dumb starbucks. .. Judge's face when this comes up in court
x
Click to expand

Comments(167):

[ 167 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2 - anon (02/10/2014) [+] (31 replies)
stickied by mrmojito
lets create dumbfunnyjunk
#14 - anon (02/10/2014) [-]
create dumb apple
with dumbiOS
then sell it at apple prices

become rich beyond your wildest dreams
User avatar #75 to #14 - skulldan ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
thats already what apple is.
#89 to #14 - OldSnake ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
"The official name is 'Banora White'."
#187 to #89 - skyblueshinx (02/11/2014) [-]
I understood that referance
User avatar #92 to #14 - demigodofmadness (02/11/2014) [-]
Sell it at slightly below apple prices. That way people will actually buy it.
User avatar #152 to #14 - steppenwolfvg (02/11/2014) [-]
Where are you going to find so many dumb people...

WAIT...
User avatar #65 to #14 - maxismahname (02/11/2014) [-]
Sorry but that already exists, it was made by a guy named Steve Jobs
#57 - Jesusnipples ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
Judge's face when this comes up in court
User avatar #85 - inanimateobject (02/11/2014) [-]
I'm excited for ******* stupid cunt Subway's
#88 - Indubidubly (02/11/2014) [-]
I like the parody law.
I like the parody law.
#68 - ragingflamingos (02/11/2014) [-]
Guys lets do this to Disney. That mouse has been copyrighted for far to long.
Guys lets do this to Disney. That mouse has been copyrighted for far to long.
#80 - upyoursnumbnuts (02/11/2014) [-]
So, how long until Stupid McDonald's and Idiotic Wendy's?
User avatar #86 to #80 - deathchain (02/11/2014) [-]
Go to China, there's a million there already.
User avatar #24 - gammajk ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
Gee, thanks for completely abusing fair use.
#87 to #24 - yuukoku (02/11/2014) [-]
At least they're not abusing the welfare system. I know that's completely unrelated, but they're at least being productive in abusing a system.
#116 to #87 - anon (02/11/2014) [-]
Kinda, but they are technically tricking the less savvy of their customers into thinking they are using a starbucks.

That said, as long as the coffee is as good or better the only people they're hurting is starbucks (barely) but still.
#124 to #24 - aerosol ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
Despite how little concern I have over the financial welfare of Starbucks, I kind if have to agree. I don't think they will suffer any loss as a result, but that doesn't make it any less of a bold, dick move.
Despite how little concern I have over the financial welfare of Starbucks, I kind if have to agree. I don't think they will suffer any loss as a result, but that doesn't make it any less of a bold, dick move.
#153 - flutterbye (02/11/2014) [-]
Open poutine shop, call it Vladimir Poutine, and decorate the store exclusively with portraits of Vladimir Putin.
Then struggle to evade Russian assassins for the rest of your life, all whilst serving up fresh homemade poutine, with a hearty taste that can thaw the frozen heart of Judo master dictator.
User avatar #192 to #153 - mephistesulfurion (02/13/2014) [-]
I don't want to be that guy but... "Poutine" is the French spelling of Putin...So I guess that doesn't make it a parody?
#161 to #153 - swagbot ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
Jesus Christ... this is magic.
User avatar #7 - wretchedlarva (02/10/2014) [-]
This can't be legal. Someone please prove me wrong.
User avatar #84 to #7 - timelordjam (02/11/2014) [-]
I am starbucks brother and laws cousin. is very real
User avatar #30 to #7 - rollmeanddie (02/10/2014) [-]
I am Manuela's fourth leg and I can confirm this is legal.
User avatar #31 to #30 - wretchedlarva (02/10/2014) [-]
I wish I could give you 100 thumbs up.
#33 to #31 - rollmeanddie (02/10/2014) [-]
I wish we could be together, but alas, I am but a lowly manwhore.
User avatar #34 to #33 - wretchedlarva (02/10/2014) [-]
please add my on skype i want to love you. message me <3
User avatar #38 to #34 - rollmeanddie (02/10/2014) [-]
I fear I am in the middle of moving and have only my phone, but I shall return for thee!
User avatar #39 to #38 - wretchedlarva (02/10/2014) [-]
please do, i love you 5ever lets get married pls
User avatar #42 to #39 - rollmeanddie (02/10/2014) [-]
I must finish my quest, my sweet, but I swear that once I have slain the dragon of Bonecap Mountain, we'll be wed that day's morrow, and the beast's head will hang above our mantle!
User avatar #8 to #7 - lordgeneral (02/10/2014) [-]
lawschool student here. it's legal.
#64 to #8 - anon (02/11/2014) [-]
Another law student: actually, this specific case probably isn't. this document is pretty damning. It clearly shows that their actual intent isn't a parody. while parody use in general is legal, you have to meet certain standards of proof and this clearly cuts against it. if anyone is actually interested there's a case about vanna white and a parody robot likeness of her. You need to login to view this link
User avatar #9 to #8 - wretchedlarva (02/10/2014) [-]
What about when Apple sued all those people for "copying"? What about Flappy Bird and Nintendo? How is this different? I know it's "parody" but it sounds like an excuse.
User avatar #10 to #9 - lordgeneral (02/10/2014) [-]
the apple suit wasn't presented as parody, and flappy bird is owned by nintendo. any further questions?
User avatar #11 to #10 - wretchedlarva (02/10/2014) [-]
Flappy Bird is owned by Nintendo? wut
User avatar #23 to #11 - tubaplayah (02/10/2014) [-]
Actually the the creator of Flappy bird deleted it. He was based in Korea With no affiliation to any major Gaming corporation.
User avatar #12 to #10 - wretchedlarva (02/10/2014) [-]
Pretty sure Flappy Bird was sued because of the Mario pipes.
#62 to #13 - anon (02/11/2014) [-]
They didnt own nor buy it, they just didn't care - but the creator got affraid that if he had too much success he would be facing them later in life
#112 to #9 - dangaddy (02/11/2014) [-]
flappy bird thing is wrong, you ******* retard
#95 to #8 - pkrbarmovie (02/11/2014) [-]
How could someone discredit that argument? I wonder how come a "lawschool" student can not know what "prove" means...
#82 to #8 - anon (02/11/2014) [-]
NO IT ISN'T THAT IS ******** NO COURT WOULD CONCLUDE THAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY USING THE LOGO AS A PARODY AND EVEN IF THEY WERE YOU CAN'T USE PARODIES LIKE THAT. YOU CAN'T JUST SAY IT'S A PARODY AND HAVE A JUDGE OR JURY BELIEVE YOU. THIS IS ******** STOP THUMBING IT UP YOU IDIOTS.
User avatar #71 to #8 - iamundecided (02/11/2014) [-]
How can you be in law school AND be on fj at the same time?
Lawyered
-Aspiring law student.
0
#25 to #8 - robotekk has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #50 to #25 - kuchikirukia (02/10/2014) [-]
As someone who comes from anywhere on the internet, I can confirm I'm a moron.
User avatar #18 - flnonymousseven (02/10/2014) [-]
this actually makes me furious.
#73 to #18 - endospore (02/11/2014) [-]
Agreed. It's assholes like this that ruin things for the rest of us. I would not be surprised if in ten years, parody counts as copyright infringement if it makes any money at all thanks to this store, or you're not allowed to use brands in parodies or something.
#157 to #73 - swagbot ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
Steps on how to make that not happen:

Step 1. Don't visit the knockoffs

inb4 "errrrbody else will ruin it!" Okay - then they enjoy the knockoffs and you enjoy the real thing.
#138 - joshkx (02/11/2014) [-]
I still like my idea for a coffee shop named &quot;TsarBucks&quot; better.   
Pic related, it's my employees!   
   
 Theres no coffee only vodka
I still like my idea for a coffee shop named "TsarBucks" better.
Pic related, it's my employees!

Theres no coffee only vodka
User avatar #174 to #138 - fourtwentt (02/11/2014) [-]
Tsarbucks: turning dyslexics into alcoholics
User avatar #177 to #138 - assrocket (02/11/2014) [-]
Please, please do this. I will visit as often as my kidneys will allow.
User avatar #133 - moistnuggests (02/11/2014) [-]
So my business model for "Retarded Apple" store chain that sells mePhones and mePhone accessories is actually viable?

User avatar #140 to #133 - noblexfenrir (02/11/2014) [-]
Not sure if that extends to also creating products under which they have patents. That's a whole other can of worms.
User avatar #181 - Yardie (02/11/2014) [-]
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

They're still gonna get sued and lose to Corporate Lawyers.
User avatar #56 - wargeneralwest (02/10/2014) [-]
Michael Jackson helped Weird Al write the lyrics to "Eat it" though...
#77 to #56 - miwauturu (02/11/2014) [-]
Weird Al always gets permission for his parodies, but according to the law he doesn't have to. He's just polite enough that he does anyways.
User avatar #1 - charagrin (02/10/2014) [-]
Yeah. That's not how parody law works against the system and business practise of a franchised for profit location. They will be sued under the table within the month. Good idea though.
#15 to #1 - bendertherobo (02/10/2014) [-]
Actually it is completely legal, they are using the picture and names and what not, which is trademarked, but they aren't making profit off of that, they arent selling the logo or name, so they aren't profiting off of it, it'd be hard if not definitively impossible to prove that customers are only going there because it's called that or looks like starbucks, so they can't do anything about it.
User avatar #16 to #15 - charagrin (02/10/2014) [-]
But they admit what they are doing right in the introductive letter. I am sure Multi-million dollar company Starbucks has more than a few lawyers to crush it. Even if Dumb Starbucks has a good legal team and a deep pocket to pay them, I doubt they would win.
#21 to #16 - ainise (02/10/2014) [-]
Law doesn't quite work like that. If you have a rock solid case, it doesn't really matter if you pay your lawyers a billion dollars - you can't win it.

There's nothing to crush here. Under fair use, they are completely legal. If starbucks looked to sue, they could counter sue for court costs and time lost, coming out much, much richer. In no way does starbucks come out ahead.
User avatar #22 to #21 - charagrin (02/10/2014) [-]
Yes, because the American legal system is based on "law" and not who has the most money. That's how the system works for mega-corporations. look at Apple, they won against Samsung and patented rounded corners on phones. because they threw more money at the problem.
User avatar #55 to #22 - roflsaucer (02/10/2014) [-]
Nowthat'swhaticalledgy.png
#27 to #22 - ihateemo (02/10/2014) [-]
so you are saying apple could sue kroger for selling apples?

I mean they have more money why the **** not? They couldn't lose because thats how the system works.

User avatar #28 to #27 - charagrin (02/10/2014) [-]
You are taking one thing and trying to make it another. Calm the **** down, why are you so upset about 2 companies that don't even know you exist? The fact is this company will lose a lawsuit. Let time be the judge of which of us is right.
#29 to #28 - ihateemo (02/10/2014) [-]
Whether the companies know I exist or not is completely irrelevant.

You said any company can sue anyone for anything if they have more money. Do you revoke that statement?
User avatar #35 to #29 - charagrin (02/10/2014) [-]
I never said "any company can sue anyone for anything", you are just angry for some random reason and are putting words in my mouth. I said 'Thats how the system works for Mega-Corporations." I don't give half a flying **** what you think, even the most basic of google searches can pull up thousands of examples of large companies suing smaller ones for the most frivolous of reasons.

Heck, there are even Federal guidelines that allow a large company to do so pretty much at will. Just look at Patent trolls. (I know a patent and a trademark are not the same thing, it's called an example. Get a dictionary.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
#37 to #35 - ihateemo (02/10/2014) [-]
You really should learn to talk to people without coming off as so passive aggressive. I am not even going to try and talk to you about this if you are so immature that you just spew off the same thing every statement while going off track from your original statement.

User avatar #40 to #37 - charagrin (02/10/2014) [-]
I am done burning brain cells talking to you, especially over something considered common knowledge. For anyone reading this, do a simple search for "fair use" lawsuits, and see who always wins. (hint:It's not the little guy.)
#41 to #40 - ihateemo (02/10/2014) [-]
ignorace is bliss.
User avatar #47 to #41 - charagrin (02/10/2014) [-]
I guess so, we will see who is right. If "Dumb Starbucks" changes even one thing to avoid the lawsuit, or has to cede to a lawsuit or it's demands at all(beyond attending one if required of course), I was right. Otherwise you will be correct. Lets see what time holds for us.
#17 to #16 - bendertherobo (02/10/2014) [-]
Eh to be honest, considering how popular StarBucks is, I doubt they would even bother, they'd probably spend more money shutting them down then they would lose by letting them keep going. but I dunno, I'm not into all that law mumbo-jumbo, the Game Grumps just explained it all in the intro to StarBomb so i have a bit of knowhow haha.
#98 - swedishassassin (02/11/2014) [-]
Well, except Weird Al asks the musicians if he may use their music out of politeness, rather than be a spineless business that can't survive off of it's own design and parasites an already-popular coffee shop, whether or not of your opinion on franchises.
Well, except Weird Al asks the musicians if he may use their music out of politeness, rather than be a spineless business that can't survive off of it's own design and parasites an already-popular coffee shop, whether or not of your opinion on franchises.
User avatar #110 to #98 - schneidend (02/11/2014) [-]
Weird Al asked Coolio, and Coolio said no. Al made Amish Paradise anyway.
User avatar #189 to #110 - swedishassassin (02/11/2014) [-]
Well, Coolio is Coolio; and by that, I mean he's an idiot
#113 to #98 - richardastley (02/11/2014) [-]
I just saw this reaction pic in my folder, and realized I never use it. I don't actually give a **** .
#109 to #98 - respectyourmom (02/11/2014) [-]
except coolio... he said that Weird Al could NOT parody "Ganstas Paradise"... He went ahead and did it anyway because **** coolio hes weird al

Weird Al pays Coolio royalties and said hes always planned to. He said he released the song because he knew that Coolio would be "coolio with it"...
User avatar #169 - tittylovin (02/11/2014) [-]
This is great until they change the laws and ruin it for everyone.
User avatar #81 - cormy ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
If Starbucks asks them to close, they will have to close.
Although it isn't against the law to parody things like this, the copyright holders still retain the rights to their property even if it's used under the parody law. I mean... All they'd have to do is change the logo and name and they'd be safe but Starbucks can demand that of them.
User avatar #93 to #81 - chieflongnap (02/11/2014) [-]
Right now Starbucks is actually arguing arguing that they can't use the "starbucks" name. The owner refuses to close because he believes he isn't breaking copyright law (which through legal loopholes, he's kind of right, as I state at the end)

The owner has also stated that he plans on opening a second location in Brooklyn, New York due to how popular this one is (people have reportedly been known to stand in line for several hours just so they can get a drink with a cup that's identical to Starbucks', except it says "dumb" on it).

Here's just a sample article:
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/10/dumb-starbucks-parody-coffee-store

Based on the last few paragraphs, all the owner needs to do is make it a little more clear that they aren't affiliated with Starbucks and he'll pretty much be golden.
[ 167 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)