More Venom on More Impostors

First off, I'd like to thank Google for helping me to realize just how many copycats there are out there. We've all heard about people getting their creative work stolen on the internet, but this is the first time I've personally been the victim of it.

I've uncovered yet another blogger with no moral compunctions about stealing Venom And Honey™ for her blog title -- this one in Australia*, where (unlike the other one) I have zero legal protection (common law or otherwise) for my trademark, as she was quick to point out. I mean, at least I can still hope to become wealthy enough someday to hire a lawyer and bring justice to the American infringers...

The real fact of the matter is, as we discovered with the last one, that being rude, uncreative, unoriginal, and immoral isn't a crime. And since it isn't a crime, there ain't nothin' you can do about it -- nanny-nanny, boo boo. Why don't you go cry about it on your blog? (This blog, Venom And Honey™, the REAL original Venom And Honey™, not one of the rip-offs.)

At least in the good old days, people had things like honor, integrity, respect, manners, pride in their reputation... I believe this is mostly because they faced the constant threat of getting challenged to duels. Shame the cowards were able to put a stop to the duels.

Below, for the record, you may read our correspondence:

---

MattDuffy:
     Hey -- this is Matt Duffy from Venom And Honey™, a blog which I have been running across various sites for about ten years now (since the Friendster days).
     Out of respect for me and my trademark/intellectual property, would you mind please choosing an original name for your own blog?

Sarahlinaballerina:
Dear Matt Duffy,
      Thank you for your enquiry [sic] regarding the name of Venom & Honey. I respond respectfully with the following.
      To begin with, my blog is not created for commercial purposes and therefore fundamentally cannot be in breach of copyright laws. Secondly, even if my blog was created with commercial intent (which it is not) your blog of a similar name to mine is not registered as a trademark within Australia (yes, it has been checked) and therefore you are out of your jurisdiction to request the change. Thirdly, I have never seen your blog and nor will I search for it because they will not be remotely similar in content, Venom & Honey is a personal expression of my own interests and has nothing to do with your 'intellectual property'. Lastly, Venom and Honey is derived from a latin poem, which, last I checked, was not written by Matt Duffy.
      I hope you enjoy the content of Venom & Honey and wish you all the best with your endeavours [sic] with Venom and Honey. The name of this blog will not be changing.
Kind Regards,
Sarah

Matt Duffy:
     You are right that I have no legal authority to make you change the name; I am merely appealing to your sense of honor and integrity to do the right thing.
     Unlike some other copycats I have dealt with, you seem like an intelligent and creative person who could probably come up with your own original blog title and wouldn't have to steal mine.
     Also, just to clarify, the correct translation of the Latin is actually "honey and venom".

---

Anyway, in case I do ever get rich, I hope all of this proves that I've made the effort to protect Venom And Honey™ as my own.

* For those who don't know, Australia is a continent populated by the descendants of British criminals, so I guess I can't really blame her if thievery is in her blood.

Venom on Impostors

So somebody else out there in Internetland has apparently decided that Venom And Honey™ is a pretty awesome name for a blog didn't think I would mind if she used it for her own.

And, sure enough, when I informed her that I did in fact mind, she responded by digging her heels in and being a jerk about the whole thing. Because that's the point of the Internet, right? If you want something, you just steal it. And then if you get caught stealing, you just be a total jerk about the whole thing.

In the interest of the public record, I'm posting our complete correspondence below. Basically, it starts with me formally notifying her that I already have dibs on the name, and concludes with her saying, "I do what I want! So sue me, a$$hole!"

Followers of Venom And Honey™ (this Venom And Honey™, the original, not the phony one) already know that I oppose stuff like SOPA and PIPA, and think the Internet should be a free venue of expression and what not... but you gotta admit, it's a shame when it's such a wild frontier that people don't bother having even a scrap of decency, and you have to be a giant corporation with an army of lawyers in order to have any hope of preventing them from straight-up stealing your ideas and then telling you to screw off when you call them out on it.

Anyways, without further ado, the complete correspondence:

---

MattDuffy:
     Hello. It has recently come to our attention that you have decided to call your blog Venom And Honey™.
     As we have already been using Venom And Honey™ as the name of our own blog(s) for the last decade or so, we must respectfully ask that you choose a different name for yours -- failure to do so will constitute a violation of copyright on your part.
     Thank you for your understanding.

nurzerozetta:
     Ten years? I only see entries as early as 2009.
     Do you have a copyright? May I see it?

MattDuffy:
     The earliest extant entry may be found here, dated 20 July 2006: http://www.myspace.com/mattduffychidley/blog/146900117
     Previous entries were hosted by Friendster and have since been deleted from their servers.
     The way copyright law functions is that the author of a published work becomes the de facto copyright holder (with regard to all published materials contained therein) at time of publication, so to answer your question, no, you can't "see" the copyright as such. In this case, my previous email serves as due notification of infringement by the rightful copyright holder.
     Thanks again for your understanding and cooperation in this matter, and I empathize with any inconvenience that it may cause you.

nurzerozetta:
     I have forwarded this to my legal team.

MattDuffy:
     I see no reason why this needs to be a legal matter. Your (new) blog has the same name as my (much older) blog. This is either because (a) you didn't do the research that would've shown the name was already in use, or (b) you stole it.
     Either way, the jig is up, and I have asked you nicely to make amends. I must admit, I am somewhat disappointed by your reaction, as from my point of view the only appropriate response would be to just apologize and rename your blog.

nurzerozetta:
     I am sorry, you are taking this very personally.
     You cannot copyright a title. Period. We may have not done the research but rest assured, I did not "steal" the title of your blog.
     I apologize this is upsetting you, but I see no copyright infringement as my content is totally different from yours. I don't understand why we cannot co-exist as our blogs are for different audiences.
     If you continue to proceed in this manner, legal action will be initiated. Sending a copy to my legal team.
     Thank you, have a good day.

MattDuffy:
     Wait, are you serious? You are threatening to sue me because you stole my blog title and I have asked you to change it? If that is the case, I'm afraid you've got things completely backwards!
     You are right that I am taking it personally because this is something I have been working on for many years. Since it appears you are not willing to just do the right thing and rename your blog, what if I were to offer to sell you the rights to the title? Then you would no longer be in this position of infringing on my intellectual property. It would be a win-win.

nurzerozetta:
     I'm not threatening to sue you, nor have I stolen your title, but keep in mind if you continue to pursue this, I am prepared to defend myself legally. This matter is closed, I have changed my blog title as much as I am willing, and any further contact will be seen as harrassment, and steps will be taken.
     You haven't a legal leg to stand on, if you still feel you do, please have a lawyer send me a "cease and desist" letter, which will, again, be forwarded to my legal team.
     Thank you.

---

So there you have it.

In other news, I've been thinking of renaming this blog "The Huffington Post." No reasonable person over there could possibly have a problem with that, right?

Qui-Gon Is The Protagonist

I bet you're already familiar with Plinkett's famous dissection of Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace, but if not, it's well worth watching.

Speaking personally, I liked this movie just fine when it came out, and it was apparent to me that the widespread trashing of it was a direct result of viewers' collective experience being colored by too many expectations. Also, I had a huge crush on Natalie Portman. Also, I didn't mind that it was convoluted and overwritten, but then again, I know most people don't share my interest in international (or interplanetary) mercantile trade politics.

Plinkett's piece gave me a whole new understanding of the movie -- he paradoxically helped me to understand how bad Phantom really is while simultaneously opening my eyes to a new level of appreciation for it. Unlike most people you talk to, who seem unwilling to dignify Phantom with any critical thinking beyond "Man, that movie sucked!" Plinkett delivers a virtual treatise on film making and storytelling by focusing in on specific failed elements of and contrasting them with better executions found elsewhere in the canon.

However, there are a few things about the movie that even Plinkett doesn't understand (which I guess is his point, i.e. appreciating a film shouldn't require an inside-baseball familiarity with its universe). The most essential one is this:

QUI-GON JINN IS THE PROTAGONIST.

It's probably obvious to anyone who didn't buy their ticket with the understanding that Anakin or Obi-Wan "should" be the protagonist. Plinkett says he's disappointed that Lucas "squandered" the opportunity to write young Obi-Wan with any sort of dynamism because he (like many people) also wrongly assumes that Liam Neeson's character is intended as a "Mentor" archetype. But take another look at that poster -- Qui-Gon has the largest fully-visible head.

