Lycos Customer Service Manager's Picture Held Hostage Until He Restores Customer's Email And Apologizes

If people are really sending Mike death threats and showing up at his workplace, please stop. That’s no way to go about this and you’re going to get yourselves in trouble.

    “From: Mike Jandreau <[redacted]@lycos-inc.com>
    Date: February 2, 2007 11:04:24 AM
    To: [redacted]@gawker.com
    Subject: http://tinyurl.com/2ftcg6 violation of my privacy.

    Hello,

    As a retaliation for enforcing company policies, one of our users, has been slandering me across various message boards and blogs.

    Now, I find that an unauthorized photograph of myself is posted on “consumerist.com”, violating my personal privacy.

    I have had 81 death threats since last night, and 6 individuals have shown up at our corporate offices, looking to speak with me. All 6 of those individuals were asked to leave the premsises. [sic]

    My photograph is located on: http://tinyurl.com/2ftcg6

    I immediately request that this website and photograph be removed, as it is a violation of my privacy.
    Under Federal Law, you must comply with this request.”

Dear Mike,

We’re sorry, no one here has any intentions of helping you with anything.

We are the manager of all of Customer Service. There is no one higher than us that you will speak with.

You violated our policy, which is, despite what you say, to not be a jerk to your customers.

Your image will be held hostage. After you apologize to Whitney and restore her emails, your image will be deleted.

P.S. The picture was gleaned from your site, MovieSnobs. You may want to cc your letter to Google Images as well. — BEN POPKEN

Previously: Lycos Deletes All Of Customer’s Email, Tells ‘Em To Suck It
(Original blog entry down to CPU overload, here’s a Google cache).

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. saintjohnson says:

    God Bless America.

  2. NeoteriX says:

    Hmm… I’m wondering what “Federal Law” he is referring to. Silly of him to bluff an assertion of “Federal Privacy Law” to a blog that is so well versed in a consumer’s legal rights.

    That and the number of lawyers that frequent this blog as well.

    Silly, silly. :)

  3. in ONE day…81 death threats and 6 folks showed up?

    someone thinks highly of themself.

    I sense an exaggeration in numbers here.

  4. saintjohnson says:

    I know this has nothing to do with Lycos, but Mike J is more of a movie idiot than MovieSnob.

    Did you see his list of favorites???
    Its like he was forced to watch Andy Griffith all his life and those were the first movies he saw…

    Anything would be your favorite after seeing Aunt Bea for 20 years straight before buying a ticket for your first movie!!!

  5. ediebeale says:

    I immediately request that Consumerist take down his photo because it’s giving me the creeps.

  6. Kornkob says:

    Far too many people’s legal knowledge stems from the mistaken assumption that if it sounds like it should be a law then it is or since ‘everybody knows’ that something is illegal then, of course, it is. Then they pretty up the phrasology and, presto, they think they have a cast iron case. IANAL but I know enough about law to know that there’s little about the law that ‘everybody knows’ (even lawyers) and that things that sound like they should be laws usually aren’t.

    Of course, you never mentioned that he claims ‘slander’ in this instance when I believe that a statement cannot be defamatory (and I think that this would be liable anyway since it is not spoken but in print) if the statement is merely a description of factual events.

    On another note:
    I submit that the Consumerist should create a brand new award to give out: The Golden Douchebag. Issued to tools like this fella for exhibiting, well, douche-like behavior in public.

  7. Johnny Eclectic says:

    Or at least get rid of the Red Sox cap, we want nothing to do with him!

    This made my morning, thanks guys!

  8. Don't be Silly says:

    I always thought lycos was in a basement – not a building.

    DId you check out his favorite movies? – this could be the making of a serial maniac

  9. shoegazer says:

    All you need to know about this turd’s ego:

    TopFive Favorite Movies:
    Braveheart
    The Crow
    Boondock Saints
    High Fidelity
    Running Scared
    The Prestige
    (I can have six, because I said so.)

    under Federal Law, of course.

  10. DeeJayQueue says:

    I say we give this photo to the guys at fark or worth1000 and let them photshop the everloving snot out of it.

  11. TPIRman says:

    Eighty-one death threats? Please.

    Very considerate of him to put the link into a tinyurl, though.

    And I agree with my eclectic namesake on the issue of the embarrassing Red Sox cap. Thanks a lot, Mike. As if Red Sox fans needed even more of a bad name.

  12. John Stracke says:

    He does have the right to demand you pull down the picture. Think copyright law. Think “DMCA takedown notice”.

  13. MattyMatt says:

    Obviously, death threats are caused by seeing a person’s face on Consumerist, and they immediately cease when we can could no longer see what the person looks like.

  14. MattyMatt says:

    Er … “can could” is evidently my new way of saying “I really ought to proofread my comments.”

  15. B says:

    Well, looking at the picture does make me want to punch him in the face. I’m not sure about killing him, though.

  16. pestie says:

    You’d think a guy working for a dot-com would know the risks of being pwn3d on the intarwebs, but apparently not. Reactions like his only ever make things worse.

    I used to be involved with running a local politically-oriented web forum. I got all kinds of interesting threats from people who claimed to know the law. These people were profoundly wrong, yet they clearly believed wholeheartedly in the crap they were spewing. Often they believed that it was illegal to post certain things because they were “offensive.” I sometimes had to wonder if they had ever seen the internets before. Heh… In any case, despite repeated threats of being dragged into court and/or arrested, nothing ever happened.

  17. Haplo9000 says:

    Well, sure, he can demand anything. In fact, I like this idea. I DEMAND ALL CONSUMERIST READERS GET FREE TACOS!

    I like this idea…I can see why the RIAA loves it so much!

  18. crayonshinobi says:

    I like the Boondock Saints…. >_>;

    I’d also have to agree with John, I don’t know of any federal law preventing you from posting his picture, but the DMCA can be applied to anything for any purpose (just ask the RIAA/MPAA), so he may have you there!

  19. Paul D says:

    My lovely 2nd-year law student wife says she’s fairly sure that if he put the picture out there on the Internet, it’s fair game.

    And this:
    I have had 81 death threats since last night

    …I don’t believe for a second.

    This guy is a tool. Good luck getting that apology. Deserving though it may be, chances are slim with someone like this.

  20. acambras says:

    Did he cc the letter to legal@weddingdepot.com?

  21. kcskater says:

    If he doesn’t apologize, maybe we should swap the Walmart Nazi shirt watch with Jerk Watch, continually posting this picture.

  22. John Stracke says:

    My lovely 2nd-year law student wife says she’s fairly sure that if he put the picture out there on the Internet, it’s fair game.

    Privacy-wise, sure; but the picture is still subject to copyright.

  23. AcilletaM says:

    Nice acambras!

  24. Baz says:

    I love the Golden DoucheBag award idea!

  25. John Stracke:

    Privacy-wise, sure; but the picture is still subject to copyright.

    It would be an interesting argument, since the picture is technically copyright of MJ (or whoever snapped the picture), however reusing the picture in the context of the consumerist’s point could be “fair use”

    I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on Phoenix Wright.

  26. lovely random-ass legal threat there. Ooooooh, big scary Federal Law. Capitalized, even.

    If your federal law threat isn’t in the format 23 CFR 1543.212, nobody gives a shit.

  27. Nemesis_Enforcer says:

    Ok so death threats and people showing up at his office….I cant imagine anyone not personally involved would care that much. And I secont the Tool remark, he is a total asshat.

  28. bluegus32 says:

    My two cents:

    I’m curious to know what “federal law” he is referring to. He is talking about an invasion of a privacy right by another private citizen. That is more than likely going to be a state tort claim, not a federal claim. So let’s look st state laws.

    As my expertise is in California law, let’s pretend he’s in California (privacy laws are going to be somewhat uniform across the jurisdictions so this should still be fairly applicable.)

