Because 50% Of Marriages Fail Because Of Gayness (Or Why I took Down The Pictures Of Angelina Jolie’s Kid)

I have no respect for the law.

The law turned hoses on black people, forces poor women to keep children they can't afford, won't let gay people get married and sent Jews to concentration camps.


I don't give a rats ass about the law.

But what does get some weight in the chartreuse universe is right and wrong.

All the great religions, leaders, books and countries say the same thing at their core.

Treat your neighbor as yourself and power trumps.

Now when I first got a look at the Cease and Desist email from Time,Inc. I laughed.


Because I knew something that they didn't.

I couldn't lose.

You see, getting sued by a multi-million dollar corporation is not as bad as it used to be.

Oh, I couldn't win the legal case.

But these things are not about the law. Like I said before, nobody on the wrong side of a billy-club cares about that.

This is really about public opinion and power.

The RIAA never lost a case against a file-sharer.

But they lost the war.

The idea of stopping people from sharing music is ludicrous, even the record companies know that.

Power trumps.

No multimillion dollar corporation can stop the power of one individual.

Don't believe me?

Ask the military how it plans on stopping terrorists (or freedom fighters) in Iraq?

Power trumps.

The great powershift has occurred.

Individualism has won out over corporations and rules that want to put you on the back of the bus.

But I took the pictures down anyway.

Because I'm not brave enough to have nails in my hands.

Explore posts in the same categories: abortion, angelina jolie, black, brad pitt, change, chartreuse (beta), conservatives, cursing, DEAD, downloading, DUMB, fame, flickr, gay, good line, institutions, internet, Jews, money, new media, old media, paparazzi, People Magazine, personal, rebuttal, revolution, salvation, shiloh, shiloh nouvel, smart, The Law, TRUE, war

18 Comments on “Because 50% Of Marriages Fail Because Of Gayness (Or Why I took Down The Pictures Of Angelina Jolie’s Kid)”

  1. Robin Scotts Says:

    Great post, man. I’m not brave enough to stand up to those big guns, either. But at leastsome people are!

    Love the pictures!

  2. Bob Says:

    But surely Bradjolina have the right to sell pictures – something private to them – to whoever they want. And the new owner has the right to do whatever they want to do with them?

    Sure, big corporations don’t “get” file sharing (yet).
    But that doesn’t give anyone the right to steal from them no matter how unjust, unfair, anti-competitive or stupid they may be.

    Its like saying that because you don’t watch the TV programs I think are cool, you don’t “get” TV, so I can come in and steal your TV because you don’t deserve it.

  3. nathan Says:

    I’m in the middle of reading a book about Napster’s rise and fall, so this post hits a lot of points I’ve been thinking of lately. In some way it all boils down to the idea that scandal is the best publicity, except with our new modes of interaction scandal has been that much easier to attain. There were millions of dollars behind Eminem when he was causing shit (and Napster too) yet it seems you could have raised some hell on a free blogging platform.

  4. Erik Says:

    Char, they don’t give a rat’s ass about you.

    They sent you a C&D because if they aren’t seen to be vigorously defending their IP rights they can lose them. If they lose their IP rights then National Enquirer (and so the like) can publish the pics. The do give a rat’s ass about organizations like National Enquirer, The Star, Us, et al. (their competition).


    Am I getting really old a decrepit or did you make the fonts tiny?

  5. chartreuse Says:

    I didn’t make the fonts tiny. That’s just the ize they come in on this template. I’ll look into it.

    Yeah, and you’re right. It really has very little to do with me. My point was that it was just an example of the great powershift. Power moving to individuals away from corporations.

    and you guys are right. This small font sucks.

  6. TerryC Says:

    Even if I don’t agree with you, you always put up a great defense. Linking stealing copyright to civil rights and the Holocaust is audacious.

    I really like reading your site because you have balls!

  7. […] looks like char from chartreuse beta got a cease & desist letter from time inc, owners of people magazine, who had bought exclusive rights ot pics of shiloh nouvel, brangelinas baby. personally, having gotten involved in some form of litigation some years ago, i think its good that he did that. there is no point in waiting to go through lawyers because, the company will have loads more money than char to throw at this cause, and lawyers do cost a lot of money. i realized that justice is for the rich. the poor and middle class just cant afford lawyers or justice for that manner. i think its sad.  […]

  8. Rich Says:

    I understand getting pissed about getting a C&D letter and even for blowing up on your blog about it. But I think its a bit disengenuous and even a bit narrow minded to talk about what’s “right and wrong.” What does right and wrong have to do with this at all, and even if it did what makes you think it would come out on your side?

    The reason paparazzi spend night and day trying to snap pictures of famous people is b/c they can get paid well for it. The only way they can get paid for it is if someone pays them, which of course means that someone needs to derive a profit from those pictures. That profit, comes in part from the first publisher status that People (or whatever magazine) paid for in buying exclusive rights to the pictures. By undermining that first publisher status, we should fully expect that next time there are exclusive pictures, a magazine will pay less for them b/c the price paid will be lowered by the potential of being ‘scooped’ by the net publishers.

    This will directly affect the pay to the paparazzi, which will in turn lead to fewer paparazzi and less coverage of famous people. Im not saying thats a good thing (I personally don’t get the fascination with famous people thing) but all im saying is that im not sure what “right and wrong” or “fairness” or “good and bad” or any other sort of value judgement has to do with you getting a C&D letter. This is about incentives and profits…im just surprised you let emotions get in the way of seeing what’s really at play here, when usually you see through the emotional crap.

  9. We mustn’t post photos of little children anyway, it makes them vulnerable to kidnappers, perverts, and such. Especially the children of celebrities, whatever that is.

    You are the media and the message. You are your own content. And your content is good.

  10. P.S. as an Ethical Anarchist, I also laugh at Law, but I try to stay legal and ethical in business and life.

    “Don’t smoke pot, it’s illegal” the religious folk say, as they abuse Effexor, Paxil, Xanax, and as alcohol kills millions more than a flower.

    But if there is ever a law that makes reading the Bible a crime, will the evangelicals and seminarians obey the law, according to Romans 13, which they say refers to civil authority?

    Anarchy Rules. Long Live Free Thinking.

  11. VampireFeet Says:

    Who is angelina Jolie?

  12. chartreuse Says:

    Rich, I think you missed the point of the post. (Or more than likely, I didn’t make my point clear).

    I found the C&D funny. It was funny because it was a waste of time. There are thousands of individuals putting up the same pictures. Time doesn’t have the power to stop everyone. The law (in this case, Time inc.) was waste.

    How people profit in the near future will be much different than folk do now. Look at the music business. Do you think artists make money singing songs? They don’t. They actually make money selling experience (i.e., T-shirts, concerts, etc.) That’s the new model of everything. People just haven’t realized it yet…

  13. […] Time, Inc. has been aggressively pursuing copyright violators in defense of its exclusive, including Gawker Media and Chartreuse (beta), who commented on his decision to remove the pictures over the weekend. […]

  14. Robert Bruce Says:

    “P.S. as an Ethical Anarchist, I also laugh at Law, but I try to stay legal and ethical in business and life.”

    Steven, why would you submit yourself to something that you laugh at and, seemingly, have no respect for?

    (sincere question btw)

  15. Dave Says:

    Ours are still up, yes we had the C&D letter along with a nice note telling me to tell the blogger to take them down. I mailed back asking as neither we or the servers are in North America how they were going to enforce it, I am still waiting for a reply. They only own North American Rights, Not sure I am brave enough to get nails in my hands either, but I can at least ask for them to confirm how a blog that is not in the US can be made to comply with a US Law. Perhaps we should put up a disclaimer saying that if you reside in North America please do not look at the pics ?

  16. TerryC Says:

    That’s a good idea, Dave. I guess that shows how useless law is.

  17. […] Rich, one of the evil overlords of BizNicheMedia and Matt of the Blog Herald, both made interesting points about my rant against current copyright law and my use of Angelina Jolie pictures. […]

  18. I liked your site. On it interesting themes
    are discussed!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: