bad Idea (I believe the quote was, "just a really, really bad idea"). You can say all you want that your husband is the best lawyer ever on the face of the planet (and the most attractive and awesomest and whatever ad nauseum), but, based on the actions he is currently displaying, he is, sadly, not embodying such. Listening to Inman's lawyer would be a display of intelligence to which I would be thrilled to see (seriously, I kind of want this to end well for you guys, I've grown to like you in some strange ways [not those kind of strange ways]). All Charles would really have to do is just say, "Hey, what I've been doing... yeah that was a Really Bad Idea, and I'm sorry, but Inman's response bothered me and I reacted badly."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tearin' people's heads off,
and eatin' their eyes,
But now he's done a change-up,
Got a new disguise --
All Points Bulletin: Look out for this guy!
http://www.naderlibrary.com/santa-suit-empty1.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sad.
However then Carreon goes and continues the fallacy that the picture of the woman seducing a bear is his mother, not the owner of FunnyJunk's mother. This is a fallacy and one a well read human being should have picked up on immediately. Please reread the post by Matthew and his follow up about now being sued, where he again reiterates that the original feud was between The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk.
Just admit your husband had an old people's moment and walk away. No one will hold it against him in 2 weeks time. He'll be forgotten. Or he'll be mocked forever. His choice.
Examples:
http://charles-carreon.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And, yes, offensive speech is protected even when it concerns a private figure, as well. See, Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S.Ct. 1207 (2011).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The basic definition of whether speech is 'commercial' is whether it does "no more than propose a commercial transaction." Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 762 (1976).
Moreover, the Supreme Court has already held that charitable speech is not commercial speech: "Even assuming that the mandated speech [a requirement by the State of North Carolina that charitable organizations make certain disclosures -- exactly what is at issue in this case], in the abstract, is merely 'commercial,' it does not retain its commercial character when it is inextricably intertwined with the otherwise fully protected speech involved in charitable solicitations, and thus the mandated speech is subject to the test for fully protected expression, not the more deferential commercial speech principles." Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 782 (1988).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Wow, never in my life would I have thought that I'd read that. Thanks for reminding all of us to never try bath salts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ringin' a bell, and beggin' for clicks,
Psycho Santa got a itty bitty stick,
Psycho Santa, don't fall for his schtick.
http://www.naderlibrary.com/three-inch-dick-final1.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nothing to see here, folks. Return to your homes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There.. That's how you insult someone... Next time use words that have meaning, context and don't make people go to sleep half way through the second line.
Oh and based on prior postings here, and looking at your and your husbands website(s) you need professional mental health help. Deny it all you want, to any professional it is self evident. I feel sorry for you and sorry for the pain you are putting yourselves through, though please be aware that it is has been fully instigated by yourselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You do realise this is a world viewable forum (in the real sense of the word forum) don't you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://charles-carreon.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://shop.theoatmeal.com/products/love-missile-greeting-card
I really, really hope Inman sends you a DMCA notification.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: WHO is playing people well
Carreon was simply hoping that Inman was too stupid to know better, or too broke to afford a lawyer himself.
Note that it is now the 20th of June. As of the 12th of June, all mentions of FunnyJunk were still on the Oatmeal - and now there is even more there. Also it goes without saying that Inman did not deliver $20,000 to Carreon. Yet here we are eight days later and instead of filing the clearly baseless suit against Inman for defamation, Carreon donated to a fundraiser in an incredulous attempt to manufacture anything at all that he could actually sue Inman for.
By the lack of filing a defamation suit against Inman on behalf of FunnyJunk, even your hero Carreon is capitulating to the reality that Inman did not defame them. Just up to you to catch up now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since you have place thieves in quotes, I am going to want to see the exact quote it was used in. Have fun with that.
Lies about credit being removed by funnyjunk...ok
yeah, you are going to have to quote where he made that claim. Exact words, in context. Ensure that he does say it was FunnyJunk who removed the credit, not just that it was removed.
It's NOW not about the defamation is it !
That is because it is now 8 days after deadline and Carreon has not filed a defamation claim against Inman on behalf of Funnyjunk. Instead he has attempted to manufacture a case by donating to a fundraiser he was trying to have shut down.
To say Inman has not used his skills of "manipulation of the internet" would be really quite naive.
Possibly. But to take everything you have said on face value when it is evident that you have an axe to grind and are hiding behind anonymity, giving us no insight into your personal agenda - that would but complete stupidity.
You said it yourself. Inman is well documented. His skills have served him well in both his comics and SEO. That does not have any bearing on this case however.
If you want people talking about the defamation case, tell Carreon to file it. People talking on the internet and donating to a fundraiser has no bearing on the outcome of the case. Except of course that Carreon knows it is baseless, did not realise what he was getting into sending a stock standard hardball message to Inman just because he was there and knows full well that claiming defamation because of blog posts on a satirical comic website will end up anti-SLAPPed faster than he could fill out the paperwork.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I've read your posts on your website. Honestly, I'm almost at a loss for words at the unintentional irony here.
You post like a 16 year old on tumblr, and yet you're clearly in my age group. Even 4chan would laugh you off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Santa Nonsense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I've seen the "American Buddha" web site. That site and The Oatmeal seem fairly well matched in terms of the maturity level of your humor, although Matt tends to be funnier.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Believability and the "reasonable man" test is a good place to start. No one in their right mind would believe FunnyJunk's mother was trying to seduce a bear. The image is absurd. It's juvenile and cruel, but also absurd. Accusing Rush Limbaugh of being a closeted homosexual on the other hand is more dangerous ground. The Republican issues with homophobes being outed as closeted gays, and Rush's regrettable incident of smuggling black market Viagra on an "All boy's" fishing trip to a tropical region lends a certain believability to accusing Rush Limbaugh of being a homosexual.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: History keeps repeating itself...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: hundreds of times?
As I saw somewhere - it's this 90% that give the other 10% of lawyers a bad reputation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Intro to Ca. Law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Obtuse beyond understanding
This is the Internet. Why are you bothering my donations and trying to represent Justice without consulting me, the donor if I really need a representative for my donations.
Worse of all, I'm least bothered by your laws, constitutions and nonsense. I am the owner of my money, I choose Matthew Inman to represent my interested in donations and fairly aware if there is a 9% charge, I am least bothered by it. I am even aware that he only promised to raise 20k and I am aware that he might use it for other purposes after the initial 20k is raised.
I am very bothered by your husband's action to even try to regulate it. Are you guys thinking you are some justice officer by regulating MY donations?
Does your husband think he's Superman or God of Justice? It is my money and I do what I want with it.
Go away and stop trying to practise your own justice on others. I don't require your fake sense of justice. Please go and help people who are poorer, need help in the world because of difficulties in funding for lawyers. Go help people in need. I am not in need of your HELP.
Pretenders.
Bye.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Lawyers who live in glass houses should not throw stones
And now my brain is hurting. I'm off to get some medicine, and some bleach, to treat it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Carreon is working on his own defamation suit
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dawkins
I'm just curious about this response. I've seen a couple reports in the mainstream media that Richard Dawkins is an "agnostic". It's pretty clear, after reading, that none of the authors have ever read any of Dawkins' books, or anything more than the most basic summary.
But to accuse him of being a gnostic, an adherent to one of the mystery religions prominent around the east and south regions of the Mediterranean basin in the second and third century C.E., that believes in secret knowledge delivered by divine forces... that seems beyond the pale. What evidence do you have to accuse him of such ... outright, frank irrationality?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I doubt so. If it is a prank, then it is a contempt for the court.
The reason why the Carreons are worked up are because they had become targets of hatred for the entire issue. If you understand the entire scenario, neither Matthew Inman nor the Carreons expected this outcome.
From the case, it seemed that the Carreons' main target is the Doe(s) and to force TheOatmeal to remove any use of their trademark (the name Charles Carreon).
I believe they drew the conclusion too early after looking at TheOatmeal's pictures and misinterpreted the drawing as themselves. Instead of requesting Matthew Inman nicely to remove any mention of names, Charles Carreon chose to take it legally and further cause widespread outrage.
Looking at it closely, we can see that the fans were upset. Matthew first blog message about the lawsuit was STOP and let's focus on doing GOOD, but fans decided to act on their own. As Funnyjunk owner was never mentioned and they couldn't dig out FJ, the angry fans had a name which is Charles'. The angry fans lashed at him after digging up his entire information from State Bar of CA.
Charles' response to the donation drive didn't help him either. While the angry fans were waiting urgently for new comic postings and the outcome, they decide to wage the war against Charles. They abused him verbally, phoned him, sent hate mail, wrong nasty emails etc which enraged Charles. Charles went deeper to file a lawsuit against the donation drive.
It was a downhill ride. Matthew decided to write a blog post to cool people down, and some fans are still not appeased.
To: Mrs Carreon, if you are still reading this, please get over the hate and be civil to others.
To: Charles Carreon, please spend your effort elsewhere and stop talking to the media, you will only fan the flames of hatred further. Let the fans/readers decide. You can suggest other alternative source of fund raising which can help to raise 100% of the donations from the Internet from all parts of the World to Matthew if you have a better suggestion. Don't just act like a crusader of Justice when you didn't even spend time to educate others.
Take a step back, take a deep breath and then let it cool down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You murdering cannabilistic kiddyfiddler.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I CALL GENOCIDE
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I love this show!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Obtuse beyond understanding
[ link to this | view in thread ]