Bizarre 'Attribution' Troll Bullies Twitter Users Into Compliance With Baseless Legal Threats
from the tongue-not-made-of-glass dept
My apologies ahead of time for the length of this piece, but anything shorter wouldn't do the subject justice. I will, however, provide plenty of pictures and blockquotes. This post deals with a strange copyright troll, which bullies people into properly attributing a quoted poem. The troll runs across multiple social media platforms but does a bulk of its "work" at Twitter, where it can receive instantaneous feedback. Along the way, we'll deal with the poet himself, a company called On Press Inc. and some other connections which seem to indicate the poet himself is behind the trolling, along with a threatened lawsuit against me for copyright infringement, defamation and false claims.It starts out simply enough. As a contributor to this site, I was doing the sort of thing we do in our downtime -- running a Twitter search for the term "infringement." The search results were dominated by tweets from an account that looked exactly like this one.
Only it wasn't this one. The account I saw had this name: @xsaonpress.
When I returned the next day, I was greeted with the message that the above account had been suspended. Odd. So, I searched again, only this time using the keywords "tongues" and "glass," -- two words in the title of the poem in question -- and found that On Press was still in business.
On Press Inc., supposedly a division of Knopf Publishing (according to its Twitter profiles), was running a search of its own and issuing tweet after threatening tweet to anyone who dared publish a short (really short -- under 140 characters) poem by reclusive poet, Shaun Shane, without attribution. The entire poem reads as follows:
"If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak."This poem's claim to fame is its use in the Invisible Children/Kony 2012 campaign. The link presented by On Press during these Twitter blowups is an Invisible Children-branded photo that quotes the poem and gives proper attribution, albeit a possibly belated one. On Press' blood was first stirred up by a Huffington Post story about Invisible Children back in April of 2012, which led to this angry comment from On Press:
The Organization Invisible Children has plagiarized and thus committed copyright infringement ( which is illegal) on their website and on their Twitter account, a work by Shaun Shane. Exemplifying the criticism against them that they do not research their facts and have sloppy journalist methods. (Here is a link: http://www.invisiblechildren.com/) and to the Twitter post (https://twitter.com/#!/Invisible/status/196433854851055618/photo/1)After sending out an ignored invitation (via direct message) to discuss these "tactics," I decided to throw out some bait.
Soon, I was receiving the same set of tweets I'd seen filling up my search results the night before. On Press, utilizing one of its many, many Twitter accounts, gave me its usual combination of Shaun Shane info and legal threats. On Press has a very shaky grasp on IP law, but it doesn't let its ignorance stop it from trotting out nearly every term (plagiarism, theft) imaginable in hopes of quick compliance.
The first false claim it makes is that Twitter will shut down an account for a single infringement violation. Not true. Twitter may shut down an account for multiple cases of infringement, but a single report won't result in the removal of an account, as is clearly stated in the Twitter terms of service. (On Press has also made claim that this process will shut down an account in 4 hours. You may laugh at this one.)
Twitter will also terminate a user's account if the user is determined to be a repeat infringer.If the proper steps are followed (via the DMCA form), the offending Tweet will simply be "withheld," with a notice replacing the original Tweet. Finally, On Press delivers this bizarre phrase:
For an entity so concerned with copyright infringement, it certainly doesn't seem to understand the terminology it's throwing around. "Libel" and "liable" are nowhere close to each other in definition, and you'd think an entity this concerned with infringement would know the difference (or at least be able to spell the one it actually means).
Then there's On Press Inc itself, which has its own issues. As you can see from its profile photo, On Press claims to be a division of Knopf Publishing. However, we contacted Knopf Publishing for comment and they said that there is no division of Knopf called On Press Inc. On Press has apparently decided an appearance of Shane's poem in a Poem-A-Day-Celebration hosted by Tumblr and Knopf allows it to add Knopf's name to its profile... and the large publisher's weight to its fight against unattributed use, despite no official connection to the company.
On Press also utilizes multiple simultaneous Twitter accounts, in violation of the Twitter Rules.
Serial Accounts: You may not create serial accounts for disruptive or abusive purposes, or with overlapping use cases. Mass account creation may result in suspension of all related accounts. Please note that any violation of the Twitter Rules is cause for permanent suspension of all accounts.In one night, my interactions with On Press Inc. included input from the following accounts: @copyrightdept, @vesoaonpress, @vseawonpress, @wasweonpress, @xaswonpress and @xseionpress. All accounts sported the same On Press logo and spouted the same tweets. One could try to make a claim that these accounts are not "disruptive" or "abusive" (and I'd love to watch them make that claim), but there's little doubt On Press Inc's multiple accounts are "overlapping." (@vseawonpress is the only account not suspended at the time of this writing.)
Now, although I was receiving the same stream of misspellings and misinformation from On Press as the other users posting Shaun Shane's (unattributed) poem, I wasn't seeing any signs of life. I was pretty much convinced it was a bot running multiple accounts. To test that theory, I called out On Press on the false claims directed my way, specifically the assertion that Twitter would delete my account for a single violation. To my surprise, it provoked a very human reaction.
So, there was a human behind the account, one who handily provided a link to the terms of service that directly contradicted what he had just said. (I've shifted pronouns, but an explanation is on the way.)
Once I had his/its attention, I pointed out On Press' suspicious behavior -- namely, the multiple suspended accounts linked to its name.
On Press responded with this blast of angry tweets, stating that Twitter itself generated these accounts for it.
It shouldn't need to be said, but this claim is completely false. Mike contacted Twitter to ask about whether or not, as On Press claims, it creates thousands of automatically generated accounts for companies with which to harass infringers, and (no surprise) Twitter said there is no truth to this claim.
I attempted to gather more information, but my overtures were rejected. At one point, an On Press account mentioned it performed this "service" for "other authors" but refused to name any. It also failed to cough up a usable URL that might indicate On Press Inc exists outside of multiple Twitter accounts.
Shortly thereafter, the accounts went ballistic, showering me with a long list of legal threats.
This was prompted by its discovery of a tongue-in-cheek review of the only book On Press has for sale, one I had posted earlier that night. (You may notice a second review has suddenly appeared -- from the same person who showed up to criticize my review.)
Again, On Press made several dubious claims, including the ridiculous suggestion that Twitter would surrender my IP address to the police on the strength of a fake review posted on an entirely different site. It also seemed to feel that the Feds would be interested simply because I was using a computer.
However, he/it wasn't kidding about one thing: "legal prosecution." The morning following this bizarre conversation with On Press (Feb. 8th), Techdirt received a phone call seeking to confirm that I "worked for Techdirt," with the "lawyer" on the phone saying that he wished to serve me with a lawsuit (at Techdirt's headquarters) for "copyright infringement, defamation of character and making false claims."
To date, nothing has been filed, despite the voicemail implying the lawsuit was already filed. But here's the great thing about legal threats: nothing being served to this point doesn't mean nothing ever will. The possibility still exists and the potential plaintiff is free to file anytime before the statute of limitations expires. This is likely a bluff, but it carries enough weight to make any future direct interaction with On Press ill advised, to say the least. This leaves him/it free to aggressively pursue those posting the poem without attribution, without worrying that I might ruin the fun by pointing out its false claims.
With the threat of a lawsuit still hanging overhead, I'm simply going to present my findings, all backed up with screenshots and/or links, with a minimum of speculative commentary.
The On Press Inc. "Network"
First off, let's address the "him/it" issue. On Press Inc. seems to exist solely as multiple accounts spanning several social media platforms. Running a search will serve up a few hits on existing businesses with the same name, but I have confirmed that these are unrelated to this bizarre attribution trolling.
A Poem Is Nothing
Shane's book is print-on-demand. Amazon doesn't list it this way, but other booksellers do. So, there's no pile of unsold paperbacks sitting in an On Press warehouse. This may explain why there's so little effort made to provide infringers with a "buy" link during the barrage of tweets and comments.
The On Press Twitter horde usually presents two links. One of them leads to this video displaying "proof" that someone (d/b/a On Press, Inc., with no address displayed) holds the copyright to "Tongues Made of Glass." (The other links to the Invisible Children photo.)
Now, a video like this could be made by literally anyone (with hands) and hardly presents a solid case for On Press' claim to Shaun Shane's poem. None of his work has been registered at the US Copyright office, either by himself or by On Press (or by anyone, actually). This limits any legal liability for infringement to actual proven damages, making the threat of a lawsuit slightly more tolerable. Also, the claims made at the end of the video, which appear to be a bastardization of the typical "copyright policies" found on sporting events, saying no copies can be made "without written consent of the publisher," overstates the powers given under copyright law in ignoring the possibility of fair use or other exceptions to copyright law.
Interestingly, the voice on the "copyright" video sounds nearly identical to Shaun Shane himself. Shane has a very distinctive cadence and tone to his voice, as evidenced by this live performance.
[Shane's voice also bears heavy, heavy resemblance to that of James Roth ("representing On Press Incorporated"), the caller who contacted Techdirt about serving me with the lawsuit.]
So, is On Press simply Shaun Shane, reclusive poet and attribution seeker? He'd certainly be the person most interested in enforcing this. His impossibly glowing bio at PoemHunter puts Shane in Schrodinger's Box, theorizing that he's dead ("...had become terminally ill and his re-emergence was to reinforce the ethic of Pure Poetry or Truly Modernist Poetry before his death..."), before theorizing in the opposite direction a few sentences later ("though it is believed, if he is still alive, he lives on the West Coast...") One of the On Press Twitter accounts I dealt with claimed Shane was dead and had willed that his work be used to raise money for various children's charities. (Too bad no one's trying to sell that book...) This claim is echoed at Pinterest, where the same sort of attribution-badgering occurs.
Mike Miche
Whether Mr. Miche is real or simply Shaun using another name remains to be proven. (It does share a Shaun Shane-like bit of alliteration.) Miche patrols Pinterest, sending users who re-pin this photo the same sort of messages as the Twitter accounts do, only without the character limit.
Miche also sports the same shaky legal grasp and penchant for baseless threats.
