Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Business Wire Falls for April Fools Prank, Sues FBNers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cindy Powell who wrote (2045)	5/5/1999 3:38:00 PM
From: mc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3795

Please, that's a cop out. If you think they (Webnode3) are in the wrong and that they should be sued, then there must be damages. If you don't know if there are damages then how can you even argue with the people here who say this case is a joke. No damages means no case. Why bring a civil suit if you haven't been damaged? Isn't that the reason for civil court? mc

To: Cindy Powell who wrote (2045)	5/5/1999 7:09:00 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3795

Cindy, you're wrong. Sorry, but you are. You said you are not trying to be Judge or jury, but it strongly appears you have libeled these people at least twice, on this thread. That's the truth. Whether they want to bother with you is another question. As far as damage, we're talking legally, here...your interpretation of the facts in the case is twisted beyond my comprehension to think of an adequate metaphor. The webnode site was created as an educational April Fool's gag. It does not matter if you don't believe it. It's true. You are wrong. I don't know if any Judge will believe it, and I don't care. All I care about is the truth. And that's the truth. I thought it was brilliant. Extremely creative, one of the best things I've ever seen on the Internet. I still do. I thought it was really funny, and I still do. I wish I would have had something to do with it, I would be proud to say I had. There was no way to get any money using the gag, even if someone had tried to send some, which I doubt occurred. There have been a couple of insinuations by others that there could be some validity to this line of attack, but unfortunately, it won't fly. It's irrelevant. Legally, this is a pretty important point, I think. No money changed hands. The entire site is Art. It is copyrighted material. End of story, end of argument. There is no company, there is no corporation, there is nothing. It is a gag. A joke. If you're are not laughing, it doesn't matter. It was a joke. Unfortunately for the people that took the money for putting the press release out, they appear to have disassociated themselves from any liability for the effects of its publication, in writing, in their contract. You read the contract and you interpreted it incorrectly. You are wrong. It doesn't matter that you can't see it. You're still wrong. Your idiotic argument that there was some subsequent damage is based on the assumption that they assumed some legal liability for the consequences of the issuance of the press release, material which was and is copyrighted BY THE ARTISTS, yet all you need to do is read the contract and you can see whether or not they gave up all liability for whatever effect occurred due to the publication of the press release. It doesn't matter if you can't see that it is Art. It still is. You are bitching about webnode.com using somebody else's trademark. Somebody's trademark can be used without their permission under certain circumstances. Did you know that? That's what the law says. It's very clear. It doesn't matter if you can't understand it, it's the law. Bill says he has proof that he took the trademark off the site less than 4 hours after [reference deleted] asked him to. I personally don't believe he had to, but he did anyway. Then two weeks later comes this lawsuit. You are arguing about something that you know nothing about and you are making yourself look like an idiot. I don't believe you are an idiot. What I see is that you are attacking some Art and some artists. You and some other people. For what? Another thing that I personally think is of primary importance is intention. I have no idea if this is a point of law or not. I really don't care. The webnode gag was created as a fun and amusing and educational gag. CREATED, Cindy. ART, Cindy. It appeared on April 1, 1999, along with another gag, and was preceded by 2 prior gags, also very funny and very educational. The intention was to have fun and play a joke on people for April Fool's Day. This is a good intention. This is not a bad intention. What is the intention of people that attack these artists? What is your intention? I'm real familiar with people that attack Art. So is Josef. Did you ever paint or draw pictures when you were a little kid? I'll bet you did. Did you stop? I'll bet I know why. Somebody attacked your art, and you decided to stop. Somehow, somewhere, that's what happened. You stopped. Bill didn't. Neither did I. Neither did a lot of people. If you don't like it, I don't care. I'll keep making Art. It's not my fault you stopped, it's your own goddam fault. If you want to attack somebody, why not attack Marilyn Manson or some of these other slime that do nothing but make people feel worse. They claim to be artists and they are not. Why not attack them? What is their intention, Cindy? What do you think Marilyn Manson's intention is? To make Art? Right. I know what his intention is, and so do you. Or maybe these ultra loud yapping curse words going down the street dudes. The guys that made those recordings. You think that is Art? I don't, I think it's evil, but you know what? IT'S COPYRIGHTED! So be a good little girl and stop typing nonsense and stop attacking Art and artists, and bitch about something that is bad, and we'll be fine. Why not grab a camera or a paintbrush or something and get back into it. It's never too late. It's really fun. You'll like it, unless you are an evil bitch from hell, which I doubt. OK?

To: Cindy Powell who wrote (2045)	5/5/1999 7:41:00 PM
From: Cheeky Kid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3795

So I guess SI could sue me for this: unicus.com You should see the money I make from this service. WOW