Grumpy Cat Wants $600K From 'Pirating' Coffee Maker (torrentfreak.com)

Eloking quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Grumpy Cat is not pleased, yet. Her owners have asked a California federal court to issue a $600,000 judgment against a coffee maker which allegedly exploited their copyrights (PDF). In addition, they want damages for trademark and contract breach, and a ban on the company in question from selling any associated Grumpy Cat merchandise. There are dozens of celebrity cats on the internet, but Grumpy Cat probably tops them all. The cat's owners have made millions thanks to their pet's unique facial expression, which turned her into an overnight internet star. Part of this revenue comes from successful merchandise lines, including the Grumpy Cat "Grumppuccino" iced coffee beverage, sold by the California company Grenade Beverage. The company licensed the copyright and trademarks to sell the iced coffee, but is otherwise not affiliated with the cat and its owners. Initially this partnership went well, but after the coffee maker started to sell other "Grumpy Cat" products, things turned bad. TorrentFreak adds: "The cat's owners, incorporated as Grumpy Cat LLC, took the matter to court last year with demands for the coffee maker to stop infringing associated copyrights and trademarks. After Grenade Beverage failed to properly respond to the allegations, Grumpy Cat's owners moved for a default, which a court clerk entered in early June. A few days ago they went ahead and submitted a motion for default judgement."

Comments

Seems about right

[Anonymous Coward]

For once copyright is being used as it was intended. I'm not a fan of copyright in any sense, but when it's used like this, at least I'm not sitting here seething. Pretty damn obvious you can't just slap someone else's stuff on your coffee bags and expect they'll be OK with it.

Re: Seems about right

[Anonymous Coward]

It's their fracking cat.

Re: Seems about right

[wardrich86]

It's the INTERNET'S fucking cat. Next thing I know, you're going to be telling me that Laina Morris actually owns the rights to Over-attached Girlfriend? Pffffffff /s

Re: Seems about right

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't own a cat, that is slavery. You can only take care of a cat, and if it wants to leave, it must be allowed.

Re:Seems about right

[Pascoea]

No, it's a fucking copyright.

Bitch all you want, but the issue still stands. The owner of the copyright followed the law, the company that is using the copyrighted material didn't. I had never heard of this dispute before I read this article, and it took me all of 30 seconds to realize who is in the wrong. Read the article, look at the coffee bag. It says "grumpy cat coffee" with a picture of the "fucking cat" on it. They had a licensing agreement for another product, but violated the agreement by releasing another (unlicensed) product. What's the counter argument?

Re: Seems about right

[houghi]

Yes, she does. The fact that she does not act upon it is het choice and now it will be too late, but at the beginning, she (or another person who made the image, but most likely herself) had the copyright.
Each time you create something, you automatically get the copyright, unless you have made alternative arrangements (e.g. working at a company or under contract). If you write something or take a photo, the copyright is yours. You have the right to decide who is allowed to copy it. Even: people should ASK you if they have the right to copy it.

In most cases people on the Internet are extremely lenient about copyright. Especially on the InterWebs. And in the case of Laina, even encourage it, as it raiser their value or self esteem or whatever. That does not mean they do not have the copyright in the first place.

Re: Seems about right

[AmiMoJo]

Can't don't really have owners, just staff.

Re:Seems about right

[EvilSS]

Actually, it's a trademark.

Re:Seems about right

[EvilSS]

You are right, and this is a trademark and breach of contract lawsuit. The internet gets these confused all the time when reporting on this stuff, but even the summary says so. Other people in these comments just assume copyright for some reason.

Re:Seems about right

[PopeRatzo]

A cat's face as intellectual property? As a trademark, I could understand. Not as a work of art.

I have some folks here who disagrees:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q1n2...

http://ep.yimg.com/ty/cdn/madi...

http://totallyhistory.com/wp-c...

Re:Seems about right

[cob666]

if they're asking for a summary judgement then the defendant hasn't responded yet. The most likely scenario is that the coffee maker in question knew what they were doing was wrong, closed shop when they received the first notice and now they're selling coffee using the next great internet meme.

