Beta
×

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!

FunnyJunk Sues the Oatmeal Over TM and "Incitement To Cyber-Vandalism"

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the hits-keep-coming dept.

Censorship 390

eldavojohn writes "You may recall from last week the news item concerning FunnyJunk's extortion ... er ... threat of defamation lawsuit against The Oatmeal highlighting a fairly pervasive problem of rehosting content — in this case web comics. Instead of expediting a payment of $20,000 to FunnyJunk, Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal decided to crowd source the money (with 8 days left he has only garnered 900% of his goal) and donate it to charity after sending a picture of it to FunnyJunk. Charles Carreon (the man who has FunnyJunk) has made statements of Inman saying 'I really did not expect that he would marshal an army of people who would besiege my website and send me a string of obscene emails.' In an interview Carreon says 'So someone takes one of my letters and takes it apart. That doesn't mean you can just declare netwar, that doesn't mean you can encourage people to hack my website, to brute force my WordPress installation so I have to change my password. You can't encourage people to violate my trademark and violate my twitter name and associate me with incompetence with stupidity, and douchebaggery. And if that's where the world is going I will fight with every ounce of force in this 5'11 180 pound frame against it. I've got the energy, and I've got the time.' Well it appears that Carreon has filed suit over these matters alleging 'trademark infringement and incitement to cyber-vandalism.' Speaking of douchebaggery, Charles Carreon curiously fails to mention that he first incited all of his users to harass The Oatmeal anyway they can which they dutifully did. One last juicy detail is that Carreon is also suing the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society to which Inman's crowd sourced money is going. Luckily, Inman's lawyer appears to be fully competent and able to address Carreon's complaints."

cancel ×

390 comments

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

Obligatory (5, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358213)

"Carreon is also suing the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society"

That can't be good for business

Re:Obligatory (5, Insightful)

telekon (185072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358233)

Neither can being an "Internet lawyer" with absolutely no understanding of the Streisand Effect [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Obligatory (4, Insightful)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358329)

He's a run of the mill moron that have an overinflated ego and sense of competence. The Dunning-Kruger effect in play more or less.

Re:Obligatory (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358417)

He's a run of the mill moron that have an overinflated ego and sense of competence. The Dunning-Kruger effect in play more or less.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Peter Principle.

(Get it? Peter, FunkyJunk? Oh, never mind...)

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358569)

or even common law. oatmeal's work is easily verifiable

Re:Obligatory (2, Insightful)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358317)

Yeah, at this point it's just a publicity stunt. The cynic in me doesn't believe Carreon is dumb; look at all the extra attention and internet traffic this little affair has started.

Re:Obligatory (5, Insightful)

BenJury (977929) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358471)

And if that's where the world is going I will fight with every ounce of force in this 5'11 180 pound frame against it.

It maybe anecdotal, but I've often found the people who feel the need to mention this sort of metric in an argument like this are actually pretty dumb.

Re:Obligatory (5, Funny)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358609)

yeah, if it was something like 12 feet and 500 pounds.. now that would be impressive.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358667)

Assuming even scaling - a human that, at approximately 6 feet tall weighed 180 pounds would not be 500 pounds. He would be 1,440 pounds (again approximately). Don't forget that the size (and hence the mass / weight) doubles in each of the three dimensions (what we could call height, width, and thickness). This is why we have the cube square law that shows how that impressive 12 foot, 1,440 pound human would be unable to walk.

Re:Obligatory (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358679)

12 feet and 500 pounds

That would indeed be "funny junk".

Re:Obligatory (5, Interesting)

Saint Fnordius (456567) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358691)

Well, from what we know of this guy, it seems he really is the internet version of an ambulance chaser. He got a lucky break in the sex.com brouhaha, and now like a gambler that won a lottery jackpot he's scratching every card he can buy, desperate for the next big win. After all, look at this line from the Comic Riffs blog report:

Carreon tells Comic Riffs one of his goals is to become the go-to attorney for people who feel they have been cyber-vandalized or similarly wronged on the Internet.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/comic-riffs/post/funnyjunk-lawyer-suing-the-oatmeal-cartoonist-inman-over-indiegogo-charity-drive/2012/06/18/gJQAbZhDlV_blog.html [washingtonpost.com]

We can only hope that his hubris will soon make him the disgraced pariah that he needs to be.

Do what I do - (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358217)

Sue early, sue often. Sue pre-emptively.

Re:Do what I do - (1)

rullywowr (1831632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358461)

1. Sue

2. Lather

3. Rinse

4. Repeat

Fuck FunnyJunk. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358219)

nt

Re:Fuck FunnyJunk. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358639)

Better be wearing a rubber.

"Charles Carreon (the man who has FunnyJunk)" (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358237)

I see what you did there! Nice.

captcha: excites. Lol.

Yeah, He's Also the Lawyer for FunnyJunk (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358449)

Submitter here. I forgot to mention in the summary he's also the lawyer for FunnyJunk.

Associations (5, Funny)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358245)

You can't encourage people to ... associate me with incompetence with stupidity, and douchebaggery.

No, only you can do that. ;)

Re:Associations (5, Insightful)

ancientt (569920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358507)

That doesn't mean you can just declare netwar,

I guess I missed that part... maybe it depends on what you define as 'netwar'

that doesn't mean you can encourage people to hack my website,

Oh, that. Well, I'm pretty sure he didn't do that so I don't see the relevance.

to brute force my WordPress installation so I have to change my password.

Seriously? That's a terrible example of hacking. I might disagree with the term use generally because it ignores the honorable history of the word, but I can accept modern usage. That's not hacking by either definition. Seriously, shouldn't you use a good password anyway?

You can't encourage people to violate my trademark

Has anyone done this? Now that I think of it, actually he could, couldn't he? I don't think it would be illegal to encourage other people to take that action.

and violate my twitter name

Somebody violated your twitter? Shocking! Outrageous! Somewhat humorous!

and associate me with incompetence with stupidity, and douchebaggery.

Well, technically that's freedom of speech. There are some limits on it but I'm pretty sure you can call someone stupid, incompetent and a douchebag. Lets try it: You, Charles Carreon, are a stupid and incompetent douchebag.

Note that I didn't say anything about bravery. I think it takes an amazing level of bravery to set yourself up as the target instead of your client for the rage of a good old fashioned flame war. Bravery and stupidity are not exclusive, in fact, I think they may have a very open relationship. (I do see that there is a tempting reference there to Kodiak romance, but I'm not quite willing to make it.)

Re:Associations (2)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358677)

This very post, and all of the clicks behind it, are just kerosene to pour on the flames. Carreon isn't a twit, he's getting lots of free stuff from the crowds that go Fight! Fight! Fight! in the lunchrooms of their high schools, where their maturation process stopped.

Bravery? Douchebaggery? This is the Internet, where World==Dog. He's manipulated you, and a jillion others into clicking over truly stupid stuff. His lawyer==PR manager. Just by foisting/hoisting the argument, look at all the ostensible do-gooders he got to be sucker-baited into mess. Add in a little bit of testosterone, and you can almost smell the napalm.

Welcome to the internet (4, Funny)

f3rret (1776822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358249)

Where everything always turns into a complete shitstorm.

fun place.

Re:Welcome to the internet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358305)

Stuff like this is actually the reason why I don't run any large public sites. The legality of it all is just crazy and policing the world at large to prevent them from posting illegal material or causing other issues is an impossible task. All this for very little payoff and high risk. It's just not worth it.

Re:Welcome to the internet (4, Funny)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358459)

Someone should let Zuckerberg know that it isnt worth it. Im sure he will find that fascinating.

Re:Welcome to the internet (5, Informative)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358689)

Amusement value of that statement aside, I don't doubt that his company employs/retains one hell of an expensive legal team, who are no doubt kept quite busy.

for every site like facebook or youtube that "makes it", how many sites are there that go under not because of lack of good ideas, or good management, but because of legal action (be it legit or otherwise)?

To this day I still remember the story of small upstart hardware manufacturer Aureal, who in the late 90s/early 2000s produced the first true competitor to Creative Lab's dominance of the PC sound card market. The hardware was cheaper, the features were more advanced, and the company was a hell of a lot better to deal with. Creative Lab's solution was to sue, sue, and sue some more. Aureal won every single time, but the cost of continiously defending themselves pushed them into bankruptcy, where they were purchased for pennies on the dollar... by Creative Labs.

so yeah, fuck that.

