Barney Surrenders To the EFF

davidwr writes, "Earlier this year, EFF sued the Barney the Dinosaur people for harassing a Barney parody web site. Well, Barney finally surrendered, err I mean, learned to share. For more, read the case history at the EFF site."

Comments

this is a 'Good Thing'...

[zappepcs]

oh, and if you have tried to trademark 'Good Thing' don't worry, I won't sue....

Its good to see the EFF winning anytime... everyone should support them

Hang on, wait..

[QuantumG]

The EFF actually won a case? What, did they get new lawyers or something?

Re:Hang on, wait..

[Lemmy Caution]

They're like the Imperial Stormtroopers of litigation.

Re:Hang on, wait..

[Neoncow]

Well, they were up against Barney the Dinosaur.

Re:Hang on, wait..

[Anonymous Coward]

What, do they get owned by teddy bears too?

Re:Hang on, wait..

[rubycodez]

good thing they were up against Barney's Trek redshirts of litigation

Re:Hang on, wait..

[ntk]

Sigh. Is that old "Bonhomie Snoutintroff" canard still kicking around? A story that gave as its warped reasoning for the idea that "EFF always loses" two cases that EFF didn't actually conduct (Eldred v. Ashcroft and Gilmore v. Gonzales), and one that we actually won: ("They defended two amateur online journos against Apple's ham-fisted effort to silence criticism, and got beat down severely: another bad precedent." - odd, that's not quite what the Appeals Court decided when the California state appeals court upheld our defence, and held that our clients were protected by California's reporter's shield law and the constitutional privilege against disclosure of confidential sources: http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Apple_v_Does/ ).

And as to the Snoutintroff claim we somehow "persuaded" Ed Felten to withdraw from a talk as a media stunt, it's worth reading what Felten himself had to say about that period. Chilled speech, baseless legal threats, people losing jobs because they stand up for their right to reveal security flaws. That's what EFF fights.

It's worth spending time reading EFF's actual track record - either from our list of victories, or from the Wikipedia list.

(Or hell, just read our press releases from the last week where we were filing an amicus brief to defend constitutional protection for stored email, began a case to investigate and correct some 18,000 missing votes in an apparent e-voting mess-up in a Florida seat that was won by less than 400 votes, and filing an FOIA request to uncover the details of EU passenger records being handed over to the US government. And that's what we did on a Thanksgiving week - with a staff of around 30, and a budget that's a fiftieth of the size of the ACLU, and a twentieth of what the MPAA spend on Washington lobbying alone. And consider becoming a member if you're impressed - you have no idea how much every extra membership helps, nor how much there is left to do.)

Re:Hang on, wait..

[ntk]

Which is why I gave the Wikipedia list too. It's pretty comprehensive; I'm sure there are omissions, but it should give you an idea of the ratio of successes -- something that the original piece didn't even attempt. If somebody wrote a piece claiming that it was obvious your uncle was a bad gambler, and included bets he hadn't made, and some he didn't lose, wouldn't you be suspicious of the conclusion?

Re:Hang on, wait..

[OldManAndTheC]

They're like the Imperial Stormtroopers of litigation.

"TK-421, why aren't you at your desk?"

Re:Hang on, wait..

[Puff Daddy]

Learn. To. Read. Things. And. Not. Just. Be. An. Asshole. The. Wikipedia. List. Includes. Defeats. Idiot.

Finally, a success against copyright bullshit!

[JoshJ]

Someone get these lawyers on the RIAA's case. The sooner we're rid of copyright abuses, the sooner we can put a sane system in place. Though the other way around may work better.
Actually enforcing fair use is a good start.

Re:Finally, a success against copyright bullshit!

[cultrhetor]

What does enforcement of actual "fair use" have to do with enforcing piracy claims? The RIAA suits are a different ball of wax.

Re:Finally, a success against copyright bullshit!

[JoshJ]

Step 1: Recognize fair use Step 2: Recognize that the copyright laws (and patent laws, but that's another matter) as they exist today are ridiculous Step 3: REFORM!

Singalong

[Shadow Wrought]

I love you, you love me,
This is bestiality...

Re:Singalong

[vwjeff]

I sue you, you sue me.

From the settlement agreemenr ...

[foobsr]

"... Conditioned upon the parties' compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the parties, and their respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, parents, subsidiaries, affiliated companies, attorneys, successors and assigns, hereby release each other from any and all claims, demands, damages, losses, liabilities, rights or causes of action, including but not limited to any claim for attorneys fees, arising out of or relating to the Action and/or the allegations asserted therein. ..."

Reading this please make your own conclusions about the inner structure of the underlying legal system (IMAGINE YOU WOULD STRUCTURE CODE THE SAME WAY!).

cc.

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ...

[LiquidCoooled]

The code might not look this way, but the EULA sure does.

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ...

[Carnildo]

"... Conditioned upon the parties' compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the parties, and their respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, parents, subsidiaries, affiliated companies, attorneys, successors and assigns, hereby release each other from any and all claims, demands, damages, losses, liabilities, rights or causes of action, including but not limited to any claim for attorneys fees, arising out of or relating to the Action and/or the allegations asserted therein. ..."

Reading this please make your own conclusions about the inner structure of the underlying legal system (IMAGINE YOU WOULD STRUCTURE CODE THE SAME WAY!).

Reading this sort of legalese is actually quite simple: whenever you see an agglomeration of terms like that, read the first one, and mentally replace the rest of them with "or similar". It's actually quite similar to programming, since you need to explicity enumerate the cases. Neither computers nor lawyers are very good with fuzziness.

The code equivalent would be

if(is_party($complainant) || is_party_director($complainant) || is_party_agent($complainant) || is_party_servant($complainant) || is_party_employee($complainant) || is_party_parent($complainant)....)

Yes, you need to include all the clauses in order for the if() statement to work properly.

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ...

[nosredna]

To be more accurate, lawyers are very good with fuzziness. That's why you never ever ever ever want to leave them any to exploit.

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ...

[Pig Hogger]

"... Conditioned upon the parties' compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the parties, and their respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, parents, subsidiaries, affiliated companies, attorneys, successors and assigns, hereby release each other from any and all claims, demands, damages, losses, liabilities, rights or causes of action, including but not limited to any claim for attorneys fees, arising out of or relating to the Action and/or the allegations asserted therein. ..."

Reading this please make your own conclusions about the inner structure of the underlying legal system (IMAGINE YOU WOULD STRUCTURE CODE THE SAME WAY!).

Oh, that's easy:

Compliance(Terms_Conditions(Agreement));
Conditio n(Parties || '/.*/g');
Release('/.*/g' || claims('/.*/g'));

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ...

[zurmikopa]

So perhaps all legalese needs to be comprehendable is proper indenting (and maybe some syntax highlighting).

Re:From the settlement agreemenr ...

[macemoneta]

Oh, that's easy:

Compliance(Terms_Conditions(Agreement));
Condition(Parties || '/.*/g');
Release('/.*/g' || claims('/.*/g'));

Well why didn't they just say that? Sheesh, lawyers make everything so complicated. If laws were written this way, you could replace the judicial system with a compiler. Ah.

HIS Lawyers.. surrendered.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was his lawyers that surrendered, those damn slackers.. Barney will be out kicking ass and giving hugs in no time.

Re:HIS Lawyers.. surrendered.

[Jello B.]

And he's all out of hugs.

barney's revenge...

[Bananatree3]

I quote the famous barney addage:

I love you,
You love me,
We're a happy family,
with a great big hug,
and a kiss from me to you,
Won't you say you love me TOO!

I love you,
You love me,
We're best friends like friends should be,
With a great big hug,
And a kiss from me to you,
Won't you say you love me too

I guess Barney is one of those Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde kind of guys with a split personality. While he sings sweet happy songs to young children who absolutely adore him, he has a darkside he shows to those who don't like him. When someone doesn't respect the lines "We're best friends like friends should be", and "Won't you say you love me TOO", the big purple dinosaur sends them the not-so cuddly wrath of the purple-D's lawyer team.

Re:barney's revenge...

[zip_000]

I prefer SmootchY songs:
"My Stepdad's Not Mean (He's Just Adjusting.)"
KIDS:
'Stepdads are people too/ They
have bad days, like we all do/
Be patient and help them through/
Stepdads are people too...'

SMOOCHY:
(singing) ... 'So three cheers for the man
that I proudly call Stan... He's
not quite a dad or a brother...
Yes, he gets cross, but still he's
the boss... And besides he takes
care of my mother!'

SMOOCHY:
Remember, kids. First
impressions, good or bad, are not
always what they seem. Just like
a new puppy, new dads need to
adjust to their surroundings. So
give 'em time! But always
remember... if he becomes abusive
to you or Mommy... what are the
magic numbers?

KIDS IN BLEACHERS(shouting in unison: Nine-One-One!
SMOOCHY: Right-o-riffic!

Confused?

[edwardpickman]

I thought Barney was a parody? Isn't a parody website redudant?

Re:Confused?

[undeaf]

No, it's recursive. Haven't you ever wanted a beowulf cluster of beowulf clusters?

You don't want to sue us anymore...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.textfiles.com/art/barney.txt ...Subliminal Barney has spoken. (anyone remember this classic?)

Barney isn't stopped!

[autophile]

While the Big Bad Barney has agreed not to pursue Frankel any longer, the settlement document on the EFF website does not claim that Barney will not try to harass anyone else. Apparently Barney has to pay Frankel $5,000, which is a drop in the bucket. Barney will probably accept the risk of going after other, more likely to be intimidated, sites.

--Rob

Re:Barney isn't stopped!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, going after a "likely to be intimidated" site is exactly what Lyons was doing. The EFF stepped in to help "the little guy". Unless the EFF agreed not to involve themselves in future litigation, Lyons will always have to face the risk that the EFF will sue.

Re:Barney isn't stopped!

[multisync]

Barney will probably accept the risk of going after other, more likely to be intimidated, sites.

From the EFF's response to the Barney lawyers:

Finally, we would like to remind you that New York State Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-102 [1200.33] and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides for sanctions for litigation undertaken without support in existing law or sufficient evidentiary support.

IANAL, but if the law firm sending me a C&D was from New York, I would find the above very interesting.

Re:Barney isn't stopped!

[geckoFeet]

The way EFF explained it to me (I'm Frankel or, as EFF and my mother call me, Dr. Frankel. Also my old school when they're asking for money), if Lyons (the Barney company) keeps sending around nastygrams, that will establish a pattern that courts will probably look on very unfavorably. And the $5000 may be a drop in the bucket to them (it goes to EFF, incidentally), but the negative publicity was priceless. EFF would love to represent any future recipients of Barney's nastygrams.

EFF was Bound to Win

[MrCrassic]

...because this case had no basis.

Even though I really hate Britney Spears, I must admit that before she got pregnant, she actually looked kind of hot. However, after she got pregnant, she gradually turned into a monstrosity (or was it years of lyrical and systematic infection of our American youth finally striking back...?). If the value premise of the case were true, that meant that if I used Photoshop to exaggerate her hideous appearance to blatant unrealistic proportions, then posted it back on my MySpace, I have used the image of Britney Spears illegally under copyright law and will be subjected to all sorts of governmental discipline. Does this make any sense?

I'm glad that the court realized the flawed logic of this case. It would have been a shame if that person had to pay some consequence solely for using merely the image of a character humorously (or not). I knew the dinosaur had some evil in it...

Re:EFF was Bound to Win

[maxume]

The wheels on the bus go:

http://thesuperficial.com/2006/11/britney_spears_b oobs_are_huge.html

but then they come right back round(Not at all safe for work, in any way):

(again NSFW!)

http://thesuperficial.com/2006/11/britney_spears_r eally_wants_yo.html

Not that she looks all that fantastic in the first set; the second set is just hilarious though.

OMG

[BlahSnarto]

You know ive had one of the shittiest days
in my life, this made me laugh out loud..

i dont know why...

but thanks ;)

Am I the only one here

[WilliamSChips]

who thought of the policeman from Half-Life 2 before reading the summary?

No parallel with most RIAA cases

[Virtual_Raider]

IANAL. This is a case of fair use, whereas most RIAA cases are for copyright infringement. In the Barney case the purple lawyers wanted to make it appear as if this guy was making illegal reproductions of copyrighted work, which he was not.

"Piracy" copyright infringement means that you are unlawfully stepping over somebody's exclusive "right to copy", that is, to produce duplicates of a work. When the RIAA sues (whether with merit or not) they claim that you are illegally making a copy of something for which you don't have the right to reproduce. If I download a song from a P2P network for which I didn't pay the legal copyright holder for the rights to do so, then I'm breaking the law because I created a copy without authorization.

If I make a copy of a CD that I purchased through legal channels (including second-hand purchases) and then make a copy of that its fair use.

Parody is somewhat different because I'd be producing a copy or an altered copy of something in order to make a statement. In this case, what matters is not the copy itself but the intent. In the case of the music it's the other way around because one wants to have an exact replica of the "original".

Please, if you reply to this, take into account that I'm not saying whether I'm for or against the status quo, merely trying to depict it.

Ye Olde Skoole.

[Darlantan]

I've got you both beat. My first mental image was of Barney Fife furiously trying to load his single bullet into his revolver, dropping it, then throwing his hands into the air in front of a bunch of suit-clad agent types.

Original Barney FTW.

Five years ago, I got C&D'd by Barney...

[oskay]

Five years ago I had a website with a collection of jokes collected from mid-1990s humor mailing lists. Naturally, there was a whole page of Barney jokes. The same stupid ones that you've seen a million times. You've seen all the song parodies (here, if nowhere else), and then there was the giant ASCII-art-Barney-being-killed-by-something. I think that it might have been a face hugger.
At the time, the web site (for stupid, complicated reasons) was registered in my father's name. So, imagine my old man's surprise when one day HE gets a letter from Barney's lawyer threatening (purple) fire and brimstone. Without much of a good alternative, we caved. I was really, really mad, and I suppose that I still am. To this day, it's the only legal 'trouble' that any of my web sites have stirred up, which is actually somewhat surprising.

Now that someone has finally stood up to the purple bully, can I finally dig into my old backups and put up the page of Barney jokes again? Whether or not Barney jokes are still relevant at the end of 2006, I suppose that I should, merely on principle.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, -1 Uninformed? Seriously, do you not even know what fair use is? Copyrights have limits, despite what copyright holders like to pretend. They are an artificial monopoly created to reward artists, not a God Given Right. Don't believe me? Here you go, the law itself. And before you get confused, parody is a form of "criticism" and "comment"--laws are always a bit vague because the world isn't black and white. Yes, there is also a limit to what is considered a parody, but parodies are legal. Determining if something is a parody is up to the courts.

Obviously, I am not a lawyer and you should not use this as legal advice. Otherwise, I would have smacked you down with much more wit and knowledge, that which is gained from more than five seconds on google.

OHMYGOD.

[GeneralEmergency]

I truly thought I would never live to see the day,

I mean actually witness,

SOMEBODY pulling FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS OUT OF A DINOSAUR'S ASS!

I can die in peace now.

Re:I hate Barney and those child actors

[arifirefox]

I hate it to break it to you but they were also acting. Even the people you see on the Geico commercials that claim not to be professional actors are really actors. It's all a lie.