Forum:Legal issue

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Legal issue

Note: This topic has been unedited for 2340 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Hi all. We have had an email from Video Professor's lawyers, saying they want the article removed. Usually when we get complaints about Uncyclopedia, we just explain more about the project and calm things down. But in this case it looks as though that won't be enough. We believe that the text of the article is defensible as a parody, so we will have our lawyers respond and try to fight it. We are less sure about the use of the image, it might be easier to just remove it. But if you prefer that we get the lawyers involved in defending the use of the image too (which we're happy to do) then we will do that. Please let me know. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support removing the image if it's the easiest option. Replacing it with a plain black one saying "Removed by request of VP's lawyers" or somesuch might be a good idea too. RabbiTechno 20:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Shocking image (which has nothing to do with the topic, but meh.

I'd support something along similar lines, although I'm thinking back to the days when "The Beautiful South" had complaints about a cover - perhaps this would be a compromise.Asahatter (annoy) 20:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done, Asahatter. Having looked at the article in question, I don't think it'd be a major loss if we had to get rid of it - fighting to keep it has got to be worthwhile on principle alone however. RabbiTechno 20:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sannse, is the image liscensed under something that if we weren't protected by parody we wouldn't be able to redistribute? Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 20:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that image should be got rid of anyway.--Sycamore (Talk) 20:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, what is their reason for wanting the article and in particular the image removed? Until we know that I don't think we can comment really. If they just don't like it, tell them to edit it and make it more funny. If their edits are better than what was there before we will keep it. ;-) MrN 22:33, Dec 10

The images are from his flickr and copyright, and not directly parody, just supporting it, so could probably go. I'mm sure they could be replaced with something better. The rest he'll just have to live with. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:02, 11 Dec 2008

Yes, the picture isn't very good. No, we should (nay, must!) not get rid of it just because they want it gone (any more than we should even ponder the possibility of thinking about dropping the whole page). Why? This, this, and this (and that's just scraping links from Wikipedia's page on them). First, Video Professor came for pages on himself, and I did nothing... Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

...and Spang changed it, making most of my outrage inrage. Inrage! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh no! I only changed one though. Change it back if you want. Or whatever. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:27, 11 Dec 2008

No problem. I made both of them Gilligan's Island references. That that, logic! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

...and I just noticed that I ended up doing the exact opposite of what I said we should do. Oh, truly my river of hypocrisy runs deep. On the plus side, the new versions both: are almost funny, and make no sense. Again, take that, logic! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I just tagged the article with a Wikipedia tag to make it more obvious to anyone that the article is a parody. I also went on Wikipedia to make sure there was an entry - I put it in as a redirect to Video Professor on wikipedia for those who actually are looking for facts. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 03:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you put his letter on here, sannse? No legal reasons, I just think it'd be funny to include on his article while we're leaving it undeleted. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:22, Dec 11

Or at least on the talk page...-- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 03:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Apparently John Scherer likes to sue the Intarwebs. And there are a number of complaints about his sales tactics. And here too. I'd say he's a public figure and legal -- as well a deserving -- fodder for parody. We ought to spread the word on whatever forums we can that The Video Professor, John Scherer, is too thin-skinned to take a joke. ----OEJ 03:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone should really add a section about all the lawsuits to the page... specifically, someone that doesn't still have two more hours of homework to do. (and it's already after 11...yikes) - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:21, Dec 11

Just say that you're dyslexic and that your god ate your homework. By the time the teacher has recovered from a very old joke spun a slightly different way, school will be out, and you'll be free. Free! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

God, people who fling lawsuits around like monkey feces are annoying. You're just sooooo stealing my orange juice man. STEALING my orange juice. --Nachlader 09:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

when will people learn? time to make this into a feature... SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment

I am very surprisied at the amount of people think that image is "fine" and in some way "funny" - and are even suggesting it's defense.--Sycamore (Talk) 09:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please elucidate. The first I can't find on google, but it was him in front of a computer and looking left with "John Scherer, pushy salesman and adult film superstar." as the caption, and the second was this with "Scherer and a "product" fan, Danica Patrick." Neither were great, but neither were terrible, either. If you're confused and think that the pic above on this page is the pic we're talking about, it's not. And the one above is a light parody of the fake actual album (I assume, never having heard of Wilhelm Scream up until a moment before this very moment, when a googling told me that it's really A Wilhelm Scream, and not knowing, or caring, about the difference), which itself is a parody of the real actual album, which offends me to my very core. This is because Scorpions suck, not because of the album cover ("Oooo. Let's make a controversial and creepy album cover to hide the fact that we suck." ~ Ted Scorpion, "Yes, Ted, I too think that we should hide the fact that we suck in some manner." ~ Jerry Scorpion). But I digress. Man, Scorpions suck. If we had a page on how Scorpions got together and formed a band (called "Scorpions"), it would not manage to suck half as bad as they do. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 09:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

mmm... I think the legality of this is difficult, defamtion laws etc vary across countries and as such ,an internet site can tell them all to fuck off along with the holy joes. Any suggested exploitation of children (however minor you may think it is) is best avoided, I would also say that image does not make me laugh (is this ED?). All I can say is that it creeped me out quite a bit, and I don't think it has any place here.--Sycamore (Talk) 16:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But did Scorpions rock you like a hurricane? 'Cause that's what they were trying to do. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Gah, busy day

So, the reasons were that the article is "false", "defamatory", "humiliating", "diminish his reputation" and so on. And that it violates trademark and copyright rules. So with the images replaced, our lawyers can just stick to the obvious "it's a parody, innit", and you can go back to bringing it up to feature quality. Thanks all -- sannse (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Twas only in jest --Nytrospawn 20:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool Sannse. Thanks. I think we should huff the image though. Sycamore is right. We don't want it. MrN 21:37, Dec 11

Sycamore was confused... that's not the image in question. The images that were complained about for copyright reasons were of the video professor himself, and they are gone. -- sannse (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So would I get in trouble

...for saying he's a humourless bald son of a bitch who makes shitty products and should probably go and fuck himself? If so, I won't say that. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue)

...and he doesn't even have tenure. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

STOP POSTING SHIT ABOUT ME FAGGOTS

(from Wikipedia [1])

Video Professor Lawsuit

In September 2007, the company filed a lawsuit against 100 anonymous posters of critical reviews, stating their belief that the negative reviews were the result of a competitor's efforts to damage Video Professor's reputation. Most of the negative reviewers were critical of Video Professor's practice of automatically charging customers' credit cards $89.95 per month for additional lessons after a "one free disk" offer, complaining either that they were not informed or had difficulty canceling the charges.

The legal action launched by the company was criticized by the consumer advocacy group, Public Citizen. As part of their action, Video Professor requested and received the IP addresses of registered Wikipedia users from the Wikimedia Foundation Inc, the parent company of Wikipedia, who posted what Video Professor claimed was defamatory information about their business. When they approached Internet provider Comcast with a subpoena for the user identity of the IP adresses, however, Comcast refused, stating they only relinquish that information under court order, not subpoena.

Looks to me like our buddy John can't take criticism. ~ The Masked Editor (22:51, Dec 11 2008)

He's been twitchy about criticism ever since The Buggles fingered him for the murder of the radio star. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Modus, would it be safe to say I have a Forum-Crush on you? If a man crush is crushing on another man's manliness, then I think my logic is perfect. Ummm... am I gay now? The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 05:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, you are. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

*shrugs*. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 05:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How we should handle this

We should follow his request via the letter exactly, give in to ALL demands, and make a page that's obviously about him that is merciless, yet follows all legal requests exactly as written. That is the funniest way to handle this.--<<>> 00:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds an awful lot like work. Can we just do it half-assed? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Is a copy of the email posted anywhere?Mnbvcxz 07:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of "The Judeo-Professor" or something along those lines.--<<>> 11:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, his lawyer's demand is simply to remove the "John Scherer" page. He doesn't want the page modified, he wants it removed. So taking it down and making a "Judeo Professor" or "John Shearer" (the video fleecer) page would be one way to try to give in, though I suspect that if we did a redirect from "John Scherer" to "John Shearer" then they would come after us anyway because it would be an "obvious association" with their client's name. Maybe. I've no legal knowledge, only carnal knowledge.

