FunnyJunk v. the Oatmeal: Copyright Infringement Complaints As Defamation

An anonymous reader writes "Funny as it might sound, FunnyJunk's threat of litigation against The Oatmeal raises a very important issue: the extent to which artists can complain in public about perceived or actual infringement of their works by user-generated content websites. Does it matter if the content creator accused the website of condoning or participating in the infringement?" The short story is this: Numerous Oatmeal comics were posted without permission to FunnyJunk; Oatmeal creator Matthew Inman lambasted FunnyJunk in the form of a blog post. FunnyJunk responded with a suit (or rather the threat of a suit) accusing Inman of willful defamation, unless he ponies up $20,000, which he doesn't plan to do.

Comments

For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Matthew is accepting donations, will take a picture of all his monies to send to the FunnyJunk attorneys, and will donate it all to charity.

Right now it's standing at over $100k. Go internet!

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Soilworker]

It's shitty ebaumworld all over again.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[firex726]

Both Charities seem pretty good in review of their operations:
I'd hardly call either "poorly managed".

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10751

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Daniel_is_Legnd]

If you want to support him, go to to his store and buy prints/shirts/coffee mugs.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[gorzek]

What the hell is wrong with Slashdot? "People should keep the money, not give to charity!"

Did I miss a memo? When did charitable giving become a bad thing?

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Saint Fnordius]

Well, "poorly managed" is an unproven claim. Some are, it is true, but those that I have dealt with have less overhead than most businesses. Take women's health care: The Susan J. Komen turned out to be a vanity charity, but Planned Parenthood actually delivers a surprisingly efficient operation with much less going into bureaucratic and fundraising efforts.

So relax, just consider it giving Matt the money to blow on bears and cancer cures. You're just giving it to him to do with as he pleases, and it pleases him to give it to a couple of charities.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Charity is socialism and socialism is for lazy deadbeats and communists.

USA! USA! USA!

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[fifedrum]

hell yes, this. His greeting cards, Christmas cards, Valentine's Day cards are freaking awesome.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[AbRASiON]

I tire of everyone on the internet being a shining fucking beacon of light. It gets SO boring.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[gorzek]

Yeah. Caring about other people is such a drag, man.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[AbRASiON]

I'm being quite serious, everyone on the internet in this situation gives X to charity and does Y - and look some charity is good but just for once would a guy like this have us actually donate to him, directly and he take a photo of all the money his readers sent him to KEEP and he sends that photo to the guy. That would have far better effect.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all charities are good. These charities appear to be environmentalist charities. Environmentalist charities do not have a good track record of making intelligent decisions. Heck, lately one of the most famous environmentalist charities (The WWF--who already suck for fighting with the real WWF over the name) explained that unless the earth is in abject poverty we will all perish from environmental problems.

So, yeah, sometimes donating to charity doesn't help, it hurts.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[gorzek]

But people are giving Inman money, knowing where it's going. Ultimately, it is his decision to give it to charity. If people don't like that, they are free not to give to him.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[grommit]

Simple answer, if "a guy like this" just took donations for his own personal gain, then he would not be "a guy like this" and would instead be an a-hole douchebag. As has been already stated, if you want to directly support him, buy his stuff.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Korin43]

Atlas Shrugged -- How middle/upper class white men convince themselves that doing anything for other people is morally wrong.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[gorzek]

Ugh. Quite familiar with that nonsense already. :-p

I have found the growing number of Randroids on Slashdot in recent years to be a little alarming.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[I_am_Jack]

Intelligent decisions are subjective, unless it's the running-a-red-light or sticking-your-fingers-in-a-light-socket variety. So you don't like environmentalist charities. Last time I checked The Oatmeal, Matt Inman wasn't holding a spear gun to a baby panda's head, threatening to shish-kabob it if you didn't donate.

Why is it that /. devolves into these forest-for-the-trees debates, losing sight of the larger fact, which is now we apparently have copyright trolls to go along with patent trolls?

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Lumpy]

"Atlas Shrugged [wikipedia.org] -- How heavily retarded, low IQ, sociopath morons, convince themselves that doing anything for other people is morally wrong."

I fixed that for you.

My favorite part is these same scumbags call themselves Christians.... Going against EVERYTHING Christ taught or said to do.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[a1cypher]

Agreed. Purchased a new Nikola Tesla coffee mug for my desk at work. Great guy, great comics, shitty thieves.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[cpu6502]

>>>Charity is socialism

No. Socialism is force & operates based upon fear of the government (jail time). Charity is voluntary, and a reflection of a person's true character.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[AbRASiON]

Absoloutely correct - that's why I made my post, just an opinion really. Expressing my ... I guess groaning disapointment at the move. Yet another white knight on the internet. Why can't people be straight up and keep the money? It's not that I hate charity, I just loved the feel good story of him making huge dollars, only to find he's giving it away.

Here look, someone paypal me, money for being a general douche.
scottylans@paypal.com - feel free to insult me with the donations!

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[AbRASiON]

I've genuinely never read it, nor do I agree with that statement, that's madness.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[nomadic]

"How middle/upper class white men convince themselves that doing anything for other people is morally wrong."

Atlas Shrugged also provides an excuse as to why they're not more successful; because those terrible statist parasites are dragging them down, not their own incompetence.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[AbRASiON]

It's not even that I don't like environmental charities, if anything I think they are probably the most deserving of charities to be honest.

It's simply a case of these always being the same old thing, if I wanted to donate to charity though, I would. However in an instance like this, with the interesting feel good (bad?) story in his blog entry, I kind of would rather donate to the guy himself

1, just to spite the idiots at funnyjunk
2, to help with possible legal fees he may have to deal with, regardless if the other people are successful or not.

It just seems a good occasion for him to raise real revenue for himself, a feelgood story of a webcomics audience showing him and his opposition how they feel by giving him a truckload of money is great. Charity isn't bad but I feel as if it's been SO many times before, what if I didn't like those charities but still wanted to make a point?
You get the idea - it was just an off the cuff comment which has pissed a few people off and I felt like explaining why I made it. No ill will to the web comic, other donators or charities in general.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[crawling_chaos]

Fucking Randroids. I wish they'd all go Galt already and get shanked by a Somali warlord while masturbating to 2011.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

You really believe that, don't you? God help us all.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[crawling_chaos]

Er 2112. Man, do they piss me off. So much that I don't use the preview button!

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialism has NOTHING to do with force. Please don't use words you don't understand.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[jythie]

Unless it is a religious charity, in which case it is doing god's work, or supporting terrorism.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

No, socialiasm doesn't have to be militant. Much like religion however, it can be ;-)

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[jythie]

I wonder how much overlap there is between the 'gospel of wealth' and rand sects there is.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[efalk]

I think he should use the money to fund a defense fund for people in his situation.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[jythie]

Actually, I would rather they run off with the Goreans and found their own misogynistic everyone for themselves power makes right paradise. See how long it lasts when a bunch of guys discover that not everyone will be a millionaire with 12 obedient eternally teenaged slave girls....

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[mcgrew]

Did I miss a memo? When did charitable giving become a bad thing?

Charitable giving has always been a bad thing to the people who worship money. Unfortunately, that seems to be most Americans (don't know about the rest of the world).

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Rand was explicitly atheistic, viewing Christianity to be fundamentally oppositional to her humanistic, peripatetic, capitalistic philosophy. Your editorial has been found wanting, but thanks for playing.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[whoever57]

He should register copyright on his new comics, wait for them to appear on Funnyjunk, then use the donations to sue for $140k per infringement.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[phantomfive]

The Susan J. Komen turned out to be a vanity charity, but Planned Parenthood actually delivers a surprisingly efficient operation

Aaaand here is evidence of someone who lets their political view color every aspect of their lives. The only reason you like Planned Parenthood and not Susan J Komen is because you chose the side that matches your political view when the two got in a fight. In reality, Susan J Komen does fine, and Planned Parenthood does well also.

The sad thing is, if you were Republican, you would have written the exact same comment, but switched the names of the two charities.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Please please please someone mod this up WITHOUT removing the Troll qualifier, if there's one thing we need it's intelligent 'trolls' like this

TAKE THE TROLL MODERATION BACK FROM THE JERKS, I SAY!

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[I_am_Jack]

I imagine Randroids to be like zombies, shuffling down streets aimlessly, moaning "Trains!" over and over again.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody clearly left their sarcasm detector at home today.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialism is force & operates based upon fear of the government (jail time).

This opinion is an interesting reflection on your character.

I don't pay my taxes because the government is threatening me with violence. I pay my taxes because I appreciate the many services the government provides more efficiently and fairly than the private sector ever would, and because I wholeheartedly support the concepts of a social safety net and universal healthcare that my country pays for with them. Fear does not come into it.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

....reflection of a person's true character^means....

FTFY

Oddly pertinent captcha: ascetics

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference?

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Rand was explicitly atheistic. But that's not true of the run-of-the-mill modern American "libertarian" who adores her economic ideals. They tend to strongly self-identify as Christian, often of an evangelical "prosperity Gospel" variety.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Charity is voluntary, and a reflection of a person's true character.

Perhaps, but it's often a reflection of their tax strategy

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Reverand Dave]

doing god's work, or supporting terrorism.

I don't see how those are actually 2 different things.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[spicate]

No. Socialism is force & operates based upon fear of the government (jail time). Charity is voluntary, and a reflection of a person's true character.

Wow, what a thought-free bit of propaganda.

Socialism is a way of distributing goods and services, maintained by the rule of law. Capitalism is a way of distributing goods and services, maintained by the rule of law. Break the rules of either, and you will (in theory) end up in jail.

In practice, people cheat, and sometimes they get away with it.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Unordained]

I'm not much for the GP's line of thought, but as to your point: you're no less in prison under restraint and threat if you decide to adopt a zen-like view of it, appreciate the beauty of bare concrete, and fully internalize the usefulness of isolation. Just because you don't choose to test the boundaries of your cage doesn't mean it's not there. The fact that you "pay your taxes" indicates to me that you're just staying barely inside the boundaries: do you pay extra? Do you skip the math, and just send them a check for however much you think the services are worth? Even if you voluntarily sent an amount of your choosing, you'd still check the math to make sure you wouldn't have agents knocking on your door, wouldn't you? And that's his point. It's coercion, even if the mafioso doesn't pull out a gun, but just says "wouldn't it be a shame...".

The difference is that it's government, we elect it, we choose to stay here as citizens even as adults (tacit consent), so it *is* a choice, of sorts. (Nevermind the fact that it's not easy to choose to go elsewhere, or that 50.1% is a "mandate". It all comes down to tacit consent, it really is all about the threat of force, there are no purely voluntary societies.)

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[spicate]

He's looking at outcomes. Planned Parenthood delivers health care; Susan J Komen delivers "awareness" and a declining percentage of money actually devoted to research ( 20% of expenditures in 2009 ).

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[jythie]

My point exactly ^_^

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[bware]

Darn it. Mod points expired, but this is the funniest thing I've read all week.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Grishnakh]

You must not be an American. Over here in the USA, this is exactly how people think these days; profit ueber alles, with some weird strain of Christianity twisted into it to convince everyone that God loves profit and rich people and hates poor people.

Go watch some old Star Trek episodes about the Ferengi. They resemble modern-day Americans a lot, except that the Ferengi are much more ethical and have far better manners and courtesy.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[phantomfive]

That may be so. If you actually know what you are talking about, you can easily choose two charities to compare that aren't so politically polarized, that will make your point.

It's like Godwin's law: it's not that Hitler can't teach us lessons, but if you actually know something about history, then you will be able to find a different example than Hitler to make your point. If you can't, then you're probably clueless.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, cpu6502. Normally when you make a statement this idiotic, you'll follow with threadjacking the entire discussion by defending your stupidity against everyone who calls you on it.

I feel like you've grown up a bit today. You've made your post and now you're taking your lumps like a man and not whining about it like usual. Slashdot is a slightly better place for it.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[gorzek]

I actually am American, although I quite often feel culturally alienated here, with the rampant selfishness, shortsightedness, and petulance.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Grishnakh]

I hate to break it to you, but the sociopathic people that worship Rand aren't all low-IQ morons, in fact many or most of them are pretty smart. How do you think a sociopath becomes the successful head of a big corporation, or a successful politician? It's not because they're an idiot, it's because they're smart and have no conscience to get in their way like their competitors do. Stupid, low-IQ sociopaths don't become successful enough to care about Rand's philosophies; instead, they generally go to prison because, having no conscience, they commit stupid crimes and get caught. The smart sociopaths know how to avoid getting caught for their crimes, or worse, are able get their buddies to write the laws so that their reprehensible actions aren't illegal, and instead they get giant no-strings "bailouts" from the government when they screw up so they can give themselves giant bonuses at taxpayer expense.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[ediron2]

I'm dumbfounded at how much overlap there is between the 'gospel of wealth' and rand sects.

FTFY. And seriously, WTF, christians? Camel? Eye of Needle? Seven deadly sins? Moneychangers? Which part of the bible implies this selfish greedheadedness?

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[cellocgw]

Did I miss a memo? When did charitable giving become a bad thing?

Charitable giving has always been a bad thing to the people who worship money

Glib, and wrong. I give to charities, and recognize the good that's done with the money. I still am completely opposed because, first and foremost, it puts the recipients' health (or education, or whatever) completely at risk of the whims of those who choose to donate. If a cause, say, breakfast for all poor children, is really worthy, why isn't it worthy of direct government support? You could argue that gov't funding is also subject to the whims (or bribe-status) of those in power, but at least the spending is egalitarian.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Grishnakh]

Just like most American "Christians" have totally ignored what Christ actually taught and just pick and choose the parts they like, most Rand followers have also ignored the parts of her philosophy they find inconvenient. That's how many people can claim to be followers of both.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno about you but I sure see plenty of people on the internet "keeping the money".

Heck some of them are even taking it without permission.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Penguinisto]

The "S" in NSDAP stood for "sozialistische" as well.

How's that for strange, considering how the NSDAP and the USSR got on?

(Yes it's offtopic. No, I don't care.)

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

doing god's work, or supporting terrorism.

I don't see how those are actually 2 different things.

Some people think it depends on which god you worship. But this isn't true. The important thing is how you pronounce the name of your god. If you say "God" in Arabic, then it is terrorism. But if you talk about the same god but call him "God" then he magically becomes good. When Christians commit politically motivated violence by sub-nationals groups against civilian targets, that isn't terrorism because they pronounce "God" the preferred way. I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

         

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

It all comes down to tacit consent, it really is all about the threat of force, there are no purely voluntary societies.

Thus, the threat of force is irrelevant to the discussion of Socialism.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Carewolf]

Well, you can opt out of society if you want, then you just can not have the benefits of society such as a home or a job. Not an attractive choice, is it? But it IS a choice.

If you want to be a player, you need to play ball, and if you want to be a citizen you need to pay your taxes.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

But you're saying I have a chance...

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Penguinisto]

Two bits:

1) Rand wasn't a Christian, she was atheist if I recall correctly.

2) The main complaint in Atlas Shrugged wasn't against charity as a concept, but against government-enforced charity (that is, forcing a collective morality, whether you wanted to participate or not). Didn't say anything that I can remember about voluntary charity being bad - just the enforced version of charity in the form of taxation. (hadn't read the book in well over two decades, so...)

Not an adherent by any stretch, but I do admit that I would much rather be the charitable voluntarily, than have the government force me to be as charitable as they see fit. Much like I wouldn't want the government enforcing church attendance or even conceiving of any law which would require certain thoughts or require a certain moral outlook.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[thetoadwarrior]

You can support him directly by buying stuff from his site already, moron.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[qvatch]

although if he gets a 100+k tax writeoff for charitable donation, that could be pretty supporting

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

You are funny, but in socialism people have a right on a minimum income, while charity is a favour. The church does charity, socialism does solidarity.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[qvatch]

theoatmeal.com appears to be down right now. http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/theoatmeal.com

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Grishnakh]

You're not the only one, I'm sure lots of Americans feel the same way. The problem is, they seem to be a dwindling minority. What'd be interesting is if someone did a good sociological study to see how these attitudes differed by region.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[cpu6502]

>>>Socialism is a way of distributing goods and services, maintained by the rule of law.

And 100% socialism is the Soviet Union or China. Socialism is inherently non-free because the government TAKES your money and then hands it to someone else, against you will. As in the case of the TARP or Stimulus corporate welfare bills.

In capitalism, the market is regulated but still free..... YOU decide where your money will be spent (or not spent). For example I choose to not spend my money on Comcast TV. Under a socialist system the money would just be sucked from my wallet & handed over against my will.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Did I miss a memo? When did charitable giving become a bad thing?

Don't you know charity is cruel and hurts the people it is supposed to help?

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[cpu6502]

>>>I don't pay my taxes because the government is threatening me with violence. I pay my taxes because I appreciate the many services the government provides

And if you chose to mirror Henry David Thoreau, and stop paying taxes as a protest against either Bush's or Obama's ~1.5 trillion a year war spending, what do you think the government would do? (Obviously they'd throw you in jail..... taxation is force.) Government is also a monopoly. You're stuck with it. You don't have a choice like you do with Toyota or Kia or Volkswagen or..... cars.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialism is a way of distributing goods and services, maintained by the rule of law.

Whereas charity is a decision to distribute some of one's own goods and services in a manner not maintained by force of law. That is, charity is voluntary, socialism is not. The poster you replied to made no comment whatsoever about capitalism. Their point is that socialism is not charity and charity is not socialism. You actually amplify their point.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[SkimTony]

They needn't be a dwindling minority, they just need to be quiet, which they are. The problem is that nice people aren't generally as driven, or devoid of compunction, as the people that destroy the system to promote their own ends at the expense of everyone else.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[ciscocontractor]

Socialism has NOTHING to do with force.

It absolutely DOES. I'll simplify why socialism can't exist without force.

If a charity or an individual wants something from me, they ASK for it.
If the government wants something from me, they demand it. If I refuse, they TAKE it anyway, by any means necessary.

In a capitalist society, if my neighbor needs something, he'd ask a person or a charity for help.
In a socialist society, if my neighbor needs something, he'd ask the government to force me to help.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[The Good Reverend]

Copyright is automatic upon content creation and publication. No need to register anything.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Unordained]

The problem is the evolving meaning of the term "socialism". Yes, the threat of force is directly tied to government (of any political stripe), and the association then has to be made with socialism. Is there a difference between requiring people to pay taxes to fund government services? Armed forces? Public roads? Research grants? Education? Healthcare? Retirements? Welfare? At various times, we've drawn a line in the sand and said "beyond lies Socialism", but yes, it's arbitrary. Is it not socialism to "force" people to pool their money to collectively pay for (own) military protection? It's a difference of degree.

The GP's distinction, though, was more absolutist that that: charity (entirely voluntary) vs. compulsion. Whether or not you term it Socialism, for him, it's any coercion at all. It might have been more accurate to say Government, but the word doesn't carry the implication of money redistribution, it's too vague on that point of "how" it achieves its goals. Could you have a government that, without collecting any taxes or running any programs itself, and with no threat of violence, still somehow coordinates the actions of entirely independent agents? In the current world, all governments are to some degree socialist, so it's maybe not unfair for him to use the term.

Personally, though? I find that people are always in favor of encouraging their neighbors to be charitable, while they themselves wait for the government to come and force them. I don't trust people, but I do care about them, and I'd rather have a solution with a budget, stable planned income, and prioritization of the expenditures. And, I guess, the threat of violence. For the sake of the children.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

In a capitalist society, if my neighbor needs something, he'd ask a person or a charity for help. In a socialist society, if my neighbor needs something, he'd ask the government to force me to help.

Um... socialism is more than just taxation and public works. Like, a lot more!

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[ciscocontractor]

... rampant selfishness, shortsightedness, and petulance.

Not entirely sure of your meaning here, but if you mean "selfishness" as the feeling of entitlement that you have a right to something you have not earned, and "shortsightedness" as eventually there will be no one left to support the ever growing entitlement class, and everyone will be equally S.O.L. when the pyramid scheme of redistribution collapses, then I absolutely and totally agree.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Lumpy]

"How do you think a sociopath becomes the successful head of a big corporation, or a successful politician?"

It's not what you know but WHO you know. That is how you become CEO of a corporation or a Politician. By bullshitting the right people. Incredibly Few are actually high IQ and big thinkers. Jobs, and Gates were the creators of the companies they were CEO of. The CEO of Enron is just some dumb schlep that knew the right people.

Want an example? CEO of Nokia, or the last 3 CEO's of HP... all morons.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[gorzek]

No, I mean "selfishness" as in "why should I ever have to do anything for anyone else?"

Thanks for the Ron Paul talking points, though. Hadn't heard those lately.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[spicate]

Good point, but try reading his comment in the context of the conversation. I'm not condemning charity, but the implication behind his comment is that somehow socialism is unjust because it is supported by the threat of force.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

you could always drive down the street and throw money out the window. Or give it to me.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Now it could be that I am overly simplifying things here, in which case I welcome a civil discussion about what is wrong about my idea, but if you are benefiting from society without paying into society, and you are able to pay into society (ie, you are not poor), isn't that a form of stealing? So why shouldn't you be thrown in jail?

If you're going to go to the effort of protesting the government by not paying taxes, you should also make sure you don't benefit from the services that said government provides by moving to some place like Somalia. Otherwise you just look like a hypocrite and no one will take you seriously.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[interkin3tic]

Did I miss a memo? When did charitable giving become a bad thing?

You did miss a memo. It reads "Hey, all the kids these days are doing this thing called 'trolling' so we should try that! Cause we're still pretty groovy and young!"

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[interkin3tic]

So your thesis is that since he chose a very polarized example as his only example in a post, he must not know anything about what he's talking about?

I think the point of Godwin's law is that "Nazi" is name calling without name calling. If you compare someone to a Nazi, equating the two, you're being hyperbolic unless the person you're comparing them to is actually committing genocide.

Saint Fnordius wasn't equating anyone with anything negative, he wasn't name calling. He was illustrating his point with a relevant and known example most of us have heard about. It was not anything like Godwinning.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

The main complaint in Atlas Shrugged wasn't against charity as a concept, but against government-enforced charity (that is, forcing a collective morality, whether you wanted to participate or not). Didn't say anything that I can remember about voluntary charity being bad - just the enforced version of charity in the form of taxation. (hadn't read the book in well over two decades, so...)

Galt shows Dagny around his valley, and tells her: "...we have no laws in this valley, no rules, no formal organization of any kind. We come here because we want to rest. But we have certain customs, which we all observe, because they pertain to the things we need to rest from. So I'll warn you now that there is only one word which is forbidden in this valley: the word 'give.'"

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[mrchaotica]

Registering your copyright enables you to demand triple damages.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Bucky24]

In a socialist society, if my neighbor needs something, he'd ask the government to force me to help.

No, not really. In a true socialist society, government would be almost non-existent. Your neighbor would go find someone who would want to help him, not force you to help. It's more of an ideal then something that can actually be implemented. Many of the countries that have attempted to implement socialism in the past have not done it correctly, and it is from them that most people get their flawed idea of what socialism actually is.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Mr. Slippery]

No. Socialism is force & operates based upon fear of the government (jail time).

"Private property" is force, and operates based upon fear of the government. It is the government, after all, that creates and enforces laws against "trespassing" and "theft". "Property" is nothing more or less than the ability to call on the state to back up your claim to control something.

Socialism is democratic control of a societies' means of economic production, which may be done directly (libertarian socialism) or via an elected government (state socialism). It contrasts with "capitalism", where a societies' means of economic production are under the control of a state-backed minority class called "owners" or "investors".

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could give some people the benefit of the doubt, and allow the possibility that some are as intelligent as you are, and so can objectively compare two politically polarized things.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[hguorbray]

there are actually several Charismatic Christian groups who are specifically wealth oriented

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

the 'gospel of wealth' is a misnomer as it actually refers to a Carnegie tract about the duties of the rich -Noblesse Oblige and all that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_wealth

-I'm just sayin'

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[FitForTheSun]

LOL. Prepare to be dingslapped by facts. Oops, I see some people have already started to unload the Truth Truck, so I'll let them handle it.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[OverZealous.com]

Definitely - the shirts are high-quality.

I have two, and I get comments about them regularly (from normal folk) - the fat-bat-cat and the cat riding a velociraptor.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Planned Parenthood is the reason my fiancee can afford prenatal care in this country.

What has Susan G Komen done?

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[tragedy]

It's especially strange when you consider the "night of the long knives". Oh wait, no it isn't, since the party was run by a bunch of cynical, lying manipulators willing to use every hook and deception to propel themselves to power.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Charitable giving has always been a bad thing to the people who worship money. Unfortunately, that seems to be most Americans

Huh. Funny, then, that our country gives other countries over 52 BILLION dollars in aid.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[phantomfive]

It's ok, I'm not bothered by the fact that you write idiotic comments. Carry on.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[phantomfive]

My thesis is he chose a polarized example, and didn't stray from his party's line. It's evidence that he's swallowed his side's propaganda. If you don't like what Susan J Komen does, that's fine, but they certainly aren't corrupt or a bad organization, any more than Planned Parenthood is a foundation of baby killers.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Did I miss a memo? When did charitable giving become a bad thing?

/. is predominantly anti-MS and Bill Gates has given enormous amounts of money to charity so therefore it's bad.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Genda]

And what about subtracting precisely the amount as Thoreau did, that was being used for the war he disagreed on in principle. If I say my dignity and morality are more important than my physical freedom, and that I will not allow my government to take that which is being used for a perverse and immoral purpose, then am I wrong? Clearly I've committed a crime, because you best believe that the government has made its ability to collect funding a STRONG LEGAL ISSUE with painful incentive to make you comply.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

He did only promise $10,000 for each charity though... I think he's free to skim the top now.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Genda]

Interesting, not accurate but interesting. There are societies that are significantly socialist, and also democratic, with strong constitutions protecting civil liberties and you would argue that you are less free there than here? LAWS by definition limit your freedom. They control human interaction to ensure healthy human endeavor while punishing violent or antisocial behavior. Corporations are wired different, but if you think there is greater freedom in a capitalistic system, you may want to look at the way corporations in the United States are changing the very nature of IP and the citizen's rights to buy and sell it.

The Supreme court is about to here a case which will determine whether or not a person can own anything trademarked outside the United States. What's at stake is that you won't be able to sell an iPad or iPod, or anything else with materials manufactured outside the U.S. without first getting the consent of all parties for whom there are logos in your product. Selling your home? Not so fast, what about the Italian marble in the bathrooms with the logo? What about the Canadian wood beams with a logo? How about the electronics in the heater from Thailand? Want to sell your car? Good luck, there isn't a car on the road today that doesn't have parts from half a dozen countries outside the United States. Kiss Craigslist, garage sales, and reselling anything you own today goodbye. That's capitalism at work. Explain to me again how this make me more free?

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Genda]

There's no money left to feed the poor kids after you've bought the stealth fighters that'll never fly, and oil companies get their billions.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Genda]

I think he's talking about old folks, those entitled bastards... why don't all you old boomer just die already, drinking our water, breathing our air... Oh crap... I'm a boomer! Personally I would suggest that when the top 400 richest people in the this country have the same wealth as the bottom 165,000,000, that I can pretty easily put my finger on the selfish, shortsighted, petulant thugs being described in the prior post, but thanks for your opinion.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Genda]

But Hitler is such an excellent example of what happens when a child doesn't get a full art education! ;-)

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[phantomfive]

Oh please, that's the best example you have? His art was halfway decent, imagine what Arnold Schoenberg would have done if he'd become a president instead.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[jaxtherat]

Why can't people be straight up and keep the money?

In this case, I have two theories:

1. Inman is trying to prove a point that he can easily come up with the $20,000 he needs, but he won't give it up nor keep it and do the next best thing to casually tossing it aside while remaining beyond reproach. This is a calculated insult and warning to any further legal shenanigans i.e. I can not only pay you right now, but I can also afford better legal defence than you. Fuck off.

2. Inman is trying to create good will and publicity, carefully positioning himself for a counter-suit.

It is entirely possible he is just a un-douchie sort of bloke, but the two theories above presume he is also intelligent. Which he seems to be.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Shienarier]

Socialist Sweden feels pretty free to me. It's also quite charitable.
But perhaps you were just trolling?

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[mcgrew]

I still am completely opposed because, first and foremost, it puts the recipients' health (or education, or whatever) completely at risk of the whims of those who choose to donate. If a cause, say, breakfast for all poor children, is really worthy, why isn't it worthy of direct government support?

I think you read something into my comment that wasn't there. The people who worship money are also against taxes, especially against tax money going to the needy. You and I are not among these people, obviously. Like you, I give, and have no objection whatever to my taxes going to help the needy. I agree with you that making the needy rely only on charity is a bad thing.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[cpu6502]

>>>The Supreme court is about to here a case which will determine whether or not a person can own anything trademarked outside the United States. What's at stake is that you won't be able to sell an iPad or iPod, or anything else with materials manufactured outside the U.S. without first getting the consent of all parties for whom there are logos in your product. Selling your home? Not so fast, what about the Italian marble in the bathrooms with the logo? What about the Canadian wood beams with a logo? How about the electronics in the heater from Thailand? Want to sell your car? Good luck, there isn't a car on the road today that doesn't have parts from half a dozen countries outside the United States. Kiss Craigslist, garage sales, and reselling anything you own today goodbye. That's capitalism at work. Explain to me again how this make me more free?
>>>
What you just described is another form of socialism... usually nicknamed corporatism... where the government provides social services to the corporations, and they claim that benefits the people indirectly (job creation/protection). It has nothing to do with free market capitalism (where the government does not interfere: laissez fairre).

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[MrResistor]

They may not be the smartest in the room in the specific things a standard IQ test measures, but modern theories of intelligence have evolved to better reflect the human experience.

On the other hand, I haven't yet met a MENSA member I didn't find to be a moron, so maybe IQ isn't that meaningful to begin with.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[rWagz]

While the best response to you is Don't Feed The Troll... Did you really just pull partisan bias out of your ass, then defend yourself when called out on it by making the hilarious statement that Godwin's law somehow supports your position? Godwin's law is simply an observation, which you proved, on the inevitability of a Hitler/Nazi comparison in an online discussion. Also, if you want to be taken seriously, facts are more productive than personal attacks. Saying things like "you don't know what you're talking about" or "you're probably clueless" without providing a relevant rebuttal might lead one to assume the same of you.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

'My favorite part is these same scumbags call themselves Christians.... Going against EVERYTHING Christ taught or said to do.'

The only Randist I know in real life is a guy I went to school with who joined the Australian Liberal Party (They're the Ultra conservative party in Australia ... as opposed to the Australian Labor Party who are the Conservative party.

He often goes on with his Rand propaganda about how Ann Rand got it all correct and everyone else should be crushed under heal. He is far from a Christian, (he's an atheist) as are the other Liberal Party Members I've met in real life (who though they rave on with similar propaganda as he does, I'm not sure if I would call them Randists, they're more like Pre-WWII Nazi's).

So to label them 'Christian' is incorrect. Some will be Christian, and others (like the guy from my school) are 100% definietely not.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[phantomfive]

Did you write this entire post because you wanted to insult me, or did you actually have a point?

If the former, then please go away. If the latter, then please explain yourself more clearly, it's not making sense.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Saint Fnordius]

Thank you, this. I was referring to the perceived efficiency, and one of those factors is the ratio of budget spent on actual purpose of the charity as opposed to fundraising and management. SJK is a celebrity case where other charities like the Red Cross and Unicef have also drawn fire, and can be compared to PP. The irony is that donating to SJK is in a way an indirect donation to PP. :)

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2000 year old Memo:
Giving to charity is a good thing, but please, get a room.
Public declarations of past perent or future charitable givings is nothing more than (cheap and easy) talk.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Chas]

But his example highlights why socialism doesn't work on actual implementation.

It's an ideal situation (where everyone would help one another on general principal) with no sense of self interest (enlightened or otherwise) and no avarice.

It's a perfect government for social insects. For higher forms of social fauna, it's basically an ideal that cannot ever be reached.

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[St.Creed]

Ooooh, the "simplify game"... present a couple of false dillemmas and you're good to go, right?

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[St.Creed]

Explain to me again how this make me more free?

It makes you free in the same sense that work makes you free. Oops, I accidentally Godwinned :)

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold on, now. Just because we Americans think something is bad doesn't mean we won't do it every chance we get!

Re:For the two people who don't already know

[Anonymous Coward]

If only people would consider the actual material itself rather than let other people do their thinking for them, I wouldn't have to see such a constant stream of nonsense about Rands work. Instead at best I witness out of context sparks notes paraphrasing that indicates only prejudice and dishonesty on the part of the speaker.

Atlas Shrugged does not claim what you think it does. It argues that it is morally wrong to obligate one person to another. It makes the case for helping people because you want to as a win win exchange(selfishness), not because you don't want to as is the case with win lose self sacrifice(altruism). It is the difference between slavery and cooperation. Theft and donation. Guilt and love. Violence and peace.

$100,000 and counting

[davebarnes]

The Oatmeal was correct. All the offending links worked yesterday.
Now, FunnyFart has done some quick scrubbing.
The WWF and Cancer Society will be very pleased.

Re:$100,000 and counting

[Bieeanda]

Replacement pictures will be up inside of a week, because FunnyJunk's userbase are a bunch of unfunny, entitled morons and they did the same damn thing the last time legal sabers were rattled.

Re:$100,000 and counting

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

IANAL or anything; but one would think that hasty, trivially-verifiable, scrubbing of that offending content that you oh-so-just-couldn't-keep-up-with-the-burden-of-policing-it-was-all-the-users'-fault right up until you send a '20k or a lawsuit' letter worded in outright extortionate tones seems like a bad strategy.

Given the DMCA safe-harbor provisions(much as team MPAA loaths them), it is entirely possible that the offending links did not subject funnyjunk to liability(since Oatmeal apparently didn't feel like playing DMCA whack-a-mole, so they hadn't necessarily received a takedown notice); but axing them after issuing a legal threat alleging that assertions of copyright infringement were defamatory sure smells like destruction of evidence... And courts tend to take a very dim view of destruction of evidence...

Re:$100,000 and counting

[makomk]

IANAL, but as far as I recall the DMCA safe harbour only applies if you're not aware of the infringing content. Since Funnyjunk couldn't plausibly claim not to be aware of it once they'd sent a letter threatening to sue for libel over The Oatmeal's discussion of it, they basically had to take it down.

Re:$100,000 and counting

[Calos]

Actually, it seems to be more than that.

I glanced over the original Oatmeal blog post. He mentions a bunch of other comics that are being ripped off. I followed a link from the blog post to the website, which is a query for "the oatmeal." No results found. So I tried a couple others - Cyanide and Happiness, Calvin and Hobbes... No results. Then I tried just "Calvin." Bunch of results, many of them Calvin and Hobbes, many of them with the name "calvin and hobbes" verbatim in the title and text.

Unless their search index is just behind from the scrubbing, it looks like they didn't even scrub. They're just gaming the search results.

Re:$100,000 and counting

[gl4ss]

userbase = the retards running the site in this case.

user uploaded is their loophole they're using.

Re:$100,000 and counting

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I am also not a lawyer; but I had the vague sense that there was a difference between 'knowing' in the sense of 'Yup, www.funnyjunk.com/infringingpicture.jpeg is an infringement' and 'knowing' in the sense of 'We have 100,000 plus images submitted by the bottom-feeding scum of the internet with no possibility of manual screening, the probability that there is some infringement in that collection might as well be 100%...".

The former flavor of knowledge might damage your safe-harbor status; but funnyjunk seemed to be following the (insane) plan of threatening to sue the Oatmeal for lampooning the fact that they unabashedly operated in the latter state of knowledge... The idea that anybody could seriously doubt that a large, user-submitted, collection of stuff is probably partially composed of infringing material is nuts. Scrubbing a few of the explicit examples(which doesn't negate the fact that they were valid when the statement was made, and rather looks like an attempt to conceal that validity), really doesn't change the obviousness of the broader premise. I'm a bit surprised that they managed to find a lawyer...

Re:$100,000 and counting

[Dynamoo]

Indeed, it's the copyright holder or a nominee that can file a DMCA complaint. But it's of limited use as FJ's web host is in the Netherlands and is therefore not in the US jurisdiction. The Oatmeal could file a DMCA complaint with the major search engines, but it would be pretty pointless in that case I think.

Re:$100,000 and counting

[Anonymous Coward]

sure smells like destruction of evidence... And courts tend to take a very dim view of destruction of evidence...

Deleting the records that show these links existed (the site backups) would be destruction of evidence. Not preserving the backups that would otherwise be deleted in the normal course of business could be considered destruction of evidence once there is an expectation of litigation and discovery.

Removing the offending links? No, that's not destruction of evidence. You are not required to continue to commit wrongdoing to preserve evidence of that wrongdoing.

Re:$100,000 and counting

[ohnocitizen]

Seems like some of the FunnyJunk users agree with theOatmeal (http://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/3786053/Oatmeal+vs.+FJ/, http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/3786664/Oatmeal+VS+Funnyjunk/). I wonder how long that will stay up, and if the owner is investing personal time or has hired someone to make sure offending or problematic images (http://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/1244988/BEARODACTYL/) stay off the site.

Re:$100,000 and counting

[omnichad]

I'm a bit surprised that they managed to find a lawyer...

Did you see the goofy (hand-drawn!) letterhead that lawyer is using? I don't think this is a lawyer to take seriously.

Re:$100,000 and counting

[littlebigbot]

"Cyanide"|"Happiness Cyanide" returns results with Cyanide and Happiness. "Cyanide and happiness"|"Cyanide happiness" returns nothing.
"Calvin" returns results with Calvin and Hobbes. Anything with "hobbes" in the search returns nothing.
"Side far"|"Far" returns Far Side Comics. |"Far side"|"Farside" returns nothing.

They are lazy.

Re:$100,000 and counting

[Thud457]

FunnyJunk is cancer. And AIDS.
The only useful purpose it serves is to segregate it's mouth-breathing minions from the rest of teh intarwebs.

Makes it all the more funnyer that The Oatmeal is donating to research to curing cancer.

Re:$100,000 and counting

[Terrasque]

*facepalm*

Regex, the solution to every problem! Why do it right, when a regex can solve it?

Re:$100,000 and counting

[Anonymous Coward]

That thing at the bottom-right of the letterhead - please tell me it's a computer mouse.

Re:$100,000 and counting

[Sloppy]

I don't think this is a lawyer to take seriously.

Maybe the whole "conflict" is to not take seriously, and is a conspiratorial hoax between oatmeal and funnyjunk. Or rather, those are the puppets and this is really a conspiracy between the puppetmasters: National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society. What if this is all just an attempt to wipe out cancer in bears, thereby removing this important check on their population, so that they are finally able to overrun North America? I, for one, welcome our new ursine overlords.

Re:$100,000 and counting

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a note for viewers, there is NWS content posted by the users in the comments on that link. Not sure if the poster saw it or not.

Re:$100,000 and counting

[flonker]

I'm not sure it counts as destruction of evidence, as nothing was truly destroyed, and also, no lawsuit was in progress. If they later claim that the images were never on the site, that would be perjury (and as we all know, probably disprovable with ease.)

However, in the USA, truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander. If there were no untrue statements made, opinions are not defamatory. The Oatmeal comics were indeed up on the site. If FunnyJunk actually files, I'd guess The Oatmeal could file an Anti-SLAPP counter-suit (depending on jurisdiction).

Of course, I didn't RTFA, so mod me down if this is irrelevant and wrong.

Re:$100,000 and counting

[cicatrix1]

Well done.

Re:$100,000 and counting

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you see the goofy (hand-drawn!) letterhead that lawyer is using? I don't think this is a lawyer.

Your defamation accusation constitutes defamation.

[Arancaytar]

Pay $40,000 in damages in order to avoid a suit; then I will comply with your demand for $20,000.

So Confused ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Replacement pictures will be up inside of a week, because FunnyJunk's userbase are a bunch of unfunny, entitled morons and they did the same damn thing the last time legal sabers were rattled.

I'm so confused ... wasn't it them who was rattling legal sabers? So their MO is to threaten other people and then fix ... their ... copyright infringement?

Re:So Confused ...

[djsmiley]

Ok, because you can't click links appently.

1. Oatmeal rattles dmca sabre asking for take downs of some comics, and points out many many many many many more than are infringing
2. Take down eventually occurs after much hassle
3. Oatmeal points out take down takes too long, but why not show readers whats happening anyway by linking to said site, while blogging about it
4. Google Ranks oatmeal highly due to incoming links / likes / everyone likes oatmeal!
5. FunkyJunk notice this, get lawyer.
6. FunkyJunk send nasty message asking for $20,000
7. Oatmeal posts saying, "yeah right, because you've removed all the infringing content, right?
8. FunkyJunk removes linked comics.

The question is, whos onus is it to report the infringing content when it appears to be uploaded again after being removed?

Re:So Confused ...

[Bieeanda]

Welcome to the underside of the Internet, where 'LOL' is a mating call for people too stupid to find their asses with both hands and a haptic overlay for Google Maps.

Re:So Confused ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot 3.5, in which the FunnyJunk admin sends an email to all FunnyJunk users and tells them that Inman is trying to shut the site down. He then encourages them to harass Inman via email and Facebook.

Re:So Confused ...

[Guspaz]

Because it's sooo hard for FunnyJunk to implement something like:

if target_host == 'theoatmeal.com'
    do_nothing()
else
    post_content()
end

Re:So Confused ...

[91degrees]

But nobody's even asking them to do that.

The point is, if your business model benefits from other people's material, then you really should accept that some people are going to accuse you of profiting from other people's material.

Slashdot tends to be pretty blasé about this sort of infringemtn. Most of us get upset when lawyers are called in.

Re:So Confused ...

[Lumpy]

You forgot Step 0 where he asked nicely to begin with and they said for him to go and stuff it in his rear.

Re:So Confused ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The do_nothing function in particular seems trivial to implement.

Re:So Confused ...

[IonOtter]

And I'm out of mod points this week. Dammit!

Re:So Confused ...

[Anonymous Coward]

A haptic overlay would only be useful if they had a third hand btw...

keyword: equipped!

Re:So Confused ...

[Guspaz]

Isn't that what they're being asked to do? The Oatmeal asks them to stop posting his comics, the logical solution is to blog the hostname.

Re:So Confused ...

[91degrees]

Yeah, I guess you're right. But if they don't do that, the worst they have to put up with is someone being mean about them on the internet.

Re:So Confused ...

[Guspaz]

Well, that and the liability that comes with widescale commercial copyright infringement...

Re:So Confused ...

[91degrees]

They only have an obligation to remove material when they are made aware of it infringing under the DMCA. They're only liable for the commercial copyright infringement if the plaintiff can demonstrate that copyright infringement is deliberate.

Re:So Confused ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The do_nothing function in particular seems trivial to implement.

Yes, I think it can be done in about 6 months, but we probably need to have weekly meetings to make sure everyone on the team is on top of this.

And we shouldn't forget meetings with the UI-people, changes to the specifications, alpha- and beta-testing, meetings with the QA-people, ...

You know what? I think, we should say a year, just to be sure we can deliver as planned.

Re:So Confused ...

[Anonymous Coward]

On funnjunk it's easier to download and upload something then link to the original URL.

Re:So Confused ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is, whos onus is it to report the infringing content when it appears to be uploaded again after being removed?

IANAL, but I believe the onus is on the site owner to keep infringing content off their site. Copyright is not like trademark, there is no onus on the holder to "use it or lose it". The DMCA provides a mechanism that copyright owners can use for enforcement, but failing to use it doesn't not validate the content at all - it's still infringing.

In this case the lawyer for FunkyJunk is saying that the Oatmeal blog was defaming his client by saying that they were infringing when they weren't because the content in the specific links in the year-old blog post had been removed. There are two problems with that: first, the infringing content was there when the blog post was written (i.e. it was factually correct when it was written and therefore cannot be defamation), and second, there is still a lot of infringing content on the site so broad claim of infringement is true (and therefore can't be defamation). A problem for the Oatmeal is that the first thing could be hard to prove and the second one might not be material to the actual claim of defamation. OTOH, I believe defamation is generally pretty hard to prove and no court is going to look that kindly on a client who claims defamation because they are not infringing on that specific content when they are still infringing on a bunch of other content owned by the defendant. Still I suspect many lawyers would suggest the Oatmeal countersues and then settles out of court (which should be a reasonable settlement in their favour).

Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[chrysrobyn]

I've never been to Funnyjunk before, but after this blew up, I decided I'd test out their claim about how easy it was to take down infringing images.

Naturally, these sites make it wicked easy to upload any image, taking down an obvious one would be just as simple, no? Well, in 5 minutes I found a Cyanide & Happiness comic (explosm.net). I hit the flag button and found "copyright infringement" very simple to find. "Great!" I thought, "So simple to fix this problem." Nope, that takes me to a DMCA page where I have to type in a real name, e-mail address, phone number and supporting information.

Wow.

If it's so easy to upload an image, shouldn't there be a responsibility to make it just as easy to take one down? Of course, there would be a manual review process and some countermeasures to prevent someone from flagging the whole site (which may be mostly original content, that's a separate discussion), but it should be a whole lot easier.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[chrysrobyn]

Sorry to reply to myself, but I figured I should link to the easy to find copyright infringement.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[N0Man74]

I believe that to file a DMCA take down... you are supposed to be the copyright holder. AFAIK, the DMCA isn't intended for just any crazy yahoo to claim that something is copyrighted and should be taken down. They SHOULD be asking for your contact information, in order to ensure that it is a valid notice.

Of course, contracting out groups to file DMCA notices on your behalf is another topic...

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[Qzukk]

shouldn't there be a responsibility to make it just as easy to take one down?

It would be an interesting idea to try making a *chan where one click deletes any image or thread. See if there's anything at all left in there after a day.

Most likely it would quickly devolve to the exact same image being uploaded over and over and deleted immediately at an immense waste of bandwidth.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[makomk]

If it's so easy to upload an image, shouldn't there be a responsibility to make it just as easy to take one down?

Not really. Otherwise you make it far too easy for groups like Scientology to take down material critical of them through untraceable false copyright claims.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[mblase]

If it's so easy to upload an image, shouldn't there be a responsibility to make it just as easy to take one down?

That can generate just as many complaints. Recently, George Takei's Facebook page put up a funny photo which nevertheless contained a picture of an old man's naked butt. Complaints were made to Facebook, and Facebook immediately deleted the image. Not blocked, not hid -- deleted. Takei complained that it should be policy for Facebook to hold the image out-of-sight somewhere until a defense can be made by the one who posted it.

Admins can make it easy to remove stuff, or hard to remove stuff, but anything in between requires a lot of moderation which most admins are too easily bored by.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[Theophany]

Hence the manual review process mentioned in the parent. Once it is flagged as copyrighted material, a moderator should check the claim and if the claim is correct, remove the offending item. That way copyright infringement is dealt with both quickly and efficiently, without nutjobs and vandals having the power to remove material for their own gains or agendas.

Crowd moderation in doing the grunt work - i.e. "I like the material by the author of this and it is being ripped off so I will report it as infringing" is also a fuck ton more fair than expecting copyright owners to police every shitty website on the internet to see if their creative works are being stolen.

E.g. I like the C&H guys. If I see somebody unfairly using their works, I would report as infringing material. I certainly don't expect them to have the time to police the Internet when they're providing me with entertainment on a daily basis on such modest income means.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

to a DMCA page where I have to type in a real name, e-mail address, phone number and supporting information.

Actually that's pretty much required. A takedown request is a legal request, and you need to confirm that you are the copyright holder and have the necessary rights to request the takedown.

For reference, see Google's takedown request page, which is actually *more* involved: http://www.youtube.com/copyright_complaint_form

Click "Copyright Infringement" then click "I am!"

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[BadgerRush]

The process as you describe wouldn't work, in the “manual review process” you described the admin can only check that the content is originaly from another site, but he doesn't know if the poster had or didn't have permission from the copyright owner to post it here. That would lead to things like the copyrigh owner posting something and it been taken down by his own fans.

Just because something can be found in more than one site doesn't mean all appart from one are infringing.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[Anonymous Coward]

No. In order to request a work to be taken down for copyright infringement, you actually have to have the right to do so. Do you own the rights to Cyanide & Happiness, or have you been given permission to act on their behalf? Somehow, I doubt it. In which case, you should not be attempting to submit a legal document (the DMCA notice) in attempt to force them to take it down. If you read more about DMCA, you'll understand why.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[SirWhoopass]

You are correct, a DMCA notice requires that the person filing is the owner of the copyright (or acting on their behalf, such as an attorney).

That is the point the GP is making, isn't it? Funnyjunk does not require contact information to upload images, although they certainly could require it. Why not? Their business model is based on loose copyright enforcement.

Craigslist makes it easy to post, and also easy to flag for removal. Facebook is at the other end. They generally know who you are when you post, and they know who is filing complaints.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the copyright holder is one person and the crowd is many, that it would make sense that the crowd should be allowed to flag something as a potential copyright violation as well (since they're allowed to upload infringing things en mass). Or one should have to attach one's name at both ends.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[CanHasDIY]

I hit the flag button and found "copyright infringement" very simple to find. "Great!" I thought, "So simple to fix this problem." Nope, that takes me to a DMCA page where I have to type in a real name, e-mail address, phone number and supporting information.

I believe that to file a DMCA take down... you are supposed to be the copyright holder. AFAIK, the DMCA isn't intended for just any crazy yahoo to claim that something is copyrighted and should be taken down. They SHOULD be asking for your contact information, in order to ensure that it is a valid notice.

Yeah, but having to fill out a DMCA takedown notice just to use the site's internal flagging mechanism? Kind of seems like they're discouraging users from notifying them of infringing content, does it not?

IANAL either, but I do know the definition of 'due diligence,' and what OP is describing is not it.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[Anonymous Coward]

When you say "Facebook" most people get the idea that its zuckerburg or someother newly minted millionare sitting in his house somewhere in california doing the deleting, reality is its a guy in a third world country that gets paid a couple bucks a day. Does he even know who George Takei is? Probably not. He just sees butts and deletes them. Its pretty objective, really.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[N0Man74]

I agree that the crowd could be good at picking up copyright, but that isn't the same thing as a DMCA take down request. If it is a DMCA take down request, understanding is that the take down notice is a statement, under penalty of perjury, that the person is authorized to act for the copyright owner (and that the request is a valid request).

So, asking for contact information absolutely *IS* reasonable, and should not be done anonymously.

You can ask the crowd to flag for copyrighted content, but that isn't a DMCA take down notice.

Of course, allowing the crowd to anonymously take down content opens you up for trolls or those with an agenda.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[Theophany]

If they have permission, it should be documented in a centralised location readable (but not necessarily editable) by moderators. This should happen for legal reasons anyway. This is common sense, not quantum mechanics for goodness' sake.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, we're talking about Copyright here. Common Sense hasn't applied to it in decades at the very least.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're the party harmed by the infringement you can't file a DMCA take-down (legally).

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[Anonymous Coward]

In which case, you should not be attempting to submit a legal document (the DMCA notice)

He wasn't attempting to submit a DMCA notice, he was attempting to tell the site owner about an infringement. The fact that the only way to do that that the site offers is via a DMCA notice is the site's choice, and may be a deliberate way to discourage people from reporting infringements.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[Unordained]

I love people who follow a known character* like Takei:

Monday: OMG, so funny
Tuesday: OMG, so funny, send links to friends
Wednesday: OMG, still so funny
Thursday: OMFG, offensive! REPORT HIM! TAKE HIM AWAY! BURN IT ALL DOWN!
Friday: OMG, so funny

Seriously, WTF?

* funny, blunt, outrageous, etc.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, it can be just as bad for a company like FunnyJunk to comply with a FALSE copyright infringement claim as it is to not comply with a TRUE one. So there are some real restrictions. Only authorized parties can request the removal of copyrighted content.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[exomondo]

Of course, allowing the crowd to anonymously take down content opens you up for trolls or those with an agenda.

Oh right because allowing the crowd to anonymously upload content doesn't open you up to that at all.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[N0Man74]

What is your point? There is a world of difference between allowing people to post anonymously with an agenda, and having an agenda and the power to anonymously silence the free speech of others.

One of these activities supports free speech and expression (even if it does have the side-effect of allowing people to post content that some might dislike for a variety of reasons, which might include copyright). The other has the ability to silence free speech, regardless of the nature of the speech.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[exomondo]

What is your point? There is a world of difference between allowing people to post anonymously with an agenda, and having an agenda and the power to anonymously silence the free speech of others.

That it doesn't matter whether or not it's anonymous, if it's infringing then it should be taken down anyway so the identity of the person who points out the infringement is irrelevant, it doesn't have any effect on whether the content is infringing or not.

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[Anonymous Coward]

You should check out pinterest, the new darling of drag-and-drool user-provided pics. Easy web UI for reporting offensive content, profanity, etc. But IP violations? They direct you to a snail mail address, and tell you not to bother unless it's *your* IP or the rights holder has specifically authorized *you* to complain. http://pinterest.com/about/copyright/

We need to go meta. Someone needs to build an infringement-busting crowdsourced site. Make flagging IP abuse as easy as uploading to pinterest, FJ, etc. Use a login system to build a reputation model for complainers, so the site can come to learn who's a reliable judge of abuse, and filter out attempted misuse of the system (e.g. political partisans complaining about positive imagery of their competition).

Re:Easy to infringe, hard to fix

[Anonymous Coward]

"Actually that's pretty much required. A takedown request is a legal request, and you need to confirm that you are the copyright holder and have the necessary rights to request the takedown."

OK, I understand your point about the hosting service not being *required* to treat complaints from others as proper DMCA notices, but there's nothing stopping sites like FJ from making it easy for good netizens to help identify infringement and keep the site in line while *also* providing contact information for formal DMCA complaints. The fact that they don't have such mechanisms just suggests that they don't really care about infringement.

bearlove

[ostrand]

Howver, the story doesn't end there (as most /. readers already probably know.... Inman put up a fundraising website to raise $20 000 to donate to cancer research (and bear love) - http://www.indiegogo.com/bearlovegood - where he has up til now raised - brace yourself - more than $ 100 000 !!!

Re:bearlove

[Anonymous Coward]

as most /. readers already probably know....

.... you're missing a closing parenthesis.

Re:bearlove

[Anonymous Coward]

Story of my life... or at least a couple of hours while cursing at Visual Studio.

Re:bearlove

[Anonymous Coward]

)

closed it for you.

Re:bearlove

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

At least you don't probram in lisp...

Re:bearlove

[Anonymous Coward]

as most /. readers already probably know

Why the fuck would you assume that? The only thing that "most /. readers" have in common is that they read Slashdot, and if reading Slashdot doesn't help them to know about the fundraiser then there's no reason why Slashdot readers should be expected to know about it.

This is stupid.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

I'm sick of hearing about lawsuits in response to blog posts.
Especially so in this case, when funny junk was in the wrong.

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because in grown-up world, you don't get to do whatever you want just because the other person did something wrong first or did something worse. Not agreeing with FunnyJunk here, mainly because some of their claims are out there (that they've suffered damages, that they removed the content in response to the takedown requests), but in general, yeah, slandering someone is going to be an actionable problem when you're making provably false statements of fact. Some of the things The Oatmeal posted do meet the definition of defamation per se. You hear about it a lot about blogs because bloggers are typically complete idiots when it comes to dealing with legal disagreements and separating statements of opinion from statements of fact.

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you show ONE provably false statement made by The Oatmeal?

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody has to prove the Oatmeal false - it's up to the Oatmeal to prove that their claims about FunnyJunk are correct. That's the law, like it or not. FunnyJunk can go to court, ask the Oatmeal to prove that what they said was true, and if the Oatmeal can't do it, the Oatmeal will lose the trial instantly.

You, on the other hand, prove OP's point: some people on the Internet really don't know how the law works.

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Why do people post Oatmeal stuff on FunnyJunk? Because they like the Oatmeal, and they want to discuss the comics with their friends/favorite online community. It's like you telling your friends a joke you just read on the Internet - you want to share it with people you know well, not with the strangers who comment on the website where you found the joke.

If the Oatmeal were smart, they would realize this and try making a deal with FunnyJunk.

Instead the Oatmeal went:
- "I'll ask FJ to remove my stuff" (and by the sounds of it, the Oatmeal did not file an actual DMCA letter)
- "Oh, taking down stuff without filing a real DMCA notice is too complicated."
- "I'll stop trying to have my content taken down, I'm too lazy."
- "Now I'll tell the world that FJ is infringing copyrights on purpose"
- "Oooh FJ didn't like being slandered, let's act like the victim here. I have enough fans who will believe me"

And I hate FunnyJunk by the way.
I don't know, I think FJ is exaggerating their claims a little (then again, with how the justice system is biased towards copyright holders, maybe it's reasonable for FJ to think that such accusations will lead to FJ's shut down, and thus it's understandable that FJ would over-react).
But the Oatmeal is hardly all white. They messed up, they slandered FJ, they're putting up a very lame defence against FJ's accusations.

Maybe this is just a publicity stunt organized by both of them?

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

slandering someone is going to be an actionable problem when you're making provably false statements of fact

Can you show ONE provably false statement made by The Oatmeal?

Nobody has to prove the Oatmeal false

WTF?

Re:This is stupid.

[Genda]

Perhaps you didn't notice the fact that the Oatmeal logo and link had been surgically removed from the reposted material on FunnyJunk? I dunno, call me suspicious, but that just doesn't sound like the work of people who likes Oatmeal reposting work. It sounds like someone trying to hide the fact that he's ripping off other site for content and that my friends is copyright infringement in all its splendor.

I'm sorry, as the facts keep coming out, he should just sue this clown into bowels of the perdition.

$20,000? Pffft

[denmarkw00t]

So far he's raised just over $100,000 for Bears Good, Cancer Bad. Also, the writeup doesn't really sum up the whole situation:

> Oatmeal's content was on FunnyJunuk
> Oatmeal asked them to remove said content, they kind of complied but not really
> Oatmeal writes blog post
> FunnyJunk threatens to sue
> Oatmeal starts campaign to raise $20,000 for Bears Good, Cancer Bad; ignores FunnyJunk threat

Some of FJ's complaints, particularly about the "attacks in your source code" part are so laughable you'd almost have to assume that this, in itself, some "funny junk" they're pulling for the lols. Do they seriously consider an ASCII pterodactyl to be a threat against FunnyJunk? Do they seriously think that the word "FunnyJunk" on a web page is taking away their status in Google's search results? FunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunk Slashdot doesn't like too much repitition FunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunk at least let's see if I can break it up FunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunk with some text here FunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunk come on, Slashdot FunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunk I just *know* that this will bump FunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunk your Google search results when people FunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunk search for FunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunk

Watch out Slashdot, FJ is coming for you next for knocking them down in Google's results ZOMGTHEINTERNETTHISISHOWITWORKS!

Re:$20,000? Pffft

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take FunnyJunk, egg, bacon, FunnyJunk, FunnyJunk, sausage, and FunnyJunk. And spam. ;-p

Re:$20,000? Pffft

[samwichse]

Ironically, the news coverage has pushed theoatmeal's page complaining up to the #2 google search result, try it:
Google search for funnyjunk
Just to add to the fun: funnyjunk

Ulterior motive?

[neokushan]

I strongly suspect that the Admin of Funnyjunk would know that he'd get a harsh reaction from fans of the oatmeal. I haven't been on funnyjunk in about 6 years but I visited out of curiosity and now I'm wondering how many people will be doing the same. How many more hits has FJ got because of this?
The admin must have known that the oatmeal would never give into blackmail.

This story is familiar.

[cpu6502]

A Dallas photographer found his photo illegally being used on a bunch of websites. He filed the thousand-or-so DMCA notices to ask the photo be removed. Virtually all the websites complied except for ONE owned by Candice Schwanger, who is now suing the photographer.

Why do people like Candice/Funnyjoke think they have the right to sue people they are copying from? It's hilarious. I have the judge pounds these people into the dirt, punishes them of 50,000 dollars, and hands it to the Victim whose photos/comics were infringed upon.

Re:This story is familiar.

[cpu6502]

Link. Oh and he lives in Houston not Dallas:
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/05/25/photographer-threatened-with-lawsuit-after-protecting-his-copyright/

Re:This story is familiar.

[SJHillman]

I didn't think it was possible, but the FJ case is even more ridiculous than the Candice case. At least in Candice's case, all of her websites hosted by GoDaddy were completely taken down, so there was some provable degree of damage (whether fair or not is unimportant to my point of FJ being worse). In FJ's case, it's hard to prove there's been any damages towards the copyright violator (FJ).

Good job, FunnyJunk. You managed to make a Texas nutcase lawyer look more sane by comparison.

Re:This story is familiar.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thinking they're wrong is no excuse for misrepresenting their arguments. Particularly in FunnyJunk's case, the issue was most not certainly the DMCA. FunnyJunk gets DMCA's all the time (granted that's a bit of an assumption, but a pretty good one I think). FunnyJunk got up in arms when they were accused of knowingly encouraging copyright violations and making money in the process. Whether or not you think that's true, they have to respond harshly to such accusation or risk being the next Megaupload/ect.

In my opinion, FunnyJunk met all legal requirements after being served with the DMCA notice, and the Oatmeal sounds completely immature (which I realize is partially intentional) in his initial attack and then rebuttal. If he really wanted to focus on making comics, he wouldn't have bothered making the original attack; he wouldn't even have bothered serving the DMCA. I know I'm getting dangerously close to the heart of the piracy debate in general, but FunnyJunk isn't exactly stealing business from him. His art style is readily distinguishable and if people like his work they'll go looking for his merchandise. They certainly won't find it on FunnyJunk; they'll end up on his page buying his stuff.

Re:This story is familiar.

[cpu6502]

>>>At least in Candice's case, all of her websites hosted by GoDaddy were completely taken down, so there was some provable degree of damage

That's because she's a repeat offender.
Per GoDaddy's policy, the normal response is to just block that ONE image. But for repeat offenders, they suspend the whole account (and website). In fact she's now been shutdown a SECOND time after more photographers filed DMCA notices.

Re:This story is familiar.

[Thud457]

She's got a bright future writing for Cooks Source magazine.

Obviously, we're not doing enough to correct and re-educate jackholes like this.

Re:This story is familiar.

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, if I receive just two DMCA notices, and I am hosted on GoDaddy, then my entire GoDaddy account is suspended? If so, you are seriously ok with that??

Link indicates cpu6502's approval of going straight to a DMCA notice instead of first trying to talk to the infringer. Even though it's the equivalent to downmodding a post without first talking with the poster, a practice which cpu6502 vehemently disagrees with.

Re:This story is familiar.

[Beerdood]

"Information wants to be free!" My favorite stupid colloquialism. I wasn't aware that non-living entities, objects or concepts were capable of expressing the emotion of desire!

Also, money wants to be spent, my car wants to break down, justice wants to be served, and my toaster wants to burn bread. All of those statements want to be related somehow as well, but transitive logic doesn't want to co-operate.

Re:This story is familiar.

[rtfa-troll]

In other words, if I receive just two DMCA notices, and I am hosted on GoDaddy, then my entire GoDaddy account is suspended? If so, you are seriously ok with that??

On Slashdot pretty much everyone who is anyone (and all true Scotsmen) have been boycotting GoDaddy since their SOPA debacle. We mostly think that anybody who is still with GoDaddy deserves all the shit that can possibly come their way from their decision. Hell, having thought about it I'm going to look up some of my own photos and file DMCA notes against random GoDaddy customers and I think everybody else here should do the same.

Re:This story is familiar.

[cpu6502]

>>>In other words, if I receive just two DMCA notices, and I am hosted on GoDaddy, then my entire GoDaddy account is suspended?

The two DMCAs have to be VALID notices. If you receive two, and you reply to both "This content is not infringing," then you are not a repeat infringer. You've infringed 0 times.

DMCA notices are annoying, but ultimately harmless. They have no real power to permanently remove your photo or video. Only a completed lawsuit does that.

Re:This story is familiar.

[cpu6502]

You're misquoting:
"On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life.
"On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other."

Re:This story is familiar.

[Anonymous Coward]

They were valid, I was simply unaware of it until it was brought to my attention. Had the copyright holder done the polite thing and contacted me first, I would not now be out on the street.

Good to know you support such bully tactics, despite the similarity to your own downmodding situation.

Re:This story is familiar.

[Genda]

Not if FunnyJunk has surgically removed the link and logo from the artwork... that's my friend is a no no by any measure.

This is an 'important issue'?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"Funny as it might sound, FunnyJunk's threat of litigation against The Oatmeal raises a very important issue: the extent to which artists can complain in public about perceived or actual infringement of their works by user-generated content websites. Does it matter if the content creator accused the website of condoning or participating in the infringement?"

This doesn't seem like an 'issue' at all. The DMCA places limits on the circumstances under which a copyright holder can successfully sue a web host/file locker/user-upload thing; but the only limits on the rights of an individual to speak would be libel, defamation, slander, etc. Given how trivial it is to demonstrate that there is infringing content(and that the operators have historically been dicks about it, albeit within the bounds of the DMCA), any threat against somebody who says so is pure legal bullying.

Making grossly false statements ("Funnyjunk has no DMCA takedown process/doesn't properly respond to takedown notices") would be a bad idea; but trivially verifiable ("Wow, there sure is a fuckload of other people's stuff being hosted for ad money on funnyjunk") statements or subjective statements of opinion("It certainly doesn't seem like funnyjunk's management is terribly concerned about being a nest of scum and villainy") seem pretty harmless.

Re:This is an 'important issue'?

[omnichad]

And really, if anyone is committing libel, then it's Funnyjunk - especially if it has the users convinced that The Oatmeal thinks FJ is a bot.

Lawyers are ruining the web

[fragMasterFlash]

Nice to see more people fighting against the legal trolls.GIVE THEM NOTHING!

Re:Lawyers are ruining the web

[cpu6502]

Relevance to this story? This is a clear case of a website stealing an artist's work. The artist has the privilege granted by the Constitution to demand his work either be removed, or paid for. To imply the artist does not have the right to hire a lawyer to protect his due income for labor performed, places you on the wrong side of the argument.

Re:Lawyers are ruining the web

[RabidReindeer]

Relevance to this story? This is a clear case of a website stealing an artist's work. The artist has the privilege granted by the Constitution to demand his work either be removed, or paid for. To imply the artist does not have the right to hire a lawyer to protect his due income for labor performed, places you on the wrong side of the argument.

Actually, I think the Constitution only sets up the framework, with the specific privileges being added later. And the specific abuses even later. But that's just legal nitpicking.

If I ran FJ, and a situation like this had developed where someone's website was effectively being mirrored in its entirety and its author contacted me, I'd seriously consider making it an official mirror, put in a little Oatmeal advertising, and pay Matthew royalties. Everybody happy.

Lawyers are the last (first?) refuge of the incompetent (with apologies to Asimov).

Re:Lawyers are ruining the web

[Shadow99_1]

What 'website' is 'stealing' anything when the content was user uploaded? You've now said this same message several times in these comments, but unless you can prove the site itself was the one uploading the copyrighted content rather than simply hosting it your claim is false.

Now they may be doing a less than thorough job of cleaning up DMCA takedowns, but that is separate from "a clear case of a website stealing an artist's work".

Re:Lawyers are ruining the web

[cpu6502]

Under the DMCA the website is held innocent of infringement as long as they remove the content. But FunnyJunk's refusal to remove content makes them complicit in the act & the owner can sue (again per the DMCA).

Re:Lawyers are ruining the web

[fragMasterFlash]

Relevance to this story?

You don't feel an example of an entrepreneur standing up to frivolous litigation is relevant? Get a clue already.

You Missed a Part of the Strategy

[eldavojohn]

but axing them after issuing a legal threat alleging that assertions of copyright infringement were defamatory sure smells like destruction of evidence... And courts tend to take a very dim view of destruction of evidence...

So let's talk about FJ's strategy in this quagmire they've created. First it started out with a pretty innocuous (though informative) question post and there is no indication of an offensive attack between one party or the other. FJ's response to this is to respond by describing two completely different scenarios to everyone while destroying evidence. First, they contact all their users and alledge that The Oatmeal is suing FJ while in reality they fire a threat of slander and libel lawsuit at The Oatmeal. Meanwhile The Oatmeal is being harassed by FJ users who seem to be confused that this is about The Oatmeal doesn't believe FJ has any members and is really just a bot.

Basically the FJ admin and/or legal team is playing this like a money making entity would -- they're doing everything in their power to make users see one situation and the original content creators face another situation. And that's what happens when revenues are threatened, bad people get creative in bad ways and it usually has a very bad effect but is effective nonetheless. I hope The Oatmeal sticks to his guns on this one -- he's definitely in the right and he's definitely tackling a problem that persists on imgur, FunnyJunk and a number of other sites (yes, even YouTube).

Goes both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

This, "we can post what we want," business goes both ways. FunnyJunk may not have any legal obligation to remove the offending content, but Inman was not lying when he posted his criticism of FunnyJunk. Everything he said was true. His opinion was that these facts made FunnyJunk unethical. He has a right to his opinion and he has the right to express it. FunnyJunk could have just left it at that, "Oh somebody on the internet doesn't like us, and that somebody has a large audience." Instead they decided to threaten to sue for defamation. Here's a hint guys. Defamation suits only work when someone is lying about you. It's like slander and libel. You can't sue somebody for laying out a set of facts and then expressing their opinion about those facts. That's not defamation. Somebody needs to go back to lawyer school.

Re:Goes both ways

[CanHasDIY]

You can sue somebody for laying out a set of facts and then expressing their opinion about those facts, but that doesn't mean you're justified or that you'll win.

FTFY.

Not that I think it's right to sue someone for telling the truth, merely pointing out that it is possible.

Re:Goes both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

right, because FJ's lawyer really did try to court a bear.

Re:Goes both ways

[chrismcb]

You can sue somebody for laying out a set of facts and then expressing their opinion about those facts, but that doesn't mean you're justified or that you'll win.

FTFY. Not that I think it's right to sue someone for telling the truth, merely pointing out that it is possible.

Sure you can sue somebody who tells the truth. But you are in danger of having a frivolous lawsuit. Which has dire consequences.

Re:Goes both ways

[Genda]

You're losing the thread, it wasn't the FJ's lawyer, it was his mother. I have no desire to find out what the babies look like!

Cognitive Dissonance

[mooingyak]

It's an interesting claim.

If we swap out FunnyJunk and Oatmeal for YouTube and RIAA, most of the details stay the same.

Could YouTube sue the RIAA for saying that YouTube encourages piracy?

At what point is a site operator responsible for the content their users upload?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[jiteo]

Hardly.

TheOatmeal: angry and funny blog post to vent about FunnyJunk stealing his and others' comics
RIAA: SUE ALL EVARYTHING!

TheOatmeal: no actual DMCA takedown notices filed.
RIAA: file ALL the notices!

FunnyJunk, to users: harass the shit out of TheOatmeal!
YouTube: K, I'm gonna take obey every takedown notice.

FunnyJunk: SUE THEOATMEAL!
YouTube: Shit, we're getting sued by RIAA Viacom. Oh hey, let's start Vevo.

TheOatmeal: WTF they want HOW much? BEARS AND CANCER AND CHARITY!
RIAA: Uh, we're still not making as much money as we want. Who else can we sue?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

...

At what point is a site operator responsible for the content their users upload?

As soon as they start allowing users to upload?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[mooingyak]

I'm speaking from a legal POV. If FunnyJunk is responsible for the infringement of their users, then so is YouTube.

Just because Inman is a funny guy who only wants to write comics while the RIAA is full of assholes doesn't mean we should have a different set of laws for similar circumstances.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

now, I'm not an expert in any field, but I was under the impression that RIAA etc. were compensated by Google by inserted adds ,and links on Youtube, informing you to buy the the infringing/fair use material. And from my understanding FunnyJunk users will have a much harder time to claim fair use as they reproduce stuff in their entierty, not with the intent to "parody" (something youtube users apparen't doesn't know the meaning of either), criticize or remix etc.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Jason Levine]

Except the facts of the cases are such:

RIAA vs YouTube:

1) RIAA finds infringing content on YouTube
either:
2a) RIAA files takedown notice at which point YouTube complies.
or
2b) RIAA sues YouTube at which point YouTube invokes Safe Harbor clause.

FunnyJunk vs Oatmeal:

1) Matt (aka Oatmeal) finds his comics hosted on FunnyJunk.
2) Matt asks FunnyJunk to take them down.
3) FunnyJunk takes some down, leaves others up, tells their users that Oatmeal is trying to shut FJ down and to harass Matt.
4) Matt decides not to pursue the matter, but makes an angry blog post laying out the facts.
5) FunnyJunk sends Matt a letter threatening a Federal Lawsuit unless he sends them $20,000.

Protecting your IP isn't bad per se. Immediately launching into a lawsuit or threatening to sue for amounts much larger than what your content is actually worth (based on imaginary "lost sales") is bad. Politely asking an infringer to take your content down isn't bad. Having that infringer turn around and threaten to sue you unless you pay them is horrid.

As a side note: If Matt wanted to he could trump their paltry $20,000 lawsuit. He noted 360 instances of infringement (now taken down after his post-legal-threat blog post). Each instance of copyright infringement could cost FunnyJunk between $750 and $250,000 per infringement - or $270,000 to $90 million. I say Matt should agree to pay their "defamation" settlement fee if they pay for the lowest amount of his copyright infringement fee!

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[mooingyak]

As a side note: If Matt wanted to he could trump their paltry $20,000 lawsuit. He noted 360 instances of infringement (now taken down after his post-legal-threat blog post). Each instance of copyright infringement could cost FunnyJunk between $750 and $250,000 per infringement - or $270,000 to $90 million. I say Matt should agree to pay their "defamation" settlement fee if they pay for the lowest amount of his copyright infringement fee!

This thought is actually what prompted my original post. It had occurred to me that Matt could potentially sue for an exorbitant amount of money and that would feel like justice. And yet at the same time it wouldn't feel like justice were the RIAA to do the same to YouTube. And I tried to figure out why, and all I could come up with was that the RIAA are assholes while Matt isn't. But that didn't feel like a good enough reason. Hence my original post asking questions.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Jason Levine]

Honestly, if he did sue them for that much, I'd feel that his "damages" claims were overblown. Even if every comic from his website was copied, I wouldn't see it being worth $250,000 - $90 million. It was more a mental exercise for FunnyJunk to consider that Matt's legal rights would allow him to launch such a lawsuit. He would be on firmer legal ground than FunnyJunk is in claiming that Matt's calling them out for copyright infringement constitutes defamation and that an ASCII pterodactyl in his HTML constitutes a threat against them.

Plus, there would be the difference that Matt tried to resolve this without lawyers (and continues to try to do so even while under threat of a lawsuit from the people who infringed his content) while the RIAA tends to go the "Sue First, Ask Questions Later (If At All)" route.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Beerdood]

Comparing the RIAA and Oatmeal isn't a terribly valid swap.. the other comments here already explain some stark differences between the two. A better comparison might be FunnyJunk and ThePirateBay - both sites contain material (pictures, movies, or music) that's copyrighted and make no or little attempt to remove infringing material. They both profit through the work of other people, and deprive the original creators of the profit. TPB gets a lot of love from slashdot and elsewhere, so why all the hate on FunnyJunk?

Well I'll try to answer that.
- Hatred for RIAA / MPAA. Music pirates don't believe the original artists are missing out on profits because the industry collects them all, therefore feel less guilt pirating music. Also, they sue people for ridiculous amounts of money
- Difficulty of acquiring material. A picture can easily be seen, so it's no inconvenience by viewing the pics on one site or the other (maybe an influx of ads). Some material can't be acquired at an affordable price (or at all - see the Game of Thrones pirating article on slashdot. Even the Oatmeal had a comic on this).
- FunnyJunk sent out a request for $20,000 - a ridiculous demand considering they're the ones infringing.

Really, the 20K demand is what started this big debacle. If FunnyJunk hadn't sent that, then I'm sure most people would be rather apathetic on the whole scenario. But we (people / slashdot) generally hates frivolous lawsuits, which is why we're reading about this today.

That's exactly how Scribd does it.

[wiredog]

To make it hard for the fascist content creators to infringe on Cory's freedom to host anything he wants.

Both sites could DIAF for all I care.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Oatmeal quit being funny when Inman ran out of ideas and started doing graphical interpretations of widely-used troll topics (Hitler, Abortion, Religion). Not sure if he's doing it intentionally to get clicks, or what, but the content has really gone downhill in the past year.

Funny Junk on the other hand is an upload site? I guess? I don't think I've ever been there.

Threatening a defamation suit is not cool, and so I guess I'd side with Inman on this... I wonder if he's considered an anti-SLAPP motion? It might not work because he is sort of a public figure, but still, going to war with lawyers should be discouraged, and in many States is (I know Texas and California both have pretty strong anti-SLAPP provisions in law.)

Re:Both sites could DIAF for all I care.

[shadowknot]

As to your point about The Oatmeal not being funny anymore, that's pretty subjective to be honest, I tend to find his stuff funny but that's comedy, I'm not a Bill Hicks fan and yet millions miss him dearly, I love Steven Wright and many disagree! My point is there is no way of objectively saying whether something is funny or not. I'm with you on FunnyJunk though, just seems like a 4chanish hole for unpleasant crap by the one like I clicked from another commenter in this thread.

Textbook American Morals

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell from this whole story, FunnyJunk "just" wants TheOatmeal to remove the negative talk about FunnyJunk from TheOatmeal and all sites under the owner's control, which - to an extent - I can understand.
The problem I have with that, is that in order to make such a claim, one must first ensure one isn't infringing the creator's rights in the first place - regardless of users carrying responsibility or not... Which, as TheOatmeal's latest post has revealed, they did not check for. Afterwards, all the content (as far as I could tell) was removed.
I checked cache with the webarchive and true enough, FunnyJunk had been infringing TheOatmeal's rights.

DMCA is not a defence in this case; It's a way for content creators and owners to enforce their right, so stating (as was done in the letter to TheOatmeal) that the site is subject to "rigorous" scanning is a load. The stuff was there for 3+ years. This is *not* what you'd claim to be a site subject to "rigorous" scanning.
Note that TheOatmeal doesn't sue; He permits FunnyJunk to use his hilarious work for their own profit. And now they're suing him for him slandering them?

Re:Textbook American Morals

[KozmoStevnNaut]

As far as I can tell from this whole story, FunnyJunk "just" wants TheOatmeal to remove the negative talk about FunnyJunk from TheOatmeal and all sites under the owner's control, which - to an extent - I can understand.

FunnyJunk also wants TheOatMeal to pay $20,000 in "damages", which is completely insane.

Re:what my mom would do

[SJHillman]

Does your mom happen to seduce bears too? If so, The Oatmeal has a surprise for her...

Re:what my mom would do

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes the assumption that The Oatmeal never did anything wrong to begin with.

Facts:
FunnyJunk encourages users to upload content from elsewhere on the internet
FunnyJunk encourages users to violate the copyrights of content producers
FunnyJunk displays said content with all sorts of advertisment around the content to make money
FunnyJunk makes it difficult to take down the content
The Oatmeal creates funny content
The Oatmeal discovered that significant content of his was on FunnyJunk
Oatmeal requested from FunnyJunk to purge all of his infringing content from the site (A bulk DMCA request)
FunnyJunk drags their feet on the requests.
The Oatmeal puts their feet to the fire by publically shaming them (and pointing out the infringement FJ hosts of other popular properties)
FunnyJunk discovers that The Oatmeal is more "popular" than their site because of the shaming
FunnyJunk hires a lawyer to send out a threatining letter with a demand for 20,000 for the harm to their reputation

At this point the rest of the sequence has been covered. None of this would have happened if FJ had complied with the DMCA request at the rate that YouTube does. At this point it's snowballed to the point that Oatmeal could outright buy FunnyJunk, dismantle it, and then use the URL to host the proper "Funny Stuff" index he implemented called http://bearfood.com/

Re:what my mom would do

[Anubis IV]

I'm glad I have a mom who didn't punish me for being attacked by others. Mine would actually try to understand what happened and respond to each child appropriately, rather than lazily punishing everyone simply because there was an argument.

Re:what my mom would do

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent idea! Please, do that with USA vs Iran as countries (or China, Russia, Cuba, whatever happens to be on your sight at the moment) to solve international diplomacy quarrels.

Blackmail

[Anonymous Coward]

has more severe punishments than defamation last I checked. Wonder how that'll go for FunnyJunk?

Re:what my mom would do

[Chrisq]

my mom would just give both web sites a 'timeout' and tell the boys to behave.

She'd also give them both a blow-job.

Mod Parent Informative

[WillerZ]

I can't; don't have mod points today.

Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

If we swap out FunnyJunk and Oatmeal for YouTube and RIAA, most of the details stay the same.

Remind me again when it was that The Oatmeal, even once, instigated legal action over media it did not actually hold copyright to.
Remind me again when it was that The Oatmeal, even once, demanded ruinous damages (eg. > US$10,000) against private individuals it accused of infringement.
Remind me again when it was that The Oatmeal alleged infringement in cases which were clearly protected fair use.

Remind me again when it was that The Oatmeal, even once, threatened to instigate legal action against anyone, ever.

Re:Not really

[mooingyak]

I'm not claiming that The Oatmeal did any of those things.

I am however saying that we should have roughly equal expectations for FunnyJunk and YouTube to police their own content.

Re:Not really

[ragefan]

Last I checked, YouTube doesn't try to extort $20000 from content owners that do choose to submit DMCA takedowns either.

Re:Not really

[mooingyak]

The $20k, as I understand it, isn't for DMCA notices, it's for the claim that FunnyJunk is engaging in *willful* copyright infringement. I can see where, if any infringement is genuinely accidental rather than willful the guy might have a point. Not a $20k point, but a point.

So my question remains, if someone (such as the RIAA) were to go about accusing YouTube of deliberate infringement, would YouTube have grounds for a suit?

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

So ... we should expect FunnyJunk to proactively install filters to check that content being uploaded does not come from a source they are aware is liable to be illegal? Yes, I quite agree. And I'm sure the Oatmeal guy would have no problem giving people permission to keep offline mirrors of all those comics for filtering purposes -- or even negotiating a deal to allow them to republish the comics in exchange for prominent links and advertising revenue, which is another perfectly reasonable thing YouTube does.

Re:Not really

[uniquename72]

I nearly posted the same rant, but then I actually read GP's post and realized that I totally misunderstood what he said. (Seriously, those modding this up should learn to read.)

This is what happenes

[geekoid]

when you bad mouth Edison.

Syntax error

[Anonymous Coward]

Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_PUBLIC in /home/funnyjunk/funnyjunk-ng/modules/funny/models/comment.php on line 3817

Re:The truth:

[BronsCon]

Whoever modded this as troll missed the fact that it's probably a cipher of some sort, possibly a C&C message for a botnet, and whould be modded up to get attention and be further analyzed.

Asked for too much...

[Anonymous Coward]

They demanded too much...
He could easily retain a lawyer for that amount. Then he either wins his money back or at least gets the satisfaction of paying his lawyer instead of them.

I don't know. Maybe they think they have a case. IANAL, etc.

Someone needs to SLAPP FunnyJunk

[PurpleCarrot]

This is exactly why SLAPP laws exist:

"The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty, of course, is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP

Wasn't YouTube's business model the same?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is how The Oatmeal described FunnyJunk's business model

1. Gather funny pictures from around the internet
2. Host them on FunnyJunk.com
3. Slather them in advertising
4. If someone claims copyright infringement, throw your hands up in the air and exclaim "It was our users who uploaded your photos! We had nothing to do with it! We're innocent!"
5. Cash six figure advertising checks from other artist's stolen material

And we are all full of hate towards them because of it.

Wasn't this also YouTube's business model? And wasn't most of /. defending YT when the copyright shit hit the fan?

Re:$100,000 and counting - Link is NSFW

[Anonymous Coward]

Warning: there's NSFW gifs in the comments of the first link. I didn't check the 2nd.

Re:what my mom would do

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you had to ask, I'm certain you've never met sdnoob's dad.

Beat that strawman, beat it.

[FatLittleMonkey]

You seem to be going out of your way to misinterpret what chrysrobyn said.

Re:what my mom would do

[Beerdood]

Facts:
FunnyJunk encourages users to upload content from elsewhere on the internet
FunnyJunk encourages users to violate the copyrights of content producers

Sorry, but can you actually verify that? Not trolling, but I can't find any sources where they "encourage" users to upload content from other sites. Are the forum admins actually telling people it's fine to upload content from elsewhere on the internet? That's a pretty bold claim that's been repeated here a few times - an example below from their TOS seems to indicate otherwise (more details if you read more at http://www.funnyjunk.com/termsofservice/ - unless this was very recently updated as a result of this fiasco)

24. User agrees to upload only Third-Party Content for which User holds intellectual property rights, including but not limited to, copyrights, trademarks, rights to the use of personal name and likeness, and rights of publicity.

I'm not trying to defend FJ here, they're clearly the assholes for attempting to sue for $20k here. But there's a big difference between actively encouraging users to pirate material (something you could argue that The Pirate Bay does, given their tongue-in-cheek name and history of mocking DMCA take-down notices) - and simply not removing copyrighted material fast enough (apathy, or negligence).

Slacker

[ThatsNotPudding]

A couple of free podcasts I listen to (Walking the Room is one; can't recall the other) have mentioned Slacker taking their podcasts - without permission, mind you - cutting them up with interstitial ads, broadcasting them over the Slacker service, and not sharing the ad revenues with the actual podcast creators. How that's even legal is beyond me. And 'business professionals' wonder why most people hate them.

Re:Slacker

[LeperPuppet]

If the podcasts are licensed under a Creative Commons licensed that allows modification and sale, then Slacker's service would be legal. Given that most of the podcasts likely aren't licensed in this way, they're probably infringing. Given that most podcasters run on donations or at a loss, Slacker can keep doing what they do until they happen to rip off someone with money or stubborn enough to hire a lawyer and sue.

Not me

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I just know I should avoid them if I see any links to them

post to slashdot + indiegogo/theoatmeal influx

[Anonymous Coward]

= funkyjunk FAIL

Re:The truth:

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears to be a somewhat obfuscated URL. All I can make out is the last part though - /hello.jpg