Lawyer attacking The Oatmeal shocked by big mean Internet’s reaction
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
The reaction of the lawyer is understandable, it being the sole prerogative of lawyers to bully hapless victims into submission and, if not bully, at least to trick and cajole them into giving them what they want and, if not that, in extremis, to get a true day in court for their client in which the victim can finally speak up, and might even win, but then the client on whose behalf the bullying is done pays in spades for the privilege of financing a futile process in which everyone loses except, of course, the lawyers who invented a system dating back at least to Jarndyce v. Jarndyce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarndyce_and_Jarndyce) for the betterment of society and only incidentally for those who might take a modest profit from their humble efforts in the service of humanity.
The first mode, I believe is responsible for much of the bad PR the legal profession has. Its kind of a "shock and awe" deal where ordinary people are just astonished that any human being can behave so repugnantly and this makes them afraid, especially if they have never dealt with anything like it before. This is a feature, and is very much intended. Lawyers have been accustom to behaving like this in what amounted to nearly full privacy. Even their clients were not fully aware of the extent they did this.
Enter the internet. Paradigm shifted.
Free market version of ethics for ya, if nothing else.
> He also explains that he believes Inman's fundraiser to be a violation of the terms of service of IndieGoGo, the website being used to collect donations, and has sent a request to disable the fundraising campaign.
The lawyer and his client don't have standing to interfere with the business relationship between IndieGoGo and Oatmeal. (eg. if there is a violation what does it matter to FunnyBusiness)
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
This is incorrect. As everyone here probably knows, they demanded $20k to refrain from suing, they did not file a lawsuit asking for $20k.
Is there a reason that wouldn't work out well?
For example, if a tree from your yard falls into your neighbor's yard, they might have a claim against you. Instead of forcing them to file a lawsuit, you offer to pay for a new fence and landscaping to replace the stuff that got squished. (Or, the neighbor demands that you pay for the fence and landscaping instead of filing suit.) There's no reason for the neighbor to have to actually file a lawsuit against you in order for you to work out the issues. The threat of a lawsuit is always there, but making a lawyer actually fill out the paperwork and pay the filing fees is a pure subsidy to lawyers.
If you ask for 20K to settle the matter and one of the terms is that both parties agree never to sue each other over the matter then it's an offer of settlement.
Not a lawyer, but that's my crude understanding.
I know this lawyer has done something we think is both morally wrong, legally dubious, and unintelligent. However the real life harassing of this individual is not something a civil society should condone. I would hope that at least the mob of individuals who frequent this web site would be a little classier then both Matthew Inman ,and the internet at larges response.
Why does it appear the internet only has two modes, Blind Adoration and Violent Lynch Mob ?
Matthew Inman's response to this whole sorry affair seems to be primarily that he wants to write comics and not play at being a lawyer, and he'd prefer it if people just let him get on with that and enjoy the results. Given the flagrant copyright violation of the other site involved here, and the nature of the lawyer who is chasing Inman right now, I think he's been remarkably classy.
I suspect a lot of people in his position would instead have lawyered up, gone after the other site for a retirement-level scale of statutory damages, and gone after the other lawyer personally with the intent of ending his career. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them, and I almost wish Inman would do that as a matter of principle. However, I have to admire his focus on doing the work he wants to do and his choice to do something socially useful to make his point instead.
Then perhaps you shouldn't visit the Oatmeal. His site is full of that kind of thing. Some people like it, some people don't. You're apparently in the second group. ;)
It is intentionally petty and juvenile to draw the comparison that the letter from FunnyJunk's lawyer is petty and juvenile.
While I've never been on the receiving end of an Internet community outrage like this, I can imagine that it can feel legitimately scary. You can't know how many threats over email are empty or how many come from genuinely disturbed individuals who may take real-world action.
* see also "witch hunt" and most contemporary usages of the word "terrorism"
I don't know what the numbers would show, but I'm not sure there'd be any significantly greater actual risk from 'genuinely disturbed individuals who may take real-world action' over a particular cause like this vs doing something because the demon in the neighbour's dog told them to[2]. The mental impact of having to wade through the messages is a different matter, of course.
That mental impact is, I'm guessing, a big deal, and I'm having a hard time coming up with a good takeaway.
If you're a person who feels legally infringed by a beloved internet celebrity, should you be able to get legal representation? Sure, this particular case doesn't appear to have any merit, but if I were a lawyer, I sure wouldn't be very eager to take on any clients who would go up against the angry hordes. Would that have a chilling effect for legitimate cases?
We've also had non-internet celebrities for a long time, not to mention politicians, etc. Trying to go after one of them is going to be a bad time too.
The issue is when you try to use the law to go after someone with more _power_ than you.
The Oatmeal's power is their internet fans, but obviously FunnyJunk thought they had the same power and were on equal footing.
You probably have not been following this issue as long as others, but do you realize that in May 2011 that FunnyJunk's admin sent out a message to all of their users asking them to harass the Oatmeal?
"The FunnyJunk owner known as Admin responded with a message to all users “the Oatmeal wants to sue funnyjunk and shut it down! He thinks we're nothing more than dirty content thieves...Contact Oatmeal anyway you can!" and provided links to The Oatmeal's e-mail and Facebook page.[1] This triggered spamming by FunnyJunk users and a flame war with The Oatmeal readers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_legal...
My concern still stands, though. Even though FunnyJunk unleashed their own internet harassment posse, doesn't diminish the potential chilling effect of the Oatmeal's internet harassment posse.
I just find the whole affair distasteful. I've lost my ability to enjoy the Schadenfreude of internet shitstorms.
A digital lynch mob killed HB Gary Federal. It's happened before.
++edit++ guys, I wasn't arguing that this guy deserves reputation or has a right to do whatever he wants. I was arguing that a "lynch mob" can and does exist on the Internet. Like the parent said, lynch mobs harass and sometimes kill people. Digital equivalents to lynch mobs exist.
And remember, what LulzSec did to HBGary Federal is hack their servers and leak their private data. If LulzSec's techniques were limited to sending strongly worded letters, I don't think they would be controversial at all.
It hasn't happened before because HB Gary Federal is not a person and thus cannot be killed.
No one can be "killed online." Killing is the ending of a human life. It is a word with a very specific meaning. Even if Internet action somehow led to someone's death, they still would not be "killed online" – they would be killed. In reality. By a person or group of persons. Not by "online."
Is this conversation really happening? This needs to be explained?
Nonsense. All the time I go into Task Manager and kill processes. I was working on a project that went over budget and it got killed. When I get out of my car, I kill the engine.
Kill does not only mean the ending of human life. It's possible to kill ideas or even non-biological physical processes.
Let your masterpiece speak for itself.
Now, OP's edit comparing the digital killing to the actual, life ending, killing is indeed unfortunate.
I wasn't comparing digital death to real life death. Those words we put into my mouth; I never made that argument. I even used scare quotes to hint that it's a word being used out of traditional context. It's possible to have real-life terms translate into digital concepts without necessarily implying the 1:1 correlation that some have assumed. When my mouse dies it doesn't mean I've committed animal abuse, it just means I need to recharge the batteries.
I just like to have interesting discussions. That's why we're all here.
This is what I mean for a bit unfortunate, because it obviously refers to actual death.
The argument, of digital lynch mobs being able to heavily damage (which is one definition of kill) corporations or people, I agree with.
And what makes this lawyer deserve a good reputation? It was his responsibility to investigate the case, and apply his best judgement as to if FJ had any legal ground to stand on. From what is publicly known, FJ has no basis for their threat of legal action, and the situation appears so cut-n-dried that I doubt the existence of any hidden facts which could change this.
The lawyer had a choice to inform his client of the legal situation. The lawyer had a choice whether or not to represent FJ. And the lawyer is now paying for the consequences.
Never made this claim. That was a hypothetical situation that I used to back up my argument of "Though it could be argued that a digital lynch mob could be defined as a group who "kills" someone online."
My argument was that this backlash could cause enough harassment to put the lawyer out of business, in an attempt to refute the parent's claim that a digital lynch mob could not exist on the Internet. I don't claim to be sympathetic to the lawyer's cause, merely trying to hold a reasonable discussion on a web forum by debating new-tech terminology.
The real life harassing of an individual making web comics by stealing and re-branding his content when all he asked was not to photoshop out his brandings at the bottom, trying to incite people to go after him(funnyjunk's mail to its userbase), then threatening him with lawsuit unless he pays up when he is done nothing wrong is also not something a civil society should condone.
> internet vigilantes
All people are doing is making some noise in their blogs and other social media outlets, and sending the lawyer mails.
> I know this lawyer has done something we think is both morally wrong, legally dubious,
I have a problem with both morally wrong and legally dubious. I am just a lawyer for my client shouldn't get you off the hook. I am just doing my job has got to be the most irritating and weakest excuse in the history of mankind. From where I see, the lawyer shouldn't have difficulty in comprehending funnyjunk, and not oatmeal is the one stealing ; and there is 0 sense in harassing the oatmeal over it, yet he is doing it. I don't see why the lawyer deserves my considerations.
I believe there are provisions to get a lawyer debarred for frivolous law-suits, but they are difficult in practice, and take a lot of time and money. Matthew Inman happens to have the money and the following to stand up to this bullying; there isn't much a smaller web comic creator would have done. The lawyer's situation is much, much more pleasant that what theoatmeal's would have been, had he lacked the money or the resources to fight back.
This lawyer, or funnyjunk, doesn't deserve my sympathy. If you think otherwise, we must agree to disagree.
> I would hope that at least the mob of individuals who frequent this web site would be a little classier then both Matthew Inman ,and the internet at larges response.
But while you are disagreeing, please get off your high horse.
Yes I know he is a bad person and did bad things, that doesn't mean we have the moral authority to phone bomb him, and hack his websites ( both of which have been called for in this thread )
Delusions of being the bigger man aren't the same as being the bigger man. Bullies are the problem, but more than them, people who ask the bullied to let it be and not push the bully back because somehow that makes them a bigger man are more problematic than the bullies.
TheOatmeal didn't pick up a fight. What is he supposed to do when he has a fight shoved into his face? "Well, he started it..." matters, because when funnyjunk started it, it didn't give him choice to opt out of it.
> that doesn't mean we have the moral authority
Who the hell is we here? I didn't know I was joining a collective consciousness by making an account on HN.
Both are defending what they believe in, with the powers that they have.
There is a case to be made that this legal harassment is destroying our society, and the internet dwellers are fighting against this the only way they know how.
Because the majority set of modes which fall under the broad umbrella of "general apathy" isn't very noticeable.
Mobs aren't noted for their nuanced and leisurely views on the situation.
It doesn't, really. It's just that those are the two vocal modes - moderates and people who don't care aren't going to raise their voices to be heard about the issue.
It's possible for both sides in an argument to be assholes.
There's a lot going on in between, but it's not news-worthy.
Whether or not the target in this reddit / 4chan / whatever pile-on deserves it, taking part isn't good internet citizenry.
That doesn't affect the way this shitbag lawyer goes about conducting his chosen profession. This actually might.
And actually, since the charity fundraising in question[0], which had an initial goal of 20K$, is up to 160K$, my guess is that fueling this issue, giving it press, and making people excited/angry about it ends up, as a side effect, raising even more money for the charity. Works for me.
How does this differ from expressing disapproval directly to this lawyer for participating in a meritless and baseless extortion request?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96850920/FunnyJunk-The-Oatmeal-Res...
The net effect of this is that fewer lawyers would be willing to take on frivolous claims and there would be less litigation overall. Of course this would only apply to plaintiffs, as everyone needs to be able to defend themselves against as many claims as needed.
They move in an eviroment where lawsuits are just amuniton in a game. They believe it's ok to use them, so they get suprised with this kind of response.
I know it exists, but I don't see it here.
As to the choice of adjetives, they are almost by definition negative in connotation. A fat and ugly does not seem an equal alternative in terms of value to a regular man, hence those adjetives devalue both genders. You could make a case that those particular adjetives devalue women to a greater extent than they do men, that's sexism, not misogyny.
The reason we don't see 'yo papa jokes' is because stereotypically people won't defend or get riled up over what's said about their fathers. I interpret the attacks as targeting something that is valuable, much like a terrorist tries to blow up a landmark (despite the security) and not a shack out in the boonies (because it's defenseless). I contend that socially, biologically and culturally speaking males are predisposed to protect women because they are valuable (and in certain lights, more so than males).
So no, I do not believe this is misogyny, far from it. I do, however, believe it is sexist.
edit: also, misogyny is about a hate or dislike of women (which would imply all women... or it would have said a woman). So while it does exist in ways that some assholes have a messed up view against all women... a cartoon depicting a fat woman chasing a bear is not making any sort of statement of hate of women... or even just hate of fat women. This cartoon is a fat woman chasing a bear. If it was a fat man chasing a bear... then it would be a cartoon of a fat man chasing a bear. If it was a skinny man with a mohawk chasing a purple bear on roller skates then it would be a cartoon about a skinny man with a mohawk chasing a purple bear on roller skates. But the second there is a woman involved... holy crap that cartoonist is being misogynistic? I don't buy it.
This is a very optimistic world view. If people tend to continuously harrass black people, even for something that is obviously in the nature of the insult, racist (e.g. calling them stupid athletes or something), would you have that same stance? Either everyone is fair game or no one is, so it's okay to keep making fun of that black guy, cause he's allowed to make fun of us as well?
The point is that it's not fair game. This is a conflict involving no women. Yet we still see one being attacked, in a way that you can't really attack a man. You can call a man unattractive, but insults along those lines don't have the same punch, because men aren't defined by the way they look, they're not being objectified. Even when you are using it negatively, it's still objectification.
And the other point is that it's always women. I don't hear very many "your daddy" jokes.
Let's say Inman sent the $20,000 check. The lawyer would get _at the most_ $10,000. Now, he's known as the "lawyer whose mother loves bears," appears on MSNBC, and has his station elevated to an "legal expert on matters of the internet."
You can't pay for that kind of publicity. His indignation is probably tempered with a good dose of gratitude.
Time to enact significant penalties for those who engage the legal system for frivolous lawsuits.
IIRC this is all based in the US, in which case maybe barratry and SLAPP rules are relevant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_%28common_law%29#Unite...
I'll leave it to the real lawyers to comment on any details, though.
Most "law" doesn't really touch the legal system.
If he can make some money off FunnyJunk pushing obviously doomed-from-the-start legal action, then the only loser is FunnyJunk. And realistically FunnyJunk probably did it for the press coverage and extra traffic that will result.
The Oatmeal wins reputation and traffic, FunnyJunk gets lots of traffic (and more bad reputation as a troll), the lawyer gets money.
Welcome to how the internet works.
So is a hit man. Doing something obviously inappropriate doesn't become OK just because there is a pay cheque attached to the instruction.
There is always going to be an awkward area for some lawyers, because in an adversarial legal system you have to allow anyone accused of anything to have robust representation to defend themselves in court, which means some lawyers are always going to act for bad people some of the time. I have no problem with a lawyer defending any client in court to the best of their ability; this goes right to the heart of presumption of guilt/innocence.
But this action isn't defending someone who hasn't yet been convicted of anything against a criminal charge that must be answered in court. This appears to be actively going after someone who has done nothing wrong, by exploiting the technical flaws of the relevant legal system in a way that no ethical lawyer should ever do. If half the Internet can see that, then either the lawyer knows something that none of us do, or the lawyer is in trouble on several levels.
I'm not so sure this is the case. The Oatmeal also loses since it has to defend itself against a garbage lawsuit, were one to be filed, or pay tens of thousands of dollars to prevent such a filing. In fact, we all lose if you consider that pointless lawsuits are a drain on our court system.
So I see good reason to be angry with lawyers who do things like this. I don't necessarily condone the harassment, but I think you've greatly underestimated the scope of the problem. This stuff affects everyone.
Edit: typo
"I was just following orders" never makes a good excuse for doing something that is patently wrong. It is even less so for an independent lawyer who has tremendous discretion to refuse to take a case.*
*Just to be clear, once a lawyer begins working on a case for a client there are ethical rules that (within limits) require him/her to follow the client's directives and work for the clients best interests. The lawyer also may not be always be free to cease representation once it has begun. But an independent lawyer can generally freely refuse to accept a case.
That's only a good excuse for people who can barely find work and would otherwise not be able to put food on the table. I (and I'm sure a lot of other people) have turned down work of similar/questionable nature.
There are plenty of activities in the world that are not illegal. But "legally allowable" is not the sole test of what is right or moral.
There is no excuse for not applying your best judgement to every situation. If you think something is immoral or otherwise wrong, you should not do it, even if your boss said it was OK.
Being paid for doing evil is not an excuse.
Lawyers like this aren't dying for work, they pick and choose their cases.
TheOatmeal didn't direct a mob to attack FunnyJunk or their lawyer. TheOatmeal said what happened and directed a mob to express their emotions by donating to two charities. If some people got mad at FunnyJunk's lawyer, that's his problem. Maybe he can bill FunnyJunk for the time it takes to deal with the backlash from their ill-advised actions.
Doesn't the fact that we're having this conversation and he looks foolish prove that this assumption is wrong?
shrug
He's just playing dumb.
A more accurate metaphor would be if the pirate bay tried to sue HBO for calling them names, which I doubt would sit well with even the most ardent of tv torrent fans.
The Oatmeal trying to get its content taken down from FunnyJunk: good.
Most other copyright holders trying to get their content taken down from almost anywhere else on the internet: bad.
It isn't even about the legal niceties of the situation, it's about the vibe, man.