And consider George Lucas' own biography. When he made Star Wars, Lucas saw himself as Luke (hint: almost the same name!), a scrappy young kid with a dream who didn't really know what he was doing but went for it anyway. Twenty years later, Qui-Gon is his reflection: an older guy who still doesn't really know what he's doing, but he's always followed his gut, and it's worked out for him so far.

Once you understand that Qui-Gon is the main character, everything else falls into place. Qui-Gon is reckless -- he trusts and follows his instincts. He improvises. He doesn't waste too much time on plans, he mostly just acts.

This hopefully sheds new light on any confusion about the Tatooine sequence -- Qui-Gon doesn't worry about getting totally sidetracked on Tatooine, even though he should probably be focused on getting Queen Amidala to Coruscant, because he's curious about this slave boy he happens to meet. By sticking around for the pod race, Qui-Gon manages to not only get the repair parts he needs, but also to steal the boy away from his rightful owner (which, as we all know, eventually leads to the ruin and subsequent rebirth of the Jedi Order). "Our meeting was no accident," says Qui-Gon. "Everything happens for a reason."

Clearly Qui-Gon cares more about "going with the flow" of the force than about "following the rules," whether he's cheating at dice or defying the Jedi Council. But he's been around the block, and after all he is a magical wizard, so perhaps he's earned the right to operate this way. Obi-Wan is his foil: always thinking, always second-guessing, always (well, almost always) cool and logical. Qui-Gon recognizes this: "You're a much wiser man than I." Quite a self-aware and humble thing to say to one's own apprentice!

Likewise, Qui-Gon functions in opposition to that great schemer Palpatine/Darth Sidious/the Emperor. To address any confusion about his grand plan, Palpatine is working the same "divide and conquer" strategy that the American capitalist plutocracy uses to maintain its position in our own country today: as Darth Sidious, he orchestrates the invasion of his own (that is, Palpatine's) home planet, generating the sympathy Palpatine needs to get himself elected Chancellor. That is, he invents a pretext for building a war machine and then goes on to use that same war machine to solidify his own power.

Anyways, back to Qui-Gon... in true Tragic Hero form, Qui-Gon's impetuousness becomes his own undoing, everything spirals out of hand, and in the end Darth Maul sticks a lightsaber into the very guts that got Qui-Gon there in the first place.

To summarize, anybody who straight-up hates The Phantom Menace probably just doesn't get it, and that goes for the other prequels as well.

Voter Guage: iShapePolicy.com

iShapePolicy

You may (or may not) be surprised by the results of this match.com-style thing that analyzes your politics and then guesses who you would probably vote for.

Health Care Crisis Solved

All Americans ought to read the OECD's Why Is Health Spending In The US So High? It's brief, straightforward, and apolitical.

The short answer to the question posed is that health care is too expensive, which begs another question: where is all that money going?

Considering that free-market conditions tend to drive high prices downward, I conclude that there must be non-market operators at work allowing for these prices to become inflated.

Ergo, all we need to do is identify and mitigate those non-market operators. Health care crisis solved!

Sherman Oaks/Studio City Restaurant Guide

This list is by no means comprehensive and is presented in no particular order. Just a few of the places I remember fondly from my five years working and/or living in the area.

SLOWER FOOD

• CARNIVAL – Lebanese. Full marks!
• SPUMONI – Italian. Delicious, heavy, and the friendliest service of any restaurant I have frequented. Reasonably priced.
• IL TIRAMISU – Italian. Lighter and fancier than Spumoni.
• STANLEY’S – Standard American. Good sourdough bread.
• CAFÉ BIZOU – Old-school “French”. Fair prices on prix fixe menu for surf ‘n’ turf. A chain?
• GYU-KAKU – Japanese hibachi-grill chain. Best “Happy Hour” deals I know of: it’s always happy hour if you order from the bar, $1 beers, ½-price appetizers... food and drink for 2 around $20.
• BOLLYWOOD CAFÉ (best), TASTE OF INDIA, GREAT INDIA CAFÉ – If you like Indian food.
• VIBE CAFÉ – Egyptian. Hearty, home-style Middle Eastern food. Good deals on hookah, comfortable outdoor setting (so it’s good for both hookah lovers and haters).
• OYSTER HOUSE – Seafood. Order the clam chowder.
• HUGO’S/HUGO’S TACOS (same ownership) – One is American, one is a taco stand, both L.A. landmarks. Specialty salsas at Hugo’s Tacos, good breakfast/brunch and “healthy” at Hugo’s.
• JINKY’S – Another of rather few breakfast options.

FASTER FOOD

• CRÊPE X-PRESS – In the Fashion Square Mall food court. Best crêpes in S.O. (Couldn’t find a link – did they go out of business?)
• QT CHICAGO DOGS – “Real” Chicago-style hot dogs in a dumpy convenience store setting.
• THE HABIT, IN-N-OUT – Burgers chains.
• CALIFORNIA PITA – American Greek. Order the Lemon Chicken plate with an extra side of lemon sauce.
• ZANKOU CHICKEN – One of my favorite things about L.A.!
• BRATS BROTHERS – Sausages. Great selection of meat & mustard.

PUBS

• BLUE DOG – Great beer selection, esp. if you like Belgian. Good burgers.
• MAD BULL/SPITTING CHICKEN (same ownership) – Both new, both trendy. Bull can get pretty crowded any night of the week, has the edge on food. Chicken usually more low-key, wins in the “vibe” category.
• SEÑOR FRED’S – Good margarita selection, good food/tapas. A little pricey.

PLACES TO AVOID

• JERRY’S FAMOUS DELI/SOLLEY’S (same ownership) – Overpriced, overyhyped, crowded... everything detestable about L.A.
• LA FRITE – Used to have an awesome brunch and lots of kitschy home-style French country charm, but then they went on “Kitchen Nightmares” and chef Gordon Ramsay ruined everything by turning it into yet another overpriced, full-of-its-own-crap, L.A.-style douche-house. Very sad.
• CASA VEGA – Cool décor... but terrible service, always crowded, and food not good enough to justify the prices.
• PINEAPPLE HILL SALOON – Not friendly!
• HAMBURGER HAMLET – Nothing good can be said about this place.
• PITA KITCHEN – Underwhelming. Why is this place so popular?
• MULBERRY STREET PIZZERIA – Phony, expensive, not authentic, not good.

Cowboys Vs. Aliens: Not Really A Review, Just A Few Thoughts

* SPOILERS THROUGHOUT *

I quite liked Cowboys vs. Aliens. It was nice seeing Harrison Ford in an antagonist role for once -- and more than just an antagonist, he ends up being a multi-dimensional, identifiable, redeemable antagonist. I also have no trouble buying what's-her-name as an alien. And I like the way Daniel Craig's amnesia is built into the story as a crucial element, as opposed to being merely a convenient plot device.

I guess what I like most about Cowboys vs. Aliens is how serious it takes itself. It takes itself more serious than previous sci-fi westerns Wild Wild West, Westworld, and Back To The Future III. It's only slightly more serious than Silverado, about on the level of Tombstone, and not as serious as Unforgiven or True Grit (remake).

Since the late 1970s (i.e. Star Wars) writers have been obsessed with mythic elements in storytelling, and personally I believe the pulp-and-melodrama storytelling conventions of the American West comprise our most important unique shared cultural mythos. Alluding to these conventions (à la Silverado), CvsA sets up a thoroughly traditional Western dynamic of the Hero-Outlaw, seeking his redemption by turning a new leaf, who must eventually confront the Wealthy-&-Powerful Villain.

So CvsA sets all these dominoes up, and then, moments before the inevitable "opening face-off" between the Good Guy and the Bad Guy... BAM! Aliens invade, upsetting any conventional order we might have expected and forcing the archetypes to interact and collaborate in a fresh, unprecedented way.

Adventure ensues, escalates, resolves... and finally, at the end of the film, after the alien "interruption" has been settled, there can be no return to normalcy because the archetypes have all been forced out of their traditional oppositional roles. So the Good Guy and the Bad Guy, the guys wearing the figurative white and black hats, actually end up seeing eye to eye SHAKING HANDS instead of killing each other! That is one of the boldest, most progressive reconciliatory statements I've ever seen in a Western.