Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canon Tries To Shut Down "Fake" Canon Blog

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the what-part-of-fake-do-you-not-understand dept.

Censorship 125

Thomas Hawk writes "An interesting twist over at the Fake Chuck Westfall Blog. Fake Chuck (like Fake Steve before him) has a blog out parodying Canon's real Technical Information Advisor Chuck Westfall. It seems that Canon and their lawyers over at Loeb & Loeb are none too fond of all the fun that Fake Chuck and DSLR geeks everywhere have been having at their expense and have sent Fake Chuck's blog hosting company, WordPress, a notice to take the blog down. Canon's lawyers cite that Fake Chuck's blog is 'calculated to mislead recipients,' even though the blog has 'fake' in the title, 'fake' in the URL and 'fake' just about everywhere else in the blog. What in the heck is wrong with Canon? Do they really think that trying to shut down a parody blog is going to make their new 5D Mark II ship any faster?" After Fake Chuck removed the Canon logo from his site, WordPress is standing behind him and has rebuffed Canon's demand.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fake First Post (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26864961)

This post has fake all over it, so you can't mod it down.

Re:Fake First Post (1)

theeddie55 (982783) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865185)

if you'd waited and got the post second, i'd have modded it funny.

Re:Fake First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865361)

From TFS:

Do they really thing...


Yes, they do!

Re:Fake First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865465)

Well, they've got another thing coming!

Re:Fake First Post (5, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865337)

I only have fake mod points today, so I fake modded you down.

MS fakery (4, Funny)

Goffee71 (628501) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864973)

Is there no fake Microsoft blog? If so, I'm guessing no one believes what they write anyway.

Re:MS fakery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865037)

Yeah and naming it the "Real Steve Ballmer Blog" probably has potential legal issues.

Re:MS fakery (4, Interesting)

Cally (10873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865101)

Sure there is. []

Re:MS fakery (1)

Dupple (1016592) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865925)

It's nearly as good as the real fake steve

Re:MS fakery (1)

StevenABallmer (1224134) | more than 5 years ago | (#26868057)

By the way, it is the best CEO blog out there, fake or otherwise! Take my word for it!

Re:MS fakery (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865395)

Everything at [] is guaranteed ridiculously satirical and over the top.

Re:MS fakery (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866625)

I faked your mum.

5D Mk II (2, Insightful)

leromarinvit (1462031) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865003)

I dont't have one, but it seems the 5D Mk II is already out. On Geizhals [] , an Austrian price comparison website (Google translation [] ), numerous retailers list it as available. At €2380 (the cheapest one that actually has it in stock) it's not exactly cheap, but then again, most professional DSLRs aren't.

Re:5D Mk II (2, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865047)

It's been available at Amazon [] for a while now, with several different retailers offering it and already over 50 customer reviews posted.

Re:5D Mk II (4, Insightful)

WillKemp (1338605) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865603)

[......] already over 50 customer reviews posted.

Looks like Canon's marketing dept have been busy then!

Re:5D Mk II (1)

Mascot (120795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865147)

It's been available in limited stock since late November/early December. Can still be a chore to get a hold of many places.

Guess business is kinda slow (5, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865013)

More free press for Canon. The real intention all along. Good job.

Re:Guess business is kinda slow (4, Insightful)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865169)

With the lack of interest I would have for starting a blog centered around a key individual of Canon as opposed to Nikon/Motorola/etc., I wouldn't doubt it if the whole thing was staged just for publicity like this, after somebody at Canon saw the "fake steve jobs" fiasco. It probably isn't likely, but hey you never know these days.

Re:Guess business is kinda slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26869825)

looks like a negative astroturfing campain to me. probably by some outsource marketing outfit working for Nikon.

the blog isn't even remotely funny.

Re:Guess business is kinda slow (2, Interesting)

suricatta (617778) | more than 5 years ago | (#26868595)

REad the blog, it's actually quite critical. Get a few posts in and it's enough to put you off Canon cameras entirely.

Re:Guess business is kinda slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26869317)

Actually, I was quite sure Canon cameras have been known to eat kittens before reading that blog, but I'm glad I'm not the only witness!

You'd think by now... (5, Insightful)

DeadPixels (1391907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865027)

Companies would realize that not liking someone's views doesn't give them the right to censor the person.

Re:You'd think by now... (-1, Flamebait)

MWoody (222806) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865039)

...idiots would realize that pretending to be a real person other than themselves on the Internet is going to get them sued.

Fake MWoody says... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865089)

...I'm a complete moron!

--Fake MWoody

Re:You'd think by now... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865099)

...that the above poster would have noticed the 'fake' in the author's pseudonym.

Re:You'd think by now... (2)

colourmyeyes (1028804) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865315)

Agreed, which is why I tried to mod you up, but accidentally modded down, so now I'm undoing that moderation.

Re:You'd think by now... (5, Insightful)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865359)

Risking being off-topic, but seeing these all the time since the new "Web 2.0" upgrades to the slashcode has now drawn out the 'troll'.

Please! Put the 'moderate' *button* back. Simply putting taking action on an index change on the drop down list makes it so that people can accidentally mod the wrong way. It's only by good fortune that there are some people who decided to post something in response to remove the moderation. By putting the button back to confirm the selection, you avoid the mess of people posting to remove moderation and posts like these to beg for that simple piece of functionality be put back.

The Karma Whores will love you for it.

Re:You'd think by now... (1)

colourmyeyes (1028804) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865619)

Hear, hear. A button rather than an autosubmit would have prevented my previous post.

But I guess that just wouldn't be slick enough - buttons are SOOOO 'Web 1.0.'


Re:You'd think by now... (5, Funny)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865703)

I tried to mod you offtopic but I ended up modding you insightful.

Re:You'd think by now... (1)

neumayr (819083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865799)

Also, but I'm not sure if it's because of my browser's ineptitude, posting something to undo moderation doesn't give you the modpoints back.
I'd also like a way to just undo moderation without posting something.
And a pony of course.

Re:You'd think by now... (4, Informative)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866125)

"Also, but I'm not sure if it's because of my browser's ineptitude, posting something to undo moderation doesn't give you the modpoints back."

That is intentional, check the moderation FAQ. The stated reason is that it allows an abusive mod to mod up/down a post in a new article, then post once it comes off the front page (making it a lot less important) and get the points back to use again.

Re:You'd think by now... (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866241)

Someone wrote (and posted) a greasemonkey script a while back. Very useful and slick.. []

Re:You'd think by now... (4, Informative)

Stuart Gibson (544632) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865165)

He's not pretending to be a real person other than himself, he's pretending to be a fake person other than himself

Re:You'd think by now... (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865259)

And it has been clearly established that fake individuals have more rights and less responsibility than real individuals.

Re:You'd think by now... (2, Informative)

neumayr (819083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865835)

Indeed it has. []

Re:You'd think by now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866549)

If by fake individuals you mean corporations then yes they do.

Re:You'd think by now... (1)

British (51765) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865363)

What about everyone that has a character on World of Warcraft?

Re:You'd think by now... (1)

neumayr (819083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865875)

They've got a Journalist class in WoW now? What's next, a Tourist class?

Re:You'd think by now... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865041)

In this case, though, the views expressed are decidedly noncanonical.

Re:You'd think by now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865157)

In this case, though, the views expressed are decidedly noncanonical.


Re:You'd think by now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865209)

You geeks used to love my sparkling wordplay.

Re:You'd think by now... (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#26867777)

You, sir, win the pun-of-the-year award (at least so far).

Re:You'd think by now... (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865249)

Yeah, but there's no prohibition against making lots of noise and getting on the front page when you have a product you need to push.

Re:You'd think by now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865251)

Come on. Governments haven't realised that yet.

Re:You'd think by now... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865349)

Absolutely! Canon are hurting as they've had nothing but immense quality problems with almost every major model released in the last 2 years. Canon just cannot stand being called out as making 'fake' cameras and watch their user base walk over to real Nikon.
FACT: On a Luminous Landscapes trip to Antarctica, ZERO Nikon D700 failures, 6(six) Canon 5Dii failures of which 3 recovered and 3 were bricked.
Can you smell the PANIC back at Canon HQ?

Re:You'd think by now... (1)

QuasiEvil (74356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26868669)

Personally if they'd just learn the ancient and mystical art of autofocus calibration, that would help... My last two DSLR bodies (20D, 40D) have needed to go back for re-adjustment (which made a world of difference).

Re:You'd think by now... (2, Insightful)

rufus t firefly (35399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26869073)

In contrast to that, I haven't had any problems with my 40D at all, and the 350D I had before that only occasionally had issues with dirty contacts on the lens throwing that nasty "error 99" every once in a while.

I guess with DSLRs (or SLRs, really) you buy into whichever brand of dog food you are interested in, since lens cost will eventually eclipse camera body cost as you build a collection of lenses. We can bicker and argue about one brand being better than another, but as long as they take pretty faithful pictures, it doesn't really matter.

Re:You'd think by now... (2, Informative)

penguinchris (1020961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26869561)

Just want to add that with the same two cameras, the 350D and my current 40D, I also haven't had problems.

I *have* had minor problems with lenses, especially third-party ones. That is where calibration/quality control is a major problem, even with Canon lenses (though I haven't had a problem with my Canon lenses, I know many others have.)

Re:You'd think by now... (1)

penguinchris (1020961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26869539)

You forget to mention that on the Antarctica trip you mentioned, of 77 total 70% of photographers were using Canon, and 30% Nikon. Fifty percent of Canon users, so 35% of the total, were using 5D IIs, or 26 people.

They don't mention specifically how many people were using D700s, only "lots". I have no idea of course, but let's say for arguments sake that 50% of Nikon users had the D700 - though their wording lends me to believe it's probably less. That's approximately 12 D700s. Three dead 5D IIs out of 26 is 12%. Twelve percent of 12 rounds to 1. That means to have an equal failure rate, there had to be 1 dead D700.

Can you see that there simply weren't enough Nikons to provide equivalent statistics? How about the fact that maybe those with the failed cameras were people who simply took more risks with their equipment? We can't know.

Yes, it's disappointing of the 5D II that so many failed, but the 5D series and the XXD series are not marketed as being incredibly rough and rugged and waterproof. These are things you want in a camera you take to Antarctica.

Despite that, I personally would not hesitate to take my 40D to Antarctica. In fact I hope to have the opportunity sometime in the next few years (though perhaps I will have upgraded to something newer, it won't be a much more expensive weather-sealed one - in fact, my next upgrade will likely be to the 5D series, or whatever the equivalent is in the future.) I have used the 40D in moderately extreme conditions before, including being splashed with salt water and in light rain and snow, with no problem. I would hope that it wouldn't fail, but I accept the possibility that it might if I let too much moisture in, because it is not designed for that. And I wouldn't trust an equivalent Nikon to be any better, unless it was designed for it, which they aren't.

Not that I wouldn't ever use Nikon, I think they have good cameras and lenses. And Canon, I agree, is having serious problems right now. Having a few mediocre or problem-ridden releases is not enough for hobbyists, and most pros, to write them off completely, though. These companies go through cycles and you can guarantee that Canon will be back eventually. And they'll go through more downturns, too.

Here's the Luminous Landscapes article, for reference: []

Re:You'd think by now... (1)

g0at (135364) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865373)

By definition, a company can't censor a person.


Re:You'd think by now... (2, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865853)

No, wrong. []

By definition, a company very much can censor.

It is just legal if it is the context of forums under that companies control, or using copyright/trademark laws.

WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865029)

WTF has any of their products got to do with this? I smell a shameless plug.

Re:WTF (3, Informative)

Teun (17872) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865155)

Because this is one of their flagship products and it has according to early reports performed a bit sub-par?
Canon []

Re:WTF (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865503)

You know, I went to that link and was dismayed that so much emphasis was placed on what was owned. I shot a lot back in the Stone Age and always deflected equipment questions because they are of no merit. What is of merit is the quality of the work produced and the few pictures I saw on that page look no better than PHO-202 student work. The technical aspects might be bang on, but I'll thank the hardware for that, not the photographer. Those images provided no engagement, no questions. They were pretty, like much of Ansel Adams's work (which, if you haven't noticed, rarely contained people.)

It is obvious to anyone in the biz that the Big Names are in a fight to the death. They know that there is an enormous amount of money out there in even the amateur ranks, let alone the pro-sumer, and it is easy to relieve some person of thousands of dollars by making various technological claims for your product vs. a different product.

Photography for me has always been a very personal method of exploring the world. Much of my work meant a lot to me. Some meant enough to others that they were willing to pay a good deal of money for a print, although money is probably a very poor metric of value.

In any event, considering as I am to pick up a camera again, I don't know if I'm interested in any of the digital dreadnoughts now being pushed farther and farther down-market. Marvels they are, but I see them impotent in pushing ahead any kind of frontier of photography; visual, emotional or psychological. And even if they could I suspect the viewing public is existentially emasculated anyway, so advances are moot.

Maybe an F or M6 full of Tri-X. Art's even better when married to alchemy...

Re:WTF (1)

neumayr (819083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866105)

I agree with your assessment of the pictures on the linked page, but I wouldn't, in any way, blame the tech. Maybe it encourages people to take some rather bland pictures because it's cheap to do so, as you don't have to care about film and development cost at all, but there's always been postcard photography.

While shooting analog on old, high quality cameras can produce superior pictures compare to what digital can do (at least it could last time I checked), that's only achievable when you also develop and enlarge those pictures yourself. If you can, good for you. If not, I feel pretty much everyone is better off with a digital camera and a good raster graphics editor.

Re:WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26868245)

I agree. But to clarify, in case I wasn't clear, I give the tech ('nology, not 'ician), not blame, but credit.

As an aside, I held out for a long time with two demands: I wanted a 24mm x 36mm CCD, so that my 20 remained a 20, and I wanted 25 million plus pixels in that CCD, because then I'd have the granular resolution of Kodachrome (if not the skin tones). I would imagine both of those demands have now at least been met if not exceeded. And I still don't own a box newer than 1975.

'Shit or get off the pot', my grandmother used to say.

Re:WTF (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26869393)

They're not yet met, but getting there. You're after a 25MP+ full frame. There is the Canon EOS 5D mk II, which is 21 MP, and the Nikon D3X, which is 24.5 MP. (That's the top of the line from Nikon, and one-shade-from-top for Canon.)

However, generally the lens is less sharp than the current generation of sensors anyway.

Plus, you can usually not print anywhere near these megapixel ratings unless you're printing very large format or very small crops, it's not really that useful or as important as you might at first think.

6"x4"x400dpi is 2400px x 1600px, or 3.84 MP - cellphone cameras can be better than this!

Concentrating on MP for photographic quality is a little like concentrating on MHz for computer performance - only relevant when all else is equal and isn't the bottleneck.

Re:WTF (2, Informative)

penguinchris (1020961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26869589)

I agree that it has been performing sub-par for many people, but I don't think the failure rate on that Antarctica trip is the right thing to point to. See my earlier comment at [] for my analysis.

There are reports of earlier Antarctica trips on that site from previous years, with similar tallies of failed cameras. It doesn't tell you a whole lot other than that if you use your camera in extreme conditions it wasn't necessarily designed for, you have to expect that it may have problems.

The bigger issues (that haven't supposedly been fixed by firmware) - as discussed on the fake blog - are noise even at low ISOs and auto-focus performance. These are disappointing problems for this camera, especially the noise. This is marketed as a low-noise camera, even at high ISOs, yet many are saying the original 5D is better in that regard (I haven't looked into it too much myself, I can't afford an upgrade from my 40D anytime soon anyway.)

Thanks to Canon and Slashdot (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865043)

The Streisand effect has now hit the Fake Chuck blog. I wasn't aware of the blog but thanks to Canon's own doing more people will be aware of it.

Re:Thanks to Canon and Slashdot (2, Funny)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865237)

Wha says that's not what they were going for? These are sneaky bastards these corporate types. It's difficult tfor us straight thinking peeps to get a handle on them.

Bad Summary (5, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865091)

The take down letter asked for 4 things:

1. Stop using the Canon logo.
2. Remove references to violence.
3. Remove references to Chuck's family.
4. Changes to the look and feel of the blog so it would not be
confused with actual Canon corporate sites.

It wasn't a totally unreasonable blanket take-down demand, and as such Fake Chuck will easily be able to comply and continue as a source of satire and humor.

Re:Bad Summary (0, Troll)

Mister Liberty (769145) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865181)

If your item 4. and 3. are complied to, 1. seems to me unnecessary, and 2. 'Remove references to violence' seems totally unreasonable.


Re:Bad Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865197)

totally unreasonable blanket take-down

You must be new here... wait your uid is 20k nevermind.

be new here (1)

be new here (1431563) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865217)

You must be new here

Please leave me out of this!

Re:Bad Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865233)

1. and 4. are unreasonable - if a parody can't, well, parody the original, it's pointless.

I can't say whether 2. and 3. are reasonable (in particular, I'm not sure in what context violence or the guy's family are mentioned), but unless he's actually asking anyone to - say - commit violent crimes against the guy's family, I fail to see how it would not be covered by free speech.

Put another way - Canon's actual demands may be more reasonable (2. and 3., anyway; 1. and 4. obviously aren't, as detailed above), but I still think the blogger in question has no ethical obligation to comply.

Re:Bad Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865297)

So basically if I posted anything related about your family pretending to be its going to be OK?

Pretending someone you are not even if you put fake in it doesnt give you the right to trashtalk about me.

Re:Bad Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865353)

Yeah it does. You're an idiot. I have a right to say what I please. You have a similar right to SAY what you please in return. Nothing more.

Re:Bad Summary (1)

Dreadneck (982170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865459)

I'm not so sure that requests 1. and 4. are unreasonable. After all, Canon's logo is a registered trademark. Besides, if you're going to parody the company and its employees, it's not a huge leap to parody the company logo as well.

Look at it as an opportunity to further lampoon Canon by coming up with a hilarious reworking of their logo.

As for requests 2. and 3., there's no need or justification for bringing Mr. Westfall's wife and daughter into the fray and certainly no call for references to violent acts against Mr. Westfall and his fellow employees.

Furthermore,'s TOS [] (which hosts the 'Fake Chuck Westfall' blog) clearly states:

Responsibility of Contributors. If you operate a blog, comment on a blog, post material to the Website, post links on the Website, or otherwise make (or allow any third party to make) material available by means of the Website (any such material, âoeContentâ), You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content. That is the case regardless of whether the Content in question constitutes text, graphics, an audio file, or computer software. By making Content available, you represent and warrant that:

  • the downloading, copying and use of the Content will not infringe the proprietary rights, including but not limited to the copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret rights, of any third party;
  • the Content is not libelous or defamatory (more info on what that means [] ), does not contain threats or incite violence towards individuals or entities, and does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third party;

It seems to be a fairly open-and-shut case to me.

Re:Bad Summary (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 5 years ago | (#26868935)

Request 1 is probably unreasonable as parody is a protected usage of a trademark. Imagine if I couldn't use a MS trademark when making a parody of one of their ads. Wouldn't work at all.

Re:Bad Summary (4, Informative)

rcw-home (122017) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865291)

I looked at the PDF of the takedown. Yes, it mentioned those four things as "particularly egregious" but it was a blanket take-down demand. Let's examine the basis they list for their complaint and their demand: [] (the "Blog") - is using our client's trademark and Mr. Westfall's name and likeness without authorization

Accordingly, we hereby demand that you immediately remove the above-mentioned objectionable and harmful content from your website, as well as terminate the Blog author's account.

(emphasis mine)

If Wordpress hadn't exhibited some common sense, Fake Chuck would have had to find a new home.

Bad lawyers (3, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865413)

The take down letter made other, unreasonable demands. As I've posted before, it's often the case that from the plaintiff point of view, the weaker the case the stronger the language, and contrariwise for the defendant. This was a weak case so L&L tried to boost it with strong language demanding that Wordpress cease to allow the fake CW to publish any blogs. Wordpress detected it was a weak case and offered the minimum actually needed to comply. And now, people who had no idea that some people think Canon DSLRs are not very good, and have inadequate QA, are suddenly informed on the subject.

I had to issue a takedown notice last year when I discovered that a fake business had stolen the identity of our legitimate business. As a result, we could have been raided by the police and had our equipment taken by them, which could have driven us out of business. The initial response of the website host was to go away. Before I could respond to this, which would have involved a High Court injunction, they obviously took legal advice and I suddenly got a grovel. So I am sympathetic to legitimate takedowns. As you say, part of this one was legitimate. But L&L should have done better than have it drafted by a paralegal, and simply insisted that the genuinely infringing material be removed or fixed, and requested as a matter of courtesy that the blog confine itself to technical matters. Despite their claims to the contrary, lawyers are frequently not the shiniest apples in the barrel.

Re:Bad Summary (1)

Maxmin (921568) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865589)

#20178 wrote:

If you had read the take down letter, you'd know it asked for six things:

1. Stop using the Canon logo.

2. Remove references to violence.

3. Remove references to Chuck's family.

4. Changes to the look and feel of the blog so it would not be confused with actual Canon corporate sites.

"Accordingly, we hereby demand that you immediately remove the above-mentioned objectionable and harmful content from your website, as well as (5) terminate the Blog author's account. We further demand that you (6) provide us with the name and current contact information ... for the author of the blog."

It was a totally unreasonable blanket take-down demand, and as such Fake Chuck will have to pick another corporate target in order to be able to fully comply and continue as a source of free speech, satire and humor.

There, fixed that for you. Corporate censorship, in all its ways, is totally reasonable.

Re:Bad Summary (1)

TheCybernator (996224) | more than 5 years ago | (#26869843)

1. Stop using the Canon logo.
2. Remove references to violence.
3. Remove references to Chuck's family.
4. Changes to the look and feel of the blog so it would not be confused with actual Canon corporate sites.

5. ???
6. Profit.

There. Fixed it for you.

"Do you really thing" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865245)

I don't know, Thomas Hawk. Why don't you tell me what to thing, you illiterate faggot?

Fwd: Thanks for the heads up about your blog! (2, Interesting)

samj (115984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865295)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sam Johnston <samj-at-".net>
Date: Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Subject: Thanks for the heads up about your blog!
To: Chuck Westfall <>
Cc: Toni Scheinder <>, "Douglas E. Mirell" <>

G'day Chuck,

It's not every day that something truly entertaining comes to my
attention but thanks to my mates at Slashdot[1] and your mates at Loeb
& Loeb with their (surely fake?) letter[2] I was drawn attention to
your refreshingly entertaining fake blog[3]. Anyway I'm sure I'm one
of many who have immediately added your blog to my reader - it's truly
amazing what a bit of viral marketing can do for you!

