Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Lostinlodos in topic Merger proposal (2010)

Untitled

edit

This page is being revised over the next week as part of the IP WikiProject. Changes will include dividing into sections, using standard court template, adding discussion and defenses under Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, Davidyuzhu (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Merger proposal (2010)

edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
merged People Eating Tasty Animals into People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney in 2010.

MERGE People Eating Tasty Animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) into People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm proposing the merger of People Eating Tasty Animals into this article because that page is little more than a stub after several years. When the other page was up for deletion, voters only cite the court case significance as reason to keep it. And judging from talkpage comments, there also seems to be an attempt to use Wikipedia in order to keep up the parody effect from a defunct site. PrBeacon (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

It took me a moment to realize who the user just above is. I have struck through the comments in question, and, frankly, this is much the same thing as why we do not allow defamation in BLP articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Maybe you should read the case holdings then? Both courts held that the site's operation and use were illegal, and affirmed violations as trademark infringement, trademark dilution. In other words, they broke the law. One may not agree, but that's exactly what the courts stated. Lostinlodos (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'll wait a few more days before proceeding, then. For the record I don't agree that the parody site was borderline criminal. Yes it was "illegal" in the sense of trademark infringement but the courts ruled that it was not malicious. As controversial as PETA is itself, keeping a sense of humor seems important too. PrBeacon (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.