Home Distiller

http://homedistiller.org/daver/homedistiller_letter_to_dave_pomegranate_9_30_10.pdf

Apparently they didn't like my initial changes where I said that the initials may or may not rhyme with "scabies"

Let me get this right...... JD wants you to removes the entire recipie? even though they clearly state it is not the proper recipie? Removing the JD "Marks" isnt enough? Impressive. Sales must be low!

I always had a hunch that trouble would start Big Alcohol. bd.

edited for clarity

they tryin to save up money for the product liability suits that fixin to come after the thru with bacca.
why yall worryed bout getin rid of them recipee. aint the key here to make top shelf likker

so im tole

Language seems soft.

"Imitation" or "knock off" included within the recipe discription would git the job done. No?

No offense to JD but I never could drank that swill.

Rub the salt deeper in their wounds LW bd.

Seems to me the recipe must be pretty darn close or I don't think they would be very concerned. Obviously they feel threatened by the information here on HD.
Pretty flattering actually..
problem could be that they have big money to start lobbing against home distilling.
I am with you LW.. never liked it either... Wild turkey 101 is one of my favorites.. or well it used to be.... Now its mine.
KS

Kentucky shinner wrote:Wild turkey is one of my favorites.. or well it used to be

Oh man,,,,,bad memories tryin to learn how to drank that stuff too. Think "projectile vomitting"

As serious as this may or may not be. The scabies/ heavy fusel oil comment is killer funny. Oh, and I dont believe they have a sense of humor. Way to go UJ.

If they have the time and resources to author a letter as attached, think of what they would devote to squashing any legislation to legalize home distilling.

It will never happen my friends. They own the best politicians money can buy...

When prohibition ended, the new laws were carefully written to seriously reduce competition from Mom and Pop type operations.

The Golden Goose (no offense Goose Eye) of alcohol distilling will never be allowed by the masses. The "ChaCHING" of the cash register is just too powerful...


Or so I'm told...

Laughin my a$$ off at this part:
"Another iteration of this fuesel-oil heavy, commercially available product is... "
NChooch

I guess they troll the sight and see what they can pinch from the hobbyists. Hobbyist, not lobbyist, rule!!

If they have the time and resources to author a letter as attached, think of what they would devote to squashing any legislation to legalize home distilling.
It will never happen my friends. They own the best politicians money can buy...

I'm of the same mind, Bull Rider. Th less noise we make, the better off we'll be. This hobby's reaching critical mass ... .

bd.

If they were as smart as they think they are they would parlay and incorporate a bit of their market share into the hobby movement.
But Noooooooo, it seems they would rather,,,,,,,,,argue over,,,,,a point that can not be proved.

Recon timing is everything.

They'll be in it when the time is right. If they are savy enough they will back into forward motion. Or not.

Used to drink LOTS of Jack. Agreed with the grabbing headlines motive. Too bad they forgot that Americans prefer the underdog

I stopped drinking JD when I learned they lowered the proof from 90 to 80 if they bring it back they'll have more of my business i don't make enough of my own to quench my thirst

So we keep the recipe and lose the name and all references to the scabby drink? bd.

Kentucky shinner wrote: Wild turkey 101 is one of my favorites.. or well it used to be.
KS

Me too, hence my user name I wish I could change it now

The real problem with this is that they are going to use this as press and possibly to buy a few more friends. Once you have someone trying to duplicate "your recipe", then you have bragging rights. Bragging rights MUST be shared and I'll bet you there will be plenty of sharing. The next meeting will be filled with gossip and HD is going to become the "girl everyone wants to see"...for all the wrong reasons.

My suggestion would be to do as they ask and simply label it as a "tennessee style grain bill which was rumored to be by a famous distillery, but has since been disproven by the distillery" You may even need to play ball with them and give them a little publicity in terms of Brand Recognition..at their discretion of course. Since they invoked the Fame clause, you could fight them on terms of fair use or public figurehead, but I think it would be a loosing battle. They will simply have more cash and more contacts than you will. A few mentions to the right people will have the sight crawling with ATF and IP Subpeona's out the wazzoo.

I would look at this as a good chance to show the liquor industry that we can and WILL play nice and that we are hobbyists who arent looking to undermine them, just pursue our craft. We are the manifestation of a very real fear for them, maybe we need to make ourselves "less scary"...

my 2 cents whatever its worth.

ScottishBoy wrote:My suggestion would be to do as they ask and simply label it as a "tennessee style grain bill which was rumored to be by a famous distillery, but has since been denied by the distillery"

I like it, with the slight modification. JD hasn't really disproven the accuracy of the grain bill shown on the parent site, just whined about it being there.

But, in the American justice system most often the guy with the deeper pockets wins. I see no future in arguing with them or trying to be cute with them. Might see if they would allow the "recipe" to stay if some sort of disclaimer was added but I wouldn't hold out much hope they'd be interested. Worth a try though.

any lawers out there that might be able to help. even just by senting a message to uj. and give him some help which way to jump.

I think the biggest thing needing changed, is the link name, and the page name.

The link reads:

Grains:
Jack Daniels Blacklabel Recipe

the link is:
www-homedistiller-org/wash-grain2.htm#jackdaniels

Thus, with the text removed within the recipe, if this link name and page shortcut is changed, then I do not believe they would have a leg to stand on. First off, the link is now busted. It goes to the grain2 page, but the title was changed. I think it would need changed to http://homedistiller.org/grain/wash-gra ... ssee_swill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow to work properly.

Thus, Dave, you need to change the text for the link to say tenn whiskey, and change the link text also. I do no see how they would have any claim whatsoever after that.

I have not looked at the 'frames', only the static menu. Just looked at the frames, and it also has the name "jack daniels" in the visible text.


H.

i always liked jim beam better anyways

Can't we just call it Charlie Daniels Sour Mash lol. bd.

Why not just take it off the site. No reason risking the site or its members for one recipe of mediocre whiskey.

I don't have a problem with a company protecting their trademark. We should not be making disparaging remarks toward any particular brand whether directly or by innuendo. The recipe should simply state "a generic style Tennessee Whiskey" without any reference to a brand or insinuation as to quality of a particular brand such as "rhymes with... or sounds like...". But that is just my opinion. The toes you step on today may be connected to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow.

Well said Scottishboy, and I agree, remove it or re-name it. If someone is that passionate about it just print it out now, I think most people on here can satisfy their own taste for better likker. MM

I agree you need to remove any inference to their name and just say Tennessee style. But I think what has them p-oed is that it says low grade, and the homemade version tastes better. Which are both true, but in their eyes they are being insulted. If the subject was written so as not to offend them, I think they might be ok with that. I had seen a history channel show about whiskey and they were in it. So the details could remain.

No need risking any kind of legal wrangling that could bring undue and unwanted attention to this site... I don't need or want to know any specific recipe that bad... I say usurp any copyright implications, as Tony has already been apprised of the situation, and remove any references to "Jack Daniels" as well as any others that may lead to similar problems... This whole scenario is rapidly becoming common, whether for actual legal reasons or just a quest for a new income stream via litigation...

What's next, a letter from the makers of Gerber and All-Bran...??? Are they going to take an "intended use" stance to get those recipes removed as well...???

EDIT:

Yikes... Just Googled "all bran recipe" and this site was #15 and for "gerber recipe" was #12... Wait, someone's at the door . . . . . . . <click>

people,

This will be addressed. I have sent UJ some changes to some of the HTML. However, I am not able to get at many of the 'raw' files needed to make other changes. However, it will be done shortly.

H.

Husker wrote:people,

This will be addressed. I have sent UJ some changes to some of the HTML. However, I am not able to get at many of the 'raw' files needed to make other changes. However, it will be done shortly.

H.

You need to get the name off the wash pull down menu also.