Playboy Decides Not To Appeal Silly Boing Boing Lawsuit In The Most Petulant Manner Possible
from the nice-one-guys dept
Well that all happened remarkably quickly. In November, we wrote about Playboy filing a particularly ridiculous lawsuit against the blog Boing Boing for linking to (but not hosting) an Imgur collection and YouTube video highlighting basically all Playboy centerfold images. Boing Boing explained to the court in January that linking is not infringement and the judge dismissed the case in February. And while the court left it open for Playboy to file an amended complaint, it also made it clear that Playboy had basically no chance of winning the case.
So it should be of little surprise that the case is now officially over, with Playboy releasing an impressively silly statement to Cyrus Farivar over at Ars Technica:
Playboy's dispute with Boing Boing is about one party (Boing Boing) willfully profiting from infringement upon the intellectual property of another party (Playboy). This is not David vs. Goliath, it is not about the first amendment and it is not an attack about linking. It is about preventing a party from driving its profits off of piracy.
Despite being informed that it was promoting infringement, Boing Boing has left up its post to try to make even more money. It is unfortunate that a site that has at times created original content is fighting so hard for a right to profit from infringing content.
Boing Boing has argued to the court that it should not be legally responsible for making money off of content it knows to be infringing as long as Boing Boing is not the original infringer. That is not editorial integrity. It is not ethical journalism. It is supporting and contributing to piracy and content creators should not tolerate it.
Although we are not refiling an amended complaint at this time, we will continue to vigorously enforce our intellectual property rights against infringement.
John Vlautin / Corporate Communications
Playboy Enterprises
Okay, so notice there's a whole bunch of pure nonsense before admitting the company won't make things worse (and certainly throw away money) on filing an amended complaint. What's quite incredible is just how... wrong nearly everything is that Playboy says. It's fairly obvious that John Vlautin is not a lawyer and basically knows fuck all about copyright or free speech. Indeed, he's basically been an entertainment industry flack for his career, doing PR/communications for record labels and Live Nation, as well as his own firm, which apparently now represents Playboy.
Anyway, let's be clear: having an old blog post linking offsite is hardly "willfully profiting from infringement." Indeed, the court ruled that what Boing Boing was doing was not infringement. That Vlautin ignores all that just makes him look like a petulant sore loser. And, yes, sorry John, but suing a website for what it legally posted is very much a First Amendment issue. And, remember, John, you work for a company, Playboy, which has historically been a strong First Amendment supporter. Hell, the Hugh Hefner Foundation still gives out First Amendment Awards each year. And, in the past, those awards have included people like copyright scholar Pam Samuelson and EFF co-founder John Perry Barlow (who was a vocal critic of copyright laws and how they are used to censor speech).
Also, it's amusing that Vlautin is mocking Boing Boing's arguments in court (which he totally misrepresents) when Boing Boing won. If the argument was so absurd, why did the court rule against Playboy and why is Playboy not filing an amended complaint? Playboy lost, and the company should know better than to employ a PR flack who doesn't know what he's talking about in sending out petulant statements that reflect exceptionally poorly on the company.
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: copyright, first amendment, free speech, john vlautin, linking
Companies: boing boing, playboy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wait.
Playboy is still relevant in modern culture?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Impressive, for all the wrong reasons
I thought children were good at throwing tantrums, but this guy has certainly got them beat.
Between filing a lawsuit that was dismissed at the outset, and now this individual acting like a petulant child claiming that he didn't really want the thing he was told he couldn't have(and despite what the judge said he was totally right, honest), Playboy really needs to start sacking people and hiring individuals that don't just waste money and make them look even worse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Or even better, stop being so afraid about everything and do some work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Playboy's dispute with Boing Boing is about one party (Playboy) willfully profiting from the objectification of women. This is not David vs. Goliath, it is not about the first amendment and it is not an attack about linking. It is about preventing a party from driving its profits off of the objectification of women.
Despite being informed that it was promoting the objectification of women, Playboy has left up its post to try to make even more money. It is unfortunate that a site that has at times created original content is fighting so hard for a right to profit from the objectification of women.
Playboy has argued to the court that it should not be legally responsible for making money off of content it knows to be objectifying women as long as Playboy is not the only culprit. That is not editorial integrity. It is not ethical journalism. It is supporting and contributing to the objectification of women and content creators should not tolerate it.
Although we are not refiling an amended complaint at this time, we will continue to vigorously enforce our right to objectify women.
John Vlautin / Corporate Communications Playboy Enterprises
There. In honor of International Women's Day, I've fixed your statement for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is that really the list we want?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How about evidences?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:Hey, thanks for keeping the now-unused-four-years screen name
Decided to NOT comment on this last night, but since 3 now solely on screen name, sheesh! How can I not point up silliness *unique* to Techdirt?
Anyhoo, YOU are wrong! Actually, NO position taken. Here's the gist of what I wrote on this case:
First piece:
> Cheap advertising. Got Mighty Techdirt to resurrect the "Playboy" name.
2nd piece:
> However, the tests are difficult to meet in the strictest reading. I think this is too complex and tricky for a mere judge, when the actual problem is that BB is getting money by linking; it should be put to a jury, and I'd bet ya half a peach BB would not win.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:Hey, thanks for keeping the now-unused-four-years screen name
I'd rather see it to a jury, sure, but a wish isn't "wrong".
Perhaps Playboy missed this important ruling around same time that embeds can indeed be infringing: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180216/00011839246/terrible-copyright-ruling-over-em bedded-tweet-undermines-key-concept-how-internet-works.shtml
Subject line length now again limited to a mere SIXTY-FOUR characters! Also body somewhere under 1K. I HOPE you're happy, those who think it's better sprawl multiple comments... But I doubt that you'll like this mode, either. Just no pleasing some people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: like everyone else who's ever tried to tamp down the...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"willfully profiting from infringement"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who hated the process of due
Each film that he'd paid
Was DMCAed
And shoved up his ass with a screw
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ankara Kanal Açma
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MALPRACTICE
[ link to this | view in thread ]