I do know that while parody is one defense against accusations of libel, the sovereign defense is the truth. One approach would be to modify the page so that everything on it is simply and plainly true: it IS true, for instance, that someone signing themselves as Bobby Jones wrote a review on Amazon.com which said: "This is all a scam for the maker to get your credit card info and steal from you!! It happened to me and it took SEVERAL months to get them to stop charging my credit card 80 bucks a month! SCAM!! This guy is a pathetic old dirtbag that is out to screw people out of their money. AVOID!!" We could, theoretically, simply find and post such criticisms while making it abundantly clear that we are not endorsing or passing judgment, we are merely noting what plainly and palpably exists on the Internet. But while that may annoy Scherer, it would also be would be fairly boring.

This is a fairly short and plain article, using the oldest (and tiredest) ploy around: claiming that a public figure is a sexual deviant of some sort. We could write various other versions of the article -- Scherer as celibate chicken-farming monk, as Mongolian yak-liberation terrorist, as an extraterrestrial life-form, as candidate for Largest Sentient Booger Born of Cthulhu's Left Nostril -- all about the same length as the current one. Then we post a new version and notify the lawyer that the article as described no longer exists. When he complains about the new version, post another version and notify him that the article as described no longer exists. Etc until he expires of exhaustion.

But he might just try for a cease-and-desist to keep us from posting anything about his client. I dunno.

I notice that a couple of the websites which criticized Scherer no longer exist. He may be tenacious about such things. In which case it becomes a question of how far Wikimedia wants to go defending a principle, because the article itself is no literary gem. ----OEJ 18:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the more outlandish the article is, the easier it would be to claim rights of parody, at least I think so. As long as the article is clearly parody, and we can argue that the video professor is a public figure, we'd be on solid ground against any lawsuit. Truthfulness is harder to prove than parody, and in some jurisdictions, "libel" includes, or used to include, truthful badmouthing. The "truthfulness is a defense against libel" is actually an American innovation of the late colonial period, and I'm not sure how much that has caught on in the rest of the world. I wouldn't suggest giving in to his legal threats as long as we are in the clear. This site might be able to get some publicity out of any trials that might happen.--Mnbvcxz 18:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you've got some legal handle on this. You guys ought to read through the comments on this blog -- it's quite sickening. Your point on publicity is a good one -- one way for Uncyc and Wikimedia to get publicity. And Scherer is certainly a good guy for the principles of parody and free speech to come into play against. ----OEJ 18:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

He's already got a reputation for being an enemy of free speech, so if wikimedia can afford a lawsuit, this one would be as good as any. If we do take that route, I'd suggest we do some "cleanup" on the article, turn it into actual parody, the sex references might not be best thing to show a jury. The article really does fail our HTBFANJS guidelines, I'd suggest deleting it now, and having someone write a good, funny, clean (by our standards) version. Something you wouldn't be afraid to show your grandma.

I'd suggest we agree that the article is bad, and say we are blanking it because its not funny and a blank slate will be better than a bad article, which truly is everyone's philosophy (except me) on really bad articles. We could also say that leaving the history of the current state, would be a vandalism risk, which it is, and deleting will actually benefit him. However, we should be honest with our intentions, and if he wants the current version, give him a copy of it, and maybe archive it somewhere. We shouldn't hide the fact that part of the blanking and rewriting is to have a good article to show a jury. Which is appropriate, this site isn't (supposed to be) about writing this-5th-rate-celebrity-is-a-sexual-deviant articles. We should agree that the article was bad, but say that removing the article about him would be a violation of free speech, and it didn't quite go to the level of CVP or QVFD, or defamation of libel. Then again, I'm don't have any legal knowledge.--Mnbvcxz 19:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Or we could rewrite along the lines of how he's a great guy who stands up for free speech, and he never tries to use the Law to quash it, and he's a great guy, and he's great. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit): In fact, modus's idea was so good, it deserves this image.--Mnbvcxz 19:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And, if we are in a juvenile mode, feature that article, along with a list of unnews articles about how great he is, a list "on this day" events about his great accomplishments in the field of free speech, and have all the did-you-knows about Pr. Video and great guy and a defender of free speech he is. Seriously, though, good concept, I wish I had thought of it.--Mnbvcxz 06:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

How we shouldn't handle this

Write a parody of the case as the page. But what do I know though, I did mandatory sentencing as a case study :/ --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 03:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree, from a non-legal point of view. That is to say, an illegal one. -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 14:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Modusoperandi (foreground), proving that reality is way more disturbing than a simple parody.

Trying to focus the issues

Err, putting my head above the parapet as the person who jumped to the wrong conclusion and threw everyone into confusion, there are 2 issues being discussed here, and getting mixed up. The main discussion is to do with images on the Video Doctor article, which appear fixed, and the subsidiary discussion, due to my misunderstanding is to do with thr UnNews sory of the topically controversial Scorpion album cover and the associated article. There is a lot of confusion in this thread, and it's all my fault. I'll do the Hail Marys tomorrow. Asahatter (annoy) 01:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

How do the LAWYERS think we should handle this

I mean, we are writers and we can do anything, but people with real legal training ought to be able to guide our fictional strivings. Sannse, do Wikimedia's people have any legalistic advice for how we could rewrite the article to make it hard for Scherer's lawyers to attack it? ----OEJ 18:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikia believes the current article is defendable as a parody, so that's what we'll do... nothing needed on your side. The only question we had was whether the images were worth fighting over, and that's been answered by someone replacing them with better alternatives. So all you writers need to do is keep being paradoxical... or whatever... (And don't go confusing Wikimedia with Wikia again... Someone should really write a scathing parody of that you know...) -- sannse (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Wikia? - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 02:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I asked this above but got no response...can we get a copy of the letter to have a look at? I think it'd make a humorous addition to the page, or at the very least an amusing target for satire. Also, if I had the time or the initiative to rewrite this, it'd be all about how he's a great guy with lots of integrity who has never ever screwed over anyone ever not even once and if you think he did you're wrong and we have lawyers who can prove it so nyah. But that's just me. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:56, Dec 13

I think the issue might be that Scherer's lawyers could find us passing the letter around and hold that against us. But then, I'm not an expert in U.S. law, so that's just my guess. ~ The Masked Editor (04:13, Dec 13 2008)

If it does go to court, have the wikia (or whoever) lawyers considered getting help from speech organizations, or possibly ED's lawyers? If Dr. Video does win (which probably won't happen), then 99.99% of ED's stuff would have a snowball's chance in hell of passing of the parody test.--Mnbvcxz 05:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

TLB: I don't know if I can, but I'll find out

Mnbvcxz: I think I can safely say that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that we want from those sweet little dears of ED. -- sannse (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Policy on User safety

Are we users safe from these legal issues? I whipped up the page just for kicks and wouldn't be opposed to deletion if it comes down to legal repercussions. It was a joke and as people pointed out, not terribly clever anyway. The images seemed public domain, and since they're removed it shouldn't matter anymore. On the other hand, I'm not into censorship or catering to demands from those who can't take a joke. Obviously I'm interested in this info, so thanks! Condemned 06:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You're an anonymous person from the internet. As much as this video professor person would like to go around suing everyone with a connection to the tube-o-sphere, it's just not gonna happen. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 07:07, Dec 14

The two most important words that a user, for the purposes of this document henceforth and heretofor refered to as an "Uncyclopedian", here on Uncyclopedia, for the purposes of this document henceforth and heretofor refered to as "Uncyclopedia", can know (even more important than howtobefunny andnotjuststupid, for the purposes of this document henceforth and heretofor refered to as "HTBFANJS"): Fair use. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he could technically sue for defamation, (winning such a case is another matter) but he'd first have to get your ip from the wikia foundation to even begin the process. Then he'd have track you down from your ip address. Even if he does find out who you are, he'd still have a difficult time proving a defamation case. The more lawsuits he files, the more famous he becomes, and the less able he is to claim protection against parody. He's definitely losing money on legal fees right now, and I think (well, hope) he's learned that you can't protect your reputation on the internet via legal threats if your a 10th rate celebrity.--Mnbvcxz 17:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the wiki page on him and his company that details how they've petitioned for IP addresses and identities before, that doesn't sound comforting. Granted, it seems the cases were dismissed, but damn... I would think users of Uncyclopedia, which is clearly a parody site, would be exempt from defamation or slander or whatever - since parody and falsehood is clearly the name of the game here. Someone official back me up! :) Condemned 20:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Its actually impossible to prevent yourself from being sued and taken to court. The defamation laws vary from state to state and nation to nation. That being said, if the does find out who you are, and takes your to court, your chances of winning are very high. I think he's more a bully than a lawsuit filer per say. Filing lawsuits against unknown persons gets real expensive real quick, (as he has hopefully learned the last time he tried it.)--Mnbvcxz 22:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

He has no chance of suing most of us. As a minor in Australia it is hard enough for me to get prosecuted if I went out and stole a car, let alone getting sued by some D-rate con-job who only just discovered the internetstube --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 06:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is something that Wikia definitely can't advise on I'm afraid. We can respond to the lawyers about the article and whether or not we can host it, but each user is ultimately responsible for their own edits. -- sannse (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty crazy. This is a parody site, so by nature it's going to contain fictitious and ridiculous copy. If users aren't provided with some modicum of safety, why would anyone post here? It's a litigious society, and if users are sticking their necks out from a legal standpoint, how can your site continue? I don't think you'd have much of a site if everyone knew the risk. Condemned 21:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much about what safety you do and don't have, there are laws about parody an all... it's about me not being able to give legal advice :) I ain't a lawyer, and if I was, you ain't my client ;)

It's also about sensible online practice. You are always responsible for what you write online, whether it's a stupid comment on a mailing list that's going to get you banned, or a stupid comment on facebook that a potential future employer might read. -- sannse (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is why we need to stay unemployed. For the art. It's a sacrifice, I know... Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The full mail

So I'm told that I can post the email in full... so here it is -- sannse (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am General Counsel for Video Professor, Inc. ("Video Professor"), the major producer and direct marketer of computer learning CDs and online computer learning tutorials. Video Professor has been the market leader in the field of computer learning for more than 20 years. It has come to our attention that the content on http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/John_Scherer, a site for which Ethr.Net LLC is the ISP, portrays both Video Professor and its CEO and Founder, John W. Scherer in a false and defamatory light. In addition, we believe several pieces of content on the site infringe on Video Professor's intellectual property rights and are being used in violation of the law.

The statements made on the website regarding Mr. Scherer are not only false and humiliating, but serve to diminish his reputation and the reputation of Video Professor, Inc. To continue to allow these statements to remain on the site or to continue to be published amounts to reckless conduct on the part of Wikia.

Video Professor is the owner of the registered trademark, "TRY MY PRODUCT", which it uses extensively to promote its products and services through a variety of channels, including television, print advertising, and the Internet. As a trademark owner, Video Professor, Inc. has an affirmative legal obligation to protect and enforce its trademarks. In order to preserve their value, we must ensure that our trademarks are used only a manner of our choosing. The "TRY MY PRODUCT" trademark is used in a most unwholesome and unsavory context on the site. To protect it from this unwarranted tarnishment, we must demand that it be removed and not be used further in connection with http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/John_Scherer.

Additionally, Video Professor, Inc. is the owner of valuable copyrighted materials, namely the photographs/likenesses of Mr. Scherer, the company's Founder and CEO, who extensively promotes himself as the Video Professor, which are being infringed at http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/John_Scherer. We have a good faith belief that the use of Video Professor's copyrighted photos of John W. Scherer, apparently copied to the site from http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnwscherer is not authorized by Video Professor, Inc., any of its agents, or the law. Such use of Video Professor's copyrighted material in this manner, without permission, unlawfully infringes on this company's copyright and must cease immediately.

