Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow .... talk about off topic....
"As for copyright abolitionist versus copyright destructionist, I will start using the former when people who use the term "copyright maximalist" begin using the term more carefully to point out that the term is applicable only to an extremely small minority."
I see your point, but at the same time I think it is useful to have a term that highlights the fact that support of the current copyright term is practically an extremist position. As I see it a moderate position is to support 10-25 years of protection if you view copyright as something that is supposed to maximise the public good, and no longer than lifelong protection if you view it as a natural right. So I think I take "maximalist" less literally than you do and think of it more as one end of the spectrum (excluding the few people who are completely nuts and want eternal copyright).
Feel free to provide suggestions if you can think of a good word that also encapsulates this feeling of taking an extreme position.
Btw. I think Mike Masnick used the word in the more literal/strict sense, but then again I don't think he used it to describe anything else than the extremely small group of people whose views I call nuts above.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow .... talk about off topic....
Whether it's four or six generations doesn't really change the fact that year 2140 is an unimaginable science fiction society to us living who live in the year of 2009, but except from that you are probably right about the length of generations.
"Probably because in the copyright destructionist viewpoint, or what appears to be the copyright destructionist viewpoint, there are two kinds of people in the world: those evil and vile people who want 'forever and a day' and nice, kind, good, right-thinking people who want the total elimination of copyright."
I have almost never came across that view. There is lots of frustration with all the conservative people who have never really thought through the implications of today's copyright system, but those who have a more informed opinion, like yourself, are practically always met with respect in my experience. I don't think it is primarily the pirates who polarize the debate, but rather the media and conservative people who try to accentuate the conflict and make it easier for themselves by painting it all in black and white. In fact, if you are a supporter of copyright I think the only way to save it long-term is to try to make the system more well-balanced (strive for "optimal societal benefit" as you put it). Btw. I think "copyright abolitionist" is a more neutral term for describing those who want to get rid of copyright.
The only thing that really makes me doubtful about my support for (a shorter) copyright are the attacks on civil liberties carried out in the name of copyright enforcement. Those negative side-effects have to be taken into consideration too when you evaluate the societal benefits.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow .... talk about off topic....
"(1) 130 years, while long, is not "pretty much...forever." Long time yes, but not even a miniscule fraction of forever."
Any finite number is a miniscule fraction of an infinite number. However, that doesn't change the fact that 130 years corresponds to 5-6 generations, so from a more antropocentric perspective (which I think is reasonable in this case), I stand by more previous description.
"(2) There is a TON of building on prior works. 3,000 recorded versions of "Yesterday" prove that it happens. Of course, 2,999 versions still FAIL to be innovative over the original, but that is irrelevant."
Are those 3,000 versions legally recorded you mean? I think that's just a miniscule fraction of the total number of recorded versions of "Yesterday" (I have recorded one myself too btw). I think there are lots of innovative versions. A better example of a common song with many nice innovative interpretations is perhaps "Over the rainbow".
"3) [...] I personally think copyright is excessive. I think 14 to 20 years, maybe even 10, would be more appropriate"
I'm not sure why you're feeling like you are being lumped together with maximalists if you want to restrict the copyright term to 10-20 years. That's about a sevenfold decrease compared to what it is today. I would call you a strong supporter for copyright reform. My own idea about copyright reform is quite similar to yours. And I think there are actually many members of the pirate party here in Sweden that feels the same way but joined the party in order to fight for civil liberties and against mass-surveilance and wire-tapping laws. In fact the term "pirate" is nowadays somewhat ambigious. If you join the pirate party in order to stand up for civil liberties and reduce the copyright term (to say 15-20 years) but do not file-share yourself, are you then a pirate? Difficult to say.
I think you failed to adress Mr. Masnick's point. His argument was that you do not automatically own what which you produce ("sweat of the brow" fallacy). Labour does not imply ownership - if labour to plant a tree in my neighbour's garden I cannot claim ownership over the fruits since I don't own the land. If you support the theory of homesteading then labour can sometimes be an indication of ownership, but it is not the fundamental reason why something is regarded as owned. Most often ownership over something is explained by you owning the parts with which it was assembled/constructed or by contracts with other people. Mutual contracts do not suffice to create a copyright system though since they are not transitive and hence do not apply to people not part of the agreement.
Of course one can still argue for the preservation of copyright laws, but it's hard to escape the fact that it's basically a utilitarian system - restricting the freedom to spread and use certain cultural expressions in order to promote a public good.
Personally I don't have any problem with limited parts of our legislation being influenced by such utilitarian ideas as long as no single individual's rights is seriously violated. However, with a copyright protection that can last up to 130-150 years I think it's quite clear that there are no marginal benefits in terms of increased incentives to create whatsoever. Surely such a system cannot even be described as being for the public good. The first thing we need to do is the shorten the copyright terms.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow .... talk about off topic....
Ok, let's try to get some perspective on this. If I write a song today it would be protected until the time my grandchild's grandchild's first grandchild is born at around year 2140. Looking back historically instead, one of my favourite authors, whose books are still protected by copyright, was born at the time the railways were introduced here in the late 1850's. During just two copyright terms you go from early industrialisation to a future that would look like science fiction to us.
Even without the silly talk about "forever minus a day", if you view the current copyright term from a human perspective it pretty much lasts forever. I mean, can you even imagine how people will live their lives in the year of 2140? Will we manage not to destroy our planet through pollution and wars? Will we have started to colonize other planets? What will the living standard, technology and economy look like? It's almost impossible to imagine.
I think it's quite fair to call the copyright regime of today and its supporters maximalistic. It's not a pejorative term, just descriptive.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow .... talk about off topic....
This reminds me of when a friend of mine sent emails to political parties in my country and asked about their views on copyright terms. One response was that "The fact that Shakespeare's and Mozart's works are enjoyed still today illustrates why we need a long copyright term".
Btw. do all these Shakespeare school play "mashups" indicate to you in any way that there could be some benefit of having works in the public domain?
And many people enjoy music that's many hundred years old. Should that music be protected too according to your argument since there is still a public demand?
I view it like this: copyright is the way the public pays for the perceived benefit of getting access to more culture. If we pay too little, then assuming that money is the primary motivation and there is a lack of alternative busines models, less great works would be produced. But if we pay too much, then works will be unnecessarily restricted and that will be bad for culture too (eg. new artists will not be able to build upon the works of earlier artists). If I write a song today, that song will be protected by copyright for around 130 years. The marginal benefit for me at 130 years protection is close to zero, while the marginal damage to society in terms of the work being less accessible doesn't decrease as much over time (assuming that the work remains popular).
Why should the public pay more than necessary by granting overly restrictive access control to creators?
You mean like you can't enjoy it? Like you can't buy a copy, like you can't watch the movie, or listen to the music? No, the only thing that it is locked up from is from people like you copyring it for free, giving it away, and duplicating it for yourself and others.
Lawrence Lessig often mention the example of documentary films. They commonly consists of hundreds of clips from different sources and the producer often secured just a time limited right to use them (like a couple of years). If you want to release such a documentary film the transaction costs in trying to resecure the rights is often so big that it's often impossible to use the works today, assuming that you can even find the rights holders. See wikipedia on tragedy of the anticommons.
That's one example. But the most serious problem is of course the copyright term. Can you believe it that one of my favourite authors where born in the late 1850's and her works are still copyright protected. If copyright is a matter of personal rights to the works that you produce, then how can dead people enjoy the copyright to works? And if it's not, then what good does it do to society to have such a system?
There is no such thing as fair use in Sweden. I mean, we of course have exemptions from copyright for quoting text, but other than that and the fact that there seems to be some tolerance for satire (although I doubt that there is actually any basis for that in the law) the laws are very strict. The main reason we still manage is that we're not a very litigious people.
Works that are protected by the full copyright (life+70 years) need to reach a certain standard in order to be protected by the law. However, recorded works like movies and music don't have any such requirement. So if you make a very strict interpretation of the law here even a very short clip would be covered by copyright and represent an infringement unless you have the permission of the rights holder to publish it.
It's interesting how this relates to file-sharing via bittorrent btw. I suspect that if you share an e-book then someone would need to prove that those exact pieces of the book that you shared meet the standard needed to be covered by copyright. But if you share an audio book in the same way the proof burden is much lighter since every piece that you share is copyrighted (assuming that it's big enough to be unique for the song at least).
