Slashdot Mirror

The lack of aggressively defending your trademark can cause you to lose it in the future.
That is at least part of why the Second Life lawyers granted a license to the getafirstlife guy.
(a copy of the "cease and desist" letter is here: http://farmersreallysucks.com/editorialgetafirstlife.shtml)
-nB

4:
Citation:
my wife.
http://farmersreallysucks.com/storymystory.shtml
-nB

Tell me about it
-nB

Just to be fair:
you can register a trademark on a color(pantone)/font face and especially the combination of the two...
so it is plausible.
We all can assume that grammatical errors can happen.
so it is still plausible.
We all know how *reasonable* lawyers are, and to that end the elimination of the use of a color seems perfectly reasonable.
so it is still plausible.
BUT the letter was awfully nice compared to the Normal type of C&D but not as enlightened as this one.
So it is no longer plausible and I (and Occam's razor) concur. April fools.
-nB

Just to be fair:
you can register a trademark on a color(pantone)/font face and especially the combination of the two...
so it is plausible.
We all can assume that grammatical errors can happen.
so it is still plausible.
We all know how *reasonable* lawyers are, and to that end the elimination of the use of a color seems perfectly reasonable.
so it is still plausible.
BUT the letter was awfully nice compared to the Normal type of C&D but not as enlightened as this one.
So it is no longer plausible and I (and Occam's razor) concur. April fools.
-nB

Or you simply exercise fair use and comment on the C&D, quoting relevant passages as needed. With sufficient commentary the entire C&D ends up legally posted as quotations:
http://www.farmersreallysucks.com/editorialtakedown1.shtml
-nB

How to get bad press: http://farmersreallysucks.com/editorialtakedown1.shtml
How to get *good* press: http://farmersreallysucks.com/editorialgetafirstlife.shtml
-nB

How to get bad press: http://farmersreallysucks.com/editorialtakedown1.shtml
How to get *good* press: http://farmersreallysucks.com/editorialgetafirstlife.shtml
-nB

Sadly this is true.
One of the admins of a site parallel to my own gripe site (sig) was taken to court by Farmers. The estimates are that they spent north of $700K to litigate the case. His legal fees were in the $200K territory. It was only through heaps of pro-bono time and assistance from his home-owners insurance that he was able to fight the case, and his is one with gobs of precedent (gripe sites/free speech/fair use). In the end the case was settled out of court and part of the settlement was a confidentiality clause (I'm assuming this is SOP) so I don't know the details of the deal, but his site is still up and last time I was on the phone with him I asked him how he was financially, with his house and such, and got a positive answer.

It's only because they "lost" that case and because I'm in California with its wonderful SLAPP-Back statue that I think they have not outright sued me... yet. That and my riveting response to their C&D letter: http://www.farmersreallysucks.com/editorialtakedown1.shtml.

The main difference I see (and am disturbed by) between cases like Rene's and the RIAA cases is the dragnet methods the RIAA use for identifying targets. The rest I see as fairly uniform IP sleaze law practice.
-nB

This was my concern as well. Seeing as I operate a gripe site that has been threatened, I am constantly wary of developments like this. So far I have confidence that I am in the right in my site's right to exist according to US code Title 15 and 22, but all it takes is a big enough lobby group to remove those rights from me.

For those interested in the lawyers threat and my response (with annotations to US code) it can be found here: http://farmersreallysucks.com/editorialtakedown1.s html
-nB

Maybe you should read the privacy policy on my site: http://www.farmersreallysucks.com/privacy.shtml I deal nicely with the problem. If someone has a beef with farmers and wants to post it, I'll conduct the whole exchange through e-mail, then post the page to the internet, unlinked from the website. They say "yes that's what I want to say" then I delete all my correspondence with them and finally link the page into the site.

If I get a subpoena I'll comply with the following statement: Due to standard operating procedure I have no records of who posted that message in question.

Again, it kinda fits with your statement in that I take my submitters privacy very seriously, but I am not a privacy service so to speak.
-nB

In fact you are very correct. (I was honestly blown away).
I've written about this on my site below in my sig, or specifically in the editorial section: http://www.farmersreallysucks.com/editorialgetafir stlife.shtml

While the response from Linden Labs was permissive, in another editorial (the one why Arent Fox sucks) I pick apart the inherent error in judgment sending a stern C&D letter up-front. You can always send a nice letter and follow up with threats if necessary. In the meantime, anyone who would shut down their site upon utterance of lawyers will still do so, and you'll get a feel for those of us who know our rights before you stick you foot in it, like Farmers lawyers did.
-nB

*psst*
They didn't want you to point out that bit.

Kinda like the C&D I got from Farmers, they quoted a whole lot of crap from Title 15, but when you look there are two halves and they were quoting from the commercial half. The other half says: comparitive/critical/commentary/educational/etc. uses are exempt.

The entire C&D with annotated commentary is available here:
http://farmersreallysucks.com/cgi-bin/QAD_CMS.pl?p age=E1_First_Takedown.html Basically the same concept, just a different reason.
-nB

Thus I refer you to:
http://farmersreallysucks.com/cgi-bin/QAD_CMS.pl?p age=E1_First_Takedown.html
Where I demonstrate that taking on a multinational corporation is possible, if even only in a small nook of hyperspace.

Also, some of us do things on the fringe of legality because we are some combination of "it's fun" and we're stupid. (see sig)

-nB

It is unnerving when you get one of those letters.
here's mine:
http://farmersreallysucks.com/cgi-bin/QAD_CMS.pl?p age=E1_First_Takedown.html
Anyway, my first reaction was "Oh Shit, Oh Shit, Oh Shit" then I took some time and realised that they were using baseless assertions, thus I got a little pissed. Finally I spent the next week looking up laws in US Title 15 and writing my rebuttal (the red text).
-nB

Take a moment and visit the takedown notice: http://farmersreallysucks.com/cgi-bin/QAD_CMS.pl?p age=E1_First_Takedown.html and you can read all the claims that the lawyers used to attempt to force the site down. All the counterclaims are in red, and while IANAL, I did have one read my response and he did greenlight it as accurate..

Or, more to the point than your lawyer green-lighting it, is that their lawyers read it and realized you were not going to cave in to their half-baked leagally unfounded takedown notice.

I love reading takedown notices like that. They're usually so obviously cow plop that it just reeks of desperation.

Anybody, lawyer or not, can threaten to sue to get someone to do what they want. There have been countless examples of this on the internet. It costs next to nothing, and if they get you to do what they want without suing then it doesn't matter if their legal claims were baseless. It doesn't matter if their legal claims would have gotten them disbarred or fined for filing a frivilous suit because they never had to show up in court. On the other hand if you don't do what they want and they cave, then it's pretty clear how legitimate their complaint was to begin with. It's not as if Farmers Insurance would worry about the legal cost of pursuing their completely legitimate case!

Man I fucked up that other post. PREVIEW, always use PREVIEW!

Take a moment and visit the takedown notice: http://farmersreallysucks.com/cgi-bin/QAD_CMS.pl?p age=E1_First_Takedown.html and you can read all the claims that the lawyers used to attempt to force the site down. All the counterclaims are in red, and while IANAL, I did have one read my response and he did greenlight it as accurate.their lawyers read it and realized you were not going to cave in to their half-baked leagally unfounded takedown notice.

I love reading takedown notices like that. They're usually so obviously cow plop that it just reeks of desperation.

Anybody, lawyer or not, can threaten to sue to get someone to do what they want. There have been countless examples of this on the internet. It costs next to nothing, and if they get you to do what they want without suing then it doesn't matter if their legal claims were baseless. It doesn't matter if their legal claims would have gotten them disbarred or fined for filing a frivilous suit because they never had to show up in court. On the other hand if you don't do what they want and they cave, then it's pretty clear how legitimate their complaint was to begin with. It's not as if Farmers Insurance would worry about the legal cost of pursuing their completely legitimate case!

The domain name is usually considered protected speech so long as the content is not actionable (slander/libel, (C) infringement, TM infringement, etc.)

