Ironic That Xerox Wants Laws To Break The Copying Machine On The Internet
from the things-change... dept
We've already discussed the list of companies that have come out in favor of censoring the internet via domain name seizures and laws like COICA which extend the ability to censor the web through breaking the basic DNS system. As some pointed out, one of the names on the list that really stood out was Xerox, who signed on because it wants to crack down on those selling counterfeit Xerox parts. However, given Xerox's history as the leading purveyor of machines that copy stuff -- which set off a massive rethink of copyright laws, you would think the company wouldn't be so eager to pin onerous new regulations on the "copy machine" that is the internet.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: coica, copyright, domain seizures
Companies: xerox
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Trademark vs Copyright
Sounds like Xerox only cares about the Trademark (and potentially Patent) infringement cases here, which is primarily what "counterfeit goods" infringe. The Trademark laws are generally designed help consumers identify authenticity from a given company, and give those companies some way to make sure their customers are not confused, so this is a pro-consumer concept.
A digital copy of a digital work is identical (for all intents and purposes) to the original, and often times better than the original (no nag messages, better interoperability, etc.) - so more strict digital copyright law is essentially anti-consumer in that regard.
Why must they lump all this into one act/bill that must be swallowed all at once?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trademark vs Copyright
Same as those lists of talking points that jump from talking about poisonous counterfeit medication from china to talking about people downloading movies.
It is forging a link, and just like blacksmithing it requires repeated blows with a heavy hammer to bend into shape.
So here we have Xerox, a company that is rightfully worried about bad counterfeit parts (which damage their reputation by being shoddy even more then they damage Xerox's bottom line by being from another supplier), getting bound up with a bunch of content producers who want to have free reign to treat everyone like criminals.
It is regrettable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trademark vs Copyright
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You're new here, aren't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trademark vs Copyright
The Tricking the Consumer case is the one people would obviously agree is bad (if I want to buy an original Cisco part, it damn better be an actual Cisco part).
The Unlicensed Copy case (where the consumer does know it is a copy from a different manufacturer) I would say is more similar to the Digital Copy-Infringement, which the poster above classified as being seen as "benign/good" for most people.
The confusion here is that not only are people lumping "counterfeiting" with several other things, but also that "counterfeiting" itself is also a lump of at least two different situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trademark vs Copyright
I stand by the statement. People generally want what they are paying for. A bottle of CocaCola had better contain CocaCola, not BobsCola, and so on, and no one likes to be tricked.
yes, there is a smallish subclass of things, purses, some designer clothing and accessories where counterfeits have something of a positive reputation simply because it creates a broader price point, but in those situations the consumer usually knows that they are purchasing an unauthorized product (at a lower price) and would not be so accepting if they were being tricked instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP laws are good...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Such Thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Such Thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Such Thing
That is Seriously FU©«#% UP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No Such Thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Such Thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No Such Thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No Such Thing
Denial much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They Don't Care
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]