Slashdot Mirror


Penny Arcade vs. American Greetings Revisited

Jojo writes "After American Greetings got some lawyers to bring down a Penny Arcade strip (M i r r o r) last week, PA is now striking back.. IANAL, but I fear their latest strip might get them into real trouble this time." As always, PA cracks me up, but these are scary events. The banned strip is clearly a work of parody, which I believe is still legal in this country, unless that too changed recently.

571 comments

  1. Admirable pluck... by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Funny

    At least they have a smile on their face as they get bent over...

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    1. Re:Admirable pluck... by Blaine+Hilton · · Score: 1
      Its always good to see people stand up for their rights.

      Go calculate something

    2. Re:Admirable pluck... by rmadmin · · Score: 1

      Its even better to see when its something hillarious like this. :-)

    3. Re:Admirable pluck... by JerkBoB · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Its always good to see people stand up for their rights.

      Are you offering to foot their legal bills?

      Didn't think so. The image has been archived and mirrored, and nothing AG's laywers can do will be able to stop people from finding the image, even if it's not at the PA site.

      Gabe and Tycho might win a legal battle after spending lots of time and money they don't really have or want to spend, but that seems like a Pyrrhic victory to me, and to them, I think. Tycho said as much in the latest post.

      --
      A host is a host from coast to coast...
      Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
    4. Re:Admirable pluck... by djmoore · · Score: 1

      Are you offering to foot their legal bills?

      I'm willing to help -- sent them my $20 last week to help cover their preliminary discussions with a lawyer.

      If they get taken to court for real, I'll do more.

      --
      In the wrong hands, sanity is a dangerous weapon.
    5. Re:Admirable pluck... by cptgrudge · · Score: 4, Informative
      Are you offering to foot their legal bills?

      If you truly do want to help, go to the Club PA section of their site and contribute. It's real money like this that pays the bills folks. Plus you get cool stuff every month for being a member!

      I am in no way affiliated with PA. I just love the site.

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    6. Re:Admirable pluck... by dsoltesz · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'll send a check to their defense fund.

      Attitudes like yours are exactly why rights get trampled. People who can't be bothered, don't want to raise fuss, don't want to become targets for the authorities, etc...

      Penny Arcade did nothing to violate the copyrights or tradmark rights of American Greetings - like mentioned earlier, parody is permitted, and the strip was clearly a parody. Imagine if Mad Magazine had rolled over the first time they were threatened with legal action, or if SNL stopped their knock-off commercials because of a couple complaints from lawyers. Today they target Penny Arcade, tomorrow they're after Craig Kilbourne... once it starts, where does it stop? Comedic impersonators dropping their trade because they're threatened with libel suits? Florida exiling Dave Barry for defamation of state character?

    7. Re:Admirable pluck... by Ark42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did anybody catch this link from the PA forumns?

      http://www.somethingpositive.net/arch/sp08202002.g if

      I don't think they ever had to stand up for their rights.


    8. Re:Admirable pluck... by villoks · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And it's also spreading, I think that that this is even better cartoon about the topic:
      Ghastly's Comic

      V.

    9. Re:Admirable pluck... by PCM2 · · Score: 1
      Imagine if Mad Magazine had rolled over the first time they were threatened with legal action

      Yeah, but at least Mad magazine would have had the brains to call their comic strip "Blueberry Shortfake" or something.
      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    10. Re:Admirable pluck... by ottothecow · · Score: 1

      personally...this case wouldnt seem to complicated...if I was a lawyer and lived by them hell..i'd do it for free...if I wasnt a lawyer and I was them...hell I would fight the case myself it cant be that hard a case...its a matter of proving its a parody

      --
      Bottles.
    11. Re:Admirable pluck... by xpurple · · Score: 1

      Ghastly did a great job too. I will never think of 'My Little Pony' in the same way ever again. Muhahaha

      --
      http://www.xpurple.com
    12. Re:Admirable pluck... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      If you truly do want to help...

      For those who preffer complaining over sending cash (chuckle)...

      You can sign the American Greetings Petition which is currently over 17500 signatures, or you can complain directly to American Greetings Corporate.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    13. Re:Admirable pluck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Attitudes like yours are exactly why rights get
      > trampled. People who can't be bothered, don't want
      > to raise fuss, don't want to become targets for
      > the authorities, etc...

      > Penny Arcade did nothing to violate the copyrights
      > or tradmark rights of American Greetings...

      Yet, here they are.

      So it would seem that fighting the "good fight" has done nothing for anybody. "They" keep suing mear mortals into submision, be they right or wrong, and "The System" can't do enough to join in.

      "exectly why are rights get trampled." Yea, right, only you missed the tense. "exactly how our rights WERE trampled". Done deal, nothing much left that can be done.

      Governmental and Corporate America now has the unabridged right to levey "fines" in any amount, against anyone, at any time, for any reason -- for any reason they choose.

      "They" sue you, you pay $thousands++ of dollars to defend yourself, your life is forever altered for the worse, and the legal system just sends you on your way 'till next time.

      Legal defense funds aren't the answer. Feeding the bears is just bad policy.

  2. Lawsuit by obotics · · Score: 2, Funny
    How much will they sue them for? A penny?

    hahahah /lame

    1. Re:Lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The first one is free...

    2. Re:Lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like anyone would pay for it.

  3. Re:Shawn Cochran passes away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You heard that wrong, it was Zefram Cochrane...The warp field pioneer.

  4. Props! by lo_fye · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Props to Gabe and Tycho for puttin' up their dukes!

    --
    geeks are cats who dig a certain kind of cool
  5. Clearly Parody, But.... by John_Booty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The banned strip is clearly a work of parody, which I believe is still legal in this country

    It's clearly a parody, and would certainly hold up in court (IANAL), but the problem is that the PA guys don't have money to spend defending themselves in court. So it's another case of the "big guy" successfully squashing the "little guy" with the thread of a baseless lawsuit, because the cost of fighting is beyond the little guy's reach.

    --

    OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
    1. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by nuintari · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is an example of where you bite the bullet, pay for the lawyer, and proceed to file a counter suit for personal damages, ie, the cost fo hiring a lawyer to defend yourself from a baseless lawsuit. You get your money back, and then some.

      But most people will just back down, Am Greets is counting on it. Hope the PA guys get some backbone.

      --

      --Nuintari

      slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.

    2. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by TheGreenLantern · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Goddamn I wish there was a -1:Obvious mod.

      --

      It hurts when I pee.
    3. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like anime, music, and games, but bootyproject.org is definitely not for me.

    4. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But wait, that can't be right - we live in the USA, right?

      Oh wait.....no, we don't. It's dead.

    5. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by John_Booty · · Score: 5, Interesting
      This is an example of where you bite the bullet, pay for the lawyer, and proceed to file a counter suit for personal damages, ie, the cost fo hiring a lawyer to defend yourself from a baseless lawsuit. You get your money back, and then some. But most people will just back down, Am Greets is counting on it. Hope the PA guys get some backbone.

      Just a few problems here...
      1. Even if they successfully defend themselves against AmGreet, I don't see how they'd get much compensation for damages... legal costs aside, how much money have they lost here?
      2. You... do have a passing familiarity with the American legal system, right? You know how lawyers cost a LOT of money, and trials take a LONG TIME and get appealed a lot? And you know how you don't get paid until the end, even if you win? I don't know that the PA guys have tens of thousands of dollars sitting around that they don't need for the next couple of years, when the court stuff would be finished and they'd possibly get paid.
      3. If PA somehow lost, they might be totally bankrupt. So they have to weigh the very small potential gain agsint the very large potential losses they'd face.
      Truthfully, when it comes to having "backbone", probably the most effective way to get back at AmGreet is to make them look stupid and maybe encourage a boycott and letter-writing campaign. PA has thousands of readers; I don't know that a PA-reader boycott of AG would really make a dent in their bottom line (in face I'm sure it wouldn't) but if they see it's costing them money and letters start pouring in, perhaps AmGreet will back down.
      --

      OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
    6. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by neo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Uh, I've got some money ($2.50). And I hate corporations. PA is just one paypal button away from a legal defense fund of massive proportions.

    7. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by goon+america · · Score: 5, Insightful
      There are two elements to this story, I think:

      1. The C & D letter was probably just a empty threat. Would they really take them to court over that?

      2. PA's response to this pufferfish threat was to do something that really could get them in trouble.

      The PA guys stumbled on both points here. There were clearly more sensible ways to deal with this problem.

    8. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by ninewands · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Quote:
      Just a few problems here...

      1. Even if they successfully defend themselves against AmGreet, I don't see how they'd get much compensation for damages... legal costs aside, how much money have they lost here?

      No problem ... you respond to their petition with an answer, followed immediately by a motion for summary judgment and a motion for sanctions for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. In a matter of THIS nature, there is a stack of caselaw about 1.5 inches high that I will assure you any lawyer who has passed the Bar Exam is VERY familiar with, and ALL of those cases say that parody falls within the realm of free speech.

      2. You... do have a passing familiarity with the American legal system, right? You know how lawyers cost a LOT of money, and trials take a LONG TIME and get appealed a lot? And you know how you don't get paid until the end, even if you win? I don't know that the PA guys have tens of thousands of dollars sitting around that they don't need for the next couple of years, when the court stuff would be finished and they'd possibly get paid.

      I don't know if the author of the parent to your post does or not, but I can assure you I do, and if I were still practicing law, I'd take the representation for court costs + awarded sanctions because I can also assure that sanctions are a GIVEN in a case of this nature.

      Just my $0.02
    9. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by DragonMagic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is it clearly a parody of American Greetings' trademarks? It parodied American McGee, but had no wit nor criticism of American Greetings itself.

      IANALE (either), but there is some basic test to parody, which is that you can't use other people's trademarks or copyrights in your parody if you aren't targeting them.

      --

      Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
    10. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Latent+IT · · Score: 0

      How is it clearly a parody of American Greetings' trademarks?

      Uh... That'd be Strawberry Shortcake.

    11. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It called Overrated.

    12. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by ninewands · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree. The statements in today's strip are statements of opinion which are not even a valid basis for a suit in libel. They are no different, except for the degree of stridency, than an editorial column in a newspaper.

    13. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by billnapier · · Score: 4, Funny

      They are going to get the biggest lawsuit once "America Greeting" hears about this...

    14. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by SnowDog_2112 · · Score: 1
      PA's response to this pufferfish threat was to do something that really could get them in trouble.


      I disagree. I think the original strip was more questionable than the new one.


      Obviously I am not an expert on IP, or a lawyer, or even an IP law hobbyist, but I do know that directly poking fun at how a company does business is a protected form of speech with a rich history. What we have here is basically a "political cartoon" targeting a business for their bullying method of dealing with the public.

      --
      Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
    15. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

      Tens of thousands? The problem is that it'll take hundreds and possibly a few million, which is too much of a risky liability.

    16. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      except it wasn't a paradoy of an American Greetings property, it was a parody of a possible American McGee game.

    17. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Kupek · · Score: 1

      Please. It's not your ass on the line. Stop posturing.

    18. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you offer to represent them, pro bono?

    19. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by PurpleFloyd · · Score: 3, Informative

      But they were targeting American McGee, and his method of taking childhood fantasy (Alice in Wonderland, Oz) and adding blood, gore and a bit of S&M. I really don't see how Strawberry Shortcake was a target in this; the joke would have remained the same if it was a different character in the bondage gear. Thus, American Greetings has a leg to stand on in court: PA was not parodying Strawberry Shortcake, and could have just as easily used a different character.

      --

      That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
    20. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You... do have a passing familiarity with the American legal system, right?

      Wow. You are making quite a leap there. Just because I live in the US, I'm expected to have a "passing familiarity" with the legal system? Sorry, but you're dead wrong. This is why most people us "IANAL" to excuse the fact that they know nothing about the legal system. The only thing I know about it is that it sucks right now. That's all I need to know. That, and the fact that we need to change it.

    21. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      If you want to get technical, perhaps you could say it's a "metaparody" of Strawberry Shortcake. The parody is that American McGee would parody (and let's face, that's all his stuff is, albeit a tedious and unfunny parody) Strawberry Shortcake.

      I think I'll write a strip about Penny Arcade making a strip about an American MsGee parody of Disney characters and getting into legal trouble. The possibilities are endless. Is metametaparody legal?

      I found the original strip to be amusing, if tasteless. The new strip was just a juvenile temper tantrum. They can do better.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    22. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by unexpected · · Score: 0

      Boycotting accomplishes very little. In this whole mess, I stand with American Greeting in that they have a right to protect against the wanton use of their trademarks. To put it in /. terms, a couple of years back, Red Hat lawyers asked Linuxcare(I think it was) to stop displaying a poster of this exhibitionist woman with the RedHat name. According to Red Hat, it was an action to prevent their trademark from going into the public domain because you can lose your trademark that way if you don't protect it. And maybe it was some creative BS'ing on Red Hat's part, but this is how the business world works and PA should think about that before they do irresponsible things.

    23. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "If you want to get technical, perhaps you could say it's a "metaparody" of Strawberry Shortcake."

      If McGee had done a version of Strawberry Shortarse... sorry...cake, exactly as the PA cartoon, it would be parody, legal, all quite legit.

      If PA does exactly the same cartoon, it's illegal???

      But that would make the law a complete and utter ars[ouch!]

      Oww.... it hurts when you hit reality, running.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    24. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by rowdent · · Score: 1

      It doesn't really matter who the "main" target is. The only reason it's funny is because it is strawberry shortcake. Alice and OZ have aspects of the gothic in them to begin with, but SS does not. It's a clear satire of SS by having her engage in bondage activities. It's exactly like What if Hitchcock directed... The studio that made the films could not sue just because Hitchcock is the main target of the satire...

      --
      "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." --George Orwell
    25. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by m1a1 · · Score: 1

      You... do have a passing familiarity with the American legal system, right? You know how lawyers cost a LOT of money, and trials take a LONG TIME and get appealed a lot? And you know how you don't get paid until the end, even if you win? I don't know that the PA guys have tens of thousands of dollars sitting around that they don't need for the next couple of years, when the court stuff would be finished and they'd possibly get paid.

      Almost nobody fronts their own legal costs in these kinds of cases. You get a lawyer to do the work to be paid under the condition that he win. Obviously they only take the case if the chance of winning is good.

      I would reccomend the guys at PA just go talk to a good lawyer. You always get legal costs back in damages if you win, so it is worth a lawyers time to take cases they are confident in winning.

    26. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 1

      not a matter of back bone, it's a matter of finances. There just isn't a way for them to afford a prolonged legal battle. After all, AM GREET is a HUGE corp, and the $20 donations they'll be getting just isn't enough.

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
    27. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by cyroth · · Score: 1

      This is the correct answer. If everybody who reads PA does this, then NO big corporation would be able to keep up with the cash flow. Just imagine /. getting sued

    28. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by c4tp · · Score: 1

      If McGee had done a version of Strawberry Shortarse... sorry...cake, exactly as the PA cartoon, it would be parody, legal, all quite legit.
      If PA does exactly the same cartoon, it's illegal???


      That's what I'm wondering. Would McGee have to ask for permission to use a "classic children's character"? He certainly didn't for Alice or Oz, but does that mean Shortcake is open for parody too? I Am Not A Lawyer (I hate the acronym ;), like most of the people posting here, but it would seem that American McGee would most likely get sued in the same way as Gabe and Tycho are if he tried using it without express permission from American Greetings. Any REAL lawyers out there, please tell us if there is a difference between McGee's style of parody and PA's "parody of a parody" and where the law stands on issues like the said "parody of a parody" type satire. Shouldn't it be the same as if American did it? And shouldn't cultural symbols like Strawberry Shortcake be placed within the same legislation as Through the Looking Glass and The Wizard of Oz? They're all grouped in the same childhood story category, after all. Copyrights aside, all of these should be open to parody equally, and if they let Alice and Dorothy get parodied, they should let Shortcake get the same treatment.

    29. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      2. PA's response to this pufferfish threat was to do something that really could get them in trouble.

      No. Criticizing someone's (especially on political and legal views) view with a parody is quite kosher.

      The first cartoon is probably just fine. The second definitely is. American Greetings really didn't win any wars by sending a C&D letter.

      I'd say it's a pretty effective way of dealing with the problem. PA is legally in the correct. PA's strength is their readership, and they've neatly leveraged that.

    30. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 1

      This is so clearly an example of a SLAPP lawsuit it's not even funny. Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Used to intimidate people to do what you want. Shameful. I won't ever buy from them again. I don't even care if they withdraw from this lunacy. I want to make an example of them. Unfortunately most of their customers are women who like Preshusss Momentsess. (intentionally gollum-filtered). They don't read slashdot.

    31. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, if slashdot posted a direct link to the donations page...

    32. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but my term paper this semester is about copyright law, so :P

      Several people in the main thread mention that the original banned comic was a work of parady, which is protected in copyright by fair use. However, the Rome Act of 1928, which amends the Berne Convention, does recognize the right of copyright holders to object to malicious modifications of copyrighted material. The key is whether or not it _might_ prejudice or decrease the copyright holder's reputation.

      Sorry, folks, I don't like omni-mega media corp smacking around the little guy either; but, it looks like they might actually have a leg to stand on legally that wasn't "purchased" recently.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    33. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by goon+america · · Score: 1
      There's pretty ironic phrasing here. Accusing someone of being a Hitler admirer is not kosher.

      It's too early to say whether or not it was "effective", but it will probably get them a lot of publicity which really might be just as good. Surely there must have been a way to address the situation other than immediately running to accusations of Nazism. Maybe that will rouse the rabble in the short run but it's really not going to make them look good in the long run.

    34. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bwahahahahaahahahahahahaaha Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha

      Ignoring the pure bullshit of your post, PA is a pretty piss poor site anyways. I mean the drawing is fairly good, but the writing is just fucking retarded. Secondly, this is such a BULLSHIT story: They capitalized on a copyrighted character for their own gain, and then responded to a simple legal request to c&d by pure, unadulterated libel in hopes of encouraging retards like yourself. FUCK EM. Let them wallow in the rhetoric and hyperbole that they've dug themselves in.

    35. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. The C & D letter was probably just a empty threat. Would they really take them to court over that?

      Cease & Desists are made under penalty of perjury. If you are sending frivolous C&Ds that you know have no chance of standing up in court, you are breaking the law, and the laywers involved can get into serious trouble.

    36. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      What about The People vs. Larry Flynt? Clearly that was a "malicious modification" to the person's credibility.

    37. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how you seem to think that most people aren't that shallow and ignorant.

    38. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I would guess that it's a matter of scale. If McGee is making a game that will sell for $40 a pop and he sells thousands of copies then he is making some real scratch off of the character. Pernny Arcade is using the character once in a single comic strip which is fairly obscure at that. Technically, they might make money off of that strip, but its orders of magnitude different (if it isn't I want to get into cartooning!).

      I can see where American Greetings might has a case if there was reason to believe that this cartoon could be confused with the real Strawberry Shortcake product. Possibly a 3-year-old might make that mistake, but no one else would. If there were a game, I would think that that would be much less likely, particularly if someone was purchasing based on the title. I wouldn't care to guess where a line of demarcation might be placed, but clearly the comic strip and the hypothetic game, were it real would be categorically different. McGee would be infringing on the product but I don't think Penny Arcade is.

      Besides, even though I said differently, McGee's products really couldn't be called parodies, but since he is using characters and settings in the public domain there isn't a problem (other than tastelessness, but lets face, is there an id alum who isn't the zenith of tastelessness? I would still believe that PA is not guilty of violating AG rights, but then again, AG can buy lots of extra rights with all that cash.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    39. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Caltheos · · Score: 1

      The web comic is clearly a parody....a parody of McGee's game alice. It is not in any way a parody of Strawberry Shortcake, there is no use of her name and the other names except to parody American McGee's gaming franchise....It is legal to parody something, but it is not legal to use copyrighted material for a parody that is not a part of the parody. I'm sure some people will understand what I 'm saying, at least I hope...

      --
      We've secretely replaced the Enterprise's dilithium crystals with Folgers crystals. Lets see if they notice.
    40. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's clearly not an accusation of Nazism. Nazis are used generally today to refer to overly authoritarian viewpoints.

    41. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by the-build-chicken · · Score: 1

      I remember when I lived in the states, a guy I worked for (owned a gym) and used to get law suits slapped on him all the time (successful gym, easy target...I worked out and have sore muscles now etc)...his immediate response was counter-sue for damages and expenses...kinda like a poison pill...they have to _make sure_ they win, because if they loose, it sets precedence for the counter suit to be successful...or something like that, IANAL. So my obvious question to all these postings about big guy clobbering the little guy with cash is, doesn't that work anymore (or maybe isn't allowed anymore?)...or am I misinformed as to the purpose of a counter claim in the U.S.?

    42. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by IronChef · · Score: 1

      In our lawsuit-happy culture I think the notion of a "public defender" for civil suits is something we should explore. A civil trial can wreck you as bad as a criminal trial -- why shouldn't we have some sort of representation guaranteed by law?

      Of course, the more sensible approach is tort reform... the fact that I can even propose a public defender for civil suits with a straight face is a sign of how messed up things are!

    43. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 0
      No doubt this point has been made before ( its hard to see through this many posts ), but Americans previous parodies have been of characters in the public domain, yes? I don't think he or his House would risk an open for-profit usage of something currently covered by someone elses marks.

      -- YLFI

      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
    44. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by terrab0t · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd call today's comic an editorial cartoon. I don't know about US newspapers, but here in Canada editorial cartoons are a national treasure.

      The Strawberry Shortcake cartoon is a little different though. I understand the right to parody, but I don't recall many parodies that use the actual name of what they are picking on. It's possible that very similar parodies actually get permission (Like Wierd Al Yankovic). They may actually have no right to keep the old comic posted. Let's hope they don't get destroyed financially for having it up for a day.

      Although Penny Arcade had every right to ridicule the corporation that is threatening them, the parent is right in that pissing the big boys off will make them more likely to follow through with whatever lawsuit they may be planning.

    45. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You work for American Greetings don't you?

    46. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Phillip+Birmingham · · Score: 1

      Hope the PA guys get some backbone.

      Ooooh, you're awfully brave when it's not your ass in the sling. Why don't you mortgage your house and send them the money for their legal fees, or something?

      --
      Make me aerodynamic in the evening air
    47. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why not send an email to Gabe and Tycho? Maybe take it up yourself, or recommend someone that would work for the costs you mentioned.

    48. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Sodium+Attack · · Score: 1

      ...which is just a general donations page. I'd donate to a legal defense fund, if they had one, but I'm not going to buy them beer.

      --

      Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.

    49. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by DragonMagic · · Score: 1

      You did notice that Alice in Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz are in the public domain, while Strawberry Shortcake is not?

      So yes, he would have to license the trademarks of American Greetings to make such a game.

      --

      Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
    50. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could always encourage some under-aged hackers to deface the american greeting website, putting the 'banned' immage and a message to visitors... telling them not to support the company because they're suing webcomics over parody...

    51. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by Large+Green+Mallard · · Score: 1

      She refers to the Fuhrer, term which is almost exclusively associated with the Nazi party of 1930 and 1940s germany. But it's immaterial, this is more of a parody than the original one. the company supposedly acted like buttwipes, and now PA is saying as much :D

    52. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by goon+america · · Score: 1
      Well, pardon my troll, but it's pretty fucking lame that "Nazi" now means "any authoritarian viewpoint."

      Maybe it's true. But PA didn't accuse them of being Nazi-meaning-authoritarian. They specifically accused them of being Hitler-nazis. And calling them authoritarian wouldn't make any sense because their dispute is a civil one, between private entities of the same state system.

    53. Re:Clearly Parody, But.... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      And the intended message is that they are authoritarian, which does not have to refer to a state government:

      $ dict authoritarian
      1 definition found

      From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]:

      authoritarian
      adj 1: characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having
      absolute sovereignty; "an authoritarian regime";
      "autocratic government"; "despotic rulers"; "a
      dictatorial rule that lasted for the duration of the
      war"; "a tyrannical government" [syn: {autocratic}, {dictatorial},
      {despotic}, {tyrannical}]
      2: likened to a dictator in severity [syn: {dictatorial}]
      3: expecting unquestioning obedience; "he was imperious and
      dictatorial"; "the timid child of authoritarian parents";
      "insufferably overbearing behavior toward the waiter"
      [syn: {dictatorial}, {overbearing}]
      n : behaves like a tyrant [syn: {dictator}]


      PA is complaining that AG is being extremely severe regarding the slightest potential infraction of their trademarks.

  6. American Greetings.. by grub · · Score: 4, Funny


    "American Greetings.. you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy." sorry.. watched Star Wars last night.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:American Greetings.. by PD · · Score: 1

      American Greetings...I find your lack of humor ... disturbing.

      I watched it too, because my TiVo thoughtfully snagged it for me. Started watching it at midnight. Yawn.

    2. Re:American Greetings.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was more of thinking this:

      American Greetings:

      <Thick foreign accent>

      "Do you know how the Americans greet each other? 'Hello, I sue you for 6 million dollars.' 'See you! In court!' Haha!"

      </accent>

    3. Re:American Greetings.. by mrtroy · · Score: 0

      superstation!

      The force is strong in that one...

      --
      [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
    4. Re:American Greetings.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could tell you that. They are the creators of the "Ziggy". If there is ANYTHING that clearly shows a lack of humor, it IS Ziggy.

    5. Re:American Greetings.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd take Ziggy anyday over Family Circus. Family Circus shouldn't be in the funnies... it just depresses me because it's so lame.

    6. Re:American Greetings.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse than Marmaduke?

  7. Who was the target? by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · Score: 4, Informative

    The problem is that they were parodying American McGee by using a registered trademark. They clearly weren't parodying Strawberry Shortcake - if they were, it would be more clear cut. Not that we wouldn't see a C&D letter anyways...

    For the record though, I love PA and hope they make it through ok. And you just have to respect em for making a stink even if they did pull the offending strip originally. They're as subtle as a heart attack :)

    --
    Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
    1. Re:Who was the target? by Visigothe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is it totally unacceptable to parody *several* things simultaneously? That seems a bit short sighted, no?

    2. Re:Who was the target? by papadiablo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They clearly weren't parodying Strawberry Shortcake

      Isn't it possible that they were actually parodying both? That's the impression I got from the comic. They were making fun of both American McGee's game style and of Strawberry Shortcake. If this is the case then there is no way American Greetings would win a lawsuit unless Penny Arcade couldn't pay to represent themselves.

    3. Re:Who was the target? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      Yes, but they weren't. The newspost that went alongside the comic didn't even MENTION the name Strawberry Shortcake. It was a rant about how useless McGee is.

      Sorry guys, but PA is pretty obviously in the wrong here. You can't use third party IP for a parody like this.

      Besides which, if someone wanted to make fun of gay porn by using the Gabe and Tycho characters as gay porn actors (in action!), do you think PA would sit around and do nothing about it?

      This is the classic problem of trademarks in modern times -- you can't just "be nice" about them. If you start "being nice", you lose the ability to be "not nice" when someone does something you don't like.

      The PA guys, as holders of some trademarked characters, should know this. The fact that they think they can get an exception because they're cool or something just speaks to thier idiocy.

    4. Re:Who was the target? by orthancstone · · Score: 1

      I'd be inclined to wonder if anyone who knows of PA, including Gabe and Tycho, would be readily searching around looking for gay porn with PA characters in it. Furthermore, I really don't think they'd actually make a big deal about it. They'd probably considering posting a rant about it but I don't see them taking it to court...

    5. Re:Who was the target? by Steveftoth · · Score: 1

      How again did they make fun of strawberry shortcake?
      I liked the comic, but after hearing about the C&D letter, I have to agree with AG.

    6. Re:Who was the target? by Silverfish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Explain how transforming characters from a toy line for young girls into the stuff of male adolsecent fantasy istn't parody.

      As far as I can tell, showing the characters as the exact opposite of everything they are marketed as is a pretty clearcut case of parody.

    7. Re:Who was the target? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you don't have much of a sence of humor. See Strawberry Shortcake is sweet, cute, and inocent, but in this parody she's only cute.

    8. Re:Who was the target? by katarac · · Score: 1

      Actually, there's plenty of PA defamation going on. I guess batjew is one of thier friends, but on the forums at his site they have a lot of stupid (and a few funny) parodies.

    9. Re:Who was the target? by cballowe · · Score: 1
      The problem is that they were parodying American McGee by using a registered trademark. They clearly weren't parodying Strawberry Shortcake - if they were, it would be more clear cut. Not that we wouldn't see a C&D letter anyways...

      See... Being a young child through the 80s and having a younger sister, I knew about Strawberry Shortcake. Not being much of a gamer, I hadn't really heard about American McGee until that strip. I thought it was a parody of Strawberry Shortcake and was highly amused by it. After looking up American McGee, I'm inclined to believe that both were the target of the parody as it was clear to me that Strawberry Shortcake was the target.

    10. Re:Who was the target? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think park of the problem is that they drew a parody of Strawberry Shortcake, and then labeled it as such. Thus the copyright holders (American Greetings) are forced to protect their trademark or risk losing it. If Penny Arcade had called their character "Strawberry Sh!tcake" in the cartoon, none of the involved parties would have a problem.

    11. Re:Who was the target? by error0x100 · · Score: 1

      Then why haven't The Onion been shut down long ago? They are a for-profit, and often parody existing corporations.

    12. Re:Who was the target? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    13. Re:Who was the target? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the hell is American McGee? it looks like a strawberry shortcake parody to me....

      like "bram stokers strawberry shortcake" would fall into the same category of parody i think.

    14. Re:Who was the target? by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

      Don't let SNL know this! They would have to stop all their fake ads that reference actual products, like the current "Swiffer Sleeper" ad. BTW, it is a very lame plan.

    15. Re:Who was the target? by autopr0n · · Score: 3, Informative

      Parody is well and good, but when you parody someone for profit it's something different. Free Use does allow for parody, but the Courts have generaly heald that when you profit financialy from a parody you need to pay for the rights to what you're mocking.

      What the hell are you talking about? This is absolutely and completely wrong! Can you even cite one case that fits your description?

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    16. Re:Who was the target? by caouchouc · · Score: 1

      The "target" is irrelevent, at least by the definition of the word. It simply has to be for purposes of comedic effect or ridicule.
      Check it out.

    17. Re:Who was the target? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely and utterly wrong, yet judging by the lack of downmods, posted with enough of an air of confidence to gain the blind acceptance of most readers.

      Bravo on a troll well posted.

    18. Re:Who was the target? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still sweet, or at least very tasty.

    19. Re:Who was the target? by Josuah · · Score: 1

      Strawberry Shortcake!? Who's Strawberry Shortcake? Wasn't she some cartoon character I used to watch when I was like five? ;P

      The cat looks a lot like the Cheshire Cat from American McGee's Alice.

    20. Re:Who was the target? by BenZoate · · Score: 1

      What do you mean toys for little girls?? I was the evil pastry baker guy for Halloween in Kindergarten.

      On second thought my dad did want a girl.........

      Back to the shrink.

    21. Re:Who was the target? by Shawn+Baumgartner · · Score: 1

      Most corporate drones just aren't intelligent or creative enough to understand that much going on at one time, so they can only choose a single aspect to focus on. You have seen the advertisements and TV shows that they create, right? :)

    22. Re:Who was the target? by prelelat · · Score: 1

      "Parody is well and good, but when you parody someone for profit it's something different. Free Use does allow for parody, but the Courts have generaly heald that when you profit financialy from a parody you need to pay for the rights to what you're mocking. "

      i don't think it really matters in this case because penny-arcade is not going to profit from this comic. They get money for people who want to see over easy and want a free toy who join a special club or people who click on the banner not from people clicking on the comic. The comic it's self doesn't sell for money because it can be obtained freely so such an acusation does not even apply

    23. Re:Who was the target? by elbobo · · Score: 1

      It is absolutely and completely correct. I'll find some cases to cite in a moment, but the precedent is clearly against for profit fair use. You will always have a much easier case if your parody/fair use situation is non profit.

      Here's my list of internet fair use bookmarks that I've collected, having dealt with being attacked in similar situations before:

      The fair use clauses of the law in question
      an EFF intellectual property law primer for internet peoples [take note of this quote: "The courts are most likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes"]

      Arr hell, the rest of my bookmarks are too specific to be of much use here. Those two will suffice.

  8. Re:Shawn Cochran passes away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, jackass. Shawn Cochran is dead.

  9. Mirror of the new strip by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    1. Re:Mirror of the new strip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Another mirror here

      alright perhaps not.

    2. Re:Mirror of the new strip by Cipster · · Score: 1

      If you value your eyes. Don't click that.

  10. No, Clearly It's Not AG...It's AG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    If you notice, Gabe and Tycho are visiting America Greeting headquarters.

    I've certainly never heard of this company, and I'll bet American Greetings has never heard of them either (for they surely would have sued America Greeting Corporation if they had).

    So Fuck American Greetings.

    And remember, buy Hallmark instead.

    1. Re:No, Clearly It's Not AG...It's AG by Moskie · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they did this on purpose, making it look like the logo is cut off, just to cover their asses. No where in this strip is American Greetings, or Strawberry Shortcake, or any other copyrighted material even shown in the strip.

      Is there any possible way this strip is violating a law?

    2. Re:No, Clearly It's Not AG...It's AG by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1
      Not only is the company possibly called "America Greeting" but the woman may simply be a nazi in her own right; it may be no reflection on the company.

      She could be a nazi in her spare time.

      Overheard real Nazi, "Grrr... don't you just hate those weekend nazis? It's all prim and proper; weekdays, and a fake stick-on mustache, and transfer swastika tattoos. Grrr!....

      ...Heil Hitler!"

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  11. They deserve it. by Jason1729 · · Score: 0, Troll

    It looks like the lawsuit is totally justified. The Strawberry Shortcake comic is damaging to the trademark-holder's reputation, and the US has an enforce it or lose it trademark system.

    The follow-up strip is just so pathetically stupid that it's almost funny that the writers are such idiots.

    Jason
    ProfQuotes

    1. Re:They deserve it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely.

      I mean, I don't get where these guys are coming from.

      If someone parodied an advertisement using Gabe & Tycho as gay porn actors, I don't think that PA would be all to happy about that.

      But using someone else's character as a bondage queen is fine and dandy, because it's popular.

      Whatever.

    2. Re:They deserve it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This coming from a guy with such gems as " I'd rather kill myself than have sex with my sister." on his site.

    3. Re:They deserve it. by UCRowerG · · Score: 3, Informative
      It looks like the lawsuit is totally justified. The Strawberry Shortcake comic is damaging to the trademark-holder's reputation, and the US has an enforce it or lose it trademark system.

      This only applies if the user attemtps to pass their own work off as the original. US Copyright law permits the parody of works as long as the derivative can be easily seen as a parody. And since this strip wasn't intended to be seen by Strawberry Shortcake's prime audience (little girls), I don't think American Greetings has an actual case here.

      of course the usual disclaimer: ianal but have seen them on tv

    4. Re:They deserve it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when did slashdot become an extremist any corportation and any lawsuit is evil group? This post should not have been modded down. At least the ops will get nailed in M2.

    5. Re:They deserve it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, does it hurt to be that stupid?

    6. Re:They deserve it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait a minute, everything they do in the comic involves parodying or commenting on somebodys trademarks, they arnt trying to steal them, they arnt representing them as the real thing, are you saying that we arnt allowed to even talk about anything thats trademarked? that is the way the copyright bastards want it im sure, but thats not how the system works now

    7. Re:They deserve it. by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      It looks like the lawsuit is totally justified. The Strawberry Shortcake comic is damaging to the trademark-holder's reputation, and the US has an enforce it or lose it trademark system.

      somebody mod this back up because he's right. it's not flamebait just because you don't agree with it or wish the world were different. I personally like PA but I think they should be counting their blessings that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often, they get away with a lot of shit that they wouldn't if game publishers/etc. weren't afraid of a backlash.

      that said, I like that they stuck to their guns. there's not enough of this lately.

      speaking your mind is cool. cowtowing to corporate pressure is not. the dixie chicks could learn a lesson from these guys. I had to delete all my illegally downloaded dixie chicks mp3s in protest.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    8. Re:They deserve it. by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      They don't have to be happy about it. It's a parody. In fact, most of the comics that Penny Arcade does features other people's characters, or stores, or companies - should EB sue them when they depict EB employees as bumbling idiots, as PA has done in the past?

    9. Re:They deserve it. by pwtrash · · Score: 1
      To pile on here...

      The 2 Live Crew/Roy Orbison case was an instance of this. 2Live asked for permission to parody Pretty Woman, which Orbison declined. they went ahead & did it anyway, Orbison sued, and the courts upheld the right to parody. And the parody sucked, too, so quality of parody is unimportant.

      For a summary of the case, check out http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1994/0694Bulletin/U S_ParodyAsFairUse.html

    10. Re:They deserve it. by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      If that were the case then Namco would've sued them a long, long time ago for using the Pac Man logo (which I guarantee is copyrighted) on one of the character's shirts in every strip.

      Strangely enough, either Namco knows and doesn't care, or they have no clue that Pac Man is in every strip. It can be argued that Pac Man isn't represented in a good light due to the frequent cursing in the strips and weird situations he ends up in. Then again, Namco isn't American Greetings.

      Overall I see no idea why American Greetings gives a shit about this one strip. Strawberry Shortcake, as a valuable product, has been stone dead since the mid eighties. They'd be lucky to pull in $100 a year from that expired product line. No cartoons = no sales.

    11. Re:They deserve it. by nick_davison · · Score: 1
      It looks like the lawsuit is totally justified. The Strawberry Shortcake comic is damaging to the trademark-holder's reputation, and the US has an enforce it or lose it trademark system.
      This only applies if the user attemtps to pass their own work off as the original. US Copyright law permits

      Copyright != Trademark

      Yes, you can parody a copyright freely. No, you can't parody a trademark freely. It's a trademark.

      It's a similar statement to someone saying, "He walked into the highschool with a gun and shot the other kid - it was clearly murder." and then coming back with, "US law permits the use of deadly force to defend your home." No one's disputing the second statement, it's just that the second case doesn't apply to the first.

    12. Re:They deserve it. by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      And since this strip wasn't intended to be seen by Strawberry Shortcake's prime audience (little girls), I don't think American Greetings has an actual case here.

      yeah but how many parents of young girls read PA? and how many parents generally avoid buying their daughters products that evoke images of bondage lesbianism? I think they'd not have too hard a time proving damages.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
  12. Welcome to America... by ZZane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...where things are only legal if you can afford to pay as much as the ass suing you to defend yourself in court.

    --
    This sig is worse than my last.
    1. Re:Welcome to America... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Welcome to Slashdot... ...where posting yet another unsubstantianted 'The guy with the most money always wins in court' whine is always good for a couple of free (+1, Insightful) Karma points.

    2. Re:Welcome to America... by Velex · · Score: 1

      And lookie which one of you has the most +1s.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    3. Re:Welcome to America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unsubstantiated? Get educated. Read Marc Galanter's "Why the Haves Come Out Ahead" (9 Law & Society Review 95-160 (1974)). This is one of the most influential works in American sociology in the last 50 years. It details not only the fact that the elites are favored in the courts, but the reasons for this. There are some more modern articles that also back up this hypothesis, but Galanter's is the classic work.

    4. Re:Welcome to America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and meet the only American citizen who hasn't heard about the OJ Simpson trial

  13. Trouble by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Of course their latest strip will get them in trouble. It's just asking for a slashdotting.

    1. Re:Trouble by Skeld · · Score: 1

      Ok, I keep seeing these "PA is getting slashdotted, Ha Ha" posts.

      In case you haven't noticed, Penny Arcade has a permanent link on Slashdot's front page.

      And someone is an idiot. Gosh, I hope it isn't me.
      -Skeld

  14. Home of the free by CausticWindow · · Score: 0, Troll

    Don't whine. At least you're free to litigate. Too bad if you're up against somebody with more cash than you though.

    --
    How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
    1. Re:Home of the free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, like germany circa 1938. Too bad if you're up against somebody with more guns than you.

    2. Re:Home of the free by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      There are damn few people with more guns than me. On /., probably none.

    3. Re:Home of the free by SomeGuyFromCA · · Score: 1

      You may be right.

      Quick, let's get ESR an account.

      --
      if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
  15. Wow.. Brillent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you one of the writers for penny-arcade? If not I could hardly tell the diffrence, that was just like one of their "comics" and their "insightful" writings.

    1. Re:Wow.. Brillent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think (hope) that was the point he was trying to make.

  16. Can someone explain? by DrXym · · Score: 2, Interesting
    a) What does this new cartoon have to do with American Greetings except for the caption on the desk? b) What does the original "American McGee's" cartoon have to do with them either?


    I'm not being dumb here, it is just completely unobvious to an international reader what the issue is.

    1. Re:Can someone explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original "American McGee's" cartoon uses Strawberry Shortcake. Strawberry Shortcake is owned by American Greetings Corporation. American Greetings got all lawyery and made PA take down the comic. Hence today's cartoon, showing PA's disappointment in American Greeting's character.

    2. Re:Can someone explain? by Randolpho · · Score: 4, Informative

      American Greetings currently (I think) holds the copyright for Strawberry Shortcake. If you click on one of the mirrors, you'll see Penny Arcade's take on American McGee's *next* game, in which Ms. Shortcake is quite the little sadist.

      So American Greetings is essently protecting their copyrights to Strawberry Shortcake. Groundlessly, because as the article stated, it's a work of parody. The funny thing is, it's *supposed* to be a poking fun at American McGee. I'm sure PA was prepared for any backlash from them. Getting hammered by a greeting card company probably surprised PA quite a bit.

      And, to top it off, PA is now getting hit with a slashdotting, as if PA didn't already have bandwidth problems!

      --
      "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
      -Marilyn Manson
    3. Re:Can someone explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm assuming you didn't check the site, but PA posted a parody response in regards to the McFarlane/American McGee toy figurine line for The Wizard of Oz. Basically the characters everyone knows was turned into these demonic looking things and Dorothy looked kinda like some bondage babe. So in response, PA did kind of a "what will they do next" kinda strip and thus posted the dominatrix Strawberry Shortcake who had just recently whipped a prone Plum Pudding (another girl who, as a toy, smells like plums) in the rear. The title on the picture was "American McGee's Strawberry Shortcake".

    4. Re:Can someone explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Not slashdotting...tubing.

      As in, "PA is now getting tubed."

    5. Re:Can someone explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought tubing applied only for overwhelming traffic linked in from PA. this is, indeed, a slashdotting.

    6. Re:Can someone explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seriously doubt they actually expected a backlash from American McGee either.

      After all, American McGee HAS A SENSE OF HUMOUR.

    7. Re:Can someone explain? by n1k0 · · Score: 1

      > And, to top it off, PA is now getting hit with a slashdotting

      Slashdot has linked to PA from the front page for years now. I'm sure they're used to it.

      -Nick

    8. Re:Can someone explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      B) The "easier" one first. American McGee doesn't have much to do with either of them. He creates very dark and twisted video game versions of wholesome stories. The legal action doesn't invole him but instead involes the Strawberry Shortcake character that PA borrowed to express their point. That character is copyrighted by American Greetings, who didn't give permission for its use.

      A)Although the caption on the desk it American Greeting, not American Greetings the fictional company is meant to represent the other. Basically PA is saying American Greetings is acting like Nazis when it comes to the copyright issue.

  17. A German says: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meine Fresse, they're pissed off THIS time...

    [Just had to express my astonishment, mod me down :-]

    1. Re:A German says: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might be useful to add that in Germany comparing someone or something with nazis or nazi institutions is about as reprehensible as saying your mother is a hooker. I myself had to remind me (after a big gasp) that otherwhere this might be seen as less offensive.

  18. Yesterday's actually (but link is accurate) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry for the brainfart, the strip was actually posted yesterday, 4/27.

  19. Re:This is one for the lawyers to decide by Allison+Geode · · Score: 2

    Q: why can't they say it was a parody of strawberry shortcake in the same vein as american mcgee's parody of Alice in wonderland? A: because then american mcgee would sue them.

  20. Re:It's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot the cowboy neal option!

    Oh wait, you didnt, it's option A... my bad

  21. "Clearly" a parody? Banned? by PCM2 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The banned strip is clearly a work of parody, which I believe is still legal in this country, unless that too changed recently.
    Well, IANAL, but frankly it's not clear to me that the drawing is a work of parody. To me, it seems like something that might infringe on somebody's trademark. If I were a big corporation, I might want to test the point in court. What's wrong with that?

    And, "banned"? How so? This is yet another case of lawyers writing a cease-and-desist, and the recipients capitulating. Nobody got "censored" here, nobody's free speech was infringed.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:"Clearly" a parody? Banned? by Anonymous+Cow+herd · · Score: 1

      The problem here is that the PA guys most likely don't have the resources to fund any sort of legal defense against an accusation like this. So you're not really testing the point of law in court. While American Greetings might be able to throw tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs and legal fees at this problem, Gabe & Tycho can't. Being right doesn't put food on the table (or in this case, I suppose, carts in neo geo)

      --
      Ita erat quando hic adveni.
    2. Re:"Clearly" a parody? Banned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And, "banned"? How so? This is yet another case of lawyers writing a cease-and-desist, and the recipients capitulating. Nobody got "censored" here, nobody's free speech was infringed.



      YEAH! After all, this is america. You've got a right to as much FreeSpeech(tm) as you can afford to buy off your friendly local lawyer.

    3. Re:"Clearly" a parody? Banned? by ninewands · · Score: 0

      If you think the strip in question might NOT meet the legal standard of a "parody", I'd suggest you spend some time reading this U.S. Supreme Court case.

    4. Re:"Clearly" a parody? Banned? by Kupek · · Score: 1

      This would apply if American McGee went after them, but that's not the case. I think it should fall under fair use, but it looks like legal precedent goes the other way.

    5. Re:"Clearly" a parody? Banned? by gilroy · · Score: 1
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Nobody got "censored" here, nobody's free speech was infringed.

      Not in the traditional sense, ie., through direct government action. Instead we have one party silencing another through the threat of government action. We've been seeing this emerge for some time now: actions by individuals and corporations who co-opt the court system to enforce their own agendas or vendettas, with almost none of the safeguards that have evolved to cope with state oppression.


      Make no mistake: A corporation using the court system to stop speech it doesn't like, is censorship -- it's just the 21st century flavor.

    6. Re:"Clearly" a parody? Banned? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Notice that in this case it was Jerry Falwell, and not Campari Liqueur, who filed the suit. So it's not really the same thing.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    7. Re:"Clearly" a parody? Banned? by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      To me, it seems like something that might infringe on somebody's trademark.
      This article has a definition for trademark infringement.
      Answer: Although different courts have different tests, the central concept is confusion in the marketplace. The law protects against consumer confusion by ensuring that the marks on the same or similar products or services are sufficiently different. A plaintiff in a trademark infringement case generally must prove 1) it possesses a valid mark; 2) that the defendant used the mark; 3) that the defendant used the mark in commerce, "in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution or advertising "of goods and services; and 4) that the defendant used the mark in a manner likely to confuse consumers.
      The first three pass: 1) Strawberry Shortcake is (presumably) a valid mark; 2) Penny Arcade did indeed use the mark; the Penny Arcade website sells merchandise, so 3) is probably true; but 4) is not true, at least not in my humble estimation, as no reasonable person would conclude that the PA comic is going to confuse consumers.

      As a result, no trademark infringement occurred. I'm not a lawyer (or, more importantly, a judge), but it seems pretty clear-cut.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  22. Bah by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's not funny. Violates the cardinal principle of comics.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Bah by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1, Troll

      ...which is what?

    2. Re:Bah by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It's funny. Laugh.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not. Die.

    4. Re:Bah by ryanvm · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's not funny. Violates the cardinal principle of comics.

      I think the author of Family Circus would like to have a word with you.

    5. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah, it's funny, but you don't get it. don't confuse these two.

    6. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry to inform you that pointing out that something isn't funny, isn't funny. As you can tell, I'm not trying to be funny.

    7. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, cause we all know the comic "Steve Roper & Mike Nomad" is a laugh riot every time.

  23. Opposite feeling by SnowDog_2112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I actually came away with the opposite feeling. While the first strip was clearly a parody, it was a parody of American McGee, and not a parody of American Greetings. They'd probably have a strong legal leg to stand on if McGee came to them with a lawsuit.

    However, because they're using a third party's intellectual property in the context of the parody, it's a little fuzzier. Spaceballs parodying Star Wars is cool ... Spaceballs parodying Star Wars with a title character named Strawberry Shortcake might be a different story.

    The more recent strip, however, is clearly a criticism of American Greetings' policies, and seems more obviously "safe" under various free-speech umbrellas than the first one. It's not even using any of their IP.

    I also think it's funnier, but that's just me :).

    --
    Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
    1. Re:Opposite feeling by gpinzone · · Score: 2, Funny

      There was a character in Spaceballs called "Pizza the Hut." Why didn't Pepsi sue?

    2. Re:Opposite feeling by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "However, because they're using a third party's intellectual property in the context of the parody, it's a little fuzzier."

      On the other hand, it's a piece of intellectual property the owners haven't done anything with for, what, 15 or 20 years?

    3. Re:Opposite feeling by Xzzy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > However, because they're using a third party's
      > intellectual property in the context of the
      > parody,

      But they raise a good point in the text-based update, which the slashdot story didn't link to.

      Basically there's certain icons that are corporate brands which have, basically, become integral parts of our society today. Mickey Mouse, McDonald's, Microsoft.. I mean the list is infinite in length, an encompasses things from niche appeal to mass appeal. Almost EVERYTHING we identify with in this day and age is some marketing symbol owned by a huge corporation.

      So at what point should us people, who have accepted these icons into our society, be allowed to use them as vessels for communcation without risking legal action?

      If this were a world run by idealism, wouldn't one think that after a symbol becomes so homogenized that it's a part of daily conversation that corporations should lose the right to prosecute for people using it as part of their speech?

      It's something to think about anyways.

    4. Re:Opposite feeling by Jackazz · · Score: 4, Funny
      What if there was a character named Pizza the Hut?

      Gabe and Tycho surely don't want Pizza to send out for them!

    5. Re:Opposite feeling by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      While the first strip was clearly a parody, it was a parody of American McGee, and not a parody of American Greetings

      It was clearly a mockery of the sweetness and light part of Strawberry Shortcake.

      Spaceballs parodying Star Wars is cool ...

      Spaceballs didn't just parody Star Wars. I'm sure the IMDB has a complete list, but it took a swipe at Aliens (in the diner scene), as well as Rambo and the Planet of the Apes.

      I also think it's funnier, but that's just me

      The new one seems like it's just an attack, no humor involved.

    6. Re:Opposite feeling by Steveftoth · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Maybe because "Pizza the Hut" is not the the same as "Pizza Hut"??? Maybe also because Mel Brooks got the permission of Pepsi before making the movie? Unlike Penny Arcade, who think that they can just go ahead and make a comic with anything in it without worrying about copyright or trademark infringment, A big movie studio has lawyers who's job it is to clear these things up.

    7. Re:Opposite feeling by SnowDog_2112 · · Score: 1

      It is a very interesting thing to think about. I agree that the text update was thought-provoking.

      One difference between me telling someone: "Take a left at the Texaco" and the PA strip is that I'm not making any money by telling someone to take a left at the Texaco, whereas PA is making money (albeit not a lot) off people laughing at the Strawberry Shortcake comic.

      There are tons of complications here -- as two others have already said, why didn't Pepsi send Mel Brooks a threatening letter when Pizza the Hut was used in Spaceballs ... I don't know. Did they? Hmm. Maybe the real reason is that MGM could have fought back, and Tycho and Gabe obviously can't.

      It's also possible MGM called Pepsi and said, "Hey, here's what we're thinking of doing with Spaceballs...."

      In any case, it's not an obvious open-and-shut case of parody. Gabe and Tycho would be spending money and (perhaps more importantly) time on defending their work. So they took it down, but not before offering one potshot (a funnier, and more clearly protected-speech one, at that).

      --
      Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
    8. Re:Opposite feeling by Dinny · · Score: 1

      Walk into any American Greetings Store (they're in many malls). They are currently selling a shit-ton of strawberry shortcake stuff. Dolls, candies, playing cards, coasters, waste baskets. They brought strawberry shortcake and the carebears back 9-12 months ago.

    9. Re:Opposite feeling by digital+photo · · Score: 1

      They had acquired limited rights for the production of the film, most likely. Pepsi might have even paid them for the character so that they could get free advertising. Falls under the category called "sponsorship". (Some categorize it as "selling out".)

    10. Re:Opposite feeling by digital+photo · · Score: 1

      Reprints of cards bearing the Strawberry Shortcake likeness and production of other material copies in the form of lunchboxes, pencils, paperpads, etc. would all constitute use of the intellectual property and rights.

    11. Re:Opposite feeling by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 1

      I thought you were going to mention that they will probably be sued by the Nazis now.

    12. Re:Opposite feeling by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "They'd probably have a strong legal leg to stand on if McGee came to them with a lawsuit."

      But American McGee knows better than to alienate the vast majority of their customer base by getting a bad rep on both Penny Arcade and Slashdot.

      Which brings up an interesting question: How exactly did American Greetings discover the specific Penny Arcade strip to begin with? I don't believe the text "Strawberry Shortcake" appeared anywhere on the website before AG sent out the C&D letter; It only appeared within the image itself. So either AG has an extremely good search engine they're hogging for themselves, or somebody tipped them off.

    13. Re:Opposite feeling by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      They brought "strawberry shortcake" and "the carebears" back 9-12 months ago.

      Damn. Isn't that a sign of the apocalypse?

      (notice how I put quotes around the names? I don't want the lovely, nice, pretty AG types suing me)

    14. Re:Opposite feeling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American McGee knows better than to alienate the vast majority of their customer base

      American McGee is a person not a company.

    15. Re:Opposite feeling by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      However, because they're using a third party's intellectual property in the context of the parody, it's a little fuzzier.

      No, it's not. Explain to me why it's not parody if it's more than one thing being parodied. I wasn't aware there was an arbitrary limit.

      Spaceballs parodying Star Wars is cool ... Spaceballs parodying Star Wars with a title character named Strawberry Shortcake might be a different story.

      Space Balls parodied Star Wars, Alien, Pizza Hut, and more. It was all still parody. It doesn't matter if you parody one thing to parody another.

      Why do so many people keep saying otherwise? Where are you guys getting this mistaken idea from?

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    16. Re:Opposite feeling by zbuffered · · Score: 1

      Somebody tipped them off. Back in the day, Chet and Erik had a nice meeting with the Secret Service because somebody tipped them off that OMM wrote something on their website to the effect of: "with this free e-mail, you can write threatening letters to the president"... They didn't get in any real trouble. People are dumb.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    17. Re:Opposite feeling by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      If I were working for AG in their character department, and I came across it, I would probably print it out and hang it on my desk - or make it my desktop wallpaper. It probably wouldn't cross my mind that it's legally questionable. I would just find it cool.

      Then, when a legal type walked by...

      Artists think things like this are nifty, fun and a compliment. Lawyers and Anne MacCaffery think that they are cause for legal action.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    18. Re:Opposite feeling by John_Booty · · Score: 1

      I actually came away with the opposite feeling. While the first strip was clearly a parody, it was a parody of American McGee, and not a parody of American Greetings. They'd probably have a strong legal leg to stand on if McGee came to them with a lawsuit.

      Parody is allowed- you can parody just about anything. So today's strip (the "American Greetings"=Nazis strip) is totally okay, AFAIK. Also, the strip they got in trouble for (the "American McGee's Strawberry Shortcake" strip) is probably legal too, at least the parody aspect.

      If anything was illegal about the Strawberry Shortcake strip, it was because they used the "Strawberry Shortcake" name without noting that it was a registered trademark or whatever. Although, I don't know if it's even a violation there, IANAL, obviously! :P

      --

      OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
    19. Re:Opposite feeling by schon · · Score: 1

      they're using a third party's intellectual property in the context of the parody

      Who's the third party? American McGee?

      I've never heard of him (them?) - but I laughed out loud when I saw the parody.

      To me it was pretty clear that they were parodying Strawberry Shortcake.

      But I did some reading on American McGee, and the whole thing is even funnier.

    20. Re:Opposite feeling by gm-7 · · Score: 1

      How does PA make money? They have ads I guess, but I go there every day shortcake or not.. They accept donactions, but the comics are all put up free of charge.. ??

      How did they make any money by putting up that strip?

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    21. Re:Opposite feeling by Matthaeus · · Score: 0, Redundant

      > Gabe and Tycho surely don't want Pizza to send out for them!

      Only in Soviet Russia.

    22. Re:Opposite feeling by dpille · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The last highly-moderated post to suggest there was no parody of Strawberry Shortcake got a mixed reaction, too. However, I think a little additional analysis shows this to be the right take.

      To start off, separate the elements. Replacing Strawberry Shortcake with some random public-domain formerly-known-as-wholesome female character makes the same overall point about American McGee. Replace her with, I don't know, Elvira or somebody suitably gothic to begin with, and you're suddenly saying nothing at all about American McGee. For the cartoon to make any sense, you've got to use a good character and make her bad. This is not making a critical comment on the original character, it's merely what the author of the cartoon is doing to the original character.

      So take it the other way- remove any reference to American McGee. Now do you have a parody of Strawberry Shortcake? Not quite- you still need some additional context to get it there, like 'my generation of women has grown up' or 'behind the scenes at American Greetings' or something that would give the drawing the critical or humorous meaning sufficient to be considered parody. Otherwise, a reader would think nothing more than 'gee, that's a wholesome character drawn nasty.'

      Maybe you think that such a drawing is in itself humorous enough to qualify as parody. However, the fair use exemptions require consideration of things like "the purpose and character of the use" of the copyrighted work, which will include things like intended audience. Would you then be telling me you read Penny Arcade for its insightful analysis of 1980's toys for girls? I think American Greetings would have a relatively easy time showing that a top reason the average reader checks it out is for game-related stuff, meaning any parody of their character would be a stretch.

      Seriously, if you read this at Penny Arcade it settles the matter:
      So, American McGee's creative propensities amuse us. What would happen if he turned his dark gaze on one of those sweet girls' toys from the eighties, like Rainbow Brite or Sweet Secrets or My Little Pony? No, I've got it: Strawberry Shortcake.

      If you argue that there is a Strawberry Shortcake parody, you'd be telling me you think it's a parody of all pretty toys from the 80's? I'm skeptical to say the least.

    23. Re:Opposite feeling by Shadarr · · Score: 1

      They could probably sell two shit-tons if they marketted the PA version.

    24. Re:Opposite feeling by ktakki · · Score: 3, Funny
      Damn. Isn't that a sign of the apocalypse?

      You're confusing them with the Four Teletubbies of the Apocalypse.

      I am become Tinky-Wink, destroyer of worlds.

      Sorry.

      k.
      --
      "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    25. Re:Opposite feeling by mrquicknet · · Score: 1
      Using your example, does that mean the makers of Planet of the Apes had a good case to sue Mel Brooks?

      With your logic, this is the case.

      The obvious point of the comic was that American McGee was taking children's stories and making them dark violent and sexual and wouldn't it be funny if they did Strawberry ShortcakeTM. (I can't afford to be sued either.)

      It's parody and it clearly is a parody of both.

      No one would ever believe that Strawberry ShortcakeTM would be used in that manner.

      The thing is that unless Gabe and Tycho post the cartoon back up. It's all pretty much over.

      --
      --------- Steve Martin once said, "Sex is the most natural, most beautiful, most wonderful thing that money can buy."
    26. Re:Opposite feeling by TMB · · Score: 1
      The new one seems like it's just an attack, no humor involved.

      I thought the new one was very funny! Of course, the humour is mostly in the presentation (having her appearing to make a "Heil Hitler" sign, which appears bad, which isn't... but in fact is - classic humour reversal), and less in the content (they're acting like Nazis).

      I still don't understand the original one, though. Can someone explain it?

      [TMB]

    27. Re:Opposite feeling by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      " Spaceballs parodying Star Wars is cool ... Spaceballs parodying Star Wars with a title character named Strawberry Shortcake might be a different story."

      Wow. That put an image in my head that might actually work.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    28. Re:Opposite feeling by bittmann · · Score: 1
      However, because they're using a third party's intellectual property in the context of the parody, it's a little fuzzier. Spaceballs parodying Star Wars is cool ... Spaceballs parodying Star Wars with a title character named Strawberry Shortcake might be a different story.


      Spaceballs parodying Star Wars (and the Wizard of Oz, and Alien, Star Trek, Planet of the Apes, etc., etc., etc.) with a "title" character named after "Colonel Sandurz" is OK, though...I guess. ("What's the matter, Sandurz? Chicken??") And isn't "Lone Star" a kind of beer? Not to mention the minor character "Pizza The Hut". Although I have to agree...I'd have Barfed (sic) if one of the characters had actually been named Strawberry Shortcake.


      Anyway...I'm thinking that someone at American Greetings was just being a *mite* too sensitive.


      Opinion: Somebody at American Greetings thought that the strip was mildly amusing. It was shared with a few co-workers. The office gossip net moved the news of the parody around until it eventually came to the attention of an "uptight sphincter" that was looking for a distraction. Hope he/she's happy, now...I'm sure that nothing good can come of this.


      MMM...Strawberries and beer...Now I'M distracted.

    29. Re:Opposite feeling by 11223 · · Score: 1

      That post shouldn't be allowed for people who are drinking carbonated beverages. /me snorts more coke out his nose

    30. Re:Opposite feeling by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      The argument I've seen so far (which I'm not sure is true) is that for the parody exemption to trademark usage to apply, the material in question needs to be the subject of the parody, not just included in material that happens to be a parody.

      In Spaceballs, Pizza Hut was the object of the parody.

      *shrug* no idea whether the argument is legitimate, though.

    31. Re:Opposite feeling by CTachyon · · Score: 2, Informative
      I still don't understand the original one, though. Can someone explain it?

      There are two parts to the parody. The first is the parody of American McGee's game design proclivities, of taking an idea that's light-hearted (or, in the case of Alice, one normally thought of as such by the public) and turning it into something dark and sinister. The second part is a parody of corporate franchises and the phenomenon of whoring them for money past their sell-by date; just remove the "American McGee's" and add "... as you've never seen her before!", and presto, you have a parody ad that stands on its own just as easily.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
  24. Mirrors by Bish.dk · · Score: 1

    Well, I'm sure there will be no lack of mirrors for this strip, in case they have to take it down. My bet is that half the readership of /. just saved it locally ... "just in case". :)

    1. Re:Mirrors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You bet :-)

  25. lol, title by Kaz+Riprock · · Score: 1

    The comic is titled:
    "Read It Before They Take Legal Action"

    Maybe that should be "Read It Before They Take Slashdot Action"

    --
    Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
    1. Re:lol, title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should take a look at the front page of slashdot sometime. Penny Arcade has a permenant link there. They are more than able to handle the traffic.

  26. Penny Arcade captures America's sentiment.... by Ogrez · · Score: 1

    Joke 'em if they cant take a fsck, fsck 'em if they cant take a joke... and above all else... dont sweat the petty stuff...Pet the sweaty stuff.

    --


    Fire in the hands of the village idiot is no tool, but a weapon of mass destruction
    1. Re:Penny Arcade captures America's sentiment.... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Joke 'em if they cant take a fsck, fsck 'em if they cant take a joke... and above all else... dont sweat the petty stuff...Pet the sweaty stuff. "

      Check the file system on his disk if they can't take a joke?! Is this how you Linux users cope with being too serious?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:Penny Arcade captures America's sentiment.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw, you can curse here, we're all adults. It's really spelled "fuck" by the way, in case you actually didn't know.

  27. Real fucking mature by I+Am+The+Owl · · Score: 1

    You gotta hand it to Penny Arcade! They have come up with, hands down, the best absolute comeback to those dirty nasty lawyer people! "Fucking nazis!" indeed.

    --

    --sdem
  28. America Greetings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the strip refers to "America Greetings" not "American Greetings" *hint* *hint*

    1. Re:America Greetings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it the sites runners are really that retarded to think that will cover their asses.

      I say they are asking to be fucked up their asses and this time they deserve it.

  29. Easy Boycott Idea by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Aside from the usual "don't buy anything from these people," it seems the easiest and surest way to get the word out is to refuse any mail with AG's logo on the envelope. Just write "Refused, return to sender" along with a note on the envelope that says something to the effect of "Nothing personal, I'm just boycotting the publishers of this card."

    1. Re:Easy Boycott Idea by MojoMonkey · · Score: 1

      Just write "Refused, return to sender" along with a note on the envelope that says something to the effect of "Nothing personal, I'm just boycotting the publishers of this card."


      My mom would cry for a day if I returned a card she sent me, no matter my intentions. Thanks for the suggestion!!

      --

      ----- "Blame the guy who doesn't speak English." -- Homer J. Simpson
    2. Re:Easy Boycott Idea by fobbman · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself. My birthday is on Sunday, and I still get money from distant relatives.

    3. Re:Easy Boycott Idea by ave19 · · Score: 1
      I went to their site and asked about a getting a job as a nazi.

      -ave

      --
      ...or maybe not.
    4. Re:Easy Boycott Idea by krumms · · Score: 1

      And why on earth would American Greetings care? I mean, since they:

      1. Already have your friend/relative's money
      2. Probably won't get a complaint from your friend/relative anyway (in fact, they're more likely to complain to you)
      3. Will probably have a fairly large non-slashdot-reading consumer base.

      Sorry to sound harsh, but gee whiz - if you really must do something, just don't buy the damn things yourself!

    5. Re:Easy Boycott Idea by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Already have your friend/relative's money"

      But they probably won't get any money the next time they want to send you a card, or the time after that, or the time after that, or...

      "Probably won't get a complaint from your friend/relative anyway (in fact, they're more likely to complain to you)"

      If they can't accept that you're taking a political stand on an issue that's important to you, then you should probably reconsider whether you really want this person sending you cards to begin with.

      "Will probably have a fairly large non-slashdot-reading consumer base."

      Sending the card back is an easy and probably effective method way to get the word out about AG's actions to the non-Slashdot-reading crowd.

      "if you really must do something, just don't buy the damn things yourself!"

      What part of "aside from" hare you having trouble with? My idea is to not only to not buy the cards myself, but also to make sure nobody I know buys them in the future as well.

    6. Re:Easy Boycott Idea by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1
      Just write "Refused, return to sender" along with a note on the envelope that says something to the effect of "Nothing personal, I'm just boycotting the publishers of this card.

      This is one of those moments where we geeks need to take a step back and evaluate how the rest of the world will evaluate our actions.

      If I get a birthday card from my mother-in-law, and return it as you have suggested, which of the following do you think would be her response:
      • What a thoughtful and heroic crusader for free speech! I should really get more informed about the issues he cares about!
      • What a dick!
    7. Re:Easy Boycott Idea by AvengerXP · · Score: 1

      You do know that boycotting something already bought is as stupid as throwing french wine down the drain when it's in your basement? It has absolutely *no* impact.

      --
      Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
    8. Re:Easy Boycott Idea by MisterFancypants · · Score: 1
      But they probably won't get any money the next time they want to send you a card, or the time after that, or the time after that, or...

      Yeah, but neither will any other card company...Because "they" won't send you any more cards because they think you're a pretentious DICK.

    9. Re:Easy Boycott Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the AG logo is on the card, not the envelope, how are you going to refuse delivery without opening it?

    10. Re:Easy Boycott Idea by stubear · · Score: 1

      Hey dumbass, the card has already been bought and paid for. I doubt the greeting card store is going to accept a card with writing in it. I'm guessing though that you do not receive any greeting cards from friends OR family so no need to worry.

    11. Re:Easy Boycott Idea by Phule77 · · Score: 1

      >If they can't accept that you're taking a >political stand on an issue that's important to >you, then you should probably reconsider whether >you really want this person sending you cards to >begin with.

      Er, raise of hands here...how many people have Parents, relatives, etc. who they do, in fact, want to continue contact with (because they're family) but who totally disagree with their views on things?

      "I'm sorry Mom, but the fact that you won't accept my geek/liberal/zoophilia agenda means that I never want to speak to you again or receive loot from you. Thanks".

      Riiight.

      --
      Listen to me Peter, I want this bench. You go sit on that bench over there, and if you're good I'll tell you the rest of
    12. Re:Easy Boycott Idea by LeoHat · · Score: 1

      boycott Pronunciation Key(boikt)
      tr.v. boycotted, boycotting, boycotts
      To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion


      I could be wrong but your suggested method does not meet the above definition because somebody else ALREADY bought the card from AG. AG got their money. You are just annoying the nice person that send you the card.

      --
      The mistakes of a clever man are equal to the mistakes of a thousand fools.
    13. Re:Easy Boycott Idea by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Aside from the usual "don't buy anything from these people [americangreetings.com]," it seems the easiest and surest way to get the word out is to refuse any mail with AG's logo on the envelope. Just write "Refused, return to sender" along with a note on the envelope that says something to the effect of "Nothing personal, I'm just boycotting the publishers of this card."

      So what do you suggest for those of us who don't get greeting cards?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    14. Re:Easy Boycott Idea by krumms · · Score: 1

      But they probably won't get any money the next time they want to send you a card, or the time after that, or the time after that, or...

      Exactly, because nobody will want to buy you shit after you send all their cards back to them, whining about your benevolent moral card virtues.

      If they can't accept that you're taking a political stand on an issue that's important to you, then you should probably reconsider whether you really want this person sending you cards to begin with.

      Right. "Mum. Dad. I'm sorry, but if you can't understand why I want to bitch about greeting cards, you can fuck off."

      Sending the card back is an easy and probably effective method way to get the word out about AG's actions to the non-Slashdot-reading crowd.

      Great idea - as if the nerd stereotype wasn't already bad enough, now we have to deal with members of the nerd community that have a thing against greeting cards to the point where they believe they should disown family and friends.

      What part of "aside from" hare you having trouble with? My idea is to not only to not buy the cards myself, but also to make sure nobody I know buys them in the future as well.

      And you'll fail, and for your efforts they'll all think you're a fool - a damned fool.

      Which part of "disowned" don't you understand?

      - TL

  30. unless i'm mistaken by Iscariot_ · · Score: 1

    Everyone seems to be posting that PA is in big trouble right now. However, unless my understanding of law is way off base, the worst thing that can happen is that they'll be forced to take this comic down too. Big whoop. It already made me laugh :)

    1. Re:unless i'm mistaken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd imagine they also would be unable to include it in any print publications, which are one of the few ways online cartoonists actually make any money.

  31. Hasn't this been tested already? by I'm+a+racist. · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Didn't the Supreme Court already test the whole idea of doing a parody? If I remember correctly, it was Justice Scalia who wrote the ruling, but I may very well be talking out of my ass (and I'll admit that).

    The most common place that the general public would've been exposed to this ruling would be in The People vs. Larry Flynt.

    Is there something about this case that makes the ruling used for Flynt inapplicable?

    <rant>
    IANAL (I am not a lawyer).

    Law is boring, unchallenging, and unrewarding. Useless greedy fucks become laywers... it is not a sign of intelligence (despite what the various bar associations try to make you believe). A JD is no better than an MBA or a PhD in a bullshit field (such as literature, various "ethnic" studies, and so on).

    The really smart people (physicists, chemists, et al.) look down on lawyers. You should too.

    It's funny how the people that wrote the rules, and created the pomp & circumstance surrounding the judicial system, are the exact same ones who benefit from it. We should move to a system that encourages people to represent themselves, and drop all this archaic bullshit meant to create a class of people who do nothing but argue the meaning(s) of poorly written rules.

    If engineers wrote specifications like lawyers (politicians ~ lawyers) write laws the Internet would never fucking work.
    </rant>
    --


    Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
    1. Re:Hasn't this been tested already? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      A JD is no better than an MBA or a PhD in a bullshit field (such as literature, various "ethnic" studies, and so on).

      Bye bye credibility.

      If engineers wrote specifications like lawyers (politicians ~ lawyers) write laws the Internet would never fucking work.

      And if engineers wrote laws like they write specifications, the whole society wouldn't work.

    2. Re:Hasn't this been tested already? by KM3K · · Score: 1

      A JD is no better than an MBA or a PhD in a bullshit field (such as literature, various "ethnic" studies, and so on).

      Bye bye credibility.


      Don't you mean "hello credibility!" ?

    3. Re:Hasn't this been tested already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of a quote from Glen Cook's The Black Company: "He was a lawyer before he worked his way up to pimping."

  32. Comic Book Legal Defense Fund by Lothar+0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I looks like they're seeking legal aid from the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. If the little guy can't defend himself in court against the big boys, then there should be someone else who can. They also protect Japanese and American manga artists and sellers. I joined, and so should you.

    --
    "Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
    1. Re:Comic Book Legal Defense Fund by May+Kasahara · · Score: 1

      Good for them! The CBLDF is probably the one group with the most expertise in these kinds of issues (I've followed a few cases of theirs in the past, mostly via The Comics Journal), and I'm sure they'll lend some solid support to Penny Arcade.

  33. And the mirrors fly by LAI · · Score: 1

    Here is a mirror of the latest PA strip. I was pissing myself laughing as I uploaded this.

    http://pimpninja.org/img/pa_nazis.gif

    --
    :eof
  34. How to fight lawsuit abuse in general by Nova+Express · · Score: 4, Informative

    For general information on curbing all sorts of lawsuit abuses across the country, you might want to take a look at the American Tort Reform Association.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:How to fight lawsuit abuse in general by smoondog · · Score: 5, Funny

      But strawberry shortcake isn't a tort, its a cake!

      Ohhhhhh, tort, torte, I see....

      -Sean

    2. Re:How to fight lawsuit abuse in general by McChump · · Score: 1

      Okay, we're getting offtopic, but the parent post is just silly. ATRA has nothing to do with this! This is a COPYRIGHT claim, not a TORT claim. ATRA is a business lobbying group, that generally supports limits on certain types of civil suits -- specifically, those suits that are harmful to business. I don't think it's a stretch to say that (to most businesses) that does not include copyright suits.

      Don't believe me? Check out their own website! In fact, don't be surprised if American Greetings turns out to have contributed to ATRA!

      --
      I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners. - Berke Breathed
    3. Re:How to fight lawsuit abuse in general by gclef · · Score: 1

      ...and of course the whole problem here is that the PA folks made her look like a tart.

    4. Re:How to fight lawsuit abuse in general by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1
      I may just be being a bit thick here, but I was under the impression that the tort reforms currently going through in the US (gone through?) were principally about curbing the ability of citizens to sue corporations.

      Or that that was just a nice "side-effect."

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    5. Re:How to fight lawsuit abuse in general by fermion · · Score: 1
      Most tort reform attacks the contingency system. This system allows victims who would not otherwise be able to afford constitutionally guaranteed representation, to consult and, if the lawyer thinks the case has merit, retain the lawyer. As should be the case in a free enterprise system, if the lawyer does well the lawyer is well paid. As is to be expected in a country where we have government by the people, a jury makes the decision on who is right and wrong within the framework of rule of law. Some people say the jury can't be trusted in these complicated business manner, but if they can be trusted to send someone to his or her death or incarcerate a person for life, these little business matters do not seem so important.

      Reform is occurring on two planes. The first is with compensation limits. These limits in effect creates an environment in which lawyers are not going to make a profit on a case, even if they win, and therefore cannot afford to take contingency cases. Therefore, victims with good cases buy no money are denied their constitutional rights, and lawyers are denied the right to conduct business at a profit. The limits are also difficult to defend in environment where corporation specifcally calculate thier risk based on the amount they will have to pay for each person that dies from the use of thier product.

      The second target is allowing those sued to countersue for court costs if they win. This may be a method for victims of lawsuits, like those in this case, to recover court costs, but of course this process itself is going to cost money, and will probably be settled for significantly less, and lawyers, as rational business people, will not take this risk.

      And the reforms make no sense. For instance, in Texas the lawyer who fought the Tobacco companies, invested their own money at their own risk. If they would have lost, they would been out an incredible amount of money. However, they won and, as is appropriate in a free market system, the large risk gave them a large return. However, then Governor Bush decided he didn't like lawyers and decided to fight the settlement in court. This was a frivolous lawsuit. The contracts were clear. The documentation was clear. It was just a matter of greed on his part. Which was surprising because the State of Texas was the beneficiary of billions of dollars in the settlement. Governor Bush himself was a direct beneficiary because it was this money that allowed him to pass a promised tax cut, without which he would have been like his father, and had a much harder time convincing the people of Texas to support him for president.

      So, to summarize tort reform prevents parties without money from suing parties with money. It provides a mechanism for parties who get sued and win to get their court cost paid by the party who sued them. However, this process is still going to cost money, so in effect it prevents parties without money from suing parties with money by creating even greater risks in the process. In this case, where parties with money are suing parties without money, it does nothing. Even if the party with money loses and has to pay court costs later on, these cost will begin to compensate the victims of the lawsuit.

      One more thing. One thing listed in the parent URL was the medical reform, supposedly to keep insurance affordable for doctors. One example is California, where insurance rates did not become affordable due to tort reform, but due to heavy regulation of the insurance industry.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    6. Re:How to fight lawsuit abuse in general by codemonkey_uk · · Score: 1

      Some lawyers still work on a pro-bono basis, don't they? Isn't there someone who would take on this case on a no-win no-fee basis?

      --

      Thad

  35. Not a parody, but LIBEL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think this is a case of parody at all.

    I think maybe this cartoon has crossed the line from parody into libel.

    Calling someone a Nazi, or inferring that a company is run by Nazis that worship a picture Adolph Hitler could cross the line and might get these guys into real trouble.

    At the very least, it sets them up to be sued for libel whether it is or not, and they will have to pay a lawyer to defend themselves.

    It's pretty stupid to do something like that, I'd say.

    1. Re:Not a parody, but LIBEL by digital+photo · · Score: 1

      Doubtful.

      First of all, they didn't use the name: "American Greetings", they used "America Greeting". So they are not addressing the company you are thinking of.

      The character portrayed in the strip itself is also not identified, so there is no individual who is being labelled a "Nazi".

      Second, they are expressing editorial comment, not statement of fact. That is protected under 1st amendment free speech rights.

      If they had expressed explicitly, as fact, that AM worshipped and were Nazis, then they would be in trouble.... unless they could prove that they actually did and were.

      In this case, they are expressing editorial comment and the strip would be highly unlikely to be mistaken as a statement of fact by any normal jury.

  36. How is it not a parody of Shortcake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The comic in question is (should I say "was") humorous precisely because it's a parody of Strawberry Shortcake.

    In the post along with the strip the PA people went out and said that they were parodying McGee. But whether they said it or not, they're also parodying Strawberry Shortcake, playing on her goody-goody image.

    The guy on PA makes a good point in his post on their site. Strawberry Shortcake is part of the American lexicon. Just like Gargamel or GI Joe or Speed Racer.

    Referencing these characters shouldn't be trademark infringement.

    1. Re:How is it not a parody of Shortcake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to make paracutes out of trash bags for my GI Joe, but I've never heard of Gargamel. None of the Google links explain it to me either.

    2. Re:How is it not a parody of Shortcake? by KefkaFloyd · · Score: 1

      Gargamel is the bad guy from the Smurfs. Had a cat named Asrael. Was very evil, but a coward at heart.

      --

      Conglom-O: We Own You (TM).
    3. Re:How is it not a parody of Shortcake? by Steveftoth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (Quote)
      Referencing these characters shouldn't be trademark infringement.
      (end Quote)
      So basically you want to do away with trademark and copyrights huh? That's what you are saying. As the whole point of Trademarks and Copyright is control. Control over how a name is used in society. Control over how a name is presented, good or bad, black or white.

      Strawberry shortcake, GI Joe, etc.. are not part of the american lexicon, they are a small part of pop culture.

    4. Re:How is it not a parody of Shortcake? by joeyspqr · · Score: 1

      Referencing these characters shouldn't be trademark infringement.

      this is what the whole copyright/DRM debate is about ...
      parody is evidence of orginal thought, which means someone is thinking outside the brand, which is a threat to profits ...
      which is terrorism!!

      --
      +1 fashionably cynical
    5. Re:How is it not a parody of Shortcake? by daVinci1980 · · Score: 1

      I would disagree. If a product name that is copyrighted enters American vernacular, the copyright becomes invalidated. I'm not making this up.

      Consider the case of Xerox, they have all but lost the term xerox (oh no! I'm going to be sued!) to the general language of men. Check it out here.

      As the article points out, the goal of advertising is to get people to purchase your product. And one of the best ways to do so is through brand recognition. But outstanding success in this area (such as the case with Xerox) will cause one to lose their trademark. (Like aspirin.)

      --
      I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
    6. Re:How is it not a parody of Shortcake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Long ago, National Lampoon had a comic showing Strawberry getting it doggy-style from one of the Smurfs. PA's parody was very tame by comparison.

    7. Re:How is it not a parody of Shortcake? by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      Coke. For example in Texas and other parts of the country people will ask "What kind of coke do you want?" Some linguists did a study on this and concluded that, at least in some parts of the country, coke as become a generic term for "soda". According to my prof at the time Coke finaced another group of Linguists to produce a study that says that it is not a term just to save their copyright. Granted this has nothing to do with this case but it is a kind of fun factoid.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    8. Re:How is it not a parody of Shortcake? by Steveftoth · · Score: 1

      I agree with what you are saying, but not everyone says 'I would like a strawberry shortcake' when reffering to dolls for little girls. I would say that MORE people refer to action figures as G.I. Joes. I remember playing G.I. joes as a kid and actually we play with transformers or whatever toy we had at the time.

      Xerox and Coke, and whomever else can't force people to stop saying that, but if you were to start making anti-coke ads that replicated their logo it would be a violation of trademark and possiably copyright. They could sue you. Notice that whenever you see a parody of coke in movies, video games, comics, it's always called something.
      I think Duke Nukem called it Choak or something like that.

    9. Re:How is it not a parody of Shortcake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.bomba-fantastica.com/Smurf.htm

      "I remember one particular issue featured a full-page illustration of a Smurf holding the waist of a grimacing Strawberry Shortcake while smurfing her from behind. I don't know what his name was... but that was my favorite Smurf."

  37. no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This has nothing to do with copyright law, and everything to do with trademark law. American Greetings is not "protecting their copyrights".

    1. Re:no by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it's both. The S.S. character drawn is derivative of the copyright A.G. holds, even though by no means an exact copy.

      Trademarks are ALSO an issue; possibly a stronger one. But not the only one. See the case involving "The Cat Not in the Hat" for how the copyright side of this might play out.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    2. Re:no by puppet10 · · Score: 1

      yep, and with the recent supreme court case (the victoria's secret, victors secret one) the trademark case is probably weakened considerably as well.

      --
      -------- This space intentionally left blank --------
    3. Re:no by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Well, a little bit. That case only said that when trademark dilution is alleged, that the plaintiff has to show proof of actual dilution.

      So it's harder to meet that standard, but not impossible. It's basically an issue of how much effort the plaintiff wants to put into the case.

      Anyway, I suspect that this will all eventually blow over.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    4. Re:no by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      The S.S. character drawn

      Great choice of acronym there. Was "The S.S." character you're referring to Strawberry Shortcake ... or Hitler?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  38. It's all been done... by Remik · · Score: 1

    Check out what happened when Reese's threatened to sue Goats over their use of trademark in a similar situation.

    -R

    1. Re:It's all been done... by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      Great example. And I'm sure that the author of PA is aware of the situation w/ Jon considering they've done crossovers and mention each other.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    2. Re:It's all been done... by Mantorp · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm not clicking any links with goats in them

    3. Re:It's all been done... by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 1

      lol I had the same reaction to goats.com. Not risking it- my retinas just barely healed up from the last goat link.

  39. Penny Arcade is, unfortunantely, not protected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IANAL, but i do have some experience in these kinds of cases.

    The traditional protection of a work of parody does not, in this instance, protect Penny Arcade. The protections of parody and satire only protect the material being parodied. In this case, the subject of the parody was no Strawberry Shortcake, but rather, American McGee's Alice and Oz games. American Greeting's property was being used to parody something else. Therefore, it's not protected.

    This test has been held up in a number of cases, mainly involving the sale of parody t-shirts and the like.

    1. Re:Penny Arcade is, unfortunantely, not protected by Exatron · · Score: 1

      What exactly prevents the strip from parodying both American McGee and Strawberry Shortcake? Nothing. Therefore, it must be protected.

      --
      "I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
      "Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
    2. Re:Penny Arcade is, unfortunantely, not protected by zdislaw · · Score: 1

      Nothing. But the strip is not parodying Strawberry Shortcake. That is the whole point of the parent post. They could if they were but the didn't so they aren't. Using a trademark in a parody is not neccessarily the same thing as using a trademark as a parody.

      --
      bad sig...no donut.
    3. Re:Penny Arcade is, unfortunantely, not protected by taustin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Anybody who takes legal advice from an Anonymous Coward deserves what they get.

      Anybody who mods legal advice from an Anonymous Coward is an idoit.

    4. Re:Penny Arcade is, unfortunantely, not protected by festers · · Score: 1

      Please explain how an S&M version of a goody-two shoes little girl is not a parody.

      --


      -------
      "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
    5. Re:Penny Arcade is, unfortunantely, not protected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Anybody who mods legal advice from an Anonymous Coward is an idoit.

      Well, it takes one to know one, and I think I just found another.

    6. Re:Penny Arcade is, unfortunantely, not protected by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Anybody who takes legal advice from an Anonymous Coward deserves what they get.

      Yeah! Smart people only take legal advice from Slashdot posts with a username! I even took an extra $3800 in tax deductions when sMaRtD00D pointed out that porn purchases are tax deductable!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  40. Register suck-sites. by eddy · · Score: 1

    Another proper response is to register sucks-sites for both the prosecuting party and their lawyers.

    Remember, Gifford-Krass-Grohsprinkle sucks.

    These firms are and represent the scum of the earth. Why? Because they take money from their clients in cases where they know they have no legal standing. They're just bullies for hire, and quite possibly they even fool their clients into thinking they have a real complaint. Scum.

    See also MichaelSavageSucks.com also nastygramed by radio show lawyers

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
  41. NOT clearly a parody by Neolithic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Penny Arcade was poking fun at American McGee's treatment of other worlds (eg. Alice, Oz), not at the Strawberry Shortcake world. Strawberry Shortcake was a means to an end. It could have been replaced by Pooh or the Smurfs with the same effect. The joke, to me, was the darkening retale of percieved lighthearted, children's stories.

    In his own comment on April 21, 2003 Tycho provides a link to other court cases and specifically mentions "Dr. Seuss Enterprises Vs. Penguin Books" on page three as possible precident that would work against Penny Arcade.

    That is not to say what PA did was and should be illegal. It's simply not clearly parody. It's something that would require extensive (expensive) legal processes.

    1. Re:NOT clearly a parody by zdislaw · · Score: 1

      I wonder why they didn't just dig into public domain? The parody would have been just as effective (if not more so) using Little Red Riding Hood or MIss Muffet. I'll bet they're wishing they had. Then again, would we all be discussing it if there were no legal issues involved?

      --
      bad sig...no donut.
    2. Re:NOT clearly a parody by lowe0 · · Score: 1

      My guess?

      The "tart" joke clicked and they ran with it.

  42. But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are just provoking them and will get an appropreit action from them. The little guy is not so innocent when they are asking the big guy for it.

    I don't care if they don't have money, if they want to try stuff like this they better be willing to accept the consequinces.

    I wonder how much they will start begging and relying on their fans to bail them out of the situation they knowingly got themselfs in. I wouldn't be surprised if they counted on exploting their fanboys and using them to pitch in.

  43. Prior restraint, motherfucker! by I'm+a+racist. · · Score: 1

    Actually, they did get censored, in a roundabout way.

    Penny Arcade, while amusing, is small time. They can not handle a drawn out legal battle. The threat of litigation is enough to cause them to give up.

    Right or wrong, American Greetings has the cash to keep Gabe & Tycho tied up in court for a very long time. Are you going to pay for that? I certainly know I won't be covering their legal costs.

    The term (that I feel) applies here is "prior restraint", more or less. This basically means, in my usage and interpretation here, that their actions were restricted under just the threat of the possibility of legal action.

    --


    Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
  44. Re:Real fucking mature - mod parent up by TrollBridge · · Score: 1
    I was thinking the same thing! If they used as much creativity to get out of trouble as they apparently do to invite it, they may just have a chance.

    The maturity demonstrated here doesn't suggest more than a snowball's chance in Hell.

    --
    There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
  45. Is it just me.... by Restil · · Score: 1

    If American McGee wanted to sue, there would still be the whole parody/fair use issue, but at least it would make sense. What the hell does AmericanGreetings have to do with it? The only commonality is the word "American", which, if I'm not mistaken, is used QUITE frequently in the United States, for a great many things. This isn't even a parody issue. This is a "what the hell does this have to do with anything" issue.

    -Restil

    --
    Play with my webcams and lights here
    1. Re:Is it just me.... by Remik · · Score: 1

      American Greetings owns the trademarks associated with Strawberry Shortcake and Co.

      -R

    2. Re:Is it just me.... by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one that took this as a parody of the "Strwberry Shortcake" character?

      Twenty years ago, I remember my sister having one these dolls and it was this cutsey little thing. Well, mostly I remember it smelled of strawberries. Anyways, changing a portrayal of a cute little girl into a dominatrix woman seems to be a pretty clear cut parody to me.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    3. Re:Is it just me.... by Queuetue · · Score: 1

      You mean, "smelled of nasty, nasty strawberries." Cloying, sickening, artificial strawberries. Yes, at least I can remember the damned things and their horrible stench.

  46. Dupe, Dupe, Dupe! by mike_mgo · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    What is happening to /. these...

    Oh, nevermind.

  47. Puck Off! by Hayzeus · · Score: 1
    Is it just me, or do all the F's in the strip look like Ps? Or is the strip just written in some kind of esperanto-english patois?

    "We're late Por our meeting". "She's a Pucking Nazi!"

  48. heh by nomadic · · Score: 1

    Penny Arcade already struck back when they replaced the original offending strip with a message about American Greetings, and the e-mail address of the person who sent the letter. I'm sure she got a sizeable amount of poorly spelled, vicious hate mail.

  49. No biggie by dacarr · · Score: 5, Insightful
    First and foremost, remember that they have merely sent C&D. Next step is a lawsuit if necessary. On one hand, as I've said before, anybody can sue, but whether you win is another story. Now consider this - it's a pain to go to court. Lawyer fees aside, it is a lot of time and energy put into this kind of stuff.

    My thoughts? I don't like the strip - I find it tasteless. But one of the tenets of free speech is to defend even those who you don't like - because if they censor them, it's only a matter of time before they censor you. As such, I'd hate to see these guys go down like this.

    --
    This sig no verb.
    1. Re:No biggie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the guys at Penny Arcade would sure love it if UserFriendly was the one getting the shaft.. you know they'd be cheering for its destruction on a daily basis.

      Those asswipes are hypocrites.

    2. Re:No biggie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no, they'd only cheer for their destruction because UserFriendly just plain sucks. There's a difference.

  50. wow by sweatyboatman · · Score: 1

    if you go to the site you'll see that the PA people didn't capitulate because they felt they were in the wrong. they gave in because they run their site on a shoe-string budget.

    If I were a big corporation

    hehe. that's a funny picture.

    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
  51. Nazi reference highly inappropriate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when you consider that American Greetings was founded by a jewish family that escaped the Holocaust.

    1. Re:Nazi reference highly inappropriate by zdislaw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if that were not true, I find simplistic and offensive the equating of anything that people think is violating their rights as "Naziism". American Greetings, whether or not their suit is moral, are nowhere near Nazis. It's a lazy shortcut that relies on a certain perception of what a Nazi is that ends up watering down the whole concept. I don't think the Holocaust should be watered down.

      --
      bad sig...no donut.
    2. Re:Nazi reference highly inappropriate by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      It's a lazy shortcut that relies on a certain perception of what a Nazi is that ends up watering down the whole concept. I don't think the Holocaust should be watered down.

      The characters depicted in the comic strip are clearly not the best role models in the world. Now let them make their lil' jokes in peace and stop being the thought police officer in charge of nazi-related humour and merriment.

      They are not "watering down" anything, they are insulting a power greater than themselves by equating it to a former, well recognised, great power of evil. You, of course, have a right not to like it, and I have a right to think you're a wang-less loser for reading so much into this silly comic strip.

      Watering down the holocaust...jeebus!

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:Nazi reference highly inappropriate by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Ironic, isn't it?
      *waits for tumblers to click into place*

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    4. Re:Nazi reference highly inappropriate by zdislaw · · Score: 1

      Apparently you missed my reply to the earlier message. I appreciate that you think I'm wanger-less, but you will please note that, as I am already dead, I couldn't care less about my lack of penis.

      --
      bad sig...no donut.
    5. Re:Nazi reference highly inappropriate by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      I appreciate that you think I'm wanger-less

      That's "wang".
      You're thinking of weiner.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    6. Re:Nazi reference highly inappropriate by zdislaw · · Score: 1
      You're thinking of weiner.

      Well duh. Everything is about my dick.

      --
      bad sig...no donut.
    7. Re:Nazi reference highly inappropriate by iq+in+binary · · Score: 1

      That my friend, is where the beauty of our most celebrated constitutional rites lies.

      You may have a point, but they have an even better one. They shouldn't have to care whether or not their statements are moral or fair to anyone. PA is geared towards a certain audience, just as any other form of entertainment. You may not have found their crack as Naziism to be inappropriate, the rest of their audience (I assure you) thought it was funny as hell.

      --
      Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last ;)
    8. Re:Nazi reference highly inappropriate by zdislaw · · Score: 1
      I'd like to add to that this: Just 'cause I thought they were innappropriate does not mean that I think they should be stopped from saying it. Yeah, I didn't think it was funny, but who cares? It's just my opinion and I, my friend, celebrate that constitutional right as well. Hell, I've been on the "no vaseline" end of first amendment attacks myself.

      I know that, when taken as a single joke, the Nazi comparison seems pretty harmless. I just feel like these thing add up. I'm certainly not trying to dictate in any way what people can and cannot say. I just think the way I think and don't feel that it hurts anyone to hear an opinion that may not have occured to them before.

      Now, since I've made this all about me, I think I'll just bail now. Thanks for not threatening to kill me ;)

      --
      bad sig...no donut.
  52. Horrible Boycott Idea by Tassleman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I do believe that if my mother sent me a greeting card, and I REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER'd it, I would get my ass kicked.

    What a lame ass thing to take a stand on.

    1. Re:Horrible Boycott Idea by Guppy06 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      That, or she'd be happy that you're doing something vaguely meaningful in your life.

    2. Re:Horrible Boycott Idea by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      What a lame ass thing to take a stand on.

      Yeah, the ongoing attempt for companies to silence anything in disagreement with them. That is such a lame thing to take a stand on.

    3. Re:Horrible Boycott Idea by ohboy-sleep · · Score: 1

      That, or she'd be happy that you're doing something vaguely meaningful in your life.

      Oh yeah, because moms aren't all sentimental and stuff.

      [phone rings]
      MOM: Why did you send back my birthday card?
      ME: Well you see, there's this lawsui--
      MOM: Don't interrupt me! How could you do this to your poor mother who carried you for nine whole months?!

    4. Re:Horrible Boycott Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      And a card is the only mail I'm likely to get that contains cash, I'm not about to start boycotting cash. :)

    5. Re:Horrible Boycott Idea by turbosk · · Score: 1

      When they threatened penny arcade i didn't take a stand cuz those comix weren't all that funny;

      When they outlawed DeCSS i didn't take a stand cuz i don't watch DVDs anyway;

      When they passed the DMCA i didn't take a stand cuz, well, IANAL, and that shit's confusing;

      When they used CIPA against pulic libraries i didn't take a stand cuz i read mostly newspapers.

      BUT

      When they outlaw open source, heads will roll.

      fred

    6. Re:Horrible Boycott Idea by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      Don't interrupt me! How could you do this to your poor mother who carried you for nine whole months?!

      Haha! So I'm not the only one who gets the 'nine months, 16 hours of labor' speech?

    7. Re:Horrible Boycott Idea by Ignominious+Poltroon · · Score: 1
      What a lame ass thing to take a stand on.

      It's not about taking a stand on some piddly "thing", it's supporting individual rights against the overwhelming power of moneyed interests. If you ever find yourself in similar trouble, you'll be glad to find out that other people aren't as numb and (a)pathetic as you are.

  53. Another mirror of the new strip by LAI · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    :eof
  54. ITS NOT FUNNY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the problem. Just saying "fuck" and "hitler" doesn't make it controversial. Just dumb.

  55. Look, Ma! Circular Logic! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    "a class of people who do nothing but argue the meaning(s) of poorly written rules."

    "The really smart people (physicists, chemists, et al.) look down on lawyers. You should too."

    If you think you can do a better job, why don't you do it yourself? Or are you too busy looking down your nose to realize that somebody has to do it and that, if you do nothing but bitch and moan without even bothering to vote, you deserve whatever you get?

  56. Re:Godwin-1, PA-0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, YOU invoked Godwin's law. Penny Arcade gave you the grounds to do so.

    All pretty moot, though, given the well-established fact that the only people dumber than the few who call someone a "Nazi" are those who then run around screeching about "Godwin's law".

  57. YO BUDDY by WeenisOnyatonsils · · Score: 0

    You're really friggin clever, picking up on the half-assed efforts of the PA goons to cover up their true targets. My cousin Vinny could take this case and litigate those two worthless hacks into the ground for slander and libel. Oh, and I will tool you ruthlessly.

    1. Re:YO BUDDY by mingot · · Score: 1

      Slander AND libel?

      S-s-s-slander is Sp-sp-sp-spoken.
      L-l-l-libel is L-l-literary.

    2. Re:YO BUDDY by natet · · Score: 1

      Is it Slander if it is a comic strip character speaking?

      --
      IANAL... But I play one on /.
    3. Re:YO BUDDY by Ataru · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it's libel.

      In general, and IANAL, and I am oversimplifying, and I am from the UK so our legal systems only share a common ancestor, etc,

      slander:
      - transient, for example:
      - speech
      - holding up a sign
      - pulling stupid faces
      - internet chat rooms (maybe, and distributing logs would be libel)
      - damage must be proven to have occurred
      - except in certain cases, for example:
      - accusing someone of a crime
      - saying someone's got the lurgy
      - calling a woman a slag (only works for women)
      - saying someone is shit at their job

      libel:
      - permanent, for example:
      - newspapers
      - magazines
      - books
      - comics
      - films
      - web pages
      - usenet
      - damage is presumed to have occurred, so the claimant need not prove it

  58. Why is "Penny Arcade" funny? by slaker · · Score: 0, Troll

    Just asking, 'cause I don't get it. I just played "try to find the joke" in that latest strip. I didn't see it. They use naughty words and invoke Godwin's Law WRT American Greetings.

    --
    -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    1. Re:Why is "Penny Arcade" funny? by cqnn · · Score: 1

      I won't go into all the reasons, but one of PA
      main draws is its irreverent attitude towards
      the (console/PC) gaming industry, and the
      associated gamer/geek culture. That the main
      characters carry that attitude over into almost
      everything else the strip focuses on is a staple
      of the site; and what can make it consistently
      funny/unfunny for its readers.

      As an AC pointed out in a reply above, they did
      not invoke Godwin, you do by bringing up
      "Godwin's Law" in reference to a Nazi comment.

    2. Re:Why is "Penny Arcade" funny? by slaker · · Score: 1

      "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful."

      -- The Hacker's Dictionary.

      The strip in question features an "America Greetings" employee saluting Hitler. Ergo, given the above defintion (comparison to Hitler), Godwin's law has been invoked, by them, not by me.

      I read a few weeks worth of Penny Arcade during the previous mention on slashdot. I didn't get it then, even though I'm in touch enough that I've played some of the PC games they discuss. I'm really having a hard time seeing how this "comic" can generate so much interest on slashdot.

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    3. Re:Why is "Penny Arcade" funny? by tigris · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because of strips like this.

      *chuckle*

    4. Re:Why is "Penny Arcade" funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      " I'm really having a hard time seeing how this "comic" can generate so much interest on slashdot. "

      Are you serious? Slashdot is a haven for angry fanboys who hate corporations, Microsoft and George Bush, but love 12 year old crap like Anime and comic related games and merchandise. You haven't noticed that 90% of the people who post here are complete whackjobs who lost touch with reality sometime during the 80s?

    5. Re:Why is "Penny Arcade" funny? by slaker · · Score: 1

      I can hate Herr Bush (--- note sneaking reference to Godwin's law) just fine all on my own.

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    6. Re:Why is "Penny Arcade" funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't find it funny, you're in the wrong line of work.

    7. Re:Why is "Penny Arcade" funny? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I think it's just the general anger and bitterness. You're looking too hard. There isn't a "joke" as such. This is just the Penny Arcade people using their forum to bitch and whine about American Greetings in as abusive a way as possible whilst being absolutely sure that they have the legal protection that they can claim it was parody and not free speech.

      Essentially, it's funny because it's totally in your face but using a (slightly) different method of saying what it's saying.

  59. Support PA by DrMrLordX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you want to support the guys at Penny Arcade, check

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2003- 04 -14

    Which was the former location of the Strawberry Cupcake comic. They have an email address at American Greetings there instead if you have comments. Namely, Rinda.Vas@amgreetings.com

  60. How to fight corporate abuse in general by jdcook · · Score: 1, Informative

    For general information on the true mission of the American Tort Reform Association, see these trial lawyers.

    --
    Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
  61. It doesn't say American Greetings in the strip by gosand · · Score: 1
    a) What does this new cartoon have to do with American Greetings except for the caption on the desk?

    Well, to be technically accurate, the comic doesn't show "American Greetings" on the desk. Look at it again.

    first pane: america greeting
    second pane: reflection in the door: a?eric?? gr???????
    third pane: ????ic?? g?eetin??

    Now, we all KNOW who they are talking about, but they don't use the words "American Greetings" in the strip.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  62. woah there by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 2, Informative

    That certainly wasn't work safe! *gulp* ;-)

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    1. Re:woah there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then work at work, and read /. at home. Duh.

      Cut down on your pen and paperclip pilfering, and stop calling 1-900-goat-sex from your office phone while you're at it!

  63. american greetings by lexcyber · · Score: 1

    wench!

    --
    - To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion -
  64. I was going to register sucks site.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But found out it was already sucks and there for there was no reason need to do so.

  65. Re:Godwin-1, PA-0 by TeddyR · · Score: 1

    A quick reference for those um... youngg-uns that only know the internet through their http:// based browser....

    http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GodwinsLaw

    or here goes, from the Jargon File (4.3.1, 29 Jun 2001)

    Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

    "There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any _intentional_ triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful."

    --

    --
    Time is on my side
  66. what they SHOULD do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is really rip up the image
    post up some adult version of the original cartoon

  67. Americas Greetings read PA in 1st place! by sirrube · · Score: 1

    I rember seeing this comic the first time and thinking nothing of it. I could not place the comic again until now after looking at the mirror. Is it just me or is anyone else wondering how Americas Greetings found out about this site and why they decided it was worth having thier legal department cause so much trouble over it.

    1. Re:Americas Greetings read PA in 1st place! by soleblaze · · Score: 1

      One of the people that work there probably read Penny Arcade and found it humorous and since they knew their company owned the trademark.. they passed it around the office..and someone without a sense of humor got a copy (or maybe they spammed the office with it and someone got annoyed at the spamming)

  68. People, ACLU by BKX · · Score: 1

    This whole "big guy" "little guy" thing could easily be made moot by asking the ACLU for help. They frequently provide legal advice, assistance and lawyers when someone's rights get trampled, such as in this case. I've had several friends, for different reasons, who've been helped by the ACLU. All you need to do is ask.

    1. Re:People, ACLU by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      I'm really surprised that the creators of Penny Arcade has not been offered legal help by either the ACLU or the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); the latter would likely offer assistance since Penny Arcade is primarily distributed via the Internet.

    2. Re:People, ACLU by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      This was yesterday's page, and at the bottom Tycho says the following:

      Strawberry Shortcake Update: I have mails in to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, and I'm supposed to talk with a person from the ACLU today. I don't think this is something we can do without a Sugar Daddy.

      The fact that he doesn't mention the ACLU in today's main page somewhat confuses me...did he have the talk? Did they tell him it's shaky? Has the world, or in this case the USA, as usual *SIGH* gone completely bonkers?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  69. Wish they could haul away lawyers for fraud for it by YetAnotherAnonymousC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree. What's a shame is that lawyers get away with these sorts of empty threats all the time. We can't really expect guys like Gabe and Tycho to know when a lawyer is bluffing. It's almost like fraud, in a way, for legal departments to act as if something like this is actionable, when they know it is not.

  70. turnabout can be funny. by BelaHedgehog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The original strip was a parody of both Strawberry Shortcake AND American McGee. It would have done NO harm to the image of either party, as they are obvious take-offs on aspects of the other.

    Had I been a legal eagle at American Greetings, I would have replied by getting one o' my art guys to draw up a Strawberry-esque Tycho and Gabe with the following layout:
    Panel 1:
    Tycho: We use DIRTY words.
    Panel 2:
    Gabe: MUCK!!
    Panel 3:
    Both: tee hee!

    The only image tarnished by this whole affair is that of the overly-litigious facist dorks who thought a suit would be a good idea.

    1. Re:turnabout can be funny. by RatBastard · · Score: 1
      The only image tarnished by this whole affair is that of the overly-litigious facist dorks who thought a suit would be a good idea.

      What lawsuit? American Greetings sent Penny Arcade a cease and disist letter and telling them to remove a comic that they felt infringed on their copyrights and / or trademarks. No one has sued anyone.

      American Greetings acted as they felt best protected their assets. They could have files a suit without a C&D letter first, but they did not. They chose to give Gabe and Tycho a chance to take down the offending (in American Greeting's eyes) comic and avoid any further trouble.

      And how do Tycho and Gabe espond? By calling them "Pucking Nazi's". Real mature, guys. Way to act like adults. The only image tarnished here is that of Tycho and Gabe, who have resorted to name calling and swearing.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    2. Re:turnabout can be funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You thinking that disallowing web comic artists to use known trademarks for parody isn't funny.

      On the other side, this new strip was, no matter what your definition of "mature" is :)

    3. Re:turnabout can be funny. by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      The only image tarnished by this whole affair is that of the overly-litigious facist dorks who thought a suit would be a good idea.

      I know it's "trendy" to always criticize "corporations" for everything they do but as the law stands, if you don't actively police your trademarks, you lose them. If AG's lawyers had not acted, they would not be able to defend themselves in the case of a genuine infringement, for example by a rival toy manufacturer, in the future. If you want to blame anyone, blame the government for enshrining a law that doesn't discriminate between different levels of trademark infringement.

  71. Great... by istartedi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...now the "censored" folder on my desktop has nazi.gif in it. I didn't think that'd ever happen. It's just more ironic distribution, but if Penny Arcade is actually going to try and exploit their legal troubles to promote their lousy comics, I may engage in ironic deletion.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  72. Clearly parody... by JackMonkey · · Score: 1

    "The banned strip is clearly a work of parody, which I believe is still legal in this country..."

    While this is just an excuse for American Greetings to bully PA into submission, I think the problem they ran into was that they were not parodying Strawberry Shortcake, they were using that icon to parody American McGee. I believe there's some kind of BS loophole that since their icon was not the one being parodied, they could successfully sue for infringement. Either way, PA doesn't have the legal muscle to back-up any kind of challenge by a powerhouse like AG.

  73. For the reasons I already stated. by I'm+a+racist. · · Score: 1

    Law is boring, unchallenging, and unrewarding.

    I do work that is interesting, challenging, and rewarding.

    There are high barriers to entry in the legal profession (so that they can artifically inflate prices). The 3 years of easy, yet expensive, schooling do not pay off in the same way that a PhD in science can (in terms of the intangibles).

    As for money, I already make as much as, if not more than, some lawyers (there are no lawyers my age anyway). If I left science and went into programming, I'd make even more, I have a standing offer of 3x my current salary (plus I collect patent royalties).

    Now, that being said, I do not pay for lawyers. I never will, under any circumstances. As far as I'm concerned, they can not do anything better than I can.

    I recently won a wrongful death suit, and have my accountant do my paperwork (a law firm would want as much as $7k to process all of it, I pay less than $500 total).

    So, I have as much right, if not more than, the average person to complain about the state of the legal profession/system.

    --


    Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
    1. Re:For the reasons I already stated. by Matthaeus · · Score: 1

      > I do not pay for lawyers

      > I recently won a wrongful death suit

      Just out of idle curiosity, how do you represent yourself in a wrongful death suit?

      ---

      Yes, it's a joke. No, I'm not really that dumb.

    2. Re:For the reasons I already stated. by stevejsmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but in the case of a wrongful death suit you still need somebody to love you to file the suit once your gone, something that you will never get. Sorry, buddy, but we've all got a little Jew and black in us...

  74. Re:Props! indeed by Draigon · · Score: 1

    I don't get what the big fuss is.
    Even if it wouldn't hold up in court or even if the parody was less obvious, what was the harm to that name brand? I thought the idea behind advertising was the more you get a name out there the more it will sell (which very well could be the point of all the controversy). It can't be a thing of associating the brand with something bad, because there's plenty of movies with product placement that are violent, perverse or vulgar.

    Thanks to Penny Arcade, alot more people have that name brand stuck in their head, and until American Greetings decided to put on the legal nutcrackers it probably would have helped sales even if it were just a postcard with Strawberry Shortcake on it that said "Hey, you remember that comic by Penny Arcade? hahaha"

    --
    -Rabbit
  75. Its the demo graphic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This "comic" is funny to the fat assed "hardcore" mama's boy gamer demo graphic.

    For the curse words the do it because in that mentality it is cool to cuss, the more cussing the "funnier" the jokes. It also saves them from actully having to write anything humorous or witty (not like they ever were).

    All comics are required to fit the following pattern:
    First pannel: some sort of bitching and cursing about something.
    Second pannel: Another character bitching and cursing about something.
    Third pannel: First character insults the other character, usally invoving a "u ar t3h g4hy" inslut/"punchline."

    I noticed that there must be sort of a requriment for them to always make gay jokes, because to use gay jokes to appeal to the low IQ gamer demo graphics definition of "funny."

  76. An early childhood's worth of toys, cards, & v by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that I won't be buying now for the young niece with red hair. I didn't like the the Strawberry Shortcake character and her numerous friends much anyway, but it did seem appropriate... I wonder if Pippi Longstockings junk is currently on the market...

  77. where does this end? by demmer · · Score: 1

    all this "ahh you used a word i ooown!" crap... what the hell!? noone owns a word.. and if i write "microsoft sux" and "american greet-whatever is the most useless site ever" .... then waht!? i didnt even knew american whatever before this /. story... someone shoudl stop this word-ownage madness! (i also dont care who survived ww2 or who is jewish btw... this was some 60 years ago and has nothing to do wit penny a or a cake or strawberries, this is just about making someone pay something to one who has way too much)

  78. Email from American Greetings by rudeboy1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I did my patriotic (read-rabid PA fan) duty, and wrote Miss Rinda Vas a letter, telling her what bad idea this all was and everything. I got a fairly swift response, including an "original" letter written to the PA staff. Email addresses have been removed to protect the innocent...

    Email sent Wed. 4/23--

    there is no legal action against them ... fyi ...

    -----Original Message-----
    From: RV Rinda Vas (1328)
    Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 9:32 AM
    To: Subject: RE: Trademark infringement, misuse

    Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. We note that the
    cartoon has been removed.

    I am receiving a good amount of e-mails from the penny-arcade subscribers
    asking why American Greetings asked you to pull the cartoon. Unfortunately I
    do not have the resources to respond to them individually so I am passing
    the answer on to all of you. On April 17, 2003, American Greetings received
    a complaint about the cartoon namely that it was "creepy" and "offensive."
    Thereafter, we asked you to remove it.

    Note that the target audience for Strawberry is young females (indeed young
    children). And we do receive complaints from parents and the like over
    cartoons like yours.

    So there you have it.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ryan
    Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 3:55 PM
    To:
    Subject: Please Cease and Desist

    Dear Rinda Vas-
    I am writing to you, as I am sure are many others, to implore you to stop
    your legal action against Penny Arcade and its creators. As you may or may
    not be aware, the actions your company has taken against Penny Arcade has
    already publicized the original event much more than the comic's web site
    ever would have. Furthermore, several websites have made note of this
    issue, spreading the issue to more people, not usually associated with the
    normal Penny Arcade crowd. Feel free to read the articles posted on
    http://slashdot.org, and other such sites. At Slashdot, you will see the
    forum that follows every article. Within said forum, you will note a
    resoundingly negative response to your decision to take legal action. There
    is even a petition out to boycott your company. The last time I checked
    that site, the petition was drawing near the 10,000 mark, and climbing.
    I am not going to threaten you, or swear at you, as I am sure many others
    are doing, regarding this issue, but I have to advise you that, from all
    evidence available, what you are doing does not seem like a smart move. I
    think you might do well to look into options for reaching a quiet agreement
    with the owners of Penny Arcade. I am sure they will be happy to make this
    legal action go away with as little public notice as possible. My advice to
    you is to try to save face, as your company stands to lose a large amount of
    business and public appeal by pursuing this petty issue. Thanks for your
    time.

    Ryan

    --
    Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
    1. Re:Email from American Greetings by JackMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So someone was offended by a PA comic and complains to American Greetings???

      Here's the problem with America: people have no sense of responsibility for themselves. If you have an issue with a PA comic, complain to PA, don't complain to American Greetings so they will fight your battle for you.

      AG should have no say over what PA posts on their site unless it legally has no right to be there. You can't hold one group accountable for another group's opinions.

    2. Re:Email from American Greetings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that the target audience for Strawberry is young females (indeed young
      children).


      And that surely is the same target audience as PA's. It's so smart I feel inferior!

    3. Re:Email from American Greetings by mojotooth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well then it looks like AG is taking a relatively pragmatic stance on this. I suppose that's a good thing, they don't appear to be hiding behind "virtues" or "ideals," simply that some customers were freaked out and asked for them to take action. Now as to the veracity of that claim... Seems dubious to me.

      If I see a picture of Ronald McDonald used in some nasty cartoon that my kids should never see anyways, I'm not going to complain to McDonalds about it. That's totally misguided.

      Also, RV hasn't responded to your well-put point about the whole thing backfiring on them. I feel secure in speculating that there are more people pissed off at them NOW, than were pissed off about the Strawberry Shortcake cartoon in the first place.

      --
      -- Mojo Tooth : exploring our world as only an idiot can.
    4. Re:Email from American Greetings by Canar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Very interesting. So AG knows it's an 800lb gorilla, and is using that to its advantage. I'd say that PA should put the comic back up and see them in court, hell, even see if they take legal action at all. From this e-mail, it seems as though they weren't taking the first step toqwards a lawsuit, they were more like testing to see if a simple letter would stop it all.

    5. Re:Email from American Greetings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that the target audience for Strawberry is young females (indeed young
      children). And we do receive complaints from parents and the like over
      cartoons like yours.


      What a crock of shit. When was the last time you saw *anything* related to Strawberry Shortcake? In the 80s, right? Which makes the target audience of SS all ten years or more older than the young girls they would've been at the time. The only attraction SS has any more is nostalgia.

      This is just a vague excuse to justify their abuse of the legal system, and try to come out sounding morally superior.

    6. Re:Email from American Greetings by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      So the target market for Strawberry Shortcake is little girls...so they complain? That's ridiculous. The target audience for Penny Arcade is the relevant issue here, since those are the people who will actually see the comic.

    7. Re:Email from American Greetings by TeknoDragon · · Score: 1

      wow... I don't believe it... who would stoop so low as to use such underhanded tactics to get back at someone's exercising their right to free speech

    8. Re:Email from American Greetings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >On April 17, 2003, American Greetings received a complaint about the cartoon namely that it was "creepy" and "offensive."

      A side point to the whole trademark issue, but nobody has a right to not be offended.

    9. Re:Email from American Greetings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only underhanded tactic here is Michael Moore's misuse of the documentary format to create propaganda. Not only does doing so defraud his audience, but it cheats the creators of real documentaries, who are confined to reality. Let justice be done!

    10. Re:Email from American Greetings by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      From this e-mail, it seems as though they weren't taking the first step toqwards a lawsuit, they were more like testing to see if a simple letter would stop it all.

      Uhh, that's what a cease-and-desist letter is. It a lawyer saying, "let's be reasonable here, we don't want to take you to court, it's a lot of hassle for both of us, but we'll have to if you continue to do what you're doing". It's polite and civilized, just a friendly warning. The polite and civilized thing to do, in the case, would have been for PA to comply.

      Think about it. Why did American McGee choose Alice in Wonderland? 'Cos he was smart enough to know that no-one's going to have a problem with that, legally speaking, the character has passed into the public domain. If PA had been smart, they'd have done a cartoon of Snow White or Sleeping Beauty or someone. But they didn't think before they published, and they've frankly gotten off lightly.

    11. Re:Email from American Greetings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only underhanded tactic here is Michael Moore's misuse of the documentary format to create propaganda. Not only does doing so defraud his audience, but it cheats the creators of real documentaries, who are confined to reality. Let justice be done!

      Yeah, because free speech should obviously only apply to things that you agree with.
      Newsflash: In a free society people will sometimes express loudly things that offend you, and there is nothing you can do about it.
      If you are not ok with that, move to a country like North Korea where everybody has to toe the official line.

      Best of luck.

    12. Re:Email from American Greetings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've saved the comic and I swear to post it on every forum I every reach. And to back up someone's point on how the comic now reaches people who are not normally associated with Penny-Arcade, I have just discovered it through my heavily visited gaming forum over this issue (Natural-Selection, a mod for Half-Life). Pretty funny stuff :)

      Long live free speech!

  79. A better parody storyline by Deathlizard · · Score: 1

    Since I cant draw worth a crap, imagine it, or you can use photoshop to draw it or whatever.

    First Panel:
    (Gabe at front door looking at a guy wearing a three piece suit.)

    Gabe: what the hell do you want
    Lawyer: Hello. I'm here representing a rather large monolitic corporation.

    Second Panel:
    Gabe: So What do YoOOOoOOWWWWWWW
    (Lawyer Sucker Punches Gabe in the Stomach while he was speaking)

    Third Panel:
    Lawyer: Have a Nice Day.
    Lawyer walking in the other direction as Gabe irks in pain.

    The best part is that since it never ID's the company you cant get sued and it can be used over and over. It would especially look good where the actual infringed comic used to be.

    1. Re:A better parody storyline by JackMonkey · · Score: 1

      LoL

      As a big fan of PA, I gotta say that's about the funniest thing thing I've read all week. I can already imagine the comic. You should send your idea to Gabe and Tycho. :-)

  80. Parody of both? by fishbot · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen it mentioned in the comments here, but I thought the joke was at stab at both American McGee AND American Greetings.

    Note the similar names? I presumed it was a joke about if American McGee got there first?

    Maybe it's just me?

  81. Not surprising.. by JPelorat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Unfunny is standard fare for Penny Arcade.

    --
    Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
    1. Re:Not surprising.. by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I guess you haven't actually read it.

    2. Re:Not surprising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you actually read it and are so retarded that you actully find it funny.

      Maybe you should stop reading something that has caused your IQ to drop to single digits.

  82. Re:Boring comic strip. Why the hell should I care? by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

    Get a life, you fucking commie!

  83. Censorship there is by aepervius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The censorship is : you risk to loose or have a lot of money to be "frozen" for a time, to get a lawyer to defend you. If you do not have the deep pocket of a big company then this money would be a murderous move on your budget.

    Thus you have no choice. Temporair ruin and blocking of asset (if oyu win AFAIK you get your money back) or take back your opinion/strip/whatever.

    Censorship isn't only governemental and law enforced, and you do not need a gun to force censorship on somebody. Merely inconvenience them to the extrem, put them in a difficult position, which nmight make their life a hell and most except idealist will bow. This is also censorship.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Censorship there is by PCM2 · · Score: 1
      Censorship isn't only governemental and law enforced, and you do not need a gun to force censorship on somebody. Merely inconvenience them to the extrem, put them in a difficult position, which nmight make their life a hell and most except idealist will bow. This is also censorship.
      Sorry, but I disagree.

      We do agree on one thing -- it sucks that, in this country, you seem to need deep pockets to get truly equal representation in the courts.

      However, in this case, there is an avenue available: The Penny Arcade guys could represent their side of the case in court. Ergo, no censorship has taken place. That they don't have the money to do so is a different issue.

      If a taxi cab refuses to give me a ride home because I'm black, that's discrimination. If they refuse to give me a ride home because I don't have eight dollars, well, that just strikes me as the way of the world -- whether it seems fair on the surface or not.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Censorship there is by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1
      If a taxi cab refuses to give me a ride home because I'm black, that's discrimination. If they refuse to give me a ride home because I don't have eight dollars, well, that just strikes me as the way of the world -- whether it seems fair on the surface or not.

      Yeah, but whereas a cab ride is a service, freedom of speech is a right. If defending free speech is reduced to a service to which those without the funds to seek it have no recourse, then free speech will only apply to the people who can pay for the service.

      Personally, I think the Penny Arcade dudes should just ask for help from the ACLU or some other organization as others here have suggested.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    3. Re:Censorship there is by PCM2 · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but whereas a cab ride is a service, freedom of speech is a right. If defending free speech is reduced to a service to which those without the funds to seek it have no recourse, then free speech will only apply to the people who can pay for the service.
      Yes, on the surface that's true, but in this case we're not talking about political dissent or something. This seems to be very much a case of commercial speech -- whether or not Penny Arcade stands to make any significant profit notwithstanding. They're in the process of pushing their product (a comic strip), and in doing so they might step on somebody else's trademark (also a cartoon character).

      But, sure, they should go for the ACLU, or the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. Try whatever avenues are available.

      All this is aside from my other, earlier point, though -- that I suspect few lawyers will be willing to take up this cause because it's very likely that Penny Arcade will lose. I'm not a lawyer, but you've got a hard time convincing even me that the Strawberry Shortcake picture is a defensible parody.

      Hell, you've got a hard time convincing me it was even funny. But that's still another issue.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    4. Re:Censorship there is by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, in this case, there is an avenue available: The Penny Arcade guys could represent their side of the case in court. Ergo, no censorship has taken place. That they don't have the money to do so is a different issue.

      So if I tell you to stop talking under threat of me shooting you, I'm not really censoring you since you always have the option of dodging the bullet. That you can't dodge bullets is a different issue.

      I'm sorry, but in the case of theory (they could fight it in court) versus reality (they don't have the resources to fight it, even if they would eventually win), reality is what determines if censorship is taking place.

      The mentality that something being technically possible is equivalent to it being possible has been used in the past to remove peoples' rights. Literacy tests in the south were used to prevent blacks from voting, even though technically they still had that right. Just like that was found to be an illegal restriction on their right to vote because of the reality that virtually no blacks were allowed to vote, this is a case of censorship.

      Or in short: Free speech that costs more than you can afford to exercise isn't free, is it?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Censorship there is by PCM2 · · Score: 1
      So if I tell you to stop talking under threat of me shooting you, I'm not really censoring you since you always have the option of dodging the bullet. That you can't dodge bullets is a different issue.
      I'm sorry, I do see what you're trying to get at, but your argument is so fatally flawed that I can't help but wonder why you floated it in the first place. Obviously, nobody can dodge bullets, therefore there is no option of dodging the bullets.

      Perpetrating an act of violence is also a crime. If you hold a gun to my head and tell me not to say something, I have not been censored, I have been assaulted.

      Furthermore, one case deals with criminal law, the other torts. This comment just doesn't hold water.

      Literacy tests in the south were used to prevent blacks from voting, even though technically they still had that right. Just like that was found to be an illegal restriction on their right to vote
      Of course it's a restriction. If black people have to do more to vote than white people do, then they've been subject to additional restrictions. It has nothing to do with statistical samples of how many of them vote.

      A better analogy (supporting my point): If you could prove that virtually no black people in a certain state voted, then you would have reason to suspect that their rights were being infringed upon. If a survey revealed, however, that none of these people voted because they were blind and therefore could not read the ballot, the question of whether they were being discriminated against on the basis of race would be less clear. Maybe, had they thought about it, they could have had friends read the ballots to them? Maybe there's a machine that will do it? Have they truly exhausted all of their options, or did they just opt not to vote?

      In the case of the comic strip, an avenue does exist whereby they can defend their right to publish the strip. They are choosing not to represent themselves using this avenue of debate. Whether or not it's because they can't afford a lawyer doesn't really figure into it. Technically, they could represent themselves -- but they won't, because they know they can't argue the law well enough to do so.

      See what I'm saying? If they're so plainly in the right, as a lot of people on Slashdot seem to feel they are, then why don't they just represent themselves in court, if and when a lawsuit is brought against them? Surely the "truth" of the matter would be as plain to a judge as to a Slashdot reader?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    6. Re:Censorship there is by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Freeping Jeebus, don't get so tied up in specifics. The whole gun thing was simply to point out the obvious: reality is always more important than theory. In theory, you could disarm the gunman. Or shoot him first. Or duck for cover. But in reality, a loaded gun pointed at you is going to make you do whatever the guy holding the gun says.

      Similarly, the threat of being buried in legal costs is going to make most people pause. I can't see why this is so hard to understand.

      Whether or not it's because they can't afford a lawyer doesn't really figure into it.

      Of course it does -- if you can't afford representation, you can't afford to go to court. If you can't afford to go to court, you can't afford to get sued, hence you do what the person threatening to sue for wants.

      Technically, they could represent themselves -- but they won't, because they know they can't argue the law well enough to do so.

      Please tell me you're not suggesting they represent themselves. As in, be their own lawyers. Like, have two guys whose only law qualifications were reading about the DMCA and thinking it really sucked go up against the swarm of corporate attack lawyers A.G. is going to have lined up to argue nuances of corporate trademark law, when they aren't even going to know the procedures?

      And you talk about dodging bullets being ridiculous?

      Surely the "truth" of the matter would be as plain to a judge as to a Slashdot reader?

      Sorry, but only a fool thinks they are ever walking in on a "sure thing" in court. Who would have thought that the Supreme Court would rule that unlimited limited extensions doesn't violate the "limited" clause of copyright in the constitution? No, I'm sorry, but reality dictates that you have to consider the possibility of losing in court, no matter how much you "believe" you are right. If an individual could determine whether or not they'd win, we wouldn't need lawyers!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:Censorship there is by PCM2 · · Score: 1
      Similarly, the threat of being buried in legal costs is going to make most people pause. I can't see why this is so hard to understand.
      Right. Just like how the threat of being buried in taxi cab fares will make most people take the bus.

      Bottom line is that you seem to feel this is some kind of threat to free speech, and I don't. Can't afford to hire lawyers to protect your business (making comic strips)? The other comic strip people win. It's sad, but that's the way it goes -- just like how the rich guy gets better product distribution, gets better product placement, gets higher quality advertising, has access to better tools and materials to produce his product, etc., etc.

      There's no lack of access to the courts here. These guys can defend themselves just like the next guy -- provided they can afford the lawyers who will win the case for them. I agree with you that defending themselves would be stupid. But they don't want to pay a lawyer. What conclusion should I draw?

      Sorry; I sympathize with them, but only to a point.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    8. Re:Censorship there is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I agree with you that defending themselves would be stupid. But they don't want to pay a lawyer. What conclusion should I draw?
      That the legal system is failing to provide justice.
    9. Re:Censorship there is by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Right. Just like how the threat of being buried in taxi cab fares will make most people take the bus.

      Most people can afford a cab. Therein lies the crucial difference. Well, that and one is riding a cab and the other is Free Speech.

      Bottom line is that you seem to feel this is some kind of threat to free speech, and I don't. Can't afford to hire lawyers to protect your business (making comic strips)? The other comic strip people win. It's sad, but that's the way it goes -- just like how the rich guy gets better product distribution, gets better product placement, gets higher quality advertising, has access to better tools and materials to produce his product, etc., etc.

      Free Speech is a right given and protected by the Constitution. The First Ammendment. A supposed cornerstone of our culture. None of those other things are. We aren't talking about driving a Mercedes. We're talking about free speech. But you're going to sit here and tell me that free speech wasn't threatened because they could have spoken freely if they were rich?

      There's no lack of access to the courts here. These guys can defend themselves just like the next guy -- provided they can afford the lawyers who will win the case for them

      "Provided they can afford the lawyers..." You've got every point right there. Where's the disconnect?

      I agree with you that defending themselves would be stupid. But they don't want to pay a lawyer. What conclusion should I draw?

      That the high costs of legal representation have allowed a large corporation to stifle free speech through the threat of a lawsuit. Duh.

      You keep saying "Yes, I know that they cannot actually afford to defend themselves and thus are forced to capitulate, yet I don't see how their speech was restricted". Or "I understand that the numbers we are summing are two and two, but I don't see how you get four." Do I have to draw you a diagram?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:Censorship there is by PCM2 · · Score: 1
      Most people can afford a cab. Therein lies the crucial difference. Well, that and one is riding a cab and the other is Free Speech.
      Actually, there's a lot of nights when I can't afford a cab home.

      But aside from that, what people fail to realise, when we all get up on our righteous soapboxes, is that we live in a society governed by laws, and free speech doesn't come without limitations. Yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater is one classic example. Here's another:

      Suppose you were to draw up a fake ad that says "Denny's -- Where White people come first." You take a nice photo of some white people eating at Denny's, with a big Grand Slam Breakfast on the table, and they're all laughing and smiling. You slap the Denny's logo on the bottom, with the addresses of some nearby locations. Then you go and call up Gannett Outdoors, and you have these fake ads posted in bus shelters around the city.

      Should you be allowed to do that? I say no. I think the courts would agree with me.

      You might argue that this is totally different from what the Penny Arcade people did. Somebody else -- maybe me -- could argue that it's exactly what they did with the Strawberry Shortcake cartoon. Am I right? Are you? Well, this is where the courts have to step in and decide. If one party isn't willing to test the hypothesis, then I guess they lose.

      Bummer.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  84. Don't they allways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are really going love prison.

  85. Yeah it's gonna get modded down, but... by dumbnumpty · · Score: 1

    ...why was mine rejected? 2003-04-28 09:56:19 Penny Arcade vs. American Greetings: Round 2 (yro,humor) (rejected)

    1. Re:Yeah it's gonna get modded down, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because the editors, and possibly the gods, hate you. now move along.

    2. Re:Yeah it's gonna get modded down, but... by dumbnumpty · · Score: 1

      Ah, that'll explain why lightning seems to be attracted to me (and not only when I'm wearing my tin foil hat).

  86. Interesting comic... by Millennium · · Score: 0

    So, does Godwin's Law apply to parodies? I mean, in one case, this could be seen as yet another voice in an Internet debate, and therefore could be considered a legitimate invocation, thus forfieting the argument for Penny Arcade.

    On the other hand, it's clearly a parody, and thus not meant to be taken seriously; does that count? What are the rules on parodies and Godwin?

  87. she's hot by AssFace · · Score: 1

    the chick in the newest cartoon is pretty hot.
    Nazi or not.

    --

    There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
  88. My vote.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This one is the worst. You will go blind and your IQ will drop to single digits.

  89. CAD letter? by dextr0us · · Score: 2, Insightful

    just because someone sends a ceist and desist letter, doesnt that mean they have to take you to court? and if your work is clearly a parody, couldn't you just go to court and defend it yourself? get a media law text book, cite some sources, etc...

    --
    "Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
    1. Re:CAD letter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This, coming from someone who can't spell "cease."

      Nice. That adds so much credibility to your statement.

  90. Re:This is one for the lawyers to decide by cqnn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > A: because then american mcgee would sue them.

    B: For stealing a game idea before he had a chance
    to license the character from American Greetings.

    IMO, the funniest thing about the SS parody was;
    in an age when Grand Theft Auto and Postal 2 can
    generate interest among gamers, a naughty
    Strawberry Shortcake might actually sell.

  91. Would have more sympathy of it was actually funny by rog · · Score: 1

    Does anybody have an example of a humorous pennyarcade comic? Maybe I'm too old, but I just don't get it.

    --
    Saving random seed...
  92. Here's one possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should not have used the actual name "Strxwbxrry Shxrtcxkx", the name itself being a registered trademark. If they had called her "Cherry Cheesecake" it would have (hypothetically) counted as parody, and would have better described her slut status. At least, that's what I'm guessing AG's legal department would say.

    Licensing companies do not recognize "parody". As far as they are concerned, they decide when and where someone even thinks about one of their characters, because their business is based on companies paying them for the right to use the name or image in a product. If someone uses either for free, they lose the money from that use, and their licensees will say "Hey, why did I have to pay half a mill to use a name someone else uses for free?!" and demand money back.

    PA did not pay for the name "Strxwbxrry Shxrtcxkx" and, therefore, are illegally using a registered trademark.

    I think using the name was a mistake. Still, these guys could have made a good case. By capitulating, they just make it easier for licensors to rub out all forms of parody of licensed characters.

    1. Re:Here's one possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're saying that if I write fiction about McDonalds... Oh crap, I said the name! Here come the lawyers!

  93. Re:Godwin-1, PA-0 by Shads · · Score: 1

    It was most likely quite intentional and a joke :)

    --
    Shadus
  94. Untapped market by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
    American Greetings should sell greeting cards like "Hi There! We're suing you! Have a nice day."

    Could be a big seller these days.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  95. Pizza the Hutt by GnomeAttic · · Score: 1

    One of the main characters in Spaceballs was Pizza the Hutt. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that might be a company name...

    1. Re:Pizza the Hutt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, ill correct you. There is a company named "Pizza Hut", but i cant find any record of a company named "Pizza the Hutt"

    2. Re:Pizza the Hutt by kagejishin · · Score: 1

      But what about Mr. Coffee? ...which leads to Mr. Radar, etc...

  96. $.02, ok , let's do it! by itzdandy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    if everybody submits their $.02, then maybee Penny-Arcade can get the legal help they need. I have submitted a "story" for just this, to set up a paypal donation fun so that those interested can give a little to help a lot. Not only do i really love these guy's comic, but I very much wish to retain free speech and fighting this crap is the only way to retain it.

  97. If I had answered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have had Gabe and that other guy eating strawberry shortcake in a restaurant labeled "American Greetings" telling the waiter that the dessert tasted like ass.

  98. Fortunately you are not a lawyer by xenocide2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because if you were, then you'd be taking far more time to make yourself familiar with the particulars of the case. Indeed the work was a parody. However American Greeting does not represent American McGee, the video game developer who is/was being parodied. American Greeting takes issue with their Stawberry Shortcake character. Mike and Jerry have a far more difficult case to argue if they want to keep their picture online. Notably, McGee has only been trolling the works of the public domain, specifically, Alice in Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz.

    The question isn't about parody and fair use, but whether Strawberry was parodied. I personally don't see it in the work. In fact, if I were PA I'd simply remove the cartoon and revise it such that a far better case could be made that it parodies both McGee and whatever character that best adopts to these legal requirements.

    Mike and Jerry have been fairly quiet about the particulars of it themselves, having been wisely told by legal advisors with more wisedom than yourself, or at least more current experience. The only thing they do say is that it isn't very clear -cut, and they're right.

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

    1. Re:Fortunately you are not a lawyer by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      if I were PA I'd simply remove the cartoon and revise it such that a far better case could be made that it parodies both McGee and whatever character that best adopts to these legal requirements.

      If you read the editorial at Penny Arcade, he makes the argument that the choice of an 80's female-targetted cartoon character was deliberate, and essential to making the comic work. To hit its target, it couldn't be some hundred year old public domain character; it had to be something we grew up watching.

    2. Re:Fortunately you are not a lawyer by Moryath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course it was.

      The reason American McGee goes after the PARTICULAR public domain works he does, is that WE ALL GREW UP WATCHING THEM. Think about it -- until two years after Home Alone was out, what movie was played EVERY SINGLE THANKSGIVING? Why, the Wizard of Oz of course. What was one of the fundamental Disney movies that everyone loves seeing and showing kids to this day? Their take on Alice in Wonderland, naturally.

      American McGee makes his living raping the public domain (er... actually literally) just as Disney does, and he goes after the things that we STILL remember that are in the public domain. Without something we all remember, the gag doesn't work. Further, it has to be something he can twist really, really far.

      Parodying Disney stuff might have worked, but that's inviting legal action far more surely than parodying some piece of crap like Strawberry Shortcake. Besides, there are artists who already make a living drawing Disney toons having sex, so that's been done.

      So they parodied something we've all been taught was "sweet" and "innocent." American Greetings, on the other hand, happen to be a bunch of stiffs who can't take a joke.

      Hell, even the Hormel people realized after their first court filing that Monty Python had done a pretty good job with the spam song and got a sense of humor. Time to ring the phones of American Greetings off the hook to give them a whack with the metaphorical cluebat.

    3. Re:Fortunately you are not a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a dude? I mean, you grew up watching Strawberry Shortcake? wtf, man?

    4. Re:Fortunately you are not a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question isn't about parody and fair use, but whether Strawberry was parodied. I personally don't see it in the work.
      Having watched the strawberry shortake cartoon in the 80's I Definitely see a parody of the characters. They changed all the Names (cutard, plum pudding) except Strawberry Shortcake. and none of them looked like thier counterparts. Also, all of the characters of the series use _COMMON DESERT NAMES_ how about a little prior art here, on when the first recipie for strawberry shortcake was invented...
      Theis work is clearly parody -- of both american McGee, and 'Strawberry Shortcake(1.)'

      1. Expressly used Without any permission granted from Those Characters From Cleavland Inc, or American Greetings.

  99. That looked tough to draw by CrazyJim0 · · Score: 1

    For one that strip was bigger. Bigger things take longer to draw. Secondly it had to be inked in different ways. Thats tough too.

    I'd just be mad that it took so much work to do.

  100. Worst. Boycott. Idea. Ever. by finkployd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems the basic concept of a boycott is lost on people. Folks, the idea here is to deprive the company of revenue. Your Mom already bought the card, it will not hurt the company one bit to send a card back that she sent you. That is as stupid as purchasing French wine and dumping it on the sidewalk in protest of the French. They already sold the wine could care less if you drink it.

    If your goal is to educate your Mom (or whoever else sends you cards) about AG, perhaps you can find a less offensive and heartless method of getting your message out.

    Finkployd

    1. Re:Worst. Boycott. Idea. Ever. by sig+cop · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean Freedom Wine?

  101. Fixed up to PA's "standards" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First Panel:
    (Gabe at front door looking at a guy wearing a three piece suit.)

    Gabe: what the fucking hell do fucking you want cock fucking suker?
    Lawyer: Hello. I'm here representing a rather large monolitic corporation.

    Second Panel:
    Gabe: So Fuck What Fuck do Shit YoOOOoOOWWWWWWW
    (Lawyer Sucker Punches Gabe in the Stomach while he was speaking)

    Third Panel:
    Lawyer: Have a Nice Day.
    Lawyer walking in the other direction as Gabe irks in pain.
    Gabe: Y U G4hy L000LOOL!!!1111 Owwwww. Mommy!

  102. And this might work...... why? by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 1

    Refusing any mail with the AG logo on it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to do anything. What if somebody's already bought the AG card? You're just gonna piss off the person who bought it, not knowing in the first place.

  103. Boy did they get THAT one backwards. by blair1q · · Score: 1

    The original strip was the parody, taking a character out of context for the sake of humor.

    AG was right to send its lawyers to make a show of aggressively protecting its trademarks so that actual trademark infringers won't use PA's parody as evidence they don't (which would nullify their trademark), but PA was wrong to buckle.

    The new strip is clearly libelous, spreading a blatant lie about AG's corporate culture in order to interfere with their revenues.

    They're going to get reamed in court, and I wish I was AG's lawyer. IAN even AL, but I can see the vaseline flying from here.

  104. Need Help Convincing People... by LordYUK · · Score: 1

    I've tried to explain the situation to various non-geeks if you will, and they all look at me like "huh?"...

    If anyone has any standared email that they've sent to friends/coworkers regarding the upcoming boycott, it might help those of us not as skilled in legal talk to explain it to people, short of "big company fucked small guy, dont buy thier cards."

    thanks guys.

    --
    This is my sig. Its pathetic.
  105. As time goes on things change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like the Meta Godwin's Law better ... anyone who invokes Godwin's Law is a fucking tight ass Nazi.

  106. Re:Would have more sympathy of it was actually fun by AvengerXP · · Score: 1

    Are you a gamer? It might help since it's mostly based around that. If i made my little sister read slashdot, she'd find this very boring. Does that make it boring? Embrace difference chief.

    --
    Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
  107. Re:Would have more sympathy of it was actually fun by rog · · Score: 1

    Didn't say it was boring or without value -- just looking for a pointer or two to a particularly good example of the comic. I'm perfectly willing to make my own assessment and keep it to myself. If the 3 or 4 recent ones are typical, I guess I'm not in the target audience.

    --
    Saving random seed...
  108. Flood em! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.americangreetings.com/customer/emailus. pd

    1. Re:Flood em! by martyn+s · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Email them here: http://www.americangreetings.com/customer/emailus. pd
      Email american greetings parent company here:http://corporate.americangreetings.com/contac tus/index.html

      Or snail mail them here:
      American Greetings Corp.
      One American Road
      Cleveland, Ohio 44144

      Here's a form letter :)
      Fuck you, you nazi bastards. Yes, you're nazis. Haven't you ever heard of parody? It's a LEGALLY protected form of speech, one of the few remaining. But I'm sure you corporate nazi whores will take care of that.

    2. Re:Flood em! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Here's a form letter :)

      Sure, piss them off. They'll take your point of view REAL seriously then.

    3. Re:Flood em! by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      Better yet, sign them up to thousands of catalogs.

    4. Re:Flood em! by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      At first I thought the toon was funny but about as subtle as a brick. having read your post I was wrong compared to some of you guys they are as subtleas Ambrosr Bierce.(still funny tho.)

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    5. Re:Flood em! by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Hehe, wait, so what do you mean, you think I was too subtle? ;)

    6. Re:Flood em! by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      Yep teach them not to kiss high speed bricks

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  109. Engineers by TheNumberSix · · Score: 1
    And if engineers wrote laws like they write (sic) specifications, the whole society wouldn't work.
    Don't confuse software engineers with engineers that build things like bridges, airplanes, power stations and cars.
    --
    Never confuse feeling with thinking.
    1. Re:Engineers by nomadic · · Score: 1

      (sic) doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

    2. Re:Engineers by hobbesmaster · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse software engineers with engineers that build things like bridges, airplanes, power stations and cars.

      In which case, laws would be very exact; which cannot be good. You don't need a loophole to get around a mathematical point...

  110. stats by tacokill · · Score: 1

    After you read this, don't forget the fact that statistics can be used to prove anything

    This whole site is dedicated to telling me that there are less lawsuits now than in the 70's and 80's. That is, undoubtedly true -- but not for the reasons you think. Could it be, perhaps, that most of the cases are settled out of court because of the extravagent cost of defending it?

    Hmmm....

    If you get sued for $50,000 and it would cost you $100,000 to defend yourself, wouldn't you settle out of court? I would.

    1. Re:stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you get sued for $50,000 and it would cost you $100,000 to defend yourself, wouldn't you settle out of court? I would.

      I do believe I'd spend $25,000 to have the person who started the legal wheels in motion hit, and the other $75,000 retiring to a country with no extradition treaty. Hypothetically speaking.

  111. Re:Would have more sympathy of it was actually fun by BrainInAJar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unfortunately explaining a joke ruins it, but you didn't seem to get it in the first place.

    American McGee's "Alice" was released a couple years ago. It was Alice in Wonderland (a sweet, charming, etc childhood story), but much MUCH darker. Like, the part of max payne where he goes crazy darker.

    A couple weeks ago, American McGee's "Oz" was annonced. It's going to be the same dark style as Alice, but based on the Wizard of Oz (another sweet childhood story). So American McGee is a brand that makes dark covers of childrens' work, hence the strip.

    Oh, and this is pure genious. (probably because it actually HAS happened to me)

  112. Re:Boring comic strip. Why the hell should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why get a life when your mom lets me whip her ass any time I want?

  113. Stupid nazis... by DumbWhiteGuy777 · · Score: 1

    It's a JOKE! Jesus Christ. People make Nazi jokes all the time, probably just not to you because they know you'll FREAK OUT and give lectures about how the holocaust's meaning is being watered down and stuff. It isn't losing any meaning or anything by having one more joke about it on Penny Arcade.

    So shut up before I kill you.

    1. Re:Stupid nazis... by zdislaw · · Score: 2, Funny
      I can't believe you just invoked the name our our savior in such a manner. I am just so completely offended and angry that I can't wipe the spit off my monitor fast enough. Please...the air....I can't get a breath. What's happening to me? Oh my god. He did it. "DumbWhiteGuy777" made good on his threat. He killed me. I've never felt so dead.

      And to think that you thought I'd freak out. I just thought the strip was stupid and lazy. Not so much funny either. Oh shit, I forgot I'm dead.

      --
      bad sig...no donut.
    2. Re:Stupid nazis... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      our savior? Speak for yourself, Jeebus boy.

  114. Re:So...wtf by Spoticus · · Score: 1

    Where's the EFF??
    Seems to me this should be right up their alley, at least, this is the sort of thing _my_ donation was for.
    The only thing I can find about Penny Arcade on the EFF site is a link to a PA cartoon about the Blizzard case.

  115. Said it before: simple boycott by Galvatron · · Score: 3, Informative
    I said this the first time this was posted, but for those that missed it: if this upsets you, don't buy American Greetings or Carlton Cards for Mother's day (a bit over 2 weeks away). That's it, pretty simple. Maybe it'll have an impact, maybe it won't. But it's SO easy to do, that we ought to at least make that much of an effort.

