I don't think it's a quote. I think it's a paraphrase that just uses the wrong word. The word "patent" appears nowhere in the linked article nor does the "The story notes that..." section. This is what lead me to believe there was too much in the quote block. It's not a big deal. Just an honest mistake.
"The restaurant 14 years ago trademarked the right to put goats on a roof to attract customers to a business."
This seemed very odd to me. I can see where you could trademark a logo with a goat standing on a roof, but I didn't think that trademarks could protect an actual goat standing on your business's roof. I don't know if the terms are commonly interchanged, but the article later clarifies that the protection for goats on a roof is actually "trade dress", not trademark. And at least from a quick googling, it does appear that trade dress would legally cover the goats on the roof in the way the owner claims.
But no matter what you call it, it does seem plain silly that something like this would be protected. Is there really likely to be any consumer confusion if the goats are standing on your roof and right under your roof is the name of your business?
Hey Mike. I think there are a couple of small errors in the post...
The story notes that since the goats on a roof patent doesn't extend to other countries, goats on roof restaurants have shown up elsewhere -- and a Canadian goats-on-a-roof restaurant owner has decided not to trademark his own version.
The text above appears in the quoteblock, but it looks like it's actually part of your post. Also, the article does specify "trademark" and not "patent".
did Apple think that someone would smash a real iPad for a commercial?
I think the (overblown) concern from Apple's perspective isn't that someone would intentionally try to recreate what's in the commercial, but the implication that if you accidentally dropped the iPad, the glass face would shatter into several pieces.
So theft and infringement are only analogous if you accept a gov't rule that says infringement is theft.
One other point about the above...
Sorry to lump you in with other posters, but I get the sense that you, Mike, and the others who don't think that infringement and theft are analogous have way too strict a definition of the term. If I say that "Cats are like dogs because they can both be your best friend", I'm guessing your reaction would be "What! Are you crazy! They're totally different! One purrs and one barks. One craps in a box and one craps outside! Dogs are man's best friend, not cats!" This attitude makes me think people are looking at the world in a totally polar way. Either it's the same or it's not. Analogy is just a tool to see the similarities between two things, not a case for them being identical.
I feel sorry for some poor schmuck of a politician who makes an analogy that includes something that people don't like. "You heard him! He just said that all Republicans lick their balls!" would be the inevitable reaction to a Democrat who even came close to making an anology between Republicans and dogs. Sheesh.
You are basically saying that if the gov't defines copying your truck as theft, then it is theft if he copies it. A tautology.
I said no such thing. What, in any of my posts, leads you to believe that I did? The government doesn't define infringement as theft. They define it as...infringement. The two concepts are quite different. Not so different as to prevent an analogy between them, but different none-the-less.
So theft and infringement are only analogous if you accept a gov't rule that says infringement is theft
No, theft and infringement are analogous if they have a key similarity. Another way to phrase your statement above is "So theft and infringement are similar in some respect only if the government says that they're exactly the same in all respects." What is that? A reverse tautology?
To qualify as an analogy, a "resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike", all that you need is some similarity. You can cite differences between any two ideas until you're blue in the face and this will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on whether those two ideas can be analogous.
It is presently being leveraged to imply a "right" on the order of "Human Rights"
I'm sorry, but this is just going too far. A perfectly legitimate use of the word right is a reference to a legal right. Copyright maximalist read this kind of bunk and feel justified in thinking that copyright reform proponants are wacky conspiracy theorists. Making a distinction between infringement and theft? Perfectly OK. Misunderstood by copyright maximalists, but OK. Questioning the use of the term "property" or "owner" when applied to copyright, patent, or trademarks? Perfectly OK. Also misunderstood by copyright maximalists, but still OK.
But saying that copyright isn't really a right because it's not a human right just adds to the misunderstanding. It feeds into the stereotype that many people have of the kid who downloads music even though they know it's wrong. Rather than splitting a hair that doesn't really exist, proponants of copyright reform should explain to the "other side" why it makes sense to not conflate the terms that are actually materially different, like theft and infringement.
OK, it's gone from being tedious back to being fun again. You'll probably be surprised to learn that you can have a sentence fragment that actually contains verbs. English is awesome!
Honestly, maybe this sentence makes sense and I'm just not seeing it. Here's how I'm reading it...
Your privilege to be able to deny other people the ability to copy (including the scenario where these other people already own the property that 'contains' a copyrighted work) __________.
I don't see how you can consider that a sentence unless you fill in that blank with a verb. My privilege is what? "is wrong." "invalidates your argument." "is stupid."
Well, in spite of the fact that you called me a liar in another post and that you're attributing beliefs to me that I don't have nor professed to have, I think that the issue just comes down to what we each consider to be an analogy. We both agree that copyright is not property and probably many other things about copyright. But while my definition of analogy allows for key differences as long as there are key similarities, you appear to have such a hard line view of copyright that you won't even allow for the idea that it infringement has key similarities to theft. Personally, I think that this kind of attitude gives proponants of copyright reform a bad name. It's the same kind if thinking that spawns inaccurate statements like "I don't care what you say, infringement is just a fancy word for theft", just on the opposide side of the argument.
Where does losing anything I have come into that definition?
OK, you're right that the dictionary definition doesn't include the word "sacrifice". I actually clicked on the first result in Google which brought me to the Wikipedia definition which does include "sacrifice". So, in that respect, I stand corrected. However, I actually think that the Wikipedia defintion gives a more explicit definition of the term. I mean "having no concern for self" could mean that you're suicidal or that you're clinically depressed. To use the term selfless, you have to sacrifice something you find valuable -- money, reputation, your time, your physical safety -- for the sake of someone else.
Giving your friend the password to your network drive may involve "sacrificing" some time and effort, but it doesn't reach any where near the level to qualify as a "selfless" act.
What's missing from your list is the most fundemantal aspect of copyright, the right to copy. Except for fair use -- thanks Ima Fish -- copyright grants the holder the exclusive right to copy said content. I can do all kinds of things with a song I wrote even if someone has infringed on it. I'm not debating that at all. So you can stop citing examples where infringement and copyright are different. The fact that two concepts have a difference does not invalidate those two concepts from being analogous. If they did, we wouldn't need analogy.
If I have a friend visiting my home and he likes one song that is playing, why would I not give him a copy?
I don't know. How does the question of why would give a copyrighted song to a friend relate in any way whatsover to whether or not that act would be selfless?
It would not surprise me if only a small fraction of them are doing so for bragging rights or as a way to say "screw the system".
Again, please tell me that you're joking. Do you seriously think that bragging rights and screwing the system are the same as being selfless? Please look up the word selfless before you reply.
What exactly is selfish about letting a friend copy songs from your iPod?
Nothing. I didn't say it was selfish. I said it wasn't selfless.
Selfish != Not selfless
Selfless means that you're sacrificing something. Other than the trivial time it takes to let your friend connect to your hard drive, what exactly are you sacrificing if you let your friend copy your MP3 collection?
Theft is an issue that is entirely based around the fact
So? If we were just talking about theft, you'd have a point. But because we're talking about the relationship between two things, theft and infringement, you don't. You can describe theft by itself for a thousand years and unless you relate that back to the infringement, it's for nothing in terms of this conversation.
I think you forgot to read it properly in your haste to reply.
This is getting a bit tedious, but here we go. Here's your sentence...
Your privilege to be able to deny other people the ability to copy - including when they already own the property that "contains" a copyrighted work.
Where is the verb in that sentence? "Your privilege to be able to deny other people the abilility to copy" is the noun. "including when they already own the property that "contains" a copyrighted work" is an extension of that noun. What does my privilege do?
Copyright suspends a natural ability of ownership - the ability to copy or reproduce the item you own.
Agreed.
Infringement bears no resemblance to theft simply because of that.
That's a non-sequiter. The latter does not follow from the former.
I might be 100% wrong, but nothing you wrote explained how I might be wrong.
I provided a very clear example of where a copyright holder is deprived of an "ownership" right. If you disagree with that example, then you're free to explain, but please don't deny that I even tried.
There are fair use rights associated with copyrights. For example, it's not infringement for me to copy the CDs I bought and convert them to MP3 format. I can make legal back up copies of my software. I can make legal copies of TV shows and movies.
Agreed. So you're just 99.9 percent wrong.
When I infringe your copyright, I agree that I infringe upon your copyright.
The specific point that I was responding to was your assertion that infringing copyright does not deny "a single one of your rights of ownership". That is where I think you're wrong.
But that does not make it theft.
I never said that it did make it theft. What is it with people not understanding the analogy? If people wanted to say that two ideas are exactly the same, we wouldn't need the the concept of the analogy. If seems like if someone fines one dissimilarity between two ideas that this somehow invalidates an analogy. It doesn't.
You've never explained how infringement is analogous with theft.
Except that copyright isn't a right of ownership, it's a granted privilege.
I never said it was. Nor does the question of whether copyright is an ownership right have any effect on the validity of the analogy between theft and infringement.
Your privilege to be able to deny other people the ability to copy - including when they already own the property that "contains" a copyrighted work.
My privilege to be able to deny other people the ability to copy...what? I think you forgot to complete that sentence.
You get to deny other people normal things they'd enjoy from ownership rights, not a protection of ones you'd ordinarily have.
Not sure what you're saying here. How does what one would "ordinarily have" relate to the literal meaning of copyright?
First off, I think that the term "ownership" and "property" suffer from the same problems as "theft". Copyright is a set of rights that are analogous to ownership and property, but not the same. Using these terms shortcircuits mind into thinking they are the same. In any case...
Theft and infringement are similar in terms of denying the "owner" to use the "property" in the way that they so choose. If I own a truck, I can use that truck any way that I want and because there is not such thing as a Star Trek replicator, the issue of someone else using a copy of my truck isn't an issue. But say that there were Star Trek replicators and I designed a new kind of truck and received a copyright on it. Given today's laws, it would be up to me whether I wanted to drive around town in my new truck and be the only one with that kind of truck. As in your example, you copied my truck you are taking away that right. In that key respect, theft and infringement are analogous.
Now, it may not make any business sense to invoke a copyright. But that is irrelevent as to whether this right exists.
On the post: Man Claims Trademark On 'Goats On A Roof'
Re: Re: Couple of small errors
I don't think it's a quote. I think it's a paraphrase that just uses the wrong word. The word "patent" appears nowhere in the linked article nor does the "The story notes that..." section. This is what lead me to believe there was too much in the quote block. It's not a big deal. Just an honest mistake.
On the post: Man Claims Trademark On 'Goats On A Roof'
One more. I couldn't resist...
On the post: Man Claims Trademark On 'Goats On A Roof'
Trade dress
"The restaurant 14 years ago trademarked the right to put goats on a roof to attract customers to a business."
This seemed very odd to me. I can see where you could trademark a logo with a goat standing on a roof, but I didn't think that trademarks could protect an actual goat standing on your business's roof. I don't know if the terms are commonly interchanged, but the article later clarifies that the protection for goats on a roof is actually "trade dress", not trademark. And at least from a quick googling, it does appear that trade dress would legally cover the goats on the roof in the way the owner claims.
But no matter what you call it, it does seem plain silly that something like this would be protected. Is there really likely to be any consumer confusion if the goats are standing on your roof and right under your roof is the name of your business?
On the post: Man Claims Trademark On 'Goats On A Roof'
Couple of small errors
The story notes that since the goats on a roof patent doesn't extend to other countries, goats on roof restaurants have shown up elsewhere -- and a Canadian goats-on-a-roof restaurant owner has decided not to trademark his own version.
The text above appears in the quoteblock, but it looks like it's actually part of your post. Also, the article does specify "trademark" and not "patent".
On the post: Apple Accused Of Demanding Newsday Drop Its iPad App Ad
Re: OK, I laughed
I think the (overblown) concern from Apple's perspective isn't that someone would intentionally try to recreate what's in the commercial, but the implication that if you accidentally dropped the iPad, the glass face would shatter into several pieces.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One other point about the above...
Sorry to lump you in with other posters, but I get the sense that you, Mike, and the others who don't think that infringement and theft are analogous have way too strict a definition of the term. If I say that "Cats are like dogs because they can both be your best friend", I'm guessing your reaction would be "What! Are you crazy! They're totally different! One purrs and one barks. One craps in a box and one craps outside! Dogs are man's best friend, not cats!" This attitude makes me think people are looking at the world in a totally polar way. Either it's the same or it's not. Analogy is just a tool to see the similarities between two things, not a case for them being identical.
I feel sorry for some poor schmuck of a politician who makes an analogy that includes something that people don't like. "You heard him! He just said that all Republicans lick their balls!" would be the inevitable reaction to a Democrat who even came close to making an anology between Republicans and dogs. Sheesh.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I said no such thing. What, in any of my posts, leads you to believe that I did? The government doesn't define infringement as theft. They define it as...infringement. The two concepts are quite different. Not so different as to prevent an analogy between them, but different none-the-less.
So theft and infringement are only analogous if you accept a gov't rule that says infringement is theft
No, theft and infringement are analogous if they have a key similarity. Another way to phrase your statement above is "So theft and infringement are similar in some respect only if the government says that they're exactly the same in all respects." What is that? A reverse tautology?
To qualify as an analogy, a "resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike", all that you need is some similarity. You can cite differences between any two ideas until you're blue in the face and this will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on whether those two ideas can be analogous.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry, but this is just going too far. A perfectly legitimate use of the word right is a reference to a legal right. Copyright maximalist read this kind of bunk and feel justified in thinking that copyright reform proponants are wacky conspiracy theorists. Making a distinction between infringement and theft? Perfectly OK. Misunderstood by copyright maximalists, but OK. Questioning the use of the term "property" or "owner" when applied to copyright, patent, or trademarks? Perfectly OK. Also misunderstood by copyright maximalists, but still OK.
But saying that copyright isn't really a right because it's not a human right just adds to the misunderstanding. It feeds into the stereotype that many people have of the kid who downloads music even though they know it's wrong. Rather than splitting a hair that doesn't really exist, proponants of copyright reform should explain to the "other side" why it makes sense to not conflate the terms that are actually materially different, like theft and infringement.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, it's gone from being tedious back to being fun again. You'll probably be surprised to learn that you can have a sentence fragment that actually contains verbs. English is awesome!
Honestly, maybe this sentence makes sense and I'm just not seeing it. Here's how I'm reading it...
Your privilege to be able to deny other people the ability to copy (including the scenario where these other people already own the property that 'contains' a copyrighted work) __________.
I don't see how you can consider that a sentence unless you fill in that blank with a verb. My privilege is what? "is wrong." "invalidates your argument." "is stupid."
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, you're right that the dictionary definition doesn't include the word "sacrifice". I actually clicked on the first result in Google which brought me to the Wikipedia definition which does include "sacrifice". So, in that respect, I stand corrected. However, I actually think that the Wikipedia defintion gives a more explicit definition of the term. I mean "having no concern for self" could mean that you're suicidal or that you're clinically depressed. To use the term selfless, you have to sacrifice something you find valuable -- money, reputation, your time, your physical safety -- for the sake of someone else.
Giving your friend the password to your network drive may involve "sacrificing" some time and effort, but it doesn't reach any where near the level to qualify as a "selfless" act.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's missing from your list is the most fundemantal aspect of copyright, the right to copy. Except for fair use -- thanks Ima Fish -- copyright grants the holder the exclusive right to copy said content. I can do all kinds of things with a song I wrote even if someone has infringed on it. I'm not debating that at all. So you can stop citing examples where infringement and copyright are different. The fact that two concepts have a difference does not invalidate those two concepts from being analogous. If they did, we wouldn't need analogy.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, yes. That's the definition of selfless.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know. How does the question of why would give a copyrighted song to a friend relate in any way whatsover to whether or not that act would be selfless?
It would not surprise me if only a small fraction of them are doing so for bragging rights or as a way to say "screw the system".
Again, please tell me that you're joking. Do you seriously think that bragging rights and screwing the system are the same as being selfless? Please look up the word selfless before you reply.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nothing. I didn't say it was selfish. I said it wasn't selfless.
Selfish != Not selfless
Selfless means that you're sacrificing something. Other than the trivial time it takes to let your friend connect to your hard drive, what exactly are you sacrificing if you let your friend copy your MP3 collection?
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Modplan was the one who said "Except that copyright isn't a right of ownership, it's a granted privilege". I was just replying to his statement.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So? If we were just talking about theft, you'd have a point. But because we're talking about the relationship between two things, theft and infringement, you don't. You can describe theft by itself for a thousand years and unless you relate that back to the infringement, it's for nothing in terms of this conversation.
I think you forgot to read it properly in your haste to reply.
This is getting a bit tedious, but here we go. Here's your sentence...
Your privilege to be able to deny other people the ability to copy - including when they already own the property that "contains" a copyrighted work.
Where is the verb in that sentence? "Your privilege to be able to deny other people the abilility to copy" is the noun. "including when they already own the property that "contains" a copyrighted work" is an extension of that noun. What does my privilege do?
Copyright suspends a natural ability of ownership - the ability to copy or reproduce the item you own.
Agreed.
Infringement bears no resemblance to theft simply because of that.
That's a non-sequiter. The latter does not follow from the former.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I provided a very clear example of where a copyright holder is deprived of an "ownership" right. If you disagree with that example, then you're free to explain, but please don't deny that I even tried.
There are fair use rights associated with copyrights. For example, it's not infringement for me to copy the CDs I bought and convert them to MP3 format. I can make legal back up copies of my software. I can make legal copies of TV shows and movies.
Agreed. So you're just 99.9 percent wrong.
When I infringe your copyright, I agree that I infringe upon your copyright.
The specific point that I was responding to was your assertion that infringing copyright does not deny "a single one of your rights of ownership". That is where I think you're wrong.
But that does not make it theft.
I never said that it did make it theft. What is it with people not understanding the analogy? If people wanted to say that two ideas are exactly the same, we wouldn't need the the concept of the analogy. If seems like if someone fines one dissimilarity between two ideas that this somehow invalidates an analogy. It doesn't.
You've never explained how infringement is analogous with theft.
See my other posts in this thread.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said it was. Nor does the question of whether copyright is an ownership right have any effect on the validity of the analogy between theft and infringement.
Your privilege to be able to deny other people the ability to copy - including when they already own the property that "contains" a copyrighted work.
My privilege to be able to deny other people the ability to copy...what? I think you forgot to complete that sentence.
You get to deny other people normal things they'd enjoy from ownership rights, not a protection of ones you'd ordinarily have.
Not sure what you're saying here. How does what one would "ordinarily have" relate to the literal meaning of copyright?
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re:
First off, I think that the term "ownership" and "property" suffer from the same problems as "theft". Copyright is a set of rights that are analogous to ownership and property, but not the same. Using these terms shortcircuits mind into thinking they are the same. In any case...
Theft and infringement are similar in terms of denying the "owner" to use the "property" in the way that they so choose. If I own a truck, I can use that truck any way that I want and because there is not such thing as a Star Trek replicator, the issue of someone else using a copy of my truck isn't an issue. But say that there were Star Trek replicators and I designed a new kind of truck and received a copyright on it. Given today's laws, it would be up to me whether I wanted to drive around town in my new truck and be the only one with that kind of truck. As in your example, you copied my truck you are taking away that right. In that key respect, theft and infringement are analogous.
Now, it may not make any business sense to invoke a copyright. But that is irrelevent as to whether this right exists.
Next >>