Oh wow. He hasn't even begun to see an "internet lynch mob" but he just might get close if he keeps doubling down like this. What a maroon.

Question: is TheOatmeal getting pro bono help?

If they do, what is Funnyjunk lawyer going to do? Get them disbarred?

Wow, he compares a bunch of internet weenies ordering him pizzas to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

OtherLittleGuy: Question: is TheOatmeal getting pro bono help?

If they do, what is Funnyjunk lawyer going to do? Get them disbarred?

According to a link in the article they are receiving pro bono assistance.

So is this yahoo Carreon going to be the next Paul Christoforo or Dino screw-your-M Zaffina?

/The courts are gonna make *sunglasses* carrion out of Carreon!! OH YEAHHHHHHHHH!!
//I'm so sorry

He seems to have a very dated familiarity with how the internet operates and his use of hyperbole is unsophisticated. If this case wasnt real, I would have accused him of being satire.

DrySocket: He seems to have a very dated familiarity with how the internet operates and his use of hyperbole is unsophisticated. If this case wasnt real, I would have accused him of being satire.

Seems more like a very effective advertising blitz for FunnyJunk. I've seen this little saga reported on just about every news website I visit.

So...when's he going to start shiat with /b/?

I don't pay attention to pointless shiat on the internet anymore, but since this has become such a dust-up, anybody mind explaining in a couple paragraphs what this is all about please?

/run-on sentences ftw!!

"Matt Inman was right there to egg them on
when that occurred; he said 'This is like a man
with his dick in a hornets' nest throwing his
balls in it.'"

Awesome quote. Disturbing, but awesome.

Tarl3k: I don't pay attention to pointless shiat on the internet anymore, but since this has become such a dust-up, anybody mind explaining in a couple paragraphs what this is all about please?

/run-on sentences ftw!!

Oatmeal sees that FunnyJunk is reposting a ton of their original content. Oatmeal publicly points, laughs and then ignores them. FunnyJunk comes back months later and threatens to sue for defamation (or something), asks for 20K.

Oatmeal says they are going to have a fundraiser, take a picture of the 20K, donate it all to charity, and send the picture along with a drawing of his mother seducing a kodiak bear. Oatmeal raises over 100K for charity.

FunnyJunk's lawyer doesn't like ANY of the mockery, is shocked an appalled by all the behavior and is trying to get the fundraiser shut down.

Anyone have a quick, simple, painless, digest?

I don't feel like sitting through the angst or reading the non-digest version.

Geeze. This guy is being SUCH a Carreon.

The My Little Pony Killer: Oh wow. He hasn't even begun to see an "internet lynch mob" but he just might get close if he keeps doubling down like this. What a maroon.

That may be, but he stands to make a few bucks off this enterprise.

Diagonal: The My Little Pony Killer: Oh wow. He hasn't even begun to see an "internet lynch mob" but he just might get close if he keeps doubling down like this. What a maroon.

That may be, but he stands to make a few bucks off this enterprise.

California has some rather strong anti-SLAPP legislation - he might not make anything - though Oatmeal sure might

doyner: By trying to shake down Innman for $20k and stating that Innman should have filed a DCMA notice, this guy is basically admitting that the real crime here (in Carreon's eyes) is that lawyers weren't given an opportunity to make money first.

Sadly, he may have a case.

This. This piece of shiat is the reason everyone hates lawyers.

vygramul: theoatmeal artist complains about his stuff on funnyjunk

I complained, too, since The Oatmeal isn't funny.

Wow, so much fail in this story.

1.- The author saying that if you don't know about this, you've been living under a big rock. Dude, nobody cares about a slap fight between two Internet retards.

2.- He links to an ""excellent three-part series" from PopeHat, but that's is an incoherent wall of text and cruddy Ewoks drawings.

3.- The Oatmeal guy is an idiot. FunnyJunk content is uploaded by the users. It's like complaining 9GAG is stealing your content. Take it as a badge of honor and popularity. Also, way to go with drawing this guy's mom seducing a bear. Real mature there.

