Litigation Fund

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
WelperHelper99 said:
Stop blue balling me and hit 60K already
View attachment 5689104
Click to expand...
Hows this for blue balls?
1706923989113.png
 
My previously pledged $2,500 USD will hopefully be on its wait via check in the mail midday tomorrow.
God Speed you Glorious Faggot
 
In the time between going to donate and refreshing the page, the fund hit the payment processing volume limit. Amazing, keep it up. I'll be sending my money order tomorrow.
 
While this is a new account, I'm a long time lurker. I even own a silver kiwi coin. Sadly, I'm dealing with a financial issues at the moment and can only comfortably donate $5 so early in the month. That being said, if all active farmers were to donate $5 there would be a nice war chest.

Happy to support the farms!
 
CoolSixtyNiner said:
A small part of me thinks the same (harden infrastructure, etc.) but the rest of me knows it's the principle of the thing.
Click to expand...
It really isn't even just about the principle. If it was just that, I'd say fuck it.

A win here would set a precedent. Not a legal precedent (although maybe?). But it sets a precedent that demonstrates that Josh is willing to defend the farms' reputation against defamation. This matters in deplatforming, journalism and just overall public relation things.

It's like copyright vs trademark. With copyright, the copyright holder is under no obligation to continually defend their copyright for it to remain valid. They could ignore 1000 copyright violations, even super egregious ones, and still decide to pursue the 1001th one, just out of sheer malice and it's still entirely legal.

It's not that way with trademark. Trademarks are at risk of dilution. If a trademark becomes commonly used in a generic context, it loses its identity and is no longer enforceable. Examples are jello, escalator, bubble wrap, etc. The trademark becomes legally canceled when it's no longer maintained as a unique identity for the holder's product. Thus trademark holders have to keep defending the trademark, even in minor or petty situations. If they don't, someone might later be able to argue the trademark has been genericized and is no longer enforceable.

Reputation is much more like trademarks than copyrights.

A win here, perhaps a statement from a corporation as the result of a settlement, that some bullshit claimed about the farms is entirely unfounded, would be a massive win. It'd demonstrate to other providers that they can't just drop service and blame vaguely quoted shit from journalists that say "... it's alleged that blah blah blah". Journalists too, at least in mainstream organizations, would be advised by legal that they need to quote human beings to offset the risk.

It'd start to interrupt the vague consensus chain that fuels Wikipedia "citations".

I don't think this would solve anything immediately. But it'd definitely demonstrate the risk to the next dipshit who wants to make loud bullshit claims.

Like I bet if byuu instead happened in 2025, after a hypothetical farms win, no outlet with anything to lose (anything larger than a blog) would've ran the claims they ran about his alleged suicide without actually checking and citing the US Embassy numbers about American deaths in Japan in their article.

Wins like this scare legal departments. The shitty journalists won't stop trying to fight, but this'll make their propaganda jobs much harder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom