I call dibs on the word "peducator."

headkicker_girl wrote:

I call dibs on the word "peducator."

How much you want for it?

Feed the site first, and make sure there's beer for yourself and the nuts&bolters. But what the hell. If you can turn this into a highly capitalized 1990s-style Internet media conglomerate I'd be happy to prepare the org(y) chart.

choad wrote:

Many of your posts here are worth something, as they were on Cruel.Com, where US national news media lunched on them free of charge. It was not a well kept secret.
What do you think, people, should we get offended this time? Maybe shake the money tree?

Well, it was a well kept secret to me.  What specifically are you referring to?  How did the news media make use of posts on Cruel.com?  And are you saying it happened here as well?

Zookeeper wrote:

Well, it was a well kept secret to me.  What specifically are you referring to?  How did the news media make use of posts on Cruel.com?  And are you saying it happened here as well?

I could answer the last question better if I knew where Opsec found this:

http://www.catholichomeandgarden.com/co … t_want.htm

Faux News picked it up and the DAILY SHOW led with it on Halloween, Oct 31, 2007.*

Zookeeper, who better here to ask? Tell me what's that's worth while I puzzle on the first question.

note: it's still on our front page.

Last edited by choad (2007-11-04 23:16:30)

choad wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

Well, it was a well kept secret to me.  What specifically are you referring to?  How did the news media make use of posts on Cruel.com?

Sofie, you want that one?

We as cruel were featured on many "Writer's Inspiration" sites.

As in you can hear our comments echoed in the monologues of some very well-known shows. Many times the jokes are almost verbatim.

Writers use our stuff and profit from it. Or, at least they did up until now...

I'm trying to find one of the sites right now.

choad wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

Well, it was a well kept secret to me.  What specifically are you referring to?  How did the news media make use of posts on Cruel.com?  And are you saying it happened here as well?

I could answer the last question better if I knew where Opsec found this:

http://www.catholichomeandgarden.com/co … t_want.htm

Faux News picked it up and the DAILY SHOW led with it on Halloween, Oct 31, 2007.*

Zookeeper, who better here to ask? Tell me what's that's worth while I puzzle on the first question.

note: it's still on our front page.

I think it appeared on Gawker, Nerve's Scanner, and Jezebel before it showed up here - be best to check dates...

sofaking wrote:

Here's one of many:

http://www.writersservices.com/res/r_links_inspire.htm

Still not seeing the point.  Listing Cruel.com as a resource for finding odd or cruel sites isn't theft of intellectual property.  I had thought it was suggested that the things people wrote in their posts was being lifted and used without citation.  There's no "money tree" that I can see here to shake any money from.

Just because Fox News or other outlets did stories about things that got posted about on Cruel.com or here doesn't necessarily mean they found out about it here.  Most of what gets posted about here is posted about all over the web.

Zookeeper wrote:

Still not seeing the point.  Listing Cruel.com as a resource for finding odd or cruel sites isn't theft of intellectual property.  I had thought it was suggested that the things people wrote in their posts was being lifted and used without citation.  There's no "money tree" that I can see here to shake any money from.

Just because Fox News or other outlets did stories about things that got posted about on Cruel.com or here doesn't necessarily mean they found out about it here.  Most of what gets posted about here is posted about all over the web.

It's one thing to use the sites we post; it's another to use the comments.

headkicker_girl wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

Still not seeing the point.  Listing Cruel.com as a resource for finding odd or cruel sites isn't theft of intellectual property.  I had thought it was suggested that the things people wrote in their posts was being lifted and used without citation.  There's no "money tree" that I can see here to shake any money from.

Just because Fox News or other outlets did stories about things that got posted about on Cruel.com or here doesn't necessarily mean they found out about it here.  Most of what gets posted about here is posted about all over the web.

It's one thing to use the sites we post; it's another to use the comments.

Examples?  Were the comments claimed to be the original thoughts of someone other than the poster or was it just a case of something like "One Internet poster said..."?

Roger_That wrote:

I have dibs on the word picklechugger, and the phrase "go fellate a hot curling iron".

Here's a comforting thought, Smitty. I whois-ed picklechugger.com first time I saw you use it and it was available. Six months and many distractions later, I checked again.

It was bought and gone. Feel better now?

The bill is in the mail.

Now that the Writer's Guild is out on strike, maybe we can step in as scabs and write some scripts.  I'm not too familiar with TV series, but I could see an episode that opens with Marge finding Homer Simpson's furry suit.

Last edited by phreddy (2007-11-05 12:40:01)

choad wrote:

Are you sluts, or what?

Sluts do it for free.  We're escorts.

headkicker_girl wrote:

Sluts do it for free.  We're escorts.

Mr Obvious, on line one. It's for you.*

*Sorry, I stole that line from Drew Cary.