"Most other copyright holders" -- this is much too general a claim.
Do people really complain if a south park episode is taken down from youtube? No, they don't. South Park episodes can easily be viewed at South Park studios.
Do people really complain that their bootlegged copy of Avengers got taken down from a filesharing site? Yes, but not from a vigilante-style moral high ground. What people really complain about is when invasive DRM-schemes are deployed that prevent normal people from, say, making a single copy of a movie they paid for.
Do people complain when a short youtube clip is taken down (eg, a highlight from a sports game)? Yes. Why? When the clip is not available anyhwere else and it kills the conversation. People linked that video in articles and forums and emails and discussions and now it's gone.
Do people complain when mashups involving copyrighted content are taken down? Yes, because mashups are believed to be fair use.
Do people complain when a home video gets taken down because for several seconds you can hear a copyrighted movie playing in the background? Yes, because that's just fucking ridiculous and I'm sure you agree.
I think you can now see some distinctions between what internet vigilantes tend to complain about and what actually happened with TheOatmeal, and the contradction only appears because you've abstracted and stereotyped way too much.
Actually, it does kind of annoy me:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/layout/common/img/geoblock/m...
I've been seeing that for yonks now...
In fact, this is one of the things that pisses me off most about copyright law: the fact that it's still rooted in a pre-internet past where content owners are able to exploit geography for financial gain.
Glossing over those important details is what makes the behavior appear inconsistent (or "confused" as the previous poster suggested).
It's like every little step towards the media availability that users deserve has to be beaten out of these studios. Granted that southparkstudios.com is a huge step forward....
As an example, some people have called Inman a hypocrite for downloading Game of Thrones (because he couldn't find a way to pay for it), but still complaining about FunnyJunk. But there's a difference between A: watching Game of Thrones for free, and B: removing all credits from it, rebranding it as "Funnyjunk's Game of Thrones", and distributing it with Funnyjunk's ads.
Second, it's quite possible for someone to be upset at FunnyJunk threatening to sue The Oatmeal even if they don't care about FunnyJunk's copyright infringement.
In cases of movie & music piracy, the copyright claimant is a corporation. I suspect that copyright violators will rationalize the act as something that has negligible effect on the artist.
Most "internet vigilantes" support free exchange of copyrighted works between individuals, not companies taking your stuff and making money with it.
It's right that the final pirate is not making money... but the pirate in the middle is.
I don't think very many people would be hating on the Hollywood studios if they were just saying, "Hey, man, if you're going to be putting up a torrent of our movie, please link back to us" without even getting the lawyers involved.
I mean I'm sure right now the RIAA is taking down most of their electronic back catalog until they figure out how to compensate the original artists behind the Amen Break sample.
So, when the same people get upset about FunnyJunk "stealing" content from TheOatmeal and then torrent Game of Thrones, they have to adapt their ethical code from "copyright infringement is bad" to "infringing upon an individual's copyright is different from infringing upon a corporation's copyright" or "HBO won't let me consume their media in the way that I want when I want it, so I'm just going to torrent it"
How about "plagiarism is bad" and/or "monetarily profiting off the work of others is bad"? Both of those are self-consistent in this context.
edit: removed personal reference
So is the Internet truly a pinnacle of a civilized and free society, or the regression into a barbaric state? Cause this seems pretty barbaric to me...
(I am not condoning the lawyer's or FunkyJunk's actions. I think they are wrong. I just think there are better and more civilized ways of reacting to and handling this).
Just like there aren't any more natural disasters than there were 100 years ago, we just hear about more of them because it's so much easier to send the news now; and there aren't any more... say... underwater-basket-weavers now than then, they're just easier to find now because they're gathering on facebook and etsy.
1 - Visibility, which you yourself mention. We get to see injustices that we would never see before. Also, like you say, we get to see mob reactions that we would never see before and so we have many more chances to join mobs in a day. 2 - Ease of response. It's easy to post vitriol. It hardly takes any time at all, and you don't even have to walk to someone's house or disrupt your plans for the day. This is a direct result of internet tools that make communication easy, which didn't exist before. 3 - Anonymity, and lack of physical presence. People say things anonymously on the internet that they would never in a million years say to someone in person.
Basically, it's just easier to be in a mob these days...
I think it was supposed to be grouped the other way, i.e. "What a (bunch of (waste of space) douche-wagons)"
but hey, "space douche-wagons" is a nice phrase too :).
http://plus.google.com/photos/107137383545242155370/albums/5...
Thank you.