Slashdot Mirror
Rec.humor.funny Threatened by MasterCard
MotyaKatz writes: "The last article in the rec.humor.funny newsgroup comes from the editor (aka moderator), Brad Templeton
himself. Amazingly, after two years, MasterCard decided that this joke violates their "priceless" trademark and requested its immediate removal. The reply of Mr. Templeton shows the sense of humor only the RHF editor can have!"
Templeton's response was right on target. But I can't help taking a crack at it:
Getting the idea that you should protect your brands on the internet: free.
Hiring firms to search out and police such "violations": $millions.
Getting slammed with negative publicity because you're sending out cease-and-desist letters like a bunch of idiots, which makes your customers think of your stupidity whenever they see your commercial: $millions more.
Learning from your mistakes the first time you make them: priceless.
There are some experiences that money can't buy. For every other mistake you make multiple times, firing the executive responsible is fun too.
Now that's interesting... The GOP recently pushed forward a bill that would make it harder for people declaring bankruptcy to get out of credit card debt.
Then to find that there is a direct connection between the GOP and Mastercard.
Well actually, not surprised. Just didn't realize the connection was so direct.
--
Dunx
Dunx
Converting caffeine into code since 1982
Are they absolutely sure it's a real cease and desist?
/. from bashing Mastercard anyway. :-)
Seems like this guy would be a prime target for a practical joke...
I would say it is a joke, nothing more.
The reply is dated April, 1 (as seen in the URL).
Where the letter is posted, the title bar of my browser reads, "April 3, 2001". And the letter itself is dated April 9, 2001.
So basically, he replied to the letter on April 1, posted the letter on April 3, and was sent the letter on April 9. Not a very good practical joke.
But that won't stop anyone on
Are they absolutely sure it's a real cease and desist?
Seems like this guy would be a prime target for a practical joke...
Every time there's a Slashdot story discussing a legal issue, one or more lawyers post and make the point that laypeople misunderstand the law, or often, that laypeople shouldn't be discussing legal issues in a public forum because they'll inevitably get everything wrong. And it's good that lawyers point this out, because the sad truth is that we *do* seem to get most things wrong.
There's the real problem - laypeople are expected to obey the law in a society whose laws we can't hope to understand. Shall we all hire lawyers to accompany us through life to make sure we don't accidentally break the law? I'm not trolling - it's really a serious problem, especially for people on Slashdot, who tend to be involved in Internet endeavors where the chance for accidentally committing IP infringement - and getting "caught" - is high. As you might suspect from my name, "plagiarist," I too have had these problems.
The effect of this is that people with lots of access to lawyers (i.e. corporations) have a very effective hegemony in regards to preventing the rest of us from speaking negatively against them. In other words, many people dare not speak out by parodying a corporation or otherwise speaking critically of them, for fear that a) "Big Brother is Watching," b) "I am Not a Lawyer, so I don't know what's protected and what isn't" and c) "therefore I'd better speak softly - and drop the big stick."
That's what I see as the real problem. Then again, IANAL.
Fortunately I think this is the typical scattershot cease and desist letter a lot of firms send out just to look like they are pretecting marks and to scare people who don't know better.
I wasn't scared by it, but I did enjoy responding to a legal letter like that, and I wanted to get the message out to people not to be intimidated by such tactics.
But really, the picked the wrong guy. Aside from my history dealing with attempts to censor rec.humor.funny, I've also been a plaintiff in a free speech case before the supreme court, and I am chairman of the board of the leading free speech foundation for cyberspace (EFF). So while they did customize the letter, they didn't do to much research, did they?
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Here is his contact info:
Russell H. Falconer
BakerBotts
212.408.2564
FAX 212.705.5020
russell.falconer@bakerbotts.com
30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA 44TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10112-0228
I am sure he would love to hear more of those!
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Id just throw a semi-colon in there and call it a day.
There are some things money can't buy; for everything else there's Mastercard
I sorta like
I don't think that's all it was. One of the early "priceless" commercials was about the look on your high school classmates faces when they see you at the reunion in the fancy expensive dress. Turning that into a Columbine reference ("the look on your classmates' faces as you blow them away") is, in fact, a very pointed and incisive parody of the MasterCard commercial itself--making the point that they are, after all, just selling another kind of revenge fantasy.
With that said, Mastercard probably could not bring a successful cause of action against RHF. Not because parody and satire are always protected, but because the statements in this case could not rise to the level of an actual offense, e.g. business libel, deceptive practices, or other state statutory or other common law claims. The point is, don't think that you can insult, disparage, or mislead with impunity because you have labeled a statement "satire." Seriously.
The other point is this: Mastercard is not sending the letters because it wants to sue RHF, or because it is serious about making RHF cease and desist. For a large company like Mastercard, it is a worthwhile investment to have a staff of cubicled drones, supervised by a third-rate attorney, who is in turn supervised by far better atttorneys up the line, to mail merge and send threatening letters to people who refer to their trademarks, trade dresses, or other intellectual property in manners which they would not prefer.
The threat itself isn't supposed to be effectual, but the act of making a show to protect their IP is significant. It shows their competitors or actual, putative infringers that they are watching what's going on, and that they will take action if people get out of line. That way, when a competitor tries to appropriate their IP in a manner that they do not wish, they can prove to the judge or jury just how valuable their investment is, and how much they have spent in time and effort to protect it.
Write a newspaper letter using the term Kleenex as a generic name for tissue. If your letter garners enough attention, you will receive a letter from the Legal Department of the company that manufactures Kleenex for just that reason. They want to make sure that you understand the difference between Kleenex (proper noun) and the concept of tissue paper generally. They do not want you to dilute their mark in a manner that hastens its descent into public domain. But more importantly, they want to be able to prove that they care about how their IP is being used when a real threat to their IP surfaces.
From that site...
MSCE Training: $7200
MCSE Certification: $540
MCSE logo on your resume: $0
Getting a job because of the logo: +$60,000/year
The look on your fellow techicians face when you don't know how to login to an NT workstation: Priceless
There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's MasterCard. Accepted everywhere, even at Microsoft.
How about the A+ (Should that be A-?) who was afraid to replace a power supply... It takes all kinds....
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
rec.humor.funny ... does this mean that the rest of the rec.humor groups are unfunny?