Common word in different industry, no. But common word in same or similar industry. I believe that could be valid. Apple never sued Apple Orthodontics for TM infringement because they are a totally different product and industry. A classic TM troll is Monster Cable.
False accusations of copyright infringement need to be punished. The DMCA has a section about willful misrepresentation. Unfortunately that part is never enforced
The question has been brought up numerous times as to whether or not major avenues of free speech, thought and expression should have the 1st amendment applied to them. Even if the owner/ operator is a private company.
Duncanville, TX had a similar situation a while back. Fines for running a red light cost $75. 83% of these fines were right turns. Even when a full stop was made, they were fined because they crossed the white line. Which you must do to make a legal right turn. Anyway, the fine was $75. If you wanted to challenge the fine, it cost $75 to subpoena the data from the red light camera company. So, if your challenge failed, it cost you $75 for the fine and $75 for the subpoena. If your challenged succeeded, you still paid $75 for the subpoena. It was a no-win situation. Once it hit the news and the state threatened to investigate the city, Duncanville dropped the $75 subpoena fee.
Every time I see articles about CAF, I keep trying to wrap my brain around how CAF is legal. It is a blatant violation of the 14th amendment.
Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A high school student could identify the unconstitutionality of CAF. I read the case Bennis v. Michigan (1996) which opened the floodgates for this rampant abuse of legalized theft. Considering how bad it is now, I don't understand Why it has not reached the SCOTUS again with so many publicized cases of this highly unconstitutional act.
One industry which should not support extending copyright is software development and publishing. What are the odds of people still using Windows XP in 2121 or playing Quake in 2116?
Re: Re: Downward spiral -- No, it's an UPWARD spiral: you're looking at it wrong.
Countries such as France which have a "Right to be Forgotten" law are trying to extend their law globally because if they cannot, then the law is pointless because French citizens can simply go to google.com instead of google.fr. Google complied by applying the right to be forgotten to their servers in France. France was not satisfied and is continuing to fine Google per day until France's right to be forgotten law is applied to all Google servers.
If countries are allowed to push their laws globally, then this will lead to the whole internet being censored down to the strictest country's laws. US starts getting demands from Mulsim-run countries to have people who have mocked Muhammad extradited to their country for execution for their insult to Muhammad. Where will the line be drawn?
Looking back at the timeline of the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, the bill was introduced to the senate in 1997 by Orin “down the” Hatch. It was signed and enacted in October 1998. So, I have not heard a peep about extending it again. Perhaps it is already in the works, but being hidden is complete secrecy and marked as Top Secret plus a way to completely by-pass congress so that no one other than the strongest supporters know of its existence. Even more secretive that the Trans-Pacific Partnership was intended to be. In 1998, the internet was in it’s infancy. So news about the CTEA never really spread. These days, everyone would find out about it. Plus, I’m willing to bet that a vast majority of Americans have a general understanding of copyright. More than the number who protested about the TPP and Net Neutrality. So there would be more people protesting about another copyright extension. So keeping it top secret with a means to by-pass congress would not be a surprise
My digital forensics professor told us (the class) of a time he returned from the International Conference on Digital Forensics & Cyber Crime. Upon reentry, all his electronic device were confiscated. laptop, tablet, and 2 smart phones. After 4+ hours, the laptop, tablet, and one of the phones were returned. The other had to be sent to a lab for further investigation, so they said. He never received that phone back and his laptop was inoperable.
They need to start filing criminal charges for these acts. If the fine is 25 million, the legal fees are 15 million, yet they are getting 73 million from the acts, what motive is there for them to stop? The punishments need to be either criminal or fine exceeding what they gained from the fraudulent acts.
The AG of New York is trying to investigate the ID thefts involved in the FCC comments. ID theft is a crime, even if there no harm has been done to the person whose ID was fraudulently used. Pai's constant refusal to release information concerning a criminal investigation is obstruction of justice which is a criminal offense. He should be arrested.
How could such act continue to exist. It is a bleedin' obvious violation of the fifth amendment "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Why has this not reached the SCOTUS?
Looked up India telephone pole. WOW! What we need is a system like what South Korea has. A single company maintains a single network infrastructure for all data. ISP's pay the company to lease X amount of bandwidth onto the network. The ISP then offers its services to its subscribers for a fee. Other ISP's do the same thing to compete with other ISP's. Since no single ISP owns the network infrastructure, It allows a very competitive market.
When Obama's FCC passed Net Neutrality, part of it was forbidding states to pass laws of protectionism in favor of ISP's and allowing municipalities to implement their own internet infrastructure. ISP's claimed that was unconstitutional because it violated states rights. Now they are pushing for regulation doing exactly that. The difference being that this time, it is in favor of ISPs
A law firm specializing in eminent domain guarantees nothing. A border wall is public use. Plus, if it does go to court, I doubt the sole purpose of the purchase of the land to obstruct building the wall would go over very well compared to utilizing the land in some way.
On the post: Confluence Brewing Sues Confluence On 3rd, An Apartment Complex, For Trademark Infringement
Re: Stupid
On the post: Confluence Brewing Sues Confluence On 3rd, An Apartment Complex, For Trademark Infringement
On the post: Facebook Takes Down Post Critical Of Indian Film For Copyright Violation, Even Though It Was An All-Text Post
On the post: Man Sues Facebook For Moderating His Bigoted Posts, Wants Section 230 Declared Unconstitutional
On the post: Missouri Governor Sued Over His Office's Use Of Self-Destructing Communications
On the post: Ohio Appeals Court Says Speed Trap Town Must Pay Back $3 Million In Unconstitutional Speed Camera Tickets
Duncanville, TX
On the post: Dutch Approach To Asset Forfeiture Will Literally Take The Clothes Off Pedestrians' Backs
14th amendment
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A high school student could identify the unconstitutionality of CAF. I read the case Bennis v. Michigan (1996) which opened the floodgates for this rampant abuse of legalized theft. Considering how bad it is now, I don't understand Why it has not reached the SCOTUS again with so many publicized cases of this highly unconstitutional act.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Throw In The Towel On Term Extension; Admit That Maybe Copyright Is Too Long
industry support
On the post: It Took Only Three Days For Germany's New Hate Speech Law To Cause Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Downward spiral -- No, it's an UPWARD spiral: you're looking at it wrong.
On the post: It Took Only Three Days For Germany's New Hate Speech Law To Cause Collateral Damage
Re: Turn off the services in Germany, it's the only way to be sure...
On the post: It Took Only Three Days For Germany's New Hate Speech Law To Cause Collateral Damage
Downward spiral
On the post: Hopefully For The Last Time: The US Has Zero New Works Enter The Public Domain On January 1st
Where are the lobbyists?
In 1998, the internet was in it’s infancy. So news about the CTEA never really spread. These days, everyone would find out about it. Plus, I’m willing to bet that a vast majority of Americans have a general understanding of copyright. More than the number who protested about the TPP and Net Neutrality. So there would be more people protesting about another copyright extension.
So keeping it top secret with a means to by-pass congress would not be a surprise
On the post: DHS Documents Show Harassment And Intrusive Device Searches Are A Common Occurrence At US Borders
returned items at US border
On the post: Comcast Busted For Signing People Up For Services They Didn't Want, Never Asked For
Criminal charges
On the post: The Folks That Built The Internet Tell The FCC It Has No Idea How The Internet Works
Criminal charges
On the post: Judge Hands Back $92,000 Taken From Musician By Cops For Failing To Buckle His Seatbelt
Why does this still exist?
On the post: ISPs Are Already Using The FCC's Planned Net Neutrality Repeal To Harm Consumers
Re: Re: Re: More lies
On the post: Comcast Spent Millions Repealing Net Neutrality, Now Wants You To Believe It Won't Take Full, Brutal Advantage
Re: Re:
On the post: Wireless Industry Lobbies To Ban States From Protecting Your Privacy, Net Neutrality
10th amendment hypocrits
On the post: Cards Against Humanity's Trolling Of Trump's Border Wall Shows How The Internet Has Removed Gatekeepers
Re: Re: Eminent domain
Next >>