"That exactly what an unauthorized website is. A site that is not affilitated or has permision to sell nike items.
Ebay if you didnt know is notorious for selling fake items."
Again, show me where every website who makes available product has to have permission to do so. If I buy stuff in bulk, it's mine... I can resell it if I want.
And let's get something straight: Ebay does not sell counterfiet goods... they don't sell anything... users on Ebay may sometimes sell counterfeit goods. Huge difference.
"Counterfit shoes are the same as illegal downloading."
Wrong! but thanks for playing. Counterfeit is trademark infringement, illegal download is copyright infringment.
"Fuck Moody and fuck who he rolls with. And if youre down with Moody Fuck you too!!!"
Thanks for joining us here on Antique Troll-Show. And here, ladies and gentleman, we see this wonderful example of a troll-post has been finished with an ad-hominim attack. It's rare to see one in such clear and shining condition. It's a real treasure and I'm glad you brought this out... if this opinion went to auction, I'd say - conservatively - it'd be worth about ~thinks a second~ a sack of shit. Maybe two!
To show defense of a trademark, the company must take action. But nothing says that action has to come in the form of suing the customer... the least-culpable in this whole thing (despite what AC has to say about it).
All they had to do is file a complaint against the site it was purchased from and -boom- they're defending. It doesn't have to be a successful action that results in a 'win' to qualify as defense.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
Meh... I always take Darryl's points to the mat on logic alone... I just toss the grammar and composition in as payment for the general annoyance of him posting.
I never call people on spelling unless it's tongue-in-cheek... I'm a horrible speller and I know it. But as far as 'dammit' vs 'damnit'... I stand by my spelling :p I know it's wrong, but I'm using it as a protest. The word is a bastardization of "Damn It", so I'm running them together in a more logical fashion. Although, another part of me hates the spelling of "damn" because I believe in phonetics over 'correctness'... dam(n/m)it... now I'm torn. :/
Arcara v. Cloud Books clearly shows that his defense was invalid. LOLz!!!1! I Win!!!! [/dripping sarcasm]
Seriously, I'm glad the judge applied common sense and helped the guy not get screwed on legal technicalities. I wonder if we can get him to come over and judge in America... we need a good dose of common sense.
I can't wait to see the fallout on this one... isn't Nike already on shaky ground from bad actions in the past?
Never mind that the reward was reduced considerable and that most of it was punitive. Sad that the punitive damages were able to be recouped by McD's in just a few days' worth of coffee sales. :/
Re: I was hoping for multiple jurisdiction filing, actually.
Didn't we see that here in Florida with Jack Thompson over frivolous law suits on videogames? He was disbarred and you saw the stupid stop for everyone except 'for the kids' politicos.
Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
I know it's wrong to feed Darryl, but damn it's fun!
Darryl... let me get this straight... A law professor states that the 'open letter' format may open up the door for fair use... and you say he's wrong? You can barely grasp basic writing composition or grammer... how the hell are you a legal expert?
"They do no work, they do no research, they do no editing or spend their time, and input any talent they may have."
That's called 'plagerism', not 'copyright infringement'.
"I'll grant you that he's probably a lot less likely to call it infringement when he's the one doing the copying. That's only natural. But I don't think that propensity changes the analysis of whether or not there is infringement."
Joe, you're missing the point still. We're not arguing whether or not the act of copying text from an article is legal or not... we're pointing out the obvious double-standard that Sherman adheres to.
And if hypocrisy is 'natural', that does not excuse it in civilized society. Especially by people who demonstrate through their writings that they believe themselves to be... how to say it... 'higher up the ladder'. After all, it's natural to relieve one's self in the bushes outside (heck, look at all the natural creatures doing it), but that doesn't make it acceptable. And giving 'it's natural' as an excuse is pretty poor in itself, in my opinion.
No... the whistle blowing defense is a way to make the exception to the law, not to repeal it. If military personal were required to blindly follow orders, they would not be able to raise moral objections to questionable orders... i.e., blow the whistle.
Wow... what, are you 12? I've seen more mature dialog from playing Halo online.
AvCB has been proven not-applicable to this situation. You refuse to actually mount a defense other than "LOLOL you're wrong!!!1!" and claims of ass-handing.
"Are you suggesting that a store that sells 95% infringing products cannot be shut down by the government if 5% of the sales are of products that constitute protectable expression? "
It depends on wether or not that store can successfully make the case that the selling of music is an expression. If they can and the government agrees that selling music is an expression, then no, the store itself cannot be shut down if that action would block the protected expression of the legal content.
"Put another way, if my website consists of nothing by infringing activity, do I get around criminal copyright enforcement by simply adding a forum?"
Thank you... My head is spinning from all of the other analogies floating around here.