Zookeeper wrote:

The only intellectual theft I know of for certain is my theft of rcade's art work from Cruel.com:

[url]https://cruelery.com/header/logo1ri9[1].gif[/url]

Kids steal from their parents all the time so I didn't think rcade would mind.  But at least some if not most of the banners I'm seeing at the top of the pages here are probably not original works.  They are works derived from some other artist's work and thus constitute intellectual property theft.  If there's a money tree to be shaken it is the owner of this site... not that there's much money in it to shake free.

I'm weak in intellectual property law, but it may fall under fair use.  I've always thought of this site as social commentary, much like the Daily Show.

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

By the way, here's Title 17 for all you amateur lawyers.  Have at it.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

headkicker_girl wrote:

Sluts do it for free. We're escorts.

We're still giving it away. The real whores are the ones who don't credit their sources properly. They can't be stopped--and there's really little way to charge them--but they are usually their own ruin. Lack of attribution, especially when nearly everything can be Google'd, can be fatal. Attempting to profit on someone else's "intellectual property" is usually punished according to what the originator has lost. If there's no loss, then it's just whining.

headkicker_girl wrote:

By the way, here's Title 17 for all you amateur lawyers.

"Content thieves" are usually determined by context and quantity. I've been over these scenarios so many times, with specific regard to online communities, that it would be insane to try presenting all the possibilities. Two examples:

A. The banners I recently made for the HS header. For the most part, their "source images" were found elsewhere. I didn't commission original photographic work, nor did I request permission to reuse certain graphic elements. I did not profit, HS.org does not directly profit (yet), so someone complaining would be at a loss to demonstrate how these materials were appropriated to their personal or professional detriment. Not everything online is "fair-use," but if the image is altered sufficiently such that it becomes a new "advertising instrument," then it is no longer the same content.

B. Any post I have ever made to this site belongs to its owner/publisher/webmaster. If I were banned, I cannot ask to have all my posts deleted. Believe me, people have tried this. Content becomes property of the site upon publication. If, however, someone sues me for defamation, then they can pursue both of us. On the flipside, if someone takes a post I wrote, publishes it elsewhere and under his or her own name, pursuing this legally is difficult, as I'm sure you know.

I guess I don't entirely understand the premise of this thread, or what people are concerned about. Sure, I'm with the group that says "If you thought it up, then you should have primary rights to profit from it," but HOW? We don't have a 24/7 legal team combing the 'Net for reproduction of our material, and all the stuff posted here has been provided with the implicit understanding that it's meant for public consumption. It's not like there's a gateway to viewing the content, or password protection on a private area.

Who is theoretically swiping content? How are they doing this? What are they gaining by doing so? Have they attempted to pass the content (word/images) off as their own, or is their attribution sloppy?

The world was it's oyster for the first newspaper, until the second one happened along and they squabbled over attribution.

If you produce something unique for this site, watermark, copyright and give it a splooge sample. Cool domain name? Register the fucker. They're $6 a year. Make a fortune or annoy the hell out of someone you hate. It's all good.

pALEPHx wrote:

choad wrote:

If you produce something unique for this site, watermark, copyright and give it a splooge sample.

Since the majority of people here don't fancy themselves as either,

Well that's where you're wrong.  I make my living on art.  Photos, graphics, illustrations, and web design.  I spent many years under the tutelage of one of Europe's finest vodka induced painters.

Oh, and I've never minded anyone using my art for non-profit reasons.  However, if you claim it as your own, and try to make $ from it, see my lawyer.

Last edited by Roger_That (2007-11-06 15:18:15)

OK, what about this:  A few days ago, someone linkef to FreeRice, & comments ensued.  What would happen if another site, one that makes money, lifted & published a comment whole cloth?  I'm not sayinmg it's happened, just that it could.

from today's Gawker.com:
"There's this vocab building website called FreeRice where for every word you get correct, they donate 10 grains of rice through the United Nations to end "World Hunger." You might think it is a footle but to pretermit the problem would be splenetic! For every word you get wrong, they shoot an orphan, so be careful."

see Ebaum's World Sucks:

http://www.ebws.com

Roger wrote:

see Ebaum's World Sucks: . . .

Fuck you ebaum

Well put.

Ops wrote:

It's up to us whether (or how) to share or enforce rights on this property.

Yeah, I knew that - Despite your "Libertarian" posturing - you had a bit of Marxist in you.

Last edited by Decadence (2007-11-06 16:56:11)

Hey -=pENIx=-:

(sorry, I like WCL's new name) -

It wasn't aimed at you.  I was just rallying 'round my family, with a pocket full of shells.

Anyways, try more wit and less banter!

Thank You,

The Management

square wrote:

Hey guys - like this picture?

The only reference that ever threw me off there was the "No Nazis" reference.  Was I sober that week, or . . .?

Choad: You're all individuals!

High-Street Forums (unison): Yes, we're all individuals!

tojo2000: I'm not.

Sofaking: Shut up!