Re:Seems about right

[Maritz]

Well spotted AC. It is indeed a cat.

Re: Seems about right

[hawguy]

It's their fracking cat.

This makes me lose a lot of sympathy for the cat, the cat is clearly aligned with Big Oil interests and shouldn't be using wealth gained by its climate destroying drilling practices to stomp on small time coffee makers.

Re:Seems about right

[magarity]

Copyright assumes some degree of intellectual effort, "something" created by an author or artist - with the focus on CREATED

Copyright law in terms of photographs, painting, drawings, etc, is long settled in favor of the person clicking the shutter or holding the pen, etc. Clearly what is in question is the images, not the actual cat's actual face. One if someone tried to put the actual cat's actual face on a bag of coffee, then your rant about a cat's face not being art might be relevant.

Re:Seems about right

[Maritz]

The counter argument appears to be "it's a cat" and suggests that it isn't worth bothering to argue.

Re:Seems about right

[Falos]

Biologists have a ways to go before they can claim craftsmanship of a face.

Until then that craftsmanship ascribes to God at best, so "copyright infringement damages" would go to him, or whatever construct you place responsible for inventing cats.

Re:Seems about right

[Frank Burly]

Default is when the defendant hasn't replied. An MSJ asks the court to give you a . . . summary judgment that you win, because it is the only conclusion possible under the agreed upon facts. I would think the documents are on PACER and possibly free through https://free.law/recap/.

Re: Seems about right

[Rakarra]

It's the INTERNET'S fucking cat

It doesn't belong to you. The cat, and her trademarks, belong to the owner.
Seeing something on the Internet doesn't give the Internet ownership.

Re: Seems about right

[Rakarra]

Be charitable, I'm pretty sure this means the cat is part of the resistance movement against the Cylons.

Re:Seems about right

[spire3661]

We have been screaming for a long time that its time to end copyright as currently implemented. Its not bitching to point out we have arrived at an absurd place that someone can make millions on images of a cat. This crap has no place in an Information Age. Copyright is supposed to further the arts, not necessarily enrich 'owners'. The notion that a person can own an idea needs to stop, NOW. Its absurd.

Re: Seems about right

[hey!]

I like this definition of ownership. If it feels like something is mine, then it is mine.

Re:Seems about right

[AK Marc]

It's both. The term "Grumpy Cat" is a trademark. The picture of the cat is under copyright. Correcting someone incorrectly needs a meme more than we need a grumpy cat, or meme thereof.

Re:Seems about right

[Pascoea]

Copyright is supposed to further the arts, not necessarily enrich 'owners'.

How are "artists" and the"arts" they create supposed to be furthered if they aren't compensated for their work? (I'm using quotes in this instance, because calling an Internet meme of a cat "art" is a bit of a stretch, but this is obviously about the larger issue of copyright in general) That is kind of the point of the copyright, it's a contract between an artist and the government (which is representing the public) saying "If you agree to produce art we will help prevent others from making money off your art without your permission, for a limited period of time." I have no problem with the first part of the contract, it needs to be in place, or there would be very limited opportunity to produce art for a living. It's the second part that has been bastardized and needs to be addressed. "a limited period of time" has been perverted into "essentially forever". I don't know what the appropriate time-frame is, but there has to be some sort of reasonable compromise between "forever" and "none". Maybe it's five years, maybe it's one year, maybe it's the artist's lifetime, but it's in that range somewhere.

The notion that a person can own an idea needs to stop,

That's all well and good, until you have an idea and would like to get paid for it. Generally art takes some sort of effort to create, whether it's an invention, a painting, or an accidentally famous picture on the internet, it took effort to create and cultivate it into something valuable to someone else. And if it's valuable to someone else the person created it should be entitled to compensation. (Not saying they should be entitle for perpetuity. See argument above)

Re:Seems about right

[AK Marc]

summary judgment that you win, because it is the only conclusion possible under the agreed upon facts.

It's quite rare, but I've seen people lose a movement for summary judgement where the defendant didn't reply. The judge stipulated to all the facts as presented by the one side, then ruled they were not sufficient to "win" even if 100% true, so the opposition needn't even show up to win. It's rare, but it's a legal option, and done more than you imply.

Re:Seems about right

[AK Marc]

So you are asserting that the photographs of the Grumpy Cat in question are not under copyright? That doesn't seem to be an argument based in fact.

Also, "copyright" is the current generic term for "Intellectual Property" because "intellectual property" takes too long to say/type, and "IP" is ambiguous, at least in many contexts.

If you are going all proscriptive on language, there are more important targets than "copyright".

Re:Seems about right

[Pascoea]

Yeah, I know, but it was early and I was in the mood to poke at a troll for a little bit. Once in a while that will lead to an actual intellectual discussion.

Re:Seems about right

[Pascoea]

Thank you. At first I was all "shit, did I really screw that up" but then I re-read the article, clearly states copyright infringement. BUT, EvilSS is correct as well, from the PDF:

Plaintiff GRUMPY CAT LIMITED (“Plaintiff”) is deemed the prevailing party on its first, second, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh causes of action against Defendant GRENADE BEVERAGE, LLC (“Grenade”) for Copyright Infringement, Trademark Infringement (Federal and Common Law), Trademark Dilution , Breach of Contract, and Accounting

I'm curious though, how are they guilty of "Accounting"?

Re:Seems about right

[PopeRatzo]

Biologists have a ways to go before they can claim craftsmanship of a face.

I'm surprised that you don't see that what we're talking about is a picture of a face, not the face itself. It's not the grumpy cat that's under IP protection, it's the image of the Grumpy Cat.

Re:Seems about right

[AK Marc]

The point I made elsewhere is that language is imprecise. "Copyright" is the catch all for "intellectual property" because Intellectual property is long and less recognized, and the abbreviation of IP is ambiguous. So "Copyright" is used by many for all IP issues, and, as we have a descriptive, not proscriptive language, not incorrectly.

In this context, I think "Accounting" means "fraudulent accounting" as in I promise to pay you 10% of my gross (or $10 per unit), so I lie about my gross, and pay you 10% of what I claim to be gross, but isn't. I cook the books to make it look legit, but "cook the books" isn't a legal charge, so they call it something else.

Re:Seems about right

[PopeRatzo]

I can portray some 15th century Italian named Mona all I want.

Only because I'm pretty sure the copyright has run out. But these days, you can never be sure. Maybe Time Warner bought up the rights to all daVinci's work and has gotten the copyright extended.

Re:Seems about right

[Darinbob]

Let's say hypothetically that the cat doesn't belong to the so-called owners and they don't have a valid trademark. In such a situation, the coffee company should still not be allowed to market under that brand name without the cat's permission. However the cat does not have the appropriate opportunity to hire a legal team to defend the trademark.

Re:Seems about right

[Darinbob]

Defendants did respond in some fashion and also filed a counter-suit. The request for default judgement does not mean the defendants never responded, it could be that some complaints were not responded to or not resonded to in a way that they wished, or it's just a standard legal move used whether or not there is a response, or they could be flat out lying by saying there was no response, which it is why it's up to the judge to decide the merits of the request.

Re: Seems about right

[Killall -9 Bash]

The cat's likeness only has value because it's a meme. The cat's owners own the cat, and it's likeness, but they don't own the meme.

So, what are the owners of the cat making money from? Pictures of the cat? Or pictures of the cat, superimposed with text someone else wrote?

Re: Seems about right

[garyebickford]

Ha, you reminded me of the "Dog's rules of ownership" - there are various versions floating around.

Dog Rules of Ownership

  If I like it, it's mine.
  If it's in my mouth, it's mine.
  If I can take it from you, it's mine.
  If I want it later, it's mine.
  If I want it now, it's mine.
  If I chew it up into pieces, they're all mine.
  If you want it, it's mine.
  If I saw it first, it's mine.
  If I ever had it, it's mine.