In answer, you cannot get around copyright enforcement by hosting a forum in that same space... but you CAN get around having the whole site taken down. That's the whole point of prior restraint. We have plenty of other laws (DMCA, for one) to force down the infringing content in a targeted manner without affecting the protected speech.
You know... I knew something was missing here. I thought to myself "even with Mr. Anonymous, this conversation seems too intelligent".
Ok... let's get started. And by the way, I’ll be correcting your annoying structure, but I’ll leave the spelling errors.
“They havent been told why, and you guys (mostly) cant work it out ?? Where have you been ? If you cannot work out why, then all is lost, its obvious why, and it has been explained to you here now, and in the past.”
And here we see classic Darryl-missing-the-point-completely. It’s not about what we, or anyone suspects is going on, it’s about why the domain owners have not even been told what the accusation was. Which is contrary to due-process.
”I know your counterargument is that 'yes, they have infringing material, but they also had stuff that was not infringing'. as if that makes any difference, the law is the law.. you cannot have child porn on a legit site, and claim, that as some of the site is ligit, all of it must be..”
It does make a difference if there was non-infringing material. Go look up ‘prior restraint’. And, to further shatter your little mind, no one here is saying that legitimate content on a site makes all content on that site legitimate… but it does protect the site itself from censorship. We have laws in place already to target the illegal content… laws that were ignored when the domain names were seized.
”He would be companing a crack house to a domain name. The crack is the illegal substance provided by one, and copyrighted property they dont own on the other. So you, his analogy is apt.”
~sigh~ there are so many things wrong with the analogy of comparing a domain name to a crack house I don’t even know where to begin. But for you, Darryl, I’ll try. 1) One is a physical location, the other is a forum of expression. 2) Possessing copyrighted material is not even on the same level with distributing drugs. 3) Just saying they’re the same does not make it so.
”If you own a crack house and you mow the lawns, pay the rent, and be nice to the neibours, that does not meen that the activities of that house is illegal, and you can and should lose the right to it, and the proceeds of your crime.”
I’m not even sure where you were going with this one… moving along…
”Do you think if they bust someone with crack, they let them keep their lab, their supply, their cash, their guns, cars, freedom ? Because some of the things they do in their lives is above the law, does not make the things they do agaist the law ok.
What part of the domain name is supposed to be the cash, guns, cars and freedom here? And as far as ‘freedom’… ever hear of bail?
And Mike, you are aware of this !!!! People here have a cloudy and biased opinion of reality, because of you guiding them to that bias..
Holy shit! That was almost a coherent thought Darryl! I’m so proud of you! But you’re wrong (again). I have modified my opinion on things here many times by finding information from many other sources.
”How you can say you have no idea why their domain name was,, well it just makes no sense, why you would say something like that, you are supposed to know the law ??? “
While he does have a firmer grasp on the law than ~koff~ ‘others’, he has never claimed to be a legal expert.
OK… on to your next post…
”And Of course, when they bust the crack dealer, they let them free, and let them continue to deal crack, until their court date !!!.. yea right.. im sure they do..”
While you’re still wrong with sticking to the analogy to crack-dealing, have you ever heard of bail?
”Its funny how these legal terms are thrown about here, with seemingly little or not actual understanding what those terms mean as legal terms.”
You’re right… there is an EXTREME amount of misunderstanding on these laws… so why don’t you go brush up on them and come back. That should solve the problem. Also, how about grammar and spelling… you know, as a personal favor.
”exactly, except I would have to say **MOST** readers of TD or EFF are not more aware, ... “
Your opinion is noted and (as usual) laughed at.
”They have just been biased conditioned.. and its clear who is responsible for that !!!!”
Who’s responsible for us knowing what’s going on? You’re right, it’s obvious… it’s called ‘education’, ‘reason’, ‘critical thinking skills’, etc. If you want to pull some “bleep bloop” robot accusation, go call Glenn Beck… I’m sure he’ll oblige.
” due process was followed, that is why it was a court issued takedown, the due process was followed to the letter.
I see by another post you have that you’re in Australia. So how are you an expert on American legal proceedings? Hmm…
The due process that is missing is the part about telling an accused person what they’re being accused of.
” Due process does not mean you go to court, it means the correct legal process was followed, they do exactly what the law requires them to do, they build a case, they go to court, they have a judge rule on it, and the Judge, and the court issue the order.. Not the prosecuting group..
Except they never went to court. And as I’ve stated before, just because the judge issued a court order does NOT make it correct or even constitutionally-sound.
” If the judge did not think there was a case, they would disallow the order.. “
Because judges are infallible, right?
” There was a big drug bust here in Australia a few weeks back, what do you think they did ? thats right, they took EVERYTHING off them, their house, their computers, their cars, their boats, their bank accounts, the lot.. “
Sorry… the crack- dealing-analogy is just wrong. I’m done with it.
” Expect more of it, not less, and dont try to blame the law, for doing what the law is intended to do.”
We don’t blame the law… we blame the enforcement NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW!
” And being law abiding in some situations (like a blog) does not make you NOT a criminal if in other situations you are breaking the law. (like illegal file sharing, against copyright law).”
And no one here is saying that it has been made legal. Dumbass. Try reading once in a while. For the last freakin time, the legitimate contact is protected by the First Amendment. We’re not saying that legitimizes the infringing content; we’re saying that if you block the protected speech, you’re violating the expresser’s Constitutional rights.
Tell you what Darryl, we’ll all chip in and see if we can get you some education. Or, even more likely, how about you ask Santa… I’m sure you’ve been a good little boy.
But the creator, unless he or she signs the copyrights to another party, can choose not to enforce it. Hence Trent Reznor distributing his music via USB drives placed in concert bathrooms.
Which, of course, is part of the problem. When the copyright is given to a third party who has interest only in the money to be made instead of the art's value as art or its contribution to society... we get our current situation.
On the post: Nike Sues Guy Who Ordered Single Pair Of Counterfeit Sneakers Over The Internet
Re:
Again, show me where every website who makes available product has to have permission to do so. If I buy stuff in bulk, it's mine... I can resell it if I want.
And let's get something straight: Ebay does not sell counterfiet goods... they don't sell anything... users on Ebay may sometimes sell counterfeit goods. Huge difference.
Wrong! but thanks for playing. Counterfeit is trademark infringement, illegal download is copyright infringment.
Thanks for joining us here on Antique Troll-Show. And here, ladies and gentleman, we see this wonderful example of a troll-post has been finished with an ad-hominim attack. It's rare to see one in such clear and shining condition. It's a real treasure and I'm glad you brought this out... if this opinion went to auction, I'd say - conservatively - it'd be worth about ~thinks a second~ a sack of shit. Maybe two!
On the post: Nike Sues Guy Who Ordered Single Pair Of Counterfeit Sneakers Over The Internet
Re:
On the post: Nike Sues Guy Who Ordered Single Pair Of Counterfeit Sneakers Over The Internet
Re: Nike has a point
To show defense of a trademark, the company must take action. But nothing says that action has to come in the form of suing the customer... the least-culpable in this whole thing (despite what AC has to say about it).
All they had to do is file a complaint against the site it was purchased from and -boom- they're defending. It doesn't have to be a successful action that results in a 'win' to qualify as defense.
On the post: Yet Another Court Explains To The Obama Administration That The 4th Amendment Means You Need To Get A Warrant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Denver Post Column That Righthaven Is Suing Over May Have Given Implied Permission To Copy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
I never call people on spelling unless it's tongue-in-cheek... I'm a horrible speller and I know it. But as far as 'dammit' vs 'damnit'... I stand by my spelling :p I know it's wrong, but I'm using it as a protest. The word is a bastardization of "Damn It", so I'm running them together in a more logical fashion. Although, another part of me hates the spelling of "damn" because I believe in phonetics over 'correctness'... dam(n/m)it... now I'm torn. :/
On the post: Nike Sues Guy Who Ordered Single Pair Of Counterfeit Sneakers Over The Internet
but but but
Seriously, I'm glad the judge applied common sense and helped the guy not get screwed on legal technicalities. I wonder if we can get him to come over and judge in America... we need a good dose of common sense.
I can't wait to see the fallout on this one... isn't Nike already on shaky ground from bad actions in the past?
On the post: Nike Sues Guy Who Ordered Single Pair Of Counterfeit Sneakers Over The Internet
Re:
On the post: More People Calling US Copyright Group's Bluff
Re: Re: Where are the tort reformers?
On the post: More People Calling US Copyright Group's Bluff
Re: I was hoping for multiple jurisdiction filing, actually.
On the post: Denver Post Column That Righthaven Is Suing Over May Have Given Implied Permission To Copy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
On the post: Denver Post Column That Righthaven Is Suing Over May Have Given Implied Permission To Copy
Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
On the post: Denver Post Column That Righthaven Is Suing Over May Have Given Implied Permission To Copy
Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
Darryl... let me get this straight... A law professor states that the 'open letter' format may open up the door for fair use... and you say he's wrong? You can barely grasp basic writing composition or grammer... how the hell are you a legal expert?
That's called 'plagerism', not 'copyright infringement'.
Have you asked Santa for an education yet?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101214/02371412269/owners-hiphop-blogs-seized-homeland-secu rity-still-havent-been-told-why.shtml#c1580
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Joe, you're missing the point still. We're not arguing whether or not the act of copying text from an article is legal or not... we're pointing out the obvious double-standard that Sherman adheres to.
