Funnyjunk.com finally has something original that is funny; it's lawyer.

Actual point and laugh funny.

rocky_howard: 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.

It's only defamation if A) a reasonable person would believe it, and B) it is prejudicial, and C) it is not true.

While a reasonable person may believe what Inman said, and it is prejudicial, it is true. As Inman pointed out, there were still many of his comics hosted. As far as the bestiality comments, I don't believe that a reasonable person would assume that was a factual statement.

As long as everything Inman says about Carreon and FunnyJunk remains true, or so wildly outrageous it cannot be supposed to be true, he's in the clear.

rickycal78: You folks are a bunch of farking hypcritical retards.

They both acted like complete douches to each other. End of farking story, but you halfwit tards seem to be backing the one because he gave to charity. Well whoopty farking dooo! Douche bag gave to charity, that totally absolves his part in the douchebaggery of this entire situation.

OM "Hey, look you've been stealing my shiat for quite some time making money off ads placed on the same page as my material you've been running."

FJ "Fark you. User generated content"

OM "Instead of going the full legal route or trying to work a deal where you link to my shiat or give me credit, here's ur mom seducing a bear, and maybe some more comics making fun of you, lulz!"

FJ "Defamation lawsuit! Gimme money cuz fark you!"

OM "Shiat, I was kind of a dick. I know, charity! That'll sway people towards me and totally make them forget that I did shiat the wrong way too!"

FJ " Your charity shiat isn't set up right or properly sanctioned, I'm telling!"

Average internet farkwit. "Wow, FJ is a dick. OM is a dick too, but he did a charity thing, lets fark with FJ!"

"

If you're going to play ITG, it would help if your timeline wasn't inaccurate and missing several points. There's a retard here, but it's not everyone else.

rickycal78: mjjt: I don't think anyone in this thread mentioned charity, nor did the Popehat posts which provided the most detailed analyses.

Since you seem to have missed the point completely

1. the oatmeal supported (a) because he seems to be in the right since it was his original content that was purloined and (b) because he provided a witty response to the lawyer (well it appealed to our juvenile sense of humor, anyway)

2. the lawyer opposed because his letter appeared to be licensed extortion

/we'll put it down to Sat night beers


Oatmeal started in the right but then went about it wrong. From everything I've seen dude has a pretty good case as long as he kept records of the shiat he made and when and when it appeared on FJ and kept records of takedown notices sent and the lack of response by FJ. With all that he could have gone to a lawyer and either sued for copyright, or leveraged FJ into a sharing of advertising profits for ads that appear on his material that shows up on FJ.

Inman said he couldn't be bothered spending time jumping thru legal hoops - he just wanted to do funny cartoons - he didn't threaten funnyjunk, or try to lawyer him up. I think that's a fairly reasonable attitude,

Instead he acts like a douche, does his bit with the cartoons poking fun of FJ and puts himself in an tenuous position. I can't say I blame him for it, but I also can't blame FJ for trying to take advantage of the stupid way Oatmeal handled shiat.

I think you'll find it was actually the lawyer who sent the letter which most people saw as an extortion attempt, who copped the cartoons. Again, most people see it as an amusing way to respond to the legal threats.

And it's funny because I so often see the majority of folks here on Fark jumping on people's case for going the revenge route instead of the smart route. Yet here we have someone going the revenge route instead of the smart route and Farkers are jumping to his defense.

You may have noticed that it wasn't just Fark who saw the lawyer as a douche. This story has been across most of the geek sites over the past week, and the only ones criticizing Inman are the ones who jumped in without reading the whole story. Popehat is a fairly influential commentator, and his commentaries (over 3 days, all linked above) led to a pro bono lawyer supplying a legal response to funnyjunk's threat (which also linked above).

So rather than 'ging the revenge route' most of responses have involved either pointing-and-laughing (often including epithets), or a reasoned rebuttal of the lawyer's actions.

Pribar: Most of you are totally missing the central issues here, go and read the post that funnyjunk is threatening to sue over, it contains no factually inaccurate statements in it, so the defamation charge is a non starter, the other thing that the lawyer complained about seemed to revolve around the fact that google searches for funnyjunk had the blog post from the oatmeal listed higher than the actual funnyjunk webpage, which to me speaks more to the popularity of the respective websites than the vague conspiracy to dilute funnyjunks trademark as the lawyer claimed.

also I just tried to visit charlesCarreon.com and found it redirects to a fairly disturbing free book offer, anyone have any idea wtf that is about?

Popehat's 3rd post on Charles Carreon explained this

rickycal78: You folks are a bunch of farking hypcritical retards.

They both acted like complete douches to each other. End of farking story, but you halfwit tards seem to be backing the one because he gave to charity. Well whoopty farking dooo! Douche bag gave to charity, that totally absolves his part in the douchebaggery of this entire situation.

OM "Hey, look you've been stealing my shiat for quite some time making money off ads placed on the same page as my material you've been running."

FJ "Fark you. User generated content"

OM "Instead of going the full legal route or trying to work a deal where you link to my shiat or give me credit, here's ur mom seducing a bear, and maybe some more comics making fun of you, lulz!"

FJ "Defamation lawsuit! Gimme money cuz fark you!"

OM "Shiat, I was kind of a dick. I know, charity! That'll sway people towards me and totally make them forget that I did shiat the wrong way too!"

FJ " Your charity shiat isn't set up right or properly sanctioned, I'm telling!"

Average internet farkwit. "Wow, FJ is a dick. OM is a dick too, but he did a charity thing, lets fark with FJ!"

"

THANK YOU. Someone gets it. The Oatmeal guy just played the manipulation card.

Neondistraction: If you're comparing this case to common internet piracy you're more out of touch than everyone else seems to think you are. Some pothead downloading a movie or TV show is not the same as one website taking content from another, removing any link to the original or even any credit to the creator, and then hosting it on their own website while making money from the ad-revenue that it generates. Granted, they're both acts of copyright infringement, but they aren't the same thing.

No, honey, you're the one that doesn't get it. The USERS were "stealing" the content from TheOatmeal. It happens all the time. Users post crap from different websites into the 9GAGs, FunnyJunks and OMGLOLs of the world.

It's exactly the same situation as the users uploading copyrighted stuff into MegaUpload.

Users upload copyrighted content (Oatmeal / Movies) into third party's sharing environment (FunnyJunk / MegaUpload).

You can't be in favor of one and agains the other just because "feelings", which seems to be the case here.

Oh and let's not mention that the Oatmeal guy condones piracy:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

So he comes off as a huge hypocrite. "I can take other people stuff, but goddammit don't take mine!!!"

rocky_howard: Oh and let's not mention that the Oatmeal guy condones piracy:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

So he comes off as a huge hypocrite. "I can take other people stuff, but goddammit don't take mine!!!"

You seem to have missed his point entirely. If media companies want to combat piracy then they need to stop making piracy the most convenient option. Sure, HBO owns the content, and they can distribute it however they want. They are in no way obligated to make their content available on any digital service, in any time frame. But the fact of the matter is that internet users have become accustomed to the convenience of instantly available media. With streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, and digital stores like iTunes and Amazon, Pandora's box has been opened. And when it comes down to it, availability and convenience are what matter the most. So while the infrastructure to do so has been in place for years now, HBO doesn't have to make their latest hit show available for digital download/streaming. But the fact of the matter is, by not giving users a legitimate option for digital content HBO is encouraging piracy.

Now, I'm not saying that makes it right, morally or legally, for people to pirate Game of Thrones. But that is the way it is. And I think that's the point he was trying to make with that comic. You have people that are willing to pay money, perhaps even a premium, so that they can watch your show in the manner they've become accustomed to. If you don't give them that option, then most of them will resort to piracy and you've just lost out on potential income.

rocky_howard: Oh and let's not mention that the Oatmeal guy condones piracy:

Firstly, that comic is pretty obviously not condoning piracy, but criticizing HBO for not making their shows available except by buying cable or pirating them; I have no idea how you missed that. Secondly, as people have been trying to tell you all thread: you do not have a good understanding of the actual events that transpired.

Here's yet another summary for you to ignore:

1) The Oatmeal notices Funny Junk is hosting a bunch of his comics, and asks him to take them down. Funny Junk says they will.

2) Months pass. Out of nowhere, Funny Junk sues The Oatmeal for $20,000 for accurately describing their business model (as hosting other people's material on their site, making money off it, and not taking it down upon request). At this point in time, they were still hosting hundreds of his comics on their site.

3) The Oatmeal responds by a) starting a charity donation drive, and b) insulting them.

rocky_howard: Oh and let's not mention that the Oatmeal guy condones piracy:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

So he comes off as a huge hypocrite. "I can take other people stuff, but goddammit don't take mine!!!"

That's not really advocating piracy and the two situations are apples and oranges but given everything you've posted so far in this thread, I'm not surprised you don't understand.

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

From the "excellent three-part series (which I read entirely): FunnyJunk appears to be broken into three categories: (1) a few normal people who are unchoosy about where they view their reheated memes; (2) unloved and unwashed twelve-year-old boys, steeped in the internet tradition of poseur nihilism, the sort of twelve-year-old boys you hope will not hang out with your children, the sort of twelve-year-old-boys from the neighborhood who seem utterly unsupervised, unfed, and grimier than a crack-den's doorstep, the sort of twelve-year-old boys who inspire a secret and guilty sigh of relief and satisfaction when they are sent away to a secure "academy" and thereafter are only seen lurking, oddly dressed and glaze-eyed, in the back of family pictures; and (3) people whose lives are so unutterably sad that they feel cooler by hanging out with group (2)

rocky_howard: Nickster79: /I'm still standing on your lawn, old man...

Actually, you're older than me :P

I think something struck a little close to home.

This bit stuck out for me,

"Matt's done a great job spinning it, but he's not going to sue FunnyJunk. He couldn't sue FunnyJunk. He couldn't even counter sue FunnyJunk for copyright infringement if we sue him because he hasn't registered the copyrights on any of those domains. Even if he did an expedited registration...he would get no per incident damages because the "infringement" occurred before the registration. He's got nothing."

Is he saying that because Inman didn't register every comic with the copyright office, he can't sue for infringement? Anyone care to clear that up?

rocky_howard: Wow, so much fail in this story.


Cool, did you know that you and I appear to have absolutely nothing whatsoever in-common? Could we be mirror-universe twins? Should we meet in-person just to see if we destroy reality? I guess you're probably not into that, though.

How about both sites go fark themselves for being unfunny? I mean this Camerroen or whatever is a douche, but the Oatmeal wouldn't even be on the radar without all of this and popehat getting involved. I'll just continue to not read either of them and prosper I guess.

Oysterman: ... twelve-year-old boys, steeped in the internet tradition of poseur nihilism ...

kimmygibblershomework: How about both sites go fark themselves for being unfunny? I mean this Camerroen or whatever is a douche, but the Oatmeal wouldn't even be on the radar without all of this and popehat getting involved. I'll just continue to not read either of them and prosper I guess.

Heh.

cato113: This bit stuck out for me,

"Matt's done a great job spinning it, but he's not going to sue FunnyJunk. He couldn't sue FunnyJunk. He couldn't even counter sue FunnyJunk for copyright infringement if we sue him because he hasn't registered the copyrights on any of those domains. Even if he did an expedited registration...he would get no per incident damages because the "infringement" occurred before the registration. He's got nothing."

