Logo

**Eunoli Rain** · 06-14-2012, 07:59 PM

Am I the only one who thought this was a thread about oatmeal as in cereal, cookies, etc? I am so lame.

Aimee Weber · 06-14-2012, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgoth

What he did means that funnyjunk and their lawyer are going to look terrible, whatever they do from now onwards in response to what he did.

I disagree. I could think of numerous responses where FunnyJunk and Carreon could eat a little crow and bow out gracefully with minimal damage to their reputations (Jason Alexander's recent apology springs to mind). For that matter, I could think of ways they could actually move forward on legal action against The Oatmeal in a more graceful and professional way that would cause a little less damage to their public image (though I can't think of a way they could actually win such a lawsuit.)

So I can't chalk this up to Inman's evil genius, cutting off his opponent's options like some master chessplayer. Carreon has bungled this up for himself and his client on the most basic matters of internet culture, at every turn and there's no indication that he's starting to learn from his mistakes.

Chip Midnight · 06-15-2012, 02:15 AM

I think it's too late for them to bow out and save face. Did you catch the comments on the Forbes story from the lawyer's wife? Yikes. This was attempted extortion in my opinion and shouldn't even be legal. That said, while the Oatmeal guy is making himself look good to the internets he may not be doing himself any favors as far as the law is concerned if this turns into a civil suit. As unfair as it is the burden is on him to have his work removed from their site. He claims he tried and gave up long ago and I don't doubt it at all, but did he file actual DMCA takedowns or just send an angry email or three? FunnyJunk was super quick to take everything down he listed now that this dispute has gone public no doubt to bolster their case and if Oatmeal guy can't document his failed previous attempts or he didn't ask in a way that they'd have been legally obligated to respond to and it becomes his word against theirs it could get ugly. I enjoy his go fuck yourself attitude, but contacting a lawyer would have been a lot smarter, imo.

detrius · 06-15-2012, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tara Carreon

Matthew Inman is a Killer Klown from Outer Space, obsessed with proliferating the imagery of assholes, farts, penises, misogyny, sadism, child abuse, animal abuse, and spewing his disgusting hatred for everyone all over the Internet in a juvenile attempt to take our culture down to the lowest level possible. Fascists defend hate speech as free speech. Let me repeat: fascists defend hate speech as free speech. If Matthew Inman's hate speech is free speech, then so were all the Nazi cartoons ridiculing Jews. Trust No Fox on his Green Heath And No Jew on His Oath, by Elwira Bauer . Matthew Inman effectly works for the corporations trying to keep intellectual property OUT of the fair use hands of the people, corporations like Penguin Books who is being prosecuted by the Department of Justice for conspiring to set e-book prices. It is amazing that people are so willing to jump on Matthew Inman's bandwagon and spew blame when they don't actually know the real story, and have no idea what the law says. Screw the law, these people say. Really? You want to live in a society without law? This is mob psychology, and it's not pretty to look at.

How The Oatmeal made FunnyJunk's legal threats a laughing matter | Arwa Mahdawi | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Oh wow, the lawyer's wife swooped in on the guardian article just like the countless "Y SLU SO BAD???" assclowns over here.

(Assuming it's really her.)

I liked this response to her:

Quote:

So, your husband’s client makes money out of hosting Inman’s

imagery of assholes, farts, penises, misogyny, sadism, child abuse, animal abuse, and spewing his disgusting hatred for everyone all over the Internet in a juvenile attempt to take our culture down to the lowest level possible

on his website. Then, when Inman voices his disapproval and tells his followers what’s going on, your husband threatens Inman with legal action against him for doing this!
When Inman posts a long list of items from his site that your husband’s client had hosted, that client removes them and then your husband accuses Inman of posting defunct links?!

You associate Inman’s comics with anti-semitic Nazi cartoons; which suggests your husband is defending his client’s right to "publish" and make money out of the equivalent of Nazi-anti-semitic cartoons. You imply that Inman and fascists hate speech should be distinguished from free speech, yet it’s your husband who’s defending his client’s right to freely 'publish” this “hate speech”.

As for what the law says, it seems Inman is more clued in than your lawyer husband, knowing that his “cease and desist” threat to sue is hot-headed hot air, lacking legal basis.
Are you willing to predict that your husband’s client will win this? Or even that there’s any chance in hell that this will ever come to trial?

Do you know the “real story” behind Penguin Books and that e-book pricing case? That Amazon are seeking to monopolise this market like they dominate the “real” book market, by forcing publisher prices down to a level that will put many out of business?
How easy it is for the likes of Google and Amazon to make huge amounts of money out of the work of others. What content did either create? How profuse such product must seem to them, ripe for picking and plucking and selling at rock-bottom prices (until they’ve wiped out the competition, whereupon prices will rocket). But where’s the new stuff to come from, who’s gonna nature new talent, if all the publishers are out of business?
Apple and Penguin are far from saints in this; they of course have their corporate money-making aims. But, if people want “intellectual property” and "fair use" means getting it for next-to-free, then how much more new such works can intelligent people afford the time to produce?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion...alink/16631782

Chip Midnight · 06-15-2012, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detrius

(Assuming it's really her.)

I can't imagine why anyone else would be trolling every story about it defending the ambulance chaser. He must not know she's doing it or he's a really shitty lawyer.

**Void** · 06-15-2012, 03:57 AM

does this guy have any feet left to put in his mouth? the accusation that was on his website has got to be the dumbest move ever.

detrius · 06-15-2012, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chip Midnight

I can't imagine why anyone else would be trolling every story about it defending the ambulance chaser. He must not know she's doing it or he's a really shitty lawyer.

Wait, you're saying she has done this repeatedly?

Chip Midnight · 06-15-2012, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detrius

Wait, you're saying she has done this repeatedly?

She's all over the Forbes article comments too

Quote:

Tara Carreon 13 hours ago

Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason that Matt Inman is so popular is because he appeals to the degenerate forces which have made all of our lives so miserable in this world? i.e., the rapists, looters, and warmongers who love nothing more than seeing a hipster sadistically put into a woodchipper, a baby being kicked, or a woman being ridiculed?

among others

**Void** · 06-15-2012, 06:15 AM

I'm very skeptical that those posts are actually by his wife.... unless they're estranged and she's trying to sink his career.

Aimee Weber · 06-15-2012, 06:28 AM

Yeah, I noticed the wife posts too but didn't want to post about them in case it wasn't really her. But wow, what a piece of work if it is.

ADDED: I have a feeling PopeHat may be onto something here but isn't certain how ethical it is to mention it.

http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/15/bl...ight-or-wrong/

Quote:

In the course of attempting to determine whether those comments are actually by Villain's Spouse, bloggers locate other content Spouse has authored on the web. It might be described as weird, counter-cultural, and (unsympathetically) rather nutty. It is arguable, though (based on review so far) not definite, that the style and language corroborates that Spouse is the one posting the incendiary comments

Involving family always gives me an uneasy feeling. If all this means what I think it means, then the spouse has involved herself and isn't really entitled to immunity. Still, it's an ugly business that I don't care for.

Aimee Weber · 06-15-2012, 11:51 AM

Looks like Carreon is doubling down on his claim that Inman "encouraged people to hack his website."

Funnyjunk Lawyer Charles Carreon Isn't Afraid of The Oatmeal - Forbes

Quote:

that doesn’t mean you can encourage people to hack my website, to brute force my WordPress installation so I have to change my password. You can’t encourage people to violate my trademark and violate my twitter name and associate me with incompetence with stupidity, and douchebaggery

What a list!

Morgoth · 06-15-2012, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimee Weber

I disagree. I could think of numerous responses where FunnyJunk and Carreon could eat a little crow and bow out gracefully with minimal damage to their reputations (Jason Alexander's recent apology springs to mind). For that matter, I could think of ways they could actually move forward on legal action against The Oatmeal in a more graceful and professional way that would cause a little less damage to their public image (though I can't think of a way they could actually win such a lawsuit.)

So I can't chalk this up to Inman's evil genius, cutting off his opponent's options like some master chessplayer. Carreon has bungled this up for himself and his client on the most basic matters of internet culture, at every turn and there's no indication that he's starting to learn from his mistakes.

I wasn't trying to suggest Inman was to responsible for the part where Carreon 'bungled this up for himself and his client on the most basic matters of internet culture.'

More that as far as responses go, his decision to respond to the thing with a charity drive was very smart. Meaning that he has 'but I earned all that money for charity' on his side and not just 'I own that content and you hosted it without attribution so you can't sue me for pointing that out'.

It pushes the weight of public opinion further towards supporting him in this. And of course Carreon apparently made things even worse by trying to shut down the funding drive, a move which is such an 'illogical filmic villain' thing to do it's hard to believe.

Morgoth · 06-15-2012, 12:19 PM

With regards to 'encouragement' to go after this lawyer, I don't see how the lawyer can think that will fly at all. I mean yeah, by posting information about the case, it 'encouraged' some people who read it to take extremely messed up vigilante courses of action against him, but it's not like The Oatmeal actually told anyone to do anything like that. By that logic, posting an unfavourable but accurate news article about someone is 'encouraging' people to send them death threats and vandalise their house.

Innula Zenovka · 06-15-2012, 01:17 PM

I'm wondering what Mr Carreon sees as the "encouragement". I mean, if The Oatmeal had simply said, "this is the letter I've just received from FunnyJunk's lawyer. I say the allegations are groundless because.... and, if they actually take the matter to court, I intend to contest the matter vigorously", and the post had been picked up and blogged about -- not that improbable, to my mind, given the complete cheek of Funnyjunk's complaints -- then probably much the same would have happened.

OK, The Oatmeal's imaginative and colourful response pretty much guaranteed it would go viral, but I really don't see how he could be said to have encouraged any misconduct. He certainly didn't go as far as did FunnyJunk when he sent them a cease and desist letter last year (and I think his response to the Funnyjunk supporters' harassment was far more reasonable and measured than is Mr Carreon's).

I think the money quote is this, from the Forbes article:

Quote:

For him, the Funnyjunk stuff is old news – this is about himself, Matt Inman, and the great wide internet.

Assuming he's still representing Funnyjunk, that's rather alarming. He's supposed to be safeguarding his clients' interests, which seem to have taken rather a backseat in his calculations.

**Kamilah Hauptmann** · 06-15-2012, 01:55 PM

FunnyJunk -- The Oatmeal Response

Lawyers letter to FJ.

Innula Zenovka · 06-15-2012, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimee Weber

Looks like Carreon is doubling down on his claim that Inman "encouraged people to hack his website."

Funnyjunk Lawyer Charles Carreon Isn't Afraid of The Oatmeal - Forbes

What a list!

Popehat shreds this.. The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part III: Charles Carreon's Lifetime-Movie-Style Dysfunctional Relationship With the Internet | Popehat

Quote:

Under the theory that Mr. Carreon seems to be advancing, if I wrote you a letter suggesting that your wife beds down with diseased ocelots and calling for your children to be flogged, and you publish the letter and say that it suggests that I am a disturbed person of low character, then I would be legally responsible if people formed the same opinion based on the evidence you provided. Indeed, under Mr. Carreon's apparent theory, if he criticizes The Oatmeal's response to him as vulgar or unprofessional or uncivilized, he's legally responsible for people agreeing with him. This is not law, this is madness. And bear in mind that Mr. Carreon markets himself as a First Amendment champion.

**Void** · 06-16-2012, 07:15 AM

Seeing hubris in action like this... it's like watching a train wreck

Innula Zenovka · 06-16-2012, 11:18 AM

In some ways, this is reminiscent of the famous case of Arkell vs Pressdram.

What made that correspondence so funny, apart from the brilliance of the reply, was that Mr Arkell's solicitors, Goodman Derrick & Co, were (still are) one of the major London law firms and -- as I believe -- at the time, acted for the Queen in some matters. When you got a nasty letter from them, you were supposed to be very intimidated indeed*.