Kodos to the guys at Automattic too for identifying the letter for
what it was so quickly and taking appropriate action - those guys

Eagerly awaiting your next post,

Your [virtual] friend,


1. []
2. []
3. []

What? (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865303)

Who is fake canon, or chuck for that matter and why should I give a shit? If DSLR wasn't mentioned I wouldn't have a clue this is something to do with photography.

Re:What? (3, Insightful)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866265)

The story's not about photography. It's about a major multinational corporation using its lawyers and money to bully into silence bloggers who point out its failures.

You didn't get that?

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866519)

congrats. you don't know something. why should *we* care?

PHB's have no sense of humour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865405)

... they just have a sense of malice

I would not even have removed the logo (5, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26865433)

since using it in obvious parody is protected fair use.

Loeb & Loeb - have at 'em! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865609)

Lawyers who do this kind of crap need to feel some of the heat, too.

Have at 'em:

Re:Loeb & Loeb - have at 'em! (0)

Thalagyrt (851883) | more than 5 years ago | (#26868503)

I just sent them the following:


May I provide some information to the moron who sent a letter off to Wordpress about Fake Chuck Westfall? Maybe you guys should research what you proclaim to have degrees in, namely THE LAW, before you send out frivolous complaints.

1. Parody.


A parody, in contemporary usage, is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation. As the literary theorist Linda Hutcheon (2000: 7) puts it, "parody ⦠is imitation with a critical difference, not always at the expense of the parodied text." Another critic, Simon Dentith (2000: 9), defines parody as "any cultural practice which provides a relatively polemical allusive imitation of another cultural production or practice."

Parody may be found in art or culture, including literature, music (although "parody" in music has a rather wider meaning than for other art forms), and cinema. Parodies are sometimes colloquially referred to as spoofs or lampoons.


According to Aristotle (Poetics, ii. 5), Hegemon of Thasos was the inventor of a kind of parody; by slightly altering the wording in well-known poems he transformed the sublime into the ridiculous. In ancient Greek literature, a parodia was a narrative poem imitating the style and prosody of epics "but treating light, satirical or mock-heroic subjects" (Denith, 10). Indeed, the apparent Greek roots of the word are par- (which can mean beside, counter, or against) and -ody (song, as in an ode). Thus, the original Greek word parodia has sometimes been taken to mean counter-song, an imitation that is set against the original. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, defines parody as imitation "turned as to produce a ridiculous effect" (quoted in Hutcheon, 32). Because par- also has the non-antagonistic meaning of beside, "there is nothing in parodia to necessitate the inclusion of a concept of ridicule" (Hutcheon, 32).

Roman writers explained parody as an imitation of one poet by another for humorous effect. In French Neoclassical literature, parody was also a type of poem where one work imitates the style of another for humorous effect.


Parody is a frequent ingredient in satire and is often used to make social and political points. Examples include Swift's A Modest Proposal, which satirizes English neglect of Ireland by parodying emotionally disengaged political tracts, and, in contemporary culture, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, which parody a news broadcast and a talk show, respectively, to satirize political and social trends and events. Some events, such as a national tragedy, can be difficult to handle. A 9/11 update of George Orwell's novella Animal Farmâ"Snowball's Chance by U.S. author John Reedâ"raised the ire of the George Orwell estate, and critics such as Christopher Hitchens. Chet Clem, Editorial Manager of the news parody publication The Onion, told Wikinews in an interview the questions that are raised when addressing difficult topics:
âoeI know the September 11 issue was an obviously very large challenge to approach. Do we even put out an issue? What is funny at this time in American history? Where are the jokes? Do people want jokes right now? Is the nation ready to laugh again? Who knows. There will always be some level of division in the back room. Itâ(TM)s also what keeps us on our toes.â

Parody is by no means necessarilly satirical, and may sometimes be done with respect and appreciation of the subject involved, while not being a heedless sarcastic attack.

Parody has also been used to facilitate dialogue between cultures or subcultures. Sociolinguist Mary Louise Pratt identifies parody as one of the "arts of the contact zone," through which marginalized or oppressed groups "selectively appropriate," or imitate and take over, aspects of more empowered cultures.

Shakespeare often uses a series of parodies to convey his meaning. In the social context of his era, an example can be seen in King Lear were the fool is introduced with his coxcomb to be a parody of the king.

2. Satire


Satire is often strictly defined as a literary genre or form; although, in practice, it is also found in the graphic and performing arts. In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour in itself so much as an attack on something of which the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit.

A very common, almost defining feature of satire is its strong vein of irony or sarcasm, but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. The essential point, however, is that "in satire, irony is militant". This "militant irony" (or sarcasm) often professes to approve the very things the satirist actually wishes to attack.


The word satire comes from Latin satura lanx and means "medley, dish of colourful fruits" - it was held by Quintilian to be a "wholly Roman phenomenon" (satura tota nostra est). This derivation properly has nothing to do with the Greek mythological figure satyr. To Quintilian, the satire was a strict literary form, but the term soon escaped from its original narrow definition. Robert Elliott wrote:

"As soon as a noun enters the domain of metaphor, as one modern scholar has pointed out, it clamours for extension; and satura (which had had no verbal, adverbial, or adjectival forms) was immediately broadened by appropriation from the Greek word for âoesatyrâ (satyros) and its derivatives. The odd result is that the English âoesatireâ comes from the Latin satura; but âoesatirize,â âoesatiric,â etc., are of Greek origin. By about the 4th century AD the writer of satires came to be known as satyricus; St. Jerome, for example, was called by one of his enemies 'a satirist in prose' ('satyricus scriptor in prosa'). Subsequent orthographic modifications obscured the Latin origin of the word satire: satura becomes satyra, and in England, by the 16th century, it was written 'satyre.'"

Satire (in the modern sense of the word) is found in many artistic forms of expression, including literature, plays, commentary, and media such as song lyrics.

