Re: Copyrights, Trademarks, Patents, and branding irons
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:33 pm
Prenda's John Steele hit with state bar complaint. Took a long time to get here, but it's thorough.
Hold on to your butts.
Thad wrote:Republican presidential candidate plays song without permission; bears continue to shit in woods.
I'll say one thing for Biden: I really don't see him violating any RIAA copyrights.
zaratustra wrote:Thad wrote:I'll say one thing for Biden: I really don't see him violating any RIAA copyrights.
beeecaaaause democrats are RIAA's besties?
zaratustra wrote:Really, if republicans said something, ANYTHING about copyright law reform EVER, they could get some traction with the younger generations. But apparently, Big Government is only ever bad because abortions and health care.
There is a strong conservative case to be made against modern American copyright law: it's a big-government handout to Hollywood that grants artificial monopolies, interferes with the free market, stifles innovation, and is clearly not what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution.
Mongrel wrote:Yelp is trying to sue South Park over their Yelp episode.“Our company, along with its millions of users, take Yelp very seriously. The South Park episode was in extremely bad taste and not funny whatsoever. To say our critics are out there trying to get free food and using racist slurs on little Mexican children is beyond ridiculous. To compare the users of Yelp to terrorists is not only cruel, but the definition of libel and slander. I believe any reasonable court in America will agree with the lawsuit and rule in our favor.”
Matt Stone and Trey Parker, creators of the popular animated series, were quick to issue a statement of their own.
“We’ve taken a hard look at the information presented to us, and after reviewing it, we have given Yelp and their lawsuit only one star. Their lawyers delivered us legal documents in a very unprofessional manner; not bothering to smile or even a quick handshake. The writing on the envelope was barely legible and in two different colors. It is our personal opinion that Yelp could do a much better job by not suing us for ten million dollars.”
EDIT: Also from the same article:According to Business Week, Yelp has a complicated relationship with small businesses. Criticism regarding the company focuses on the legitimacy of reviews, public statements of Yelp manipulating and blocking reviews in order to increase ad spending, as well as concerns regarding the privacy of reviewers.
Fappy The Anti-Masturbation Dolphin, a mascot for a Christian anti-masturbation organization, says the company is losing business because of Yelp reviewers.
“Before being listed on Yelp we had no problem going around the country speaking to elementary school children about the dangers and consequences of masturbation. Now, with our poor reviews on Yelp, people are beginning to question our morals and ethics, like that is so important. Just because I have been arrested three times for public masturbation and each case was pardoned by the Governor, doesn’t mean our federal funding and government support had anything to do with it. With the assumptions made by Yelp reviewers, they are causing deadly self-rape addictions in this country to continue and in the end it is Big Masturbation that wins. Such a shame.”
Pretty sure NBC just got got?
EDIT2: No wait. .co
I just got got.
O'Grady hasn't yet published his full opinion, but a two-page order (PDF) published Thursday makes it clear that he doesn't believe Cox is protected by the DMCA. "There is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants reasonably implemented a repeat-infringer policy" as required by the law, O'Grady wrote. How the judge reached that conclusion matters a great deal. When he publishes his full opinion, it will be scrutinized closely by copyright lawyers and tech companies.
"Here, the debtor has a pattern and practice of dishonesty with the courts," US Bankruptcy Judge Kathleen Sanberg said during the Thursday hearing. She ordered Hansmeier to convert his Chapter 13 (wage earner's plan) bankruptcy filing to a Chapter 7 (liquidation). Under Chapter 13, Hansmeier could have paid his creditors much more slowly.
"This case was designed for one purpose only, to thwart the collection efforts of debtors," the judge added. "It was not because the debtor now wants to pay creditors in full."
It's hard to say what the effect of this will be. The case does not mean that Rightscorp's demand letters (or letters from others) have to be passed on to ISPs' customers, and that's important because Rightscorp has admitted that unless the big ISPs agree to do this, it will go bankrupt.
The verdict means that Cox -- and other ISPs -- have to have some means of terminating "repeat infringers" and that "infringers" doesn't mean, "someone convicted of infringement." It may mean as little as "someone accused of infringement," but if the ruling stands, it'll probably land somewhere between those two poles. "Repeat accusations" would be very bad news, because as we've seen, rightsholders are happy to commit knowing copyfraud and sloppy, inadvertent copyfraud, so giving them the ability to sever people from the 21st century's nervous system on their mere say-so is a stupid, terrible idea.
The verdict will almost certainly be appealed. There was an early, unprecedented summary judgment holding that Cox couldn't use the DMCA's safe harbor provisions that is a likely source of appeal. There's also the possibility of an appeal based on the judge's instructions to the jury -- the judge having established himself as extremely hostile to the idea of safe harbor early in the case.
Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that copyright holders like Universal must consider fair use before trying to remove content from the Internet. It also rejected Universal’s claim that a victim of takedown abuse cannot vindicate her rights if she cannot show actual monetary loss.
“Today’s ruling sends a strong message that copyright law does not authorize thoughtless censorship of lawful speech,” said EFF Legal Director Corynne McSherry. “We’re pleased that the court recognized that ignoring fair use rights makes content holders liable for damages.”
Senator HAWKINS. Well, I might tell you that if you were to go in a toy store — which is very educational for fathers, by the way; it is not a maternal responsibility to buy toys for children — that you may look on the box and the box says, this is suitable for 5 to 7 years of age, or 8 to 15, or 15 and above, to give you some guidance for a toy for a child.
Do you object to that?
Mr. ZAPPA. In a way I do, because that means that somebody in an office someplace is making a decision about how smart my child is.
Certainly, I find both prohibitions to be offensive under the First Amendment, but I can at least emotionally (if not Constitutionally) get on board with the government wanting to put its fingers on the scales of justice when it comes to opposing racism. But, as the In re Tam case shows us, when the government tries to do that, it usually does so with all the grace and logic of a Chris Farley character. Nevertheless, give them credit for good intentions.
On the other hand, the prohibition on "immoral and scandalous" trademarks was nothing more than a neo-Comstock attempt to legislate morality and to suppress sexual speech at the to serve illegitimate goals. One of my favorite law review articles ever was by Steve Russell, writing about the Communications Decency Act. He wrote:By trying to regulate obscenity and indecency on the Internet, you have reduced the level of expression allowed consenting adults to that of the most anal retentive blueballed fuckhead U.S. attorney in the country. (source)
Every time I got a Section 2(a) rejection under the immoral and scandalous clause, I heard those words in my head, replacing "U.S. Attorney" with "trademark examiner." Today, perhaps, those examiners can go listen to Louie Louie, see if they find naughty words in it, and go whine to the FBI about it.