I think his "Bring it upon themselves" is more a reference of failure to adapt, rather than being the ones who brought the change into being. Basically, they brought the "current" situation on themselves by not adapting in a time that customers have many other alternatives (See Napster), and instead fought tooth and nail until they were forced to adapt (In the small ways they have to date).
Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
Actually, we have it all wrong.
SOPA/PIPA is their better business model.
First, it starts by passing these laws.
Now they have the keys to the troll gate, which means we must pay or they will eat us.
Next, they start removing things arbitrarily from the internet, until people reach a point that they are willing to pay enhanced "trollway taxes" that the industries will collect.
Once they have these in place, they will open the internet up again until they decide it is raise time. Once that happens, they will tighten their grip for their "trollway taxes", and increase the tax.
See, then they get to collect more money simply by squeezing, instead of actually having to innovate and compete.
Guess OOTB is right, they already have a better business model. So, time to bend over and pass the lube.
Of course, once the 3D printers becomes good enough, I am going to illegally download those screw drivers like mad, since I am of course a nasty pirate.
My hypothesis is they feel the need to do "something".
Heaven forbid that someone has nothing to do when nothing needs fixed.
The problem is, instead of actually doing what they should and examining the governmental services to see which ones should be removed, downsized, or adjusted to bring it in line with the world we live in, they want to keep what they have and add more so they are doing "something".
Your cynicism betrays your ignorance of the law. Trademarks only have enforceability in connection with certain goods and services. Last I checked, Kellog's did not sell goods or services associated with ancient Mayan history.
When did I say that they had the right to?
I said that they did in fact try to sue for trademark infringement.
Maybe you should learn to distinguish facts from, whatever alternative world your on.
You should also try to go tell Kellog this, since they, not me, felt it was their right to do this.
No, the problem is that you have no idea what you are talking about, and yet you think you do.
Actually, my comment in this section was on the IP industry as a whole. I have very little understanding of trademark law, which is why I make no reference to it. I know more about patent law because my company deals with hardware manufacturing, so patents becomes a very sensitive issue.
So I have no clue that Kellog tried this? Please go read the
"facts" again, because they did indeed try this.
The only thing that's stupid in this conversation is your belief that owning a trademark in a color entitled one to exclude all actors in every industry from using the color. Perhaps if you decided to learn more about why trademark rights were given to colors in the past, you would understand when and why it is appropriate to give such rights to companies such as Cadbury, Tiffany's and Owens-Corning.
Tell that to all the other companies who have tried to abuse this right. Again, I said that IP had repeatedly been abused. Do you really need me to point you to all the cases of this? I could care less if it's trademark, patent, or copyright IP, because all have been abused over and over, so forgive me if I take anything around IP on faith that there will be no harm, no foul. Maybe you should go read up on Kellog Vs. MAI again....
You are falling down the logical fallacy of a slippery slope. You have no evidence pointing to the trademarking of colors becoming a hinderance on society, nor do you have any idea as to whether it will happen ad infinitum. If and when the trademarking of colors becomes abusive, we will deal with it then. In the meantime, your fears are unjustified.
This, sadly, is an opinion. Like assholes, we all have one, and they all stink. I fear any IP that is overgeneral. You can say my fears are unjustified, but given abuses from all IP areas, I feel that you are wrong. Guess we will have to disagree on this.
Please feel free to highlight where exactly I say anything about trademark. As you may note in my above explanation to Willton, I was not discussing any laws, I was just giving more examples of the original posters "Turtles vs. Cadbury".
As for trademark laws, please tell me where exactly I use trademark laws in my argument. The closest I come is generally stating that issues like this makes people like me start questioning the entire IP environment: Copyright, Patent, and Trademark.
If you want to discuss if prior art and trademark should even be in the same category, feel free to go discuss with the one who originally put them there.
