"We just need two tributes to play in our lethal, sorry I mean legal game.. and here they are Richard O'Dwyer and Kim Dotcom! (We thought that Kim was a girl)"
The original complaint about copyright infringement by Inman (and it was pretty blatant because the copyright tags were actively removed by funnyjunk users), dates back a year.
Only recently did FJ through the lawyer Carreon respond to The Oatmeal claiming that the year old blog post was without merit and defamatory (because FJ had removed the comics that were linked in that post), demanding 20000 USD as (extortion) fee, despite the fact that FJ's users were still actively and blatantly infringing on the copyrights of Inman.
This led to Inman creating a comic about FunnyJunk's CEO's mom loving a bear, and asking The Oatmeal's visitors to help raise the $20000 to take a photo of it, and send that photo to FunnyJunk, because the real money would go to the two charities.
But indeed, I shouldn't give a fuck about the mangling of truths should I? I'm not white knighting here, never liked The Oatmeal, hell, I didn't even donate to the charity, but I can't stand injustice nor mangling of truths and conflation of completely unrelated issues.
It's going to be interesting whether they will let it pass or not. Because so far, it's been a resounding no, but the chairman seemed to suggest that he's going to ignore the naysayers.
Beer companies are looking into ways of getting the vegetable aisle out of the store, as they need more room for their bottles, so that the rubes are more inclined to buy more beer instead of something healthy.
Ok. I'll bite, you have actual proof of this hypocrisy? I mean other than the constant spouting of your point over and over again. I mean actual proof. Like links to outside sources (other than the rather more biased Trichordist)
Remember, Mike Masnick has posted in the past that he wants the RIAA and the MPAA to succeed. I don't particularly agree with him, but that's opinions for you.
BTW, and this has been explained to you a great many times, it's not censorship if you can still read the comment in question. Also it's not Mike doing that, it's the community, who is quite frankly fed up with your spamming, and rightly so.
Clearly you have nothing to add either, because you keep saying the same shit every single time. I hope that the M, I K E N O T U C H S A Y B and . keys fall from your laptop from overuse.
It's particularly funny that they complain about censorship here, where the posts are still available, but they completely delete all dissenting opinion on The Trichordist, thus censoring the opposing side.
On the post: FBI Continues To Insist There's No Reason For Kim Dotcom To Be Able To See The Evidence Against Him
Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
On the post: University Sues Student For Graduating Too Fast
If I were that school, I'd parade him around saying: "Look, we have the smartest students ever!" What are they thinking?
On the post: European Parliament Declares Its Independence From The European Commission With A Massive Rejection Of ACTA. Now What?
Re: YAY!
http://www.votewatch.eu/cx_vote_details.php?id_act=3055&euro_vot_valoare=0&euro_vot _rol_euro_grup=&euro_vot_rol_euro_tara=&vers=2&order_by=euro_parlamentar_nume&order= ASC&last_order_by=euro_parlamentar_nume&limit=0&offset=0&nextorder=ASC&euro_tara _id=&euro_grup_id=&euro_vot_valoare=%2B&euro_vot_rol_euro_grup=
On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging & Digging: Inman And IndieGoGo Hit Back
Re: dismissal of facts... ignorance or rational ?
The original complaint about copyright infringement by Inman (and it was pretty blatant because the copyright tags were actively removed by funnyjunk users), dates back a year.
Only recently did FJ through the lawyer Carreon respond to The Oatmeal claiming that the year old blog post was without merit and defamatory (because FJ had removed the comics that were linked in that post), demanding 20000 USD as (extortion) fee, despite the fact that FJ's users were still actively and blatantly infringing on the copyrights of Inman.
This led to Inman creating a comic about FunnyJunk's CEO's mom loving a bear, and asking The Oatmeal's visitors to help raise the $20000 to take a photo of it, and send that photo to FunnyJunk, because the real money would go to the two charities.
But indeed, I shouldn't give a fuck about the mangling of truths should I? I'm not white knighting here, never liked The Oatmeal, hell, I didn't even donate to the charity, but I can't stand injustice nor mangling of truths and conflation of completely unrelated issues.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging & Digging: Inman And IndieGoGo Hit Back
Re: Crazy
On the post: Announcing The Declaration Of Internet Freedom
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Wednesday 4th is the ACTA vote
On the post: Announcing The Declaration Of Internet Freedom
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120701/22394419546/announcing-declaration-internet-freedom. shtml#c86
The things tracking you are the ads on the website. It's not Techdirt doing it by themselves, nor is that isolated to Techdirt.
Do you ever use Google? You do know that it keeps track of your search history? So much for privacy there.
On the post: Google Is To Pink Slime As Apples Are To Airplanes
Re: Re: Different interests
On the post: Google Is To Pink Slime As Apples Are To Airplanes
Re:
On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models
Re: accuracy of numbers
On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember, Mike Masnick has posted in the past that he wants the RIAA and the MPAA to succeed. I don't particularly agree with him, but that's opinions for you.
BTW, and this has been explained to you a great many times, it's not censorship if you can still read the comment in question. Also it's not Mike doing that, it's the community, who is quite frankly fed up with your spamming, and rightly so.
On the post: Myth Dispensing: The Whole 'Spotify Barely Pays Artists' Story Is Bunk
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: from the use-a-fking-dictionary-to-lookup-the-meaning-of-word-'censorship' dept.
On the post: Myth Dispensing: The Whole 'Spotify Barely Pays Artists' Story Is Bunk
Re: Re:
On the post: Myth Dispensing: The Whole 'Spotify Barely Pays Artists' Story Is Bunk
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Myth Dispensing: The Whole 'Spotify Barely Pays Artists' Story Is Bunk
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Myth Dispensing: The Whole 'Spotify Barely Pays Artists' Story Is Bunk
Re: Re:
On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models
Re: Re: Re:
But I agree, disagree with someone with arguments, not with clicks. :)
On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models
Re:
On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models
Re:
Next >>