Please remove all references to Mr. Scherer and/or Video Professor from this and any other Uncyclopedia sites. Further, you must ensure that you do not publish additional false and defamatory statements regarding John W. Scherer and/or Video Professor, Inc. or otherwise misappropriate and misuse Video Professor's intellectual property. Kindly provide us with written assurance that you will fully comply with these demands within forty-eight (48) hours of the date of this email.

Nothing in this letter should be construed as a waiver, relinquishment or election of rights or remedies by John W. Scherer or of Video Professor, Inc. Both Video Professor, Inc. and Mr. Scherer expressly reserve all rights and remedies under all applicable laws.

Sincerely,

*Jean Robertson*

General Counsel

Video Professor, Inc.

I would recommend a somewhat pithy response along the lines of, "We will not comply with your requests as they do not acknowledge our rights and protections as granted by United States parody laws. We request that you further examine the nature of our site in order to confirm that we are, in point of fact, a parody publication. Subsequently, please refresh yourself on the legal status of parody as protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Please refrain from further attempts at legal bullying. Thank you." --Sir gwax (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah, something more like "Dear Mr. Scherer's attorney, Please inform your client that he has no sense of humor, as his ignorance to his own prudeness is detrimental to the overall productivity of our wiki. However, if Mr. Scherer insists on continuing to be such an uptight, self-righteous prig, please allow us to converse directly with him, as we derive great amusement from his outlandish requests and blatantly unbacked threats. Love, Uncyclopedia." - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:49, Dec 15

So...remove the images (already done) and the trademarked line ("Try my product") and that's that. Eh? Condemned 21:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Parody is a defense to trademark infringement^[2]. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:31, 15 Dec 2008

Against. Wall of text. Poorly formatted links. Needs jokes, as well as pictures. Try running it through Pee Review before bringing it here again. This page needs a lot of work before it's feature worthy. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Now, to go about working this into his article. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:27, Dec 15

how's this? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:49, Dec 15

Any update on this? The 48 hours passed long ago...Have Scherer's goons made any further contact, given the page has partially complied (and now taken on a new life)? - Condemned 09:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It might have been a generic copyright claim that he sends out to anyone who makes fun of him. Such an email might successfully intimidate smaller operations, but we have lawyers. Upon reflection, I really don't think he'd go after us: we have lawyers and the funds to fight a lawsuit, the site might benefit from the publicity of a lawsuit, we have a lot a members, and we aren't a "Pr. Video is teh suxxors" type site. Plus, he would have to try to fight a parody defense, which would be much more difficult than false allegations of fraud. Ironically, the more outlandish and clearly false our article about him is, the harder it would be to fight.--Mnbvcxz 07:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing new, and it's quite likely that there won't be anything new. Really, the best outcome will be no further communication... so here's to no news! -- sannse (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's good news. :-) MrN 12:19, Dec 19

But it isn't the good news, which is the one and only bible. Holla! Jesus is mah homeboy, yeee-ah! The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 14:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That is good news. I kind of assumed the same, that Video Professor has its legal department combing the internet for anything constituting bad press, they send them a scary letter, and most comply. The reason this seemed maybe a bit more than that was that words like "humiliating", "unwholesome", and "unsavory" were customized for the letter. But no contact is good, I'm assuming they realize the scare tactics aren't going to work and the page is legally defensible. - Condemned 21:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say

I have never heard of this bloke. Oh well, toodleoo! -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 21:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That'll change once you Try his product™. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just realized something. He only trademarked "try my product" (which is a bit like trademarking "fair and balanced"). He didn't trademark "try his product." There's an angle for manipulation there, somewhere.--<<>> 01:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

He didn't. I did. Incidentally, the tagline for our erotic chiropracty series is "There's an angle for manipulation there". XXX Video Professor 04:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

How about "Try My PINGAS".--Jtaylor1 02:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we're dead

Oddly enough, even as a Filipino Manny Pacquiao can easily solve problems, especially in boxing.

This is democracy here, guys. It doesn't matter if a reputation of yours is destroyed, you can easily obtain it again. Thsi si a lawful subpoena. The only time when some company sues us is when we commit Piracy. I mean, Microsoft didn't sue us when we damaged their reputation, don't they? |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Aussie CUN|IC Kill | 09:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)