Intellectual Property

Don't Mention "Urban Homesteading"™

|

Who thinks they can trademark two english words that describe an activity that anyone could engage in, and then legally go after a book published using those words in its title before they filed for that trademark, and then get Facebook to take down mentions of the book with this bogus legal claim?

Why, "urban homesteading"™ pioneers the Dervaeses, of Pasadena, California.

Adam Parfrey, one of the principals behind Process Media, publisher of the book The Urban Homestead, is fighting back with the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Details from the Orange County Weekly:

[Parfrey] contacted Facebook about the issue regarding his book; they replied that they were keeping the Process Media links down until the Dervaeses agreed to allow the restoration of the links. On Wednesday, Parfrey sent an email addressed to family patriarch Jules Dervaes, demanding he restore his links and those of others who had suffered their ridiculous trademark war.

"Your Facebook actions against us (and others) are particularly harmful," Parfrey wrote in an email he provided to the Weekly. "We request that you contact 'The Facebook Team'…to inform them that Process Media did not transgress your rights. If you fail to do that, we consider your actions as malicious and without legal basis. If this is not amicably resolved, we'd be forced to engage in a legal battle that could be costly for all parties."

The legal battle begins Monday–Boing Boing reported yesterday that the Electronic Frontier Foundation will represent Parfrey in a yet-undisclosed legal strategy….

Although Parfrey is specifically fighting for his property, he's also more than happy to take up the battle for the others affected by the Dervaeses' actions. "How any malicious person anywhere can go and distrupt hundreds and thousands of people at once by saying their rights have been transgressed by some post is disturbing," Parfrey says.

I interviewed Parfrey for Reason magazine back in its November 2002 issue. The Dervaes family complains that their attempts to defend their trademark™ are being unfairly traduced in the media–particularly by "bloggers."™ Jesse Walker from Reason magazine in March 2000 on the culture-crushing use of intellectual property law in general.

NEXT: "Delirious Joy in the Center of Bahrain"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Look,

    I’ve got a copyright application in for the use of the term “don’t mention” as it specifically applies to internet and blog use. I woul appreciate if you would take this down immidiately, as it infringes upon my rights.

    1. People often confuse copyright and trademark.

      1. Hmm, it seems that comments no longer support HTML links. They LOOK like links but they’re not functional. The links were to dictionary.reference.com.

        1. We are all SugarFree now.

          1. YES! Our plan worked! Go long on insulin people!

        2. I did mean trademark. I meant to type trademark, but my fingers hit the keys that spell copyright. Regardless, I have a trademark application for that phrase in this specific use- and it is federal since I have somehow had some interstate transactions that would be required to make it so.

          1. I hold a patent in commenting. Pay up, suckers!

            1. To late.

              I Trademarked Pro Liberate!

              1. and Pro Libertate =P

                1. I wish I had. There are others out there with my cognomen.

          2. I hold the copyright on copyright. Pay up.

          1. DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT!!!11! MY LINKS DON”T WORK!!

            1. Have to use quotes around the URL, FWIW.

              1. Ah. I had gotten lazy about that.

                This is a test. This is only a test. If this were a real link, its target would be much more interesting.

                1. Geesh. The link was cool in the first preview, then I removed the quote marks, hit preview again, and it saved it!

                  Gotta run, I’m late for HTML class…

        3. People also often confuse working with broken links.

          1. And I should read through old threads prior to commenting…

            1. No need to start any new habits around here. The old ways are the best ways.

            2. brec (and anyone else) – <a href=”put html address here” >put link wording here</a>.

              1. How were you able to that without getting this:

                put link wording here.

            3. You can’t fool me. There’s no such thing as magic.

              1. Mr Whipple – there’s magic if you beleev, like the unicorns and healthcare Obama’s gonna bring with his pixie wand.

                But all I used was HTML. & lt ; will bring up a less than sign (if you leave out the spaces) – substitute gt, and it will be a greater than sign. & trade ; brings up something quite relevant: ? also, substitute “copy” and voila: ?.

                1. Be ye wizard, or demon???

      2. You mean copymarks?

        1. Traderights? Tradents? Copy secrets?

          1. Patentcopy? Secret Trade? Rightmarks? Intellectual Propertorts?

          2. Patentcopy? Trade Secret? Rightmarks? Intellectual Propertorts?

          3. Patentcopy. Secret Trades. Rightmarks.

            Intellectual Propertorts.

            I would have had question marks, but the spam filter is killing this post.

            1. Fucking words – how do they work?

              1. I copyrighted fucking words too. Every fucking word actually. You are safe, I did it under the GPL.

              2. You have a mommy letter and a daddy letter and when they love each other very much they make enough little letters to create a word.

                1. Speaking of that, your parents hold a copyright in your DNA, based on their artistic expression when they collaborated on your creation.

                  The duration of that copyright is life + 70 years. Make sure you do not make any derivative works or unauthorized copies! Or use the work outside of the purposes to which your parents licensed it to you!

    2. don’t mention? Trademarked it first

  2. Initially this is a bit of a melon-scratcher… My first thought would be to sue them for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (assuming that’s actionable in the proper venue for this case) but that, and just about any other tort I can think of, would require some intent to harm their business (as you might see one business do to its competitor). In this situation, with the Dervaeses being self-sustaining who-knows-whats (hippies?) it would seem hard to establish any intent on their part, unless they’re planning on publishing a book or something. It may be easier to seek a TRO so Parfrey can start selling his book again, but if these guys are genuine nut-jobs it may be difficult to go on the offensive legally.

  3. Looks like the Dervaes family has an unlimited supply of manure with which to fertilize their urban homestead.

    If only the power of bullshit could be harnessed to make my garden grow…

    1. If only the power of bullshit could be harnessed to make my garden grow…

      Do you have the appropriate seed planted and the requisite carbon credits purchased?

    2. I assure you that bullshit will make your garden grow. Just drive through mid-Michigan or west-central Ohio farm country in the summer for olfactory evidence…

    3. Stick to compost. But if you do use some manure in your compost:

      If the animal is a meat eater, like a dog, cat, lion or tiger, do not use the material in any form; even meat-eaters that are kept indoors can harbor dangerous parasites that are completely absent in ‘veggie manures’. That’s right?no dog or cat pet poop should EVER go in the compost! If you already made that mistake, don’t use the compost; and wear gloves when you toss it into the woods or otherwise dispose of it.

      I assume that would include Human Bullshit.

      http://www.gardensalive.com/article.asp?ai=843

  4. Wait wait wait,

    Are you say there are people who still use facebook?

    1. Yes, when does it die like MySpace? Can I buy puts on said event?

      1. Yes, when does it die like MySpace? Can I buy puts on said event?

        You’re in luck, I have a hedge fund devoted to this very thing!

        1. At last, my fortune is secured.

    2. Are you say there are people who still use facebook?

      I made a fake account on Facebook about two months ago…

      So if my experience with facebook follows my experiences with MySpace and Friendster then Facebook should die any day now.

    3. Are you say there are people who still use facebook?

      It’s mostly just animals at this point. Really.

      A few years ago, I set up an Albino Squirrel profile on FB as a joke on a colleague…and now it has 3x as many friends as my real profile does, though most of its friends are birds, dogs, and cats. There’s a whole underground community of nonhuman friends…I think they may be planning a revolution.

      1. Have you seen any signs of the transphibian resurgence, or are they barely keeping their heads above water?

      2. A few years ago, I set up an Albino Squirrel profile on FB as a joke on a colleague…and now it has 3x as many friends as my real profile does

        Well, its commentary is more coherent.

  5. Dervaes’ Mark is a Registered Servicemark:

    http://tarr.uspto.gov/tarr?reg…..est+Status

    Class 41: Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities)

    Lists of services for their mark:
    “Educational services, namely, conducting informal programs in the fields of sustainable living, organic foods and gardening, homesteading, the environment, and conservation, using on-line activities and interactive exhibits; entertainment services, namely, providing a web site featuring photographs and audio and video recordings featuring instruction and current events reporting on sustainable living, organic foods and gardening, the environment, and conservation; on-line journals, namely, blogs featuring the subjects of sustainable living, organic foods and gardening, the environment, and conservation”

    How the hell does a title of a book (which fall under copyright, UNLESS it is a series, then you can possibly Trademark it) infringe on a servicemark that specifically lists providing a website as its service?

    I am not even going to get into the insanity of them being able to obtain the mark to begin with. That must have been some slick lawyering.

    1. That must have been some slick lawyering.

      Or some dumb office clerk.

      Or both.

      1. Are you implying that government workers are not highly skilled dynamos who could be making double the money in the private sector if they weren’t so concerned for the public good?