Just think of me as that ignorant public that is just expanding on others ideas, when I know something about their original ideas, but may not have a clue if their idea was properly placed or not. That is why I specifically do not comment on the law itself other then to share my views on how me, as the public, feels in regards to them. After all, it is my understanding that laws are put in place to protect the general public, correct?
Actually, I was not spreading anything.
If you read whom I was originally posting for, it was the remark about prior art.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I have a wish to be. I do not distinguish between patent, copyright, and trademark when I am merely replying to someone who claimed that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles came after Cadbury as part of an argument about something, and fail to understand that something was in use way before that.
If you want to go argue where prior art fits into laws, go argue with someone who is talking about laws and where they fit into what, not someone who is merely giving more examples of the original posters "prior art".
Ahh, just like colorful toucan birds must obviously represent Fruit Loops, and woe betide any other company that uses a toucan bird, even if it is for ancient Mayan archives.
The problem is not an isolated incident, that is why it is a problem.
Just because something has been done doesn't mean that it is not stupid, it just means others have made stupid decisions in the past.
See, that is the core problem, not that companies do not deserve protection, but that their protection mechanisms will at some point get abused, as we have seen over and over and over...Ad infinitum, at which point it is no longer a benefit for society, but instead a hindrance.
“Good afternoon. I am Herbert, from the hospital legal department. As you know, we must complete the registration and licensing for your new daughter before you will be allowed to take her home.”
The woman shot her husband a slightly alarmed look.
“I don't understand. I just want to see my baby. What is all this about licensing and registration? You make her sound like a bag of groceries.”
“Not at all,” replied the lawyer. “As you know, companies own the rights to several patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Since you chose to infringe upon these, you must license your daughter with the appropriate companies. Otherwise, your daughter will be infringing, and we will have to hand her over so they may recoup their costs.”
Horror crept over the husbands face. “That is absurd!”
“However,” said Herbert, a slightly annoyed look creeping over his face, “The law is the law, and we must follow it.”
Herbert reviewed the chart the doctor handed to him and proceeded to take out a few selected papers from his briefcase.
“Now this company owns the XX chromosome pair. Please sign here.”
He handed the papers over to the couple, and the husband hesitantly took it and, after reviewing it, signed.
“It appears that your daughter was born with blond hair and green eyes. This company currently holds the trademark on ‘Blond’, and this company owns the trademark on ‘green’. Please sign here and here.”
After signing, Herbert continued reviewing the characteristics and picking out the appropriate licensing contracts.
After reviewing papers for the next two hours, it appeared everything was done.
“So, it appears we have licensing in place for almost everything. What will you name her?”
The husband and wife looked at each other. “Ashley,” the husband replied.
“Very good,” said the lawyer. “That is a good name, and we have good licensing terms with that company. Here is the company who owns the trademark for that.”
After all was completed, and their new daughter, Ashley, was fully licensed and registered, the nurse handed the baby to the mother.
“The total licensing fees come to $1,357,482. How would you like to pay for that?”
Sorry, I was just trying to make an interesting (original creation given freely) short story up about life with an IP provider regulated internet to help bring a creative way of showing what some of us worry about, not argue for copyright law!
1
: the act or process of reproducing; specifically : the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new individual 2
: something reproduced : copy
3
: young seedling trees in a forest
Try to keep up with the language if you want to discuss it.
Making a copy for your own use, as stated in that "Warning", is illegal.
It does not say "Reproduce and distribute", it says, quite clearly, OR, which could also include multiple items, such as reproducing and distributing.
TEXT: Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes or video discs. Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by the FBI and may constitute a felony with a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine.
So, did you, the individual, get permission from the studio to copy those DVDs you own?
Good afternoon. It appears, according to our records, you have attempted to access sites outside your current service subscription.
You are not currently subscribed to the category /gemstones/.
The cursor silently blinked at him, awaiting his input should he decide to answer the telecom customer service agent. Continued attempts to reach unauthorized sites will result in additional fees, and possible account suspension.
Do you understand this?
Yes / No
His mouse hovered over the options. Should he even bother clicking? Did it even matter? It would not stop them from penalizing him for going to websites outside his subscription plan.
Finally, in frustration, he clicked yes. Thank you for your support. Please feel free to review your subscription sites at the customer portal.
It was all so frustrating. He only wanted to visit a site for engagement rings, but since he had not bought that package, the company would not allow him to go to sites selling them.
Well, it appeared he had no choice left. He would need to add the /gemstones/ category to his current subscription plan. Please enter the new subscription details.
Gemstones.
Processing.
The new subscription category /gemstones/ has been added to your plan.
Thank you for using our service.
Search: Ring. Princess cut. Diamond. Platinum. Good afternoon. It appears, according to our records, you have attempted to access sites outside your current service subscription.
You are not currently subscribed to the category /precious metals/.
Continued attempts to reach unauthorized sites will result in additional fees, and possible account suspension.
Do you understand this?
Yes / No
He clicked yes, and, unwilling to be defeated, subscribed to the /precious metals/ category.
Search: Ring. Princess cut. Diamond. Platinum.
The rings rolled across his screen, searching for the perfect one for his soon to be fiancé.
Finally, the perfect one was found...
Disheartened, the young man rose from his terminal and walked away, no longer having the money now to buy the ring anyways.
On the post: Ex-RIAA Boss Ignores All Criticisim Of SOPA/PIPA, Claims Any Complaints Are Trying To Justify Stealing
Re: Re:
Poor word choice, but I understand what he means.
On the post: Ex-RIAA Boss Ignores All Criticisim Of SOPA/PIPA, Claims Any Complaints Are Trying To Justify Stealing
Re: Re: Re: SOPA
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL, but feel free to right click and save as...
On the post: Ex-RIAA Boss Ignores All Criticisim Of SOPA/PIPA, Claims Any Complaints Are Trying To Justify Stealing
Re: Re: "Thinking analog" might actually work
Because, you would have to be in the right region, or else you could hand her the $20 and still not get her CD/Book/DVD.
So, I will go with AC on this one. Or else you need to broaden that to "$20, in the right place, at the right time".
On the post: Ex-RIAA Boss Ignores All Criticisim Of SOPA/PIPA, Claims Any Complaints Are Trying To Justify Stealing
Re: Re: OKAY, what is this "better business model"?
SOPA/PIPA is their better business model.
First, it starts by passing these laws.
Now they have the keys to the troll gate, which means we must pay or they will eat us.
Next, they start removing things arbitrarily from the internet, until people reach a point that they are willing to pay enhanced "trollway taxes" that the industries will collect.
Once they have these in place, they will open the internet up again until they decide it is raise time. Once that happens, they will tighten their grip for their "trollway taxes", and increase the tax.
See, then they get to collect more money simply by squeezing, instead of actually having to innovate and compete.
Guess OOTB is right, they already have a better business model. So, time to bend over and pass the lube.
On the post: Ex-RIAA Boss Ignores All Criticisim Of SOPA/PIPA, Claims Any Complaints Are Trying To Justify Stealing
Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
The industries are still making money...
So, we still do not see why something needs "fixed".
On the post: Ex-RIAA Boss Ignores All Criticisim Of SOPA/PIPA, Claims Any Complaints Are Trying To Justify Stealing
Re:
Maybe I should change my name to "Pirate John".
On the post: Ex-RIAA Boss Ignores All Criticisim Of SOPA/PIPA, Claims Any Complaints Are Trying To Justify Stealing
Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,
So, I want to start a business too.
My rules?
I don't want to have to work, but I want to have buckets of money thrown at me.
None of that fancy "risk vs. reward" stuff, just money coming in because I want it to.
So, who has my business model?
I expect to see it in 1 week, and 100% garenteed.
On the post: If You Want To Better Understand SOPA & PIPA, Here's An Article To Read
Re: Govts seek More, always...
Heaven forbid that someone has nothing to do when nothing needs fixed.
The problem is, instead of actually doing what they should and examining the governmental services to see which ones should be removed, downsized, or adjusted to bring it in line with the world we live in, they want to keep what they have and add more so they are doing "something".
On the post: The Color Purple... Trademarked Again
Re: Re: Re: Cadbury is not alone
When did I say that they had the right to?
I said that they did in fact try to sue for trademark infringement.
Maybe you should learn to distinguish facts from, whatever alternative world your on.
You should also try to go tell Kellog this, since they, not me, felt it was their right to do this.
No, the problem is that you have no idea what you are talking about, and yet you think you do.
Actually, my comment in this section was on the IP industry as a whole. I have very little understanding of trademark law, which is why I make no reference to it. I know more about patent law because my company deals with hardware manufacturing, so patents becomes a very sensitive issue.
So I have no clue that Kellog tried this? Please go read the
"facts" again, because they did indeed try this.
The only thing that's stupid in this conversation is your belief that owning a trademark in a color entitled one to exclude all actors in every industry from using the color. Perhaps if you decided to learn more about why trademark rights were given to colors in the past, you would understand when and why it is appropriate to give such rights to companies such as Cadbury, Tiffany's and Owens-Corning.
Tell that to all the other companies who have tried to abuse this right. Again, I said that IP had repeatedly been abused. Do you really need me to point you to all the cases of this? I could care less if it's trademark, patent, or copyright IP, because all have been abused over and over, so forgive me if I take anything around IP on faith that there will be no harm, no foul. Maybe you should go read up on Kellog Vs. MAI again....
You are falling down the logical fallacy of a slippery slope. You have no evidence pointing to the trademarking of colors becoming a hinderance on society, nor do you have any idea as to whether it will happen ad infinitum. If and when the trademarking of colors becomes abusive, we will deal with it then. In the meantime, your fears are unjustified.
This, sadly, is an opinion. Like assholes, we all have one, and they all stink. I fear any IP that is overgeneral. You can say my fears are unjustified, but given abuses from all IP areas, I feel that you are wrong. Guess we will have to disagree on this.
On the post: The Color Purple... Trademarked Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for trademark laws, please tell me where exactly I use trademark laws in my argument. The closest I come is generally stating that issues like this makes people like me start questioning the entire IP environment: Copyright, Patent, and Trademark.
If you want to discuss if prior art and trademark should even be in the same category, feel free to go discuss with the one who originally put them there.
Just think of me as that ignorant public that is just expanding on others ideas, when I know something about their original ideas, but may not have a clue if their idea was properly placed or not. That is why I specifically do not comment on the law itself other then to share my views on how me, as the public, feels in regards to them. After all, it is my understanding that laws are put in place to protect the general public, correct?
On the post: The Color Purple... Trademarked Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you read whom I was originally posting for, it was the remark about prior art.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I have a wish to be. I do not distinguish between patent, copyright, and trademark when I am merely replying to someone who claimed that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles came after Cadbury as part of an argument about something, and fail to understand that something was in use way before that.
If you want to go argue where prior art fits into laws, go argue with someone who is talking about laws and where they fit into what, not someone who is merely giving more examples of the original posters "prior art".
So take your FUD and stick it up your....
On the post: The Color Purple... Trademarked Again
Re: Cadbury is not alone
The problem is not an isolated incident, that is why it is a problem.
Just because something has been done doesn't mean that it is not stupid, it just means others have made stupid decisions in the past.
See, that is the core problem, not that companies do not deserve protection, but that their protection mechanisms will at some point get abused, as we have seen over and over and over...Ad infinitum, at which point it is no longer a benefit for society, but instead a hindrance.
On the post: The Color Purple... Trademarked Again
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And people wonder why society is starting to look at IP protectionism as joke, rather than as a solution to anything.
