I run adblocking plugins and use the lists to preemptively ban ads as a general category. I don't like this notion of selectively blocking ads as they annoy me--there are far too many bad apples in the bin for me to taste-test them all to determine which ones I can stand to eat and which should be rejected. I will try to relax things for sites I like, but all too often I hit the things I can't tolerate--blinking ads, noisy ads, and other variants of annoying ads, and the block goes back up.
Clearly it is a case of likely confusion. As noted, Chrysler doesn't just use those images/brand names/etc for vehicles. They also license it to people to manufacture Dodge shirts, keychains, etc... which it seems like the school is also doing. Confusion can also occur across market sectors where the similarity is so obvious (or the original mark so well-known) that it would appear that the two are related. IE, if you're taking the mark of a famous brand of trucks and using their logo exactly.
If you read the article, there's no mention of a lawsuit. They sent a communication from their lawyer--ie, they sent a notice that they believe there is infringement. The school looked into it, realized they'd lose, and said, "Okay, how do we resolve this?" Then Chrysler extended them a year to wind things up smoothly, so as to achieve the result without causing too much hardship.
So basically this is a case of "Chrysler notices that it is exposed to a potentially billion-dollar trademark problem. Chrysler sends a letter to try to rectify this without suing. Chrysler is reasonable in its settlement to solve the problem. People freak out."
If Chrysler wanted, they could have done all sorts of nasty things here. They didn't. Calling them villains when their hand was forced, and they were as gentle as possible is a bit unfair.
Juries get extensively studied, and what is consistently found is that juries are not necessarily good at sorting out evidence that they should disregard.
For example, juries treat confessions as extremely strong evidence, even where there's substantial reason to doubt the confession. In mock trials, juries will usually convict on the basis of a confession that they are told was A) obtained by force after physical torture, and B) is completely contradicted by solid physical evidence. IE, mock juries will convict in situations where it is impossible for the person to have done it, just because they confessed as a result of torture.
I'm not assuming anything. Further, this isn't a matter of being a moron, it's a matter of being human. There's a further wrinkle in that juries in criminal trials experience strong selective pressures. People with jobs desperately seek to avoid jury duty because the pay is terrible and they can't afford to live on a juror's wages. Students are routinely excluded, as are teachers. Further, in the US they will often exclude those who have heard about the incident, which weeds out the media savvy.
A lot of evidence that is excluded might be the sort of thing you'd expect an intelligent person to consider. The fact that the accused had a bloody knife in his car is a highly salient fact--but the jury may be foreclosed from considering that fact due to the improper behaviour of the police. Other evidence is excluded because it is irrelevant or of only weak value, but the average person is likely to weigh it too strongly (hearsay evidence, past sexual behaviour of the complainant in sex offence trials, etc).
Mr. Masnick, I am not normally a detractor of yours. On this subject, however, you are arguing from a position of ignorance, and your arguments lack a basic logical foundation and have mostly been open questions that suggest an answer without offering any reasons for it ("Why not do this?") or appeals to emotions. You've been ignoring the fact that what you suggest would undermine the fundamentals of our justice system and could have great adverse effects on trial fairness.
"Innovation isn't taking something someone else created, adding a few lines of code, and calling it your own. Innovation is coming up with a new way to do something, a new way to accomplish something, and to push further than that, and go past everything that is out there."
Throughout history, there have been many cases where momentous innovations are credited to one person over another by the matter of who got to the patent office first, with the difference being measured in hours, or minutes. Of course, back in the day, you had to arrive with a working prototype.
Nowadays, you don't need a working prototype, and assuming you know your invention will work, you'd be insane to build one. That's wasting time best spent getting to the patent office early.
After you've got your patent, there's not really any point going the extra step of actually inventing the thing and marketing it, at least not if someone else will do it for you. And when that guy goes to the effort of building a working prototype and establishing a business and turning a profit, then you roll up with a lawyer behind you and your hands out for your share (which, ideally, is all of the money he earned, plus any other money he might have lying around).
It really is a great system we've established here.
The standard business model for a lot of photographers is pretty inherently abusive. I just recently got married, and finding a photographer who was willing to deviate from the "shaft-the-customer" model. The standard model goes something like this:
Step 1: Pay a huge sum to get them to take pictures at the wedding. For this, you receive /nothing/, save the fact that they have taken pictures. They own the copyright. Maybe the deal includes a trivial number of prints.
Step 2: Buy prints from them, as they jealously guard the original images, and the copyright. Print your own, and they will sue you. Want to edit your own pictures? Absolutely not--they don't want you interfering with their artistic integrity. Want to email a picture to your grandmother, or put up the wedding snaps on Facebook? No way.
This isn't a "customer service" model, it's a customer exploitation model. I've heard of a number of people who have felt really snared by this, going in and expecting that they will own the pictures that are taken, and then realizing that the photographer will hold those pictures over them. Worse, it's not like you can go back and just re-take the pictures of one of those (ideally) once in a lifetime events. So the photographer can just put the squeeze on you.
There's a lot of ways these weasels could still earn a living in a post-copyright economy. It'll probably involve a much more honest, up-front description of fees, and a lot less of the "squeezing the married couple (and their friends and relatives) for the next fifty years".
Ian R (Fair Copyright Edmonton) (profile), 24 Jul 2009 @ 8:01am
The Canadian government has actually taken a lot of flak for the way they've organized the consultations. There are four private, invitation-only "round table" meetings, to which Fair Copyright groups (which consist of individually organized, independent groups across Canada) seem to have received a total of one invitation (which went to the Vancouver group). There are also two "townhall" meetings, which are taking place in Toronto and Montreal (both in the East). That said, at least there are consultations happening. While it is a rather serious inconvenience to have to fly across the country in order to try to make my voice heard, it is still better than no consultations at all.
My intention is to try to point out to the government the degree to which copyright issues are being used to erode consumers' property rights in the things they purchase, to a degree that makes the "anti-piracy" efforts seem like a false flag, with the true target being honest consumers.
I am also greatly concerned by the way DRM protections would effectively give copyright holders the power to make their own laws, generally to eliminate competitive forces.
On the post: Don't Blame Your Community: Ad Blocking Is Not Killing Any Sites
Adblock
On the post: Would A Moron In A Hurry Be Confused By The Difference Between A High School And A Pickup Truck?
Re: Re:
If you read the article, there's no mention of a lawsuit. They sent a communication from their lawyer--ie, they sent a notice that they believe there is infringement. The school looked into it, realized they'd lose, and said, "Okay, how do we resolve this?" Then Chrysler extended them a year to wind things up smoothly, so as to achieve the result without causing too much hardship.
So basically this is a case of "Chrysler notices that it is exposed to a potentially billion-dollar trademark problem. Chrysler sends a letter to try to rectify this without suing. Chrysler is reasonable in its settlement to solve the problem. People freak out."
If Chrysler wanted, they could have done all sorts of nasty things here. They didn't. Calling them villains when their hand was forced, and they were as gentle as possible is a bit unfair.
On the post: Why Shouldn't Jurors Be Able To Use Technology To Do More Research?
Re: Interesting
For example, juries treat confessions as extremely strong evidence, even where there's substantial reason to doubt the confession. In mock trials, juries will usually convict on the basis of a confession that they are told was A) obtained by force after physical torture, and B) is completely contradicted by solid physical evidence. IE, mock juries will convict in situations where it is impossible for the person to have done it, just because they confessed as a result of torture.
I'm not assuming anything. Further, this isn't a matter of being a moron, it's a matter of being human. There's a further wrinkle in that juries in criminal trials experience strong selective pressures. People with jobs desperately seek to avoid jury duty because the pay is terrible and they can't afford to live on a juror's wages. Students are routinely excluded, as are teachers. Further, in the US they will often exclude those who have heard about the incident, which weeds out the media savvy.
A lot of evidence that is excluded might be the sort of thing you'd expect an intelligent person to consider. The fact that the accused had a bloody knife in his car is a highly salient fact--but the jury may be foreclosed from considering that fact due to the improper behaviour of the police. Other evidence is excluded because it is irrelevant or of only weak value, but the average person is likely to weigh it too strongly (hearsay evidence, past sexual behaviour of the complainant in sex offence trials, etc).
Mr. Masnick, I am not normally a detractor of yours. On this subject, however, you are arguing from a position of ignorance, and your arguments lack a basic logical foundation and have mostly been open questions that suggest an answer without offering any reasons for it ("Why not do this?") or appeals to emotions. You've been ignoring the fact that what you suggest would undermine the fundamentals of our justice system and could have great adverse effects on trial fairness.
On the post: Clear And Concise Explanation For Why Software Patents Harm Innovation
On the post: Canadian Copyright Organization: This Is War Against Consumers
Photography's standard business model
Step 1: Pay a huge sum to get them to take pictures at the wedding. For this, you receive /nothing/, save the fact that they have taken pictures. They own the copyright. Maybe the deal includes a trivial number of prints.
Step 2: Buy prints from them, as they jealously guard the original images, and the copyright. Print your own, and they will sue you. Want to edit your own pictures? Absolutely not--they don't want you interfering with their artistic integrity. Want to email a picture to your grandmother, or put up the wedding snaps on Facebook? No way.
This isn't a "customer service" model, it's a customer exploitation model. I've heard of a number of people who have felt really snared by this, going in and expecting that they will own the pictures that are taken, and then realizing that the photographer will hold those pictures over them. Worse, it's not like you can go back and just re-take the pictures of one of those (ideally) once in a lifetime events. So the photographer can just put the squeeze on you.
There's a lot of ways these weasels could still earn a living in a post-copyright economy. It'll probably involve a much more honest, up-front description of fees, and a lot less of the "squeezing the married couple (and their friends and relatives) for the next fifty years".
On the post: Can The Public Be Heard On Copyright Issues?
My intention is to try to point out to the government the degree to which copyright issues are being used to erode consumers' property rights in the things they purchase, to a degree that makes the "anti-piracy" efforts seem like a false flag, with the true target being honest consumers.
I am also greatly concerned by the way DRM protections would effectively give copyright holders the power to make their own laws, generally to eliminate competitive forces.
Next >>