Funnyjunk's Lawyer Charles Carreon Just Keeps Digging: Promises He'll Find Some Law To Go After Oatmeal's Matt Inman

from the wow dept

Wow. Just… wow. Following the net fight between The Oatmeal webcomic creator Matt Inman, and aggregator of non-funny stuff, Funnyjunk, we’ve been pointing out that Funnyjunk’s lawyer, Charles Carreon needs to stop digging himself deeper into the hole he’s found himself in. Instead, he seems to have decided on the opposite strategy, and he’s digging deeper and deeper every minute.

If you don’t recall, he was trying to shut down the fundraising effort that Inman set up in response to Funnyjunk’s threat. And then he accused Inman of “instigating security attacks” against his website. The latest is that he’s now redirected his own website to a sales page for his book, but also has done an interview with Dave Thier at Forbes, in which he’s even more aggressive in fighting back against Inman and those who are mocking him. It’s really quite incredible. Thier describes Carreon as being “excited about this bizarre new world he had stumbled into” and now focused on somehow pinning the blame on Matt Inman:

In his 20 years as a lawyer, he says, he’s written hundreds of letters like the one he sent Inman, but the response to this one was unique.

“So someone takes one of my letters and takes it apart. That doesn’t mean you can just declare netwar, that doesn’t mean you can encourage people to hack my website, to brute force my WordPress installation so I have to change my password. You can’t encourage people to violate my trademark and violate my twitter name and associate me with incompetence with stupidity, and douchebaggery,” he says. “And if that’s where the world is going I will fight with every ounce of force in this 5’11 180 pound frame against it. I’ve got the energy, and I’ve got the time.”

Except, uh, nowhere has Inman “declared netwar” nor has he encouraged anyone to hack Carreon’s website. If it’s true that scriptkiddies have gone after Carreon’s website, that’s unfortunate, but it’s a ridiculous (and obnoxious) stretch to pin the blame for that on Inman. Of course, associating someone with incompetence, with stupidity and with douchebaggery is broadly a statement of opinion. There’s a First Amendment thing we have that generally says that’s okay. People can call each other stupid douchebags, and we like that in America.

For color commentary, we turn to Ken at Popehat, who decides to educate Carreon on the First Amendment:

The implications of Mr. Carreon’s position are profoundly chilling. Under the rule he seems to suggest, if you write about bad behavior by someone else, even if you don’t urge action, you run the risk that you will be held liable when one of your readers is inspired to hack or threaten or harass. Perversely, this means that the more criminal or unconscionable or horrific the conduct you are describing, the greater legal risk you take by writing about it. That’s not the law, thank God. The very suggestion is un-American and contemptible.

Moreover, note that Mr. Carreon is suggesting that it is actionable not only to inspire people to undertake (alleged) illegal action, but actionable to inspire people to “associate me with incompetence with stupidity, and douchebaggery.” In other words, if your criticism of someone’s conduct leads others to form an opinion of him, and express that opinion, that’s actionable. That’s true to the extent that someone states false facts about a person — for instance, by falsely accusing them of child abuse. But The Oatmeal offered satirically expressed opinions about Mr. Carreon’s conduct in a letter which The Oatmeal presented to his readers to review. To the extent that The Oatmeal opined that Mr. Carreon is incompetent, stupid, and a douchebag, those are classic opinions absolutely protected by the First Amendment. Under First Amendment law governing defamation, they are particularly protected because The Oatmeal presented the facts based on which he drew his opinions — namely, the letter itself. Under the theory that Mr. Carreon seems to be advancing, if I wrote you a letter suggesting that your wife beds down with diseased ocelots and calling for your children to be flogged, and you publish the letter and say that it suggests that I am a disturbed person of low character, then I would be legally responsible if people formed the same opinion based on the evidence you provided. Indeed, under Mr. Carreon’s apparent theory, if he criticizes The Oatmeal’s response to him as vulgar or unprofessional or uncivilized, he’s legally responsible for people agreeing with him. This is not law, this is madness. And bear in mind that Mr. Carreon markets himself as a First Amendment champion.

But Carreon has decided that “there must be a law!” against this, and dammit, he’s going to find it:

He may have a very difficult time proving that Inman “instigated attacks,” as he said on his website, but he’s certain he can find some legal recourse for what’s going on right now – “California code is just so long, but there’s something in there about this,” he says.

Back to Ken at Popehat, who notes in response, why yes, there is a law:

Oh, Mr. Carreon, indeed there is. There’s California’s magnificent anti-SLAPP statute, under which you’ll be paying the attorney fees of anyone you sue. There’s California’s judgment debtor exam law, under which you can be interrogated about your income and assets in preparation for garnishing your income and, if necessary, seeking liquidation of your assets to satisfy a judgment for attorney fees against you. There’s California’s sanctions statute, under which you can be sanctioned for bringing suit to harass or without adequate legal or factual basis.

Read them carefully. And think. Think hard. Step back from the precipice. This can get better, by you letting it go. Or it can get worse. Much, much worse.

Carreon tells Thier that he welcomes “the opportunity to confront legally the misuse of a new technology.” First of all, it’s not that new, and he might want to do some digging into other clueless lawyers who have sought to shut down online criticism of themselves. Carreon is still digging and he’s going to lose very, very badly in court with the arguments he’s making right now. Given his statements to various reporters, he’s already made it clear that he’s seeking to suppress speech and that he’s willing to use any law he can find to do so. That’s a particularly short-sighted thing to do, given California’s relatively strong anti-SLAPP law, which one hopes Carreon familiarizes himself with.

But, really, there’s the bigger issue: what the hell is he thinking at this point? And isn’t there anyone with a basic grasp of the internet who knows him who can sit him down and tell him to stop digging?

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: funnyjunk

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Funnyjunk's Lawyer Charles Carreon Just Keeps Digging: Promises He'll Find Some Law To Go After Oatmeal's Matt Inman”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The absolute beauty of this is that Carreon fired the first shot, with his attempt to extort $20,000 from the Oatmeal. This entire fiasco, he brought on himself. And he’s going to damage his career if he keeps on with this, if he hasn’t already. Hoisted by his own petard, and it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

Carreon – keep digging, you dumb fuck!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Keep digging

Yep. The more this guy runs his mouth, the stupider he becomes. ‘Corse there’s no law about being stupid on the Internet yet, so he’s safe. What we need is an Internet Stupid Tax. All the states would be able to stop worring about their budgets because people like Carreon will be paying for everything.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Keep digging

I hope to god that you’re a child, because otherwise, you seem to have some quite profound issues. The thought of you driving a car, voting, or god forbid, raising children scares me.

It is a fact that Funnyjunk was removing the attribution from Matt Inman’s work in an attempt to drive ad revenue. (This is presumably because nobody who works for Funnyjunk has any actual creativity or talent to draw their own damn cartoons.) When Inman rightfully complained about this (the removal of the copyright), then rather than do the right thing, Funnyjunk began to behave as if they were the ones who were being wronged. This escalated to the point that Funnyjunk’s nutcase-for-hire, Carreon, tried to bully Inman into paying him $20,000 (for what? Compensation to Funnyjunk for suffering the indignity of being called thieves, when they were caught stealing?) This is when Inman went public on this and Carreon went into conniptions, and started to have what seems to be some kind of mental breakdown.

The above is indisputable, but allow me to offer my opinion as well. For people like Funnyjunk and Carreon, lying and bullying is just their modus operandi – they do this day in, day out. They’re so used to people rolling over and appeasing them, or just giving up and walking away, that they are genuinely upset that Inman has called them on their bullshit. These people are no better than the Mafia. I wouldn’t do business with them – I wouldn’t even piss on them if they were on fire. But the whole world can now see them for the reprobates that they are. If they do end up damaging their careers (if aggregating unattributed cartoons even qualifies as a career), then good. The only thing they can do to make amends is to apologize at the very least, and maybe match Inman’s charity contributions. They brought this on themselves and they deserve every last moment of it.

The Laughing Hyena says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It’s very common for someone lost in the wilderness to believe an end to their fear and suffering is always just over the next hill. They believe so strongly in this that they inevitably make things worse for themselves, ending up far away from where rescue teams are most likely to be looking for them (provided you bothered to tell someone where you were going, another common mistake). I’ve actually been through this. The dread slowly builds all day until you finally admit to yourself that you’re completely lost and in trouble. Then fear sets in which generally has a negative impact on the life and death decisions you’ll make from that point on. Perhaps something like that is going on with Mr. Carreon.

He probably believes he’s gotten in so deep that there is nowhere else to go but down. Righteous indignation can drive people to do bizarre things after all. Whatever the specific reason, I’m sure it all boils down to delusional reasoning, something we humans excel at. For example, tell a lie long enough and you begin to believe it. In this case Mr. Carreon probably believes Inman threw the first stone, the old “but mom, he started it!” mentality that a lot of folks never seem to grow out of. At this point taking responsibility for his actions and apologizing would be the sane way to go, but I doubt we’ll see that happen. He’ll just have to learn his lesson the hard way I suppose. Nobody ever takes the easy way by simply listening to the advice of experienced people older and wiser than you.

A REAL comic creator says:

Re: Re:

“first shot” was fired by Inman.
Don’t forget who Inman is. ( it’s well documented )
Ignore it or don’t even bother looking into him.
Your choice.

Carreon on the other hand is a tool.
He played it wrong. His opponent didn’t help him either.
Inman being so versed in “internet” (look into him) has played this very well.
He spams all the social networks regularly and I am 100% positive he spammed HIS BIASED SIDE of the story everywhere, to put the public on his side. (again…look into him)

Carreon doesn’t stand a chance against Inman.
If he wins legally…he still loses.
Inman is far smarter at “internet” and PR than 99% of people.He uses it, all the time. (look into it)

Inman doesn’t give a shit about you unless you are useful to him.(look into it)

The Laughing Hyena says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I’m not sure it qualifies as bias when you have hard evidence in hand proving the person attacking you is acting like a complete tool and plans to keep on acting like a complete tool. The “new technology” quote is pretty humorous too. I’ve been using the international network since 1995 and prior to that it was the bulletin board systems. I don’t think something 17+ years old counts as being new lol. It truly amazes me that there are still people in the dark regarding the internet, an invention which may very qualify as being one of mankind’s greatest achievements of all time. Even my parents, who are in their mid-60’s, understand and use it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The bias was there from the first appearance of the story.

Everyone knew that Inman was “Giving to charity to stop the evil funnyjunk”
Inman is just a poor cartoonist

Funny how everyone knew at the same time.
Wouldn’t be Inman using his internet skills to push this NARRATIVE ?

Linkbait Developer & Viral Marketer:
If there’s one marketing firm that’s become synonymous with linkbait, it’s SEOmoz. Being a former top 100 digg user, I was tasked with crafting content that drove page views far into the millions. My work has also been featured on BoingBoing, SlashDot, Wired Magazine’s blog, and countless other social media websites (Reddit,, StumbleUpon).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

. . . I’m kind’ve disinclined to believe someone who claims to be a ‘real’ comic creator.

You just sound kinda jealous that Inman has succeeded.

Welcome to the internet. It’s not like previous media. You can get noticed pretty easily with ‘cheap gimmicks’, but there’s so many other good things around that you can’t keep that attention unless you actually do have something that people like.

Inman isn’t good at the internet, he’s good at having a fanbase. The many, many, many times he has been pitchforked against indicate this pretty clearly.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Don’t look into it then.
Ignorance holds no bounds.

YOU ARE ALL being PLAYED…… fools

The Guardian ( 2008 )

Matthew Inman may be a genius. Or he may be a fiend. What the Seattle-based web developer and online marketer has done is figure out a way to get people to advertise his sites without paying them. What’s even smarter is that he’s got the people who search engines rank most highly to do the advertising: bloggers and social networkers.

Using Yahoo’s Site Explorer, Danny Sullivan, a search engine guru and editor-in-chief for, found more than 150,000 inbound links to “I think putting an entirely off-topic link next to a graphic is pushing it,” he says.

The Guardian emailed bloggers who had published the Blog Readability Test with its links intact.

‘Offending code’

Stephen Sherlock in Massachusetts didn’t realise what was happening until we told him. Now, somewhat annoyed, he’s removed the “offending code” – the link to “I don’t like those who game the system. I’ll be much more careful with the next opportunity to participate in a meme like this,” he says.

Dan Thornton, a community marketing manager for Emap and editor for Disposable Media, innocently added the test to his blog. He says: “If I’d examined the HTML I definitely would not have included the link on my page, and would have publicised the fact that it’s a scam.

“Hiding link code in a widget like this is basically using the same methods as you would use to spread a virus, and while this is essentially just to aid someone’s Google ranking, the fact they felt they had to hide it in such a way makes me a little annoyed.”


I am a 27 year old web designer, developer, and online marketer.

In early 2007 I built a full-featured online dating website, from concept to launch, in only 66.5 hours. The end result was Mingle2, and within six months the website received several million visitors and was eventually acquired by a competitor. Mingle2 now receives 40 million page views a month.

Prior to working full-time at Mingle2, I co-founded SEOmoz and acted as CTO, web designer, and web developer.

SEOmoz he knows nothing about manipulating Social media… right !
SEO — no knowledge about generating traffic either.

SEOmoz PRO combines SEO management, social media monitoring, actionable recommendations, and so much more in one easy-to-use platform.

THERE IS MORE … if you care to look.

You wont but, will you ? ( happily a puppet of Inman )

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

People and SITES being played, is relevant.

He is good.
Calls people “thieves” for copying…ok
Lies about credit being removed by funnyjunk…ok
Publicly slanders funnyjunk…ok
Get’s defamation threat…ok

This is a DEFAMATION case

What has it been manipulated into ?
by whom ?

It’s NOW not about the defamation is it !
Charity !
Evil funnyjunk admin !
Evil Lawyer !
Stupid Lawyer !
Unreasonable Lawyer !

To say Inman has not used his skills of “manipulation of the internet” would be really quite naive.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

So we will start with the original defamation case we should have seen when funnystuff lied to their followers claiming they were going to be sued by Oatmeal.

I’d expect the damage to funnystuff should be entertaining as many content creators are now well aware of their work being hosted on the site, and will be sending many notices to have their work removed from the site.

oh that’s right funnyjunk doesn’t have a DMCA agent registered, so they don’t have the protections of the DMCA provided for sites.

So would you care to comment on Carreon’s loss of the right to practice for violating the law? Or maybe the insane letter he sent to Google to uncover the conspiracy about his wife’s scraping of crazy theories from the internet being delisted?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

a. IF funnyjunk lied to it’s users in a PERSONAL ARMY request.
yea… that would be similar BUT different.
Calling people criminals, saying they committed a crime is not the same as saying someone wants to shut a site down with legal means.

b. the effect to funnyjunk… Look at all the fucks I give

c.Why would I “care to comment on Carreon’s” phaggotry ?
( don’t tell me your assuming Anon )

Plain and simple…. You may be CURRENTLY fooled but I am not.
I have seen this before, YOU will see it again.

Proxies by the hundreds for gems like Scrapebox , Inman knows what the fuck that is.

Benjo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Can’t blame a guy for being competent. It’s true that Inman might be harnessing the rapidly fleeting attention span of the internet, but this:

“It’s NOW not about the defamation is it !
Charity !
Evil funnyjunk admin !
Evil Lawyer !
Stupid Lawyer !
Unreasonable Lawyer !”

Is just stupid. He posted a letter that Carreon wrote, and refused to give in to bogus legal claims. There is nothing nefarious about how he has handled the situation. There may be a big crowd of people that for right now think Carreon is some super evil lawyer, but they will be talking about something else by next week. If anything, this series of events plays out more like a funny documentary then sound-byte ridden news broadcasts that you are likely to hear on tv.

I bet you love conspiracy theories.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Last attempt at intervention

Defamation is now “bogus claims”
Publish an article calling your local Corporation a group of Paedo’s then.
Do It.. Dare you.

As for conspiracy.
I am not the one who believes bullshit stories a person says without looking into the facts.

Yous are the people who believed the….
against the

How WRONG is that narrative and impression ?
FACT’s tell you what ?

PEEPS BEEN PLAYED ! ( no shame , it happens )

Still can’t see it ? shame on you.

Anonymous Coward (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

This has nothing to do with his success.
There are people who create comics because they love the stories, the artwork etc…
The success of good comics goes far beyond Inman’s work.

But that is besides the point… Inman is playing people, gaming the system for his profit.
Inman is all about the cash via traffic.

Other comic artists have know it for a long time.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

This has nothing to do with his success.
There are people who create comics because they love the stories, the artwork etc…
The success of good comics goes far beyond Inman’s work.

But that is besides the point… Inman is playing people, gaming the system for his profit.
Inman is all about the cash via traffic.

Other comic artists have know it for a long time.

Ann (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Mrs. Carreon, you and your husband fundamentally do not understand new media. In that interview Matt did he actually explains why he got out of traditional SEO. He was an aggressive and very skilled link builder, but he didn’t like feeling slimy. So, now he does “white hat” (see what I did there?) SEO, which boils down to this: creating useful, funny, or otherwise entertaining content that people will naturally want to share. That’s not playing the “internets” or spamming social media. It’s not even manipulation, and it’s certainly not threatening to sue google when you don’t get your way in the search engines like you and your husband did.

Inman didn’t like feeling like a douchebag, so he stopped participating in things that are douchey. Your husband would be well served to learn that lesson. Stick to what you know. Bad poetry and government conspiracy theories.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Carve your own path and think for yourself.

Again with the … wtf
WHY would a lawyer and his wife give a shit about one of the hundreds of articles about this ?
paranoid as fuck !

YOU have been played. ALL the fact’s point to it.
(be honest with yourself)

It’s your choice.
Look at the facts or believe the spin, it’s up to you.

Why would you believe Inman after the things he said and the things he has done ?

He is a master, even a genius at what he does.

What he does is play people and internet sites.

Ann (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Carve your own path and think for yourself.

Oh, I don’t know, Dear Heart. Maybe because he and his wife took time away from all that top knotch lawyering to hijack Inman’s pterodactyl comic and write a horribly sad poem about him and post it to their website?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Carve your own path and think for yourself.

Anyone who uses “prove me wrong” in an argument has nothing useful to say. All you’re doing is the exact thing Carreon did – you people need to learn when to shut up when you’re embarrassing yourselves.

Or continue to post cretinous nonsense so we can continue to laugh at you. Choice is all yours…

Ann (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Mrs. Carreon, you and your husband fundamentally do not understand new media. In that interview Matt did he actually explains why he got out of traditional SEO. He was an aggressive and very skilled link builder, but he didn’t like feeling slimy. So, now he does “white hat” (see what I did there?) SEO, which boils down to this: creating useful, funny, or otherwise entertaining content that people will naturally want to share. That’s not playing the “internets” or spamming social media. It’s not even manipulation, and it’s certainly not threatening to sue google when you don’t get your way in the search engines like you and your husband did.

Inman didn’t like feeling like a douchebag, so he stopped participating in things that are douchey. Your husband would be well served to learn that lesson. Stick to what you know. Bad poetry and government conspiracy theories.

Dreddsnik says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

” “first shot” was fired by Inman.
Don’t forget who Inman is. ( it’s well documented )”

You presented the position, you present your citations.
We’ll wait.

” He spams all the social networks regularly and I am 100% positive he spammed HIS BIASED SIDE of the story everywhere, to put the public on his side. (again…look into him) “

Again, you presented the position, the onus of proof is on you. Citations please.

” Inman is far smarter at “internet” and PR than 99% of people.He uses it, all the time. (look into it) “

Seriously ?

See above.
No proof, no credibility. Might as well be methane.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Let’s be fair, this guy is bottom of the barrel – he’s hardly representative of lawyers in general. There are plenty of good lawyers, e.g. Ray Beckerman

Frankly, blaming the lawyers is short-sided – they’re a symptom of the problem. You might as well blame accountants for tax law. The real problem is with the system itself.

Th Laughing Hyena says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Knowledge of the “internets” doesn’t change anything. The factual evidence is there for everyone to see. Mr. Carreon only has himself to blame and the sooner he takes responsibility for his actions, the better off he’ll be. I wouldn’t hold my breath on that though. He is a lawyer after all.

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

It’s amusing how desperate you are to turn this discussion about Carreon into an expose of Inman, despite nobody else’s interest in doing so? Why don’t you tell us all about your very obvious personal interest in Inman? I doubt anyone believes for a second that you’re just some neutral observer.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Inman’s mysterious “powers of manipulation” are just knowing when someone is trying to extort money from him, and knowing how much people detest immoral brain-damaged asshole lawyer extortionists – it’s as simple as that.

No conspiracy here, other than the conspiracy to keep you off your meds, you paranoid nutcase…

art guerrilla (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

U R fucking weird; and i don’t mean weird in a ‘good’ way, i mean fucked-in-the-head weird…
the crap you have spammed here -EVEN IF ‘TRUE’- is beside the point…
seems like you don’t like the guy, fine…
from what you’ve shown so far -‘real’ comic artiste- i don’t like you…
i have more evidence to base that opinion on than you do of the oatmeal guy…
art guerrilla
aka ann archy

dwg (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Really? That’s the best “first” you could come up with? Hey first: guess who drafted the excellent anti-SLAPP law that’s going to work against this numbskull? Lawyers who recognized the need to protect people’s freedom of speech. Guess who’s going to work that law in Inman’s favor to slap the taste out of the idiot’s mouth? A lawyer.

Please, for the love of g-d, come up with something, anything to say with some substance to it. Being first is a rare opportunity, and you’ve utterly wet the bed.

minerat (profile) says:

The Oatmeal's Legal Response

The actual response from The Oatmeal’s lawyer is pretty good (courtesy of a comment at Ars)

His attorney provides a solid background and thoroughly dismantles each of FunnyJunk’s original claims, and suggests that FunnyJunk hasn’t registered their DMCA agent with the copyright office. That oversight could negate their Safe Harbor defense regarding The Oatmeal’s content being posted by FunnyJunk’s users.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: The Oatmeal's Legal Response

Wow. That was just

some words

in bold

stuck in a comment. You couldn’t be further from a coherent point if you tried.

Please find your medication and take some of it – you are probably making your close family sad with these contemptuous displays.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Ah, that’s your angle.

Frankly, this is theft. This isn’t file-copying for private use, this is plagiarism for the point of profit against the stated wishes of the author. (Many authors, actually)

And what did Inman do after funnyjunk refused to change . . .?

Nothing. He could definitely have taken a route that would have us here at techdirt riled, but instead just shrugged and continued creating, which is really a much more productive path.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Now this is conspiracy… just a question.
If you found out that this was a publicity stunt by funnyjunk and Inman ?

Personally, I would continue on my merry way, not giving a shit.

People do stunts for publicity all the time, so what? The only reason any of this is on my radar at all is because of all the amusingly stupid comments here on Techdirt.

STStone says:

I know his thought process all too well:

“Those people said bad things about me on the Internet! Make it stop MAKE IT STOP MAKE IT STOOOOOOOOOOOP!

He cannot deal with the idea that not only do people disagree with him and his legal “shakedown” tactic (“pay FunnyJunk $20,000 or something?bad could happen to you”), and not only did The Oatmeal call him out on that tactic (“fuck both you and FunnyJunk — I will raise that money for charity”), but he really can’t deal with the idea that they have the absolutel legal right to disagree with him.

Someone who calls himself a “champion of the First Amendment” often finds himself tested when people use those First Amendment rights to say things within their rights that paint him in a poor light. The true test of their self-appointed “champion” status comes from their reaction.

From his reaction to The Oatmeal’s rebuttal, “Mister” Carreon appears to support the First Amendment only if people say nice things about him, and that hardly justifies his “champion of the First Amendment” label. A true “champion” would let the insults and bullshit roll off their back instead of resorting to a weaponized use of the legal system.

If The Oatmeal had intentionally defamed him or asked others to intentionally attack Carreon, I’d support Carreon in his attempts to have legal sanctions brought against The Oatmeal and his “co-conspirators” — but that didn’t happen, and if Carreon brings any sort of actual legal challenge towards The Oatmeal, I will indulge in a heaping helping of schadenfreude when Carreon’s career comes crashing down around him.

“Champion of the First Amendment”, my ass.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Hope not.

$20,000 damages for…calling fileshares “thieves” is win win.

1) Inman doesn’t win his obvious internet manipulation.

2) We filesharers get a victory against the MAFFIA propaganda.

Can imagine the TF article now…
Call Filesharers Thieves And Get $20,000 Fine

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Seriously, you fail at life. You are quite possibly, the most wrong person who has ever lived. You are delusional, paranoid, round the bend. And yes, that sniggering you can hear? We’re all laughing at you: the people reading your comments, the people you work with (behind your back of course), and the voices in your head. Laughing at you. Because you are a joke. Even your psychiatrist thinks that you’re hilarious, although he’s embarrassed to be the same species as you, you dolt, you speck, you cretin. I’d call you a lunatic, but frankly, that’s a insult to lunatics. Every time you open your mouth, something embarrassing slides out. I could go on, but I have to go bash my head repeatedly into a stone wall, and I’d rather do that than continue to interact with you. Try not to let your single-digit IQ get in the way of having a passable life, and try to see if you can get your fingers and/or tongue into an electric outlet – there are cookies in there from the magical electric fairy – enjoy them!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I think the problem is – his mind is too narrow to realize that it’s not Matt Inman who he needs to answer to now, it’s the whole fucking internet that is pissed at hime (well, a large subsection of it that can cause him lots of trouble).

He thinks one person is responsible for the difficulties he’s currently experiencing, when in reality, it’s probably several hundred thousand. His mind simply can’t comprehend just how many people he has pissed off that want to make him suffer.

Ann (profile) says:

Get your foil hats

We are talking about an attorney who sent an equally ridiculous threatening letter to Google when his wife’s psychotic, rambling web dump disappeared from Google’s index in 2007 (probably due to the fact that most of its content is copied and pasted articles and screen shots with no proper attribution or back links, or relevant original content. Try not to choke on that irony). Here is an excerpt of his demands on Google:

“1. An accounting of all the ad revenue generated from the advertising that appeared on the search page during the entire time the search page was operative.
2. Full disclosure of the identities of each and every person or governmental or business entity that has communicated with Google, directly or through intermediaries, concerning American Buddha, the Library Site, or Tara Carreon.
3. Full disclosure of all statistical and other information stored in the Google system concerning the Library Site.
4. Full disclosure of the identities of all persons and entities to which Google has disclosed information concerning the Library Site, including all communications in electronic or other format received from or sent to:
a. Google employees, agents, or contractors
b. Third parties, including:
i. Government entities including law enforcement agencies
ii. Corporations or businesses
iii. Individuals
iv. Attorneys for any of the above
5. Full disclosure of all information that Google disseminated internally or disclosed to any such third parties.
6. Full disclosure of every occasion when any Internet user has inputted a search for ?American? and ?Buddha? or ?Buddhist? in any search request since the Library Site was purged from the Google search index. “

For the full version of this cray you can read it all from his wife’s and his “library” here:

In my opinion, we are talking about someone with narcissistic personality disorder at best, and paranoid delusions at worst. This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better for all involved. I feel mostly sorry for Inman, who is going to have to spend even less time doing what he loves (writing hysterical ORIGINAL content), while he endures Carreon’s pathologically egocentric nervous breakdown. Even FunnyJunk has to be shaking their heads. They signed up for the legal powerhouse who got the guy his $15 million. Not a government conspiracy theorist with bad hair, and not even a rudimentary knowledge of how the Internet works. Fail all around. At least the bears win.

Anonymous Coward says:

hundreds of times?

How does one become such a recognized hatchet man than they end up sending hundreds of extortionate letters threatening cases without legal merit – I can’t imagine this one isn’t representative of his whole body of work, given his lack of elucidation. Is there some registry online where I can find a lawyer who lacks ethics in my specific area of need?

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The real delightful things are on the websites she folded, and the posts she would make and then delete after they were indexed by Google.

The post on Houston Press is just the tip of the iceberg, a sockpuppet from “Australia” supporting Candice in the comments but using a TX IP address.

She was much more vocal in the thread about her on petapixel, and her 6th “DMCA” notice to GoDaddy against petapixel is hysterical.

She continues to call Jay Lee fag and other wonderful names from her Twitter account trying to make it trend. Making allegations about her car being stolen by the hackers, and so much more.

She is less than pleased that multiple copyright infringements were found on her blogs and I hope Anne Gedees crushes her.

I might have been following this case just a little bit and exposing her sockpuppetry, her inactive “non-profit” from which she was making political statements, and so many other little devious tricks shes been using for years to slander and libel people. One can only hope the Texas Bar got to see her handy work before she started trying to cover her tracks.

Anonymous Coward says:

These “series” of articles confuse me.

The comics author is a rights holder who has accused another site of infringing his rights.

The other site fights back.

Ordinarily the former would be vilified, and the latter praised.

Not sure why the 180 turn supporting the rights holder against the other site that has raised a defense.

Is it safe to assume that copyright holders are now finding favor with the TD community? It certainly appears to be the case.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re:

That’s because, in your mind, Techdirt, as a rule, vilifies all copyright holders. However, that is false. Mike Masnick has never said that. He supports copyright law, but fights against the ever-continued expansion and abuse of it by corporations, at the expense of the First Amendment rights of US citizens.

This story has very little to do with copyright. Initially, it did, as some copyrighted content was taken from one site and posted to another without attribution or permission, but this story has since evolved into a tale of a madman lawyer destroying himself in the attempt to find a (non-existent) law he can use to take down Inman (who is completely innocent of everything this lawyer accuses him of).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

yeah, ain’t it fun? It’s not about ‘our team’ being freetards and ‘their team’ being power hungry misanthropists. It’s about who’s being a jerk or bully or trying to erode the foundations of the American Experiment in some closed-minded or short-sighted snit.

Here we’ve got a great example of a rightsholder being human and the sharer playing the bully. And, of course, the audience roots for the human against the douchebag.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I’m not against rights holders, but I am against people who interfere in my rights, degrade my rights or otherwise make a nusiance of themselves to me because of they want the rights they hold to be expanded at the expense of everyone else’s rights.

The rights holder here may or may not have had a point originally, but funnyjunk’s response is appalling and deserving of ridicule.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Put yourself in the shoes of a copyright abolitionist for an instant.

The copyright abolitionist would not like the original complaint by the copyright holder. However, as soon as the lawyer asked for twenty thousand dollars, things change; the original copyright holder is still wrong, but the lawyer is much much more wrong, so even the copyright abolitionist, which is one of the most extreme positions in copyright you could find, will be rooting for the copyright holder in this case.

Most people are not copyright abolitionists, so their reaction in opposition to the lawyer would be even stronger.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Re the $20K and the letter in general, I have always subscribed to the approach that the less said in letters of this type the better. It is easy to criticize what was said. It is impossible to criticize what was not said (assuming that the letter is otherwise sufficient to place the other party on notice of a legal issue(s)).

BTW, the response from the other person’s counsel was likewise unnecessarily prolix, and he too fell prey to the the enticement of droning on incessantly to impress his client with his supposed mastery of law.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Funnyjunk should register to ensure their DMC safeharbour protection and ought to take every reasonable effort to ensure their resources are not used for unlawful purposes.

Inman should donate the charitable donations to the bear loving and cancer hating charities he has proposed to raise funds for.

I think maybe the offered pictures as settlement ought to be foregone in the name of avoiding further drama whoring. Everyone should go to their respective corners and cool off.

The law-chap should have a good hard think. Whether out of narcisstic self interest or because he has genuine hopes of being a better person, he should persist in this deep thinking until he figures out where he went wrong and incorporates this learning into his future conduct.

And then they might all live happily ever after.

Khaim (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: False dichotomy


FunnyJunk is not liable for anything (assume they can claim DMCA safe harbor – Inman’s lawyer seems to think they may have screwed up here, but we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re safe).

Inman has broken no laws.

This isn’t a court battle. The courts aren’t even involved, and they shouldn’t be. This is a media battle, a fight for public opinion about “right” and “wrong”. No matter what happens, no one is going to jail, and the only people being paid are lawyers. Oh, and that charity than Inman set up.

Khaim (profile) says:

Re: Details are important

Inman has indeed accused FunnyJunk of infringing his rights. However – and this is the important part – he has not threatened legal action. He has not even suggested there should be any legal action. FunnyJunk are the ones that cried “lawyer!”, and that’s why Techdirt is on Inman’s side.

The point of Techdirt isn’t “Copyrights are bad”.
The point of Techdirt is “Copyright abuse is bad”.

Most of the time, rights-holders are abusing their granted monopoly powers. That’s why Techdirt seems like it hates copyright. But it doesn’t, and this is a perfect example: when Matt Inman uses his copyrights correctly, everyone wins. Except FunnyJunk, but they brought this on themselves.

Anonymous Coward says:

strange goings on in the last article's comments...

There’s a “taracarreon” mounting a vigorous – for want of a better word – defense of Charles Carreon in prior article about the Funnyjunk fiasco, including a story about meeting ‘Charles’ in college an falling in love with him. If it’s a troll, it’s like no trolling I’ve ever tasted.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: strange goings on in the last article's comments...

You just made me go back and look at the posting history of “taracarreon”.

Either that really is Charles’s wife, or that’s the best trolling I’ve seen in all my life. I’m leaning towards the former.

But in her posts, I found this little gem of a quote:

“This nonsense has gone on long enough. I posted this statement at Forbes, but I’ll say it again here: ‘The law is like math; it has an exactitude about it that is not friendly to irrational, mindless, stabbing in the dark.’ You’re deluding yourself that anyone thinks you’re cool. You’re just stupid.”

Hey, Charles, if you happen to read this, here’s some free advice from the internet: Listen to your wife.

P.S. The only thing worse than baseless and mindlessly aggressive legal flailing/bullying is baseless and mindlessly aggressive legal flailing/bullying that just doesn’t know when to quit. Just ask SCO and Oracle.

Nate says:

Lawyers who live in glass houses should not throw stones

Those who live in glass houses should be careful of casting stones least people find out about your law license suspension in California and Oregon, for violations of DR 3-101(B) and DR 9-101(A) – from a comment on the Forbes site on the California suspension which I turn finds the Oregon suspension via Google. Hmmmmm.

So here it is:


OSB #93469

Ashland – 60-day suspension

Effective Oct. 24, 2005, the disciplinary board approved a stipulation for discipline suspending Ashland lawyer, Charles H. Carreon, from the practice of law for 60 days. Carreon admitted violations of DR 3-101(B) (unlawful practice of law) and DR 9-101(A) (failing to deposit or maintain client funds in trust).

From Fall 2001 to Spring 2002, Carreon was employed by SEG as house counsel for its U.S. legal matters and business operations in British Columbia, when Carreon was not admitted or licensed to practice law in any province in Canada. Carreon did not apply for or obtain a permit to act as house counsel for SEG, in violation of British Columbia rules.