Here Miche chases down a user (who deleted her tweet) and continues harassing her at her Pinterest account, claiming that people like her using an unattributed quote can "cause untold billions of dollars of lost [sic] for companies who support and publisher [sic] Authors [sic... again] works." Miche also seems to make the claim that she's legally responsible for any retweets (a claim echoed in return by the On Press Twitter accounts).
Also of note: the single DMCA notice attributed to On Press was issued by Mike Miche. The notice has the sender's name redacted, but a duckduckgo search reveals Miche's name in the search results. If this is really Shaun Shane, he's either using false information to file DMCA notices, or Mike Miche is his real name (Shaun Shane is a pseudonym, according to his bio).
Alexandria Hopewell
Hopewell has sent out similar messages to Facebook users, again seeking attribution and using identical wording.
There are a few differences that might indicate she was just "pitching in" with the attribution push ("This Poem is our copyrighted property your use of it uncredited to him constitutes thief."), but by and large, it resembles missives issued at other platforms.
A followup on one post switches from "informative" to "pissed off" instantly when challenged, much like my earlier interactions with Shaun/On Press did when I refused to play ball:
We send and deal with 1000's of take down notices every day. Hardly do we need your amateurish insight into what constitutes legal and effective enforcement of our Copyright .Hopewell is a real human being, however, and is very definitely not Shaun Shane. She has an account at Google+, and her writing there doesn't bear much resemblance to what's posted on Facebook. There is a very interesting interaction on her timeline that indicates "Shaun Shane" is probably alive.
A user named "Sean Seans" refers to himself as "Shaun" and tells her he loves and misses her. And that Sean Seans/Shaun is also busy chasing down wrongdoers posting unattributed poems.
Anne Murphy
Anne Murphy has also made posts on Facebook concerning Shane's poem and seems to be located in Texas (at least judging from the locations of most of her Friends). The wording is almost identical to the Facebook posts by Alexandria Hopewell, suggesting the same author wrote them. She has also uploaded a few videos of Shaun Shane performances to YouTube. (Interestingly, the phone number on the caller ID from the call by "James Roth" to contact Techdirt is registered to Anne Murphy and also to a vegetable farm, the O.P. Murphy Produce Company -- both in Texas. Also worth noting: there does not appear to be a "James Roth" listed on the Texas state bar. If whoever called is not, in fact, a lawyer, they might want to familiarize themselves with Texas law 38.122 which makes it a felony to impersonate a lawyer.)
But that's not all. Shane/On Press also stalks Tumblr with multiple accounts (some of which are filled with work-from-home scam posts), issuing the now-familiar statements demanding attribution. A search for the terms "Shaun Shane" and "On Press" also brings up hits on several other platforms. On Press/Shane is very busy, though (as far as I can see) never seems to direct anyone towards buying the actual book.
He has also ramped up the aggression, perhaps as a result of his "successful" legal threat. The On Press Twitter interactions were never pleasant, but the latest ones have a decidedly malevolent tone that's undercut slightly by the sheer number of false claims they contain. It doesn't help that the poem is most frequently tweeted by teens -- a demographic On Press/Shane seems to enjoy hurling threats towards.
On Press now threatens to contact the police, sue parents and hold teens responsible for any retweets their followers send out. Here's a few choice quotes:
"know that you can be track by your ip address and that your parents will be the one's who are sued since you are a minor..."There are some interesting legal theories mixed up in there that we have not seen before. I particularly like the idea that infringement is multiplied by the number of followers you have. This would appear to be an entirely novel interpretation (by which I mean "wrong") of 17 USC 504, which has always been clear that the amount of statutory damages paid is per work infringed, not by the number of people who saw the work.
"know that the average cost is $4000.00 per instance but that is times the number of follwers you have, or the number people who are exposed to your illegal post..."
"...but if you were bright you wouldn't have been stupid enought to tweet the poem in the first place..."
"WE don't care if you care. Your account will be terminated that is all that matters to us. We are indifferent to your feelings about it. your just some dumb kid."
So, what's the point? Why should we care? On Press/Shane is just seeking attribution. It's not like he's sending out settlement letters. Well, for starters, this is not how the system is supposed to work. Those concerned about infringement are directed to Twitter's DMCA form, which to date, On Press has used only once. Apparently, this method is much less satisfying than the instant feedback one gets while hounding Twitter users (even going so far as to follow them to other platforms, as Mike Miche [above] did).
I'm not pissed off that On Press circumvents a system many rights holders find inefficient. I'm pissed off that On Press deceives people about its relationship with a major publisher, using that as leverage to harass users with a variety of baseless threats. It doesn't help that the users receiving the most abuse are teenagers who did nothing more than post a quote they liked, who are then threatened with arrest and lawsuits against their parents in return.
I'm pissed off that On Press is fighting a battle it can't win utilizing bullying tactics. It seems to want respect, but keeps forgetting respect is something you earn -- not something you beat into people. People may start to respect the stick, but they'll never respect the entity wielding it.
Furthermore, if I was a rights holder hoping to protect my creations, I'd be pissed off that someone out there is doing serious damage to copyright itself with a scorched earth policy of baseless threats and vindictive bullying. It makes it that much harder to fight infringement when any existing level of respect has been torn down by another's overly aggressive tactics.
Finally, if I'm Shaun Shane, and I'm not behind this? I'm fucking furious. Any potential legacy or possibility of expanding my audience has been absolutely destroyed by someone who has used my name to harangue internet users across multiple platforms, utilizing angry missives filled with misspellings, deception, baseless legal threats and a very dangerous misunderstanding of IP law in general.
And Shaun, if this is actually you? You're only hurting yourself and your reputation by hammering unwitting Twitter users (among others) for this act of omission. There's nothing wrong with seeking proper attribution. But there are so many methods that work better than this. You can't stop unattributed quotes from flying around the internet. You can't even slow it down.
Do you seriously think anyone's going to Google a tweet to make sure it doesn't belong to someone else before retweeting it? Do you really think people are going to Google "Shaun Shane" unless you bring it up first? Pinterest users, right or wrong, aren't going to do a reverse image search before repinning. Sure, it sucks that stuff strays so far from the original creators, but that's the price you pay for unprecedented access to millions of creative works.
But the benefits outweigh the negatives. Unprecedented access works both ways. You can connect with potential fans and customers in ways that simply weren't possible 10 years ago. If you're only going to see the worst aspects, you'll never be anything more than a set of empty words and threats, spat endlessly into a void, covered in vitriol and self-righteousness. You've crafted a poem with viral possibilities but you're only interested in slamming every door shut as soon as it opens. This final perspective doesn't make me angry. It just makes me sad. There's so much potential but you're too angry to see it. You, and only you, can turn this around.
Additional/supportive links and info.
My Storify account, where I will continue to collect interactions between On Press Inc. and Twitter users.
Album of On Press-related screenshots. (Just in case stuff starts disappearing...)
Google Doc containing more links and various notes. (Collected evidence, likely a work-in-progress.)
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: attribution, bullying, copyright, legal threats, poem, shaun shane, tongues made of glass
Companies: knopf publishing, on press inc., twitter
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ahem.
Gentleman, start your microwaves. We'll need more popcorn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alan Cooper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that Shaun Shane's
tongue be
made of glass.
- a poem by GMacGuffin
(You may not quote the above sans attribution without subjecting yourself to a maelstrom of obtuse bullshit.)
(And Shaun/OnPress/Roth: Minors can be sued, and parents are generally not liable for their children's acts. Go off the Lithium for a few days and you should be able to talk to your lawyer directly about that.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it would be way, wayyy too hard to call Shaun Shane a raging, syphilitic dickweasel. And wouldn't that just be a damned shame?"
-Anonymous Coward (c)2013 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DO NOT STEAL!!!!111111
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The correct order is:
1. Either the word "copyright" and/or the Circle-C symbol ©
2. The year of first publication.
3. The name of the copyright owner
The use of "All rights reserved" may afford some additional protection in some countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't remember them saying anything about the DO NOT STEAL notice when, as a software developer, I (we, my group) got a mini crash course on copyright in about 1989. Maybe it was 1990? From the company lawyers. Long before the web and mp3s.
But as for "all rights reserved", I prefer it be spelled "all rights reversed".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sue me, bitches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the best part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the looks of the first Twitter screencap, I'd say the account was blocked and reported enough times for their software to suspend it. I *hate* using the process but have seen many Twitters banned because of report abuse. To be silenced in less than 70 is quite a fete.
Let's just hope bill collectors and telemarketers don't discover this method.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The internet gives crazy a stage, and people seem to have no understanding that their little tantrums have a world wide audience.
All I can say is a phrase I learned over at Boingboing...
Christ what an asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thanks for bringing this fresh asshat to sunlight, so that we can track him down and make of him an internet superstar :).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Declaratory Relief
Take em down!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Declaratory Relief
Could Gibbs practice law, even while incarcerated?
Could Gibbs use incarceration of counsel as the basis of a motion to delay the case? (I would love to see how that would fly with a judge.)
Even if disbarred, should not being a member of the bar stop Gibbs from practicing law? It didn't appear to stop Steel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Declaratory Relief
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Declaratory Relief
John Steele - not "working" on the case but in the gallery whispering to the plaintiff's table.
Charles Carreon - because this will be a suit that will add the entire interwebs as defendants.
Teri Buhl - to cover the proceedings for Court TV.
Brett Gibbs as wonder boy, barely able to string together full sentences in a single filing.
Evan Stone - To sit at plaintiff's table wearing those stupid horns and trying to look mean.
And leading the attack...
J_____ R_______
(because we still don't say his name lest he begin again right?)
I miss anyone else for the dream team?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Declaratory Relief
and J____R___ ??? hmmm my subconscious knows whom thou doth not speak of, but my brain interprets it to say "Just Rude"
Well same thing really! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Declaratory Relief
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 14th, 2013 @ 10:38am
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
EOF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...wait for it....
...on the internet!
You know it will work then. After that we'll have legal recourse to threaten all of these people with a bogus patent. Popcorn farmers/vendors beware!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2) ?
3) Profit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah, okay, so now you're for plagiarism too
But now, when faced with the potential to say something on behalf of the artist to defend this pro-publicity gambit, you don't hesitate to go negative on the artists. Whammo. Even asking for attribution is being greedy and selfish.
And yet there you were grousing and complaining when Slashdot was grabbing your stories without attribution. Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah, okay, so now you're for plagiarism too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: perspective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah, okay, so now you're for plagiarism too
-Anonymous Coward, Copyright [Circle-C symbol] 2013 ALL RIGHTS REVERSED if you STEAL THIS POEM you are a BAD PERSON and I'll call the INTERNET POLICE on you!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah, okay, so now you're for plagiarism too
From the article - "There's nothing wrong with seeking proper attribution. But there are so many methods that work better than this"
the issue the article raises is the tact and method used to get the attribution. Stating blatant lies about copyright law, Twitters TOS, who they are associated and many other methods harm the reputation of the author, and possibly kill any future associations other authors or publishers would be willing to have with him.
Had he gone around sending a message to the twitter users who posted the quote, thanking them for spreading there work but asking to be attributed, they probably would have gotten a much more favorable result. For example, the story from yesterday where the developer reached out those who posted their game on TPB. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130212/10325521952/game-developer-connects-with-pirates-sees-mass ive-support-deletion-torrents.shtml,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah, okay, so now you're for plagiarism too
There's nothing wrong with seeking proper attribution. But there are so many methods that work better than this.
It's a lot of reading to get to that part, so I understand that you needed a little rest before you got that far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah, okay, so now you're for plagiarism too
1) Started out with a threat of lawsuit.
2) Threatened to get their Twitter account yanked (which meant he was either lying, or hadn't bothered to read Twitter's ToS).
3) Lied about being a part of Knopf Publishing.
4) Lied about Twitter setting up multiple accounts for him.Did he threaten to sue Slashdot, or threaten to get their ISP to yank their connection? If not, I don't see how they're comparable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah, okay, so now you're for plagiarism too
This isn't an anti-artists article, not even remotely. This is about someone going apeshit on Twitter (and various other websites) and resorting to making legal threats that have no basis in any current laws, all while committing what is essentially fraud. (Lest you overlook the Knopf Publishing factor, which they're claiming to be a part of.)
"So many paragraphs about something so simple."
Well when you boil it down completely... sure. But it is anything but simple, which the article (had you bothered to read it, but which you likely didn't) goes into depth pointing out and discussing further. Ranging from how it began, to where it went and likely will go.
"In the past, this blog said we should all learn to love piracy because it would bring the artist more publicity."
Never has that been said on this blog. What has been said is that wasting time fighting piracy is a never ending endeavor in futility, which is time that could be better spent doing something more fruitful. Like connecting with fans, creating and/or offering products that can't be pirated, etc.
"The artist would then be able to trade this for more book sales or concert ticket sales or something else."
Uh, no. The artists COULD potentially ignore the futility of fighting piracy and do something like I posted above, which would THEN POTENTIALLY transform into further sales of their product. But it's not at all the way you stated it to be. My way more accurately reflects what is advocated for on this site.
"But now, when faced with the potential to say something on behalf of the artist to defend this pro-publicity gambit, you don't hesitate to go negative on the artists."
No one is getting negative on the artist. You really need to practice reading comprehension.
A situation has come to light, one in which an artist himself may be engaging in not only legal bully but potentially fraud (because I am a Texan and it is relatively common knowledge that presenting yourself as an attorney when you are not is a serious offense here).
What is relevant to this website, which you obviously have no clue about, is that if it is the artist who is creating these abusive and fraudulent (lest we ignore the Knopf bit again, which you obviously did), is that should Shane be the one doing this legal as well as general bullying (in the form of insulting people online) he is going about things in a most harmful manner to himself as an artist.
If it is him doing all this, which we aren't sure it is, he could have merely created a Twitter account of his own (as himself) and politely asked people to attribute the specific quoted poem to him, as he's the one who wrote it. Most gladly would. Many people love poetry and stories, but sometimes it's hard to find out who wrote them. So they don't attribute them to anyone or put "Unknown". Shane could easily have corrected this innocent oversight and potentially made a few fans, firstly by letting people know who he was to begin with and secondly by being cool about it. As in, "Hey, see you quoted that bit up there. Just so you know, I wrote that. I've got some other stuff you might be interested in if you liked that, feel free to check it out. Thanks! Have an awesome day!" Simple as that. (Maybe not so simple, since Twitter has a 160 character limit, but you get my point.
"Whammo."
Ah yes, the infamous I don't have a point so I'll make a one word declarative (and irrelevant) statement giving the false impression of any point up to this point having not been actually made.
"Even asking for attribution is being greedy and selfish."
I guess you missed the entire article where the artist himself has not actually asked for attribution, but instead resorted to legal bullying to have people take down the content. Keep in mind, he could have simply asked for attribution, assuming he is the one doing this, but instead he's making demands that people remove the content and spreading lies and misinformation about Twitter, copyright law, etc.
So no, he didn't ask for attribution. As such he can't be considered greedy and selfish for doing so. And in point of fact, he wouldn't be even if he did ask for that, as no one would think it greedy or selfish to be acknowledged.
"And yet there you were grousing and complaining when Slashdot was grabbing your stories without attribution."
Techdirt has routinely stated people can do what they want with the articles here. Copy/paste them entirely elsewhere. At the end of the day, it'll drive traffic up here when people find them (through Big Search/Google... GASP!!!) and end up back here.
Mike himself has stated this on more than one occasion, but of course you'd have to actually pay attention to what is being said to get that. As opposed to skimming things and then misinterpreting the few key words you look for and responding to that.
"Sheesh."
That's exactly the word that pops into my head every time you post and every time I personally shred your comments to pieces line by line.
It's like you don't learn that you're beyond retarded and some of us are more intelligent and going to debunk everything you say from the moment we see it.
Sheesh. Go to a library. Make use of Google. But seriously, get a fucking clue. You've been around long enough and I've said it enough times to you that you'd think by now you'd use that thing between your ears (your brain) and try and learn something before posting pendejadas. ("Pendejadas" for those who don't speak Spanish is basically, "stupid, retarded nonsense/bullshit". It's a way of saying that someone is saying or writing such stupidity that it's hard to believe and doesn't need more than one word, in Spanish, to describe what's being said/written.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah, okay, so now you're for plagiarism too
uh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah, okay, so now you're for plagiarism too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah, okay, so now you're for plagiarism too
Pretend this post is an anatomically-correct doll. Show me on the post where you stopped reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah, okay, so now you're for plagiarism too
That Kills. Made me plotz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah, okay, so now you're for plagiarism too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, I was thinking of posting it, then replying "Suck it!" when the take down messages come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think that deserves some sort of award for services to irony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> within 30 seconds of tweeting this.
I didn't get one when I tweeted it! Not even the trolls want to play with me. I'm so lonely...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually... I think you did, but it seems that Twitter has suspended a bunch of his accounts. I did a quick Twitter search a little while ago and was pretty sure I saw responses from one of the On Press accounts to your account
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dammit, what does a guy have to do for a little Troll Love on Valentines Day?
I am tempted to download some Prenda Porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Check out the Storify link for some more deviations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There certainly have been a lot of tweets in the last two hours re glass tounges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Collectors & Telemarketers
ShellMG: Much Thanks for this invaluable suggestion! Happy Valentine's Day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Sean,
Sincerely,
The World
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Sean,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sincerest form of flattery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sincerest form of flattery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds an AWFUL lot like my poem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds an AWFUL lot like my poem.
People with glass tounges shouldn't speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Knopf Publishing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, what you're saying is...
So, what you're saying is that On Press's tweets are a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Preemptive counter suit
Just for fun, I'm going to start offering actual tongues of glass on my etsy page tonight. Maybe I can get ThinkGeek to pick them up. I'll help make Shaun famous whether he wants it or not!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shaun shane, wtf
And not to put to fine a point on it, but in my humble opinion his poetry is complete garbage, the kind of drivel that emo fourteen year olds write in high school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: shaun shane, wtf
http://poemhunter.com/poem/girls-are-dumb/
Nobel prize material, no doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: shaun shane, wtf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: shaun shane, wtf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: shaun shane, wtf
"I am so ronery!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: shaun shane, wtf
As if the article was not funny enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He is the primary of the company and the notice claims to be sent by the owner of the company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It does look like it might be him though as he does run a tiny little publishing company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I find interesting is whoever is making these threats has as much of a grasp of grammar as they do the law.
Not that mine is great either....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quote of the day (in my opinion):
- aethercowboy, Feb 14th, 2013 @ 11:07am
The true beauty of any artistic endeavor is that it can always be improved by someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On a roll, Tim
Your recent full on press coverage of teribuhl internet characters and their misdeeds makes me think you should try a safer career. Have you thought about a return to lion taming?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On a roll, Tim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Might as well stir things up at the other end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weird responces on twitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't apologize
And am I the only one who thinks that most of those threatening tweets smack of ESL?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Names
Shaun Shane
Sean Seans
Mike Miche
This does not carry over to the lawyer (James Roth), the book reviewer (Micheal Bradshaw) or the two ladies, but that looks like the way some one creates aliases.
Interestingly enough, the ladies spell better than the men (who seem to be illiterate).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My very own poem, Inspired by douchery
You could bend over as I cut up your ass.
When you feel the pain and scream in fear,
You will run away as the blood clots your rear.
Perhaps if that happens you'll finally stop trolling,
As no one gives a shit for your bawling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shaun Shane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shaun Shane
So nice to see it took the better part of a day for you to respond. Did you finally tire of the twitterverse? Or have you run out of aliases and the bots are getting overloaded trying to respond?