  6. “Educational services, namely, conducting informal programs in the fields of sustainable living, organic foods and gardening, homesteading, the environment, and conservation, using on-line activities and interactive exhibits; entertainment services, namely, providing a web site featuring photographs and audio and video recordings featuring instruction and current events reporting on sustainable living, organic foods and gardening, the environment, and conservation; on-line journals, namely, blogs featuring the subjects of sustainable living, organic foods and gardening, the environment, and conservation”

    It appears that they are infringing on the mission statement of the EPA. Someone should sue!

  7. sooooo…

    What is Urban Homesteading?

    1. Apparently it has doing something to do with cooking with solar power 🙂

      Kind of hard cooking a steak with a magnifying glass.

      1. Use a parabolic mirror

        1. Or the same manhole cover that reporter just cooked an egg on.

    2. that’s when we burn shit down & grow crack on trees

      1. Hello, shit facktery! This is particularly funny coming from you, douchenozzle.

    3. I guess it’s the opposite of nautic seasteading.

    4. I’m going to violate another trademark and tell you to google it.

      1. I would but doing a crowd source search on Hit And Run is more entertaining.

  8. Fuck? ’em.

  9. That’s just “Fucktastic.”?

    1. Fuckariffic?

        1. Or Fucktacular?

          1. Fuck-o-licious?

            1. Fucktabulous?

              1. Fuckacious?

                1. Fuckian?
                  Spam filter does not like this one…the filter is fucktudinal?.

                  1. This thread is a Fuckapalooza?.

                    1. When Friedrich Nietzsche declared “God is dead”, fuck became the most important word in the English language.

                      – Osho

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded

                    2. Nietzsche is a Fucktard?.

                    3. Fuckendentalism??

                    4. Fuckerbating?

                      oh that’s meta…

                    5. Fuckin’ A?!

                    6. Fucksistentialism?

  10. Do the attorneys representing both sides happen to be related? This sounds like nothing more that a suit designed to make lawyers wealthy. What was it P.T. Barnum said about suckers?

    1. I’d repeat it, but that’s copyright

  11. This is why we need “loser pays”.

    This sort of thing seems to me (but what the fuck do I know?) to be nothing more than extortion.

    “I will permit you to call your book Urban Homesteading if you pay me for the use of my trademarked term.”

    Isn’t that pretty much it?

  12. Of course, “loser pays” only helps if the jurors aren’t all a bunch of morons.

    1. Still better than the current system where even when the jurors aren’t morons the defendants get screwed.

  13. the culture-crushing use of intellectual property law

    Has our culture been crushed? Discuss.

    1. It’s collapsing under its own weight.

  14. I’ve just trademarked the phrases “Tow the Lion”, “For a magazine called Reason“, and the words “Drink!”, “Roads!” and “Somalia!”

    Fortunately, I have found the perfect attorney: an aviation lawyer out of Philadelphia who most definitely does not have forbidden relations with livestock.

    1. Blast!

      *clenches fists and grimaces*

      1. Don’t worry… you’re still free to use “11/08/06 NEVER FORGET!” and “Externalities!”. “Shut The Fuck Up, LoneWacko” is now in the Public Domain, too.

        1. What about “barf”?

          1. *barf*

            That was for barman

            1. …for barfman, too, also…

              1. Dare I say it: *bar*?

  15. Speaking of ridiculous TM’s, this one is outstanding.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50…..04083.html

  16. All of these people are ridiculous since what they are doing isn’t anything like real homesteading. I wonder if the term “urban gardener” is taken?

    Yep.

    http://tess2.uspto.gov/

    1. As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.

  17. I’m currently reading the book, and I would recommend for those who live in an apartment or a small house in the city/suburbs and wish to take the first steps beyond a windowsill herb garden. It has some good recipes and a fairly informative section on canning.

    My criticisms of the book lie in the fact that it’s heavy on ideas but light on instruction, and that the last two chapters are really covered better in other books in Process Media’s “Self-sufficiency” series (i.e. Preparedness Now! and When There Is No Doctor in particular).

  18. Also remember to stay fit for the planet.

    1. I took a shit on the planet once

      1. Did you get a receipt?

  19. Tony|2.18.11 @ 7:15PM|#

    Well poor people are icky, that’s objective fact.

    Pass it on.

  20. I am planning to trademark the word “Dervaes” — they will have to find some other name to call themselves. I can think of some which are appropriate . . .

  21. I don’t know if this is going to be the weekend open thread or not, but I found this interesting:


    House passes amendment to block funds for net neutrality order
    .

  22. I’m glad Reason is on top of this China revolution thing like a groom on his gay wedding night.

  23. Copyright 2011, Reason Magazine

  24. Should American Troops Have to Wear Muslim Headscarves

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02446.html

    I say go girl to this lady. Women serving in our armed forces protecting Muslim nations shouldn’t have to conform to the prejudiced ideas of those nations.

