Playboy is suing Boing Boing - but linking is not copyright infringement


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/01/18/playboy-is-suing-boing-boing.html


#2

The soil hasn’t even settled over Hef’s grave yet, and already Playboy’s lawyers have slipped the leash.

Is there a Happy Mutants LLC Fight Song we can sing?


#3

Here I am saying “shame on Playboy” for the first time in my life and it ultimately has nothing to do with their showing photos of nekkid ladies.

I’m sure the judge will side with you folks.


#4

Not the first time a company or person has sued because someone else linked something that they did not like, i cannot for the life of me remember what these other instances are. I could look it up, i might later tonight. Also Playboy, is this what you’re doing now to stay relevant at this day and age? Really? Really?


#5

They’re suing… because of story that was linked through the BBS 2 years ago, rather than suing the actual person who originally posted it to Imgur…


#6

They know how the Streissand effect works right?


#7

Clearly, they do not. May the wrath of Saint Barbara consume them.


#8

Are they going to sue Google & other search engines?

https://www.google.com/search?q=playboy+centerfolds&client=ubuntu&hs=SZh&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPn_uS3eLYAhVH62MKHaBAAfgQ_AUICigB&biw=1301&bih=668

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=playboy+centerfolds&t=canonical&iax=images&ia=images

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=playboy+centerfolds&form=HDRSC2&first=1&cw=1287&ch=668

(If you take down these links due to orders from your lawyers, please post a note saying that at least three search engines will bring up Playboy centerfolds with the safe search off.)


#9

Well that does it, I’m canceling my Playboy subscription this instant.


#10

I’m going to stop reading it for the articles.


#11

playboy wishes they had thought of the boing boing name first


#12

If you had to read that they had filed suit; how could they have even validly served you?


#13

Excellent point, that.


#14

I’d have made them waste time and money- then have to refile.


#15

Last year I was named as a party in a lawsuit, which will be resolved at some point this week, according to the docket. I was never served. The people who actually needed to be sued did get sued, and I have no idea what their defense was for breach of lease that I, unwittingly, still had my name on even though the specific period of the lease had lapsed. They had gone month-to-month and so the original lease remained in effect, unbeknownst to me.

But I was never served, so it will have no effect on me. Point is, these things can happen. It’s weird and you’d think they would be totally on the ball with this kind of stuff, but it’s the courts and the sheriffs who have to organize to serve the papers and they aren’t always all there with every detail. I had moved and the new homeowners, for who knows what reason, told the sheriff that I was dead. So, they never looked further and I never got paid a visit.

Update: case rescheduled to August. Doh!


#16

uP4cuEW


#17

Who owns Playboy now, anyway?


#18

Rather than pursuing the individual who created the allegedly infringing archive, Playboy is pursuing a news site for pointing out the archive’s value as a historical document.

I’d like for this to be corrected on the main article. It has been established many, many times that BB is not a news site, but a blog.


#19

Hefner’s son I thought?


#20

I thought BB was a Web blog?