Is he saying that because Inman didn't register every comic with the copyright office, he can't sue for infringement? Anyone care to clear that up?

In the UK you just own copyright on all your material. end of. There is no central office to register every image and video in the world like patents, you automatically own copyright on everything original you produce. Having proof that you are the original creator is helpful at this point though. Someone using your copyrighted material is breaking the law and you can pursue this if it seems worth it to you.

rocky_howard: Oh and let's not mention that the Oatmeal guy condones piracy:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

So he comes off as a huge hypocrite. "I can take other people stuff, but goddammit don't take mine!!!"

He mocked the business model of HBO after which he showed what the consequence of HBO's business model is. The comic is exactly no proof what so ever that he actually downloaded the series. Merely claiming you did something illegal isn't illegal (AFAIK), you still need objective evidence.

If you read Popehat, the letter (and original post from last year) posted on TheOatMeal, Carreon's responses to the post and the official response of TheOatMeal's lawyer you would agree that TheOatMeal is in the right here and that Carreon is being an ass because he thinks he is "technically" correct. While technically correct is usually the best kind of correct, he should have checked that he was actually technically correct before making a fool out of himself.

Ed Finnerty: 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/?

/b/ seems to be staying out of it because people keep invoking them and they don't like that.

Did that guy get his law degree out of a cereal box? He doesn't know shiat, and he sounds like a caricature.

Darth_Lukecash: n his eyes, his client didn't steal-things were uploaded this site. Oatmeal hadn't filled out the proper paperwork to protect his rights.

And guess what? You do not have to "fill out paperwork" to protect your copyright. The instant you create something, you do own the damn copyright on it.

Captain Wingo: 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.

I was thinking funnyjunk shill.

rickycal78: FJ "Fark you. User generated content"

OM "Instead of going the full legal route or trying to work a deal where you link to my shiat or give me credit, here's ur mom seducing a bear, and maybe some more comics making fun of you, lulz!"

Inman tried working a deal originally where he'd get credit for his comics. That was one of the first things he did.

He didn't do the image of the lawyer's mom seducing a bear until the lawyer sent him the letter requesting $20,000. And really...it's not like there's anything really bizarre about that. That's part of Inman's humor and has been reflected in the comics.

Carreon says that Inman's comics incite violence? He's either deliberately talking out of his ass here or completely oblivious to humor.

DerAppie: rocky_howard: Oh and let's not mention that the Oatmeal guy condones piracy:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

So he comes off as a huge hypocrite. "I can take other people stuff, but goddammit don't take mine!!!"

He mocked the business model of HBO after which he showed what the consequence of HBO's business model is. The comic is exactly no proof what so ever that he actually downloaded the series. Merely claiming you did something illegal isn't illegal (AFAIK), you still need objective evidence.

...which has exactly zero bearing on whether or not this guy condones piracy and comes off as a hypocrite because of it.

You know you can be a hypocrite without doing illegal things, right? Like this is a thing we're all aware of.

hyp·o·crite
[hip-uh-krit] Show IPA
noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

So if Oatsie feigns righteous indignation over OMG material theft, but somewhere else he rationalizes material theft, he's still a hypocrite. What's pretty telling is that in the comic rocky links, he literally rationalizes away the same reasoning for copyright theft that he attacks in his FunnyJunk posting (supporting sleazy advertisers with somebody else's creative output). So yes, that is hypocritical. It's not illegal, but it's certainly hypocritical.

Also using cancer victims as a bulletproof vest is farking sickening.

shivashakti: He's either deliberately talking out of his ass here or completely oblivious to humor.

Or is a lawyer. I mean let's be reasonable here.

t3knomanser: The comic makes the point that pirates are providing a service that you simply cannot get without agreeing to rather usurious terms.

Like "subscribe to our channel to watch the shows on our channel"?

And... so what? What if I think one half of a gay Internet slapfight is disgusting for using cancer victims to shield himself from criticism?

Can I go to the other half of the gay Internet slapfight for that content? The one that doesn't use cancer victims to shield themselves from criticism?

It rationalizes what in another case was condemned. That's hypocrisy. It's not defensible, it's not justifiable, it's not hand waved away. It's two mutually contradictory positions depending on whether or not he or somebody else was the target, one moment whining like a biatch, the other moment having a chuckle at giving in to ego.

And seriously, using cancer victims as a shield in your stupid gay internet slapfight really is sickening. As profoundly retarded as FunnyJunk also is in this entire situation, at least they haven't used cancer victims as a shield and tried to claim moral superiority for it.

Cyno01: kimmygibblershomework: How about both sites go fark themselves for being unfunny? I mean this Camerroen or whatever is a douche, but the Oatmeal wouldn't even be on the radar without all of this and popehat getting involved. I'll just continue to not read either of them and prosper I guess.

The Oatmeal was on CNN before all this even.

So? They also have that retarded bourshin cheese commercial on CNN. Don't eat that either...

I'm on the side of TheOatMeal. I will say his snarky reactions have hampered his moral high ground.

BUT

-At no time did he actually direct his fanbase to attack Carreon or FJ.

-FJ threw the first punch by making potentially libelous statements about OM's snarky request to essentially 'give proper credit', and incited their fanbase to attack.

As for Carreon, he's an absolute twatwaffle, for the following reasons:

-He tried to compare his being targetted by an angry internet mob to the nukes dropped on Japan? That's a mighty stretch, and says that he thinks his shiat doesn't stink.

-He actively supports bullying with lawsuits, but whines when he's bullied by the internet. It's the internet, most of us are asshats. Grow up and get over it. (Note I don't condone internet vigilantism)

-He claims he trademarked his own farking name. How much more egotistical can you get?

I hope this does go to trial, but as a class action suit with all the people whose shiat has been ripped of there to ream FJ for being lax and outright subversive.

And as I mentioned above, OM should sue separately for libel and harassment. It's shaky, but it holds more damn water than what Carreon's trying to pull.

Neondistraction: rocky_howard: Oh and let's not mention that the Oatmeal guy condones piracy:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

So he comes off as a huge hypocrite. "I can take other people stuff, but goddammit don't take mine!!!"

You seem to have missed his point entirely. If media companies want to combat piracy then they need to stop making piracy the most convenient option. Sure, HBO owns the content, and they can distribute it however they want. They are in no way obligated to make their content available on any digital service, in any time frame. But the fact of the matter is that internet users have become accustomed to the convenience of instantly available media. With streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, and digital stores like iTunes and Amazon, Pandora's box has been opened. And when it comes down to it, availability and convenience are what matter the most. So while the infrastructure to do so has been in place for years now, HBO doesn't have to make their latest hit show available for digital download/streaming. But the fact of the matter is, by not giving users a legitimate option for digital content HBO is encouraging piracy.

Now, I'm not saying that makes it right, morally or legally, for people to pirate Game of Thrones. But that is the way it is. And I think that's the point he was trying to make with that comic. You have people that are willing to pay money, perhaps even a premium, so that they can watch your show in the manner they've become accustomed to. If you don't give them that option, then most of them will resort to piracy and you've just lost out on potential income.

The funny part about your argument or the comic itself, is that the content is available for streaming. You have to pay for the service however on HBO.com. neither the kid in the comic or the average pirate are willing to pay for it. The argument that its not available online so I have to pirate it from a third party is a pretty crappy one.

Before someone tells me get off my high horse, I admit to streaming content on third party sites. Let's just not pretend what the motivation is though. Doesn't your average torrent or streaming site make their money from ads and someone else's uploaded content?

Saberus Terras: I'm on the side of TheOatMeal. I will say his snarky reactions have hampered his moral high ground.

BUT

-At no time did he actually direct his fanbase to attack Carreon or FJ.

-FJ threw the first punch by making potentially libelous statements about OM's snarky request to essentially 'give proper credit', and incited their fanbase to attack.

As for Carreon, he's an absolute twatwaffle, for the following reasons:


-He tried to compare his being targetted by an angry internet mob to the nukes dropped on Japan? That's a mighty stretch, and says that he thinks his shiat doesn't stink.

-He actively supports bullying with lawsuits, but whines when he's bullied by the internet. It's the internet, most of us are asshats. Grow up and get over it. (Note I don't condone internet vigilantism)

-He claims he trademarked his own farking name. How much more egotistical can you get?

I hope this does go to trial, but as a class action suit with all the people whose shiat has been ripped of there to ream FJ for being lax and outright subversive.

And as I mentioned above, OM should sue separately for libel and harassment. It's shaky, but it holds more damn water than what Carreon's trying to pull.

HE'S A LAWYER.

t3knomanser: Igor Jakovsky: You have to pay for the service however on HBO.com.

Actually, you have to have an extensively upgraded cable package to be allowed to stream it. You can't just stream it a la carte from HBO.com. You have to be an HBO subscriber. That's because HBO's viewers are not their customers- cable networks are. HBO cuts deals with the cable networks and part of that deal is that HBO won't give anyone access to their content without forcing them to go through the cable network.

It's one of those weird business models that could have only formed in the pre-Internet era. Now HBO is sticking to the model, because changing it involves far too much risk.

Which is cool. But the bottom line is still people don't want to pay for the service legitimately they will find it online for free. Also no one is forcing anyone to do anything. You either pay for it or you don't. It is a choice though.

t3knomanser: I think you're an idiot who wasn't paying attention. There's no shielding going on- the entire thing was done with the tone, "Oh, I could raise $20K, but I'm not gonna- not for you, jackhole. Here, let me raise $20K for something fluffy animals and cancer research, because that makes me happy."

So using cancer victims to shield one's self from criticism. Are you having a stupid slapfight, on the Internet or otherwise? Yeah? Then don't involve cancer victims in direct response to that to your stupid slapfight. It's tacky and disgusting.

See, when something similar happened with Penny Arcade and Jack Thompson, Penny Arcade's response was to give money to their pre-existing charity drive as a donation in Thompson's name when the game that satisfied Thompson's request was made, and Thompson welshed on his own charity pledge.

That's the classy way to do it. They didn't create the charity to shield themselves from criticism like crybaby biatches. They didn't just involve a charity as a direct response to somebody's legal threat (the correct thing to do is push back, in that case). They didn't just assume Thompson wouldn't carry through, either -- they waited until he didn't, and then they did it for him.

See? Isn't that a nice way to do almost the same thing, but do it in a way that doesn't involve using cancer victims as a human shield?

Ooh wow, look at TheOatmeal.com, so PHILANTHROPIC and ALTRUISTIC, the way they "could raise $20k" for cancer victims but never did until it conveniently and coincidentally became a way to say "if you carry through on your threat you're bullying cancer victims wah wah".

Yeah they conceded the moral high ground on that one.

t3knomanser: The Oatmeal's claim to moral superiority is that the Oatmeal hasn't done anything wrong.

Oh I see the problem. You're one of those idiots that confuses legality with morality.

Dr. Mojo PhD: DerAppie: rocky_howard: Oh and let's not mention that the Oatmeal guy condones piracy:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

So he comes off as a huge hypocrite. "I can take other people stuff, but goddammit don't take mine!!!"

He mocked the business model of HBO after which he showed what the consequence of HBO's business model is. The comic is exactly no proof what so ever that he actually downloaded the series. Merely claiming you did something illegal isn't illegal (AFAIK), you still need objective evidence.

...which has exactly zero bearing on whether or not this guy condones piracy and comes off as a hypocrite because of it.

You know you can be a hypocrite without doing illegal things, right? Like this is a thing we're all aware of.

Blablabla I know the dictionary definition of hypocrite.

So if Oatsie feigns righteous indignation over OMG material theft, but somewhere else he rationalizes material theft, he's still a hypocrite. What's pretty telling is that in the comic rocky links, he literally rationalizes away the same reasoning for copyright theft that he attacks in his FunnyJunk posting (supporting sleazy advertisers with somebody else's creative output). So yes, that is hypocritical. It's not illegal, but it's certainly hypocritical.

But let's move on a little bit. just read this part of what I quoted: "So he comes off as a huge hypocrite. "I can take other people stuff, but goddammit don't take mine!!!""

There is exactly zero proof in that comic that he actually downloaded Game of Thrones. None. Nothing. Zilch. As we read the comic, we see that he promotes buying the episodes legally and shows several legal ways to stream content. If we were to take something written in a comic (starring the artist) as proof of it happening, then there would be more robots, ninjas and pirates around. Saying he is a hypocrite because he condones something is one thing, but if your explanatory sentence makes unproven statements you shouldn't complain if people call you on it. Even if the comic was condoning the downloading of other people's IP, there is a difference between personal use and reselling. Since FJ was making money using the property of TOM I'd say that supporting the first (downloading) while complaining about the second ("reselling") doesn't make you a hypocrite.

Also using cancer victims as a bulletproof vest is farking sickening.

Why would he need a bulletproof vest? Anyone with at least half a brain would see that he is in the right here. Would you still complain if he just did the wildlife part? Or aren't people allowed to support their charities of choice? Should they pick from some pre-approved list of situation suitable charities?

Dr. Mojo PhD: That's hypocrisy. It's not defensible, it's not justifiable

I'd like to point out that everyone is a hypocrite. You show me someone who doesn't hold conflicting views on at least one issue and I'll show you a deed for a bridge I have for sale. there is a reason NIMBY is a thing.

Dr. Mojo PhD: So using cancer victims to shield one's self from criticism. Are you having a stupid slapfight, on the Internet or otherwise? Yeah? Then don't involve cancer victims in direct response to that to your stupid slapfight. It's tacky and disgusting.

That's not what he's doing. I don't know why you're being a tool about this, usually you're halfway reasonable when posting on this site.

Dr. Mojo PhD: So using cancer victims to shield one's self from criticism

Again, why would they need to shield themselves? I have absolutely no idea what dastardly crime you think the charity drive is supposed to provide cover for.

Some asshole threatened to sue him for a nonsensical reason unless he coughed up $20,000, and, rather than seriously respond to such a naked attempt at extortion, he decided to fark with the guy in an amusing way that also raised money for cancer research.

Why on earth does this upset you?

DerAppie: There is exactly zero proof in that comic that he actually downloaded Game of Thrones. None. Nothing. Zilch.

There's also no evidence the Marquis de Sade ever actually killed anybody. I would still call him a hypocrite if he protested the publication of a sexually violent work.

What, if anything, is your farking point?

DerAppie: Would you still complain if he just did the wildlife part? Or aren't people allowed to support their charities of choice? Should they pick from some pre-approved list of situation suitable charities?

Maybe people shouldn't shield themselves by involving charities in their (legal) disagreements ex post facto. Any charity. Pick and choose a charity.

Plastic surgery for disfigured children with harelips dragged into a custody dispute by one party after the wrangling started? Disgusting.
SPCA/Humane Society dragged into a motor vehicle collision lawsuit after the crash? Pretty sick.
Multiple Sclerosis charity finding itself involved in a fundraiser based around a corporate labour dispute? Revolting!

See? It works pretty broadly. It's shielding yourself with a charity instead of the merits of your case. That's revolting, even if legally you're in the right! Why not care before it happened?