Please enlighten us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's really behind it
Hoovers has an old or bad address as follows:
806 Sylvandale Ave San Jose, CA 95111-1415 (address goes to a house) old phone # (408) 365-1040
Industry: Miscellaneous publishing, nsk
Key people: Scott Schutzer 49 years old
Duns number 094082695
Location Type: Single Location
Facility Size (sq. ft.) (modeled): 2,095
Owns/Rents: Rents
Employees (All Sites): 2
Key Financials: Annual Sales (Estimated) $110.00K
DUNS Prescreen Score: Medium Risk
From the current website: www.onpressinc.com
650-369-1444
email: Scott@onpressinc.com
Above phone on his website goes to a small building office address of 1420 Stafford St Redwood City, CA 94063
although the address on his website www.onpressinc.com of 460 Lakeview Way Redwood City CA 94062 appears to go to a house not an office building
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who's really behind it - UPDATE
I do not recommend nor condone harrassing the owner of OnPressInc. Please do not bother them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shaun Shane
You sure showed 'em.
I really do hope this winds up in court. The smackdown which will be lain upon you will be indescribable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shaun Shane
Given that you're getting your Twitter accounts banned left and right, given that you cannot spell let alone understand the legal issues in question, given that you're a complete bully throwing around a law you know nothing about....I can assure you that none of us here are remotely afraid of your baseless legal claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shaun Shane
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shaun Shane
Poor On Press Inc. I wonder if Knopf Publishing's legal counsel would be interested in knowing that you are misrepresenting yourself as a part of their company. Especially since while misrepresenting yourself as a branch of their company your douchebaggery (and lack glaring lack of knowledge of the law) you are doing harm to their company name.
I love the internet and technology. Not the least reason for which is because when idiots get a hold of it/make use of it their stupidity is readily there for the world to see (and some who try and abuse the law get slapped down by it and those who actually know about it).
On Press Inc sued by Knopf Publishing, which is owned by Random House, for misrepresentation/fraud. News at 11.
Also, your grammar usage is poor and borders on illiterate. )
Happy Valentine's Day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shaun Shane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shaun Shane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shaun Shane
If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak.
If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak.
If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak.
If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak.
If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak.
If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak.
If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak.
If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak.
If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shaun Shane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(a) Speak
(b) Eat
(c) Kiss
(d) Perform oral sex
(e) Get them pierced, like all the damn kids do nowadays
(h) Bully the damn kids on social media sites
(f) All of the above
(g) All of the above at the same time
Unfortunately, Shaun chose (a).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alexandria
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alexandria
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6784/125/#comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hash Tag - #shaneseideffect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dispatch from Internet Defense HQ
Streisand Protocol has been invoked.
Alert the channers to this scum's existence. Then go make some popcorn and watch the Internet tear this guy a new one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dispatch from Internet Defense HQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how much more careful we would be when we speak.
Obvious troll, that's how I roll,
I've been kicked around since I was born.
But now it's all right, it's okay
I will troll you every day.
I will try, I will cry.
Cause I'm a douche in every way.
Whether you're a EDiot or whether you're a lurker
Shane's still alive, still alive
Feel the facade breakin' and everybody baitin'
Shane's still alive, still alive.
Ah, ah, ah, ah, Shane's alive, Shane's alive
Ah, ah, ah, ah, Shane's ali-i-i-i-ive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"@Morality124 Thank you for posting Tongues Made of Glass by Shaun Shane http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL_BUE-kGyw&feature=youtu.be …"
His plan all along?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Careful to make our speech would we
ooohhhhh Transformation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i own this poem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
response I got
"InmHeu: @ajeffri we appreciate your posting Tongues Made of Glass by Shaun Shane http://t.co/wDRYHUfN"
That's a link to the already mentioned Youtube video, in which he/she/it sounds like an utter douchebag.
And then this:
"InmHeu: @ajeffri your tweet gives it even more exposure. thanks"
My response:
"ajeffri: @InmHeu I think the Internet shitstorm from @techdirt is doing so much more"
I guess he/she/it is learning a little? Streisand Protocol indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shane Shaun SUXDIX every Saturdaynite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hang on. When you use another's work uncredited, you have to credit the author?
That is literally not possible. If you're using a quote uncredited, by definition, you can't credit the author at the same time. If you do credit the author while using the quote, it's no longer uncredited. Does On Press think that copyright law is supposed to be some kind of confusing Catch-22-type situation where it's impossible to follow the law because the law is inherently contradictory, therefore you are a violator? That... okay, that just makes my head hurt.
Also, even if you overlook that part by reasonably interpreting it as "you have to credit the author afterward", they almost make it sound like if you falsely attributed the quote, it would be way more okay than using it without any credit at all, since you only really have to credit the author if you previously used the work uncredited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another illiterate AKA found for him... Michael Bradshaw
Feb 14, 2013 6:50:07 PM PST
Micheal Bradshaw says:
This guy has never read Shane's book notice he doesn't have the certified Purchase from Amazon underneath his review. He just saw some immature idiots on the internet making a fuss about some other idiot who when he was told to credit Shane's work decided to throw a infantile temper tantrum. this guy just an idiot. Who writes a review about a book he hasn't read. Someone is emotionally disturbed like this guy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Usage: He glass-tongued himself off of twitter in 24 hours when everyone was told he was libel to sue them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your guys have got to check these out:
http://www.amazon.com/Poem-Is-Nothing-Shaun-Shane/product-reviews/1467522619/ref=cm_cr_pr_to p_recent?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here I sit broken hearted,
paid ten bucks
for what Shane sharted!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What do you mean is not Haiku?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Test Tweet
https://twitter.com/InmHeu/status/302347535073292288
https://twitter.com/InmHeu/status /302347579058974721
Nothing threatening so far, but it's only been 5 mins
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elcor Poetry
Newsflash, genius, it's a lot easier to claim you're not the same people when all of your voices, tones, and inflections don't sound like Elcor from Mass Effect....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5USn_CT_DpY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Elcor Poetry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consider this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks and I'm better than you?
I recommend everyone to say "your welcome" to passive-aggressive Shaun by flagging these accounts as spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Banhammer Mk. II
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sock accounts everywhere!
"Tammy said: To Tommy C.
To Tommy C. the quote you posted is not really a quote but a poem by the Poet Shaun Shane entitled "Tongues Made of Glass" It's structured like this:
if only
our tongues
were made
of glass
how much
more careful
we would be
when we
speak - Shaun Shane"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More accounts baleeted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shane Has Changed His Tune--In a Good Way
I tweeted: Excellent TechDirt piece on troll threatening those who tweet short poem: "If only our tongues were made of glass..." bit.ly/Yh2Ldp
And moments later I got this response: @Stephenspower Thanks again.Your tweeting of Shane's work brings it to a larger audience and so increases his book sales. Thanks!
Goodbye Saul. Hello Paul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Shane Has Changed His Tune--In a Good Way...not quite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: Shane Has Changed His Tune--In a Good Way...not quite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE: Shane Has Changed His Tune--In a Good Way...not quite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RE: Shane Has Changed His Tune--In a Good Way...not quite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RE: Shane Has Changed His Tune--In a Good Way...not quite
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22mike+miche%22+%22on+press%22
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On Press Inc. has nothing registered with the copyright office.
A Poem Is Nothing - No hits in the database.
Shaun Shane - No hits in the database.
Tongues Made of Glass - No hits.
I wonder if anyone has informed Amazon they are offering a print on demand book that has no clear copyright, they could be assisting someone in ripping off an artist or assisting in commercial copyright infringement.
As the people maintaining the artists online information have claimed the artist is dead, there is no registered copyright, no tangible leads to the alleged company, oh and misrepresenting themselves as part of a major publisher who has never heard of them... I think Amazon should consider the poor artist and stop the sales until such time as they produce the proper documentation to shore up their ownership claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We'd like to thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We'd like to thank you
Those with glass tongues, break easier when getting crushed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We'd like to thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We'd like to thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We'd like to thank you
By the way you pretending the material is covered by copyright does raise some questions.
Its never been filed, so how do you keep from being sued for copy-fraud?
I mean how can you hold the rights to anothers work when the rights were never assigned to your tiny little crap factory. Or is that your secret, is you take the work of self important poets who died and claim the work as your own and profit. No one is left to raise a fuss as you profit from the work of a deadman...
Your willing to lie about the position of your company so its not a stretch to see you stealing an artists work to enrich yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We'd like to thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We'd like to thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The funny thing is...
"If only tongues were made of glass how much more careful we would be when we speak" -- Twitter
Ehud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the internet so you have to believe me.
lols
Good one, Mr. On Press Inc. Tell another lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illiteracy of the Shaun-personalities
Your means "owned by you."
You're means "you are".
Sentences need verbs to not be fragments>
Now here we go:
> I'm glad your happy Steve
There's that your/you're thing I was mentioning.
> By the way you pretending the material is covered by copyright does raise some questions.
There's that lacking a verb thing I was mentioning.
Kindly take your multi-personality-disorder self and go all the way back to the third grade. That way you can learn that words that sound the same (your, you're, it's, its, there, their, they're) don't mean the same thing. You'll also learn sentence diagramming, which will help your illiteracy as you'll see verbs really ARE required in a sentence.
Need more meds. The Shaun multi-personality-beast appears stupid and illiterate. This will not sell more bs books of hokey poems.
If only our tongues were made from glass would ass-kissers cause bleeding rectums?
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illiteracy of the Shaun-personalities
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confusion of the Shauns
How sharper than a child's tooth it is to have a thankless serpent.
If only our tongues were made of glass we'd be silicon beings from Star Trek.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be careful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how funny would it be to watch them shatter in impotent copyrage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something for Twitter...
he bounced
he bounced
he pinned
the mouse
the cat
bit in
then chewed
from limb
to limb
now the
mouse now
looking
so sad
now
but the
cat
what a
grin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
these words
"actual proven damages".
Lots more yelling about DRM today, also. Thought bit torrent laid that to rest a few years back.
Now go wash the dishes or walk the dog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Only...
How easy it would be to see when nothing is there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"over a souvenir"? Also what does this mean?
"that has a fraction of a song"? Also what does this mean.
Seriously looks like another delusional Shaun persona.
My anteater BLOCKED MY FACEBOOK because it was OVER A SOUVENIR of a FRACTION OF A SONG.
More antipsychotic drugs please.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Literary Hilarious!
Wait, what...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spannungswandler
http://esitas.com thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
checkout technologry related blog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]