[jasondenizac]

I actually think this promotion was extremely on-brand for what this startup is (or was) doing. I can't speak to the regulatory compliance angle, but the fact is that this was clever, effective, and well-placed customer contact. It's not the risk profile that I would personally look for, but it is a little sad to see so many on HN rushing to condemn it.

We can't have nice things when people who claim to be "disruptive" are actually busy pursuing safe, risk-averse targets.

[kevinbracken]

Indeed. Our market back then was quasi-legal loft parties and house parties, so this was idea was definitely to fit the mood of the "modern speakeasy." Thanks!

[ihateloggingin]

I don't really care about ATF regulations, but there is no moral high ground here. This was just plagiarism. These people pretended to have done something that they did not do. They took credit for someone else's work.

So "we can't have nice things" here means "we can't plagiarize vodka"? Well you can't plagiarize Steven King either. Deal with it.

[bluefinity]

So, if I buy 1000 pens, and have my company name printed on them, I'm plagiarizing someone else's work? That's nonsense.

Cheap vodka is a commodity, not an art form.

[ihateloggingin]

It would be if you lied to people and told them that you made the pens.

The example you chose is deliberately one in which it would be assumed that you were not asserting authorship. Frankly, choosing that example shows you're dishonest.