Or maybe you could counter-sue on the basis that the original suit has no merit and that they infringed your copyright without taking down the content after fair warning and satisfaction wasn't achieved, and then to show it wasn't about the money but the principle of it, however much you get (and reasonably, minus your legal fees), then you drop it in the Salvation Army kettle. That's pretty classy too!

But this? Whether he's legally right or wrong doesn't matter to me. That will be decided by people who aren't me, such as the various parties, attorneys and judges.

But me, what I can decide -- in the court of public opinion -- that he's pretty blatantly using charity as a shield. Any charity, doesn't really matter, it's tacky and disgusty. The cancer angle just makes it tackier and more disgusting.

Dr. Mojo PhD:
Oh I see the problem. You're one of those idiots that confuses legality with morality.

You confuse your morality with other people's morality. TOM didn't do anything wrong. Not legally speaking and not morally speaking.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Ooh wow, look at TheOatmeal.com, so PHILANTHROPIC and ALTRUISTIC, the way they "could raise $20k" for cancer victims but never did until it conveniently and coincidentally became a way to say "if you carry through on your threat you're bullying cancer victims wah wah".

Yeah they conceded the moral high ground on that one.

By that logic anyone donating to charity is an asshole because they could have donated sooner! How dare all those bastards hold bake sales to raise money for cancer research after their child died/suffers because of it? All they are doing is looking all "PHILANTHROPIC and ALTRUISTIC, the way they "could raise $20k" for cancer victims but never did until it conveniently and coincidentally became a way to say" our daughter died/got sick and now we care.

/The moral high ground is overrated
//I'd rather be right than morally correct in many, many cases

Gunther: I have absolutely no idea what dastardly crime you think the charity drive is supposed to provide cover for.

What do you people seriously not understand about a fundamental difference between things that are legal and things that are moral? Why do you think that if he's shielding himself, he has to be shielding himself from a crime?

Listen. It doesn't matter if he got a letter from a crank representing herself pro se that claimed he owed her a hojillion dollars from 20,000 years of child support because of that one time he impregnated her when they time traveled to the distant past. Dragging charities into that mess and attempting to shield yourself with them is morally reprehensible. You argue it on its merits or lack thereof, such as "her claim violates the laws of physics".

What you don't do is go "FARK YOU PSYCHO HERE'S A PICTURE OF YOUR STUPID CRAZY SCHIZO ASS AND BY THE WAY LOOK AT ME AND HOW WONDERFUL I AM LET'S CURE AIDS."

Hiding behind worthy causes during a lawsuit, however wrong that suit may be, is the equivalent of picking up a baby during a fistfight.

It doesn't matter who started it.

It doesn't matter if he threw the first punch.

It doesn't matter if you gave him a light jab and he tried to rabbit punch you in disproportionate retaliation.

I don't really care about that, because what matters is that at some point along the way, you tried to hide behind a farking baby.

DerAppie: How dare all those bastards hold bake sales to raise money for cancer research after their child died/suffers because of it? All they are doing is looking all "PHILANTHROPIC and ALTRUISTIC, the way they "could raise $20k" for cancer victims but never did until it conveniently and coincidentally became a way to say" our daughter died/got sick and now we care.

Uh yeah that's a little different. "Once I personally faced the massive reality of it I couldn't turn a blind eye anymore" and "I have no motivation to do this whatsoever beyond the fact that it makes me look good in a situation where it's convenient to make me look good." Just, you know, a tiny little gap of difference between the two.

Here, take a look at this transcript between Elizabeth Smart and Nancy Grace.

See how Elizabeth Smart comes off as a victim's rights advocate using her own tragedy to better the lives of others and Nancy Grace, despite purportedly wanting the same thing, comes off as an exploitative biatch who uses others' tragedies to swaddle herself in for the creepy, warm glow, and who also desperately needs to be kicked in the head repeatedly?

Yeah, tossing a charity drive into your Internet slapfight is the "swaddle yourself in the creepy, warm glow" category.