Re:Welcome to the internet (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358527)

Stuff like this is actually the reason why I don't run any large public sites. The legality of it all is just crazy and policing the world at large to prevent them from posting illegal material or causing other issues is an impossible task. All this for very little payoff and high risk. It's just not worth it.

Yeah. That and lack of any good ideas.

Re:Welcome to the internet (1)

WankersRevenge (452399) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358701)

Right on brother ... I don't even leave my basement anymore. It's all tin foil hats and sturdy pair of depends.

Suing the ACS, really? (4, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358259)

I'm not a fan of the American Cancer Society. They are a highly inefficient charity and very little of their money goes to things like research. But, really suing a charity that's at least trying to fight cancer? I thought FunnyJunk was engaging in really poor PR but that's even worse. I can't even begin to think of a legal argument for why they should sue the ACS in this context, and even if they had a marginally plausible argument that didn't immediately invite Rule 11 sanctions ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_11%23Chapter_III_-_Pleadings_and_Motionsrel=url2html-23882 [slashdot.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_11#Chapter_III_-_Pleadings_and_Motions>, any sane lawyer would say that this would just be a bad idea. The lack of awareness here was impressive before but has no crossed over into a whole other level of stupidity and douchebaggery.

Re:Suing the ACS, really? (5, Funny)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358353)

So you're saying Funky Junk is worse than cancer?

Re:Suing the ACS, really? (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358385)

In other news, cancer has decided that the enemy of its enemy is its friend and has thus teamed up with FunnyJunk. The resulting entity has not yet been named, but FunCancer is currently favored.

Re:Suing the ACS, really? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358509)

Cancerjunk was rejected on the grounds that they might face trademark conflicts from Lance Armstrong.

Too Soon?

Re:Suing the ACS, really? (5, Interesting)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358381)

But, really suing a charity that's at least trying to fight cancer?

If he thinks he's under a shitstorm now, he just better hope it never hits the mainstream press.

Re:Suing the ACS, really? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358431)

Don't be too quick to judge the ACS. There's already a shitton of money being thrown at research. They do other things with the money as well, like supporting families while their loved one is in treatment, or helping terminally ill people have a chance at a semi-normal last few months of life.

The issue is not as cut-and-dried as "very little of their money goes to things like research".

Re:Suing the ACS, really? (5, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358557)

Some of their money does go to things that are arguably worthwhile. But a lot of it isn't even going to things like family support or end of life quality care either. The Relays for example often cost almost as much money to run as they get out of them, so the Relay for Life ends up having no substantial amount of money go anywhere useful http://www.jafsica.com/2010/04/26/life-death-cancer/ [jafsica.com] . This is a big part of why the ACS only gets three stars on financials by Charity Navigator http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495 [charitynavigator.org] . Many other groups dedicated to fighting cancer get better numbers from Charity Navigator, either in the financial category or for overall, or both.

Re:Suing the ACS, really? (3, Insightful)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358643)

The Relays for example often cost almost as much money to run as they get out of them

So what? Not everything is measured in dollars. I have several people close to me who have or had cancer, and I can't tell you how much things like Relay For Life mean to them.

Re:Suing the ACS, really? (1)

samoanbiscuit (1273176) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358499)

He also included unnamed "does" in his suit. That means either he's suing Bambi's harem of sexy wives, or he might be trolling the interwebs looking for people making comments about him he can include in the suit.

I need to patent... (5, Funny)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358273)

I need to file a patent on frivolous lawsuits. I know exactly how I'd word the letter announcing my intent to protect my IP.

"Yo dawg, I heard you like to sue, so I'm suing you for suing, so you can go to court for going to court..."

Re:I need to patent... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358409)

Seem to remember someone actually doing/trying to do that. Specifically the process of patent trolling. A brief search returned no relevant results, so maybe I dreamed it or it was an April Fools joke or something..

Re:I need to patent... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358603)

I need to file a patent on frivolous lawsuits. I know exactly how I'd word the letter announcing my intent to protect my IP.

"Yo dawg, I heard you like to sue, so I'm suing you for suing, so you can go to court for going to court..."

Hypothetically, aren't business methods now patentable?

Therefore, couldn't you (at least theoretically) patent the business method of creating a pool of patents, without producing any goods, and then suing any who would infringe upon the patent?

Oatmeal stumbled here (5, Interesting)

hsmith (818216) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358283)

Honestly: He messed up.

He should have gone on the extreme offensive and sued the shit out of Funny Junk once he got that letter. I found what he did amusing, as well as good for humanity (with his charity) - but in the end he let a useless website continue on churning out stolen content.

Granted, Inman said he seeked council before doing what he did, so perhaps he knew it was inevitable. The court case should be amusing, to say the least. I hope he counter sues for 200x the amount.

Re:Oatmeal stumbled here (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358309)

Wait until FunnyJunk gets his lawyer fees. Bet they won't be around long after that.

Re:Oatmeal stumbled here (4, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358389)

ISTR the US legal system is notoriously reluctant to award costs, mainly to prevent cases where huge companies can use "We'll claim costs against you!" as a tool to intimidate smaller organisations and individuals.

Re:Oatmeal stumbled here (2)

closetpsycho (1175221) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358549)

I think that being awarded legal costs should be more common, but only up to the amount that the loser spent. So if side A has a fairly average costing lawyer and loses to the ultra high priced legal team of side B, then side A still only has to pay as much to side B as he paid for side A. So basically, at worst, the loser would have to double his legal costs.

Re:Oatmeal stumbled here (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358681)

So if someone sues you you should spend as little as possible defending yourself, because if you lose you are going to have double your legal costs? What a stupid idea.

Re:Oatmeal stumbled here (2)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358661)

unfortunately, this also means that big corporations can use "our highly trained team of lawyers will tie you up in legal processes that it'll cost you far more than you can afford.... and you can't even claim costs when err, if you win, haha" as a tool to intimidate smaller organisations and individuals.

Re:Oatmeal stumbled here (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358477)

Copyright is not theft you idiot. Stop pushing the *AA's propaganda.

Shortman syndrome (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358291)

He basically admitted to having shortman syndrome. The little dick is implied.

Can't associate him with douchebaggery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358293)

Nope, we can't.

Cuz it's too late.

He done did it himself already.

Carreon, you ARE a douchebag.

Wow ... (1)

mister2au (1707664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358315)

ummm .... #winning I guess ... for acts of douchebaggery

Only in 2012 (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358319)

Can you see a "news" headline like this

"FunnyJunk Sues the Oatmeal Over TM "

Re:Only in 2012 (3, Informative)

Internal Modem (1281796) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358377)

As an article, "the" is always lowercase in title case sentences...unless it is part of a proper noun. Samzenpus is one of the most illiterate editors ever.

Re:Only in 2012 (0)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358693)

Can you see a "news" headline like this

"FunnyJunk Sues the Oatmeal Over TM "

If FunnyJunk got the tm from the Oatmeal, then it would be the Oaeal.

Come on editors (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358325)

The title is wrong. Read the linked articles. Charles Carreon is the lawyer, he is suing several of these entities on his own, not representing FunkyJunk.

The line

Charles Carreon (the man who has FunnyJunk)

ranges from ambiguous to wrong. He is not the owner of this awful site.

one word (0)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358337)

kindergarden

Re:one word (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358369)

kindergarten

Nice Op-Ed.. err i mean Summary (-1)

lemur3 (997863) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358343)

Whats with the blatently biased summary ?

is slashdot even gonna pretend that they can talk about stuff like this without such stuff ?

Whether youre a person who 'supports' one side or the other on this or not.. I'd imagine that this is a thing that belongs in some kind of 'opinion' section.

Re:Nice Op-Ed.. err i mean Summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358531)

Who are you kidding?

FJ are blatantly IP trolls. (who are abusing a product THEY DON'T EVEN OWN!)
We take the piss out of them on /. all the time. Where have you been?

Wrong (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358345)

FunnyJunk isn't suing.
FunnyJunk's Lawyer is suing.

Re:Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358659)

Or is it the lawyer's FunnyJunk that's doing the suing? Whoa, meta!

I think a countersuit is definitely in order (4, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358347)

I hop Oatmeal countersues that 5'11 180 pound frame prick into oblivion.