At least they had the sense, on receiving Private Eye's rather disrespectful reply, to advise their client that this would probably not end well for him, whatever the outcome in the courts.

*A journalist friend of mine has framed a letter he once received (which the solicitor must have enjoyed writing) that began

Quote:

Sir,
We act on behalf of Mssrs Reginald and Ronald Kray...

Now, that's intimidating (fortunately the matter was easily resolved).

Innula Zenovka · 06-17-2012, 05:47 PM

Via Popehat...

Quote:

On Friday, June 15, 2012, attorney Charles Carreon passed from mundane short-term internet notoriety into a sort of legal cartoon-supervillainy.

He transcended typical internet infamy when he filed a federal lawsuit last Friday in the United Sates District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland. He belonged to the ages the moment he filed that lawsuit not only against Matthew Inman, proprietor of The Oatmeal, but also against IndieGoGo Inc., the company that hosted Inman's ridiculously effective fundraiser for the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society.

But that level of censorious litigiousness was not enough for Charles Carreon. He sought something more. And so, on that same Friday, Charles Carreon also sued the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society, the beneficiaries of Matthew Inman's fundraiser.

Yes. Charles Carreon, butthurt that someone had leveraged his douchebaggery into almost two hundred thousand dollars of donations to two worthy charities, sued the charities.

more at The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part IV: Charles Carreon Sues Everybody | Popehat

Polo · 06-17-2012, 07:53 PM

I suppose I ought not to laugh, since it sounds as though Carreon has lost his marbles.

One hopes he'll get the appropriate therapy (or care of some kind).

Innula Zenovka · 06-18-2012, 10:13 AM

And here's the lawsuit -- http://charlescarreon.com/Carreon.v....9.Redacted.pdf

Well worth reading...

**Joshua Nightshade** · 06-18-2012, 10:34 AM

FunnyJunk’s lawyer gave money to The Oatmeal’s fundraiser | Ars Technica

Quote:

In a lawsuit filed Friday and made publicly available today, Carreon went after Inman, the charities, and the fundraising platform. And he revealed to the San Francisco federal court that he "is a contributor to the Bear Love campaign, and made his contribution with the intent to benefit the purposes of the NWF and the ACS."

The donation gives Carreon standing as a contributor to make the thrust of his lawsuit about the donations (there's also a few other charges tossed in). Carreon says that Inman is operating as an illicit "commercial fundraiser" (though the California statute he references, defining such fundraisers as doing their work "for compensation." Inman would hardly seem to fit the bill) and as such should face a hosts of sanctions.

Carreon demands that Indiegogo, which provided the fundraising platform, not get any money and that, further, none be paid out to Inman. (Indiegogo did not immediately return our request for comment). As for the charities, they "have failed to perform their statutory duty to exercise authority over the Bear Love campaign"—even after Carreon helpfully tipped them off about the campaign.

My opinions of The Oatmeal aside, this guy seems to be trying hard to win World's Meanest 2012.

Innula Zenovka · 06-18-2012, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Nightshade

FunnyJunk’s lawyer gave money to The Oatmeal’s fundraiser | Ars Technica

My opinions of The Oatmeal aside, this guy seems to be trying hard to win World's Meanest 2012.

Yeah, it's not really about The Oatmeal; it's about how Charles Carreon is behaving. I note from his claim that:

Quote:

44. Plaintiff and the other contributors to the Bear Love campaign have no remedy at law; wherefore, injunctive relief pursuant to § 12599(f) of the Act and Cal. Business & Professions Code § 17535 is required to secure a lawful disposition of the proceeds of the Bear Love campaign. If not enjoined, the unlawful conduct is likely to continue and recur.

45. Plaintiff requests an award of attorneys fees pursuant to Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 as a public attorney general benefitting the public interest in enforcement of the Act.

Adeon Writer · 06-18-2012, 11:13 AM

I really hope he likes Pizza deliveries...

Tranquility · 06-18-2012, 11:31 AM

What a jackass, not only claiming to "fight the good fight" but, hey, he should get paid to do it...

On a side note, this wouldn't be the first time he has displayed poor judgement. He has been disciplined in the past:

Quote:

CHARLES H. CARREON [#127139], 50, of Pacifica was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE and prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Sept. 21, 2006.

Carreon, who is licensed in both California and Oregon, was disciplined in Oregon for practicing without a license in Canada. He represented a U.S. corporation as house counsel for its business operations in Vancouver, British Columbia, but he was not licensed there.

06-15-2012, 01:55 PM	#40 (permalink)
Kamilah Hauptmann Git, Cat! *SLU Supporter* Never had Facebook Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Caledon Lionsgate Posts: 979 My Mood:	FunnyJunk -- The Oatmeal Response Lawyers letter to FJ. __________________ Some days you herp a derp, sometimes the derp herps you.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-14-2012, 07:59 PM	#26 (permalink)
Eunoli Rain Senior Member *SLU Supporter* Not eating peas Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Shady Falls Posts: 2,037	Am I the only one who thought this was a thread about oatmeal as in cereal, cookies, etc? I am so lame.

06-15-2012, 02:15 AM	#28 (permalink)
Chip Midnight That template guy Meshing Around Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 9,252 My Mood: Business: CMFF	I think it's too late for them to bow out and save face. Did you catch the comments on the Forbes story from the lawyer's wife? Yikes. This was attempted extortion in my opinion and shouldn't even be legal. That said, while the Oatmeal guy is making himself look good to the internets he may not be doing himself any favors as far as the law is concerned if this turns into a civil suit. As unfair as it is the burden is on him to have his work removed from their site. He claims he tried and gave up long ago and I don't doubt it at all, but did he file actual DMCA takedowns or just send an angry email or three? FunnyJunk was super quick to take everything down he listed now that this dispute has gone public no doubt to bolster their case and if Oatmeal guy can't document his failed previous attempts or he didn't ask in a way that they'd have been legally obligated to respond to and it becomes his word against theirs it could get ugly. I enjoy his go fuck yourself attitude, but contacting a lawyer would have been a lot smarter, imo.

06-15-2012, 06:15 AM	#34 (permalink)
Void That Bitch *SLU Supporter* Innocent as far as you know Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Online Posts: 6,232 My Mood: SL Join Date: late 04... that account is deleted now	I'm very skeptical that those posts are actually by his wife.... unless they're estranged and she's trying to sink his career.

06-15-2012, 12:19 PM	#38 (permalink)
Morgoth Senior Member Splendidly Sesquipedalian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Scotland Posts: 1,238	With regards to 'encouragement' to go after this lawyer, I don't see how the lawyer can think that will fly at all. I mean yeah, by posting information about the case, it 'encouraged' some people who read it to take extremely messed up vigilante courses of action against him, but it's not like The Oatmeal actually told anyone to do anything like that. By that logic, posting an unfavourable but accurate news article about someone is 'encouraging' people to send them death threats and vandalise their house.

06-16-2012, 07:15 AM	#42 (permalink)
Void That Bitch *SLU Supporter* Innocent as far as you know Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Online Posts: 6,232 My Mood: SL Join Date: late 04... that account is deleted now	Seeing hubris in action like this... it's like watching a train wreck

06-17-2012, 07:53 PM	#45 (permalink)
Polo Senior Member What the cuss?!?? Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 3,492 SL Join Date: May 3, 2008 Client: still 1.23 as long as possible	I suppose I ought not to laugh, since it sounds as though Carreon has lost his marbles. One hopes he'll get the appropriate therapy (or care of some kind).

06-18-2012, 10:13 AM	#46 (permalink)
Innula Zenovka Nasty Brit Wants things Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 6,976 SL Join Date: 17 June 2007 Business: Something Spunky	And here's the lawsuit -- http://charlescarreon.com/Carreon.v....9.Redacted.pdf Well worth reading...

06-18-2012, 11:13 AM	#49 (permalink)
Adeon Writer Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 6,117	I really hope he likes Pizza deliveries...

Logo

Site Navigation