    If you don't normally buy cards anyway, well good for you, you don't need to reply to this telling me about how you're superior because of it. Maybe you'd like to buy a Hallmark card anyway, just so that AGC's market share as a percentage of money spent on greeting cards this month falls, maybe not, up to you. But for those of you who were planning on buying a card for your mother anyway, how about checking the brand on the back first?

    --
    "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    1. Re:Said it before: simple boycott by CodeMunch · · Score: 1

      ok. I'll stop buying Strawberry Shortcake stuff if you do.

  116. AmericanGreetings Site HTTP Attacked me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've just clicked the link into the american greetings website and got an attempt to hack into my computer blocked by black ice. It was a "HTTP_GETargscript" attack, ranked as serious by black ice.

    WTF? Anyone else gone to that site and been attacked? - maybe you don't know if you have been!

  117. NO WONDER! by Blacklotuz · · Score: 1

    All day long I was trying to connect to my home PC and Remote Desktop Connection was laging so bad it was unusable... then I get home and find that my poor little mirror is being raped by slashdot! (http://www.wereallmadhere.com/files/straw.gif)

  118. Scalzi's Take by SpyderPSU · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Freelance writer John Scalzi brings up an interesting point that I haven't read here:

    American Greeting's argument here could be that Penny Arcade's image is using the Strawberry Shortcake name to parodize American McGee's tendency to appropriate young female literary characters for his dark and bloody video games, not Strawberry Shortcake herself. Therefore, using Strawberry Shortcake for that purpose is not covered under parody. It's an interesting assertion.

    However, I wonder if this line of reasoning, if indeed it is the one American Greetings is using, is as strong as it might appear initially. This line of reasoning works only to the extent that Strawberry Shortcake herself does not fit the rubric that the Penny Arcade is parodizing, namely that Strawberry Shortcake is not a young female literary character. In fact she is, the main character in dozens of books: Strawberry Shortcake: Meet Strawberry Shortcake, Strawberry Shortcake at the Beach, Strawberry Shortcake: The Berry Big Storm, and Happy Halloween, Strawberry Shortcake are just some of the titles in her oeuvre. And in an interesting literary note, in several of these titles, Strawberry Shortcake is either planning or having a party of some sort or another, which makes her activity in the parody (planning a party with her friends) not an atypical activity for her. Although to be fair she's not typically whipping her friend Plum Pudding at those parties. But that's part of what makes it a parody.


    I don't know if this point holds any water, legally speaking, but it's interesting. You can read the rest of the article here

    -Spyder

  119. Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It may be for nothing, but am I the only one who noticed that 'American' refers to both -McGee and -Greetings? Could that have been the source of possible confusion?

  120. Re:and neither am I by bobKali · · Score: 1

    I dunno about you, but my first impression was that this was first and formost a parody about Strawberry Shortcake, with only a slight mention about McGee.

    Can a work parody more than one thing at a time? Is it only protected from its primary target? Seems to me that this lampoons both McGee and AG and the new strip comparing AG to Nazis seems to make that even more clear.

    But your suggestion that PA simply go out a pick a new pair of characters to make their point, I assume that they'd have to find some characters who are both well-known (to make a point with equal impact) and in the public domain (to avoid more legal action from someone else.) But with copyright law going the way it is, and the public domain moving farther into the past every day, I don't see this as a reasonable course of action. Just as a trademark holder needs to defend his right to a trademark in order to keep it, the public needs to defend their right to parody or we will certainly lose it. Or have we lost it already? Just look at the Consumer Whore parody of Starbucks or the The Wind Done Gone parody of Gone With the Wind.

  121. Parody, Property, and Culture by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1


    The problem is that they were parodying American McGee by using a registered trademark. They clearly weren't parodying Strawberry Shortcake - if they were, it would be more clear cut.


    The problem is the nature of what they were parodying. American McGee's work took what our popular culture largely considers a nice, safe, child's tale and painted it in rather dark, disturbing hues. The PA crew simply drew from a more recent collection of cultural safe-for-kids icons and produced a different version as if it too were given American McGee's same treatment. It is a parody of McGee's style and a particularly saccarine-sweet line of children's icons / toys that surfaced in the 80s.

    Perhapse they should have picked some safer material. Perhapse something else done by Disney.

    Which leads in to a lot of rather interesting points. First off, Disney is hardly "safe". But at the same time, a lot of Disney IP is actually their own treatment of cultural tales and public domain stories - mucking around in that territory is fairly safe as long as the images don't come too close to Disney's images.

    Oddly enough, Disney was one of the first entities to really manage coopting American culture as owned IP of the Disney corporation (whether that was the origional idea of the Man and the Mouse). Its kind of interesting to see a younger generation referencing their own cultural memory and finding it wholly owned by a corporattion willing to aggressively defend their property. The PA folks don't even have the public domain versions of cultural icons to fall back on.

    Finally, despite the memories based on Disney's work... Alice in Wonderland is actually fairly twisted even without McGee's treatment.

    Fertile soil for parody, indeed.
  122. Call Larry Flynt by coyote-san · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Like many people, I have a strong love-hate relationship with Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine. I love his willingness to fight to protect our rights from attacks by the easily offended, even while finding much of the content of his magazines personally repugnant.

    Anyway, one quick phone call or email should end this matter real quick. How many people have seen this online strip, vs. how many people would see similar strips in that magazine? How much money is AG willing to spend to harrass a couple small-time artists, vs. how much money is it prepared to spend defending itself from a company that's successfully argued Freedom of Speech cases before the Supreme Court?

    Call me crazy, but I don't see a lot of crossover in the consumers of <i>Hustler</i> and sappy greeting cards so the magazine can fight hard and fight dirty if AG wanted to fight them. Hell, I wouldn't put it past them to launch their own lines of parody greeting cards (real greeting cards, not just jokes in the magazine). I mean, where else are you going to find the perfect Valentine card for the girl who dumped you for your best friend, or for your former boss?

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
  123. I don't get it. by eclectric · · Score: 1

    why is this bad?

  124. like t-shirts and stuff, man. (I'm so convinced!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You cannot legally define the strip as only serving as a parody of American's lechery. Most lawyers won't even know what the strip means until some gamer explains it.

    I don't know what cases you're refering to, but selling t-shirts with a trademarked property is a whole different issue since you're essentially using the trademark as a marketing tool for a retail item.

    The site was not aimed at the same target audience, and it sure as hell mocks Shortcake as well as McGee (even if it is to a lesser extent). If the strip didn't make Shorty loook stupid there wouldn't even be an issue.

    PS Kids, cite your lawsuits. It's the cool thing to do.

  125. How to support them by Oroborus · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you love their comics or just want to support their stand, Penny Arcade does take donations.

    At the bottom of the ClubPA page (http://www.penny-arcade.com/clubpa.php3) there's a link to their paypay donation box.

    And as an added bonus, no matter what size of donation you'll get access to the most excellent "Over Easy", one of the best comics online for both artistic merit and style, highly recommended!

    C'mon, toss in a buck for the most excellent comic, you won't be dissapointed!

  126. I take a line from David Bruce Banner (from the hu by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

    "Mr. McGee don't make me angry, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

    sri

  127. Re:Would have more sympathy of it was actually fun by JackMonkey · · Score: 1

    Here are four of my favorites, but (as mentioned above) you may not find each one funny if you haven't played Tribes 2, Resident Evil, Warcraft 3, and Asheron's Call 2, respectively.

    Tribes 2
    Resident Evil
    Warcraft III
    Asheron's Call 2

  128. Re:Would have more sympathy of it was actually fun by katarac · · Score: 1

    This is the strip that always comes to mind when someone mentions PA. Granted, it's pretty old, but it hits pretty close to home.

  129. my letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm in complete disbelief that you would use corporate lawyer bully tactics to remove a parody cartoon from Penny Arcade. You've soiled yourself in my eyes.

    On another note, I find the following cartoon offensive and creepy:

    http://www.americangreetings.com/display.pd?path =2 3446&bfrom=3&prodnum=3003008

    It's a picture of two rabbits obviously engaged in foreplay and about to have sex. Please remove it from your website.

    Thank you

  130. Send in your comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In case you missed the the e-mail address:

    Rinda.vas@amgreetings.com

    Let her know what you think or if you have any questions.

  131. Re:Are you offering to foot their legal bills? by joFFeman · · Score: 0

    heh, i'm sure any number of the game-industry corporations they accept gifts from on a regular basis will help. although i'm quite cynical about them, i don't care to echo the sentiment that they are 'sellouts'. i'm not suggesting anything of the sort- they never had anything but their personal interests in mind, so it's more like a 'kids in a candy store' scenario. they chose to become involved with the industry, so while i think american greetings are scummier than scum, i can't say i feel sorry for them. they embraced the exposure they were given, and now that penny arcade is more of a brand than a comic, it's ripe for the reaming by corporate peers. just my opinion, worth about as much as the 'free arch deluxe' coupon i found in my glove compartment.

    --
    "Life is great; without it, you'd be dead." -Harmony Korine
  132. Re:An early childhood's worth of toys, cards, & by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    Not only will I not be buying them, I sent an email to thge email address provided in the replacement message to let the people at American Greetings know what I think of their practice (worded appropriately respectfully and professionally, afterall, I generally just ignore random name calling and general beligerence) and that I intend to be both boycotting them and informing everyone I know as to their practices and asking them to join in the boycott.

    I encourage others to do the same.

    -Steve

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  133. I can die happy now by ubugly2 · · Score: 1

    Now i have seen everything....Re:Clearly Parody, But.... (Score:5, Flamebait)

    1. Re:I can die happy now by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      Yawn, seen this before..

      Post starts at 1 or perhaps 2, gets three or four upwards mods until it reaches +5(Worthy), then someone mods it down so it's +4(Flamebait) or +4(Troll) or whatever.

      Then the fun part happens; someone mods it "Underrated", and it appears as +5(Flamebait) or +5(Troll) because an Underrated mod only affects the score.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
  134. Free Legal Advice by nagora · · Score: 1
    I don't know if this point holds any water, legally speaking, but it's interesting.

    Here's how to tell if it holds water legally:

    1. Count all your money.
    2. Ask your opponent to count theirs.
    3. If you had more then your argument holds water, legally speaking.

    Hope that helps.

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  135. Re:Would have more sympathy of it was actually fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe you forgot the parody of Apple's Switch campaign.

  136. this kicks ass by neowintermute · · Score: 1

    you guys rock.

    thanks for pointing out that we're witnessing the nazification of our country. you're SO RIGHT ON.

    next time you see someone with an american flag hanging off of their car, think of the iraqi babies, and think of the people who supported the nazis.
    "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

    -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
    http://www.snopes2.com/quotes/goering.htm

  137. pun alert!!!! by Veramocor · · Score: 1

    One comment with a pun was bad enough but two in a row that takes the cake.

    --
    Veramocor
    1. Re:pun alert!!!! by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      I hope you punsters get your just desserts.

    2. Re:pun alert!!!! by zerOnIne · · Score: 1

      dude, you've got to admit that it's pretty sweet ... though i'd venture that the posters are possibly baked

      --
      09
    3. Re:pun alert!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      There's a special circle in hell reserved for people who try to top each other with bad puns. Just FYI.

  138. National Lampoon Strawberry Shortcake Parody ~80s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    About 15-20 years ago National Lampoon magazine had a very funny (and rather pornographic) fold out titled "Strawberry Cheesecake" and it had a smurf with 3 day facial hair smoking a cigarette and strawberry shortcake. It depicted a slutty looking stawberry shortcake getting it from behind from said smurf. I'm not kidding, I as a very young'un thought it was hilarious.

    Google searches failed to turn up the picture.

  139. Re:Would have more sympathy of it was actually fun by JackMonkey · · Score: 1

    lol...my bad. There's too many good ones. PA is hit and miss a lot of the time, but when they hit, they hit hard. :-)

  140. Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I remember one particular issue featured a full-page illustration of a Smurf holding the waist of a grimacing Strawberry Shortcake while smurfing her from behind.

    I found a web reference here, but no picture...

  141. Parody doctrine on the bar exam? by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In a matter of THIS nature, there is a stack of caselaw about 1.5 inches high that I will assure you any lawyer who has passed the Bar Exam is VERY familiar with, and ALL of those cases say that parody falls within the realm of free speech.

    Really? They don't have parody doctrine on the bar in my state, and I can't think of many law schools which require a First Amendment course.

    --
    All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    1. Re:Parody doctrine on the bar exam? by DirtyCowboy · · Score: 1

      Most law students do take a second Con Law course that covers the First Amendment, including the right to create parody (see, e.g., Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 53, 99 L. Ed. 2d 41, 108 S. Ct. 876 (1988)). And I don't know to what state bar you are referring, but most of them will test on Constitutional issues (the Multistate does -- and most states use the Multistate). BTW, IAAL.

      --
      D'oh -- the stuff that buys me beer! Ray -- the guy who sells me beer!
    2. Re:Parody doctrine on the bar exam? by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mebbe their all mediocre...

      There are only 3 states that don't use the national standardized bar exam. Among other things, this exam includes a section on constitutional law.

      So, a required constitional law class would actually be highly sensible (along with torts, civil procedure & such).

      BTW, Ohio isn't one of the 3.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  142. Is it ironic? by zackbar · · Score: 1

    I suspect that the C&S letter has actually caused more people to see the original cartoon than would otherwise have seen it.

    I personally don't frequent PA that often. IMO, the site is too slow, and it's too much of a pain to find the link to the current strip. It also doesn't help that that strip was 218k.

    But, on hearing about the yanking of the strip, I was intrigued enough to visit the site, and go searching for it on the web. Finally saw it on one of the mirrors listed in the top post today.

    I am not familiar with American McGee or it's products, so it didn't strike me as very funny. I frankly didn't see much humor in it.

    But I saved the image, and have it to pass around to others. I'm also convinced that American Greeting is a company with which has lost my respect. They could have just laughed it off and ignored it. Few of their customers would have been likely to see it. It strikes me that the target audience of PA and American Greetings aren't the same.

    Instead, they have escalated it to be news, and made sure that far more people will see the strip than would have otherwise.

    1. Re:Is it ironic? by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      American McGee is a person, not a company. And this parody stems from his actual game "Alice".

      American McGee has nothing to do with American Greetings, other than they both have the same "first name."

      --Joe
    2. Re:Is it ironic? by caouchouc · · Score: 1

      it's too much of a pain to find the link to the current strip

      You mean the "Latest Comic" link in the navigation area at the very top of the page? The one that's shaped like a tab and takes you to the current strip?

    3. Re:Is it ironic? by zackbar · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info on "Alice". I was aware that two entities were involved, and that American McGee, which did the game, wasn't American Greeting, which owns the Strawberry Shortcake character.

      I am just familiar with each of the products enough to get the joke of the strip.

      Regardless, my point was that due to American Greetings letter, they have probably increased the viewing of the controversial strip 10-fold.

    4. Re:Is it ironic? by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      I guess I was primarily replying to the "I'm not familiar with American McGee, or any of its products."

      I agree that their Cease-and-Desist crap has probably raised the short-term viewership of that strip, and that that's rather ironic.

      --Joe
    5. Re:Is it ironic? by zackbar · · Score: 1

      I meant to write "I am just not familiar enough with the products to get the joke." rather than "I am just familiar with each ..."

      My bad.

      Regardless, thanks for the link. I am going to download the trailer on the game when I get home. Not that I need another time-waster, but what the heck.

  143. Voicing my support for PA by coupland · · Score: 1

    Way to go guys, today's strip is hilarious! Please make this a series and find legal ways to stick it to these jerks endlessly until they get the hint.

  144. Most Admirable... by WebCowboy · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...and I'd bow down before the gods of parody (once I stopped laughing my ass off) if I were to see PA's take on American McGee's treatment of the Smurfs....heh heh

    C'mon...Smurfette--a lone girl smurf amongst a community of 99 boy smurfs? "They're only a couple apples tall but it's still one big blue bang"

    1. Re:Most Admirable... by danox · · Score: 1

      C'mon...Smurfette--a lone girl smurf amongst a community of 99 boy smurfs? "They're only a couple apples tall but it's still one big blue bang"

      Haven't you seen donnie darko, this issue is covered in full. The smurfs have no sexual organs, and thus are not effected by lust towards smurfette. They are trully innocent.

      --
      "Me and my girl named bimbo . . . limbo . . . spam" - Captain Beefheart.
  145. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American Greetings
    American McGee

    Coincidence?

    (American McGreetings?)

    1. Re:hmmm by betanerd · · Score: 1

      = McDonalds Lawsuit

      --
      Insert sig here (slashdot) Insert cig here (Lewinsky)
  146. good idea, wrong place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That can be a good idea if you modify it a little. May I suggest the following reply to such an AG card:

    Dear $person , thanks for the card bla bla,.....

    However I hope in the future you should use another card because American Greetings (the company that made this card) has, in my opinion unethical business practices

    rewrite to your needs, just trying to make the general idea.

  147. Re:Boring comic strip. Why the hell should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, answer me you fuck?

    I'm sending "paradies" of your sister to friends all over the country.

  148. The issue is Strawberry Shortcake, not the style. by Mr+Z · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to the USPTO website, the Strawberry Shortcake mark is owned by "Those Characters From Cleveland, Inc." Those Characters From Cleveland appears to license their marks to American Greetings or is a subsidiary. I haven't found a page that explicitly mentions their relationship. (Note: I think USPTO query links 'expire.' You can always search again using TESS.

    According to this link, it looks like American Greetings, Those Characters From Cleveland, and Rinda Vas have previously gone after alleged violations of their marks. (In the linked page, the case appears to be a reasonable attack against a domain squatter.)

    --Joe
  149. Re:Would have more sympathy of it was actually fun by demon · · Score: 1

    The original "Alice in Wonderland" was not quite as light-hearted as the Disney movie based upon the book. American McGee definitely has a way or darkening the tone quite a lot, but to call the original book "light-hearted" is a bit inaccurate.

    --

    Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
    Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
  150. Re:and neither am I by xenocide2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I really cannot see this parody of S.S. I'm not suggesting that they choose from an increasingly dwindling public domain, but rather actually parody the two of them. If you want to assult mcgee and 80s corporations, do so, and make it unambiguous. Say something like "from the people who've whored out your childhood memories for twenty dollars and american mcgee" or otherwise indicate that you have some sort of critical point to make. Not only have you doubled your satirical milage, but you've covered your satirical ass.

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

  151. Freedom Fry McGee, where for art thee? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So does anyone know what American McGee himself has to say about all this? We've heard from the guys at both PA and AG, yet nothing from McGee. I've been expecting a .plan update from him with some comments regarding the comic, his thoughts on it, the PA guys and this situation overall.

  152. Re:Would have more sympathy of it was actually fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it's something that's been pointed out several times, but I thought this one was great.

    I can't believe they didn't make a shirt outta that.
    Also, this one is classic.

  153. Re:Boring comic strip. Why the hell should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is grade school out already?

  154. Hmm, sounds like competition by lww · · Score: 1

    for my line of "You slept with Lumbergh?" greeting cards...

  155. Complaint Template by betanerd · · Score: 1

    As a long time customer of both American Greetings and Penny-Arcade.com I am deeply saddened by the recent developments between your company and penny-arcade.com. After examining the situation as presented before me. I have come the the conclusion that American Greetings is wholly in the wrong. Because of this and because of while there are many supplementary goods for products bearing the American Greetings logo there are few for Penny Arcade.com and none for free speech, I have decided to stop consuming your products until such time that a noticeable change is made in the way that American Greetings responds to similar incidents.

    While I understand that the number of individuals willing to take a stand on this issue will be small, I firmly believe that the number of people who would have had their opinion of American Greetings swain by an electronic comic-strip would be far less had American Greetings chosen a different course of action on this matter.

    --
    Insert sig here (slashdot) Insert cig here (Lewinsky)
  156. Re:Easy Boycott Idea - Protest Letter by betanerd · · Score: 1

    As a long time customer of both American Greetings and Penny-Arcade.com I am deeply saddened by the recent developments between your company and penny-arcade.com. After examining the situation as presented before me. I have come the the conclusion that American Greetings is wholly in the wrong. Because of this and because of while there are many supplementary goods for products bearing the American Greetings logo there are few for Penny Arcade.com and none for free speech, I have decided to stop consuming your products until such time that a noticeable change is made in the way that American Greetings responds to similar incidents.

    While I understand that the number of individuals willing to take a stand on this issue will be small, I firmly believe that the number of people who would have had their opinion of American Greetings swain by an electronic comic-strip would be far less had American Greetings chosen a different course of action on this matter.

    -Thank You

    --
    Insert sig here (slashdot) Insert cig here (Lewinsky)
  157. I liked the original Strawberry Shortcake comic! by hellfire · · Score: 1

    Found it quite entertaining... though I must admit I wasn't "laughing" per se while I was looking...

    Do you like... pie?

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  158. Amer. Grtngs: P.A. Series by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 5, Funny

    You sent us a Greeting
    That said Cease and Desist
    So we give you "The Finger (TM)"
    (we couldn't resist)

    The "Red Bitch" has been mirrored
    Like DeCSS
    We just thought we'd share
    (or is it confess)
    .
    .
    .
    . /open cover to greeting card
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Fuck You

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
    1. Re:Amer. Grtngs: P.A. Series by c4tp · · Score: 1

      From AG to PA:

      We love your comic
      Just as much as the next guy,
      But you went too far with one
      And we're going to sue you out your eye.

      I hope you're happy
      That your comic sucked,
      Because now all the kids
      Will grow up to be ----ed.

      Thank you.

  159. Re:The issue is Strawberry Shortcake, not the styl by arkanes · · Score: 1

    I disagree that the case is totally reasonable (although the defendent may have looked like a squatter), and it's worth noting that the defendant won.

  160. ROTFLMAO by betanerd · · Score: 1



    They actually removed the link. All this non-violent protest stuff may be good for something after all

    --
    Insert sig here (slashdot) Insert cig here (Lewinsky)
    1. Re:ROTFLMAO by smoondog · · Score: 1

      No, there is a space in the url...

  161. This has also happened to Nmap ... AG must chill by fv · · Score: 3, Funny
    I can understand how American Greetings could be a little uncomfortable about imagery of Plum Pudding getting her ass smacked by Strawberri Shortcake, but they need to chill out. A while back someone took my Nmap Security Scanner and created cartoonish parody that is 100 times more disgusting and offensive!

    Yet I didn't sue. I just got a chuckle at the sick mind who would create such a thing! AG should take note.

    -Fyodor
    Concerned about your network security? Try the free Nmap Security Scanner. Version 3.27 was released today

  162. Horrible AMERICAN GREETING CARD - Adoption by SimHacker · · Score: 1
    From: John Oles-Leighton Finucan (jfinucan@digital.net)
    Subject: Horrible AMERICAN GREETING CARD - Adoption
    Newsgroups: alt.adoption
    Date: 1997/01/20

    One of our members was out looking for a Valentine's Day card today and happened to find an interesting one. Here's the text:

    COVER- cartoon cat saying " Sis, even if you were adopted, I'd still love you...

    INSIDE TEXT- ... not that you are, of course. At least, I don't think so. But, come to think of it, you don't really look like Mom or Dad, Gee, maybe you should get a DNA test or something. Oh well, don't worry about it. We all love you even if your real parents don't. Happy Valentine's Day "

    This is not made up; this is American Greetings card and the number on back is 225AV 0837-42W and the card is in front of me. The head of our group here, Bertie Hunt, was so incensed that she called the local CBS affiliate who has done stories on us in the past and the reporter thought it was unbelievable. She then tracked down American Greetings and talked to Laurie Hendrickson there who also thought the card was terrible and Ms. Hendrickson has ordered the card recalled from the stores! She is also sending an apology letter, which I will post when it arrives. Never mess with a pissed-off adoptee! JOLF from TRIAD/Orlando

    P.S. I'll see if there is a American Greetings home page with a mailbox and post it if I find one.

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  163. How to Legal Parody by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

    You know if they put Parody in big red letters written in blood..they cannot be sued..

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
  164. Re:and neither am I by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Say something like "from the people who've whored out your childhood memories for twenty dollars and american mcgee" or otherwise indicate that you have some sort of critical point to make.

    I don't like that, simply because it mandates form in order to qualify for protection as a parody. Why does it have to be like a bad political cartoon where everything is explicitly labeled just so that any retard can see that you're trying to make a statement? I can see the exact remark you are suggesting be plastered on the image in the image itself. Is it not satire if it isn't obvious?

    I suppose in the future we'll all be required to put "This is a work of parody of Strawberry Shortcake (tm American Bumcrammers, all rights reserved) and American McGee's Alice (tm American McGee, all rights reserved) and of Gaming Culture in General (tm Electronic Arts, all rights reserved)" in minimum size 14 font just to avoid being insta-sued by legal webcrawlers.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  165. Say what? by sweatyboatman · · Score: 1

    this doesn't make any sense. no one looking for Strawberry Shortcake would end up at that Penny Arcade comic. the PA people didn't hawk it, didn't pretend to be hosting a Shortcake fan site.

    I'd be much more comfortable if they just said, "Strawberry Shortcake is trademarked. If PA wants to use her or any other trademarks of American Greetings they need to run it by us first."

    On April 17, 2003, American Greetings received
    a complaint about the cartoon namely that it was "creepy" and "offensive."


    ah, the moral majority.

    that's a smooth move by some concerned citizen. PA's probably just going to ignore the email you sent to them, but they wont ignore American Greetings' lawyers.

    well good for you. now the web will be safe for young children and other innocents.

    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    1. Re:Say what? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "that's a smooth move by some concerned citizen."

      The thing is, if you're going to find that particular strip of Penny Arcade "creepy and offensive," you're bound to find the whole darned strip is in that category and wouldn't be reading it to begin with. This just fuels my little conspiracy theory that whoever this "concerned citizen" is has an agenda against either PA in general or that strip in particular.

  166. Re: mail from mom by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

    At least you'd be one up from many Slashdot folk, who don't receive mail from mom because they live in her basement...

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
  167. Gee they should be sued This strip IS NOT FUNNY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee they should be sued for posting this crap on the internet. This strip has absolutely no Comedic substance, what so ever!! Simply put garfield can run cirle around these snooze fest comic striips. Believe it would no big loss if these brain dead pennyarcade writers were to vanish of the face of the internet.

  168. Re:Polymer City by wikthemighty · · Score: 4, Informative


    Polymer City Chronicles is doing it too...

    --
    "There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
  169. Re:and neither am I by xenocide2 · · Score: 1
    The fact that you have yet to describe where and how this picture actually parodies is not supportive of your argument, really. To ease your apparent burden, I'll go ahead and give you a definition of parody:

    parody - A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.

    Hopefully you can agree that the above is an accurate definition, and you might even go so far as to find legal and court references to the definition of a parody. With that in mind, I'd love to hear how you can call the artwork a parody of Strawberry Shortcake(R).

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

  170. Re:and neither am I by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    The fact that you have yet to describe where and how this picture actually parodies is not supportive of your argument, really.

    My argument was that requiring paradies to be explicit about what they are a parody of is unnecessarily restrictive. I don't really care if you can see how it is a parody or not; I'm saying why must it be made plain before parody protection is invoked?

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  171. Even if they lose... by Peterus7 · · Score: 1
    American greetings lost a lot of customers... That they probably never had, but that's aside the point.

    What next, AOL telling Megatokyo to stop using l33t because it's dumbing down the youth population? (AOL's philosophy.)

  172. Do you know what ATM is? by raehl · · Score: 1

    Do you think most anyone without an serious technical degree knows that it's not necessarily the thing cash comes out of?

    How about the 9-layer OSI networking standard, which has many of it's layers "merged" in practical use? Does anyone really need to know the names of all 9 layers? (Without a textbook, I don't.)

    Why do you think engineers are entitled to a whole slew of terms that the public at large can't understand that have VERY SPECIFIC meanings within engineering, but lawyers are not?

    Like it or not, law is a very complex set of rules because law has to deal with a very complex set of situations. When is a search legal? When is a confession admissable? Who is allowed to testify, and what are they allowed to testify about? How far does spousal privilege extend? When is something you told your spouse admissable that wouldn't be admissable if you told your priest? Why does the law treat those two situatons differently?

    IANAL, but I've tried to be one in traffic court. I should have hired the real thing. We need lawyers because understanding something as complex as a legal system is no less of a full time job than understanding what the fields of a TCP/IP header do - or don't.

    I suppose we should make TCP/IP headers all text so non-engineers can understand them, right?

    1. Re:Do you know what ATM is? by I'm+a+racist. · · Score: 1
      Do you think most anyone without an serious technical degree knows that it's not necessarily the thing cash comes out of?
      Yes, lots of technician-types. Most of the guys who service network equipment in the field are not exceptionally well educated or smart.

      How about the 9-layer OSI networking standard, which has many of it's layers "merged" in practical use? Does anyone really need to know the names of all 9 layers?
      No, what's your point?
      Why do you think engineers are entitled to a whole slew of terms that the public at large can't understand that have VERY SPECIFIC meanings within engineering, but lawyers are not?
      Because, they regularly deal with things that the general public does not. Everyone deals with the law every day... if you can't understand it, how could you keep from violating it?

      ...law has to deal with a very complex set of situations.
      Not especially. Day to day situations are not complicated. If the laws were more properly designed, they wouldn't be nearly as complicated.

      IANAL, but I've tried to be one in traffic court. I should have hired the real thing.
      Yeah? And I knew a physics student who got out of his ticket by explaining the inherent error of the far-field approximation to the judge. It's a bullshit argument, but the law-educated judge was not nearly educated enough to follow the argument, so he just accepted it.

      I suppose we should make TCP/IP headers all text so non-engineers can understand them, right?
      Hmm... don't they call that XML?

      Seriously, people don't have to understand TCP/IP, because it just works. They use it and never know it. The law is different, they need to understand it... and it doesn't work so well anyway.

      Now, just to make it clear, being an "engineer" and understanding TCP/IP doesn't make anyone very special either. Plenty of degree-mill fodder does this every day. When I say "smart people" I'm not necessarily talking about anyone involved in IT (sure some "IT" people are smart, but many are not).
      --


      Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
  173. Hold on a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what you're telling me is that a greating card company has trademarked a type of DESSERT? And now someone used that dessert's name and getting sued? I don't care how rich or powerful you are, you just don't go around trademarking damned dessert names.

  174. Re:Polymer City by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

    Why can't anybody get a link that's Safe For Work?

  175. Re:and neither am I by Emrys · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because you aren't free to just make any work you want that includes someone elses copyrighted material and get away with it on the grounds that you claim it's parody. Works which incorporate someone else's IP are derivative works, and they're what copyright law in the old-fashioned sense makes illegal. There are exceptions, such as parody, where people can make derivative works for the purposes of exercising their maintained right to criticize something. Copyright is basically a legal restriction on free speech, but is itself restricted from banning speech that's expressive/critical/etc. as opposed to commercial in nature.

    For the SS cartoon to be free from a charge of being an unauthorized derivative work of the Strawberry Shortcake(R) property, it needs to actually be making a protected statement about SS, American Greetings, etc. It really isn't. It's making a statement about American McGee.

    This is why it's not a clear cut case of parody. Unfortunately people are being so quick to yell foul that they're missing this pretty obvious point.

  176. Re:and neither am I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dunno about you, but my first impression was that this was first and formost a parody about Strawberry Shortcake, with only a slight mention about McGee.

    Then you don't understand what parody is.

    The parody in this case is on American McGee's take on things. There's not a single portion of parody going in related to SS, she's just used because of her goody-two-shoes-ness.

  177. Mark Twain by xant · · Score: 1

    "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak because an infant can't chew it."

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  178. You are wrong by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Political cartoons are commercial, and there are many commercial satire companies.

    Whether or not someone makes money has absolutely nothing to do with whether something can be used under the parody exemption.

  179. IANALL... by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    But I am a cartoonist, so I more or less have to be careful about what I draw infringing all the time. This case is ludicrous, however. There are three critical points:

    (1) Strawberry Shortcake is a childrens book character, an animated cartoon character, and for the sake of technicality, a recipe for a dessert.

    (2) Strawberry Shortcake, in her current incarnation, looks absolutely nothing like the character being parodized.

    Here is the old version: http://lakes.ring.com/bsetter/sberry/SB1.JPG

    And the new version (albeit smaller):
    http://www.dicentertainment.com/Logos/S trawberry.g if

    (3) In said parody, the only thing from the trademarked characters are in fact the hats from the old version.

    Which leads to the conclusion that this is indeed a shaky case.

    I am surprised, however, that I had not heard much in regards to an unrelated crossover parody published back in 1982 or 1983 in National Lampoon, showing a Smurf... Ummm... Smurfing Strawberry Shortcake like she's never been Smurfed before. One would think a lawsuit like that would get *some* publicity. I've only found one reference to this parodyu, and nothing else.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  180. Re:and neither am I by caouchouc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    parody - A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.

    You'll notice that the definition itself doesn't specify any particular target or purpose other than comic effect and ridicule.

    PA did imitate the style of the Strawberry Shortcake characters, as well as the style of American McGee's fairytale-turned-horror games.

    They were specifically making fun of American McGee for rehashing Alice with another fairytale, and the parody included the Strawberry Shortcake characters for comedic effect.

    Their maligned comic is a parody, by definition.

  181. How does the law work? by rick1027 · · Score: 1

    Is it the law now that PA and the people that host their site are shielded from civil action as long as they comply with requests to take down offending content? Whether the request has any legal merit or not. ... So they could put up new offending content every day as long as they took it down after they got a request? Or am I confused somehow? Like I am usually.

  182. Re:and neither am I by caouchouc · · Score: 1

    For the SS cartoon to be free from a charge of being an unauthorized derivative work of the Strawberry Shortcake(R) property, it needs to actually be making a protected statement about SS, American Greetings, etc.

    Actually, the definition of the word "parody" includes no such stipulation. The comic's a parody, by definition.

    The real question to ask is not wether it's a parody, but wether the law defines restrictions on the content of parodies that PA is not in compliance with.

    I hate to be pedantic, but the difference is rather signifigant.

  183. Hacktivism anyone? by BobStikigreen · · Score: 0, Troll

    Be nice on the days leading up to mothers and fathers day someone deface their web presence to bring more attention to this issue. Or perhaps DDOS any e-commerce presence the might have as a form of non-voluntary boycott. Just some ideas.

  184. Re:This has also happened to Nmap ... AG must chil by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    Thanks for nmap, Fyodor. Lovely program.

  185. American McGee didn't make PA's "mistake" by Iainuki · · Score: 1
    "So, American McGee's creative propensities amuse us. What would happen if he turned his dark gaze on one of those sweet girls' toys from the eighties, like Rainbow Brite or Sweet Secrets or My Little Pony? No, I've got it: Strawberry Shortcake."

    You see, American McGee, regardless of what you think of his work, had the wisdom to choose something outside the domain of our ludicrous "intellectual property" law. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was written in 1900. That's about 30 years before the event horizon of copyright (c. 1928). And that event horizon is why you'll never see American McGee perverting many of the other icons you might expect (*cough* Disney's junk *cough*).

    1. Re:American McGee didn't make PA's "mistake" by Maul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a very interesting point. American McGee might have stupid ideas according to some, but he darkens tales that are in PUBLIC DOMAIN.

      I think this is a perfect example of you how Disney's lobbying for de facto indefinite copyrights has destroyed what copyright was supposed to be about in the first place.

      Baum had the opportunity to profit off of his Oz works back in the early 1900s. His books were popular, and now the stories have fallen into a place where they have literally become a staple fairy tale, As far as I know the original stories and concepts themselves are now PUBLIC DOMAIN, where they SHOULD BE.

      But now things that should enter public domain will never be, thanks to Disney. Whenever Mickey is in danger of becoming public domain (like he should be right now), Disney will pay off some congressmen to extend the copyright laws again.

      If this continues, 100 years from now people we will have no NEW stories like Oz or Alice in Wonderland that they can work with freely. Everything will still be copyrighted because the copyrights will now continue to be extended. Every story people grew up with will be still be owned by Disney or another faceless media corporation.

      --

      "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

  186. Re:and neither am I by EvilFrog · · Score: 1

    The parody is not of Strawberry Shortcake, but rather of American McGee. It is a common technique in Parody to use another, only somewhat related property to drive the point across.

    Your definition is only a small part of parody. What you list is the dictionary definition, not the legal or practical definition.

  187. Re:Polymer City (also in color!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    He also has a color version of the comic up on his site.

    Mmmm.... Cherry Cheesecake...

  188. Your sig is ironic here ... by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

    I was just about to rant about ppl who like that flash in your sig but most likely don't know what it's a parody of... But then I realised it's ironicness since it's a parody of a manga/anime* using a [copyrighted? trademarked?] product ...

    *I'd like to see if you do know which manga/anime ^_^

  189. Re:Real fucking mature - mod parent up by TeraCo · · Score: 1

    All they are doing is the same thing they do every few days, post a comic that the regulars will find funny. I'm a regular reader, and I thought it was funny. Funny enough that I forwarded it onto other less regular readers. Maturity? That doesn't matter, they're playing to their target audience.

    --
    Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
  190. Turn about is fair play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I suppose American Greeting could create a "Parody" of the Penny Arcade characters, put them on some coffee mugs and greeting cards, and distribute those without compensation to the artists?

    1. Re:Turn about is fair play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet the hypocrites at penny-whoreage would be bitching about this.

      It would be alot better then how they are currently selling and pimping out their characters. Heck it might even make them $1.00 more then the current $0.0001 they are selling out for.

  191. Fight Club solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope these cartoonists fight back against these arrogant corporate bastards. I'm sure they can find a good civil liberties group who will take up their case.

    In the meantime, one fun way to fight back against this asshole company is for people to make their own guerilla parodies of AG cards and leave them at stores that carry AG cards. Give them a taste of what artistic freedom is really about.

  192. Clearly Parody... and that's the point by the_ed_dawg · · Score: 1
    IANAL, but this should be a fairly clear case. It has legal precedent all the way to the Supreme Court. Remember Jerry Falwell's suit against Hustler magazine (1988) after printing a comic strip of him performing incestuous acts with his mother in an outhouse? Hustler won because parodies are protected as long as they exhibit "outrageousness" and are not written with "actual malice". It was so interesting that they even made a motion picture about it, "The People Vs. Harry Flynt."

    American Greetings may elect to take Penny Arcade to court, but the legal expenses shouldn't be as extreme as some people might lead others to believe.

    --
    There are two types of people: those prepared for the zombie apocalypse and those who will be eaten.
  193. Mirrored on Freenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CHK@KGXWifdPFishhFULqlmBw--vmGwRAwI,MfDbgO117goXb0 xbcRo46g/pa_nazis.gif

    CHK@PSb-qW0qFFzcfNj9ImsLVe23~GkSAwI,a2CNu3-dXtEf 4o seI40fKA/straw.gif

    enjoy :) And if you don't know what those mean, go to www.freenetproject.org and get involved!

  194. Another response to the situation by Artificer · · Score: 1

    Ghastly shows support for Penny Arcade as well.
    Warning: It is not recommended that you go to this comic from work!

  195. Isn't Strawberry Shortcake a dessert by Descartes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know it's a little late now that there are like 400 comments but how can American Greetings trademark something that's already part of the language? I'm pretty sure people were calling that delicious dessert "strawberry shortcake" way before AG invented that stupid character.

    1. Re:Isn't Strawberry Shortcake a dessert by sql*kitten · · Score: 2, Insightful

      know it's a little late now that there are like 400 comments but how can American Greetings trademark something that's already part of the language? I'm
      pretty sure people were calling that delicious dessert "strawberry shortcake" way before AG invented that stupid character.


      It's all about context. You can use the same words as trademarks in different contexts without any overlap. For example, once upon a time there were VAX vaccuum cleaners and VAX computers, and there was no legal problem there, since there was no danger of a consumer mistaking one for another. So, you could happily write a book called "Strawberry Shortcake" full of recipes if you wanted to, or manufacture a range of cooking implements under that name, but if you featured the Strawberry Shortcake(tm) character in your recipe book, or placed images of that character on your products, then you would be in trouble.

  196. You're in trouble now :) by MaverickUW · · Score: 1
    Attention DrMrLordX and associates:

    My name is Rinda Vas from American greetings, and I am sending you this cease and desist order based on a posting you made on Slashdot.org regarding the email address Rinda.Vas@amgreetings.com. This posting of the email address is a violation of our trademarks, and we'll have to ask you to stop. Thank you

    Rinda Vas

    Rinda.Vas@amgreetings.com

  197. Hang on a minute by Lurgen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The guys from Penny Arcade won, regardless of what Am Greetings thinks...

    Thousands of extra eyeballs saw their strip thanks to Slashdot. Even if a tiny percentage of those viewers went to the official site, and a similarly tiny percentage spent some money, I would expect that Penny Arcades page impressions, clickthroughs (they have such amazingly discreet advertisements, other sites could learn a lot from them), and subscriptions have boomed at least a little bit.

    Worse for Am Greetings, they failed miserably at supressing the image. It's available to anybody who looks for more than a minute or two, google is returning mirrors to it now - so AG managed to burn up some more customer goodwill without achieving anything positive.

    Why bother trying to sue them to get permission to repost the picture? A victory like this can't be awarded by the courts, it takes several million slashdot readers to make such a win possible :)

    Congrats to Gabe and Tycho for a top-notch site. I'm not affiliated with it in any way, but I read it just about daily. I hope they gained a lot from this little event.

  198. Real reason by Jookey · · Score: 2, Informative

    The reason Penny Arcade got an cease and desist letter was because "Strawberry Shortcake" is a copyrighted name. The current strip cleverly does not show "American Greetings" but obscures the 'n' and the 's' to make it "america greeting" wich is not a copyrighted name. What PA should have done initally is simply altered there strip so that "Strawberry Shortcake" was misspelled, then stuck there toungs out at AG's lawyers.

    1. Re:Real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't copyright a name.

    2. Re:Real reason by OneEyedApe · · Score: 1

      You can sure as hell try. With enough money, you can probably pull it off, too.

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
      --Thomas J. Kopp
  199. The first one was definitely IFFY by sbwoodside · · Score: 1

    I'm going to go against the /. consensus here I think..

    I just don't see the first cartoon as being defensible by the PA people. Sure, the parody of American Magee was interesting, and defensible, but bringing in the Strawberry Shortcake character did seems a little bit off. In fact ... it just didn't make any sense. What were they saying about Strawberry shortcake? Nothing, it was just a random sexualization of that character.

    In sum, the first cartoon, I have no problem with the greetings people wanting it pulled, I think that was fine.

    This one on the other hand is a zinger and a well-aimed one too =)

    simon

    1. Re:The first one was definitely IFFY by Mr.Spaz · · Score: 1

      The initial strip was an extension of the sort of thing American Magee has done to other childhood staples, in this case the well-known "Alice:" In that case he turned a slightly sinister but otherwise goofy childhood fantasy story into a much darker and graphic experience. The speculation on the part of the Penny Arcade crew was thusly; "what would happen if he turned his attentions to some incredibly benign pure fluff?" I'm sure it wasn't much work to settle on Strawberry Shortcake, certainly one of the least offensive and most banal children's toy/shows from recent memory.

      One of the things I love about these situations is the type of attention such corporate reaction draws. I'd imagine that if they had said nothing, the regular readers of Penny Arcade would have laughed at the comic until the next one came out, at which point it would have settled into the archives and quiet near-oblivion. Instead, they've ended up with the image plastered around the net in front of thousands of readers who may not have originally seen it, and fallen cleanly into the role of "the man" flexing his corporate muscle to "keep 'em down." It's really a loss/loss. The original problem doesn't go away, and you deliberately push your corporate name into a bad light. When will these PR departments learn how this works?

  200. Re:and neither am I by Kronovohr · · Score: 1

    such as:

    "New -- this summer...an action tale that will rip out your spleen and eat it with ice cream. Arnold Schwarzenegger is...Pippi...Longstocking! This film has not yet been rated."

    ?

  201. AG Media Contacts - Email-em! by redgekko · · Score: 1
    Here is AG's Media Contacts page... it dosen't seem to be linked up from their corporate site at the moment, but that didn't stop Google from finding it! :)

    Or, for quick reference...

    Of course, make sure to include the nazi who started all this: Rinda E. Vas (rinda.vas@amgreetings.com) - Corporate Counsel!

    My thinking is that when Media Relations gets wind of this, they're going to be all over Rinda for creating such wonderful publicity. Start making noise (tactfully please)!

    --
    Slashdot: rejecting tech news in favor of rubber band guns since 1997.
  202. Re:and neither am I by Iffy+Bonzoolie · · Score: 1
    I don't understand this... merely portraying a wholesome childrens' icon in a dominatrix situation is a parody in itself, regardless of the fact that they were also making fun of American McGee's creative tendencies. It doesn't have to be clever, or political, or even good to qualify.

    According to the first definition of parody on dictionary.com:
    A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.
    Even though the were not ridiculing American Greetings, specifically, they were imitating the characteristic style of Strawberry Shortcake for comic effect. Thus, it's a parody.

    Yep.

    -If
    --
    Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
  203. Alice was twisted and re-shaped 35 years ago.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...by The Jefferson Airplane in White Rabbit:
    One pill makes you larger,
    And one pill makes you small,
    And the ones that Mother gives you,
    Don't do anything at all.
    Go ask Alice
    When she's ten feet tall.

    And if you go chasing rabbits
    And you know you're going to fall,
    Tell 'em a hookah smoking caterpillar
    Has given you the call.
    Call Alice
    When she was just small.

    When the men on the chessboard
    Get up and tell you where to go
    And you've just had some kind of mushroom
    And your mind is moving low,
    Go ask Alice
    I think she'll know.

    When logic and proportion
    Have fallen softly dead,
    And the White Knight is talking backwards
    And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"
    Remember what the dormouse said:
    "Feed your head.
    Feed your head.
    Feed your head"

  204. A *perfect* opportunity for Operation MindF*ck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Did nyone else who has read Illuminatus! by Shea and Wilson think of making PA-style greeting cards and slipping them into the stock at one of the AG stores? Just imagine the reaction of the sort of customer AG caters to when they find the card....

    LEGAL DISCLAIMER: I wrote "think of." The above is by no means an encouragement that anyone actually do this.

  205. now *thats* funny! (nt) by codemonkey_uk · · Score: 1

    No Text!

    --

    Thad

  206. Furthermore... by codemonkey_uk · · Score: 1

    The cartoon doesn't directly accuse A.G. corporation of being Nazis, but that specific (fictional/cartoon) woman.

    --

    Thad

  207. publish and be damned? by geoff+lane · · Score: 1

    There's no point in getting screwed in court over a joke no matter how good.

    But, don't go silently. Publish all those C&D letters in place of the jokes/cartoons together with
    counter arguments. Tell your audience what is happening. Correspond with the lawyers - it costs you nothing but postage; it costs the people paying the lawyers a lot everytime they have to respond.

    If it's a matter of copyright - ask for proof! It's amazing how many organisations are unable to provide proof they own a particular IP.

  208. Yeah, that would be the one. by zackbar · · Score: 1

    I never noticed those at the top before. Probably because they are so dang hard to read.

    Ok, so I should have been able to notice that, but seriously, a white font with a black shadow on a grey tab on a blue page is not eye-friendly.

    It also doesn't help that there is a banner ad below the menu bar. I'm accustomed to ignoring anything from the banner ad on up. I doubt if I'm the only one.

  209. Ya thanks.... by Kelz · · Score: 1

    Thats for the pr0n link! I'm at SCHOOL you INSENSITIVE CLOD!

  210. Re:Voicing my support for AG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PA sucks, is over rated, and they went over the line with this one. They should be sued for this "comic."

  211. So then you must find the following funny: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "T3h Xb0x is HUG3 LOLOLOLOL!!!!11"
    "u r t3h gahy"
    "Fuck You"
    "u sux"
    "Wang!!!!11!!"
    "game X suxs"
    "u r a Nazi!"
    "u f490t!"
    "look at those sellout whores, we would never sellout"

  212. How to NOT support them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wget their whole site to dev/null as much as you can.

    I don't trust claims made up by rabid fanboys, this is penny-arcade you are talking about.

  213. Huh? by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    The first link dosn't even mention "for profit" or parody at all. Neither link talks about parody. parody is diffrent from fair use. the PA strip didn't use any copyrighted images or text, other then the name.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Huh? by elbobo · · Score: 1

      "parody is diffrent from fair use"

      No it's not :)

  214. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ha funny now shut up

  215. Maybe you've got a little jew and black in you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You stupid jewfag, shouldn't you be shading someone's lamp right now?

    Just because you like getting some nigger-jism in you doesn't mean that anyone else does.

    Down with Saudi Arabia!!!