Trademarks need to be zealously protected and guarded, without which they risk being lost. Unlike a patent or copyright, trademarks are often fairly generic in nature, but do readily identify a company, brand, or similar.
Judging by the website, it would appear that the Smile Cookie is pretty much their entire visual identity. I would also say that their particular smiley face is at least somewhat unique, both in relative scale and details, such as the lines at each end of the smile and so on.
To me, it isn't any more or any less than a Ronald McDonald or a Jack in the box dude.
Mike, I would have to say that this is another example of your over zealousness to
Thus, it is better to have a system that allows rewarding of presumed damages, rather than having to prove them to the penny. The costs of proving damages on the internet would be high, not to the parties, but to everyone else.
In the end, I think the 3 strikes idea is an attempt to avoid this sort of legal tiddly winks. The theory being that most people would stop after warning #2, or at least learn to be way more discrete.
Think of it as vicarious liability. Since they are the only one charged, they may only be responsible for 0.00000000001% of the copies, but they get to pay for all it.
It would make the tenenbaum judgement look like pocket change,
It did give me an idea. For the next file sharing care, we close down the internet, and inspect every computer system attached to see who has the file. Then we charge the infringer $10 per copy, with no upper limit.
It will take a few months, but I suspect that it will resolve the issue of losses once and for all.
Microsoft sets up a system that blocks ALL major ad networks, removing pretty much all of the big end ads that you might see. That would include all google ads, advertising.com, etc. It would come standard on the browser, and be able to be disabled, perhaps a whitelist of companies you accept advertising from.
It would be entirely up to the user, but by default, it would be on. Part of the claim would be to disable flash ads, which are often infected with viruses, which would give them a valid reason to do. Heck, they could even offer an updating system that goes out and gets an up to date list, including known spyware sites (surf safe style).
Suddenly, it's not just an ad blocker, it's part of the move to surf safely on the net.
Google is entirely dependant on ads. Remove the ads, Google disappears. Microsoft wins, and does it above board.
It isn't a very sensible concept because it is almost impossible to completely show the harm done.
1 single copy of a song can turn into millions of copy of a song. Should a file sharer be in part responsible for all of them?
Those millions of copies could lead to lower sales. If this album sells less than the last album, should file sharers pick up the difference?
What happens if a deal is lost to put the music in a movie or use it in a commercial because of the song being too widely available for free? Who should pay for that?
Richard, legally, it's ALWAYS the user who blocks it. Microsoft just sets up the tools and allows the user to install it. It's the user's computer doing the blocking, not Microsoft. Heck, they could offer a checkbox hidden 9 menus down that can turn it off on a per session basis or something like that.
Tucker: I used IE as an example because it still had the vast majority of users, and would significantly impact Google in a very short amount of time. Imagine Google losing 50% of their ad revenues overnight. That would be pretty scary for them.
If Netflix gets 1000 copies of a movie to mail out, and each cycle takes 4 days (I am guessing here, I don't have the numbers at hand) then they have about 7000 or so customers they can satisfy per 1000 copies.
What happens? Most people end up with the movie on their wanted list, and they might get it some time in the future.
Move it to streaming, the average consumer still gets the movie in the time frame they are use to, because most of them were not getting the movie in the first 28 days anyway. If you use netflix, consider the last time a hot movie came out that you added to your list. How quickly did you actually get it?
Meanwhile, Netflix gets exactly what it needs to move forward with it's business, licensed and approved content for their streaming service. They don't have to sneak in the back door, they don't have to play games. They have a studio signed up and willing to give them content with certain restrictions.
As Netflix is often as much about the long tail (the time after the 28 day window) rather than just what is hot and new this minute, it helps them to expand their streaming service.
Like I said, you can expect to see Netflix move away from their mail base systems soon enough, as they are expensive to operate, and in the long run will not complete with other online offerings, or the cable/sat PPV systems.
if advertising is so annoying that a large segment of the population wants to block it, then advertising should get less annoying.
This is a pretty interesting opinion for a guy working in a company that is entirely dependent on advertising (specifically click rate advertising).
Google ads are remarkably easy to block, they are all called in a similar manner, so it is pretty easy to make Google no longer be part of your online life.
I suspect the story would be different if Microsoft launches IE9 with an ad blocker built it that filters out all Google ads, both on websites and in the Google SERPs. There would be a rather large manure / fan interaction at that point.
When I say "artist" in this case, it extends as "artist or the rights holder" whoever that may be. It may be some faceless corporation, it might be Novoselic's bubby. The point is that Youtube shouldn't be the one making the choice for them.
Asking the ISPs to be responsible for a site is not at all acceptable. ISPs do not control content, are not involved in how the site is run, etc.
The real problem here isn't who shuts the site down, but the speed of the justice system (slow, slower, stop) and the internet (new domains come live in about 10 seconds now). If the justice system runs at it's current pace, it can take years for justice to catch up and close websites, if it is done only on the basis of "proven in a court of law".
Consumers online are not well treated by the current speed of the justice system. I don't know the solution, but clearly there needs to be faster ways to shut things down before more consumers are victimized.
ISPs need to be more aware, and more careful in the customers they choose to host. They shouldn't be shy about terminating hosting arrangements with anyone they are not comfortable with.
I am saying for probably less than they would spend on lawyers, they could get the blessing and avoid this sort of stupidity. Fighting it costs money, and there is a risk (however minor) that they lose and have to pay up, or go through an appeals process.
Do I think the Dick Estate has a leg to stand on? Nope. Is it worth a few dollars not to have to find out? Yup.
Nope, I am just sitting here thinking how the incredibly rich and profitable Google corp could have not only saved themselves from even having to deal with this, while also getting a sort of blessing and support for probably less than it costs them to stock an employee free beverage area for an hour.
This is one of those things where right or wrong, Google is going to end up having to pay their laywers, and they won't come out of it looking any better (and could come out looking worse). No matter the legitimacy of the legal claims, it just seems foolish for Google to have even put themselves in this position.
Why exactly is Novoselic thinking exclusively in terms of "financial" compensation, here? The fact is, whether Youtube explicitly "pays" him (or anyone, for that matter), they are being "compensated" by way of free -- gratis -- access to the platform itself. It's extremely short-sighted of him not to understand that fact.
My only point is that it should be Novoselic's choice to enter into that sort of an agreement, not YouTubes. To me, YouTube is doing the equivilent of having a doorman at a bar with a handgun forcing people into the bar to drink. People should come into the bar because of their own desires, they should not be forced to get drunk at gunpoint with someone telling them they should appreciate the drinks.
It's a question of choice, and it should always be up to the artist.
But no one is forcing the artist to put his/her work on Youtube.
More often than not, the artists work is on YouTube from fans rather than in the artist's control. This guy could pull anything he posted on youtube, and it would likely remove only a very small amount of the content he is involved in.
The radio thing is very important: Individual artists don't have to go out and negotiate with the radio stations, the system is in place to pay a set amount without a blink, it is an expense of being in the radio business. Youtube and others like them should be in the same boat, such that artists would automatically get compensated when their work is used, without them having to chance for the money.
It's a question of who should do the work. If Youtube wants to play videos with music, they should be responsible to pay the rights fees without prompting. Individual artists should not be forced to grovel for money. It should be automatic.
No, let's hold them all up to the same standard, and the ones who don't hold up their end of the deal will stand out more, with less of a legal leg to stand on.
On the post: Bakery Claims Trademark On Smiley Face Cookies; Sues Competing Cookie Firm
Judging by the website, it would appear that the Smile Cookie is pretty much their entire visual identity. I would also say that their particular smiley face is at least somewhat unique, both in relative scale and details, such as the lines at each end of the smile and so on.
To me, it isn't any more or any less than a Ronald McDonald or a Jack in the box dude.
Mike, I would have to say that this is another example of your over zealousness to
On the post: Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill
Re:
In the end, I think the 3 strikes idea is an attempt to avoid this sort of legal tiddly winks. The theory being that most people would stop after warning #2, or at least learn to be way more discrete.
On the post: Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It would make the tenenbaum judgement look like pocket change,
On the post: Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill
Re: Re:
It did give me an idea. For the next file sharing care, we close down the internet, and inspect every computer system attached to see who has the file. Then we charge the infringer $10 per copy, with no upper limit.
It will take a few months, but I suspect that it will resolve the issue of losses once and for all.
On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Microsoft sets up a system that blocks ALL major ad networks, removing pretty much all of the big end ads that you might see. That would include all google ads, advertising.com, etc. It would come standard on the browser, and be able to be disabled, perhaps a whitelist of companies you accept advertising from.
It would be entirely up to the user, but by default, it would be on. Part of the claim would be to disable flash ads, which are often infected with viruses, which would give them a valid reason to do. Heck, they could even offer an updating system that goes out and gets an up to date list, including known spyware sites (surf safe style).
Suddenly, it's not just an ad blocker, it's part of the move to surf safely on the net.
Google is entirely dependant on ads. Remove the ads, Google disappears. Microsoft wins, and does it above board.
On the post: Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill
1 single copy of a song can turn into millions of copy of a song. Should a file sharer be in part responsible for all of them?
Those millions of copies could lead to lower sales. If this album sells less than the last album, should file sharers pick up the difference?
What happens if a deal is lost to put the music in a movie or use it in a commercial because of the song being too widely available for free? Who should pay for that?
How do you even measure it right?
On the post: Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem
Re: Re:
Tucker: I used IE as an example because it still had the vast majority of users, and would significantly impact Google in a very short amount of time. Imagine Google losing 50% of their ad revenues overnight. That would be pretty scary for them.
On the post: Warner Bros. Gets Netflix To Delay Movies; You Don't Save Your Business By Pissing Off Your Customers
Re: Re:
If Netflix gets 1000 copies of a movie to mail out, and each cycle takes 4 days (I am guessing here, I don't have the numbers at hand) then they have about 7000 or so customers they can satisfy per 1000 copies.
What happens? Most people end up with the movie on their wanted list, and they might get it some time in the future.
Move it to streaming, the average consumer still gets the movie in the time frame they are use to, because most of them were not getting the movie in the first 28 days anyway. If you use netflix, consider the last time a hot movie came out that you added to your list. How quickly did you actually get it?
Meanwhile, Netflix gets exactly what it needs to move forward with it's business, licensed and approved content for their streaming service. They don't have to sneak in the back door, they don't have to play games. They have a studio signed up and willing to give them content with certain restrictions.
As Netflix is often as much about the long tail (the time after the 28 day window) rather than just what is hot and new this minute, it helps them to expand their streaming service.
Like I said, you can expect to see Netflix move away from their mail base systems soon enough, as they are expensive to operate, and in the long run will not complete with other online offerings, or the cable/sat PPV systems.
On the post: Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem
This is a pretty interesting opinion for a guy working in a company that is entirely dependent on advertising (specifically click rate advertising).
Google ads are remarkably easy to block, they are all called in a similar manner, so it is pretty easy to make Google no longer be part of your online life.
I suspect the story would be different if Microsoft launches IE9 with an ad blocker built it that filters out all Google ads, both on websites and in the Google SERPs. There would be a rather large manure / fan interaction at that point.
On the post: Nirvana's Bassist: I Don't Understand Having ISPs Regulate Copyright Files, But I Support Bono's Position Anyway
Re: Re: Re: Several different issues:
When I say "artist" in this case, it extends as "artist or the rights holder" whoever that may be. It may be some faceless corporation, it might be Novoselic's bubby. The point is that Youtube shouldn't be the one making the choice for them.
On the post: Should ISPs And Registrars Be Responsible For Bogus Online Pharmaceutical Sites?
Re: Responsible ???
Asking the ISPs to be responsible for a site is not at all acceptable. ISPs do not control content, are not involved in how the site is run, etc.
The real problem here isn't who shuts the site down, but the speed of the justice system (slow, slower, stop) and the internet (new domains come live in about 10 seconds now). If the justice system runs at it's current pace, it can take years for justice to catch up and close websites, if it is done only on the basis of "proven in a court of law".
Consumers online are not well treated by the current speed of the justice system. I don't know the solution, but clearly there needs to be faster ways to shut things down before more consumers are victimized.
ISPs need to be more aware, and more careful in the customers they choose to host. They shouldn't be shy about terminating hosting arrangements with anyone they are not comfortable with.
On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name
Re: Re: Re:
Do I think the Dick Estate has a leg to stand on? Nope. Is it worth a few dollars not to have to find out? Yup.
On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name
Re:
This is one of those things where right or wrong, Google is going to end up having to pay their laywers, and they won't come out of it looking any better (and could come out looking worse). No matter the legitimacy of the legal claims, it just seems foolish for Google to have even put themselves in this position.
On the post: Supreme Court Considers Case Over Using Copyright Law To Block Import Of Gray Market Goods
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Nirvana's Bassist: I Don't Understand Having ISPs Regulate Copyright Files, But I Support Bono's Position Anyway
Re: Several different issues:
My only point is that it should be Novoselic's choice to enter into that sort of an agreement, not YouTubes. To me, YouTube is doing the equivilent of having a doorman at a bar with a handgun forcing people into the bar to drink. People should come into the bar because of their own desires, they should not be forced to get drunk at gunpoint with someone telling them they should appreciate the drinks.
It's a question of choice, and it should always be up to the artist.
On the post: Nirvana's Bassist: I Don't Understand Having ISPs Regulate Copyright Files, But I Support Bono's Position Anyway
Re: Re:
More often than not, the artists work is on YouTube from fans rather than in the artist's control. This guy could pull anything he posted on youtube, and it would likely remove only a very small amount of the content he is involved in.
The radio thing is very important: Individual artists don't have to go out and negotiate with the radio stations, the system is in place to pay a set amount without a blink, it is an expense of being in the radio business. Youtube and others like them should be in the same boat, such that artists would automatically get compensated when their work is used, without them having to chance for the money.
It's a question of who should do the work. If Youtube wants to play videos with music, they should be responsible to pay the rights fees without prompting. Individual artists should not be forced to grovel for money. It should be automatic.
On the post: CyberSitter Sues The Chinese Government (In Los Angeles) Over Green Dam Filters
Re: Re: Re:
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a good story, right?
On the post: You Can't Be A Fan Of University Of Cincinnati's Sports Teams Unless You've Paid The Proper License
Title is sort of misleading
you can be a fan, you just can't make your own cheap knockoff official products.
Aren't t-shirts and other things like this the scarce goods that are suppose to pay the bills in the future of entertainment?
You can't have it both ways.
On the post: Should ISPs And Registrars Be Responsible For Bogus Online Pharmaceutical Sites?
Re: Re:
Next >>