4Chan sucks and funnyjunk will live forever. Yahoo Answers Sign in Sign in Mail ⚙ Help. In this Reaction Time Episode, I reacted to a funny test where it tells you whether you are gay or not based on a bunch of questions you have to answer. Straight boy seductions gay porn. Watch Straight Guy Seduced gay porn videos for free, here on Pornhub.com. Discover the growing collection of high quality Most Relevant gay XXX movies and clips. No other sex tube is more popular and features more Straight Guy Seduced gay scenes than Pornhub! Browse through our impressive selection of porn videos in HD quality on any device you own. Watch Straight Boys Seduced gay porn videos for free, here on Pornhub.com. Discover the growing collection of high quality Most Relevant gay XXX movies and clips. No other sex tube is more popular and features more Straight Boys Seduced gay scenes than Pornhub! Browse through our impressive selection of porn videos in HD quality on any device you own. Watch Straight Seduced gay porn videos for free, here on Pornhub.com. Discover the growing collection of high quality Most Relevant gay XXX movies and clips. No other sex tube is more popular and features more Straight Seduced gay scenes than Pornhub! Browse through our impressive selection of porn videos in HD quality on any device you own. PornMD.com offers some straight seduced with a gay hunk videos that we think you’ll really enjoy. If you’ve ever fantasized about being with someone of a different sexual preference, then these flicks are just for you. Watch or download Straight Boy Seductions featuring Ty Roderick, Asa Shaw, and watch more passionate gay porn and erotica at IconMale.com. Dreamy jock Ty Roderick is coaching aspiring football player Asa Shaw so that he can make the football team. Even though Asa fumbles every catch, Ty encourages him to keep trying. About a year ago, Matthew Inman wrote a short article highlighting Funnyjunk, one of the many image aggregating sites on the internet. This article, titled was a short exploration of his impression of the site and some of the complaints he had about it. Primary among them was that the site hosted copies of his comics without attribution or links back to his site. Other than that, his complaints revolved around the shear ugliness of the site (they still have not updated it). He ended that exploration with a level-headed look at the big picture. I realize that trying to police copyright infringement on the internet is like strolling into the Vietnamese jungle circa 1964 and politely asking everyone to use squirt guns. I know that if FunnyJunk disappeared fifty other clones would pop up to take its place overnight, but I felt I had to say something about what they're doing. No legal threats. No claims that this site was destroying his business. Just a recognition of the issues and a call for a discussion about it with Funnyjunk. Funnyjunk then responded with a rather hyperbolic claim that The Oatmeal was going to and have it shut down. Clearly not the case. Matthew had thought that was the end of the issue. Until recently. Yesterday, Matthew wrote on his blog that Funnyjunk has sent him legal papers. The letter makes a wide array of claims, some correct and some just outright weird. Matthew does a fairly good job of taking apart each of the claims against The Oatmeal. So I will let you read through those on your own. Our interests lie, rather, in some of the finer points of this dispute. Funnyjunk, as a user generated content site, is probably protected by the DMCA, something it goes through great pains in its legal letter to explain. Much like Imgur or Youtube, as long as it complies with the DMCA (i.e., has a registered agent, properly responds to takedowns, does not 'induce' infringement), it is likely protected. However, that really isn't at issue here. No one but Funnyjunk has brought up the DMCA or talked about lawsuits. The Gay Test Funnyjunk.comInstead, I think it is time to hearken back to a few years ago when we talked about something in the comedy business. The idea is that social mores and rules can result in punishment of what society feels is unfair or unethical. So although Funnyjunk is working within the bounds of current law, it was still perceived as doing something unethical and the community responded appropriately. Much the same way the comedian who copied his jokes was shunned by the community. Which leads us to one of the key complaints made by Funnyjunk, that Matthew's blog post 'injured Funnyjunk in its trade, business or profession.' That is most likely true considering the power of enforcement through social norms. The Oatmeal has a very strong following around the internet (274,924 followers on Twitter, nearly 600,000 on Facebook). So of course those people would be upset when Matthew is upset and they would probably respond in kind (it helps when Matthew actually asks his fans to respond). This is completely normal. But telling people your opinion as to why you dislike a particular site, and letting them make their own decision about it isn't illegal. It's kind of the crux of how our system of free expression works. Perhaps most interesting of all, Matthew has also taken this public shaming of Funnyjunk to a new level. In response to this legal threat demanding $20,000, Matthew has decided to instead raise that money and donate it to charity. He has done this because he feels that Funnyjunk's claim of defamation has no merit and he does not want to deal with a lawsuit over the next year. As a result of this very public slap in the face, The Oatmeal raised. It has at the time of this writing. None