
'Dumb Starbucks' mystery: Who's behind the faux coffee front in Los Feliz? - denzil_correa
http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/02/09/42085/dumb-starbucks-coffee-shop-opens-in-los-feliz/
======
evan_
I would bet money that this is a stunt for the Comedy Central show "Nathan For
You", which is coming back for a second season soon and does all kinds of
weird business-y stunts like this.

In the first season he got a gas station to offer gas at a steep discount, but
only after rebate- but you had to drop the form off in person at the top of a
mountain:

[http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/zhbu8g/nathan-
for-y...](http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/zhbu8g/nathan-for-you-gas-
station-rebate)

It increased business because people came for the low price, but only a
handful of people actually decided to try to redeem the rebate. Those that did
try to redeem it had to camp out overnight and solve riddles:

[http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/q9ibj6/nathan-
for-y...](http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/q9ibj6/nathan-for-you-gas-
station-rebate---campout)

On another episode Nathan tried to help a Haunted House to create buzz by
getting someone to sue them for being too scary:

[http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/nf0ws2/nathan-
for-y...](http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/nf0ws2/nathan-for-you-
haunted-house-pt--1)

He did this by making a couple think they'd contracted a disease and were
being rushed to the hospital:

[http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/wvuntb/nathan-
for-y...](http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/wvuntb/nathan-for-you-
haunted-house-pt--2)

~~~
lukeholder
Unfortunately all of those video links are blocked for countries outside the
USA.

~~~
sheraz
Negative. They are probably blocked in countries where Comedy Central does not
have distribution. For example, they work in Sweden, where there is comedy
central.

------
paulgb
Weird Al does not rely on fair use, he seeks permission from the rights
holder[1].

I don't think their reading of fair use is correct here. They talk about the
copyright doctrine, but the trademark doctrine is entirely separate.

Unlike the copyright doctrine, under the trademark doctrine, the commercial
aspect of this works against them: "In general, however, the courts appear to
be more sympathetic to the extent that parodies are less commercial, and less
sympathetic to the extent that parodies involve commercial use of the mark"[2]

(disclaimer: ianal)

[1] [http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-
use/cases/](http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/) [2]
[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm](http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm)

~~~
delinka
I think these people are also being disingenuous about their classification of
their "business," stating plainly that they are attempting to skirt trademark
law by being some kind of art installation. Either it's a parody with
permission from Starbucks (which neither party to the agreement is required to
inform the public about) or they're going to be in trouble.

A bit more tangential to the topic, there are an awful lot of details missing
from that Stanford link about Weird Al's work.

He can write completely different lyrics and publish them all he wants without
getting permission or paying royalties. If he chooses to record his own lyrics
(which he holds the copyright on) to the same tune as the lyric he parodies,
then he becomes responsible for paying royalties on the musical composition
only. Once a song has been recorded and published, U.S. law compels licensing
to anyone else to also record and publish their version of that song at
specified royalty rates to the original lyricist and the original composer
(compulsory licensing.)

Weird Al _does_ seek permission. This is simply a gesture of good will on his
part. He is in no way required to seek this permission. He writes unique
lyrics to which he owns the copyright, records them to the original tune
(owing compulsory rates to the original composer), and he's completely legal
without ever having to have sought anyone's permission. And "fair use" never
enters the equation because copyright law already compels such licensing.

~~~
b1daly
Actually I think the compulsory license does not apply if it is a derivative
work, you would need permission from the publisher.

~~~
delinka
If the work can be defined as "derivative," then you are correct. So how do we
define "derivative" when it comes to lyrics? Are all limericks derivatives of
the original simply because they have the same pattern? I suspect the
definition a judge would use would take into account how many words from the
original lyrics appear in the exact places in the parody lyrics.

Comparing Weird Al's Amish Paradise to Coolio's Gangsta's Paradise, I'd say Al
is pretty close to that derivative line. If I were the judge, I'd probably
rule for Al in this specific case. And this is the reason Al gets permission -
let's avoid all this nastiness and just do what we love.

------
mehwoot
Is it any different if you are doing this in bad faith? The picture posted
mentions "Is this a real business? Yes it is. But for legal reasons, Dumb
Starbucks needs to be categorised as a parody artwork". So they are clearly
aware they are trying to get around copyright and this is probably pretty good
evidence that they themselves don't really consider it as a parody artwork.

But would that actually make a difference if/when this goes to court?