As counsel for SEG, Carreon held in his trust account settlement proceeds for the benefit of SEG, received in connection with a litigation matter. Without consulting with SEG or obtaining its express consent, Carreon utilized $1,400 of the settlement proceeds to pay a portion of a money judgment that had been entered against Carreon and his wife for a residential lease they signed in connection with his employment in Canada, believing that SEG would ultimately be responsible for his lease obligation.

In the stipulation, Carreon admitted that acting as house counsel in Canada was in violation of regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction, and that by utilizing the client settlement funds, he failed to properly maintain client funds in his lawyer trust account.

Carreon?s sanction was aggravated by a selfish motive, multiple offenses and his substantial experience in the practice of law. Carreon was admitted in Oregon in 1993 and in California in 1987. However, in mitigation, the stipulation recited that Carreon had no prior discipline and that he displayed a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.

Lurker Keith says:

malicious prosecution

Uh, does saying he’s going to procede w/ a baseless case “no matter what”, which goes against the 1st Ammendment, mean Carreon is opening himself up to a malicious prosecution charge?

Also, checking for updates via Google, I think, I stumbled across an interview Carreon supposedly did at

Doug says:

Connecting with his fans?

I can’t be certain about this, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this guy isn’t quite as stupid as he might seem. It is possible that he knows at least a little bit about the Internet and the Streisand effect. By claiming that he’s a failure, we are assuming we know what his goals are.

If his goals are to get his name out into the media, to get some brand recognition, to become infamous, you could say his strategy is working pretty well. He’s gotten some screen time on some high-profile sites.

You might think all of this negative press would hurt him, but don’t forget that not everybody really understands what’s going on. While he’s made a lot of enemies, he may also have garnered some kind of respect among a certain targeted audience. Perhaps this is his way of connecting with his fans.

STStone says:

Re: Connecting with his fans?

Did Inman intend to have word of Carreon’s actions on behalf of FunnyJunk spread across the Internet when he posted the rebuttal? Yes, he did.

Did Inman intend to use the rebuttal as an attempt to spread his name across the Internet and gain a measure of fame? You can make the argument, but unless you direcly ask Inman about the reasons he posted the rebuttal, you can’t know for sure.

Did Inman intend for his fanbase and other outraged/sympathetic Internet patrons to start attacking Carreon’s site or Carreon himself? I seriously doubt it.

Inman strikes me as a shrewd, intelligent individual — but he doesn’t seem overtly egotistical or malicious.

Anonymous Coward says:

Carreon is working on his own defamation suit

This is not likely to end well for Carreon. He must be lazy from dealing with laymen who are impressed by the fact he’s a lawyer and poop their pants at every legal threat.

His own claims about Inman may be defamatory.

He apparently failed to take note of the fact that Inman has very quickly and easily raised over $170,000. If Carreon actually sues Inman, he should expect that Inman will raise a warchest for legal defense immediately. It’s possible that fewer people will be willing to donate to a non-charitable cause, but it is also likely that just as many will be motivated to donate to see a scumbag lawyer get his ass kicked for a SLAPP lawsuit, especially given the rapidly increasing publicity. Inman would likely find some really great lawyers itching to take the case and I think it is unlikely that either Funnyjunk’s owners or Carreon himself are willing to commit more money to this fight than Inman has already proven himself able to raise. I suppose if Carreon goes Jack Thompson style crazy and dedicates his life to suing Inman, maybe being his own free full-time lawyer will be enough to make a nuisance of himself. But with Inman’s fundraising ability he can afford to have a lawyer work defense (or even offense) full time and get back to making comics.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Carreon is working on his own defamation suit

Teh interwebs love the Oatmeal and hate douchebag Carreon. If he is so incredibly stupid as to pursue legal action, the response will be nuclear.

His best action at this point is to apologize fully, get off the Internet, change his name, move to a third-world country, and live out his life in peace.

apauld says:

Carreon bills himself as a “lawyer concentrating in Internet-related legal and intellectual property issues,” but he certainly doesn’t seem to grasp any issues related to the internet or IP issues. I am just guessing; but maybe Carreon has based his entire career off of the sex dot com case (which seems to have been a simple fraud case), and thinks he knows more than he actually does…

Anonymous Coward says:

It’s pretty easy to guess how much Carreon knows about the internet, given that the header he used for the letter he sent to The Oatmeal appears to use a logo made of clipart.

Seriously, it’s a crappy globe with a mouse, a monitor with an “@” on it, a CD, a copyright symbol and a trademark symbol orbiting around it. With “ONLINE MEDIA LAW” written on a banner across the middle.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: First Amendment

You need to take your own advice and read the thing again.

As far as I know, the only things that aren’t covered by the first amendment are those that would cause a clear and present danger(yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater being the classic example).

Free speech doesn’t mean ‘free speech as long as it doesn’t offend someone’, so calling someone a douchebag is indeed protected speech.

TaraCarreon (profile) says:

LISTEN: we’re not talking about RELIGION here. We’re not talking about right and wrong, heaven and hell, and Christian martyrs (here the Devil Matt Inman is on the cross –it’s so Illuminati!). In this country, where our Constitution allows us freedom FROM religion, some of us have taken the opportunity to be REAL atheists, not just fake gnostics like Richard Dawkins. With copyright infringement, we’re talking about THE LAW, not religion, law made by civil servants in the legislature and in Congress, not in the Vatican.

Now appealing to people’s subconscious religious conditioning, subtly transferring that understanding to a non-understanding of the law, is a real good trick for mind controllers in the pay of large corporations, in this case the publishing industry. It’s obvious that that is what this whole story is about: the publishing industry. It can be compared to the recording industry’s beat-up of mp3 file sharing. Every reporter who has written about this story has been distinctly biased from the get-go in favor of Matt Inman’s bogus claim of “copyright infringement.” They don’t care what Charles has to say. Their stories start and end with threats towards Charles Carreon, and an appeal to the Internet to rise up against him. You should be aware that this story broke at the very moment that the Department of Justice was settling with the publishing industry after prosecuting them for a giant conspiracy against the People to set e-book prices. We’ve talked a little about strategy here, Sun Tzu and Machiavelli, and I would add, in honor of Leo Strauss, Simonides. Remember how I said that to understand modern history you had to know about the Jewish Nazis?

So when you suffer a big defeat, it’s time to marshal your forces and wage another campaign. And the Matthew Inman/Oatmeal/Funnyjunk fight provided just the ammunition and fresh soldiers they needed. They got all their compromised reporters lodged in various news agencies’ “Internet departments,” which is to say, young people who don’t know anything, who aren’t making REAL news, just gossiping about the Internet, to jump on this issue and make a martyr of — who is the real martyr here? — Charles Carreon. Matt Inman is only the COVER martyr, the mask.

Not one reporter has considered this fracas as a real story in the real world. No, this is “Internet” news. Which can be analogized to our unconscious, the real world being our conscious mind. In the “Internet” things can happen that can’t happen in the real world. Like transferring religious understanding to the law. What an opportunity for those who know how to use it. In this realm, you can wage a Crusade, and most likely, no one will even be conscious of it. Because, as I said, people are not educated in philosophy. Not being educated in philosophy, various ideas, pro and con, positive and negative, up and down, in and out, and all that is inbetween, float together randomly in a marvelous soup of potential and actual DOUBLETHINK.

And that’s what you’re doing when you decide that some entity is simply “WRONG” if someone’s copyrighted works end up on their site. You don’t care about DMCA, you don’t care about THE LAW, you care about your religious campaign, cynically disguised as THE LAW, to marshal people’s unconscious forces for your own purposes. That end up with the very people you as the Publishing Industry are trying to control fighting in your own army, arguing your cause.

Now, THAT’S strategy. And a marvelous response to a big defeat.

Wendy Cockcroft (user link) says:


I usually read The Oatmeal when I want a laugh, but the comments thread here has trumped it!

Some of you ACs have the funniest quotes. I’d love to be able to attribute them properly. As it is, the fairest thing to do is link to this page and let people find them by themselves. They work better in context anyway.

Oh, and props to Ann, minerat, [citation needed or GTFO], Nate, mrdarkrai, and Lurker Keith for the epic digging up of pertinent information.

First prize, however, to the troll/Mrs.Carreon/whatever, for the funniest contributions to this “debate.”

This is the most entertaining comments section I have ever read. πŸ˜€

Congratulations, all, on a job well done. *Applauds*

Anonymous Coward says:


Oh dear. You have no comprehension skills at all, do you? Oh well, continuing to insult you would be pointless. It’s obvious that you work for funnyjunk, and you’ve demonstrated amply in this threat that you have no sense of shame, humility or decency. I hope that you get taken to the cleaners in the whichever of the next inevitable and avoidable lawsuits you bring upon yourself, and remember to stick it to the judge when he’s sentencing you.

You’re the worst human being I’ve ever encountered and I take solace in knowing that you’ll be the author of your own downfall, which you’ll still probably blame Matt Inman for, you sketchy stalker weirdo.

Anonymous Coward says:


So true.
All I am really saying is that none of us should give a shit now.
Wow, the hate that has brought my way : )

As you said to my hypothetical question “I would continue on my merry way, not giving a shit.”
That’s just what I’ll do in this instance : )
I give up trying to point out facts about PR and perception manipulation with some of the people here.

Edward Louis Bernays

“The best PR happens with the people unaware that they are being manipulated.”

TaraCarreon (profile) says:

I love that scene from “Labyrinth,” starring David Bowie, where Hoggle and Sarah are on their way to the center of the castle and the very rocks start speaking to them:

“Don’t go on. Go back while you still can. This is not the way. Take heed and go no further. Beware. Beware. Soon it will be too late.”

And Hoggle answers: “Yeah! Don’t pay any attention to them. They’re just false alarms. You get a lot of them in the labyrinth. Especially when you’re on the right track.”

And a rock interrupts: “Oh, no, you’re not.”

Hoggle tells him to shut up.

The Rock explains: “Sorry. Just doing my job.”

And Hoggle says, “You don’t have to do it to us. Just forget it.”

Rock says, “Oh, please, I haven’t said it for such a long time.”

Finally, Hoggle gives in: “Oh, all right, but don’t expect a big reaction.”

Rocks — grateful — says: “No, no, no, of course not — (DUM DA DA DUM!) For the path you will take will lead to certain destruction.”

He’s so very, very grateful to be able to do his job.

STStone says:


There’s a library exemption to copyright infringement.

Show me the exact wording in any relevant judicial case or active part of copyright law that creates a “library exemption”, and I will believe you.

Until then, you’ll have to excuse me — I need to start finding the email addresses of some major book and film publishers.

TaraCarreon (profile) says:


I already replied to YOU on the other thread. But I’m happy to repost it here.


I’ll just quote the statute and add a comment and explain how it applies in the online context. Of course, you could have googled “copyright + library” and found it yourself, but that is apparently above your grade level.

17 USC ? 108 – Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives

Current through Pub. L. 112-128. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

” (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if?

(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;

(2) the collections of the library or archives are

(i) open to the public, or

(ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and

(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.”

At the American Buddha Online Library (ABOL), we have a notice posted that applies this section to the reproduction of transient digital copies on the user’s computer, and voila, we have immunity from copyright infringement liability. No court has ever pronounced on the viability of this theory of copyright infringement immunity, and our legal counsel, Charles Carreon, has thusfar carried the day in defense litigation directed at ABOL by Penguin USA. Litigation is the test, and ABOL has passed it. Theorize in a knowledge vacuum if you are so inclined. In space, no one can hear you bloviate.

STStone says:


So, basically, you think calling your website a “library” and saying “copyright law doesn’t apply to me” will save your ass if a few big name book publishers and movie studios come a-callin’ over the fact that you put up their legally-protected works online and tried to circumvent copyright law by calling the site you hosted their works on a “library”?

You might find your husband willing to make the argument for you in court, but any competent attorney would tell you to shut up, take the infringing content down, and pray that those publishers don’t seek restitution for your infringment upon copyright law.

TaraCarreon (profile) says:


So far, ABOL has responded to a handful of DMCA notices, to which ABOL has replied with counternotices that have universally been accepted as valid by numerous international publishers, all of whom have accepted the legitimacy of ABOL as a library by taking no further action after the content was reposted. The sole exception to this is Penguin USA, that sued three years ago in the SDNY, was promptly pitched out of court by District Judge Lynch for lack of personal jurisdiction, appealed to the 2nd Circuit, (“American Buddha I”) that booted the jurisdictional issue up to the New York Court of Appeals (“American Buddha II”), that sent it back to Judge Koeltl, who is now administering jurisdictional discovery, after which the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction will be renewed, and we anticipate, granted, after American Buddha establishes its pure non-profit bona fides by showing no income.

As an aside, no music publisher or movie studio has ever submitted a DMCA notice. It would seem that the RIAA accepts the library-lending exemption, which is buttressed by a downloading blocker that prevents more than one MP3 from being played at any time by any user, such that it is no different in its operations from the old-fashioned listening booths, i.e., a room with a turntable and a speaker, that were available for years at public libraries before the collapse of informational services at the neighborhood paper bricks and mortar level.

With regard to transcriptions of screenplays and illustrated screencap galleries, American Buddha first became a huge resource in this field with its ground-breaking illustrated screenplay method of presenting Richard Linklater’s “Waking Life,” and became the go-to-source for students of that seminal post-modern work. Should any question of legal action arise, the statute of limitations, three years for copyright infringement, has long ago expired on virtually all of the motion picture content, since I was most prolific in that field a few years back, and have lately concentrated on archiving rare and otherwise unavailable works such as Jung’s recently-published “Red Book,” which will not be found outside a few rare-book reading rooms in American libraries. Thanks to my oversized scanner and trusty Dell Quad-Core, students of Jung can have access to this all-important work, that was kept unpublished for many years after his death by his literary executors, which I bought at the first opportunity.

Perhaps it is a mark of your own insufficient self-worth, perhaps due to not giving away enough of your labor, and instead holding forth spitting bile in digital fora, that you speak of things regarding which you have no understanding. Indeed, I will assume this and as a scholar, commend you to your books.

Ann (profile) says:

Awe-Inspiring Levels of Douchebaggery

As of Friday, Charles Carreon has actually filed suit against not only Matthew Inman, but also IndieGoGo the site that is hosting his charity, but also…wait for it…


@TaraCarreon – care to comment on your husband’s robbing cancer patients of resources (I.e. his impending disbarment)?

TaraCarreon (profile) says:


“Darling?” Since we’re exchanging terms of endearment, let’s play a real free speech game. I link you to the ABOL archive of Italian spanking imagery, and to its screencap gallery of the lesbian bondage classic scene from Sexus, original music by Chet Baker, directed by Jose Benazaref, and you tell me which you like better.

“Outing?” That’s so pre-Obama! Who could “out” anyone for any sexual proclivity short of pederasty now, and claim any kind of “left” credentials? You’re not suggesting something truly outre, are you?

And about the subpoena, JK. I have no control over what Charles does. He’s an officer of the court, who would never abuse his authority.

STStone says:


He’s an officer of the court, who would never abuse his authority.

He filed a lawsuit against Matthew Inman, IndieGogo, the National Wildlife Federation, and the American Cancer Society over supposed “trademark infringement” this past Friday.

It sounds like he wants to abuse his authority as an officer of the court and a practicing attorney to silence a critic.

You can stomach the First Amendment until it lets someone else say mean things about you, huh?

apauld says:


“He’s an officer of the court,” but may not be for very long…. “who would never abuse his authority.” except for the last time, oh, and this time. Do you really think he’ll get through this and still have a license to practice, in any state? This seems to quickly becoming Rakofsky-esque.

As an aside, for anyone who feels like answering, do any of anti-SLAPP laws include jail time, or just censure and fines?

dwg (profile) says:

Carve your own path and think for yourself.

So wait: which one is the sarcastic post? Is it the one I replied to just now, the one above that you seem to be referencing, or the one below here?

I mean, I got the Obama thing. That was inane, and thanks for hipping me to it unnecessarily. But I’m still hung up on the “it’s pathetic to shill like that” thing. Can you work me around that one?

Lurker Keith says:

RE: mostly post 213: Tara on her library's download blocker

Before I get to the subject above, I would like to point out that the post (which I tried to post before I posted the CBS link… which is why that was titled “Forgot”) I tried to make that didn’t get cleared by the mods here was about that interview linked to in Popehat’s Oatmeal v. Funnyjunk Part IV. I have no idea why they didn’t post the link to the Carreon interview on I assume it was because it couldn’t be confirmed at the time…

(note, if you don’t want to post the above, just delete it, rather than not post the rest, please)

Now for my reply to Mrs. Carreon, regarding her website’s download blocker… It can be bypassed, w/o hacking! I went there to see how secure it was against downloading, & it isn’t. I won’t post how here, as I doubt this would get posted if I did. (if it’s OK to post, let me know by adding a character at the bottom of this post or posting or something — I’d like to point out to Tara that Techdirt does not have a means to neither contact me nor identify me. :p Best they might have is an IP address, which doesn’t necessarily mean that’s where I live. :p).

I searched her “library” for “.mp3” & the first thing listed that looked like it was a song was the Beastie Boy’s Rhymin & Stealin (note, it is a bit slow to load). The site asked me join & to accept their ToS, but I got around that, too (the link above will probably just skip that & go straight to the song), again w/o hacking. I did NOT save the song, as I didn’t need to to see if I could save it to know that I could, I didn’t want Tara yelling at me about that, & I don’t want anything associated w/ the Carrions (sic).

Wendy, thanks, even though that was my first post (that got through).

As to Popehat’s Oatmeal coverage Part IV, I asked a friend for a word or phrase that goes beyond “moronic idiot” & he eventually sent me this:

“There is no curse in Elvish, Entish, or the tongues of men for this treachery. –Treebeard [LotR: tTT], found via IMDb (he used “stupidity” instead, but considering what happened, I think the original fits better)

Lurker Keith says:

RE: Post 213 regarding Tara's Library being download safe

A while ago, I visited your “Library” site, Tara, to see if your site is as download-safe as you say. It isn’t. & I didn’t even have to hack anything! I did a search for “.mp3” & found a song. I didn’t even have to join the site nor agree to the Terms of Service to access the song. Merely going to the URL bypasses that… I did NOT copy the song (Beastie Boy’s Rhymin & Stealin); I merely looked to see if I could, & I can, if I wanted to… but I don’t want anything from you Carrions (sic), so I didn’t copy it.

In short, your site needs to be programmed better, as your supposed security is easily bypassible w/o doing anything to the site itself (again, absolutely no hacking required, just a general understanding of how streaming works w/ a given user Browser/ OS).

I’m not stupid enough to post how I could take a song if I were a content Pirate… Though, if you ask NICELY, I may consider enlightening you. However, keep in mind, if I post how it’s done, anyone (at least Windows users, but I’m sure most OSes & Browsers work similarly w/ this) who sees that post will be able to do it (it’s really that simple).

Lurker Keith says:

RE: Post 213 regarding Tara's Library being download safe

That is true for all sites and always has been.

That isn’t exactly correct. I’ve seen sites, where the stream isn’t as easily located. It may work the same way, but there are ways to hide it in a manner that requires more advanced skills to find.

I don’t see how its relevant.

Give me a break. I don’t just lash out at someone like some people. & I don’t want to rehash stuff that’s already been said. This was something in my field of knowledge I could point out to her.

Anonymous Coward says:


“Carreon was considered a good lawyer before this fiasco. He’s been involved in some important cases in the past, like the one.

That’s why it’s particular shocking to see him behave this way, in the past he was one of the good guys. Now… now he seems to have gone nuts.”

According to Popehat, Marc Randazza had similar things to say. His initial reaction:

“I have known Charles for a few years, and know him to be one of the good guys. I did ask him “what the fuck were you thinking?” when I first saw his letter.

I think he just made a judgment error, which is different from saying that this event exposes a latent character flaw. I’ve never known him to do anything like this before, and I am prepared to give him a First Amendment mulligan. Let he who has never fucked up before cast the first stone. Well, ok, cast stones even if you have fucked up ? since he might have asked for it and he can likely handle it, but I ask everyone to try and remember that Charles has been on the right side of the good fight far more times than he’s been on the wrong side. On balance, he’s one of the good guys, and I think he’s engaging in some valuable self-reflection right now ? which is itself a sign that he is one of the good guys.”

But after Carreon tried to shut down the fundraiser he followed with this:

“Despite my earlier charitable comments, I can not find any words to defend trying to shut the fundraiser down. I can’t even gin up a minor benefit of the doubt on that one. I can see an ill-considered demand as a mistake in judgment while hoping to gain an advantage for your client. But taking a shot at the fundraiser would not do that ? it would just be lashing out to hurt bears and cancer patients? Holy fucking shitballs inside a burning biplane careening toward the Statue of Liberty, Captain! I hope that the reporter merely got the story wrong, because if not, that’s more fucked up than a rhino raping a chinchilla while dressed up in unicorns’ undergarments.”

More here in the post updates:

I wonder what he’ll say after Friday’s lawsuit being filed?

Anonymous Coward says:

RE: Post 213 regarding Tara's Library being download safe

Actually, lots of porn sites have it setup that even if you have the direct URL to an image, you can’t view/download/access it until you are logged in with an account that as a subscription (or a house account).

Wait, you didn’t know there was more security available than you know about? Color me shocked.

So it is not true for all sites and always has been. As for relevance, thats for you to decide.

Anonymous Coward says:


“Perhaps it is a mark of your own insufficient self-worth, perhaps due to not giving away enough of your labor, and instead holding forth spitting bile in digital fora, that you speak of things regarding which you have no understanding. Indeed, I will assume this and as a scholar, commend you to your books.”

Translation for everyone who isnt as highly-literate as Mrs. Carreon here: this is a self-important way of saying, “lol u don’t know what ur talking about stfu”

Anonymous Coward says:


It’s not that Inman is in the right, it’s a larger legal question. If Carreon was to win, it would have major legal implications across California in regards to what people can say on the internet. The First Amendment gives you the right to post all this stuff about Inman, but if Carreon wins, Inman could later claim that you were engaging in defamation against him, and encouraging others to do so. Sometimes the greater good is what matters.

Are you honestly saying that you want to Carreon to win just because you don’t like how Inman operates? Try to think of the wider picture here.

Anonymous Coward says:



As an aside, no music publisher or movie studio has ever submitted a DMCA notice. It would seem that the RIAA accepts the library-lending exemption, which is buttressed by a downloading blocker that prevents more than one MP3 from being played at any time by any user, such that it is no different in its operations from the old-fashioned listening booths, i.e., a room with a turntable and a speaker, that were available for years at public libraries before the collapse of informational services at the neighborhood paper bricks and mortar level.

Or the more obvious, you didn’t appear in any search engine at the top, because the RIAA is not known to respect anything, ASCAP and BMI also may want to have a talk with you about some due royalties.

Niall (profile) says:


It’s not safe to assume qanything, especially if you struggle with reading comprehension. No-one here is suddenly saying ‘copying is theft’, or doing 180s. Most people here do respect copyright somewhat, just not the abuses. If Inman had gone full-on lawyer, there would be a lot of disappointed fans on here. But he didn’t. The worst he’s guilty of is using the copying=stealing meme, and even that’s more understandable when we are talking about files WITH THE ATTRIBUTION STRIPPED OFF.

What’s annoying us as a group is Carreon’s cluelessness, from the original $20k demand a year later (wtf?) to then starting to attack legitimate charity fundraising.

Stop trying to support your bias by assuming things here have changed totally from one post. If the MPAA went after a criminal DVD gang, we’d probably cheer on the MPAA. If they go after grandmothers and laser printers – we call their idiocy like it is.

TaraCarreon (profile) says:

TDR wrote: “He held a position of no importance. He was a lowly parasite, a zero. A piece of sputum swirling around the toilet bowl of life. He was like the security guard at the front gate who thinks of himself as head of the corporation. And so, when this dispute with the Oatmeal arose, Charles Carreon went over the edge. It was his case, ergo, his pride. I ask the court to look at this man, this sad man, this pathetic man, this joke of a man. A man who sat and failed his mental health exam on no less than fourteen occasions. A man so petty and small-minded, he would while away his hours writing threat letters for defendants he hadn’t even met yet. A man who commanded as much love and respect from his fellow human beings as Long John Silver’s parrot. An overzealous lawyer with a Napoleon complex. Who would ask this man to represent them in a court of law? Only a yogurt.”

My response: You childish, aggressive, Un-American, contemptible, obnoxious, incompetent, constipated, bankrupt, hypocritical, stupid, carnivorous, wolverine, ranting, foaming at the mouth, smeghead scumbag thugs (you believe in tit-for-tat, right?)here at TechDirt claim that these types of statements are not actionable because they aren’t “false facts,” just “satire.” Where is the dividing line?

TaraCarreon (profile) says:


Andrew: How do you respond to someone who says, ?This is the worst comic I ever saw in my life??

Matt: When I used to work for people I had this sense of diplomacy. I had to respond like, ?Well, I?m sorry you feel that way. I appreciate your criticism,? and blah, blah, blah. Now I work for myself and really no one can control what I say. So usually I tell them that I slept with their mom or I say the most vile, awful thing I can think of. If you read my Twitter account, it is like Hitler?s port-a-potty. It?s the worst thing that you?ve ever seen, just this awful stuff that I say to my critics on there. Just to troll them, mostly. So that?s usually how I respond to it. Like a drunk 15 year old, I think, is the best way to put it….

Andrew: What about in the beginning when you were going into Digg and you knew that if you won this group of people over, they?d send you massive traffic and if you turned them into haters, they?d bury you and you wouldn?t get anything from them. At that point, weren?t you nervous?

Matt: Yeah. At that point, I wouldn?t have gotten on Digg and been like, ?Hey, your mom and I made love under the stars. Ha ha ha. I liked it.? That probably wouldn?t go over so well. But now I?m kind of at this comfortable level. And part of my writing style and the persona that I have online is sort of this crass, bloated, obese, drunk monster. So, in the beginning, you?re absolutely right, probably insulting my critics wouldn?t have gone over so well….

Matt: I think the feedback that has changed my comics somewhat wasn?t from comments, it was from traffic. I found that certain themes, that if I attack, will actually drive traffic like crazy and that other things won?t.

In particular, writing about a gripe. It?s the stand-up routine where someone gets up there and says, ?What?s the deal with airline food?? You take that and you apply it to a comic. Those ones go crazy. Like, ?Things That You Shouldn?t Do In E-Mail,? ?How to Suck at Facebook,? ?Words You Should Stop Misspelling,? these are all gripes. That was one that changed. But that is, hopefully the one that stands alone. I try to make things that I think are funny and that I enjoy. But the gripe one is one that I sort of embellished a little more because it seemed to resonate with people.

TaraCarreon says:

Lawyers who live in glass houses should not throw stones

Charles didn’t do anything. I made the decision to pay the rent from the trust account based on our client’s commitment to pay the rent when we were in Canada, and when he started having trouble with his partner, who was more our friend that he was, he attacked us with a petty vinctive bar complaint. The guy was scum, just like you guys.

TaraCarreon (profile) says:

These phaggotish, conspiratorial, childish, dorkish, baseless, mindless, shameful, dumb, aggressive, jealous, reprobate, obsessed, mad, clueless, shockingly delusional, completely lost and in trouble, bottom-of-the-barrel, short-sighted, dumb-fuck, ranting, Un-American, contemptible, obnoxious, embarrassing, incompetent, bizarre, constipated, bankrupt, hypocritical, stupid, fearful, carnivorous, wolverine, ranting, foaming at the mouth, bullying, lying, paranoid, no-better-than-the-mafia, smeghead, scumbag, cretinous, lazy, delusional, demented, narcissistic, pathological, extortionistic lunatic, thuggish drama-whores, poised on the edge of a precipice, hoisted by their own petard, their holy fucking shitballs burning inside a biplane careening toward the Statue of Liberty, rhinos raping chinchillas dressed up in unicorns’ undergarments, who deserve every bad thing that happens to them, having to learn their lessons the hard way, and who I wouldn’t even piss on if they were on fire (they believe in name-calling at TechDirt) claim that these types of statements are not actionable because they aren’t “false facts,” just “satire.” Where is the dividing line?

Deselect (user link) says:


The Oatmeal blacked out his information in his blog, however Charles Carreon still insists The Oatmeal gave out his email. However Mr. Carreon has done exactly what he is suing over to someone else:

He also claims there is no other way to contact him, however on the above link up until today (when presumably Charles erased the evidence that he lied to the court) you could click “contact” and you would get his email address. Though in the below link there are many images and links to his information still or previously available. πŸ™‚

More reading:

STStone says:


Only a handful of stupid people, in the pay of Matt Inman

Do you really think Matt Inman has paid people off to rip into you here on Techdirt?

You can’t have this kind of hatred and self-delusion without it harming your mind.

Says the woman who called posters here “retards”, “phaggotish”, and…well, I’ll let your own words bury you.

I hope you enjoy digging holes, Tara. You seem to have dug a rather large one for yourself.

Deselect says:


False facts? Like these:

The Oatmeal blacked out his information in his blog, however Charles Carreon still insists The Oatmeal gave out his email. However Mr. Carreon has done exactly what he is suing over to someone else:

He also claims there is no other way to contact him, however on the above link up until today (when presumably Charles erased the evidence that he lied to the court) you could click “contact” and you would get his email address. Though in the below link there are many images and links to his information still or previously available. πŸ™‚

More reading:

Matt Scott (profile) says:


Tara, Hi. I’m a philosophy student (well, double major in History and Philosophy with a certificate specializing in the humanities and new media) (oh [yes, you get two parenthetical comments here!] that’s also why I was asking about your definition of the tautological nature of the mind, to which you gave a non-answer in reply. So, briefly, I’d like to point out that a tautology is an issue of logic [although not meaningless, as many logicians would argue] and relates to statements such as, “I’ll get there when I get there,” not to far more complex issues such as neuropathy and such.])

Now, onto your “philosophical point of order.” I’d like to list two points of contention regarding this claim. First, I’m sure you’re familiar with Buddhist philosophical concepts (familiar with, but whether or not you comprehend them seems to be another issue entirely), in which a thing can both be and not be at the same time, such as with language in which a word, at once, means something and is meaningless. Second, Hegel’s Geist perfectly applies to this situation, the “spirit” a community becomes a material thing itself, while having no materiality per se.

Finally, I’d like to point out that I am no way in the pay of Matt Inman, nor, I believe, are any other individuals posting on this site. His lawyer certainly is, but that’s probably the extent of it (at least regarding this particular case). Now, you should probably listen to the person who is in the employ of Matt Inman, as he is offering you Very Good Advice regarding the Very Bad Situation in which you and your husband have found yourselves.

That advice was, to reiterate, that a lawsuit would be a Very Bad Idea (I believe the quote was, “just a really, really bad idea”). You can say all you want that your husband is the best lawyer ever on the face of the planet (and the most attractive and awesomest and whatever ad nauseum), but, based on the actions he is currently displaying, he is, sadly, not embodying such. Listening to Inman’s lawyer would be a display of intelligence to which I would be thrilled to see (seriously, I kind of want this to end well for you guys, I’ve grown to like you in some strange ways [not those kind of strange ways]). All Charles would really have to do is just say, “Hey, what I’ve been doing… yeah that was a Really Bad Idea, and I’m sorry, but Inman’s response bothered me and I reacted badly.”

Deselect (user link) says:


It’s also a failure to logically read a reply that led to this skirmish. In his response to original letter, Matthew Inman repeatedly referred to the owner of FunnyJunk as you, your, etc. Even when referring to Charles Carreon, he said “Your lawyer A+”

However then Carreon goes and continues the fallacy that the picture of the woman seducing a bear is his mother, not the owner of FunnyJunk’s mother. This is a fallacy and one a well read human being should have picked up on immediately. Please reread the post by Matthew and his follow up about now being sued, where he again reiterates that the original feud was between The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk.

Just admit your husband had an old people’s moment and walk away. No one will hold it against him in 2 weeks time. He’ll be forgotten. Or he’ll be mocked forever. His choice.


Adam Steinbaugh (profile) says:


Why, the dividing line is drawn in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, U.S. 485 U.S. 46, 50 (1988): whether a reasonable person would view the content as stating actual facts. That case, by the way, concerned a depiction of someone’s mother having sex in an outhouse.

And, yes, offensive speech is protected even when it concerns a private figure, as well. See, Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S.Ct. 1207 (2011).

Adam Steinbaugh (profile) says:


Commercial speech can be regulated by the government. And, even then, what counts as ‘commercial speech’ is quite limited. Even if Mr. Inman had, somewhere, some type of commercial motivation for doing what he did, that isn’t enough to qualify his statements as commercial speech. See, Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products, 463 U.S. 60, 67 (1983) (“the fact that Youngs has an economic motivation for mailing the pamphlets would clearly be insufficient by itself to turn the materials into commercial speech”).

The basic definition of whether speech is ‘commercial’ is whether it does “no more than propose a commercial transaction.” Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 762 (1976).

Moreover, the Supreme Court has already held that charitable speech is not commercial speech: “Even assuming that the mandated speech [a requirement by the State of North Carolina that charitable organizations make certain disclosures — exactly what is at issue in this case], in the abstract, is merely ‘commercial,’ it does not retain its commercial character when it is inextricably intertwined with the otherwise fully protected speech involved in charitable solicitations, and thus the mandated speech is subject to the test for fully protected expression, not the more deferential commercial speech principles.” Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 782 (1988).

G Thompson (profile) says:


Your head be likened to a fire, the stones unswept, and the ideas whirling round and round about in it, all obfuscated and darkened over with fuliginous matter.

There.. That’s how you insult someone… Next time use words that have meaning, context and don’t make people go to sleep half way through the second line.

Oh and based on prior postings here, and looking at your and your husbands website(s) you need professional mental health help. Deny it all you want, to any professional it is self evident. I feel sorry for you and sorry for the pain you are putting yourselves through, though please be aware that it is has been fully instigated by yourselves.

G Thompson (profile) says:


You realise with that statement of “us” you have just joined yourself to the case and any damages awarded against your husband acting as an individual can also be recouped from yourself making hiding monies/assets “owned” by yourself and not husband fair game.

You do realise this is a world viewable forum (in the real sense of the word forum) don’t you?

aitreni (profile) says:

WHO is playing people well

The Oatmeal is entirely a satirical website that wields hyperbole like a giant purple dildo. Not even a really good lawyer would be able to make a defamation case stick.

Carreon was simply hoping that Inman was too stupid to know better, or too broke to afford a lawyer himself.

Note that it is now the 20th of June. As of the 12th of June, all mentions of FunnyJunk were still on the Oatmeal – and now there is even more there. Also it goes without saying that Inman did not deliver $20,000 to Carreon. Yet here we are eight days later and instead of filing the clearly baseless suit against Inman for defamation, Carreon donated to a fundraiser in an incredulous attempt to manufacture anything at all that he could actually sue Inman for.

By the lack of filing a defamation suit against Inman on behalf of FunnyJunk, even your hero Carreon is capitulating to the reality that Inman did not defame them. Just up to you to catch up now.