Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fark Seeks to Trademark NSFW

Posted by Zonk on from the not-so-freaking-wise dept.

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The term NSFW is about to join the :( emoticon, going from a generic, oft-used internet abbreviation, to one company's exclusive trademark. Fark is seeking a trademark on the use of NSFW to describe naughty online content. Of course, they may face a bit of a battle because more than a few other people are already using the term NSFW to describe their products and services. Not that that's stopped anyone in the past." And, of course, the whole thing could be a big practical joke.

7 of 199 comments (clear)

  1. Even if it is a joke... by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... wouldn't Fark want to at least consider seriously doing it before someone else manages it. This could really come back to bite Fark in the ass now that they've opened the pandora's box on the topic by bringing it up.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
    1. Re:Even if it is a joke... by EMCEngineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think everyone missed the point of this, and Slashdot fell right into it. The more page hits Drew Curtis gets, the more money he makes. So he has now created a stupid practical joke that is guaranteed to get dozens, if not hundreds, of websites to mention fark.com over and over and over.

      Then, he calmly dismisses it as a joke, while raking in profit.

      The stupid thing about this is how a few months ago fark went from being fairly open about NSFW imagery, to banning anyone that links to or posts it. Apparently they can make more money by being family(or workplace) friendly.

    2. Re:Even if it is a joke... by gclef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it sounds juvenile, puerile, and self-serving.
      In other words, totally normal for fark.
    3. Re:Even if it is a joke... by pecosdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Must remember to not click on anything from RugbyJock.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  2. Re:Truer words were never spoken by glindsey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously speaking, I'm betting Drew just wanted to see how many news outfits he could get to carry such a ridiculous story, and how much of an overreaction and outrage said coverage would generate in the blogosphere. An effective publicity stunt, really, considering the recent publication of his book [amazon.com] and its subject matter. Wait a minute... whenever other companies attempt to patent/trademark/copyright something stupid, Slashdot jumps right on it, and rightly so because it's a stupid move. We freak out about patent trolls and people trying to copyright emoticons. If Fark really were honestly trying to trademark "NSFW," why would it be ridiculous or overreacting for everybody to point out how broken the system is, and how much respect Fark has lost for pulling such an ass move?

    Are we saying that abuses of the copyright, trademark, and patent systems are not newsworthy now? If this is a joke, then more power to them, but I see no reason why those sorts of things shouldn't evoke outrage.
  3. Trademark applications by ebcdic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... are the new press releases. How easily you are all trolled.

  4. Re:Truer words were never spoken by kent_eh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If this application actually gets approved, I'm guessing that Drew will be the first to point out the system is sooo broken that anyone can register pretty much anything.

    And the rest of the Farkers will post hundreds of variations of "pOwned" or the Nelson "Ha Ha" picture

    Drew is just pointing out that the emperor really has no pants, and poking fun at the fact.
    SOP at Fark.

    --

    ---
    "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh