Personally, I would take this a step further back and point out that copyright is a suspension of everyone else's right to do as they please with elements of culture, that there is no inherent exclusive natural right to exclude others from copying your book or song or whatever. It is, instead, an artificial marketplace convenience founded on suspending everyone else's natural rights.
If you want to get moral about it, copyright is a slight immorality that we all tolerate so long as copyright results in a net benefit to society.
Yep. Without copyright laws, people could copy as they please. But there is in fact copyright, and people cannot copy as they please. Without laws against murder, people could murder as they please. But there is in fact laws against murder, and people cannot murder as they please.
You can call the copyright rights artificial just like you can call the right to not be murdered artificial. So what? All rights are artificial.
And if copyright is something that "we all tolerate," then why are so many people pirates? And who are you to decide for yourself that copyright doesn't benefit society? You are only one person, and if you don't agree with a law then tough. People don't get to decide which laws are worth respecting and who's rights are OK to violate.
Economically speaking, it doesn't matter if it's moral or amoral. Morally speaking, it doesn't matter if it's legal or not. Legally speaking, it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. Realistically speaking, it doesn't matter if it's moral, legal, or right. You see how nothing actually relates in this situation? The fact that you won't acknowledge the fact that reality does not line up with the law any more speaks volumes about you.
If I violate your rights, does it matter to you? The reality is that people are consciously choosing to violate other people's rights, and only an apologist would pretending like it doesn't matter. If it would matter to you that your rights are violated, then it should matter to you when it happens to someone else.
Here's where you may be getting confused. Copyright isn't actually a right, it's a privilege granted to you for a limited time by the people who copyright is suppose to benefit, us, the public. So when you start talking morality, you're already off track when talking about copyright. If you want to talk morality, then it's moral to ignore copyright because copyright itself has become amoral (wasn't when it was created, now it is).
Copyright grants its holder certain rights. Either somebody has a right or they don't. The distinction between right and privilege is passe. You may not personally agree with copyright, but too bad for you. You don't get to decide which rights matter and which rights don't. I don't get to decide which of your rights are worth respecting and you don't get to do the same with other people's rights. It doesn't matter how terrible I think your right is to not be murdered, nothing gives me the right to murder you.
As for trolls, while you may bring an argument or two to the table, the people you chose to defend demonize and dehumanize themselves. They chose to come here, insult everyone indiscriminately, ignore any logic, and then leave without providing responses, logic, or evidence of their own. We don't do that to them, we just follow the path they laid out for themselves.
Nonsense. There are many on Techdirt who are very abusive, yet they aren't called trolls so long as they are toeing the line. It's only when somebody has a dissenting view do you guys feel the need to label them pejoratively.
If Techdirt only wrote articles about helping people make money in the digital age, I might think you had a point. But that's not all that Techdirt does. There's plenty of articles where the position is taken that the blame for piracy lies with the victims and not with the pirates. That's nonsense, not helping people out. That's pirate apologism.
Same thing with all the articles that defend the pirates. Every effort to take any action against a pirate is put under the microscope and dissected at the subatomic level. But then everything a pirate does is glorified and defended--facts and law be damned. That's not simply helping people out. That's pirate apologism.
And then there's articles like this one, where you reiterate the mantra that "wrong or not, it really doesn't matter" and "focusing on morals is missing the point." That's not simply discussing how people can be better off. That's pirate apologism.
I don't care if you want to help people out. That's admirable. But it's all the pirate apologism that really bothers me--and the fact that it's denied even though it's patently obvious. Give me a break. Techdirt is all about apologizing for and defending the pirates. And it's about blaming the pirates' victims for the pirates' conscious decision to violate their rights. That's the part that bothers me.
So as long as I can rationalize that in the "broader and, in the long run, more significant sense" that your rights don't matter, that means I get to violate your rights? And if I decide that violating your rights causes more good than harm, does that justify my decision to do so?
You're trying to downplay the fact that people are having their rights violated, and you've decided that since you think the victims would be better off not worrying about their rights then it's not a big deal that people violate them. In other words, you've made yourself the arbiter of what's important and what's not. You put yourself and your views ahead of the law and other people's rights. I'm sorry that you disagree with the law, but that doesn't excuse anyone's decision to violate it.
As far as calling that poster a "troll," I think it's ridiculous and childish. So what if his view is that it's wrong and that it's important to discuss that aspect? If you disagree with him, state your case. But calling him names and making fun of him isn't productive. Labeling anyone who reminds you of an uncomfortable truth a "troll" says more about you than it does about them.