of which is going to Funnyjunk. In the end, it seems like a great lesson from pretty much every direction. It's an example of where you don't need to rely on laws to make things right -- and, in fact, the one party who tried to rely on laws (by being way way way way too overaggressive) gets 'punished' in the court of public opinion instead. Seems like a good solution all around. Though we haven't yet seen how Funkyjunk will respond. If they're smart, they'll either apologize (very very publicly) or just shut up about all of this. I am serious. What's the objective, unbiased test to determine if something is humor or not? If I threaten to kill somebody and when I'm arrested, I claim it was only humor, how will the judge decide whether or not to believe me? So far all I hear is that 'it's common sense/obvious that it was humor'. That's nice, but how do we objectively decide what common sense and obvious is? Do we give famous humorists/comedians a 'get out of slander accusations free' card? I'm inquiring about how this works in the law. In your original post you did not ask if they could be sued for saying copyright infringement is stealing. You asked if they could be sued for accusing websites of infringing copyright. And yes, they can be sued for that, especially if they can't prove copyright infringement. I will point out to you that an accusation is not opinion but a statement of fact - it's a statement that somebody has done something. I was also referring to the fact that everyone jumps on the RIAA/MPAA when they accuse legitimate websites of copyright infringement, but when an independent artist does it, a lot of people rush to his defense. I think you and I at least agree that somebody is given preferential treatment, we just don't agree what that treatment should be. Coward, we see what you are doing. You're equating the 'little guy' complaining about 'infringement' (neither taking down nor suing) with the RIAA/MPAA going on a full legal barrage to take stuff down, putting people in jail for the same perceived 'infringement'. Then you are equating community 'jumping on' (threatening with defamation) the RIAA/MPAA for that completely hostile and aggressive behavior, to FunnyJunk going full-on legal with accusations of defamation against that same 'little guy' because he dared say something about it. RIAA going nuclear =/= Oatmeal voicing their opinion FunnyJunk going nuclear =/= the community voicing their opinion. So in that sense, the Oatmeal did commit defamation. What the Oatmeal said may not have been entirely, 100% accurate (it doesn't 'find' images but lets users post them). And, Funnyjunk may be lawful. But that doesn't mean The Oatmeal rose to the level of defamation. For example, The Oatmeal never claimed that what they were doing was 'willful criminal infringement.' (In fact, it wouldn't be, even if that's what they did.) And, other than the word 'find,' what The Oatmeal said was accurate (though obviously snarky). If anything, Funnyjunk claiming that The Oatmeal wanted to 'sue' and 'shut down' their site is more defamatory than anything The Oatmeal said, since it was completely false. Of course, that doesn't rise to the level of defamation either. But, if the lawsuit actually goes forward (which I'm sure it won't), Funnyjunk would absolutely lose, big time, for all of the other idiotic things they claimed. Dating a gay man who posts a lot of selfies on instagram. This whole thing just proves Mike's point. In fact, it's likely that neither side is legally guilty of anything, and even attempting to duke it out it in court would be a complete waste of the court's time, and both parties' money. .anything that isn't deemed 'illegal', is 'okay'. Um, well, no its NOT: using 'illegality' as a measure of morality is such a low bar as to be meaningless in everyday social interactions. In general, i don't GIVE A SHIT what the 'laws' say (which is only what our superiors with money are able to enact), MY MORALS are INFINITELY more restrictive than stupid, shitty 'laws'. I don't do stupid, unethical stuff to people *because* it is not 'legal'; i don't do stupid, unethical stuff to people because my momma taught me IT AIN'T RIGHT, REGARDLESS of what 'The Law' says!!! Art guerrilla aka ann archy eof [|| ] •. Funnyjunk's legal claims are almost entirely without merit, IMO. The false advertising claim is bullshit -- clear nominative use of the trademark. Inman probably has qualified immunity as to the defamation claim (criticism on a matter of public importance - copyright infringement on a high profile website) that he only loses with a showing of actual malice or known falsity. There might even be an anti-SLAPP counterclaim in there, depending on the jurisdiction. At any rate, I think we can all agree Funnyjunk is a scummy site, even if they operate entirely within the DMCA, and I hope they get what's coming to them from a purely business end. I posted a much longer content below detailing my opinion on this matter, but I'll just say a few things here. I agree FunnyJunk is over-reacting and some of their accusations are exaggerations. However, what I think is going on, is that websites like FunnyJunk, who host content uploaded by users, are constantly bullied and threatened by copyright holders. Some have already been shut down, had their domains seized, etc. It's clear that Oatmeal can't or won't give FunnyJunk much legal trouble, but I think FunnyJunk is just being very sensitive about these kinds of accusations, because they don't want to be the justice system's next Pirate Pay or Megaupload.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |