No, in itself that's OK. The problem is the abuse that you describe. A trademark doesn't prevent others from using the expression. It only prevents using it as a brand. At least in theory. And that lead to lots of stupid abuse that have been occurring over and over again. - suing anyone for just using the trademarked expression, whatever the context is. - protecting parts of a copyrighted work as a substitute for copyrighting this small part by itself. (Which is a way to vaguely claim "infringement on IP" for what would otherwise be an obvious fair use.) - extending "copyright" beyond its time limit.
And so on.
Trademark is not necessarily the enemy. As with many other systems, abuse is the enemy.
Somehow, "net neutrality" has a clear definition but every politician and lobbyist out there feign to ignore it. They each create their own strawman definition of it, then explain how this new definition is bad for everyone.
- they pretend it's about giving edge providers free access to Internet and customers. It's not, as edge provided already pay huge amounts for their connectivity. ISPs simply want to double their bills by getting paid more for no additional service or investment. - they pretend neutrality is about forcing equal access to everyone. Still wrong, as people can pay different amounts fit different bandwidth or quality of service. It only means that data cannot be tampered or discriminated. - and then you have this legislator who tried to say neutrality applies where it doesn't (equal speech time out visibility). That's just idiotic.
Of course, that's not all, but it's a pretty good sample.
Actually, this could be a nice case of trademark dilution. I've heard several subgenres being called by the name of one of the early games in the genre and "Doom-like" is one of them (3d first person shooter, often those in sci-fi settings.)
The list includes Diablo, Doom, Civ, Metroid-Castlevania (under the portmanteau Metroidvania) and more. Textbook examples of trademark dilution.
Re: Having their traffic and getting paid for it too
It gets even better: robots.txt can be used to block Google and Google news separately. No excuse like "we want out of Google news, but still show up on Google."
By that reasoning, printers are people too. More seriously, just no: IP addresses don't refer to one individual, but they might not even refer to people at all. IP addresses point to devices, some being totally automated tools.
To ensure that the American people have an opportunity to provide input into the selection of future Registers of Copyright through their elected officials (...)
Let me fix that for you
To ensure that the copyright lobbies have an opportunity to provide input into the selection of future Registers of Copyright through their elected officials
Wow, you actually found how to turn off caps? Now, if you could learn that the dot is not a paragraph separator, you'll be able to make proper comments. :)
If those guys - so-called lawyers - are so angry at the people destroying their reputation, they should start doing themselves.
Or simply work a little towards earning a better reputation.
Why is it that so many people nowadays feel entitled to respect and good reputation?
You forgot copyrighted material. The copyright industry is always lying in wait for this kind of initiative, so that they can say "if it can be done for terrorism/child porn/hate speech, then it can be done for copyright too."
It's ask the more ironic given that Feinstein was one of those who called Snowden a traitor, arguing that he should have used "official channels" to release the truth.
Tell me now Feinstein, how are "official channels" working for you?
You're advocating for crowd-sourced moderation as one possible solution when the US just elected one of the worst trolls in history as their President? Any other brilliant idea? XD
Whenever abuse is uncovered, the usual response is to treat it like a unicorn, rather than possibly a leading indicator of malfeasance yet to be uncovered.
I think it's more of a difference between
"I did it to jail suspects and it made the system look tough on crime"
and
"I did it for myself and it made the system look bad".
So, was he a dingo all along? Was he really trying to pass net neutrality rule out did he just push forward rules that he knew he would never enforce? I mean, look at what happened since those rules were passed: from day one, it has been rule violation one after another, and all the FCC said each time was "wait and see". We've seen enough already, and now that the FCC is on the verge of its own extinction, ask he can say is "oops"?
Re: Way to put your best foot forward there guys...
It you want to make it technical, yes millions of votes do matter, but they don't "weigh" the same. Still a broken system you have there, particularly when one party can decide how much each vote weighs.
Now what does not make sense is claiming that millions of illegals voted. If so how'd he win?
Oh, that one is easy: that's because, fortunately for him, it doesn't matter what millions of American voters want. Only a little more than 500 votes actually matter.
On the post: HBO Issues Takedown For Artwork Made By Autistic Teenager Because Bullies Gonna Bully Y'all
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do it everywhere
The problem is the abuse that you describe. A trademark doesn't prevent others from using the expression. It only prevents using it as a brand. At least in theory.
And that lead to lots of stupid abuse that have been occurring over and over again.
- suing anyone for just using the trademarked expression, whatever the context is.
- protecting parts of a copyrighted work as a substitute for copyrighting this small part by itself. (Which is a way to vaguely claim "infringement on IP" for what would otherwise be an obvious fair use.)
- extending "copyright" beyond its time limit.
And so on.
Trademark is not necessarily the enemy. As with many other systems, abuse is the enemy.
On the post: Rep. Marsha Blackburn Says Internet Service Providers Have 'An Obligation' To Censor 'Fake News'
- they pretend it's about giving edge providers free access to Internet and customers. It's not, as edge provided already pay huge amounts for their connectivity. ISPs simply want to double their bills by getting paid more for no additional service or investment.
- they pretend neutrality is about forcing equal access to everyone. Still wrong, as people can pay different amounts fit different bandwidth or quality of service. It only means that data cannot be tampered or discriminated.
- and then you have this legislator who tried to say neutrality applies where it doesn't (equal speech time out visibility). That's just idiotic.
Of course, that's not all, but it's a pretty good sample.
On the post: Bethesda Bullies One Of Its Creative Fans Over Website Metatags
I've heard several subgenres being called by the name of one of the early games in the genre and "Doom-like" is one of them (3d first person shooter, often those in sci-fi settings.)
The list includes Diablo, Doom, Civ, Metroid-Castlevania (under the portmanteau Metroidvania) and more. Textbook examples of trademark dilution.
On the post: Short Sighted Newspaper Association Asks Trump To Whittle Down Fair Use, Because It Hates Google
Re: Having their traffic and getting paid for it too
On the post: Copyright Troll Ordered To Pay $17k To 'Pirate' It Falsely Accused
Re: IP numbers are...
More seriously, just no: IP addresses don't refer to one individual, but they might not even refer to people at all. IP addresses point to devices, some being totally automated tools.
On the post: It Begins: Congress Proposes First Stages Of Copyright Reform, And It's Not Good
"The American People", really?
Let me fix that for you
On the post: Bethesda Bullies One Of Its Creative Fans Over Website Metatags
Favorite excuse
There, you know the favorite excuse will be: "but if we don't enforce our trademark aggressively (understand "overly so"), then we'll lose it."
We all know it's not true, at least not so simply, but it's an easy excuse they all tell at some point.
On the post: FBI Investigates Journalist For An Obvious Joke Tweet, Because What The Hell Is Wrong With The FBI?
Re: HOW TWEET IT IS
Now, if you could learn that the dot is not a paragraph separator, you'll be able to make proper comments. :)
On the post: Law Firm That Sued 20-Year-Old Crash Victim Over Negative Review Now Owes $26,831 In Legal Fees
Re: reputation?
On the post: Law Firm That Sued 20-Year-Old Crash Victim Over Negative Review Now Owes $26,831 In Legal Fees
reputation?
If those guys - so-called lawyers - are so angry at the people destroying their reputation, they should start doing themselves. Or simply work a little towards earning a better reputation.
Why is it that so many people nowadays feel entitled to respect and good reputation?
On the post: This Is A Really Bad Idea: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube & Microsoft Agree To Block 'Terrorist' Content
Re: 'Bad' speech, you know it when you see it
The copyright industry is always lying in wait for this kind of initiative, so that they can say "if it can be done for terrorism/child porn/hate speech, then it can be done for copyright too."
On the post: Senator Feinstein Asks President Obama To Declassify Senate's CIA Torture Report
Re: Legacy
Tell me now Feinstein, how are "official channels" working for you?
On the post: The Globe And Mail Tries Something Revolutionary: Actually Giving A Damn About User Comments & Conversation
community moderation? really?
Any other brilliant idea? XD
On the post: Thanks To Months Of Doing Nothing, Senate Allows DOJ's Rule 41 Changes To Become Law
Strange wording
What about "intended harm" then? Why even say it this way? Am I reading too much into their poor excuse of an excuse?
Really, it looks like a perfect bait for paranoid trolls out there.
On the post: Brooklyn Prosecutor Forged Judges' Signatures On Wiretap Warrants To Eavesdrop On A 'Love Interest'
motive
I think it's more of a difference between "I did it to jail suspects and it made the system look tough on crime" and "I did it for myself and it made the system look bad".
On the post: Cameroonian Government Calls Social Media A 'New Form Of Terrorism'
Your newly elected president Trump will prove you wrong. He already decided to start building a wall. On Facebook.
On the post: AT&T Just Showed Us What The Death Of Net Neutrality Is Going To Look Like
Wheeler
Was he really trying to pass net neutrality rule out did he just push forward rules that he knew he would never enforce?
I mean, look at what happened since those rules were passed: from day one, it has been rule violation one after another, and all the FCC said each time was "wait and see".
We've seen enough already, and now that the FCC is on the verge of its own extinction, ask he can say is "oops"?
On the post: Somehow Everyone Comes Out Looking Terrible In The Effort For Election Recounts
Re: Way to put your best foot forward there guys...
On the post: Somehow Everyone Comes Out Looking Terrible In The Effort For Election Recounts
Re:
Oh, that one is easy: that's because, fortunately for him, it doesn't matter what millions of American voters want. Only a little more than 500 votes actually matter.
On the post: Another Court Says Personal Email Accounts Still Subject To Public Records Requests
Re: Private email address
Next >>