This is fantastic. (5, Insightful)

p0p0 (1841106) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358355)

I love it. It's so open and shut in favor of The Oatmeal. He never incited anyone. He in fact mentions that he DIDN'T incite anyone and that it was FunnyJunk who messaged their userbase to confront The Oatmeal, or at least very heavily implied they should. Everything The Oatmeal has done is retaliatory, in defense, and FJ has been on the offense for the entire situation.
God knows why. Money I suppose. The Oatmeal's comics are popular and probably bring a lot of traffic when the comics are linked to FJ and not The Oatmeal.

Everytime the owner of FJ speaks he tries to paint himself as the one being hurt, but all the damage is self-induced by the bad PR he's constantly causing by sending rude messages and generally un-gentlemanly behavior.

Now if this ever does reach court, I'm sure it'll be decently long as FJ tries to throw everything it can at The Oatmeal because if they lose the Streisand Effect will hit even harder. I'm sure at least some users will leave, but more importantly they'll lose many potential users just because of they'll be shown beforehand how FJ operates.

Either way, I'm going to just grab some popcorn and enjoy. I can't wait for The Oatmeal's response to this. Should have just complied with the takedown request (it was a request, The Oatmeal never once filed a DMCA) but apparently the owner of FJ just can't stand being told (asked) what to do.

Re:This is fantastic. (5, Interesting)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358453)

Before everyone finishes patting themselves on the back about how stupid Carreon is, how he has invoked the Streisand effect and a bunch of bad PR ask yourself this: How many of us had honestly even heard of Funnyjunk before today.

Given that it contains so much user submitted content, imagine how many ads have been served on pages where people have gone to flame them, despite the bulk of slashdot readers using adblocks on unfamiliar sites.

I wonder if his ego might still have them laughing all the way to the bank depending on how long it takes them to drop or settle the suits. Even before the internet its been known in marketing that the only bad publicity is no publicity.

Re:This is fantastic. (3, Interesting)

hsmith (818216) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358551)

Never heard of Funny Junk before this. But, I still have never visited their site. So, no gain for them really.

Re:This is fantastic. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358663)

I visited for you. It's really shitty. Basically, it's all the racist and stupid shit that your idiot high school classmate posts on facebook collected in one place.

For example, on the front page of funny junk right now there is a joke about black people who say "shizzle" and eat fried chicken. And, its not even funny. FunnyJunk is run by an idiot scumbag, for idiot scumbags.

Re:This is fantastic. (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358561)

I'd actually heard of it. Mostly from people bitching about how a) very little junk on there is actually funny, and b) they seem to slap big watermarks on anything uploaded. I'm not surprised that their management/legal counsel are morons - their main userbase consists of people who find outdated, misused memes and "lol so random!" "humor" to be funny.

Re:This is fantastic. (4, Insightful)

aaron552 (1621603) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358589)

I knew that FunnyJunk was basically the new ebaumsworld - or at least the subsequent iteration (9GAG is the next one) of the "take other people's content, add advertising, profit" business model - but little more than that. Now I also know that its lawyer is unbelievably ignorant about the internet and the Streisand Effect.

Re:This is fantastic. (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358695)

I knew that FunnyJunk was basically the new ebaumsworld

Thank you. I had never heard of it before, and now I understand why. And I had only heard of 9fag because they tried to worm their way around 4chan a few months ago.

Re:This is fantastic. (2)

Jumperalex (185007) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358605)

I may now have heard of it but I can promise you one thing: I have never visited nor will I ever. No click counts, no ad impressions, nothing. The only thing they might get from me is a bump in google ranking due to links (if I actually created links) but that would ONLY be the result of propogating this very story, a story that is not going to help them in the long run, even if it helps them in the short run. I do however now know who The Oatmeal is :)

Re:This is fantastic. (1)

p0p0 (1841106) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358651)

I've known of it. I've visited. Never liked it. The userbase tend to pick one thing to completely obsesses about for a week before they move on and it causes all the posts to be completely the same. It's also just kids who haven't seen a lot of content that has existed for a long time and get excited easily. Also, I use Ad-block so there is no revenue there. If I do visit, it's directly to the URL and not google, so no referrals there.

13-year-old girl wrote summary. (0, Troll)

Internal Modem (1281796) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358359)

The summary is so poorly written, assuming that the reader knows and cares about tiny details and any of players, that I am finally convinced the real Slashdot is dead.

Re:13-year-old girl wrote summary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358441)

With a UID that high it was dead before you joined.

Guess I'm the 13 Year Old Girl (3, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358489)

The summary is so poorly written, assuming that the reader knows and cares about tiny details and any of players, that I am finally convinced the real Slashdot is dead.

Sorry to suck so badly. I'll try harder next time. Thought my name was good around here but apparently I'm the end of Slashdot. Care to rewrite the summary in a concise manner so I can take notes? It's really really easy to leave empty criticisms with no valid critiques and rhetoric about how Slashdot is dead. But someone's modding you up so I'll bite. You have zero submissions and 150 comments [slashdot.org] ? I hate to say it but I think I've been registered on here a bit longer than you and have been a little more active (that's me on the hall of fame list for submitters) ... but we who paraphrase, link, write book reviews and write comments with content, we're the ones who are ruining Slashdot? Got it.

Re:Guess I'm the 13 Year Old Girl (5, Insightful)

Bad Ad (729117) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358529)

How many submissions/comments and how short/long his UID is doesn't make you more literate than him.

Re:Guess I'm the 13 Year Old Girl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358617)

How many submissions/comments and how short/long his UID is doesn't make you more literate than him.

Obviously it was in response to "the real Slashdot is dead" statement and not who's more literate. "The real Slashdot" is the people who have contributed to this site meaningfully over the years. The first post in this thread was basically saying that the submitter is ruining Slashdot but how can that be if he's been around for a long enough time?

A little better punctuation would go a long way. (1)

vjlen (187941) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358541)

The quoted text from Carreon is too long and you get the feeling someone fell asleep writing it. I re-read it a second time, imagining better formatting and it read better, IMO.

Please Help Me Through Demonstration (2, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358595)

The quoted text from Carreon is too long and you get the feeling someone fell asleep writing it. I re-read it a second time, imagining better formatting and it read better, IMO.

So help me out here, can you show me what you mean? I basically grabbed those quotes from the two news articles where he gave interviews. I'm not one to change the language, punctuation or grammar of what someone is quoted as saying from a reputable news source. Please, if you want to help me, tell me what I was supposed to do with the quote in this article [forbes.com] :

“So someone takes one of my letters and takes it apart. That doesn’t mean you can just declare netwar, that doesn’t mean you can encourage people to hack my website, to brute force my WordPress installation so I have to change my password. You can’t encourage people to violate my trademark and violate my twitter name and associate me with incompetence with stupidity, and douchebaggery,” he says. “And if that’s where the world is going I will fight with every ounce of force in this 5’11 180 pound frame against it. I’ve got the energy, and I’ve got the time.”

That's how it appears in Forbes and it's the entire basis for his lawsuit so I thought it was important. I took his words and left Forbes' interjections because that's their work and also when you're writing a summary it should be concise so I remove the "he said" and "she wrote" pieces.

I'm willing to learn and get better at this. It's really hard when people just say "You're a 13 year old girl, you're illiterate and other people's quotes are too long." Any helpful suggestions are greatly appreciated -- especially when they're more constructive than name calling.

Re:Please Help Me Through Demonstration (4, Insightful)

Internal Modem (1281796) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358645)

Where in the summary did you provide any context for the news? You are not writing about a feud between well-known characters such as Steve Ballmer and Sergey Brin. There is no reason we should know who these people are and care about this issue solely based on your summary. Aside from the players, the issue being argued isn't clear, and the summary devolves into a he said, she said ramble.

Yep, You Are That 13 Year Old Girl.... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358629)

Howzabout you start by changing both the title and text to correctly state that it's Charles Carreon the private citizen who happens to be a lawyer who is suing The Oatmeal, and not Charles Carreon the lawyer acting on behalf of client FunnyJunk? TFA does not report that FunnyJunk is suing Inman, whether that happens eventually or not. Hell, I didn't even have to read your summary or TFA to know the title was misleading.

Boy, you musta had one helluva drunken debauched weekend. I've never seen you produce text this incoherent and just plain wrong here before (though I'm sure someone else who has been obsessively scrutinizing you for years will now pop in and correct me with Slashdot citations).

Let's Really Fix that Headline! (-1, Troll)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358697)

Oh my god you're right, so the title should have been:

Charles Carreon Sues the Oatmeal Over TM and "Incitement To Cyber-Vandalism"

But wait! Even that's not correct, how does one sue a website? Charles Carreon isn't suing a website, he's suing Matthew Inman! So it really should have read:

Charles Carreon Sues Matthew Inman Over TM and "Incitement To Cyber-Vandalism"

Actually, that's not quite true either. If you read the links you'll find out that the suit names multiple defendants and Inman is only one of them so the title should have been:

Charles Carreon Sues Matthew Inman; IndieGogo Inc.; National Wildlife Federation; American Cancer Society; and Does Over TM and "Incitement To Cyber-Vandalism"

And abbreviating trademark as TM? Well, that's totally 13 year old girl! So now we have:

Charles Carreon Sues Matthew Inman; IndieGogo Inc.; National Wildlife Federation; American Cancer Society; and Does Over Trademark Infringement and "Incitement To Cyber-Vandalism"

There, that is correct! Seriously, dude, for the sake of brevity can I catch a break? Trust me, I've produced much more incorrect shit than this [slashdot.org] but you only get so many characters in the title.

Re:Guess I'm the 13 Year Old Girl (5, Informative)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358653)

It really was very poorly written. Here are some tips:

- Get rid of the sarcastic editorializing like "FunnyJunk's extortion ... er ... threat of defamation". It is immature and doesn't help the summary in anyway. Right or wrong, you should keep your opinions to yourself.

- Formatting is your friend. A wall of text does not make for an interesting read. As somebody pointed out you quoted too much of the linked article. People know how to read for themselves.

- Some of your wording is awkward. "with 8 days left he has only garnered 900% of his goal". It makes the 900% look like a typo for 90%. You should have said "Even with 8 days remaining he has already surpassed his goal by $xx".

- Less links. I think you could have summarized where things stand more concisely and then listed links that people can reference for more information.

Hope that helps.

Re:13-year-old girl wrote summary. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358511)

Not only that, but I can't even figure out what's supposed to be happening. I've never heard of either site, the summary text is too long and it doesn't help me figure out who might be in the right (except that it has an obvious bias).

"...threat of defamation lawsuit against The Oatmeal highlighting a fairly pervasive problem of rehosting content..." Oh, so The Oatmeal is a site that rehosts content without asking? That's messed up, they should be sued. Wait, they're not? Who did what? I don't get it.

"Charles Carreon (the man who has FunnyJunk) has made statements of Inman saying..." Huh? So who's saying what now?

TL;DC (don't care)

mod parent down !!! (1)

lemur3 (997863) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358637)

Yeah the summary is poorly written..

BUT I AGREE WITH IT!!!

Careful, editors... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358363)

...do you want to be the next target of this internet troll? I would caution against the use of the word "extortion".

Remember the guy who invented the term "patent troll"? He did that because his use of the phrase "patent extortion" brought a libel suit [mises.org] . Just like Penn & Teller's show, "Bullshit", they're using a negative (but subjective!) term to criticize people who probably have it coming, but the terminology gets them off any legal hooks for libel.

Posting anon because I've been moderating... couldn't help myself.

We often complain that the law is too complex... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358387)

...yet when I read this lawyer's letter, I see why and think perhaps complexity in the law is a good thing: because it's dealing with complex issues. The lawyer cites cases where it was determined that statements have to be made in a context where people will take them seriously, before those statements can be taken as libelous or slanderous. I would have never thought to look for that defense. Which is why he's a lawyer and I'm not, right?

I suppose what still irks me is that hiring a lawyer can be a necessity in a modern, complex society, just like getting emergency room treatment can be a necessity. An ER will not turn you away if you need treatment (by law they must treat you). But if you need "emergency" legal representation, unless it's a public defender, where does one turn? If you can't afford a lawyer, and you live in a complex society where a lawyer is an occassional necessity, what are your options?

I think I speak for everyone when I say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358433)

meh..

That's not quite what's happening (4, Informative)

Roujo (2577771) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358445)

The title is wrong. FunnyJunk isn't suing, their lawyer Charles Carreon is. He's not representing them, he's representing himself. At least, that's what I got from the title of the case on Courthouse News Service, "Charles Carreon v Matthew Inman".

Thank god. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358479)

Fuck Funnyjunk, sick of seeing it. It is getting as bad as Ebaums World was in its prime.

I'm fine with people hosting work and linking directly to the original content creators (and taking it down at the request of content creators), but when people take effort to steal content by slapping logos or erasing other logos off work and so on, it gets a bit pathetic.

Bring it down a level, please.

Now if only we could do this with Zynga too. And Facebook. They are the counterparts of these 2 in their respective industries.

So, when funnyjunks users upload false stuff its.. (4, Insightful)

djsmiley (752149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358491)

Ok, just copyright infringment by the users, but not the site.

However,

When Oatmeal users possibly libel/troll/flame/attack (ahahah yeah right) others, that IS TheOatmeals fault?

Double standards much?

Who did what to whom? (5, Funny)

biodata (1981610) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358521)

I don't know who FunnyJunk or TheOatmeal are, and this article doesn't inspire me to find out.

Re:Who did what to whom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358665)

Well, one is a website owned by and filled with nothing but the content created by a single person that many people find hilarious. The other is a website where people copy-paste stuff (...) from other websites without permission of any kind. You should be able to take sides now.

Re:Who did what to whom? (1, Insightful)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358685)

FunnyJunk is like YouTube - a reasonably popular site where users upload content and other users view that content while advertisements around it garner YouTube some money for the service provided.

TheOatmeal is like the RIAA - somebody who believes their content, in this case comics, was 'stolen' and sent a DMCA take-down notice while lambasting that very same system because it doesn't foresee in preventing the same or future comics from being uploaded by users again and is hoping for stronger measures to be available in the future.

Wait... I think I may have gotten the analogies mixed up.. I think we're supposed to root for TheOatmeal here. Let's try that again.

FunnyJunk is one of those run-of-the-mill filfth-of-the-internet sites similar to ebaumsworld that take the hard work of others (via their minion users) and profit off of it (though ads) without so much as a kudos to the original creator nevermind proper attribution or a way to share in the advertisement dollars.

TheOatmeal is such an independent artist creating original content that holds great value, and who exercised his lawful right in terms of copyright and distribution rights by sending a takedown notice to FunnyJunk.

Whichever way you lean: drama of the internets.

If they settle out of court there'll be plenty of winners: FunnyJunk and TheOatmeal for all the exposure, the lawyers for drafting a few letters, and the charities for the money raised. The cynic in me almost wants this to have been staged.

Handbags at dawn! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358545)

Its the only solution.

Class action... (1)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358547)

This has class action written all over it. Everyone ripped off by FunnyJunk should join it, and bury that f**cker so deep that his bones will only be exposed for a brief millisecond when a supernova Sun eventually envelopes the Earth.

dumb fuck (4, Insightful)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358563)

"You can't encourage people to [...] associate me with incompetence with stupidity, and douchebaggery."

No, that was all you. You vomit-smeared, feckless pile of yak shit.

Funkyjunk sues own lawyer now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358571)

Since the Funkyjunk's Lawyer is now causing problems for Funkyjunk, Funkeyjunk needs to add his lawyer to the lawsuit.

die (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40358627)

who gives a shit? fuck off...

Slashdot hypocricy, Chapter MXMLVICIMWHATEVER (-1, Troll)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358647)

RIAA vs, say, Pirate Bay.
"TPB is just a forum!" (TPB, $5m+ in ad revenue)

Some site vs some guy who drew a funny picture that includes a bear:
"Give money to the guy who drew a funny picture that includes a bear!"

yes, the infringing site in this case is clearly made of a-holes, but nevertheless the selective support for rightsholders and selective rationalizations that lead to such support on slashdot is staggering in its hypocrisy.

I thought that Carreon was the lawyer? (1)

mstra (38238) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358649)

Pretty sure Charles ("Chaz") Carreon is the lawyer that FunnyJunk hired, whereas the summary states he is the owner of FJ. This is kind of a different spin on the story so it should be corrected.

No. (1, Informative)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358669)

You can't encourage people to ... associate me with incompetence with stupidity, and douchebaggery.

No dude, you did that on your own.

Here it is: the final nail in Slashdot's coffin (1, Informative)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40358699)

As if our resident SEO spammer wasn't writing on the wall enough, now we have here a well-known rather high-profile regular who submits an article for publishing after having failed to even read the article he's referenced correctly or fully, producing BOTH a misleading summary AND title... AND it gets approved.

Slashdot is dead, long live... Google+?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>