    There are a handful of actionable privacy rights. First, there’s “intrusion into private affairs.” As with many of the other privacy torts, this guy must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy that was unreasonably invaded. (CACI 1800.) Since the image that forms the basis of his privacy claim was one that was obtained through a website where he, himself, posted the image, it’s rather a far stretch to say that he had a reasonable expectation in its privacy. He put it out there, it’s his own damn fault for it staying out there.

    Then we have “public disclosure of private facts.” (CACI 1801.) Once again, though, this picture was never private. He made it available to the public. So that’s not going to work.

    “Appropriation or use of name or likeness” (CACI 1803, 1804) won’t work as that requires the Consumerist to use his name or likeness for financial gain. As his ugly mug ain’t worth shit to anyone but himself, this isn’t going to fly.

    This is but a primer into California privacy rights but you can see where I’m going with this. The guy is full of crap.

    So what about copyright? Copyright protection is preempted by federal law and is therefore usually going to be a federal claim. (I say “usually” because there are certain exceptions that could bring such a claim into state court, but I doubt they apply here.) But again, this dweeb never sought to protect his “creative work” nor did he ever seek to protect his likeness. He posted it himself on the internet making it fair game for anyone to use.

    Sorry, pal, you’re shit out of luck. Before you start making legal threats that hold no merit, maybe you should ask your beloved Lycos to sic one of their lawyers on the Consumerist. Or did you already do that?

    Hmmmmmm, maybe instead you should take a lesson from this and stop being an ass-hat. You got what you deserved, you ass-wipe.

    Or is that too harsh?

  29. GenXCub says:

    Just make it the Golden Douche award (a la South Park’s Biggest Douche in the Universe award, won by John Edward)

  30. “But again, this dweeb never sought to protect his “creative work” nor did he ever seek to protect his likeness.”

    Chances are it’s not HIS creative work anyway — someone else probably took the picture. In which case, if he has a copyright complaint, he needs to dig up the photographer who owns the copyright in the picture and have THAT person complain to Consuermist, because Jandreau has no grounds to make such a complaint.

  31. bluegus32 says:

    BTW: Ben, I absolutely loved your response! Using his own snotty language against him was just brilliant!

  32. “Appropriation or use of name or likeness” (CACI 1803, 1804) won’t work as that requires the Consumerist to use his name or likeness for financial gain. As his ugly mug ain’t worth shit to anyone but himself, this isn’t going to fly.

    Could they make the argument that since the Consumerist is a for-profit ad-revenue based website that the use of his picture therefore constitutes a use for financial gain? I’m not being antagonistic or trolling, I’m actually just curious.

    Dude’s obviously an asshat, afterall. Regardless of policy violation.

  33. *pokes comment*

  34. bluegus32 says:

    something_amazing:

    What I neglected to mention in my last post was that Consumerist as a recognized media outlet is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. A recent California Supreme Court case granted some blogs the same rights as reporters in terms of immunity from lawsuit for “fair reporting.” (I’m not going to dig up the citation right now, sorry.)

    In any event, Consumerist is a media outlet and subject to qualified immunity from suit. “[N]o cause of action will lie for the ‘[p]ublication of matters in the
    public interest, which rests on the right of the public to know and the
    freedom of the press to tell it.’ ” (Montana v. San Jose Mercury News
    (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 790, 793.)

    It comes down to a balancing act between the Consumerist’s right to free speech and the ass-hat’s right to be free from having his privacy invaded. What really tips the scales in favor of Consumerist (other than the fact that they are a media outlet subject to qualified immunity from suit) is that this guy published his own photograph on the internet. How can he claim that his privacy was invaded when he, himself, put his image out there?

  35. major disaster says:

    Chances are it’s not HIS creative work anyway — someone else probably took the picture. In which case, if he has a copyright complaint, he needs to dig up the photographer who owns the copyright in the picture and have THAT person complain to Consuermist, because Jandreau has no grounds to make such a complaint.

    Normally, yes. But copyright is transferrable. (That’s how, say, a newspaper can own the copyright to the pictures and articles that appear in it.) So, disregarding fair use, he could in theory have a copyright claim, even if he didn’t take the picture.

  36. TJF says:

    “…I’m normal, I swear…I’m a big fan of just kicking back and listening to some tunes, and relaxing. The best days are relaxing days, listening to that new cd you can’t get out of your head, and not caring about the world.”

    Mike=douchebag…

  37. Myron says:

    Good stuff. This is why I read Consumerist. (not the recent deluge of insipid personal finance posts)

  38. billybastion says:

    i would just like to point out that one of his top five favorite movies of all time is Running Scared.

    im not here to argue the merits of the film, but of all the films he has seen, Running Scared is one of the top five?

    Now it seems as though HE is though “Running Scared”!


    Zing!

  39. “But copyright is transferrable. (That’s how, say, a newspaper can own the copyright to the pictures and articles that appear in it.)”

    Actually, in the case of newspapers, that’s work for hire copyright. The copyright originates in the newspaper if a photographer on the staff of the paper takes the picture. (Ditto articles.)

  40. thereviewer says:

    GOLD pure fucking gold.

  41. RandomHookup says:

    I want to apologize to Lycos and Mike for the 81 death threats and 6 visits to their offices. The OCD was kicking in and I’m all out of my meds.

  42. major disaster says:

    Fair point (I should know better than to say too much about copyright – the IP area I don’t, uh, focus on. If I ever make mistakes about patents, well, then we have a problem).

    But in any case, it’s still a transferrable right, as a general rule. I think. :)

  43. Why don’t these people try reading the blog, find out what the site is about and what the people who run it are all about, and get their stuff together before sending Consumerist an e-mail demanding that they do anything?

    Had he done that he’d known that:
    1) The people who run this site and comment here either know the law or at least know better than to believe something is a law because you said so.

    2) Consumerist posts e-mails so just sending one would result in a new post about himself.

    3) Most of the people commenting on that story agreed he had a right to do what he did even if they felt like he acted like a jerk. Some even sided with him.

    If he’d bothered trying to find out who he was dealing with he’d known that not only had he fared better than most but that sending the e-mail could only make things worse. But no, he has to insult everyone’s intelligence by claiming federal law backs him up here.

    Now everyone thinks he’s a jerk. Good job.

  44. Grasshopper says:

    Are all 81 death threats from the same person?

  45. Skeptic says:

    major disaster wrote:

    But in any case, it’s [copyright] still a transferrable right, as a general rule. I think. :)

    True, and licensable. However, copyright can only be transfered in writing. It seems doubtful that the photo in question was commissioned as work for hire by Mr. Jandreau or that he has a written copyright transfer. But it is also easily possible that the photo was taken by Mr Jandreau himself using a webcam on his monitor.

    In any case, he has not asserted copyright in his letter nor has he submitted a DMCA takedown notice which suggests he does not believe he owns the copyright to the photo. (This leads to an aside: who owns the copyright to the images in a video chat? Who technically created the photos? What if the receiver used the remote framing control available on some webcams? Would that make them the “creator” of the image?)

  46. Kornkob says:

    I wonder if his boss has seen this yet.

  47. Antediluvian says:

    Regardless of how he received the picture, he is likely the copyright holder on it. Remember that one doesn’t need to claim copyright on a creative work — copyright exists as soon as that creative work exists.

    I suspect it’s unlikely fair use would apply here, but it’s possible. IANA(C)L, so that’s up to Gawker’s armada of litigators to determine. But really, someone who works at Lycos should know better than to request something be (I paraphrase here) “removed from the Internet.”

    Regardless, I think he’s cute. I’d tap that (God I hate that phrase), although I wouldn’t want to discuss movies with him.

  48. John Stracke says:

    But again, this dweeb never sought to protect his “creative work” nor did he ever seek to protect his likeness. He posted it himself on the internet making it fair game for anyone to use.

    I don’t think that follows. Copyright doesn’t have “protect it or lose it” rules like trademark. Copyright is automatic whenever a work is fixed in tangible form; and it doesn’t lapse unless the copyright holder deliberately puts the work into the public domain. Just publishing something, even online, doesn’t put it into the public domain.

  49. Uurp says:

    He reminds me of one of the Cabbage Patch Kids, but I can’t remember which. I just want to give him a great big hug!

  50. Antediluvian says:

    Also, I don’t think using a tinyURL in a removal request would be valid from a legal standpoint: Consumerist has no control over what tinyURL does or points to, and the letter doesn’t state an actual location that Consumerist has control over (just a general assertion that it’s on Consumerist.com).

    I’d reject the request on the tinyURL basis alone, never mind the poorly constructed “Federal Law” demand.

  51. Trai_Dep says:

    6 ppl showed up in real world and threatened the doofus? Yeah riiiiite. Like someone’s gonna brave the gridlocked, cell-driver-obstacle-path, smog-infused artery of stress that we call CA 580. For him. Ha!

    It always amuses me. Someone (Lycos in this case, let’s not forget) makes a boo-boo. Might even be right, but doesn’t extend the golden hand of supurb customer service. It gets a LOT of attention. Company – rather than trotting off some intern to fix the thing in 3 minutes then use the incident to highlight their war-room of customer lovin’ to the world – blames the victim then erects a wall surrounded by a moat of bile and laughable legal demands.

    Fix problem the first way: 5 posts max, all positive.
    “Fix” problem the other way: 250 posts, all entertaining (unfortunately at the expense of the company.

    Ouch!!

    PS: Mike, your taste in film? SUCKS! 9-year-old Nebraska boys like better movies.

  52. bluegus32 says:

    John Stracke: “Just publishing something, even online, doesn’t put it into the public domain.”

    I don’t follow. The guy placed his photograph into a forum where any one of the 2 billion internet users planet-wide could access it. I would argue that he absolutely did put it in the public domain. And since he never took any affirmative steps to protect the work, how can he now claim that it is protected by copyright?

    Look at http://www.worth1000.com for instance. That site specifically provides that all of the works thereon are protected by copyright and that nobody is permitted to use them without the express permission of the copyright owner.

    Our hero never did that. He put his photo online, without protection, in the hopes that others would see it.

    In any event, what about the media’s protection for fair reporting? Even assuming that this photograph was copyrighted, isn’t the fair reporting privilege going to trump his alleged copyright? Isn’t this the chance you take any time you publich your photo online?

  53. RogueSophist says:

    @bluegus:

    Whoever has the rights to the photograph, it’s not necessary, for the purposes of copyright, for one to affirmatively “seek” protection. By creating his “work” and putting it in a “fixed medium,” all of which has happened here, the work is protected.

    Now, to what extent it’s protected, that’s another story.

    To that end, I propose an update to 17 U.S.C. sec. 107 making it fair use, always, to reproduce photographs of complete douches.

  54. Antediluvian says:

    bluegus32– because actual copyright law / regs say so:
    http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
    ——-
    When is my work protected?
    Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

    Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
    No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”
    ———–

    That’s why.

  55. silverlining says:

    Okay, the above response to Mike is freaking hilarious. Props to Consumerist. So, according to Mike, it’s just fine to be a jackass (even with a valid point), but it’s not okay for others to treat you like the jerk you’ve proven yourself to be?

    Mike could do a lot more to manage critics by just apologizing to the original customer for his mistake (not for enforcing the company email policy, but for the tremendously disrespectful, dismissive way that he communicated with the customer), rather than threatening Consumerist with legal action. A bully is a bully, no matter what rules they try to hide behind.

    Wow, if this guy is the head of customer relations for Lycos, that other CSRs look to as an example, I can see why the company ranks about a gazillion spots below its competitors.

    As another poster has said… what a tool. And yes, take off that Boston cap. The Red Sox deserve better.

  56. scoobydoo says:

    See, this is why Consumerist is such an awesome website.

    As for the death threats and people showing up at his offices, that has to be total and utter BS. Nobody cares THAT much about him. I dare him to post some of those emails here…

  57. Kornkob says:

    Bluegus. Is it possible you are using the term ‘public domain’ when you mean something else?

    Something is in the public domain when no person can establish proprietary interests within a particular jurisdiction. It’s importnat to note that the specific term ‘public domain’ has a precise meaning that only partially corresponds to the spoken English meanings of the individual words (this is common in legal language– just because the words have one meaning in English does not mean that those words have the same meaning when codified).

    In this case it is probably safe to assume that this Mike fella actually owns the copyright for that image. In fact, I think that it is a reasonable assumption that a person who publishes a picture of themselves on their own website owns the rights to that image.

    However, Fair Use may apply in this case, as explored in previous comments.

  58. bluegus32 says:

    Kornkob: Very possible I’m mis-using the term. Or more to the point, that term has become antiquated in this new-age internet environment.

    One of the very real truths of today’s internet environment is that Congress has been unable to keep up with the real world. For instance, anyone who’s tracked porn legislation and case law over the last decade can tell you that “law” and “the internet” are largely exclusive of each other. Applying old legal concepts to the internet has proven very difficult and people/companies have to now go through tremendous effort to protect themselves in this global community.

    There is a large body of people that believes that once someone posts something like this on the internet, it loses its protection in large part because of the person’s own failures to protect the work. Many people, myself included, feel that once one guy posts his photo on a public website, without seeking to protect it, that he forfeits the right to later claim that it is somehow legally protected.

    One of the basic maxims of jurisprudence provides that “The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights.” (Cal.Civ.Code § 3527.)

    The guy invited this upon himself. In addition to fair use and fair reporting arguments, we probably have a huge issue here of implied consent or waiver of rights.

  59. bluegus32 says:

    antediluvian: Yes, by its bare definition, the photograph is copyrighted. But there are so many defenses to its use as to make the copyright protection nearly non-existent.

    So, while my analysis may have been technically inefficient, the end result is the same.

    Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between having something technically protected under the law and actually enforcing those rights.

    Is this guy’s picture “technically” protected by copyright? Sure. Is it “practically” protected. Probably not.

  60. strandcos says:

    To accuse someone in writing of slander when it is not (as in this case) is, in itself, a libel.

  61. mathew says:

    I can just about buy the idea that it’s OK to delete someone’s e-mail after a mere 30 days of inactivity. (Do they at least send a warning to a backup e-mail address?)

    But even accepting the policy as reasonable, I don’t buy that this Jandreau guy should have been such a total dick about it. Assuming it’s true that “no amount of money can now restore them”, he could at least have seemed apologetic about it. Something like…

    “I’m sorry to inform you that your e-mail has been deleted and cannot be recovered. Lycos policy clearly states that accounts will be deleted after 30 days of inactivity. Your account was inactive for 30 days, and hence your e-mail was deleted. I am unable to help you further, and I’m afraid that escalating your complaint will not result in your mail being restored. However, if you wish to comment on Lycos policy, please contact “

  62. lunchbox says:

    Ha ha. You said ‘emails’, like a hick.

  63. bloodynose says:

    Image of Uurp Uurp says:

    He reminds me of one of the Cabbage Patch Kids, but I can’t remember which. I just want to give him a great big hug!

    You know, he DOES kinda look like one of the Cabbage Patch Kids dolls.

    Bonus: This image now qualifies as a new copyright as under fair use, I am allowed to create derivative works. I extend the copyright to anyone who wants to use this image for any reason whatsoever. It’s yours. Have at it.

  64. Skeptic says:

    “Assuming it’s true that “no amount of money can now restore them”, he could at least have seemed apologetic about it. Something like…”

    You have to put that quote in context. First Lycos offered to restore the emails if she upgraded to a $19.95 account. When she balked at having to pay to get access to to her emails on her free email account MJ taunted her by saying, essentially, that they had been vindictively deleted and that now not even money could restore her emails.

    Lycos’ current 30 inactivity policy is only tangental to this customer-service-gone-wrong story. It is really a story about an a55hat too arrogant to believe that his vindictive actions could ever have any karmic consequences–that and he’s dumb enough to put his vindictiveness into an email. What a dufus.

    This one bad customer service story may well push what remains of Lycos (who knew they still existed?) over the edge. If Lycos were smart, they’d feed MJ to the lions–figuratively speaking–while they still have a chance.

  65. Kat says:

    He looks like Sean Murray – you know, McGee on NCIS.

  66. cortana says:

    The copyright issue is probably moot too, as it is by all appearances a work computer and any photographs taken with it would be considered a work-for-hire and therefore the copyright would lie with his employer. Somehow, I would be surprised if they even dare to show their face, much less comment.

  67. dantsea says:

    I have no problem believing that he received 81 death threats and six office visits. I just don’t think it’s fair to attribute all of them to the email incident, because I am equally sure it’s not the first time Mike has committed such astounding douchebaggery in the name of “customer service.”

    I am the manager of all of Customer Service. There is no one higher than me that you will speak with.

    Poor form, Mike! Once you told her she had nothing left to do, you also told her she had nothing left to lose by taking the exchange public. And now you’re the one suffering the adverse consequences.

    Welcome to Karma, population you.

  68. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    Ha! So now the shoe is on the other hand!

    I don’t know about the legality of the photograph, but I’m sure Gawker would be happy to take it down if they had that pesky password to their image server.

    Oops….you know, come to think of it, I think that password was in an e-mail that was sent to a Lycos e-mail account, but alas, the e-mail has been deleted forever!

    I’m still with the folks that don’t think Lycos did anything wrong except hire a snotty-arsed customer service representative who’s just too full of himself.

    Oh, and Lycos…I’ve had a free Yahoo mail account since 1998 and they’ve never decided to delete all of my mail.

    Normally, I’d give a home-boy a break because he’s wearing a RedSox hat, but not in this case.

  69. Sorenso says:

    Hey Mike, hope you don’t get canned over this because you wouldn’t make it as a lawyer. Stop using pseudo insults and we will stop laughing at you.

    Start treating people like they were in front of you when doing CS and maybe you wouldn’t be considered such a waste of space and a drain on humanity. And even better, we might think the large companies want our business and not need it like Lycos.

  70. upskii says:

    What Mike would write if he were actually being slandered:
    “This is concerning a certain blog post that’s been circulated that makes untrue statements about me and falsly attributes quotes to me that I’d like removed. I can forward the actual correspondences to you if you’d like to review them. I take my job seriously and would never treat someone in the way portrayed on this blog and I’d like to clear my name with the facts…” etc

    What Mike actually said: (paraphrase) “Waaaa! Slander! Unauthorized use! Everybody is out to get me when I was just enforcing, and I demand everybody cease and desist RIGHT NOW! Stop it! No one is higher than me!”

    What Mike should say if he has half a ball in his sac: “This is certainly an embarrassing situation I find myself in, but I have only myself to blame. In my defense, this was a bad day for me, but I shouldn’t said what I said in the way I said it. I am sending an apology to the customer in question, and I humbly ask that you remove my photo because this whole situation makes me kind of paranoid.”

    You reading this Mike? Just tack the above up in your cubicle and put a big “no” with an arrow to what you actually said.

  71. BotchedJoke says:

    That’s what you get for being such a PUSSY and treating a women like that. Go home and play with your “Magic the Gathering” Collection or your Star Wars figures. You are a LOSER and deserve to be harrased.

  72. RapperMC says:

    I think it’d be great if everyone with gmail used his photo as their g-chat icon.

  73. “In fact, I think that it is a reasonable assumption that a person who publishes a picture of themselves on their own website owns the rights to that image.”

    Often not — because most people do not take pictures of themselves. They get a friend to do it. So TECHNICALLY the copyright in the snapshot belongs to the friend who took the picture.

    Now us average folks on the street don’t go suing our neighbors when we take snap their family Christmas picture for them and they send it out on 600 Christmas cards when the copyright is OURS!!!!! But try convincing a wedding photographer you should be able to reproduce photos of yourself you already paid $6,000 for. Then you’ll learn who owns the copyright, and it AIN’T THE FOLKS IN THE PICTURE.

  74. w_boodle says:

    test