The term is also today applied to many works other than those which would have been considered satire by Quintilian - including, for instance, ancient Greek authors predating the first Roman satires. Public opinion in the Athenian democracy, for example, was remarkably influenced by the political satire written by such comic poets as Aristophanes for the theatre.


Satirical works often contain "straight" (non-satirical) humour - usually to give some relief from what might otherwise be relentless "preaching". This has always been the case, although it is probably more marked in modern satire. On the other hand some satire has little or no humour at all. It is not "funny" - nor is it meant to be.

Humour about a particular subject (politics, religion and art for instance) is not necessarily satirical because the subject itself is often a subject of satire. Nor is humour using the great satiric tools of irony, parody, or burlesque always meant in a satirical sense.


3. Protection under the first amendment

Satire is a centuries-old type of literature that uses humor and imitation to attack and ridicule individualsâ(TM) moral and character flaws, such as vice, unfairness, stupidity or vanity.

A parody is also an attack on folly, but it takes the form of a contemptuous imitation of an existing artistic production â" usually a serious work of literature, music, artwork or film â" for satirical or humorous purposes.

Satire and parody have served for generations as a means of criticizing public figures, exposing political injustice, communicating social ideologies, and pursuing such artistic ends as literary criticism. Satirists usually find themselves subjected in turn to criticism, contempt and, sometimes, lawsuits.

The First Amendment protects satire and parody as a form of free speech and expression. Questions that have arisen in case law concerning libel, emotional distress and copyright infringement are discussed in the relevant cases below.

Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell
In this case from the 1980s, a well-known minister, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, sued Hustler for an advertisement parody that portrayed him as having had a drunken sexual encounter with his mother in an outhouse. The parody was a spoof on a series of ads for Campari Liqueur. In small print at the bottom of the ad were the words, âoead parody â" not to be taken seriously.â The table of contents for that issue of the magazine listed the ad as âoeFiction; Ad and Personality Parody.â Falwell sued for libel, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Issuing a directed verdict in favor of Hustler on the issue of invasion of privacy, a federal district court also ruled against Falwell on his libel claim because, the court said, no reasonable person would believe the situation depicted in the ad to be true. The court did award damages for emotional distress, however.

On appeal, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courtâ(TM)s judgment, declaring that the issue was whether the adâ(TM)s publication was sufficiently outrageous to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court found to the contrary. The high court held in its 1988 decision that public figures and public officials could not recover damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress without an additional showing that âoethe publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with âactual malice,â(TM) i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true.â

The Court recognized the importance of allowing the free flow of ideas despite a possible negative emotional impact on the target of ridicule. Although the Court said not all speech enjoys the same protection under the First Amendment (for instance, âoefighting wordsâ aren't protected), it affirmed that âoethe sort of expression in [the Hustler] case does not seem to us to be governed by any exceptionâ to general First Amendment protection.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
Creators of parody may be faced with questions of copyright infringement. In this 1994 decision, the Supreme Court held that a commercial parody may be a âoefair useâ in accordance with Section 107 of the Copyright Act, as a defense against an accusation of copyright infringement.

In this case, rap group 2 Live Crew's song âoePretty Woman,â a parody of Roy Orbisonâ(TM)s rock ballad, âoeOh Pretty Woman,â was challenged by Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. as an infringement on the companyâ(TM)s copyright on the Orbison tune. The publishing company contended that Campbell had not made fair use of Orbisonâ(TM)s song. They pointed out that Campbellâ(TM)s version used the original work for commercial purposes and that he had taken too much of the original work.

Campbell countered that his parody was fair use. The U.S. Supreme Court took the case to determine whether 2 Live Crewâ(TM)s commercial parody was indeed a fair use.

A fair-use analysis, according to the Court, involves four factors: âoe1) purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is commercially motivated or instead is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2) nature of the copyrighted work; 3) amount and substantiality of the portion used in the newly created work in relation to the copyrighted work; and 4) effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.â

A court must take all of these factors into account, none being sufficient alone.

The Supreme Court ruled that a lower federal appeals court had âoeinflated the significanceâ of the commercial nature of 2 Live Crewâ(TM)s song. âoeThe language of the statute makes clear that the commercial or nonprofit educational purpose of a work is only one element of the first factor enquiry into its purpose and character,â the Court wrote.

The Court reasoned that the copyright statuteâ(TM)s listed examples of fair use â" news reporting, comment, criticism, teaching, etc. â" are generally carried out for profit. Law professor Bruce Rogow, who argued the case for Luther Campbell before the Supreme Court, told the First Amendment Center Online that âoethe case stands for the principle that there must be breathing room for artists to create new works.â

Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corporation
Paramount did a teaser ad for the film, âoeNaked Gun: The Final Insult 33 1/3.â The ad spoofed a 1991 cover of Vanity Fair,which featured a photo of a pregnant, nude Demi Moore. Paramount got another model, who was also pregnant, to pose nude. The head of Leslie Nielsen, the star of the film, was superimposed onto the body of the model. A federal district court and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the parody ad was a fair use.

Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books USA
Penguin Books published a poetic account of the O.J. Simpson trial in a book titled, The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice. The 9th Circuit held that the book did not parody The Cat in the Hat, but simply retold the Simpson story. Therefore, there was no fair-use defense, and the book was deemed a copyright infringement.

The Wind Done Gone
A 2001 copyright-infringement/parody case involved Alice Randallâ(TM)s novel, The Wind Done Gone, a parody of Margaret Mitchellâ(TM)s American classic, Gone With the Wind. Released in 2001, Randallâ(TM)s book used characters and scenes from Mitchellâ(TM)s original novel as a satirical critique of Mitchellâ(TM)s primitive depiction of African-Americans.

Mitchellâ(TM)s estate argued that Randallâ(TM)s novel borrowed too liberally from the original and was in essence a sequel, not a parody. A federal judge ordered an injunction against the publication of the book two months before it was to be released, but the injunction was lifted by the 11th Circuit on May 25 (SunTrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co.).

In removing the injunction against The Wind Done Gone, the three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit at court did not declare whether the novel was a parody or not. But it said the Mitchell estate had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success in pressing its claims against Randall.

The 11th Circuit explained its earlier order in its Oct. 10 opinion. The 11th Circuit determined that Houghton Mifflin, at least at this early stage of the litigation, had adequately shown that Randallâ(TM)s book was protected as fair use.

Applying the elements of fair use, the appeals court recognized that Randallâ(TM)s work was made for a commercial purpose. However, the court said that this factor was âoestrongly overshadowed and outweighed in view of its highly transformative useâ of Gone With the Wind.

âoeRandallâ(TM)s literary goal is to explode the romantic, idealized portrait of the antebellum South during and after the Civil War,â the appeals court wrote.

The appeals court also determined that the Mitchell estate had failed to show evidence that Randallâ(TM)s book would harm the market value of Gone With the Windâ(TM)s derivative works or take away market demand for Mitchellâ(TM)s book.

A concurring judge even pointed out that Randallâ(TM)s book may âoeact as complement to, rather than a substitute for Gone With the Wind and its potential derivatives. The judge reasoned that readers of The Wind Done Gone âoemay want to refresh their recollections of the original.â

The 11th Circuit also reiterated that copyright law tries to preserve a balance with the First Amendment through the idea/expression dichotomy and the fair-use doctrine.

Fair use: An elusive doctrine
Even though 2 Live Crew and Alice Randall (at the preliminary injunction stage) prevailed in the federal courts, both cases required extensive litigation. Courts will decide the application of the fair-use doctrine on a case-by-case basis. The concept of fair use is flexible and hard to define. âoeAlthough the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of the concept has ever emerged,â said the 11th Circuit opinion in The Wind Done Gone case.

For this reason, Professor Jessica Litman, in the Dayton Law Review article âoeReforming Information Law in Copyrightâ(TM)s Image,â calls fair use âoea troublesome safe harbor for First Amendment rights.â

Stephen Fraser writes in his Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal article âoeThe Conflict Between the First Amendment and Copyright Laws and its Impact on the Internetâ: âoeIt is precisely because the line is unclear, whether it be idea/expression, infringement/noninfringement, or fair use, that conflicts arise and exist between copyright and the First Amendment.â

Courts have determined that the fair-use defense provides ample First Amendment protections in the copyright arena. A 2000 federal court decision explains: âoeTo the extent there is any tension between free speech and the protection of copyright, the Court has found it to be accommodated fully by traditional fair use doctrine, with expression prohibited by the Copyright Act and not within the fair use exception considered unprotected by the First Amendmentâ (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes).


Congratulations, your law firm is comprised of a bunch of idiots.

Have a nice day,

Re:Loeb & Loeb - have at 'em! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26869053)

Their response:


That's great and all, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26865933)

...I wonder how OSDN/Red Hat/Mozilla/EFF would react if I set up a similarly themed fake blog. For instance, a fake EFF blog extolling the virtues of proprietary software. I don't know if they would try a C&D (I doubt it), but I don't think they would be particularly happy about it.

captcha: flattery (imitation being the sincerest form)

Re:That's great and all, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26867679)

Of course, the major difference is how they'd react to it. Both Canon and EFF would think "My God, this terrible person!", then EFF would post on their site about the fake, pointing out that it is a fake, probably give them a friendly letter requesting that they note on their site that they're a fake, and leave it there. (Maybe further posts on their own website). Anything more serious would probably only happen when or if it was no longer called the "fake EFF blog" but instead called the "EFF blog" -- but that's a whole different situation now, isn't it? Canon, however, is now taking legal action. If they were really concerned about bad publicity, they should post on their website that this fake isn't real, make sure their customer service reps know this, too, and send a friendly letter asking the author to note on their site that they are, in fact, fake (as if it were necessary). Anything more should only happen when they're no longer called the "Fake Canon Blog", but instead are called the "Canon blog". Overkill doesn't make the company look any better, IMO.

Obama's Stimulus Plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26866239)

Two words: whitewashed turd. And let's be honest. This is really Pelosi's stimulus bill. Good thing it was crammed through with only 11 or so hours for Congressmen and their staff to read an 1100+ page document so that Pelosi could make her flight to Rome on Friday night. Ah, the privileges of being Queen Cunt...

Fake chuck of fake canon receives a letter (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866309)

Are we absolutely sure this isn't fake news?

the biggest threat to Canon profits (2, Insightful)

alizard (107678) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866413)

is probably Canon corporate policy, not a fake blog.

My experience with Canon printers has been good. They are very well constructed, using actual metal parts where it makes sense, they aren't the typical plastic shells surrounding mostly air one sees in the great majority of consumer printers.

I will not buy a new Canon printer.

Canon's PIXMA IP3000/4000/5000/6000 printers had the easiest to refill cartridges around. I've got an IP3000, which I bought for $60 with a $20 rebate when new. (and yes, Canon did actually send me the rebate money) Well, it's aging and developing enough signs of wear that I'm thinking of replacing it.

There are a few IP3000s left that were never sold in sealed retail boxes. The price at Amazon starts at $209. The cheapest used IP3000 available at Amazon starts at $110. People in the know would rather chance a used printer than buy a new Canon printer.

How often do you see computer peripherals go up in price years after they are manufactured to the point where they are far more expensive than comparable new ones? The demand for the old ones comes down to drastically reduced cost of ownership. I've been printing for the last year on $30 worth of high-quality fourmilabs bulk ink, and my printed photos have never looked better.

If Canon were to make a new line of printers with chipless cartridges, I'd be happy to pay $100+ for one. If they made one that could be used directly with bulk ink, I'd be delighted to pay $150.

Re:the biggest threat to Canon profits (1)

karnal (22275) | more than 5 years ago | (#26867971)

Is there any manufacturer of inkjet printers that allows for chipless refilling nowadays?

I stopped caring about inkjets when I had an epson that I couldn't change out the print heads on. Bought a 50$ brother 2040 - to be honest, I don't print much in color. My wife bought a Samsung 300 something laser that does color; I haven't done any photos on it, but honestly if I'm gonna do photos, I've had good luck in the past via the internet.

I know that certain printers you could buy add-ons (3rd party) to basically add ink tanks.... of course, I'd probably buy one of those if I could, but the prices would probably be higher than most consumers would want to pay.

Re:the biggest threat to Canon profits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26868967)

Brother inks are easy to refill and chipless. They have an ink bladder that makes them unsuitable for Drill-and-Fill, but a little messing about makes it possible to refill them through the valve. Of all the new ink printers, it would be the only one I'd contemplate.

Re:the biggest threat to Canon profits (3, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26868125)

When Canon started chipping their cartridges I finally took the plunge and bought a Xerox color laser printer. I haven't looked back since.

FUCK the whole cheap printer/expensive ink business model.

Re:the biggest threat to Canon profits (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 5 years ago | (#26868395)

Actually PIXMA was the start down the dark road of proprietary inks. Before that, the inks were just a plastic box with a sponge, they had a separate tank for each color, and the inks and print heads were separately removable.

I really couldn't guess what they're doing now, though. I haven't bothered with color inkjet printers since my i550 died and I noticed that CVS had decent photo prints for a fraction of the cost per m^2 I'd have paid for printer ink.

I'm all about the cheap black laser printers now. The only thing I miss about not having color is printing google maps, which lose something, I think due to being rasters with "just enough" dpi.

"before that"? (1)

alizard (107678) | more than 5 years ago | (#26868553)

. Before that, the inks were just a plastic box with a sponge, they had a separate tank for each color, and the inks and print heads were separately removable.

That's a pretty good description of what I like about my PIXMA IP3000. I think what you're talking about started the model year after the x000 seriies.

threat to HP profits too (1)

vaporland (713337) | more than 5 years ago | (#26868809)

HP too. I have a Hewlett-Packard CP1700 Color Ink Jet Printer. The refilled cartridges are 1/3 the price of new ones. I bought a 100baseT JetDirect card for it on eBay for $20, and now I have a great printer that is economical to use - up to 13x19 sized paper. If I see another one on eBay or Craigslist, I'm going to buy it also.

After I took the "watch battery" out of the printer, it no longer told me that there was "a problem" with the refilled cartridges. They now last for what seems like forever, and this printer prints fantastically.

Fuck a new HP printer - they're shiny like Vista, and just as DRM laden. No thanks!

3 words... (3, Insightful)

pig-power (1069288) | more than 5 years ago | (#26867405)

Thank You Wordpress

His lawyers letter may constitute mail /wire fraud (1)

rfc1394 (155777) | more than 5 years ago | (#26867613)

Since the site is marked 'fake' it clearly is a parody. There may be grounds to argue that references to his wife and child are unacceptable because they might not be public figures, but the guy he's parodying clearly is. His own lawyers in the letter have conceded he is a public figure. Thus the standard for defamation is much higher than with a private party. While I'm not a lawyer, based on supreme court decisions such as New York Times v. Sullivan and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, no reasonable person could believe this was from the guy or that what is being said was anything but parody and satire. They have to show that the material was known to be untrue and was posted for malice, or was done with reckless neglect for the truth, and that someone could believe it to be true.

Thus the claim of defamation and almost all of the claims they are making are on their face at best obviously incorrect as negligence, or quite possibly intentional lies.

Given this to be the case, his lawyers should know this, and their threats in their Cease & Desist letter may be intentional misinformation given by mail or communications system for the purpose of causing others to expend money or resources over reliance upon their misinformation. Thus the lawyers bluster and hyperbole may constitute mail and/or wire fraud in interstate commerce (it mentions it was both mailed and faxed) since either they knew that, based on current court decisions, that it was false, or should have known that it was. Thus their threat letter may, in and of itself, either give rise to a fraud claim, or might be grounds to have his lawyers prosecuted for mail and/or wire fraud.

I'm waiting for someone to someday nail some lawyers who make claims in C&D letters that they know to be false.

Loeb? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 5 years ago | (#26867739)

Isn't that the name of that evil gollum-attorney in Cryptonomicon? :P

Fake Steve Ballmer - #1 Fake Blog! (1)

StevenABallmer (1224134) | more than 5 years ago | (#26868011)

This is disturbing!

Honestly, who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26869581)

Is this really news? Who cares? It is a frivolous suit lodged against a site about someone most people have never heard of and don't care about.

The problem-- like soylent green --is people. (2, Insightful)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26870091)

People think stupid stuff. All it takes is that x% of people too stupid to grasp the concept, to then pass the 'information' on to their friends. Give it another iteration or two, and it starts to become a problem. Human beings readily accept the easiest to digest and most palatable information available to them. Canon is just trying to head that shit off.

Think about it this way; you have someone like Jack Thompson, devoting his every waking hour to convincing people that videogames are solely responsible for the breakdown of society. Bullshit, of course. But a percentage of people take it seriously enough to tell someone else, whether or not these people have any idea what in the hell they're talking about is irrelevant, with only a little help, such ideas can silently seep into common knowledge until a majority of people believe-- or at the very least, take seriously --such things.

To put it another way, if you're subjected to someone yelling about something loud enough, long enough, sooner or later it's going to have an effect.

I'm not saying Canon took the right tact, I mean the blog looks fairly harmless, I'm just saying I can think of a few reasons they'd want to do something about someone taking pokes at them in such a way.

For the record, I'm fairly brand-agnostic. Though I haven't used a Nikon SLR since the days of film.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?