4.- Oatmeal guy then went the bullshiat manipulative way by implicating cancer patients so as to earn sympathy. "I'm gonna help cancer patients, that means I'm the good guy, right?"

5.- As usual, "the Internet" has passed judgement and decided this FunnyJunk guy deserves his life thrown in a blender. Because nothing is more right than an "Internet" posse. And I use quotes because it's not really the Internet, but the same bunch of manchildren who's always involved in this kind of stuff and "Operations". (Yes, they love naming their hissy fits as "Operation [Insert something stupid]". Should tell you the level of maturity we're dealing with here...)

That my friends, is a man whose ego won't let him get out of his own way.

rocky_howard: Wow, so much fail in this story.

1.- The author saying that if you don't know about this, you've been living under a big rock. Dude, nobody cares about a slap fight between two Internet retards.

2.- He links to an ""excellent three-part series" from PopeHat, but that's is an incoherent wall of text and cruddy Ewoks drawings.

3.- The Oatmeal guy is an idiot. FunnyJunk content is uploaded by the users. It's like complaining 9GAG is stealing your content. Take it as a badge of honor and popularity. Also, way to go with drawing this guy's mom seducing a bear. Real mature there.

4.- Oatmeal guy then went the bullshiat manipulative way by implicating cancer patients so as to earn sympathy. "I'm gonna help cancer patients, that means I'm the good guy, right?"

5.- As usual, "the Internet" has passed judgement and decided this FunnyJunk guy deserves his life thrown in a blender. Because nothing is more right than an "Internet" posse. And I use quotes because it's not really the Internet, but the same bunch of manchildren who's always involved in this kind of stuff and "Operations". (Yes, they love naming their hissy fits as "Operation [Insert something stupid]". Should tell you the level of maturity we're dealing with here...)

Dude, so much fail in this post.

/go back under your rock, grandpa

Interview does give an idea of his thought processes, and a bit of insight.

Some people, such as Aspergers/Autistic end of spectrum, understand the world in terms of formal rules.

Carreon basically thinking in terms of "I can use these tactics for which there are precedents, to achieve my aims (win a victory for my client and make a bit of money), and I know most people will just pay up rather than fight a more expensive legal battle." And he continues the legalistic approach in trying to shut down the charity because he thinks it doesn't obey the rules. And his client is in the right because Inman didn't complain according to the rules.

He seems to be genuinely baffled by people wanting to apply social rules and unconventional remedies.

(Doesn't realize that society regards his letter as extortion, and he doesn't realize that it doesn't require an organized and led campaign to produce revenge attacks)

rocky_howard: Wow, so much fail in this story.

1.- The author saying that if you don't know about this, you've been living under a big rock. Dude, nobody cares about a slap fight between two Internet retards.

2.- He links to an ""excellent three-part series" from PopeHat, but that's is an incoherent wall of text and cruddy Ewoks drawings.

3.- The Oatmeal guy is an idiot. FunnyJunk content is uploaded by the users. It's like complaining 9GAG is stealing your content. Take it as a badge of honor and popularity. Also, way to go with drawing this guy's mom seducing a bear. Real mature there.

4.- Oatmeal guy then went the bullshiat manipulative way by implicating cancer patients so as to earn sympathy. "I'm gonna help cancer patients, that means I'm the good guy, right?"

5.- As usual, "the Internet" has passed judgement and decided this FunnyJunk guy deserves his life thrown in a blender. Because nothing is more right than an "Internet" posse. And I use quotes because it's not really the Internet, but the same bunch of manchildren who's always involved in this kind of stuff and "Operations". (Yes, they love naming their hissy fits as "Operation [Insert something stupid]". Should tell you the level of maturity we're dealing with here...)

You seem to have missed the part where FunnyJunk demanded $20k because 'Fark you, that's why'.

doyner: Soooooo, Innman should have coughed up $20,000?

Not exactly. FunnyJunk guy isn't a holy saint either, but Oatmeal guy should have known better than publicly defaming him.

Also, it's not as if Oatmeal was going to give FunnyJunk 20 grands any way or another.

The My Little Pony Killer: Dude, so much fail in this post.

