unique visitors since July 27, 2005

« The Movement of Misfit Toys | Main | I'm Moving to Canada »

May 23, 2006

Comments

Jamie

Oh, crap, I almost guessed her, too. Probably wants to recoup all the money from those diamonds she gave away at her "Legends Ball."

Oops. Here comes the lawsuit against me using that phrase now. Geez.

Kevin

Excellent reply.

If you were to have complied, you would have given their lawyers standing to argue they were in their right, by successful defense of their copyright, to demand that you revoke your own constitutional right to free speech under the First Amendment.

I mean, really...."any and all references"?? What a laugh.

MISS WINFREY. OPRAH. HARPO PRODUCTIONS!!!

Come and get me, oh Jeffrey of Wanker Drive.

louis

Ooooo dude; OPRAH!! Talk about David and Goliath! You've got bigger ones than I could ever hope to have, that's for sure.

Good luck man!!!

H

First Amendment Forevermore!

Patrick

Oprah loves to pick a fight. She's been battling her weight for ages. She never seems to win that one. I think she'll lose this one too.

Aatom

hmm...i honestly didn't see that one. that sux, because i kind of love the old girl.

grow up, Oprah!

Kevin

Cue Imperial March from The Empire Strikes Back.

Tommy

*heavy breath, heavy breath*

I'm your Mother, Luke!

Love, Oprah

rod

Dear Matt and Robbie:

This firm represents Mr. Manhattan Offender and Mo, Inc. ("MO").

It has recently come to our attention that your website, malcontent.typepad.com (the "Website"), is featuring photographs and video excerpts from Manhattan Offender. The photographs and video excerpts are located at the following link on the Website: http://malcontent.typepad.com/malcontent/faggotry/index.html. This page of the Website uses photographs and text excerpts from episodes of The MO Show which featured the following guests: Amanda LePore, Buck Angel, Matt "the Malcontent", and the cast of Will & Grace.

MO owns the copyrights in and to each of these photographs and text excerpts which are included on the Website. MO has no record of any contract or agreement with you that grants to the right to feature these photographs or these text excerpts on the Website, but you you know how MO drinks, so, you know, whatever. The inclusion of these photographs and text excerpts on the Website is in violation of the U.S. Copycat Act, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 101 et seq.

Since your actions constitute copycat infringement, we insist that you immediately:

(i) Remove each of the photographs of MO and/or guests on the set of manhattanoffender.com, as well as all text excerpts of The MO Show, that appear on the Website; and

(ii) refrain from using any and all references to Manhattan Offender, manhattanoffender.com, and any elements that incorporate MO’s intellectual property and/or MO’s name, image and likeness without first having obtained MO’s express, written consent. This would include any reference to the word "offender" or "Manhattan". Oh, and trannie. We own that too.

Nothing in this letter should be construed as a waiver of any legal rights, at law or in equity, that MO and/or manhattanoffender.com may have; all such rights are hereby expressly reserved at a table for eight at Michael's (and you are paying).

Please forward this very lucky e-mail to five friends within five (5) business days of your receipt of this e-mail. If we do not receive proof of forwarding by that date, we will presume that you do not intend on have the luck of an angel, and we will consider all remedies (legal, equitable and otherwise) at our disposal.

Don't even bother with a response.

Sincerely,

THE INNERTAINMENT & INTELLEKTULE PROPERTY GROUP, LLC

Gunn

I love MO.

Chris

The cunt thinks she's Jesus, just like Kathy said.

greymatters

Pope-rah strikes again!

This will be fun, much like Exodus and Falwell keep needing to learn. Learn what, we don't know. Idiots.

What is it with CAD crap and televangelists (of which, Pope-rah is one -- granted of a perversely insidious bent outside of the usually recognized perverse bent)??

Dave

This further supports my theory that Oprah is the anti-Christ. Just you wait... She gonna get us all.

(Just kidding Oprah. I think you're swell. Er, nice. Sir.)

Brian

"refrain from using any and all references to Ms. Winfrey, "The Oprah Winfrey Show", and any elements that incorporate Harpo’s intellectual property and/or Ms. Winfrey’s name, image and likeness without first having obtained Harpo’s express, written consent."

^^Are they kidding me? Wow, good job not bowing down to them. I love how you actually have an intelligent, researched response to give them. They were probably counting on you being ignorant of the legal issues. Personally I can't stand Oprah. She thinks she's above it all as though she's this all knowing entity.

gayasianboy

It's interesting how some of you were praising Winfrey in the post about "Oprah on the VIEW," yet now she has become a bitch in your eyes because of this incident.

For all we know, Oprah dont even know anything about this petty issue. She has other things to worry about. It's her employees that are the bitches.

However, I do agree that at times Oprah does think she is all that. I love how she cuts off/overtalks her guests- when they are talking- jsut cuz she has something to say. Her occasional female psychologist guest has to agree to what Oprah says, sucks up to Oprah, and lets Oprah cut her off.

At times, she also makes subtle racists remarks..two times which refered to white women having thin lips / herself not having thin lips which is a good thing in her mind. etc.

el polacko

... but we'll still see paris won't we, mingie ??

Scott

Wow, so that little bug at the upper left corner about days without a C&D order isn't just fun and games...!

Yes, rest assured The O has no clue about this little action. (She's too busy feeding salmon paté to Stedman and premium pet food to Sophie--or is it the other way around?)
Her company bean counters probably just pay E&IPG a bit fat retainer every year to have a bunch of temps troll the 'net and look for "violations". I would be willing to bet their chosen in-house shyster who won the assignment lottery for the above waste of electrons is just barely out of law school and is only a step or two above the paralegals he breezes past on the way to his executive cubicle every day.

As for the response, way to go! I would love to see what canned tripe they come back with; I'm sure it will be rich. The intellectual property rights movement has gone way too far...don't these idjits realize free promotion and publicity when they see it?

Craig Ranapia

Amusing to find this in my morning newspaper:
Move over, Bill Clinton, your moment in the spotlight has ended. The former president's record advance of $12m (£6.4m) for his autobiography has been eclipsed by the chatshow host Oprah Winfrey, who has signed a deal with the publisher Simon & Schuster for a book about keeping weight under control.

The deal, announced at the annual Book Expo America in Washington, is claimed to be the biggest signed for a non-fiction work, though the amount was not disclosed. Winfrey now assumes her place above Mr Clinton and the former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who was paid $8.5m for his book.

What fucking next - Britney Spears, Michael Jackson and Courtney Love getting together to write self-help books on child rearing and marriage? Seriously, this woman's psychobabbling narcissism (along with her little Mini-Me Dr. Phil) strikes me as more and more poisonous as time goes on.

Scott

Funny book topic, since I swear I saw a US supermarket tabloid a week or two ago with a cover story about how, due to some "lifestyle change", The O may be doomed to stay heavy for the rest of her life!

LouisC

Oprah is way over rated. Lots of fluff and very little content, when you really analyse it!

Jason

This probably stems from her desire to maintain "brand control." And I would say that Scott has hit the nail on the head.

It will be interesting to see where this leads.

oprah's sex toy

hey but if you think about it, you cant really blame the chick....she was poor at first, yeah, but now she has been super-rich for many decades...she has gotten used to the the fancy treatment and expects to be treated with priority.....
so we can really blame her if it got to her head a little.

LikeOMGFab

What the hell is OprahCo. going to do? Sue? Take the last $5 out of your pocket? Oh please.

GO ROBBIE AND MAL!!! FIGHT THE POWER MAD MACHINE THAT IS OPRAH!!! WHOOOOO!!!

Pot

Oprah better leave you alone or she'll be risking her Nobel Peach Prize.

Dan

Well... good luck, tho I think you're gonna have a helluva fight on your hands. The case law is decidedly against you, and a legal victory on your side would overturn decades of precedence. To win using a 'fair use' argument, you'll have to convince a judge that the inclusion of 5/10/15+ minutes of directly copied video is somehow vital to your critique, commentary, whatever. This doesn't seem to be the case, as you generally provide pretty limited commentary (often less than 200 words) with even the most lengthy videos. Further, you have taken steps to separate the video from the commentary (creating a separate web address, malcovision.com; specifically advertising your video clips without any mention of the commentary in your blogads). This is going to look suspect. What's more, let's take a look at the 'mitigating factors' surrounding fair use:

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

I'm guessing you're not a registered non-profit. If malcontent.com makes a profit, I'm guessing it goes in your pocket. Nothing wrong with that, capitalism rocks. It's just that it doesn't help you from a fair-use standpoint.


(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

To create original content for her show, Oprah employs hundres of people, spends millions of dollars, and works countless manhours. To this end, she has every right to be protective of her work's end product.

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

Well, this goes without saying. You've directly copied ? hours worth of originally produced content. Slam dunk here.

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

Considering how much money NBC/ABC/etc is making off of selling video clips on iTunes, I think you could make a very persuasive argument that you're directly undermining the value of her show. Why spend a 2-3 bucks on an entire show when I just watch the interesting parts for free on malcovision?


Am I saying this to be an asshole? Well, you know me, of course that's part of my motivation. I'm also telling you this so you can better position yourself to survive what might soon be a legal feeding frenzy. Lawyers are like sharks, once Oprah's gotten a little blood from you, they'll all be after you. Unless you've got pretty deep pockets, you might want to enlist the help of organizations like the EFF or maybe even (gasp) the ACLU.

The comments to this entry are closed.



SEARCH MY SITE SEARCH THE WEB

Reconstruction in progress, now with 70% less Ben Wade!
RSS Feed
Add to My FeedBurner
Subscribe with Bloglines

"We really love your blog"
--Steph&Alek

"I love reading you ... very entertaining!"
--Dan Savage

"Definition of Pathetic"
--Gay Orbit

"You can write, pal."
--Crooks&Liars

"[crickets chirping]"
--GayPatriot

"Love the Blog. Robbie is BRILLIANT and Malcontent is ok, too."
--Boozhy

"You are too smart a person to be leaving one-note bitchy insults on the blogs of 22-year-olds."
--VividBlurry

"Fun, informative and fresh."
--Rod 2.0

"Snide."
--Torture.com

"Love your site."
--A Atom Bomb

"Cool blog!"
--Made in Brazil

Who's Linking to Me?

Creative Commons License