Security News > 2001 > July > FC: Charles Arthur on Mastercard threatening Attrition.org over satire
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 14:05:39 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh To: politech () politechbot com Subject: FC: Charles Arthur on Mastercard threatening Attrition.org over satire Original message with exchange between Mastercard and Attrition.org: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02189.html ********** Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 16:20:06 +0100 To: declan () well com From: "Charles Arthur, The Independent" Subject: Re: FC: More on Mastercard lawyers threatening Attrition.org over satire Hi Declan... Surely more briefly it could be put (we haven't had that campaign over here, so I'm sorta going by the attrition parodies... which are pretty vinegary) Cost of searching for "priceless" and "image" on Google... $0.00002 Cost of sending lawyernastysnailmail to nonexistent PO Box for attrition.org.. $1,594.32 (inc bathroom break) Cost of sending lawyernastyemail with snailmail as Word to attrition.org... $0.32 (no bathroom break) Cost of bugging attrition.org and its users and getting spread all around Politech and interesting-people and who knows where... PRICELESS. 'Nuff said. best Charles ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Independent newspaper on the Web: http://www.independent.co.uk/ It's even better on paper ********** From: "Trei, Peter" To: "'declan () well com'" Subject: RE: More on Mastercard lawyers threatening Attrition.org over sat ire Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:14:07 -0400 [Disclaimers: IANAL, and this describes the situation as I understood it several years ago - pt] Part of the way trademark protection works requires that trademark holders defend against infringing uses. My father used to work for a company which had several products, the names of which were at risk of becoming common nouns and verbs. Legally, they were required to protest generic usage of the terms to show that they were defending the trademark. If they did not do so, the tradmark could be declared generic, and lost. As a result, not only did the company send out 'big foot' letters like we've seen here, but they also put ads in various writers magazines notifying the readers of their trademarks, and insisting that the 'tm' and (r) symbols be used appropriately. My impression was that they did not have a realistic expectation of stomping out casual generic use of the names, but that they were doing this to prevent the names from being declared generic, in which case their competitors would start using them. 'Aspirin' is an example of a trademark lost in this manner. ********** Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:35:37 -0400 From: Gabriel Rocha To: Declan McCullagh Subject: Re: FC: Mastercard lawyers threaten Attrition.org over satire site http://www.attrition.org/gallery/other/priceless8.jpg is a dead link. they need to research better what they oppose to, as this one clearly indicates...besides: Lawyers threatening attrition: $10,000 Reply by attrition staff: time Losing face all over the news: priceless ********** From: Thomas Wicker To: Jeanne.Hamburg () bakerbotts com Cc: "'declan () well com'" , jericho () attrition org, theresa.melody () bakerbotts com, staff () attrition org, sgamsin () mastercard com, ayde_ayala () mastercard com Subject: RE: Mastercard lawyers threaten Attrition.org over satire site Dear Ms. Hamburg: After reading the message included below, I want to assure you that, as a loyal MasterCard customer for the past 15 years, and as someone who prefers MC over Visa, these pictures did absolutely nothing to dilute my image of the company. Tasteless, they are; disgusting, yes; associated with MasterCard, no more so than the person who says "Great googly-moogly" in imitation of the Snicker's commercial when something bad happens. Could MC issue a press statement that it finds this material offensive and objectionable? Certainly. Decry it to the hilt. Does it hurt MC? Heck, no. It means that MasterCard's advertising campaign was so effective that it's become part of pop culture. This is the type of media exposure advertising campaigns are *supposed* to produce, the kind that ad execs slobber over, the kind that become memes. People will do take-offs all day, because they're fun and they like the commercials, much like people constantly quote "Whazzup?," even at schools. Some of your parodies will be tame, some will be G-rated, some will be incredibly humorous and let everyone have a good time. And some, as with anything that becomes part of popular culture, will be tasteless and crude, as these are, and life, somehow, will go on. People will recognize the crudity, some will laugh (I admit to snickering at a few -- that poor person with the cubicle -- what a great idea ... ), some will go on to something more productive, some will be offended and close their browser immediately. But few, if any, will think that MasterCard actually endorses these amateurish, MasterCard-name-and-logo-free images (unless, of course, they've been living in a hole for the past 100 years and believe that companies would produce an ad without either mentioning the company's name or showing the company's logo). As a MasterCard customer, the main thing I find objectionable is that you're wasting the money I have to pay to make purchases with MasterCard on researching and writing about an issue that simply isn't an issue. My suggestion is to give this to the PR people, have them make extremely appropriate and perfectly justified noises about MC denouncing these photos, and then go to court after people who are defrauding the card users, not after a website that's merely publishing photos that have been circulating for some time and which that website did not create. If not that, then at least go after someone with better Photoshop skills than the people who did these (though the Jesse Jackson one is at least a good picture). -- Thomas Wicker (for himself) ********** From: terry.s () juno com To: declan () well com, jericho () attrition org Cc: staff () attrition org, sioda () attrition org, alpha () attrition org, Jeanne.Hamburg () bakerbotts com, terry.s () juno com Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:38:48 -0400 Subject: Re: Mastercard lawyers threaten Attrition.org over satire site If I were an Attrition.org volunteer, I might not take kindly to allegations by Mastercard attorneys that I'd engaged in criminal conduct in the course of apparently (and clearly intended) legal speech commenting on societal quirks. In fact, I might assume that Mastercard attorneys would know the difference between criminal obscenity and other casual meanings of "obscene", and so would not allege a Web satire to be obscene unless the intent were to defame or libel site operators based on their topical choice of speech message, unrelated to the peculiar issues of Mastercard trying to coopt a long standing expression like "priceless" as if their intellectual creation and property. In fact, seeing as Mastercard's attorney's defamation of Attrition.org has been published internationally, I might investigate what if any actionable libel existed, or what Bar Association sanctions might be available against such an attorney. Ideally, we wouldn't have precedents like Pacifica, never mind Miller, in our legal system. The concept of indecency as it currently exists in American law has such religious roots that it cannot exist in a religiously or culturally neutral manner, never mind free of strict scrutiny test violations of 1st Amendment criteria. Likewise, Miller's focus on (human focused) sexual and excretory activities includes similar bias which it might be hopeful to think can eventually be cleared from law. Absent those discriminatory prejudices from arguably incompetent Supreme Court justices, equal protections of law might someday be interpreted to treat an abuse of legal free speech lawyer threat letter from a corporation trying to assert thug like muscle as obscene and criminal, while rituals of sexual pleasure or pain (or speech about such) would receive equal protections of law, and excretory activities be ignored by law absent real public health and safety issues. In order to push this issue, if I were a creative artist associated with Attrition.org, I might sketch out a new "priceless" satire. (I hereby release this idea to Attrition.org or its associates if they wish to develop it or a variant.) A field of (huge, with jagged edges) dildos, purchased with MasterCard. Several large cranes and bungy cord jump systems, purchased with MasterCard. Legal services to bounce thug-like attorneys, using said items, purchased with MasterCard. (Could be focused on Baker Botts or MC corp. officers, though "Baker Botts" could play well in a separate satire of Comedy Central "battle bots".) World supply of K-Y (show fleets of 18-wheelers with suitable markings, maybe even users thereof in a large polysexual orgy), purchased with MasterCard. Knowing no K-Y was available as those lawyers plunged onto their rough-n-ready dildos, Priceless! I bet few viewing that sketch would be thinking about what kind of fraud in law or process must have been involved, or what defects exist in the Lanham Act, for MasterCard to claim an expression like "priceless" was their creation or property. Rev Terry Smith Electronic Communication Freedoms Liaison, ERLAN ********** Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:54:36 -0700 From: SteelHead Subject: Re: More on Mastercard lawyers threatening Attrition.org over satire To: declan () well com, politech () politechbot com Cc: Jeanne.Hamburg () bakerbotts com, jericho () attrition org, theresa.melody () bakerbotts com, staff () attrition org, sgamsin () mastercard com, ayde_ayala () mastercard com Message-id: Organization: Linuxhelpers If I may interject a minor addendum to the concept of dilution.... Back in the 1970's there was a campaign by some religious folks that was a parody/play of the Mastercard (in those days they used the term "MasterCharge) wherby the logo said (old memories are tricky) in effect Let the Master take Charge. This reference was completely accepted and widely published and was very similar, to the point of confusion, and the message was clear and distinct. that was *not* dilution? Bill ********** From: "Larry D. Burton" To: Subject: RE: More on Mastercard lawyers threatening Attrition.org over satire Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 15:41:58 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Declan, I think it might be helpful for your readers to understand how companies like MasterCard go about protecting their trademarks and brand names. They hire a law firm with the direction to go out and defend. There are many instances that the company being protected isn't even aware of who they are being protected from, it's just a law firm out doing what they think they have been directed to do and billing hours for the work. The more paper generated the more that can be billed. The more that can be billed the better the law firm feels it is doing its job. ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISN is hosted by SecurityFocus.com --- To unsubscribe email isn-unsubscribe () SecurityFocus com