/go back under your rock, grandpa

So because I wasn't in the loop about this silly slap fight that makes me a grampa? Sorry, I don't usually go out of my way to pay attention to crap :P

rocky_howard: Wow, so much fail in this story.


5.- As usual, "the Internet" has passed judgement and decided this FunnyJunk guy deserves his life thrown in a blender. Because nothing is more right than an "Internet" posse. And I use quotes because it's not really the Internet, but the same bunch of manchildren who's always involved in this kind of stuff and "Operations". (Yes, they love naming their hissy fits as "Operation [Insert something stupid]". Should tell you the level of maturity we're dealing with here...)

Not always greatest idea to pass judgement on something that you (professedly) know little about.

One of the details of the back story was that funnyjunk's response when the oatmeal first complained a year or so ago, was to send out it's own posse of flying monkeys to harass Inman. So should have known that (a) the oatmeal had a much larger group of followers and (b) douchebag behavior tends to mobilize the troops

/consequences etc

mjjt: Interview does give an idea of his thought processes, and a bit of insight.

Some people, such as Aspergers/Autistic end of spectrum, understand the world in terms of formal rules.

Carreon basically thinking in terms of "I can use these tactics for which there are precedents, to achieve my aims (win a victory for my client and make a bit of money), and I know most people will just pay up rather than fight a more expensive legal battle." And he continues the legalistic approach in trying to shut down the charity because he thinks it doesn't obey the rules. And his client is in the right because Inman didn't complain according to the rules.

He seems to be genuinely baffled by people wanting to apply social rules and unconventional remedies.

(Doesn't realize that society regards his letter as extortion, and he doesn't realize that it doesn't require an organized and led campaign to produce revenge attacks)

This actually makes sense. Seems to be the FunnyJunk guy is mainly guilty of being socially challenged and not realizing this could backfire. Not that he's necessarily wrong, but that it was a battle not worth of fighting. It was clear it'd become a dirty war.

rocky_howard: The My Little Pony Killer: Dude, so much fail in this post.

/go back under your rock, grandpa

So because I wasn't in the loop about this silly slap fight that makes me a grampa? Sorry, I don't usually go out of my way to pay attention to crap :P

That explains why you felt the need to come into a thread on this very subject. To complain about how little you know about it and how much other people care.

/like I said, back under the rock

mjjt: Not always greatest idea to pass judgement on something that you (professedly) know little about.

One of the details of the back story was that funnyjunk's response when the oatmeal first complained a year or so ago, was to send out it's own posse of flying monkeys to harass Inman. So should have known that (a) the oatmeal had a much larger group of followers and (b) douchebag behavior tends to mobilize the troops

/consequences etc

Oh okay, that gives a much better picture of what's really going on. Thanks.

LordJiro: rocky_howard: Wow, so much fail in this story.

1.- The author saying that if you don't know about this, you've been living under a big rock. Dude, nobody cares about a slap fight between two Internet retards.

2.- He links to an ""excellent three-part series" from PopeHat, but that's is an incoherent wall of text and cruddy Ewoks drawings.

3.- The Oatmeal guy is an idiot. FunnyJunk content is uploaded by the users. It's like complaining 9GAG is stealing your content. Take it as a badge of honor and popularity. Also, way to go with drawing this guy's mom seducing a bear. Real mature there.

4.- Oatmeal guy then went the bullshiat manipulative way by implicating cancer patients so as to earn sympathy. "I'm gonna help cancer patients, that means I'm the good guy, right?"

5.- As usual, "the Internet" has passed judgement and decided this FunnyJunk guy deserves his life thrown in a blender. Because nothing is more right than an "Internet" posse. And I use quotes because it's not really the Internet, but the same bunch of manchildren who's always involved in this kind of stuff and "Operations". (Yes, they love naming their hissy fits as "Operation [Insert something stupid]". Should tell you the level of maturity we're dealing with here...)

You seem to have missed the part where FunnyJunk demanded $20k because 'Fark you, that's why'.

That about sums it up. And the major reason I care is because it shows how truly farked our currently laws are in regard to copyright.

The My Little Pony Killer: That explains why you felt the need to come into a thread on this very subject. To complain about how little you know about it and how much other people care.

/like I said, back under the rock

"Usually don't pay attention to crap", which means sometimes I do. Like right now.

Learn2Language

rocky_howard: 5.- As usual, "the Internet" has passed judgement and decided this FunnyJunk guy deserves his life thrown in a blender. Because nothing is more right than an "Internet" posse. And I use quotes because it's not really the Internet, but the same bunch of manchildren who's always involved in this kind of stuff and "Operations". (Yes, they love naming their hissy fits as "Operation [Insert something stupid]". Should tell you the level of maturity we're dealing with here...

Supporting a charity drive is immature?

Really?

rocky_howard: The My Little Pony Killer: That explains why you felt the need to come into a thread on this very subject. To complain about how little you know about it and how much other people care.

/like I said, back under the rock

"Usually don't pay attention to crap", which means sometimes I do. Like right now.

Learn2Language

No, you very clearly haven't paid attention, and have read around five words of what's been going on here, and we know this because your five points didn't contain one factually accurate description of the situation, except that the names are sorta right.

/back under the rock

I'll respect his right to state his side of the case.

I'll respect that some of his details may even be technically or legally correct.

But seriously, you had to know that shaking down a measly webcomic artist for twenty fricken grand because he called someone out for being a douchebag? Is doubling-down on the douche. You had to know, going in, that you were being a bully. And that while a little namecalling in the process of calling them out on their douchebaggery wasn't nice, neither were your ridiculous and overblown demands.

But you assumed you could cast Globe of Legal Invincibility because you know how to file a motion, and this little know-nothing putz would cave or be crushed underfoot because, fark him, if he doesn't have the money to pay you off, he doesn't have the money to fight back. But then you were surprised that someone with nothing else to lose would find an unconventional way to fight back - and do so successfully. It doesn't make what the internet legions are doing any righter, but neither has your involvement in this petty incident.

You claim that insulting your mother is dehumanizing. I say you were already dehumanized when you started looking at your victims as nothing more than fat sacks of dollars to be wrung out for every drop. You were dehumanized when you put the fruits of your education, and decades of legal skill and experience, into trying to legally justify the theft of intellectual property from others, and then once more to legally justify extortion. You were already dehumanized when you couldn't understand the Wheaton rule, because that's not referenced in any of the thick, leatherbound books you spent your life poring over, and because to you, it serves no purpose.

Somehow, you missed out on the first requirement for being dehumanized: That you had to have a shred of humanity in the first place, you sad, old man.

rocky_howard can't have actually read the original lawyer-threat-letter and actually side with the people who sent it. No human being could. He's a troll or a lawyer. Either way, stop feeding him, people.

mjjt: Interview does give an idea of his thought processes, and a bit of insight.

Some people, such as Aspergers/Autistic end of spectrum, understand the world in terms of formal rules.

Carreon basically thinking in terms of "I can use these tactics for which there are precedents, to achieve my aims (win a victory for my client and make a bit of money), and I know most people will just pay up rather than fight a more expensive legal battle." And he continues the legalistic approach in trying to shut down the charity because he thinks it doesn't obey the rules. And his client is in the right because Inman didn't complain according to the rules.

He seems to be genuinely baffled by people wanting to apply social rules and unconventional remedies.

(Doesn't realize that society regards his letter as extortion, and he doesn't realize that it doesn't require an organized and led campaign to produce revenge attacks)

Good analysis, and you are totally right.

rocky_howard: but Oatmeal guy should have known better than publicly defaming him

Is stating true things "defaming", now?

]Here's how FunnyJunk.com's business operates:
Gather funny pictures from around the internet
Host them on FunnyJunk.com
Slather them in advertising
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!"
Cash six figure advertising checks from other artist's stolen material

Which of those statements is false? Does FunnyJunk's site not gather funny images from around the Internet? Does it not slather those images in ads? Does it not claim that it's not responsible because it's user supplied content? Do they not make money from this?

To be defamatory, it needs to be an untrue statement made with the explicit intent to cause harm. The Oatmeal did no such thing.