Re: Timmy comes out for regulating businesses! Merely "for the purpose of commerce" must never stifle others.
"I assume Timmy considers himself a "libertarian""
Hardly. I'm generally left of center, more commonly on the socialist side than anything, but with enough libertarian dashed in to keep things interesting.
"and suddenly all the "excessive" regulation of the past -- when the country was most prosperous -- begins to make sense."
If you're point is that we're currently under-regulated, I agree with you. Which is weird. And if by the past you mean the 1950's, then I agree with you more than you likely know.
"Just one short step more is to recognize that a legislated monopoly such as the NFL can never be consistent with freedom: we could get meaningless sports contests much more cheaply if that monopoly were taken away... So, Timmy: glad to see you're coming along!"
See, I DO agree with this. You know who doesn't? YOU. You can't say this in one breath and talk up copyright, another legislated monopoly, with the other. At least I'm consistent....
"At night, I transform into a palaeontologist. I study sauropods, the biggest and best of the dinosaurs. I'm an associate researcher at the University of Bristol, UK."
Well, that's just fucking cool. Please tell me you've dignified this with an over the top awesome business card?
Re: "cutting-edge technology from the advertising industry"
For what it's worth, those of you that read the linked articles will know that the cell-providers who would be Blue's "Google" in this instance are vehemently denying they had anything to do with this and are saying the Ukraine govt. operates its own transmitters that can hijack their platform....
"This leaves me confused. How can "removing" a word allow for more speech? Are others now able to wax poetic using the "word" that you deem offensive?"
Ok, try to follow with me now: they....are....not....removing...the...word. They aren't preventing the Washington team from retaining their name, they aren't preventing them from using it in commerce, they aren't preventing anyone from saying that word. At all.
All removing the trademark would do is allow EVERYONE to use the word in commerce. Currently, only the Washington team can do so in their market. Removing the mark would allow for more speech, not less.
What the hell does the origin of the word have to do with its present day use? The meaning of words change. Here's a brief history of the term Redskin, which changed from a self-identifier to a word meant to disparage.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, as long as government is enforcing GOOD speech.....
"Look, you and Masnick and all the others that regularly write for this site have consistently taken the position that using IP law for purposes for which it was not intended, or to do an end run around the law to accomplish something via IP that couldn't otherwise legally be accomplished is an inappropriate abuse of IP law."
Well, that's simply not true. I won't speak for the Maz, but I've never been dogmatic about how IP is used. My only concern was that it server its GENERAL purpose of promoting the progress, which, interestingly, DENYING trademarks can do, as in this case, where more people would be able to use more speech in more commerce. Yet you have a problem with it, because you seem to think that this is outside of trademark's scope, despite the fact that denying degrading language is baked into the law. It's, honestly, a very strange position to take for anyone that isn't emotionally tied to the team name....
"Yet that's exactly what you're advocating here."
Mmmm, no. It's not an inappropriate use at all, it's baked directly into the law. This isn't some new end-around, it's been around forever.
"It's purpose is not to confer a government endorsement or 'sanctification' (your words) of the business that receives the trademark."
Nobody said that was its "purpose", it's just the de facto nature of a govt. granted privilege. Similarly, the purpose of diplomatic relations isn't to end up with an emissary in a foreign country in an embassy that must be guarded and protected....that's just the nature of the position. Your point is literally not saying anything.
"Nor is it the purpose of trademark law for the government to prevent people from being offended by a business's name."
You seem to think this has to do with people being offended. It doesn't. Words can be disparaging by their very nature without any need for validation by the target. If I don't care enough for a homosexual man sitting next to me to call him a cocksucking faggot, his laughing it off doesn't make my words NOT disparaging. The issue is the nature and history of the word, not how many people are offended. The term Redskin OBVIOUSLY is a disparaging term, as has been cited in previous articles.
"Based on every other position you guys take on the issues surrounding IP law, I honestly can't believe you'd be in favor of giving the government that power, but apparently you, at least, are."
Again, the govt. is taking an action that actually allows for more speech by more people in more commerce, not less. That would seem to be entirely consistent with what we discuss here. I think you may have some blinders on preventing you from seeing this....
"Apparently IP law abuse is fine when you're heart's in the right place and your intentions are pure. Or something like that."
You keep repeating that this is abuse, but you haven't bothered to explain what the balls you're talking about. Disparagement is written into Trademark law. The USPTO just showed how it's supposed to have been done. What "abuse"? Was the USPTO wrong for denying this mark? Do you not think disparagement clauses exist? Do you somehow think that the term Redskin is not a disparaging term?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, as long as government is enforcing GOOD speech.....
"Looks like Redskins Hog Rinds can't sell its product the way they want while enjoying the same trade monopoly over its name as every other business."
So, just so I'm clear, you look at the USPTO refusing to limit the speech of the greater population in commerce and label that a limitation of speech. Interesting version of reality you have there....
On the post: Crazy Amazon Seller Threatens the Wrath of Scientology on People Who Give Negative Feedback
Re: What would you people do with yourselves...
On the post: Baybrook Remodelers, Still In The Midst Of Suing People For Negative Reviews, Deploys A Disastrous SEO Hitman
Question:
On the post: This Is Trademark: Kate Spade Had To Go To Court To Use The Term 'Saturday' In A Clothing Line
Re: Timmy comes out for regulating businesses! Merely "for the purpose of commerce" must never stifle others.
Hardly. I'm generally left of center, more commonly on the socialist side than anything, but with enough libertarian dashed in to keep things interesting.
"and suddenly all the "excessive" regulation of the past -- when the country was most prosperous -- begins to make sense."
If you're point is that we're currently under-regulated, I agree with you. Which is weird. And if by the past you mean the 1950's, then I agree with you more than you likely know.
"Just one short step more is to recognize that a legislated monopoly such as the NFL can never be consistent with freedom: we could get meaningless sports contests much more cheaply if that monopoly were taken away... So, Timmy: glad to see you're coming along!"
See, I DO agree with this. You know who doesn't? YOU. You can't say this in one breath and talk up copyright, another legislated monopoly, with the other. At least I'm consistent....
On the post: Hey Everyone: Stop Freaking Out That Mein Kampf Sells Well As An eBook
Re: say tim ?
Do you not? Entire blockbuster movies and Broadway plays have been based on that very notion....
On the post: Ukraine Parliament Repeals Anti-Protest Laws As Prime Minister Falls On President's Sword
Re: I Can Geometries?
On the post: Mike Taylor's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Huh...
Well, that's just fucking cool. Please tell me you've dignified this with an over the top awesome business card?
On the post: Surprise: Republican Party Says NSA Surveillance Programs Are Unconstitutional And Must End
Interesting...
Interesting, considering they were the ones who initially said they must start....
On the post: Revenge Porn 'King' Hunter Moore Indicted & Arrested; May Actually Be A Legitimate Use Of CFAA
Hunter Moore
That's what we term a call back, people....
On the post: Ukraine Sending Anyone Near Protests Creepy Text Messages
Re: "cutting-edge technology from the advertising industry"
On the post: Police Chief Publicly Disciplines Officers On Social Media
Re: Re:
Well, just off the top of my head, the MLBPA and NFLPA seem to fit that description nicely....
On the post: USPTO: The Term 'Redskins' Is Offensive And Can't Be Trademarked
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: USPTO: The Term 'Redskins' Is Offensive And Can't Be Trademarked
Re:
Ok, try to follow with me now: they....are....not....removing...the...word. They aren't preventing the Washington team from retaining their name, they aren't preventing them from using it in commerce, they aren't preventing anyone from saying that word. At all.
All removing the trademark would do is allow EVERYONE to use the word in commerce. Currently, only the Washington team can do so in their market. Removing the mark would allow for more speech, not less.
On the post: USPTO: The Term 'Redskins' Is Offensive And Can't Be Trademarked
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, as long as government is enforcing GOOD speech.....
And I'm the dumbass? Outstanding work there....
On the post: USPTO: The Term 'Redskins' Is Offensive And Can't Be Trademarked
Re:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/09/09/220654611/are-you-ready-for-some-controvers y-the-history-of-redskin
On the post: USPTO: The Term 'Redskins' Is Offensive And Can't Be Trademarked
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, as long as government is enforcing GOOD speech.....
Well, that's simply not true. I won't speak for the Maz, but I've never been dogmatic about how IP is used. My only concern was that it server its GENERAL purpose of promoting the progress, which, interestingly, DENYING trademarks can do, as in this case, where more people would be able to use more speech in more commerce. Yet you have a problem with it, because you seem to think that this is outside of trademark's scope, despite the fact that denying degrading language is baked into the law. It's, honestly, a very strange position to take for anyone that isn't emotionally tied to the team name....
"Yet that's exactly what you're advocating here."
Mmmm, no. It's not an inappropriate use at all, it's baked directly into the law. This isn't some new end-around, it's been around forever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparagement
"It's purpose is not to confer a government endorsement or 'sanctification' (your words) of the business that receives the trademark."
Nobody said that was its "purpose", it's just the de facto nature of a govt. granted privilege. Similarly, the purpose of diplomatic relations isn't to end up with an emissary in a foreign country in an embassy that must be guarded and protected....that's just the nature of the position. Your point is literally not saying anything.
"Nor is it the purpose of trademark law for the government to prevent people from being offended by a business's name."
You seem to think this has to do with people being offended. It doesn't. Words can be disparaging by their very nature without any need for validation by the target. If I don't care enough for a homosexual man sitting next to me to call him a cocksucking faggot, his laughing it off doesn't make my words NOT disparaging. The issue is the nature and history of the word, not how many people are offended. The term Redskin OBVIOUSLY is a disparaging term, as has been cited in previous articles.
"Based on every other position you guys take on the issues surrounding IP law, I honestly can't believe you'd be in favor of giving the government that power, but apparently you, at least, are."
Again, the govt. is taking an action that actually allows for more speech by more people in more commerce, not less. That would seem to be entirely consistent with what we discuss here. I think you may have some blinders on preventing you from seeing this....
"Apparently IP law abuse is fine when you're heart's in the right place and your intentions are pure. Or something like that."
You keep repeating that this is abuse, but you haven't bothered to explain what the balls you're talking about. Disparagement is written into Trademark law. The USPTO just showed how it's supposed to have been done. What "abuse"? Was the USPTO wrong for denying this mark? Do you not think disparagement clauses exist? Do you somehow think that the term Redskin is not a disparaging term?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)
On the post: USPTO: The Term 'Redskins' Is Offensive And Can't Be Trademarked
Re: Re: Honestly...
Well, that's true, but ends up being besides the point. The Blackhawks are named after a local military armory, not any Native tribe.
On the post: USPTO: The Term 'Redskins' Is Offensive And Can't Be Trademarked
Re: Re: Re:
http://newspaperrock.bluecorncomics.com/2012/12/annenbergs-redskins-survey.html
On the post: USPTO: The Term 'Redskins' Is Offensive And Can't Be Trademarked
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, as long as government is enforcing GOOD speech.....
So, just so I'm clear, you look at the USPTO refusing to limit the speech of the greater population in commerce and label that a limitation of speech. Interesting version of reality you have there....
On the post: USPTO: The Term 'Redskins' Is Offensive And Can't Be Trademarked
Re: Re: Well, as long as government is enforcing GOOD speech.....
On the post: USPTO: The Term 'Redskins' Is Offensive And Can't Be Trademarked
Re: Honestly...
Next >>