  If it's broken, it's yours!

Re:Seems about right

[garyebickford]

Someone above noted that both trademark (the "Grumpy Cat" in general) and copyright (a particular image of the Grumpy Cat) are involved. I didn't RTFA so I dunno.

Re:Seems about right

[garyebickford]

Also, "copyright" is the current generic term for "Intellectual Property" because "intellectual property" takes too long to say/type, and "IP" is ambiguous, at least in many contexts.

Since this is the second instance of this assertion in the comments, I'll just point out that this is completely absurd, and can only be true among the truly illiterate or those too lazy to learn the language or basic logic. (he says, hoping that's not too strongly put ...) I've never heard _anyone_ misuse copyright in that way. It's reasonably OK to use IP as a generic because you are unsure of whether something is copyright or trademark, but not the converse. Using "copyright" that way is analogous to saying "avocado" instead of "fruit".

Re:Seems about right

[mattack2]

I hope you like it when you create something and others make money off of it, and you don't.

(Yes, even if all they did was post pictures of their cat, they "created" something that was popular, and other companies paid for rights to use it.)

How is this different from a human celebrity's likeness being their own (for commercial purposes, not for newsworthy purposes)?

Re: Seems about right

[bane2571]

"The catâ(TM)s owners have made millions thanks to their petâ(TM)s unique facial expression, which turned her into an overnight Internet star.

Part of this revenue comes from successful merchandise lines, including the Grumpy Cat âoeGrumppuccinoâ iced coffee beverage, sold by the California company Grenade Beverage.

It's their fucking cat. They've promoted it as a brand, legally licensed it out and then another company abused that license. This is one of those good uses of copyright/trademark that you hear spoken about.

Re: Seems about right

[Killall -9 Bash]

Except they're not making money off their cat, they're making money off a meme, which they didn't create and don't own.

Re:Seems about right

[Killall -9 Bash]

"Grumpy cat" is a meme created by the internet. How is it fair that the owners of the cat make millions off of a meme they didn't create?

Re:Seems about right

[AK Marc]

Grumpy Cat exists solely because the owner of the cat took and published photos they owned the copyright to.

Re:Seems about right

[Big Hairy Ian]

*Sues* https://twitter.com/TheFucking...

Re: Seems about right

[wardrich86]

I think you missed the "/s" at the end of the post. ;)

Re: Seems about right

[wardrich86]

Well, for one, I ended my post with a "/s" which apparently everybody missed... but for two, they own the cat, sure, but they don't own the meme. And the meme is what's making all of the money. Furthermore, the coffee company uses an illustration of a grumpy cat. Could be any cat that looks similar to "the" grumpy cat. The cat owners don't own the name "Grumpy Cat" nor do they own every cat that looks grumpy. I just can't see them winning a law suit like this.

Re: Seems about right

[wardrich86]

Apparently you also missed the "/s" at the end of the comment.

Also, the coffee company's logo is an illustration of an angry looking cat. It's not the photo of THE Grumpy cat. The owners of the cat in the meme can't claim ownership on the name "Grumpy Cat" nor can they claim ownership of every angry cat in existence.

Re:Seems about right

[EvilSS]

Yes, but it depends on who took the picture as to who owns the copyright for that photo. If the company hired their own photog, they already own the copyright to the images that they used, not the cat owners. The cat owners have a trademark on the cat and it's likeness. Lumping those all into "copyright" is wrong since there are vast differences between copyright and trademark law. They are NOT the same thing and the terms are not interchangeable. Just ask Captain Marvel.

Re:Seems about right

[EvilSS]

Just because lay people use it that way doesn't make it right. In law, language is not "imprecise". It's quite the opposite and we are talking about a legal matter here. There are huge differences between copyright and trademark, and those differences come into play here. You can't copyright a cat, but you can trademark its likeness. Just like you can't copyright words, but you can trademark them. If you do trademark them, there are restrictions on how they can be used in commerce, but not in other areas such as writing. For example Monster holds a trademark on, Monster. That doesn't mean they can DMCA this comment because I used their trademarked word. Additionally, DMCA cannot, legally (though that won't stop people from trying) be used to take down content that violates a trademark.

Re: Seems about right

[Coren22]

They are making money off of the picture which was turned into a meme, which they owned originally.

Re: Seems about right

[Coren22]

When my cat tries to escape, I prevent it. Are you saying I am really a kidnapper? Will the cat bring a false imprisonment lawsuit against me?

Re:Seems about right

[EvilSS]

You might want to re-read the posts before yours for context. You can NOT use the DMCA for trademark claims. DMCA has no provisions for trademark infringement. I didn't say you couldn't pursue action against someone for trademark infringement but trademarks and copyrights are very different things and conflating them is just wrong. You also cannot copyright individual words or short phrases, sorry I thought the very specific example made that clear. Yes, you can copyright a book, but you can't copyright a single word even if it's something you made up. Another example is the recent trademark spat between AT&T and Citi Group over "Thanks". Many people were claiming that Citi "copyrighted" thanks, which if somehow true would be incredibly restrictive since it would pretty much preclude anyone from using the word. Luckily this isn't the case, since a single word can't be copyrighted. It was a trademark though, so the usage restrictions had to do with the category Citi Group had trademarks over, and it's use in commerce.

Meme

[BradleyUffner]

Arguably, Grumpy Cat is only famous for because of the actual meme, not the image alone. The collective internet created that meme, not grumpy Cat's owners.

Re:Meme

[ChunderDownunder]

Yes, it's a likeness of a living being. That rights to likeness should only apply to persons and not to cats is human chauvinism at its worst.

Anyway, if the company licensed the cat meme for a specific iced coffee beverage and not for other products then I side with the cat's guardians on this one.

Re:Meme

[mindwhip]

But while the meme is "about the cat" the original meme is actually based on a specific photograph/video(s) of the cat that the owners published on the internet and hold copyrights on - the cat itself doesn't exist inside a computer and isn't published on the internet. While they have allowed use of the image for memes they also have chosen to require any commercial use to be licensed (using both copyright and trademark laws as appropriate).

The drawing is almost certainly a derivative work of those images/videos being used for commercial use... having done some further reading the drawing in use was *not* made directly from the real life cat which pretty much ties up the copyright claim for every instance where the drawing, a derivative work of a copyrighted image, was used without licence.

As far as the trademarks go its a little more fuzzy but in initially licensing the use of trademarks from Grumpy Cat LLC for the one product the coffee company acknowledged and accepted the validity of the trademark and will make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to argue otherwise in court.

Re:Meme

[houghi]

Can I try it with an image of a mouse that was painted?

Re:Meme

[Maritz]

A court would throw that argument out. Because it's stupid.

Re:Meme

[Kaenneth]

That might help for Copyright, but not Trademark; also, a 'slaveish imitation' (or some term like that) is still copyright infringement anyway.

Re:Whole lawsuit probably planned....

[ChunderDownunder]

2012, actually.

But good luck to her owners. I've had 5 cats and never monetized a cent off them.

Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I guess that means either I'm not spending enough time on the internet or the rest of you really need to get a life/hobby because you seem to know every meme there is to be known. I'll allow the readers to decide for themselves which one of those choices applies.

Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat

[93 Escort Wagon]

I've heard of Smelly Cat... does that count?

Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat

[operagost]

Grumpy cat is probably in the top 10 memes, and has been around about 4 years. You don't have to be someone who needs to "get a life" for having heard of it.

Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat

[cfalcon]

No, but... it's not your fault.

Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat

[freeze128]

Internet cats that I have heard about:

Grumpy cat
Keyboard cat
Nyan cat
Monorail cat
...and that one where the cat jumps out the window, but slips.

Please feel free to list the remaining popular internet cats.

Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat

[Anonymous Coward]

Maru, The Cat Who Doesn't Realize It's Too Big For Boxes, and Chase No Face (and yes, the name should be taken as a warning before you try to look up pictures of the cat.)

Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat

[AK Marc]

hover
standing
box

Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat

[avandesande]

Not to mention it is one of the 'better' memes, IMHO.

Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat

[SuricouRaven]

Hamburger/cheese
Long
Ceiling/basement

Re:Honestly never heard of this Grumpy Cat

[CCarrot]

Jupiter and Kona from klaatu42's Talking Cat Consultants

So you'd say...

[Epsilon Moonshade]

... that the dispute is about purrsonality rights?

Re:So you'd say...

[DirkDaring]

That's pawsitively correct!

Re:So you'd say...

[cyberchondriac]

Don't get catty, now.

(was that too direct?)

Re:So you'd say...

[AK Marc]

Stop it. Right Meow!

Re:Paying for pussy

[Salgak1]

Hence, the Kardashians. Who, from all I can conclude, are famous for being famous. . .

Re:They want 600k

[AmiMoJo]

They are asking for the maximum $150,000 per infringement. At least in this case there really is commercial scale abuse, it's not like the RIAA demanding $150,000 from some kid's parents for one song.

Re:copyright holder problems

[DirkDaring]

It's not purrfect is it?

Re:In other news...

[Maritz]

An AC wrote a post that he felt sure was oh-so cutting and incisive, yet not a single fuck was given - as it amounted to more whinging on a site already replete with it.

Something is hinkey here

[Anonymous Coward]

The defendant once licensed this IP and now infringes w/o license on new products.
Either
a) they now believe the IP is not licensable (in which case they would have responded in court) , or
b) they are going bankrupt and don't have the $ to fight and don't care as they know they are going tits up

Re:Something is hinkey here

[rahvin112]

Not responding is exactly the wrong result. An entering of default judgement is a win for the plaintiff and they can and will go after the assets of the company. You can't appeal these default judgement unless you can prove beyond a doubt you never received the process as failure to respond is essentially pleading guilty in a civil suit (that's how the courts view it).

You always respond or you lose automatically.

Re:They want 600k

[PopeRatzo]

What kind of idiot puts SJW shit into their sig?

Somebody who actually figured out how to make an account on Slashdot.

Re: Whole lawsuit probably planned....

[Midnight Thunder]

No different than an artist agent?

Comment

[WallyL]

So how much trouble would the judge get in by replying to the email with the "Grumpy cat NO" meme?

Re:They want 600k

[Anonymous Coward]

ACs don't see sigs. For someone to knowingly comment on sig content they must be able to see Slashdot from the perspective of a numbered user.

Re:Paying for pussy

[AmiMoJo]

I thought it was because of the occupation of Bajour and their alliance with the Dominion.

Grumpy Cat has no need for money.

[Oswald McWeany]

Grumpy Cat does not want $600k. Why would a cat want money? What's it going to do, bury it's poop in it.

Grumpy Cat's OWNERS want $600k.

Re:Grumpy Cat has no need for money.

[Orgasmatron]

Actually it is the owner of the trademark and/or copyright: Grumpy Cat, LLC. And, since we often drop the suffix of incorporation when speaking informally, "Grumpy Cat, LLC." becomes "Grumpy Cat".

Re:Grumpy Cat has no need for money.

[antdude]

Grumpy Cat would buy you grammar nazis. ;)

Re:They want 600k

[PopeRatzo]

ACs don't see sigs. For someone to knowingly comment on sig content they must be able to see Slashdot from the perspective of a numbered user.

So, you're saying that there are people so pitiful that they would have a Slashdot account for browsing, but comment as Anonymous Coward because they don't want to be associated with their opinions?

Misleading Title

[Baby Duck]

Makes in sound like Grumpy Cat pirated a Coffee maker.

Re:Whole lawsuit probably planned....

[Maritz]

Looks like your "probably" is the thinking man's "probably not".

Re:Lemon cat is more famous

[freeze128]

Grump cat is already going to hell. Don't you know: All dogs go to heaven, all cats go to hell.

Well deserved...

[XSportSeeker]

For almost any other meme I could say that the lawsuit was dubious, but not really for Grumpy Cat.

Of course a whole lot of people will come saying that the owners "don't deserve it", that they've done nothing to make Grumpy Cat famous, and that the cat is only famous because someone picked up an image and made a meme out of it.

These people are plain wrong. There is a reason why the cat is still known to this day, and it has a whole lot to do with how much the owners are managing her image. Contrary to other popular memes, Grumpy Cat's owners were very smart to ride the fame. They have been running blogs, merchandise, movie deals, book deals, public appearances, interviews and all the stuff you'd expect from a regular celebrity very professionally and very closely from start.

Grumpy Cat really is a brand that is taken care of and was built upon the hard work of several people, like any business.

But that does not need to be proven in this case... the beverage company already recognizes this because they made a deal there. The matter at hand seems to be either a breach of contract or unauthorized usage outside contractual stipulations, which if true will be plenty easy to prove. And the fine could get way more expensive than that. They are exploiting commercially a brand that does not belong to them.

For those wondering about the intellectual property violation at hand, here's an image of the products:
http://sprudgewire.com/wp-cont...
There is absolutely nothing dubious about it being related to Grumpy Cat. The decision will be whether there was a breach in contract or not.

Re:They want 600k

[Rakarra]

Do you have a problem with the content of the sig?

"SJW" is a completely useless term (it didn't used to be...). It means absolutely nothing now, as it's been so overused that it means anything at all, anything the speaker doesn't like. Now it's really only an indication that the speaker is a bit of a dullard, or has been entirely disconnected from the Internet since the start of GamerGate.

Re:Paying for pussy

[Rakarra]

That didn't work out well for them in the long term. Even the Pah Wraith alliance Dukat crafted was a big dud.

Re:They want 600k

[gfxguy]

If it wasn't worth it, the company wouldn't have licensed it to begin with (and then copied it to other products). So yes. I mean, I don't personally think so, but someone did - and they paid licensing fees. Just because you don't think something isn't worth the price doesn't mean you get to "steal" it.

Re:They want 600k

[AK Marc]

So when Philip Morris says cigarettes are safe, we should listen as closely as when the Surgeon General says they aren't?

No, mr anonymous idiot. The source of a message matters.

Re: They want 600k

[LocalH]

Nice strawman, 10/10

Re:They want 600k

[jodokast98]

The kind that wants to piss off people like you, the ones who side with them. SJW's are just whinny, entitled brats these days. They're just the new fad bandwagon to jump on. "Oh look at me, I support X rights and inclusivity! Worship and adore me because I'm so open-minded unlike those close-minded neanderthals." They're like the ALS ice-bucket challenge ... it once was a platform to support a charity, and then it just became a social status gimmick. SJW's and 3rd-wave feminits are a toxic cancer on American society.

Re:They want 600k

[PopeRatzo]

Or because they moderated in the thread.

You're not supposed to participate in a thread if you've moderated.

Re:They want 600k

[Rakshasa Taisab]

No, they're just afraid you're going to dox them and attack them online with your horde of PC lynch mobs, harass their boss at work until they're fired, then make the headlines in various news outlets about how you defended the world against oppression and bigotry of the cyginscist white males.

Re:Paying for pussy

[Kaenneth]

The Buffalo Bills missed a pass for a touchdown, so they lost a game in 1970, so they to get the first pick in the draft, and got O.J. Simpson. OJ stays in Buffalo for awhile, meets his wife, allegedly then kills her. He hires the Kardashian's father as lawyer. They win, making the Kardashians slightly famous. Then Kim has a sex tape.

Re:They want 600k

[Rakarra]

Hey I liked the original (derogatory) usage of Social Justice Warrior. It got the point across, was a pretty accurate depiction of those we used to call "white-knight shit-stirrers."

But now it's basically the new "Nazi." It's just something you call someone else when you don't like their opinions (usually anything left of Objectivism) whether their opinions are anything like what the original SJWs did.

Re:They want 600k

[PopeRatzo]

No, they're just afraid you're going to dox them and attack them online with your horde of PC lynch mobs, harass their boss at work until they're fired, then make the headlines in various news outlets about how you defended the world against oppression and bigotry of the cyginscist white males.

Wow, that's messed up. Do you really believe that? Has this ever happened to anyone on Slashdot or are you just doing drama queen theater?

Oh wait, I already know the answer to that.

Re:They want 600k

[BronsCon]

There's a "Post Anonymously" checkbox when you're logged in. Have you seriously not seen it before? It's right there next to "You are posting: as"... well, wait, no I'm sure you've never seen it, you've probably never logged in.

Morristown, Arizona

[thinkwaitfast]

I just looked up Grumpy Cat on Wikipedia. It says she was born in in Morristown, Arizona. Holy crap, I used to work there. It's like three trailers and a gas station. I'd be grumpy if I was from there too.

Re:They want 600k

[garyebickford]

You're pretty much right on. Grumpy Cat was a Reddit meme a couple of (several?) years ago, it got popular, companies wanted to use it, the cat's owner "won the lottery". That's all good. IMHO they've got as much right to exploit their good fortune based on the looks of a cat, as some random person who is lucky enough to have a photogenic face.

One thing that many people aren't aware of is that almost _nothing_ in the real marketplace is priced based on cost, nor should it be (there's a lot more to that.) The price is always set by what the market will bear (technically, there is a price/demand curve, and the goal is to maximize the area of a rectangle under a point on the curve), or put another way, according to the value perceived by the buyer. The decision about whether to actually make and market a product is based on whether it can be made and delivered cheaply enough to make that price viable. And manufacturing is likely going to be somewhere under 20% of retail.

Re:Paying for pussy

[garyebickford]

I am not a K-fan. But a while back I watched a documentary (I forget the actual topic) that went into the industry that is Kim Kardashian, and how she ran the business. While class is not a term I would use in conjunction with her and the whole 'community' around them, I had to admire the professional way in which she ran the business. She in fact works very hard to provide value given for value received, and to maintain a good relationship with her 'customers' - fans, that receive her tweets, watch her shows, buy stuff she promotes, etc. She really does a good job at being famous, and maintaining that relationship in a way that satisfies her market and makes her a lot of money.

A somewhat related side note - for a long time I pondered the attraction and success of the supermarket tabloids with their gossip and pictures of movie stars and so forth. Then, a decade or so ago, I saw an interesting article about a study of monkey economics. The scientists first established a primitive monetary system, where monkeys could exchange units of juice as a monetary unit, so they could potentially 'buy' and 'sell'. Then the scientists studied what monkeys would buy. It turned out that the two things that monkeys would most happily pay for were pictures of the alpha male and female of their tribe, and naked monkey butts. To me, this explained both People Magazine and Hustler instantly. We now know that it's biology, not culture. ;)

Re:They want 600k

[doccus]

I haven't often seen a more clear casse of culpability.. if the facts in the post are indeed correct. In fact it is hardly a news story at all.
"Company breaks law. Company found guilty. Company fined" ... :yawn:

Re:They want 600k

[doccus]

So when Philip Morris says cigarettes are safe, we should listen as closely as when the Surgeon General says they aren't?

No, mr anonymous idiot. The source of a message matters.

Philip Morris says cigs are safe? Phew! What a relief I was so worried!
.

Re:They want 600k

[Coren22]

http://www.infowars.com/man-fa...
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...

It happens, even if you are willfully blind to it.

Re:They want 600k

[Coren22]

If you don't log out and instead check the post anon checkbox, all the mods go away anyways.

Re:They want 600k

[Coren22]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It has a meaning, but yes, it has been overused.

The way I define it is someone who tries to censor someone else because they don't like what they have to say.
Another thing I have seen from this group is that no matter how much evidence provided to them of how wrong their position is, they continuously argue the same points. AmiMoJo has actually taken to attacking sources, even when they provide numerous citations and screen captures of the incidents.