And if hypocrisy is 'natural', that does not excuse it in civilized society. Especially by people who demonstrate through their writings that they believe themselves to be... how to say it... 'higher up the ladder'. After all, it's natural to relieve one's self in the bushes outside (heck, look at all the natural creatures doing it), but that doesn't make it acceptable. And giving 'it's natural' as an excuse is pretty poor in itself, in my opinion.
On the post: US Is Apparently Torturing Bradley Manning, Despite No Trial And No Conviction
Re:
On the post: US Is Apparently Torturing Bradley Manning, Despite No Trial And No Conviction
Re:
Hey DH... mind if I borrow your 'nationalism' comment?
On the post: Owners Of Hiphop Blogs Seized By Homeland Security Still Haven't Been Told Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
AvCB has been proven not-applicable to this situation. You refuse to actually mount a defense other than "LOLOL you're wrong!!!1!" and claims of ass-handing.
Either man-up with some real points or go away.
On the post: Creating Flight Plans Online? Patented! Small Company Sued Out Of Business For Not Wanting To Pay $3.2 Million Per Month
Blackmail?
Wouldn't 'extortion' or 'racketeering' be a better description?
On the post: Owners Of Hiphop Blogs Seized By Homeland Security Still Haven't Been Told Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you... My head is spinning from all of the other analogies floating around here.
In answer, you cannot get around copyright enforcement by hosting a forum in that same space... but you CAN get around having the whole site taken down. That's the whole point of prior restraint. We have plenty of other laws (DMCA, for one) to force down the infringing content in a targeted manner without affecting the protected speech.
On the post: Owners Of Hiphop Blogs Seized By Homeland Security Still Haven't Been Told Why
Ok... let's get started. And by the way, I’ll be correcting your annoying structure, but I’ll leave the spelling errors.
And here we see classic Darryl-missing-the-point-completely. It’s not about what we, or anyone suspects is going on, it’s about why the domain owners have not even been told what the accusation was. Which is contrary to due-process.
It does make a difference if there was non-infringing material. Go look up ‘prior restraint’. And, to further shatter your little mind, no one here is saying that legitimate content on a site makes all content on that site legitimate… but it does protect the site itself from censorship. We have laws in place already to target the illegal content… laws that were ignored when the domain names were seized.
~sigh~ there are so many things wrong with the analogy of comparing a domain name to a crack house I don’t even know where to begin. But for you, Darryl, I’ll try. 1) One is a physical location, the other is a forum of expression. 2) Possessing copyrighted material is not even on the same level with distributing drugs. 3) Just saying they’re the same does not make it so.
I’m not even sure where you were going with this one… moving along…
What part of the domain name is supposed to be the cash, guns, cars and freedom here? And as far as ‘freedom’… ever hear of bail?
Holy shit! That was almost a coherent thought Darryl! I’m so proud of you! But you’re wrong (again). I have modified my opinion on things here many times by finding information from many other sources.
While he does have a firmer grasp on the law than ~koff~ ‘others’, he has never claimed to be a legal expert.
OK… on to your next post…
While you’re still wrong with sticking to the analogy to crack-dealing, have you ever heard of bail?
You’re right… there is an EXTREME amount of misunderstanding on these laws… so why don’t you go brush up on them and come back. That should solve the problem. Also, how about grammar and spelling… you know, as a personal favor.
Your opinion is noted and (as usual) laughed at.
Who’s responsible for us knowing what’s going on? You’re right, it’s obvious… it’s called ‘education’, ‘reason’, ‘critical thinking skills’, etc. If you want to pull some “bleep bloop” robot accusation, go call Glenn Beck… I’m sure he’ll oblige.
I see by another post you have that you’re in Australia. So how are you an expert on American legal proceedings? Hmm…
The due process that is missing is the part about telling an accused person what they’re being accused of.
Except they never went to court. And as I’ve stated before, just because the judge issued a court order does NOT make it correct or even constitutionally-sound.
Because judges are infallible, right?
Sorry… the crack- dealing-analogy is just wrong. I’m done with it.
We don’t blame the law… we blame the enforcement NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW!
And no one here is saying that it has been made legal. Dumbass. Try reading once in a while. For the last freakin time, the legitimate contact is protected by the First Amendment. We’re not saying that legitimizes the infringing content; we’re saying that if you block the protected speech, you’re violating the expresser’s Constitutional rights.
Tell you what Darryl, we’ll all chip in and see if we can get you some education. Or, even more likely, how about you ask Santa… I’m sure you’ve been a good little boy.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which, of course, is part of the problem. When the copyright is given to a third party who has interest only in the money to be made instead of the art's value as art or its contribution to society... we get our current situation.
Next >>