Re: Piracy, Stealing, Theft, Evil, Greed, and other emotional descriptors
Another point here that the Anonymous Coward didn't mention is that there are different kinds of information. The most basic division is between published and unpublished - in the sense of "is this information available to everyone?". If you release a book it's published. If you write a diary it's normally not published.
Just because some people mean that deliberately published works in digital form should be free to share for noncommercial purposes that doesn't mean that those people want to remove your control over what information to publish and what to keep private (like your credit card number of your diary).
Is it the negotiators or the people in their countries? If there's a discrepancy between what those two want then that is a democratic problem and some transparency would help, no?
When representatives of the people want to hide things because the public wouldn't approve if they knew the details then something has really gone bad with democracy.
People making copies for themselves is not a problem for the industry. However, the copyright industry will never support an exemption in the anti-circumvention laws for the purpose of making private copies. There are two reasons for this:
1) If people could break the protections legally the industry would perceive that as increasing the risks of unprotected works being spread on the internet (since the source supply would be greater). This doesn't make much sense of course, but I think it's the way they think about it.
2) If people are allowed to break the protection in order to make copies for personal use, then it's difficult to argue that the tools used to break the protection should be illegal. After all, how can a tool be illegal if it has significant legal use?
The industry will always act as to maintain as much unclearity of how the laws should be interpreted as possible (if it's to their advantage), while at the same time minimizing bad publicity. For that reason I think it's difficult to draw conclusions about how they view the laws from their behaviour.
Kind of reminds me of when one of the biggest tabloids here in Sweden tried to interview the leader of our most famous union about a recently revealed scandal. After they had published the paper it however turned out that the woman on the photo of the article and who seemed very dismissive and unwilling to comment on the whole story (for natural reasons it would turn out) was a completely different person who just happened to live nearby the union leader. This mistake was of course deeply embarrasing for the tabloid and I listened to a radio interview with a representative for the newspaper afterwards. He said that of course they "unpublished" the article as soon as they found out.
He was probably referring to the internet version of the article - the paper was already out everywhere. Still I found it very interesting to hear a person at a newspaper believe that it's possible to "unpublish" something. To me it seems just as impossible as "untelling" a secret or "unbreaking" a wase.
I find it strange that the court views this in a different manner than in the Pirate Bay case where running the tracker was one of the three parts for which they were found guilty.
I hope someone will post the court's protocol. It would be interesting to see how they motivate this decision.
It's a bit ironic that the Chinese government refers to censorship as "harmonization" (actions that restore "harmony"). I believe it was mentioned in this interesting presentation about internet censorship in developing countries.
"You can't both have protection and totally give your stuff away. They want the income and protection that comes from TONO, but they don't want to play the game."
If the Norweigian situation is anything like what it is in their neighbour country and my home country Sweden then it's not possible to specify the protection per song. Rather you have the choice between transferring the economical rights to all yours songs to the collecting society or get nothing at all for any song.
Maybe it's time for TONO and other collecting societies to become more flexible, wouldn't you say?
I really like this post and believe there's a lot of truth in what you say (being involved in a quite narrow music segment myself). "Fractalization" is a useful term indeed.
The reason why we see some stars in each segment and on each level is not only because some artists are more talented than others and appeal to more people. It's also because of the social importance of sharing experiences and tastes with other people. It is a matter of how personal identity is formed.
At the same time as we have the globalisation which on the surface seems to lead to a more homogeneous culture we also see a technical development that makes it easier for individuals with similar interests and tastes to find each other and form groups and subcultures. So overall I don't think we will see this shift to homogenization because of that.
It's also a fact that people both want to be part of a group where they share experiences and want to feel special. For example if Britney Spears is your favourite artist you may be able to share your experiences with many people, but it will not say anything special about your personal traits. I think this sociological aspect is also something that speaks against a total homogenization.
The company has after communication with Peter Sunde (a.k.a. brokep) decided to unregister the trademark and said that all they wanted to achieve was to get an ok to use the image (although all the free advertising was probably part of the plan too ;)).
There's another interesting part of the story: when the registration became public many people mailed to the patent and registration office with questions about it. When Fredrik Neij - one of the Pirate Bay guys - mailed a question to them he got a reply within two minutes. But not from the Patent and Registration office but instead from Swedish Radio - citing his original mail in full. Now it could be that correspondence like this with authorities is openly available under Swedish transparency laws, but in that case one has to make a formal request in order to access it. I have never heard of normal correspondence being automatically forwarded to journalists like this.
"I don't know how Swedish trademark law works, but at least in the US there is a concept of a "common law trademark," which is supposed to prevent others from registering a mark on a brand that someone else is using -- even if they haven't registered it. It would seem like quite a silly trademark law if the Swedish trademark law doesn't include anything like that."
Swedish trademark law indeed has something similar. Although I don't have any detailed knowledge of it I doubt that "common law trademarks" would cover more areas than the ones established by the common usage however. The trademark application in this case covered just one so called trademark class. I don't think it would have limited the possibility to continue using the image as a logo for the file-sharing site (but I'm no expert on legal matters).
Let me quote the introduction of Applied Cryptography by Bruce Schneier:
"If I take a letter, lock it in a safe, hide the safe somewhere in New York, then tell you to read the letter, that's not security. Thats obscurity. On the other hand, if I take a letter and lock it in a safe, and then give you the safe along with the design specifications of the safe and a hundred identical safes with their combinations so that you and the worlds best safecrackers can study the locking mechanism - and you still can't open the safe and read the letter - thats security."
The E-voting industry clearly seems to favour obscurity over security. It's good to see some of their customers challenge that view.
On the post: The Language Of 'Piracy' As A Spectacle
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow .... talk about off topic....
I see your point, but at the same time I think it is useful to have a term that highlights the fact that support of the current copyright term is practically an extremist position. As I see it a moderate position is to support 10-25 years of protection if you view copyright as something that is supposed to maximise the public good, and no longer than lifelong protection if you view it as a natural right. So I think I take "maximalist" less literally than you do and think of it more as one end of the spectrum (excluding the few people who are completely nuts and want eternal copyright).
Feel free to provide suggestions if you can think of a good word that also encapsulates this feeling of taking an extreme position.
Btw. I think Mike Masnick used the word in the more literal/strict sense, but then again I don't think he used it to describe anything else than the extremely small group of people whose views I call nuts above.
On the post: The Language Of 'Piracy' As A Spectacle
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow .... talk about off topic....
"Probably because in the copyright destructionist viewpoint, or what appears to be the copyright destructionist viewpoint, there are two kinds of people in the world: those evil and vile people who want 'forever and a day' and nice, kind, good, right-thinking people who want the total elimination of copyright."
I have almost never came across that view. There is lots of frustration with all the conservative people who have never really thought through the implications of today's copyright system, but those who have a more informed opinion, like yourself, are practically always met with respect in my experience. I don't think it is primarily the pirates who polarize the debate, but rather the media and conservative people who try to accentuate the conflict and make it easier for themselves by painting it all in black and white. In fact, if you are a supporter of copyright I think the only way to save it long-term is to try to make the system more well-balanced (strive for "optimal societal benefit" as you put it). Btw. I think "copyright abolitionist" is a more neutral term for describing those who want to get rid of copyright.
The only thing that really makes me doubtful about my support for (a shorter) copyright are the attacks on civil liberties carried out in the name of copyright enforcement. Those negative side-effects have to be taken into consideration too when you evaluate the societal benefits.
On the post: The Language Of 'Piracy' As A Spectacle
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow .... talk about off topic....
Any finite number is a miniscule fraction of an infinite number. However, that doesn't change the fact that 130 years corresponds to 5-6 generations, so from a more antropocentric perspective (which I think is reasonable in this case), I stand by more previous description.
"(2) There is a TON of building on prior works. 3,000 recorded versions of "Yesterday" prove that it happens. Of course, 2,999 versions still FAIL to be innovative over the original, but that is irrelevant."
Are those 3,000 versions legally recorded you mean? I think that's just a miniscule fraction of the total number of recorded versions of "Yesterday" (I have recorded one myself too btw). I think there are lots of innovative versions. A better example of a common song with many nice innovative interpretations is perhaps "Over the rainbow".
"3) [...] I personally think copyright is excessive. I think 14 to 20 years, maybe even 10, would be more appropriate"
I'm not sure why you're feeling like you are being lumped together with maximalists if you want to restrict the copyright term to 10-20 years. That's about a sevenfold decrease compared to what it is today. I would call you a strong supporter for copyright reform. My own idea about copyright reform is quite similar to yours. And I think there are actually many members of the pirate party here in Sweden that feels the same way but joined the party in order to fight for civil liberties and against mass-surveilance and wire-tapping laws. In fact the term "pirate" is nowadays somewhat ambigious. If you join the pirate party in order to stand up for civil liberties and reduce the copyright term (to say 15-20 years) but do not file-share yourself, are you then a pirate? Difficult to say.
On the post: The Language Of 'Piracy' As A Spectacle
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy, Stealing, Theft, Evil, Greed, and other emotional descriptors
Of course one can still argue for the preservation of copyright laws, but it's hard to escape the fact that it's basically a utilitarian system - restricting the freedom to spread and use certain cultural expressions in order to promote a public good.
Personally I don't have any problem with limited parts of our legislation being influenced by such utilitarian ideas as long as no single individual's rights is seriously violated. However, with a copyright protection that can last up to 130-150 years I think it's quite clear that there are no marginal benefits in terms of increased incentives to create whatsoever. Surely such a system cannot even be described as being for the public good. The first thing we need to do is the shorten the copyright terms.
On the post: P2P Pre-Settlement Letters In Germany May Have Been Illegal; Lawyer Who Reveals This Threatened With Lawsuit
Streisand effect
On the post: The Language Of 'Piracy' As A Spectacle
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow .... talk about off topic....
Even without the silly talk about "forever minus a day", if you view the current copyright term from a human perspective it pretty much lasts forever. I mean, can you even imagine how people will live their lives in the year of 2140? Will we manage not to destroy our planet through pollution and wars? Will we have started to colonize other planets? What will the living standard, technology and economy look like? It's almost impossible to imagine.
I think it's quite fair to call the copyright regime of today and its supporters maximalistic. It's not a pejorative term, just descriptive.
On the post: The Language Of 'Piracy' As A Spectacle
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow .... talk about off topic....
Btw. do all these Shakespeare school play "mashups" indicate to you in any way that there could be some benefit of having works in the public domain?
And many people enjoy music that's many hundred years old. Should that music be protected too according to your argument since there is still a public demand?
I view it like this: copyright is the way the public pays for the perceived benefit of getting access to more culture. If we pay too little, then assuming that money is the primary motivation and there is a lack of alternative busines models, less great works would be produced. But if we pay too much, then works will be unnecessarily restricted and that will be bad for culture too (eg. new artists will not be able to build upon the works of earlier artists). If I write a song today, that song will be protected by copyright for around 130 years. The marginal benefit for me at 130 years protection is close to zero, while the marginal damage to society in terms of the work being less accessible doesn't decrease as much over time (assuming that the work remains popular).
Why should the public pay more than necessary by granting overly restrictive access control to creators?
On the post: The Language Of 'Piracy' As A Spectacle
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lawrence Lessig often mention the example of documentary films. They commonly consists of hundreds of clips from different sources and the producer often secured just a time limited right to use them (like a couple of years). If you want to release such a documentary film the transaction costs in trying to resecure the rights is often so big that it's often impossible to use the works today, assuming that you can even find the rights holders. See wikipedia on tragedy of the anticommons.
That's one example. But the most serious problem is of course the copyright term. Can you believe it that one of my favourite authors where born in the late 1850's and her works are still copyright protected. If copyright is a matter of personal rights to the works that you produce, then how can dead people enjoy the copyright to works? And if it's not, then what good does it do to society to have such a system?
On the post: Let Them Sing... About Copyright?
No fair use in Sweden
Works that are protected by the full copyright (life+70 years) need to reach a certain standard in order to be protected by the law. However, recorded works like movies and music don't have any such requirement. So if you make a very strict interpretation of the law here even a very short clip would be covered by copyright and represent an infringement unless you have the permission of the rights holder to publish it.
It's interesting how this relates to file-sharing via bittorrent btw. I suspect that if you share an e-book then someone would need to prove that those exact pieces of the book that you shared meet the standard needed to be covered by copyright. But if you share an audio book in the same way the proof burden is much lighter since every piece that you share is copyrighted (assuming that it's big enough to be unique for the song at least).
On the post: The Language Of 'Piracy' As A Spectacle
Re: Piracy, Stealing, Theft, Evil, Greed, and other emotional descriptors
Just because some people mean that deliberately published works in digital form should be free to share for noncommercial purposes that doesn't mean that those people want to remove your control over what information to publish and what to keep private (like your credit card number of your diary).
On the post: Why Would Countries Leave ACTA Negotiations If Text Was Public?
Re:
Is it the negotiators or the people in their countries? If there's a discrepancy between what those two want then that is a democratic problem and some transparency would help, no?
On the post: Why Would Countries Leave ACTA Negotiations If Text Was Public?
On the post: Danish Anti-Piracy Group Tells DVD Ripper Who Turned Himself In That It Won't Sue Him
1) If people could break the protections legally the industry would perceive that as increasing the risks of unprotected works being spread on the internet (since the source supply would be greater). This doesn't make much sense of course, but I think it's the way they think about it.
2) If people are allowed to break the protection in order to make copies for personal use, then it's difficult to argue that the tools used to break the protection should be illegal. After all, how can a tool be illegal if it has significant legal use?
The industry will always act as to maintain as much unclearity of how the laws should be interpreted as possible (if it's to their advantage), while at the same time minimizing bad publicity. For that reason I think it's difficult to draw conclusions about how they view the laws from their behaviour.
On the post: Good Luck Trying To Delete Stuff Off The Internet
Unpublishing
He was probably referring to the internet version of the article - the paper was already out everywhere. Still I found it very interesting to hear a person at a newspaper believe that it's possible to "unpublish" something. To me it seems just as impossible as "untelling" a secret or "unbreaking" a wase.
On the post: Swedish Court Gets One Right: Won't Shut Down OpenBitTorrent
I hope someone will post the court's protocol. It would be interesting to see how they motivate this decision.
On the post: Copyright Law Changes In India Could Gut Fair Use
"Harmonization"
On the post: Norwegian Band Told It Can't Post Its Own Music To The Pirate Bay, Even Though It Wants To
Re: Re: May you live in interesting times..
If the Norweigian situation is anything like what it is in their neighbour country and my home country Sweden then it's not possible to specify the protection per song. Rather you have the choice between transferring the economical rights to all yours songs to the collecting society or get nothing at all for any song.
Maybe it's time for TONO and other collecting societies to become more flexible, wouldn't you say?
On the post: Winner Takes All, Long Tails And The Fractilization Of Culture
The reason why we see some stars in each segment and on each level is not only because some artists are more talented than others and appeal to more people. It's also because of the social importance of sharing experiences and tastes with other people. It is a matter of how personal identity is formed.
At the same time as we have the globalisation which on the surface seems to lead to a more homogeneous culture we also see a technical development that makes it easier for individuals with similar interests and tastes to find each other and form groups and subcultures. So overall I don't think we will see this shift to homogenization because of that.
It's also a fact that people both want to be part of a group where they share experiences and want to feel special. For example if Britney Spears is your favourite artist you may be able to share your experiences with many people, but it will not say anything special about your personal traits. I think this sociological aspect is also something that speaks against a total homogenization.
On the post: Company Trademarks The Pirate Bay Logo
The company will unregister it
Source: Swedish Radio news (google translated)
There's another interesting part of the story: when the registration became public many people mailed to the patent and registration office with questions about it. When Fredrik Neij - one of the Pirate Bay guys - mailed a question to them he got a reply within two minutes. But not from the Patent and Registration office but instead from Swedish Radio - citing his original mail in full. Now it could be that correspondence like this with authorities is openly available under Swedish transparency laws, but in that case one has to make a formal request in order to access it. I have never heard of normal correspondence being automatically forwarded to journalists like this.
Swedish trademark law indeed has something similar. Although I don't have any detailed knowledge of it I doubt that "common law trademarks" would cover more areas than the ones established by the common usage however. The trademark application in this case covered just one so called trademark class. I don't think it would have limited the possibility to continue using the image as a logo for the file-sharing site (but I'm no expert on legal matters).
On the post: Brazilian Hacking Attempts Fail To Break Brazilian E-Voting, But Do Improve The Process
Security vs. obscurity
The E-voting industry clearly seems to favour obscurity over security. It's good to see some of their customers challenge that view.
Next >>