For example: http://farmersreallysucks.com/ is a website about my experience with Farmers Insurance. All I say is either factual, or commentary. In the case of factual information, it is not actionable, in the case of commentary, that too is protected speech, even if inflammitory, so long as it is not represented as fact.

I can say: I think/believe/feel/am of the opinion/[any other qualifier] that Farmers is a bunch of scum sucking aholes, the bottom of the insurance barrel. I would believe it if you told me they ate their children and sacrificed policy holders in satanic rituals.

What I can not do is: Farmers, an insurance company, is comprised of asshats that eat children.

The former was a statement of opinion, the latter of fact (and not accurate, making it libel).

Take a moment and visit the takedown notice: http://farmersreallysucks.com/cgi-bin/QAD_CMS.pl?p age=E1_First_Takedown.html and you can read all the claims that the lawyers used to attempt to force the site down. All the counterclaims are in red, and while IANAL, I did have one read my response and he did greenlight it as accurate.
Cheers,
-nB

The domain name is usually considered protected speech so long as the content is not actionable (slander/libel, (C) infringement, TM infringement, etc.)

For example: http://farmersreallysucks.com/ is a website about my experience with Farmers Insurance. All I say is either factual, or commentary. In the case of factual information, it is not actionable, in the case of commentary, that too is protected speech, even if inflammitory, so long as it is not represented as fact.

I can say: I think/believe/feel/am of the opinion/[any other qualifier] that Farmers is a bunch of scum sucking aholes, the bottom of the insurance barrel. I would believe it if you told me they ate their children and sacrificed policy holders in satanic rituals.

What I can not do is: Farmers, an insurance company, is comprised of asshats that eat children.

The former was a statement of opinion, the latter of fact (and not accurate, making it libel).

Take a moment and visit the takedown notice: http://farmersreallysucks.com/cgi-bin/QAD_CMS.pl?p age=E1_First_Takedown.html and you can read all the claims that the lawyers used to attempt to force the site down. All the counterclaims are in red, and while IANAL, I did have one read my response and he did greenlight it as accurate.
Cheers,
-nB

I have only one question for you:
Free Speech, how far will you go?
http://farmersreallysucks.com/
Will you tell their lawyers to take a flying leap?
My current host does.
-nB

I've had great luck with pagesgarden.com as a host. I have a gripe site there:
http://farmersreallysucks.com/
and when the lawyers came knocking the ISP said take it up with the domain admin, we ain't touching it because it doesn't violate our terms of service (no porn, spam, hate, all reasonable and basic).
-nB

I like my ISP.
I ost a gripe site, which is obviously not popular with the company. They sent a C&D e-mail to my ISP and to me.
My ISP said blow me, talk to the admin, the site is not against our TOS we won't shut it down.

While they are not the feds, I hear about many ISPs terminating a site because a large company sicks their lawyers on the host rather than the admin.

the site (if you're interested) is http://farmersreallysucks.com/

The takedown notice is a good read:
http://farmersreallysucks.com/E1_First_Takedown.ht ml
-nB

I like my ISP.
I ost a gripe site, which is obviously not popular with the company. They sent a C&D e-mail to my ISP and to me.
My ISP said blow me, talk to the admin, the site is not against our TOS we won't shut it down.

While they are not the feds, I hear about many ISPs terminating a site because a large company sicks their lawyers on the host rather than the admin.

the site (if you're interested) is http://farmersreallysucks.com/

The takedown notice is a good read:
http://farmersreallysucks.com/E1_First_Takedown.ht ml
-nB

only really applies to government censorship anyway.
for example my domain:
http://farmersreallysucks.com/
is the subject of attempted corporate censorship. If I didn't live in a state with rules against SLAPP suits they would have succeded in closing down my site.

Happens all the time to gripe sites. They are legal, but repeated lawsuits leave the host and/or content creator without funds to continue.
-nB

But the argument for potential confusion is there.

With *sucks or *reallysucks domains the confusion argument is rendered mute by the bulk of US court decisions. Hence part of why I chose http://farmersreallysucks.com/
rather than some common mis-spelling of farmers.com or farmersinsurance.com.
-nB