    1. Women serving in our armed forces protecting Muslim nations shouldn’t have to conform to the prejudiced ideas of those nations.

      If that is the dominant and accepted culture in that area, then yes wearing a hajib the correct thing to do. Conforming to the dominant culture is the politically and culturally sensitive thing to do.

      1. Reminds me of that Brit in India.

        When informed that burning a man’s wife on his funeral pyre was the tradition, he replied “We have a tradition, too. We hang chaps who do that.”*

        Badly paraphrased. Poor memory. But you get the idea.

        1. Yes, I do. It would be nice if such tolerance and regard for the individual were as widespread here. At least the woman wasn’t burning something, like a Koran or tobacco.

        2. Also, it would be ludicrous to think that a vocal minority could impose it’s will and culture on others. Unthinkable.

  25. Jesse Walker from Reason magazine in March 2000 on the culture-crushing use of intellectual property law: “Copyrights, unlike trademarks, have always posed problems, even if you think they’re necessary. They are, after all, government-granted monopolies”

    Really? Rights derive from the state? They’re a gift from your government? Absent the government’s imprimatur, you have no natural right to the use and disposal of your own property? What about the deed to your home? That’s also a “government-granted monopoly.” Does any random passerby have a claim to “fair use” of your house and land? That’s not a very “libertarian” position, if libertarians are still concerned with property rights.

    1. Uh, he said they are monopolies granted by government. I’m pretty sure he’s drawing the obvious conclusion that rights and monopolies are not the same thing. Actually the deeds are more like a contract since several parties are agreeing to the terms and the natural right to ownership is being recognized by another. (that doesn’t mean that natural right is granted or disappears if the deed ceases to exist)

      You seem to be willfully or ignorantly conflating several things for the purpose of outrage.

      That’s Fuckdicoulus?.

    2. D-. Get more practice at trolling first, instead of diving in feet-first.

      1. Damnit, that was going to be my entertainment for the day.

      2. You’re being kind today. I didn’t that even warranted an ‘F’. Can you give ‘L’ as a grade?

        1. Is this the retard class? Don’t be shy. I grade on a curve.

          1. Scab! Go back to saying, “Would you like fries with that?”

    3. In the case of IP, there is no “possession” to attach a property right to, or for the “owner” to protect through force, so it seems impossible to enforce without a state.

  26. More Casualties of the WOD

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..id=topnews

    Nick took his life Jan. 20, the second student in two years to die of a suicide amid the fallout of a disciplinary infraction in Fairfax. In March 2009, Josh Anderson, 17, a football player at South Lakes High School, committed suicide the day before his second disciplinary hearing.

    Suicides are never associated with a single cause, experts say. But Nick’s difficulties – based on interviews with family, friends, experts and school officials, and more than 100 pages of case documents – allow a close look at how consequences intended to help a student correct course instead can fuel a growing despair.

      1. You’re correct. Imagine if he was caught doing something especially heinous, like smoking cigarettes. Then he would have been a true pariah with little to no sympathy given to him.

    1. I would say he is a casualty of the brain dead idiots who infest the education system as much as anything else.

  27. I don’t want to hear how Leftists harassing veterans is just a “myth”.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/l…..7vXAiAQfSN

    Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.

    “Racist!” some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.

    Maschek, 28, had bravely stepped up to the mike Tuesday at the meeting to issue an impassioned challenge to fellow students on their perceptions of the military.

    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/l…..z1EW34nIop

    1. “Transpeople are part of the Columbia community,” said senior Sean Udell at the meeting…

      Wait, are they devolving into a different form of life, like a tuber, or are they evolving from a lower state?

      1. I think in Columbia’s case it might be the first case of devolution in natural history. Did Darwin ever account for such a development?

        1. I find nothing wrong with this.

        2. Depends how you define “devolution.” Fish whose ancestors took up permanent residence in the total darkness of caves now possess only vestigial eyes. The creatures have evolved to fit their environment better, because they waste no resources on useless organs. But from the viewpoint (heh, heh) of us sighted creatures, it looks as if they have devolved.

          Can anyone find an analogy here?

          1. People who have lost the will to better themselves through aeons of disincentive?

          2. The creatures have evolved to fit their environment better, because they waste no resources on useless organs.

            Is that why progressives have atrophied brains?

    2. No ROTC? What are they going to burn down when Columbia students really start protesting the wars?

      1. The cafeteria.

        1. That’s right. I forgot that those cafeteria ladies moonlight as USO girls.

      2. What are they going to burn down when Columbia students really start protesting the wars?

        First of all, they’re good wars now, because Obama likes them. But if they really need to, they can burn down some of the blighted property around Columbia. I hear there’s a lot of it.

    3. I guess people are supposed to bow in reverence to soldiers. Yeah, the anti-government sentiment is strong in this one.

      1. No one said anything about bowing. Not acting like shit-flinging chimpanzees would be fine.

    4. How ironic is it that he was shouted down at Columbia by students holding signs that read”

      Military preys on low income communities.

  28. The Republican budget bill passed in the House Saturday morning blocks a request from federal officials for broader authority to fight gun trafficking to Mexico.

    The provision would bar the government from requiring gun dealers in southern border states to report bulk purchases of assault weapons ? an emergency measure designed to stem the flow of guns to Mexico’s violent drug cartels.

    Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.), who sponsored the provision, said it will “protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

    So the Republicans can do at least one thing right.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-…..-authority

    1. What counts as a “bulk” purchase?

      1. Oh wait, they (ATF) are calling “two or more within 5 days” a bulk purchase. That is just silly.

        You might be able to claim that a need to regulate bulk purchases if they were talking about a truckload of guns headed over the border…maybe.

  29. I thought “urban homesteading”? was a euphemism for white slavery. Let’s have fun with Google…

    Did “urban homesteading”? rape and murder a woman in 1990?

    1. I hear Arthur Wolk uses Urban Homesteading as a way to fuck sheep.

  30. I watched Meet the Press today; that vacuous redistributionist nitwit Jennifer Granholm was on.

    She was blathering on and on about how Wisconsin Evil Genius Walker is trying to destroy the unions, but she worked with them to make Michigan a Better Place.

    No mention of the fact that the new governor is now busily trying to undo all the dumb shit she did.

    Best part: Ed What’s-his-name, right at the end of the show, got off a good slam at the Presidential Suit’s idiotic high speed rail money toss; Granholm could be heard in the background squealing like somebody had just stabbed her in the neck with a knitting needle. That pretty much made up for all the other stupid shit.

    1. [M]ake Michigan a Better Place.

      Make sure and trademark that.

    2. You Watch So We Don’t Have To?

    3. Ann Althouse is out interviewing the protestors. Check out this clip as a teacher explains why Scott Walker deserves to be compared to Hitler. The stupid is quite strong and remarkable.

      http://althouse.blogspot.com/2…..stika.html

      1. Well, John, you must admit: “They did all kinds of things to other people.”

    4. She was blathering on and on about how Wisconsin Evil Genius Walker is trying to destroy the unions, but she worked with them to make Michigan a Better Place.

      WTF

      Are you implying that chasing all the humans out, didn’t make MI a better place>

  31. Racist Democrat claims calling black tea party supporter “Buckwheat” not really racist.

    http://www.vindy.com/news/2011…..t-hagan-s/

    1. I think Buckwheat is de jure racist.

      1. A emailer to instapundit suggests that Hagan “take a midnight stroll down the streets of fair Cincy and Cleveland and call all of the Black people he meets “Buckwheat”. Let him explain in between beatings that he’s been using that phrase “since he was a kid” and that it “has no racial connotation to him”.”

    2. Would this (calling someone whose race you don’t know “buckwheat”) be like using “he” as the generic pronoun making you sexist?

    3. …land of Traficant

      Haha. That would be Youngstown. Like Cleveland is all that much better than Youngstown. I guess it goes

      Youngstown ? Akron ? Cleveland ? Parma.

    4. What if it’s a black guy who really is named Buckwheat?

    5. It’s not racist when democrats do it.

  32. I think Buckwheat is de jure racist.

    Of course it is. Now, Hymie and Hymietown are mere rhetorical flourishes. [cite: Jesse Jackson].

    1. I believe Jesse Jackson has a copyright on Hymie? and Hymietown?

    2. Also, Buckwheat? is a registered trademark.

      1. So is Gumby?, dammit!

  33. Despite the fact that I created and therefore own Rothbarded?, Mentally Rothbarded? and Severely Mentally Rothbarded?, I waive my copyright. It would be too selfish to jealously guard such usefully apt inventions.

    1. I’m sure that’s just because they wouldn’t let you sign the application in crayon.

      1. I’m sure that’s just because they wouldn’t let you sign the application in crayon.

        Ha ha. Look at the ignorant amateur struggle with how copyright works.

        We exclusively own the things we create the second we fix them in a tangible form, not when we fill out an “application”. This is per a little-read but often jerked-off-over document called the US Constitution. Article I, Section 8, dumbass.

        Ha ha.

        1. At least he didn’t just try to benevolently waive his copyrights in a phrase he himself indicated was trademarked. They are two different areas of law, protecting different things, providing different remedies, and are overseen by different government agencies.

          You are the fuckingest fucktard in fuckville, you know that? And you try so hard, but you’re so often wrong.

          Trademarks are protected by the Lanham Act, which is quite famously not provided for in Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 8.

          So “Mentally Rothbarded,” as you were correct in indicating, would be a TM (you generally cannot copyright a phrase) and therefore, technically, Kant is pretty much right – you’d have to file an application with the USPTO to have any exclusive rights in it, state law aside.

          Ha ha.

          1. Ha ha. Look at the dumb, angry glibertarian pull a muscle stretching the truth.

            Not only are copyright and trademark not the same thing, a trademark right need not imply origination at all. Therefore, the copyright in a creation that happens to be used as a trademark still would have no filing required whatsoever to be established.

            Wishing I was wrong is certainly understandable coming from a glibertard accustomed to wishful thinking in lieu of a worldview.

            Ha ha.

            1. No…I understand all of that. I understand use. Hence the general terms of “state law aside” and “pretty much right” covering both state preemption and use.

              You’d get very little protection if you didn’t register.

              And you forgot to address that you conflated the two doctrines(again), and that trademark has nothing to do with Art. i, Sec. 8, Clause 8, that it wouldn’t be a copyright (the crux of your assholiness), and that it would be protected by a different government agency.

              Ha ha.

              If I’m a law professor, I grade me higher, but that’s just me.

            2. What…what? I just re-read that. You’re unreal. I’ve never, ever heard of copyrighting a phrase like you tried to do, only trademarking it.

              “Mentally Rothbarded” is an artistic work fixed in a tangible medium of expression?

              Nah, don’t think so. Consensus — overwhelming, from the easiest of searched — doesn’t cover phrases. You have no copyright. You have no rights under 1,8,8.

              You argue in bad faith at this point. I’m done.

              Ha ha.

            3. Despite the fact that I created and therefore own Rothbarded?, Mentally Rothbarded? and Severely Mentally Rothbarded?, I waive my copyright

              We exclusively own the things we create the second we fix them in a tangible form, not when we fill out an “application”. This is per a little-read but often jerked-off-over document called the US Constitution. Article I, Section 8, dumbass.

              I still love how you waived the rights that come from Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 8 (copyrights) in your trademarks. What’s your next trick?

              Cool story, bro.

              Holy shit, you’re a prick.

              Ha ha.

    2. I own the patent on
      Shit for brains Orel Hazard.
      You’re 10,462 days in arrears. This is a 3 day pay or quit notice.

      Don’t make me repo yours.

  34. I have the copyright on misspelled words and misused apostrophes.

    Y’ll need to pay up.

  35. I have the copyright on misspelled words and misused apostrophes.

    Y’ll need to pay up.

    1. Fucking squirrel-bots. How do they work??

  36. I have the copyright on double-posting.
    Pay-up

    1. Ima be in trouble…

    2. Ima be in trouble

      1. Is this – technically – a double post, since they vary slightly?

        1. You should change your name to Johnny Two Times?

      2. technically you came up short on your second attempt, ergo it cannot be counted as twice-in-a-row but perhaps if you allowed for more recovery time you would build-up enough stamina for a repeat satisfactory performance

  37. Would bukkake be considered a servicemark??

    1. Haha. It’s actually trademarked in Japan.
      According to wikipedia: The Japanese adult video studio Shuttle Japan registered the term “????/???????” as a trademark (No. 4545137) in January 2001.[11]

  38. it didn’t look ridiculous enough

    Despite the fact that I created and therefore own Rothbarded?, Mentally Rothbarded? and Severely Mentally Rothbarded?, I waive my copyright

    You waive your copyrights in something that couldn’t have been copyrighted because it’s a trademark by your own marking. Love it.

    I waive my right to have sex with Brooklyn Decker twice every Sunday, even though I had no such right!

    This is per a little-read but often jerked-off-over document called the US Constitution. Article I, Section 8, dumbass

    And those trademark phrases, they were going to be protected by I,8,8, of the Constitution, which has repeatedly been ruled not to cover trademark law?

    Ooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.