5 ms·

While in some senses it's pretty clear, in other's it's a tough one . I'm not wild about mob rule (which this is getting elements of) but I'm not wild about law

While in some senses it's pretty clear, in other's it's a tough one . I'm not wild about mob rule (which this is getting elements of) but I'm not wild about law suits by arseholes who in a reasonable world shouldn't have a leg to stand on, and a legal system which will drown Inman in red tape and legal bills. The best course of action is probably for funny junk to get try and wring some minor concession out of Inman (that he'll inform them of any issues directly before publishing them on his website or something similarly trivial) and drop the whole thing. Right now they've got some publicity and the cost of some of their (basically crappy) reputation. I don't think it gets any better for them from her so they'd be wise to cut and run. Whatever they may win if they did continue is unlikely to be worth the grief.

EvilTerran 14y ago
The thing about the mob rule aspect is, well... this: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk2 http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk2 "The owner of [funnyjunk] sent this mass message to every member of his site: The Oatmeal wants to sue funnyjunk and shut it down! He thinks we're nothing more than dirty content thieves. That FJ doesn't have any real members, it's just a bot that steals content. [...] Contact Oatmeal any way you can! As you can imagine, my inbox and Facebook page were slammed with thousands of messages from FunnyJunk users who believed that I was trying to get their community shut down. I think they set the land speed record for the highest number of "OMG ur a gayfagness!!!11" Facebook comments in a single day."
miles 14y ago
The best course of action is probably for funny junk to get try and wring some minor concession out of Inman They repeatedly stole his work. How does it make any sense for him to offer some sort of concession? he'll inform them of any issues directly before publishing them on his website He did just that in this case.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  Because ultimately he wants it to go away and regardless of the rights and wrongs they can still keep him busy dealing with this nonsense rather than drawing cartoons.
mdc 14y ago
>The best course of action is probably for funny junk to get try and wring some minor concession out of Inman (that he'll inform them of any issues directly before publishing them on his website or something similarly trivial) and drop the whole thing. Why should Inman concede anything? He's in the business of making fun of people, so why should he give funnyjunk a pass? IMO, what he should do is have their safe harbor protection invalidated because they don't conform to DMCA takedown requirements and go after them in court, but he's indicated that he wants to focus on his work. Funnyjunk should take that as the biggest gift ever and slink off.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  Because ultimately he wants it to go away and regardless of the rights and wrongs they can still keep him busy dealing with this nonsense rather than drawing cartoons.
larrys 14y ago
"I'm not wild about mob rule (which this is getting elements of) but I'm not wild about law suits by arseholes who in a reasonable world shouldn't have a leg to stand on" Mob rule is wrong on a few levels one being it is based on normally one side of a story w/o knowing all the intricate details which can sometimes change the way someone would think about something. "law suits by arseholes who in a reasonable world shouldn't have a leg to stand on" I agree with that 100%. But once again is the general public (the mob) in a position to determine within a reasonable certainty that the majority of the time the lawsuit doesn't have a leg to stand on? Speaking generally of course not specifically to this situation.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

EvilTerran 14y ago

The thing about the mob rule aspect is, well... this: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk2 http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk2 "The owner of [funnyjunk] sent this mass message to every member of his site: The Oatmeal wants to sue funnyjunk and shut it down! He thinks we're nothing more than dirty content thieves. That FJ doesn't have any real members, it's just a bot that steals content. [...] Contact Oatmeal any way you can! As you can imagine, my inbox and Facebook page were slammed with thousands of messages from FunnyJunk users who believed that I was trying to get their community shut down. I think they set the land speed record for the highest number of "OMG ur a gayfagness!!!11" Facebook comments in a single day."

miles 14y ago

The best course of action is probably for funny junk to get try and wring some minor concession out of Inman They repeatedly stole his work. How does it make any sense for him to offer some sort of concession? he'll inform them of any issues directly before publishing them on his website He did just that in this case.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
Because ultimately he wants it to go away and regardless of the rights and wrongs they can still keep him busy dealing with this nonsense rather than drawing cartoons.

mdc 14y ago

>The best course of action is probably for funny junk to get try and wring some minor concession out of Inman (that he'll inform them of any issues directly before publishing them on his website or something similarly trivial) and drop the whole thing. Why should Inman concede anything? He's in the business of making fun of people, so why should he give funnyjunk a pass? IMO, what he should do is have their safe harbor protection invalidated because they don't conform to DMCA takedown requirements and go after them in court, but he's indicated that he wants to focus on his work. Funnyjunk should take that as the biggest gift ever and slink off.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
Because ultimately he wants it to go away and regardless of the rights and wrongs they can still keep him busy dealing with this nonsense rather than drawing cartoons.

larrys 14y ago

"I'm not wild about mob rule (which this is getting elements of) but I'm not wild about law suits by arseholes who in a reasonable world shouldn't have a leg to stand on" Mob rule is wrong on a few levels one being it is based on normally one side of a story w/o knowing all the intricate details which can sometimes change the way someone would think about something. "law suits by arseholes who in a reasonable world shouldn't have a leg to stand on" I agree with that 100%. But once again is the general public (the mob) in a position to determine within a reasonable certainty that the majority of the time the lawsuit doesn't have a leg to stand on? Speaking generally of course not specifically to this situation.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]