Labeling my and Ian Grant's anger as an anti-lomographic, snobby, fine art attitude is way off base. You know nothing about my attitudes toward photography of any kind. This anger has nothing to do with the intended uses of the film. Attempting to represent valid ethical complaints against a corporation as a supposed attack on lomography itself is vile and absurd. I am attacking the activities of a corporation, not a form/style of art.
Is labeling an E-6 film as a C-41 film with the sole purpose of pulling one over on minilabs not a lie? It is, plain and simple. A harmless lie for the labs' chemistry, but a lie nonetheless. The only difference between the film and CR 200 is that the label is a lie (and perhaps the all-important edge markings that allow Japanese photographers to be "individual"). Therefore, my use of the word lie is totally appropriate.
So, I shall make the points again, briefly, just to be extra clear (will try to be a bit more "mild" this time ):
1. Rollei Redbird is a convenience, and not unethical. Silly perhaps, but I see no harm in it.
2. Rollei Crossbird is designed to dupe mini labs, therefore I feel it is unethical and should be pulled. This is lying.
3. Rollei Redbird in bulk rolls seems incredibly nonsensical to me. (If anything, it is those Japanese people requesting it who are caught up in the pretentious world of supposed fine art photography.) No harm in it; just incredibly silly.
4. Someone's all-right's-reserved image was used without their permission by Maco Direct to promote the Redbird. This is thievery.
5. The image in question was passed off as being made on Redbird, when it was not. This is lying.