~~~
MWil
I'm reminded of the movie Velvet Goldmine. It's intended to be biographical
(very easy to figure out of whom) but because they couldn't secure the rights
they just switched a few facts here and there, changed names and voila -
successful truth-based movie without any rights secured.

~~~
judk
or Citizen Kane.

------
Glyptodon
Movie studios pulling a stunt to try and destroy fair use.

Their FAQ even conflates trademark and copyright.

~~~
Nilzor
This. Why does everyone think it's a publicity stunt when this is the most
obvious explanation based on their FAQ?

------
ForHackernews
Interesting theory from the comments:

> This is too expensive for a practical joke. It looks more like an legal
> trick funded my the entertainment industry delegitimize "fair use" in
> Intellectual Property legislation. They'll probably take this to court,
> deliberately lose the case, and then leverage this case as a precedent in
> future lawsuits concerning fair use of music, video, etc.

~~~
judk
I feel dumber having read that.

------
p_monk
I live on this street. For the last 2 years it was a restaurant called
Gastronomico. They started as a food truck, which still is operating and
tweeting here:
[https://mobile.twitter.com/thegastrobus](https://mobile.twitter.com/thegastrobus)
. The couple who owned it are chill hippy type people and I'm sure they know
what's behind this.

------
hansef
This is 4 blocks from me. I went to check it out but there was a line of
around 150 people out the door and I bailed since I wasn't willing to invest
the 90 minutes in line.

There are already Yelp reviews: [http://www.yelp.com/biz/dumb-starbucks-los-
angeles](http://www.yelp.com/biz/dumb-starbucks-los-angeles)

~~~
jonstewart
I used to do my laundry at that laundromat. All those people should walk up
the street to Yuca's instead.

~~~
10feet
Do they have free coffee at Yuca's?

~~~
salgernon
The coffee is only free if your time is worth nothing. Anyone waiting in line
is doing so for social reasons.

~~~
MartinCron
Yes. Waiting in line is part of the experience. It's not something I would do,
but I'm not arrogant enough to look down at those who are doing it.

~~~
peterwwillis
I am.

~~~
MartinCron
I respect your honesty, I guess.

------
jrockway
I'll believe that this is a parody, but one of Reddit-style legal analyses
rather than Starbucks.

------
grizzles
I'd like to know who the backers of it are. If I was some big corporation that
wanted to get rid of the parody exception, this is exactly what I'd do...

------
jmeekr
WOAH! I work at SCPR/KPCC and my jaw dropped to see an article from it at the
top of HN. Ok, proceed :)

~~~
sizzle
I stream KCRW since moving out of the area, what are some good SCPR/KPCC
programs to stream in your opinion? thanks!

------
dotBen
Given the article doesn't shed any light on who is behind this
enterprise/stunt/whatever, I'm curious why they used the term "Successful
Troll".

The use of either word in their own right is curious as I don't see what here
constitutes this to be particularlly _" successful"_ or how Dumb Starbuck's
assertion of "fair use" motivation equates to _" trolling"_

~~~
wpietri
Did you read the article? They say explicitly that they are using the
Starbucks name and logo for "marketing purposes", and that they don't even
think Starbucks is dumb.

Saying something you don't even believe just to get a reaction is classic
trolling. And it's "successful trolling" because they definitely got a
reaction.

They don't even assert a fair-use motivation. Their motivation is marketing a
business; they explicitly admit that the fair-use stuff is a fig leaf.

------
rgarrett88
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement)

Good luck!

------
codezero
Fair use doesn't work preemptively. It's only good when presented as a defense
in a court. Even then ere are a lot of caveats and precedent that exists, so
simply calling it a parody probably won't work in a court.

------
kiallmacinnes
I wonder will the "Its obviously not a Starbucks" comment hurt Starbucks' case
against Dumb Starbucks. Usually, these things get brought to court as an
attempt to trade off the "real" brand...

------
quackerhacker
I guess it's a little bit difficult for them to cause monetary damages to
Starbucks if they continue to provide FREE coffee.

Although, I can't see the fair use law protecting them once they begin to
charge, creating this amount of buzz as an initial marketing plan...and
possibly changing the business name later, if that's the plan, ingenious.
Great allocation of marketing capital.

------
joshmlewis
I recently worked with a restaurant that is brand new. The work and money that
goes into a new restaurant is pretty crazy, especially custom cups, signage,
etc.

So whoever did this definitely had to have capital, some legal help, graphic
help, and a host of other services to throw it together.

------
1stop
So can a company just call itself 'crapple' and sell hackintosh computers, and
claim they are 'making fun of apple'?

Could they still use Apple logos, and trademark names? e.g Crapple Macbook,
Crapple iPhone, etc. ?

------
damian2000
One possibility is that local restaurants and cafes got together to bring in
customers to the general area. Already saw a comment on yelp from a local cafe
who has seen their business rise dramatically.

------
vezzy-fnord
A very ambitious example of culture jamming, I'll say. I just hope it it's
grassroots and not an astroturf. That'd be disappointing, although evan_'s
explanation seems plausible.

------
vertr07
This won't last.

~~~
gboudrias
But it'll be hilarious for a few minutes.

~~~
dhughes
No it isn't. Some hipster tried to be funny, and didn't.

------
teawithcarl
According to codinghorror, Dumb Starbucks in LA is Banksy level art project.

[http://t.co/zNKKe1S57x](http://t.co/zNKKe1S57x)

------
ama729
> If we have any lawyers that read our site, your comments below would be
> appreciated.

"These guys are working for free, why wouldn't you?"

------
mathattack
I was thinking it was just Starbucks spoofing themselves, since the copyright
infringement is too obvious.

------
matznerd
Seems like a prank that will be relatively short-lived.

------
headgasket
this and cowclick made my day (wikipedia link in the flappyclick story
thread). Thanks HN! Cheers,

------
gscott
Banksy has setup a new residence.

~~~
cyanbane
I was going to say Banksy also, but he is a lot more understated (and
artistic). [http://www.woostercollective.com/post/the-village-pet-
store-...](http://www.woostercollective.com/post/the-village-pet-store-and-
charcoal-grill-opens-in-new-york-city)

------
piratebroadcast
Banksy.

------
2772726262562
...so, Starbucks paid some guerrilla marketing company millions of dollars to
stage an absurd publicity stunt. Supporting Facts:

    
    
      1. All publicity is good publicity.
      2. All branding is identical, verbatim, (e.g. no 
         use of small, medium, large; instead branded sizing 
         parlance is used) forcing the customer to closely 
         inspect the imitation for flaws. This forces a level of 
         psychological engagement in the customer that would not 
         occur in regular, legitimate establishments.
      3. Starbucks, for all it's popularity, rarely experiences
         negative press. Thus, their brand can easily tolerate 
         examples of light trolling.
      4. Dubious "news" coverage offers vectors for market 
         penetration into sectors that represent the Lowest
         Common Denominator, without cheapening Starbucks' 
         brand. In other words, they can speak to an audience
         that they'd rather not be associated with, without 
         having to directly engage them. They can inject their 
         brand's presence into the daily lives of people who 
         would not ordinarily pay attention to their usual modes 
         of advertising.
      5. Without an entity to claim credit for this activity, 
         this parody only serves to provide increased exposure 
         to Starbucks. A well executed parody without an author
         will provide no alternate context to the premise of the
         joke. If there is any meaning or theme to the parody, 
         the audience can barely guess at what it should be, if
         the intent of the performer cannot be discerned.
    
      6. Hypothesis: The "Dumb" shop will only stay open for as 
         long as the minor local news publicity lasts. It's 
         there only to make people use the word "Starbucks" as 
         frequently as possible, in as many sound bites as       
         possible, trigger some water cooler conversation for 
         about a week (word of mouth buzz), and then die.

~~~
judk
Starbucks is already waay more top of mind than this, does plenty of other
advertising, and this project is way out of line from their carefully managed
brand image of warm/comfort/happy/love

