Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television The Courts Your Rights Online

Discovery Threatens Fan Site It Also Promotes 287

Posted by Soulskill
from the in-the-case-of-right-hand-v.-left-hand dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It seems the lawyers and the marketing people at The Discovery Channel don't talk to each other much. The marketing people behind the show 'The Deadliest Catch' have been supporting a fan community called DeadliestCatchTV.com for a while now. They've regularly sent the site info, free clips, previews and information about the show. On top of that, they link to it from the official site, including it in a list of 'fan sites' as a part of the 'Discovery Network,' and even will frame the site with the show's own dashboard for those who click through. Discovery's lawyers, on the other hand, have threatened to sue the site out of existence and have demanded that the owner hand over the domain name — which he is going to do, because he doesn't have the money to fight this. While there may be a trademark issue (which could be easily resolved with a free license), the lawyers are also making the ridiculous argument that posting the videos Discovery sent him to post are copyright infringement. They're also claiming that embedding the official Discovery Channel YouTube videos (which have embedding turned on) is copyright infringement. This is exactly how you turn lots of fans into people who hate your entire channel."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Discovery Threatens Fan Site It Also Promotes

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday August 09, 2010 @02:34PM (#33193754)

    The whole last season was a tour de force of human tragedy, which Discovery happily played to/exploited (even adding in a melodramatic classical score this time around). Aside from the hundred or so tribute episodes to Phil Harris [wikipedia.org], it seemed like everyone in the fleet was intentionally playing to the cameras this time out even more than usual (with Edgar threatening to leave and fighting with Sig, Jake Harris's sudden "addiction" problems, etc.). Granted, the show will never be as good as the first season (before Alaska changed the rules and made the crab fishing a lot less exciting/dangerous), but this one seemed like a swan song more than any other season in the past.

    Everyone involved in the show has always been about the money. The Hanson brothers [wikipedia.org] in particular will do about anything for a buck, and have been known for trading on their fame by lending their names to some pretty sleazy ventures [variocreative.com]. But this season the cynicism (in particular the playing to the cameras) really showed in some nasty ways. This time the captains even whored themselves for Geico commercials [youtube.com] that ran during the show. And the producers' constant cutaways to a tired-looking Phil Harris was particularly shameless (they all but put up "He's about to die" subtitles).

    • by ISoldat53 (977164) on Monday August 09, 2010 @02:43PM (#33193918)
      I think the whole channel has jumped the shark. I'd rather read a book.
      • The novelization of The Deadliest Catch?

        • ROFL. The dyslexic part of my brain took over for a second there and I read that as

          The novelization of the Deadliest Crotch?

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by severoon (536737)

          "I have a great idea!" exclaimed a Discovery Network top executive. "It's a new postmodern marketing strategy called whiplash marketing. It works like this: we make everyone like us and act cool and spend a lot of money appearing one way, and then we suddenly pull a 180 in a separate area of the company and inexplicably negate those expectations. In the process of realizing the essentially futile nature of pursuing one's interests in a humanly pointless effort to feel a sense of advancement, it will have th

      • by umghhh (965931)
        I think you are exaggerating a bit - I mean o terror - book reading, there is nothing worse than this. Especially the younger generation could simply charge you with unusual and cruel punishment thing....
      • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Monday August 09, 2010 @02:58PM (#33194194) Journal

        I've seen some of the episodes on Free TV (antenna), and I've never seen the appeal of the show. Every episode seems to be the same - men catching lobsters. If you've seen one, you've seen them all. I too would rather read a book.
        .

        >>>I think the whole channel has jumped the shark.

        What cable channels haven't jumped the shark? The Learning Channel is now Tender Loving Care (babies, brides, and bullshit). History should be renamed Present. Sci-Fi Channel is now some kind of cross between reality and new age. The Guide Channel often shows TV shows/specials instead of guides, and Weather Channel shows movies instead of weather.

        Back in the 90s I used to say, "I wish I had cable so I could see all this great entertainment, especially Sci-Fi and History." Now I have zero desire for cable.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

          Every episode seems to be the same - men catching lobsters.

          Crabs, not lobsters. Crabs.

          And yeah, I live in Alaska and never liked Deadliest Catch. It's like any other reality show, just on a boat. Same with Ice Road Truckers - it's just another reality show, in trucks.

          I'd much rather watch an actual documentary on crab fishing, or on ice road truckers, than these stupid reality shows. They are all so trumped up it's ridiculous.

          • by Miseph (979059) on Monday August 09, 2010 @05:44PM (#33197440) Journal

            "It's like any other reality show, just on a boat."

            Dear T-Pain,
                      You'd be a perfect addition to our show. We think the kids would just love it. Let us know what you think.
            XOXO,
                      The Discovery Channel

            P.S.
            Are you friends with Xzibit? Because we've got a show about trucks that he could really revamp...

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by sortius_nod (1080919)

            The only "reality" shows like this I actually enjoy are done by the BBC. They seem to get it right, rather than making it dramatic, they aim more for looking at the whole story.

            Deadliest Catch was amusing for an episode or two, but you definitely get more value from a decent documentary than from a whole season of this Discovery nonsense.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Obfuscant (592200)
              The only "reality" shows like this I actually enjoy are done by the BBC. They seem to get it right, rather than making it dramatic, they aim more for looking at the whole story.

              I don't know if this one counts because it was done by LionHeart (or Lion whatever), but it was called "Survivor" IIRC, and was supposed to follow the lives of about 50 people moved out to the Shetlands. They were supposed to have been provided with houses and school, etc, but the production crew was way behind and only half of the

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by SoupGuru (723634)
          Ah yes, those important parts of our history are shown brilliantly on the History Channel... like Top Shot, Axe Men, and Ice Road Truckers.

          <spit>
      • by RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) <taiki&cox,net> on Monday August 09, 2010 @03:02PM (#33194262)

        Duh.

        What else do you do during Shark Week.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by elrous0 (869638) *
        Well, at least it's not TLC. Between the "Jon and Kate" mess and their recent announcement of "Sarah Palin's Alaska [discovery.com]", TLC makes Discovery look like PBS.
    • by barzok (26681) on Monday August 09, 2010 @02:44PM (#33193922)

      This time the captains even whored themselves for Geico commercials [youtube.com] that ran during the show.

      You forgot to mention the very obvious placement of the Geico coffee mugs in the wheelhouse of the Time Bandit.

      Sig Hansen has been listed as a producer and/or consultant on the show for several years - no real surprise there.

      I think Discovery overplayed the drama, but I don't think it was as bad as you make it out to be. Edgar Hansen has apparently been threatening to leave the boat for a few years now. Addiction to various substances seems to be fairly common across the fleet (a reference was made somewhere to "the other Jake" being 6 months sober late in the season, and other guys have talked about getting sober as well).

      There's only so many ways you can film & edit the crabbing grind & keep the viewership year over year. They had to pull in more of the human drama, and what happened w/ Phil Harris was perfect for the producers to latch onto. Otherwise, what's to talk about - the weather? The Bering Sea gets nasty weather - but you can't produce a full season of TV off that.

      • by tepples (727027)

        The Bering Sea gets nasty weather - but you can't produce a full season of TV off that.

        Maybe Discovery can't, but The Weather Channel could probably make a series about people who thrive in nasty weather. They could call it something like "Cantore Stories".

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Everyone involved in the show has always been about the money.

      Our entire economy is built around earning what you want by pleasing your fellow man. That is what keeps us all productive.

      What the hell is wrong with wanting money? You need it to buy food and medicine for your kids, to put a roof over your head, and to do just about anything interesting. What's so damn bad about artists etc. working because they are paid?

      And what is bad about trying to maximize the amount of money you can get in return for w

      • So (honest question): What's the diff between actual average joes working a living (As portrayed by the adverts, the show, etc), and actors only pretending to be average joes? One of the two more likely belongs on TruTV than a channel that bills itself as an actual documentary channel.

        I understand that these guys are still crabbing for a living, but at some point, it seems that their primary job stopped involving the crabs, and began involving the cameras. Once you play up to the camera, it stops being a do

        • by Monchanger (637670) on Monday August 09, 2010 @03:20PM (#33194666) Journal

          The difference is they seem to still risk their lives on the Bering, where actual soap opera stars don't actually die when their character is killed. Mike Rowe plays to the camera, but he still gets dirty and gets the job done- those can still be two different things and discovery doesn't have to be documentary the way History should (but sadly no longer is).

          Degree is everything, and I don't know that they've crossed the line. How much they make from Discovery is part of this- if they don't need to crab, they've certainly crossed it. If they are, as you suggest, crabbing for a living, they're still badass, hardworking dudes. If instead they're simply acting to a written script and don't care about full pots, then that would certainly be more drama than reality.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by cgenman (325138)

          Once you play up to the camera, it stops being a documentary and becomes a drama.

          How is this different than most documentaries? You edit and cut and adjust and add music to make the viewer feel something that you find interesting. Even if you don't have a host hamming it up, everyone there is aware that they're on film. And once it leaves them, it is a %100 edited and created construct.

          A documentary isn't completely objective or real. A documentary is what the filmmaker decides to make it into. The onl

    • True - I usually avoid the main Discovery Channel, and hang around in the smaller ones - Science, History International, etc. So far, these channels are a hell of a lot more interested in things like science, history, and etc. Discovery itself is only interested in, well, eyeballs.

      • by kidgenius (704962)
        History Channel:History as TLC:Learning
        • Yeah but TLC lets you learn about a dysfunctional white trash family building shitty, overpriced motorcycles!! zOMG!!! Oh and you can watch American Hot Rod to see a bunch of reject mechanics build cars that are 75% bondo.

        • by Nadaka (224565)

          I got rather annoyed when History channel went through its recent paranormal 24/7 phase, right after its OMG! Jesus! Davinci Code! 24/7 phase, right after its Mayan Calender/Nostradamus predicts the apocalypse 24/7 phase.

          Thankfully I don't pay for my cable, it is included in my rent.

      • Discovery itself is only interested in, well, eyeballs.

        What TV channel isn't? Can you name a single TV channel that exists in absence of viewers?

        • by toriver (11308)

          Sure, the NOTV network. You know, "All static - all the time". Make a fortune in T-shirt and coffee mug sales.

          I kid.

  • Greed (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MongooseKY (760783)
    Ain't it fun? You can ruin almost anything with it.
    • Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind.

      --Gordon Gekko, speaking the Mantra of unbridled capitalism. Greed may not get the outright worship it got when Wall Street came out, but many still consider greed to be a positive thing.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sjames (1099)

        but many still consider greed to be a positive thing.

        Primarily the greedy and short sighted.

        Young children consider Hershey bars for breakfast, lunch and dinner (washed down with soda) to be a good thing too.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by lgw (121541)

          "Greed" is orthagonal to "short sighted". Short-sighted greed is usually a bad thing, but the desire to get more out of a process is at the very heart of engineering. Rational greed may not be the optimal behavior in humans, but it's a Hell of a lot closer to optimal than just being randomly destructive, or, worse, being focused on telling your neighbor how he can live his life better!

          • Greed is a dirty word for efficiency

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by sjames (1099)

            Greed IS orthogonal to short sighted, that's why I specified both. Otherwise I would have just skipped the "and short sighted" part.

            Greed is not the same as simple want or preference, it is desire for the material elevated above all else.

            Three kids, 3 pieces of candy. All 3 want the candy all would be even happier if there were 6 pieces, but the one who tries to grab all 3 and run off with it is greedy.

            The engineer who avoids waste is employing frugality, not greed.

            As for my neighbor, he is free to roll aro

          • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Monday August 09, 2010 @03:13PM (#33194508) Journal

            I don't think greed is anything like "The desire to get more out of a process." That's just a desire for efficiency. I thought greed was specifically "A selfish or excessive desire for more than is needed or deserved, especially of money, wealth, food, or other possessions."

            You see, you left out two important components of the definition of greed, one, the desire itself is selfish and/or excessive; and the desire is for more than is needed or deserved. But this definition likely angers certain people, who will say things like ,"Excessive by whose standards?" or "Why should anyone be allowed to say what someone else needs or deserves?" and to them I say, we do. Society. Other people you happen to be sharing the planet with, we have the right and the power to say, "That's too much, buddy, didn't your momma teach you to share?"

            And that is perhaps the best thing that can be said about greed, like it or not, the rest of us humans have the power to stop greed from paying off, if we want to. And most of us do, despite what the greedy would have you believe most people are not greedy and in fact despise greedy people.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by lgw (121541)

              I don't think greed is anything like "The desire to get more out of a process." That's just a desire for efficiency. I thought greed was specifically "A selfish or excessive desire for more than is needed or deserved, especially of money, wealth, food, or other possessions."

              Yes, but there is a healthy overlap. If I want more out of a process I may be motivated by simple greed. Additional greed might motivate me to bring this new efficiency to everyone (for a price). But once you start talking about "more than is deserved" you're firmly into "telling your neighbor how to live" territory, which is surely worse than mere greed.

              Other people you happen to be sharing the planet with, we have the right and the power to say, "That's too much, buddy, didn't your momma teach you to share?"

              Yes, "you have too much, so I'm justified in taking yours" is the worst sort of greed: it's greed wrapped up in rationalizations that remove the guilt w

    • by ArsonSmith (13997)

      "Greed: Ain't it fun? You can ruin almost anything with it."

      For everything else there's Government.

  • by Local ID10T (790134) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Monday August 09, 2010 @02:37PM (#33193788) Homepage

    Each department is doing it's job well. Upper management is responsible for overseeing and coordinating departments into a cohesive whole.

    Guess who failed?

    • Well the lawyers seemed to have jumped the gun a little bit too though.

      Don't you think lawyers should... I don't know... ASK where they got the copyrighted material from, before threatening to sue?

      Maybe copyright Lawyers might be able to find the big distributors and shut THEM down if they simply traced it all the way back. I'm going to guess theres more money in having more infringements though.

      • by jgagnon (1663075)

        I wonder if the site got WRITTEN permission before posting the content. If so, then this will get interesting quick, if not then they're screwed, regardless of what people may have said at Discovery.

        • They might still have a case without previously written consent if in fact the Marketting department steps up and explains that they did in fact distribute the content. Then it'll be up to Discovery on whether they continue to lash out at their fans.

        • You didn't read the article, did you?

          • by jgagnon (1663075)

            All it says is that some of it was posted on YouTube, not all of it. What exactly is your point?

      • by sjames (1099)

        Don't you think lawyers should... I don't know... ASK where they got the copyrighted material from, before threatening to sue?

        But that would require actually working for a living. They consider using the world as a point and click cash machine to be their God given right.

    • I think the owner should defend himself.

      I recall a case from this last decade where a Mall sued a private person for using the website name of the mall. The private individual decided to fight, got the backing of the ACLU, and it eventually rose to the level of the Supreme Court of the United States who declared since the individual owned the site first, he has prior claim.

      They also ruled that free speech protects derivative sites like paypalsucks.com from claims of ownership by Paypal. I suspect this fan

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kenh (9056)

      I have to wonder, did the Marketing Department have the right to "give away" copyrighted material for use on a non-Discovery Channel site? I bet they didn't. Did the lawyers talk to the Marketing Department before sending the notices to the fan site? I bet they didn't. Did the fansite give credit to the Marketing Department for providing the "exclusive" clips for use on the fansite? Probably not.

      So where does that leave us? Lawyers who trolled google looking for sites violating Discover Channel properties c

      • by jvkjvk (102057) on Monday August 09, 2010 @03:41PM (#33195178)

        have to wonder, did the Marketing Department have the right to "give away" copyrighted material for use on a non-Discovery Channel site? I bet they didn't.

        That doesn't matter. The fact is that they are the same company, and the Company Iteslf does indeed have this right. And they exercised it. Now, it would be an entirely different matter if the company in question did not hold the copyright, but they do!

        In hindsight, the fan site owner should have verified the legality of the clips/info he was sent - it sounds dumb, but ultimately he is responsible for the information on his site

        I am sick and tired of people promoting corporate irresponsibility while at the same time screaming about personal responsibility and your post certainly smacks of that. The only reason to jerrymander a company like that is to avoid responsibility and I think they do a plenty good job of that already. In fact, the premise of your post basically signifies how complete the brainwashing has been.

        The fact is that the corporation is responsible for disseminating this to that site. NO, not, oh the "Marketing" department or any other sub group. The corporation itself. If they hold the copyrights then it is certainly legal to give out clips, knowing that they will be futher distributed, and they did.

        Regards.

    • by h00manist (800926) on Monday August 09, 2010 @03:27PM (#33194822) Journal

      Each department is doing it's job well. Upper management is responsible for overseeing and coordinating departments into a cohesive whole.

      Guess who failed?

      The guy with less money. According to standing legal and social norms.

  • by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Monday August 09, 2010 @02:38PM (#33193812)

    1) Looks like they're "discovering" how to piss of their fans

    2) This is what you get by obsessing over a show as pointless as "Deadliest Catch". Oh wait, this one is not a joke. This is karma.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      IMHO, they are all just acting crabby.
  • Contact the EFF (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The_mad_linguist (1019680) on Monday August 09, 2010 @02:38PM (#33193822)

    Isn't this the type of thing that the EFF is for?

    Seems like setting a precedent for "if you send somebody your copyrighted material, you can't be sued" would be useful, especially with respect to RIAA honeypots.

  • by gilesjuk (604902) <giles.jones@zen.c o . uk> on Monday August 09, 2010 @02:38PM (#33193826)

    Can't he just fill the site with porn and get the site blocked by most internet nanny software?

  • Look, ma! No legs! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Renraku (518261) on Monday August 09, 2010 @02:39PM (#33193838) Homepage

    A judge with a brain won't let it fly that one side of the company supports the site and the other side of the company wants to sue it out of existence. They SHOULD find that once Discovery started 'supporting' the website, they gave it 'permission' for it to exist and didn't have a problem with it until they decided to sue. A company, in the eyes of the law, is one entity.

    • by hibiki_r (649814) on Monday August 09, 2010 @02:44PM (#33193930)

      For that to matter you'd need a court system in which facing a copyright infringement suit without spending tens of thousands in legal representation is doable.

      • It does seem to me that before going the "Fold like a Newspaper" route the guy might at least like, try to talk to management at the Discovery Channel. According to the article, he's had some correspondence with the lawyer, but that's like trying to talk sense to hammer. The lawyer's job is to act tough and push the line he's been given. It may very well be that he'll get a unified gray wall all the way up the chain of command, but often if you annoy someone important enough (especially someone with some

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TheSpoom (715771)

          Have you ever read a cease and desist notice?

          They all but say that if you don't do exactly what the lawyer wants in X amount of time (usually 48 hours to a week), they will initiate legal action.

          Having a copyright suit even initiated against you will likely cost several thousand dollars before you're out.

          You get a cease and desist and you aren't rich, you do what they say. Welcome to the real world.

          • by DrgnDancer (137700) on Monday August 09, 2010 @03:32PM (#33194962) Homepage

            You'd really be amazed at what can be accomplished by getting on the phone and continuing to ask to talk to a more important person. I'm not as good at it as my mother (she once got her medical insurance to cover an experimental plastic surgery procedure for my brother after his face got messed up by a dog. By the end she was on the phone with a senior executive VP, who reported directly to the CEO), but even with my lack of fu, I've gotten a surprising number of charges reversed, problems resolved, etc. It's not always successful, but there's really a fairly number of reasonable people at all levels of management for these various companies. It's just that they are so rarely faced with the reality of how process and procedure affect other actual human beings, that they are insulated from doing much about it.

            Worse case scenario, he spends a few hours on the phone and wasted his time. It's not like he hasn't already spent hours and hours building this site. Best case he resolves the issue and moves on with life. In either case be prepared to buckle under before the deadline, if that's how you're planning to play it.

      • by Abstrackt (609015)

        For that to matter you'd need a court system in which facing a copyright infringement suit without spending tens of thousands in legal representation is doable.

        Your comment makes the conspiracy theorist in me wonder if this was some elaborately staged plan to get the domain name (and near-free advertising for it) as cheaply as possible.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geminidomino (614729)

      Unfortunately, to even get it that far, you've got to get a lawyer to say basically what you just said.

      Welcome to justice-by-checkbook.

    • by dmgxmichael (1219692) on Monday August 09, 2010 @02:50PM (#33194030) Homepage

      You're right. Now do you have $100,000 to get it in front of a judge?

      Increasingly in this country justice is the exclusive possession of the rich.

    • by DutchSter (150891) on Monday August 09, 2010 @02:51PM (#33194052)

      Too bad it will never see a judge because the owner of the site in question decided to acquiesce Discovery's C&D rather than go to court. I'm sure there will be posters who will bemoan the fact that he's "taking it in the ass" or "abandoning the principle of the matter" or other such nonsense. I never begrudge anybody for making a legal decision based on their own situation. Lawyers aren't cheap, and at the end of the day I can't think of any hobbies I have where I'd be willing to front thousands of dollars I don't have and years of stress just to make a point when the end result will be either:
      1. I win, and now have the right to continue to maintain a fan site for a show that's either now out of existence (by the time the case is concluded) or that I absolutely despise after what the company put me through.
      2. I lose, and go bankrupt.

      I think the owner is doing the best thing he can here - he's giving in without spending a cent but he's generating a lot of negative publicity in the process.

      As an aside someone should report all of Discovery's Youtube videos because they are not adhering to Youtube's terms of use.

      • Is it legal to put a defence to tender? Basically post a request for defence and see if anyone is willing to defend the entity out principle, rather than a need for cash? I just want to believe that there is a solution to defending the little entity when faced with a jugnaught.

    • by dcollins (135727)

      "A company, in the eyes of the law, is one entity."

      Quick, outsource that shit.

    • by sjames (1099)

      It doesn't matter. The site owner doesn't have enough money to buy his day in court, so no justice for him.

  • by oldspewey (1303305) on Monday August 09, 2010 @02:40PM (#33193852)

    Relax folks, this is all just promotional groundwork for Discovery Channel's next big reality TV show, in which a few thousand lawyers will be released onto a remote, arctic island with no survival gear beyond an iPhone, some designer shoes, and a briefcase full of legal documents and moist towelettes.

    The project has tentatively been titled "If you live, you get to sue our asses for putting you there."

    • by cbope (130292)

      ... and let's hope the producers come back to check on them in about 30 years or so. Greedy fucking bastards.

    • Add that they can beat each other to death, we can call the show "Deadliest Attaché"
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by wile_e8 (958263)
      Q: What do you call a few thousand lawyers on a remote, arctic island?

      A: A good start
    • by Locke2005 (849178)
      That would be absolutely tragic if and only if one or more lawyers actually made it off the island!
  • If he has permission from Discovery to post these things, then he has it in the form of written permission. If he has this, then I would say go to court.
    • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

      He doesn't need direct, written permission. Implied permission is more than good enough.

      Giving someone copyrighted material with the expectation that they will share it (which the Discovery Channel certainly did), then attempting to sue for sharing that same material is entrapment, and it's illegal.

      Honestly, if the guy had the money to fight this the Discovery Channel could lose their shirts on this one. As it is, he needs some help, or he's toast.

      If I were him I'd make a new site, called "TheDiscoveryCha

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by smurfsurf (892933)

      Did you ever see a press release or a press map? The ones I have seen do not contain such permission notes, the permission to use the material is implicit.

      "They've regularly sent the site info, free clips, previews and information about the show."

      Same thing.

  • by tibit (1762298) on Monday August 09, 2010 @02:49PM (#33194016)

    It's quite, simple really. There is the legal department, in charge of chasing people away. And then there's the marketing department, in charge of pulling people in. And then there's no communication between them. With opposite missions, what do you expect.

    Add to the fact that the legal seems to be adept at the chasing away part, while somewhat forgetful of the law they apparently learned many moons ago in, uhhhunh whatwuzitcalled college methinks? To the lawyers: don't party so hard when in college, or you'll have trouble understanding the law later.

    Does anyone do performance review on corporate legal teams? As in real reviews where any monetary awards to the company are balanced with lost goodwill and whatnot? There's a lawyer or two waiting to be fired here, methinks.

    • First, I'd say you misspelled "colostomy," but given that we're talking about the legal profession, it wouldn't surprise me that its a word from a specialty dictionary. Then again, we're talking about the legal profession, so "colostomy" seems like the best word after all. But down to business:

      tibit: Add to the fact that the legal seems to be adept at the chasing away part, while somewhat forgetful of the law they apparently learned many moons ago in, uhhhunh whatwuzitcalled college methinks?

      That classic i

  • And contrary to popular belief, you don't need a lawyer to be successful at it (remember, I've sued the government - and won).

    This is just another case of "lawyers don't know their job" - the majority of lawyers are incompetent. Law school doesn't even teach them how to handle a court case (read any big-name lawyer's bio and they'll tell you as much).

    Find a similar motion on the net, admit you own the aforenamed website and deny every other claim. Then the ball is in their court. They can do NOTHING without your cooperation. They will lose the domain name resolution process because you can show that the past history - otherwise they'd have used it

    And they'll lose in court. And have to pay.

    Let them sue. You'll enjoy making (greater) fools of them.

    • by Fjandr (66656)

      Unfortunately most people don't have the balls to do things like this. They find the legal system overwhelmingly intimidating.

      It's not really (well, not as much as most people seem to think), when you take a good look at it and apply some common sense and a bit of time researching.

      • by digitig (1056110)

        Unfortunately most people don't have the balls to do things like this.

        Or the spare time to waste on something that they were only doing for fun and that isn't fun any more.

    • by DutchSter (150891) on Monday August 09, 2010 @03:08PM (#33194402)

      I'm glad you've been successful at representing yourself in court. As I alluded to in an earlier post though we can't begrudge someone for not doing what we would rather they do when it comes to their situation. It's a personal decision. Here we are talking about a fan site that a guy runs as a hobby. Presumably he runs it because he likes Discovery and he likes their show. He's probably not so endeared to them anymore. We don't know but after this treatment he may not even be interested in providing them with free publicity

      Is it wrong that Discovery is going after him like they are? Yep, no doubt. But that doesn't mean we can decide for him how he should proceed. We know nothing about this gentleman's personal situation. What kind of a job does he have? Can he get all the time off he needs to defend himself in court, and what would his employer think about him being in a large civil suit? Is he married? Does he have kids that he's saving money for to send them to college? We don't know the facts and quite frankly we have no right to tell this guy how he should manage his affairs, particularly when the risk is all his and the reward is all ours. If he wins in court, what does he really get? The right to continue providing free publicity for a company he now despises? Talk about a hollow victory.

  • by Picass0 (147474) on Monday August 09, 2010 @02:49PM (#33194022) Homepage Journal

    I'd like to see a cast of nothing but attorneys go all "Lord of the Flies" on each other. Or maybe a lawyer could stand in for Buster on Mystbusters. Or Mike Rowe could make them clean up some kind of poo.

  • I was going to have a cracking good fan-site for the upcoming LEGO: The Deadliest Catch Years 1 & 2 video game, but screw that!

  • Discovery Channel (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DaMattster (977781) on Monday August 09, 2010 @03:00PM (#33194234)
    The Discovery Channel has really disappointed me. It used to be that they put out good, educational television shows. Now, they've added all kinds of extra drama to shows to supposedly make them more interesting but in reality they have a dumbed down appearance. Now, they also have gone the reality tv route. I fail to see how Deadliest Catch really teaches us anything - it is really only drama. I remember when TLC and DSC really had good educational shows that could captivate thinking audiences without all the bleeped out cursing and melodramatic garbage. It would seem that the last of the truly informative and educational shows are on PBS.
  • Discovery used to be chock full of good nerd programming that was +1:Informative and +1:Insightful.

    Now it's just -1:Overrated and -:notthebest

  • This was undoubtedly the nefarious plan all along: let the fans do all the hard work creating a social site with valuable content, even encourage them to do it, then (ab)use IP law to cash in and monetize all their hard work.

    • by digitig (1056110)
      I don't see anything that says that the owner has to hand over the content. They get the domain name, they don't get his hard work.
  • phone call from the owners of the fan site to the marketing people, followed by a phone call between the marketing people and the lawyers, would result in a free license, an amicable settlement arrangement, Discovery getting a bunch of free advertising, the fans being happy to have a good fan site, and everyone winning.

    Except we don't live in that strange, logical place. We live here, where it's all about the almighty dollar and name rights, and the hell with corporate goodwill! Any PR is good PR! Et
  • by jd (1658) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {kapimi}> on Monday August 09, 2010 @03:24PM (#33194728) Homepage Journal

    I wonder if the fan site has asked the marketing people to intervene. Usually, although lawyers can get lots of money, marketing people HAVE lots of money and that can make a difference to the upper echelons.

    Alaskan crab fishing is ok as a "dangerous reality TV" show. Apparently the stats for Alaskan crab fishing [cdc.gov] is 356/100,000/year. That's a lot - getting on for 1 in every 100,000 per day. (US National Average workforce fatality rate is 7.0/100,000/year.) I wondered if North Sea fishing was worse - it has a vicious reputation and the North Sea has no landmass between it and the north pole. However, statistics indicates that the mortality rate is 151 x national average in the UK, and the UK's national average is 0.5 deaths per 100,000 people. That puts the North Sea fishermen at a paltry 76/100,000/year. Not safe, by any standards, but many times safer in absolute terms. In relative terms, the US' workforce fatality rate is 14x worse than that in the UK, but the Alaskan crab fishing is only 4.7x as deadly as North Sea fishing. By this standard, North Sea fishing is the deadliest fishing occupation relative to the health and safety of the country involved.

  • An entertainment company chasing away fan sites and therefore damaging their product in the eyes of their customers?

    Didn't we already have this crap during the late 90's when they went after science fiction fan sites?
    I still remember Paramount happily shooting themself in the foot whenever they got the chance back then.

  • by Bieeanda (961632) on Monday August 09, 2010 @04:07PM (#33195788)
    Ten years ago easily, Robert Cringely was doing some PBS show and had an episode dedicated to Microsoft. There were interviews, examinations of the company history, probably some shilling and that sort of thing. You know, the usual kind of thing that passes for a tech documentary. After everything was filmed, there were a few things to sign off on... and that's where things took a turn for the weird.

    The MS lawyers, who clearly hadn't been in the loop until then, demanded the rights to the show. After a baffled silence, the PBS people shot back, 'What the fuck do you mean?' The response to that was, 'Oh, our mistake. We want the rights to the SERIES.' You know. So they could protect MS's image or something.

    But no, this doesn't surprise me at all. This guy's basically been set up to be harvested like a ripe tomato-- he puts all of that effort into site design and upkeep, ropes in fans that might otherwise not care for the Discovery website, and delivers them up.

    Worse, there's the possibility that this poor bastard is collateral damage from some internal power struggle-- someone in legal trying to be a keener, or a strike at a rival in marketing.

Per buck you get more computing action with the small computer. -- R.W. Hamming

Working...