Sony Considers Lawsuit Over Its Controller Being Used In Anti-Video Game Ad

from the probably-not-the-best-idea dept

Steve points us to a story in the UK about how Sony Computer Entertainment Europe is considering taking legal action against the folks behind an anti-video game advertisement because a photo in the ad includes a boy holding what appears to be a Playstation controller. The whole thing seems pretty silly. The anti-video game ad is pretty ridiculous itself, but Sony overreacting to it seems even worse. First of all, other than hardcore gamers, who's even going to notice that it's a PlayStation controller? Instead of suing and drawing more attention, Sony might want to just focus on reasons why the ad is misleading and that video gaming doesn't lead to "cancer, diabetes, and heart disease." Suing over the use of the controller just makes it look like they have something to hide.

Filed Under: lawsuits, streisand effect, trademark, video games, violent video games
Companies: sony

Hasbro Lawyers Threatening Parody 'Get Out Of... Free' Cards, Which They Previously Allowed...

from the too-much-free-time dept

Mike C. writes "Hasbro is at it again. I've been a reader of Randy Cassignham's This is True for several years now. Among other things, he offers a "Get Out of Hell Free" card - a parody of the Monopoly Get Out of Jail Free card. Back in 2000, he received a cease & desist (postage due!) and after some discussion, altered the card to include a "not endorsed by Hasbro" line. At that time, they decided not to pursue the matter any further. Fast forward to 2009 and they "recently became aware that you are offering for sale "Last Chance - Get Out of Hell Free" cards and stickers on your website." Wait, recently?? I guess times are tough for the Hasbro lawyers and they're looking to drum up some more business. Randy has been kind enough to post the full story to his website starting with the original action in 2000 and ending with the 2009 cease and desist."

It seems pretty clear that Hasbro's lawyers have a bit too much free time on their hands (perhaps now that they're done killing off interest in online Scrabble). You would think, at some point, management at Hasbro would recognize that sending their lawyers off on such wild goose chases not only increases the legal bill, but also does tremendous damage to the Hasbro brand.

Filed Under: get out of jail, goodwill, streisand effect, trademark
Companies: hasbro

Lie Detector Company Threatens Researchers, Draws Much More Attention To Research

from the how-about-a-common-sense-detector dept

Slashdot points us to a story of a lie detector manufacturer, Nemesysco, who apparently was so upset with a report from some Swedish researchers in a technology journal, that they threatened legal action against the journal and the researchers, claiming that they would sue for defamation if the article wasn't taken down. Since the basic point of the journal article was that the lie detecting technology that Nemesysco was betting on simply could not work, you can understand why they might be upset about it. But calling it defamation is highly questionable.

If the information presented in the article was wrong why not just counter it and point out why it's wrong? Threatening defamation lawsuits and trying to shut up the researchers just makes it look like Nemesysco has something to hide. And, indeed, true to the Stresisand Effect, the article reports that the researchers have received a lot more attention for their research since the threats were issued: "It was hardly their intention. But since the article was withdrawn, I have received lots of mail and requests for copies of the article. The article would not have been read to this extent if the company had simply ignored it in silence." Who knows whether or not Nemesysco's lie detector works, but its common sense detector is apparently on the fritz.

Filed Under: lie detector, research, streisand effect
Companies: nemesysco

Center for American Progress, Meet the Streisand Effect

from the beware-the-backlash dept

Back in 2005, Mike coined the term "the Streisand Effect" to describe the situation where an attempt to suppress information generates increased publicity for that information. Our latest example comes via my friend Matthew Yglesias, who on Friday had some choice words for a center-left organization called Third Way. Matt blogs on a site run by Center for American Progress (CAP), though with full editorial control over the posts on his particular blog on the site. Despite calling Third Way out, the post got little overall attention on the blog.

On Sunday, however, readers of Matt's blog were treated to this creepy post in which Matt's boss, Jennifer Palmieri, noted that his posts don't reflect the opinions of the Center for American Progress, and then insisted that CAP has "a great deal of respect for [Third Way's] critical thinking and excellent work product." This is a great illustration of the differences between traditional and web-based media. In a traditional paper publication, everything is subject to editorial control, and in all likelihood Matt would have been asked to tone down his criticism of Third Way before his writing hit the presses. But Matt's blog gets posted unfiltered, complete with curse words and spelling errors. The immediacy of Matt's blog is a big part of what keeps readers coming back to the site. And it's also what made Palmieri's post so damaging.

Although Matt's blog is hosted on CAP's site, it's Matt's blog, and readers expect to get Matt's unfiltered opinions. Having Matt's boss hijack his blog in order to publicly reprimand him is really jarring. And then there's the Streisand Effect. Everyone would have forgotten about Matt's original post within a few days had someone at Third Way not called Matt's boss and demanded an apology. Instead, the entire liberal blogosphere is talking about Matt's post... and about Third Way's thin skin. The backlash is going to do far more damage to Third Way's reputation than Matt's original post could have.

Filed Under: matthew yglesias, streisand effect
Companies: center for american progress, third way

De Beers About To Learn That The Streisand Effect Is Forever

from the let's-explain-how-this-works dept

It would appear that the lawyers at diamond conglomerate De Beers are unaware of the Streisand Effect. As you might have heard, a week after the US Presidential election, some prankster put out a spoofed version of a future New York Times. It got plenty of attention for a few days and then people moved on. Well, apparently not everyone. De Beers is upset that the online version of the spoof contained a fake De Beers ad. Rather than recognize that this was a spoof (ha ha) that everyone had pretty much forgotten about, the company had its lawyers send off a threat letter. However, rather than target the creators of the spoof, or even the hosting firm, De Beers threatened the registrar who handled the domain registration for the site, demanding that it take down the site or face a trademark infringement lawsuit.

Of course, as the EFF notes at the above link, intermediaries (third party service providers) are clearly well protected against liability for the actions of their users in the US. And, of course, there's the whole issue of parodies being protected from infringement suits. However, even more ridiculous is the fact that De Beers is now calling more attention to the ad. The spoof of the entire newspaper did get some attention, but that attention quickly waned, and it's unlikely that too many people paid attention to the spoof banner ad on a spoof website for the NY Times. I hadn't even heard about the ads. Almost all of the attention was on the spoof stories. Yet, now that De Beers is threatening to sue, a lot more folks are going to know about and see the ad. How is that possibly a smart move on the part of De Beers?

Filed Under: intermediary, registrars, spoof, streisand effect
Companies: de beers

Suing Over Being Called A Douchebag Might Just Get More People To Think You're A Douchebag

from the just-saying... dept

There's a somewhat popular (and quite amusing) blog called Hot Chicks with Douchebags. It is... well, pretty much what you'd expect (and might not be a link you want to click-through while at work) -- a bunch of photos of attractive women in the company of guys who, well, you can figure it out. Anyway, I had no idea that they had come out with a book recently, but apparently some of the folks included in the book are none too happy about it. Three of the alleged "hot chicks" in the book have sued the book's author and publisher, and now one of the alleged "douchebags" has also sued, claiming libel. Of course, once again, it seems like this is the sort of thing where suing only puts a lot more attention on the fact that some folks consider the guy to be a douchebag in the first place. Besides, considering that douchebag, in this context, is pretty clearly a statement of opinion rather than fact (no one actually thinks he's literally a bag for douches), it's difficult to see where the libel is. In fact, I'd say that suing over being included in a book like this seems, well... ah, well, you can figure it out.

Filed Under: douchebags, hot chicks, libel, streisand effect

German Politician's Plan To Block Wikipedia Backfires... Badly

from the nice-try,-though dept

How many times will situations like the following happen before people realize how badly trying to suppress information online backfires? Apparently, a German politician who was upset about some things in his Wikipedia profile went to court and got a judge to issue an order to block Wikipedia's German site. Of course, as soon as news of this came to light, the politician backed down and apologized. So, instead of getting the information he wanted suppressed, now that information has been brought to many more peoples' attention, and (of course) the site will remain accessible. Good work.

Filed Under: germany, streisand effect, wikipedia

Did Amazon Delete Spore Reviews? [Updated]

from the they're-all-gone dept

Want to know how not to respond to criticism? By deleting it. Yet, it appears that's what Amazon has done. Earlier this week we wrote about the controversy of EA's decision to put cumbersome DRM on the highly anticipated video game, Spore. The response was that thousands of people started posting one star reviews of Spore, noting the problems with the DRM. Things then got worse when people realized that EA had misled customers about the fact that they could only have one user account on Spore.

Now, a bunch of people have noticed that Amazon appears to have deleted all of the reviews on the Spore page. This is only going to end badly. When you try to shut down a large group of people who feel wronged, you're not just whacking the bees' nest with a stick, you're setting it on fire with a flame thrower. The folks who were complaining are only going to complain louder, and louder. Remember what happened when Digg tried to takedown the AACS crack? Whoever was responsible for removing the comments -- whether it was Amazon or EA -- they may find that the reaction to trying to shut down the angry mob is only going to make folks that much angrier, and alert that many more people to the problems they have with EA's use of DRM.

Update: It appears that some, or potentially all, of the reviews are now back on the site, and Amazon is claiming that it was a "glitch" that they disappeared. Some people claim that their own reviews are not back yet, though, so the whole situation is a bit fluid. Either way, if it really was a glitch, it was a pretty bad time and place for such a glitch to occur.

Filed Under: backlash, deletions, drm, reviews, spore, streisand effect
Companies: amazon, ea

Was The Mad Men Twitter Takedown Part Of An Advertising Strategy?

from the reverse-streisand? dept

We've talked about the concept of a reverse Streisand Effect, where a company purposely pretends to be outraged and demands to take something down in order to generate more attention for it, and now there's some evidence suggesting that last week's DMCA takedown notices for the "fake" Mad Men Twitter accounts may have been part of AMC's own marketing strategy. Buried at the bottom of a NY Times article about what happened, there's a hint that the whole thing was planned out, as following a request from the Times reporter, Brian Stelter, to one of the "fake" users for an interview, that character "referred all questions to Deep Focus, a Web marketing agency that works for AMC."

Filed Under: commercials, mad men, reverse streisand effect, streisand effect, takedowns
Companies: amc, twitter

Judge Bans Using Murder Suspects' Names Online -- Offline Is Fine, Though

from the huh? dept

A judge in New Zealand has apparently banned the internet publication of the names of two men accused of murdering a 14-year-old boy, though print, radio and TV are all still allowed to use the names. It's hard to make much sense of this ruling. Many are assuming that it's to somehow protect the murder suspects from having their name "Google-able," but that seems a bit silly. They are a part of the news, and it's hard to see what benefit it does to ban using their names online, while allowing it everywhere else. How do you enforce that from everyone else who hears their name on the radio or TV or in a newspaper and mentioning it online?

And, of course, just in announcing this ban, Judge David Harvey is pretty much guaranteeing that more folks will seek out the names and publish them online. In some ways, he's accidentally making it even more likely that their names will be found via Google. The news report claims that Judge Harvey is no internet novice, either, having authored an entire textbook on cyberlaw. So, perhaps he realizes that he's actually just made sure that these two guys have their names plastered in even more locations than they would have otherwise.

Filed Under: internet ban, murder suspects, new zealand, streisand effect