On the post: The Color Purple... Trademarked Again
Re: Re:
There is also natural phenomena that take on the color purple. (Frogs, Eggplants, Grass, etc)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple
In fact, purple was widely used in historical times for royalty:
http://pffc-online.com/mag/paper_history_shellfish_royalty/
http://blog.aurorahistorybout ique.com/origins-of-the-royal-color-purple/
Cadbury fails in first use and association.
On the post: The Color Purple... Trademarked Again
Story Time
The woman shot her husband a slightly alarmed look.
“I don't understand. I just want to see my baby. What is all this about licensing and registration? You make her sound like a bag of groceries.”
“Not at all,” replied the lawyer. “As you know, companies own the rights to several patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Since you chose to infringe upon these, you must license your daughter with the appropriate companies. Otherwise, your daughter will be infringing, and we will have to hand her over so they may recoup their costs.”
Horror crept over the husbands face. “That is absurd!”
“However,” said Herbert, a slightly annoyed look creeping over his face, “The law is the law, and we must follow it.”
Herbert reviewed the chart the doctor handed to him and proceeded to take out a few selected papers from his briefcase.
“Now this company owns the XX chromosome pair. Please sign here.”
He handed the papers over to the couple, and the husband hesitantly took it and, after reviewing it, signed.
“It appears that your daughter was born with blond hair and green eyes. This company currently holds the trademark on ‘Blond’, and this company owns the trademark on ‘green’. Please sign here and here.”
After signing, Herbert continued reviewing the characteristics and picking out the appropriate licensing contracts.
After reviewing papers for the next two hours, it appeared everything was done.
“So, it appears we have licensing in place for almost everything. What will you name her?”
The husband and wife looked at each other. “Ashley,” the husband replied.
“Very good,” said the lawyer. “That is a good name, and we have good licensing terms with that company. Here is the company who owns the trademark for that.”
After all was completed, and their new daughter, Ashley, was fully licensed and registered, the nurse handed the baby to the mother.
“The total licensing fees come to $1,357,482. How would you like to pay for that?”
On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP
Re: Re:
Wait, this isn't about my long post. Nevermind.
Carry on.
On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try to keep up with the language if you want to discuss it.
Making a copy for your own use, as stated in that "Warning", is illegal.
It does not say "Reproduce and distribute", it says, quite clearly, OR, which could also include multiple items, such as reproducing and distributing.
It's the language. Deal with it.
On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, did you, the individual, get permission from the studio to copy those DVDs you own?
On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP
Story Time
You are not currently subscribed to the category /gemstones/.
The cursor silently blinked at him, awaiting his input should he decide to answer the telecom customer service agent.
Continued attempts to reach unauthorized sites will result in additional fees, and possible account suspension.
Do you understand this?
Yes / No
His mouse hovered over the options. Should he even bother clicking? Did it even matter? It would not stop them from penalizing him for going to websites outside his subscription plan.
Finally, in frustration, he clicked yes.
Thank you for your support. Please feel free to review your subscription sites at the customer portal.
It was all so frustrating. He only wanted to visit a site for engagement rings, but since he had not bought that package, the company would not allow him to go to sites selling them.
Well, it appeared he had no choice left. He would need to add the /gemstones/ category to his current subscription plan.
Please enter the new subscription details.
Gemstones.
Processing.
The new subscription category /gemstones/ has been added to your plan.
Thank you for using our service.
Search: Ring. Princess cut. Diamond. Platinum.
Good afternoon. It appears, according to our records, you have attempted to access sites outside your current service subscription.
You are not currently subscribed to the category /precious metals/.
Continued attempts to reach unauthorized sites will result in additional fees, and possible account suspension.
Do you understand this?
Yes / No
He clicked yes, and, unwilling to be defeated, subscribed to the /precious metals/ category.
Search: Ring. Princess cut. Diamond. Platinum.
The rings rolled across his screen, searching for the perfect one for his soon to be fiancé.
Finally, the perfect one was found...
Disheartened, the young man rose from his terminal and walked away, no longer having the money now to buy the ring anyways.
Next >>