Forever the moralist, said troll dismissed economics and pragmatism in favor of beating the piracy-is-wrong! drum, and amidst many great responses, JEDIDAH won Most Insightful for reiterating our view that wrong or not, it really doesn't matter... underlining the fact that focusing on morals is missing the point...
But it does matter that it's wrong. If it weren't wrong, it wouldn't matter that it happens. But because it is wrong, it matters that it happens. You and Mike and the rest of the gang might not think that it matters that it's wrong, but in the real world when someone is doing something wrong, it actually matters.
The fact that you don't/won't acknowledge that much speaks volumes, and it's a big part of what makes Techdirt a pirate-apologist blog. The Techdirt m.o. is to just gloss over the fact that piracy is wrong and to pretend like it doesn't even matter that people's rights are being willfully violated.
Can I willfully violate your rights? Would you think it didn't matter then? If not, why not? I know you don't have a good answer.
And honestly, referring to a dissenter as a "troll" is just sad. You're trying to demonize and dehumanize a person who has a different point of view. Shame on you. And shame on creating an atmosphere that isn't conducive to differing points of view.
That's a fairly extreme example. I have no trouble with the notion of anyone murdering Adolf Hitler in 1944. Are you suggesting that the wrongdoing that Manning exposed was on the same level as Hitler? Give me a break. Manning could have followed protocol and blown the whistle internally. Did he even try? And you still haven't accounted for the hundreds of thousands of classified materials that he did release that didn't show any kind of wrongdoing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
"...the parody defense is not even available since the use is commercial". Isn't most parody commercial? Weird Al, ApologetiX, "Mad" magazine, etc.?
Weird Al, I would think, would be able to use the parody defense, but in the copyright context. Different deal entirely. Not sure what ApologetiX is. Mad Magazine, insofar as the issue is trademark, isn't using the parody of a mark as a mark. In other words, they aren't selling their goods using the parody mark to identify their own goods. Their goods are still identified as "Mad Magazine." Contrast that to the situation you have here, where Ben & Cherry's is using the parody to identify their own line of goods, the Ben & Cherry's videos. (Hope that helps. I've been studying all day and I'm fried at the moment, so sorry if it's unclear.)
Re: Re: Re: A couple of points about average joe's comments
You are right to point out that I mistyped, but not to argue that "the parody defense is not even available since the use is commercial." These are separate defenses (or exclusions, in the language of the statute). Unless the fair use defense, including parody, is purely duplicative (and we try to avoid construing statutes that way), it must be available in situations where "noncommercial use" is not a sound defense -- that is, is cases of commercial use.
To be sure, sometimes BOTH defenses apply.
I think I get your point. At first I said the parody defense is not available when it's being used as a mark. That's right in the statute, which provides:
(3) Exclusions
The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:
(A) Any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person's own goods or services, including use in connection with--
(i) advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services; or
(ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner.
(B) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.
(C) Any noncommercial use of a mark.
15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(c)(3) (West 2012) (emphasis added).
So I'm correct to say that the parody defense is not available for Ben & Cherry's since they are using it as a mark, i.e., as a source identifier. (They are also using it commercially, but that's irrelevant here.)
But then in my later post, I said that the parody defense it's not available when it's commercial use. In my mind, using it as a mark means using it commercially, so I was (purposefully) conflating the two. But the statute only says the defense is not available when it's used as a mark. It doesn't say the defense is not available when it's commercial use. So I suppose you could have a situation where the use is not as a mark but is commercial, and there the defense would be available.
If that's not right, let me know. Otherwise, thanks for pointing out my error.
Re: A couple of points about average joe's comments
It is not correct that the parody defense is not available when the use is non-commercial.
I didn't say the parody defense was not available when the use is non-commercial. I said it's not available when the use is commercial.
Here's what I said:
"The key is to note that the defense is not available when parodies are used as a mark."
I then quoted the "Chewy Vuitton" case which states:
"Although the TDRA does provide that fair use is a complete defense and allows that a parody can be considered fair use, it does not extend the fair use defense to parodies used as a trademark."
To which I added:
"From what I understand, the porn defendants are issuing the film series under the "Ben & Cherry's" mark. If so, the parody defense is not even available."
And then I said later in another post:
"As I've shown elsewhere in this thread, the parody defense is not even available since the use is commercial."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
That is indeed the point, one which you have providing zero evidence or explanation of. Instead of cutting and pasting swathes of text, why don't you explain how Ben & Jerry's are harmed?
You expect me to prove the case without having all the facts. You think I have access to the facts needed to prove that this use harms Ben & Jerrys. LOL! I can tell you the theory and the law, and I can explain how I think the theory and the law might apply here (as I've already done), but the proof would come from surveys. Note too that you can't prove that this doesn't harm Ben & Jerry's.
Many people would be amused and entertained by the parody names, which is their whole point. If the names were successfully prevented from being used, fewer people would see them and be entertained, meaning they are by definition worse off.
The whole point, as far as I can tell, is for Ben & Cherry's to ride the coattails and to make money from and at the expense of Ben & Jerry's. As I've shown elsewhere in this thread, the parody defense is not even available since the use is commercial. The law balances the First Amendment and rightholders' concerns. You appear to think that no balance is needed and we should always favor free speech over rightholders. First of all, it's commercial use so the First Amendment concerns are not full force. Second of all, protecting the rightholders actually protects the public.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
The harm is reputational. By linking the wholesomeness of Ben & Jerry's to the unwholesomeness of Ben & Cherry's in the consumers' minds, the brand is tarnished. I think the way it's proved is through consumer surveys. As Mr. Levy notes, in porn cases the plaintiff usually succeeds on a tarnishment claim.
That said, considering that this is a TRO against a movie, there are some very disturbing questions that come to mind. PACER not only does not contain the complaint; although the TRO recites that there were declarations, the docket does not reflect any such documents having been filed. The TRO says nothing about what efforts were made to give the defendants notice and an opportunity to be heard, and why the judge was justified in issuing a TRO without notice, if in fact there was no notice (Rule 65(b)(2) expressly requires such a recitation). The case was filed September 5, and the judge entered the TRO on September 6. It would be nice to see some explanation of why the plaintiff was entitled to get such quick action, possibly before defendants had the opportunity to present an opposition.
I noticed that too (except for the 65(b)(2) thing; nice catch), and I thought it was funny that Tim (the author of this article) was so focused on consumer confusion (which isn't really the issue) that he missed the First Amendment and due process issues. Where's the cries of prior restraint and due process?
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
The fair use/parody defense is codified in the TDRA:
(3) Exclusions
The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:
(A) Any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person's own goods or services, including use in connection with--
(i) advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services; or
(ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner.
15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(3)(A).
The key is to note that the defense is not available when parodies are used as a mark. The "Chewy Vuitton" case makes this point:
We begin by noting that parody is not automatically a complete defense to a claim of dilution by blurring where the defendant uses the parody as its own designation of source, i.e., as a trademark. Although the TDRA does provide that fair use is a complete defense and allows that a parody can be considered fair use, it does not extend the fair use defense to parodies used as a trademark. As the statute provides:
The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:
(A) Any fair use ... other than as a designation of source for the person's own goods or services, including use in connection with ... parodying....
15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(c)(3)(A)(ii) (emphasis added). Under the statute's plain language, parodying a famous mark is protected by the fair use defense only if the parody is not “a designation of source for the person's own goods or services.”
The TDRA, however, does not require a court to ignore the existence of a parody that is used as a trademark, and it does not preclude a court from considering parody as part of the circumstances to be considered for determining whether the *267 plaintiff has made out a claim for dilution by blurring. Indeed, the statute permits a court to consider “all relevant factors,” including the six factors supplied in § 1125(c)(2)(B).
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252, 266-67 (4th Cir. 2007).
From what I understand, the porn defendants are issuing the film series under the "Ben & Cherry's" mark. If so, the parody defense is not even available. That doesn't mean it's necessarily diluting, though. You have to do that analysis separately.
You're stupidity only reflects bad on yourself, it doesn't reflect on Mike's position.
I hate spelling Nazis, but that's just funny.
So those who disagree with you shouldn't criticize your bad position?
I welcome the challenge. If you think my position is wrongheaded on a particular point, please state why you think so.
You keep ignoring the answer and imposing your own answer.
Mike hasn't answered the question. He popped in to make an excuse for not answering. Nor have I imposed my answer on him. If he thinks any part of copyright is good, then I'd like to hear about it. If he thinks it's all bad, I want him to be honest about it. It's the pretending that he thinks parts are good while refusing to identify those parts because he doesn't really believe it that gets to me.
Since when do I need you to ask me to post my opinion for me to post it? You must be the IP extremist cult leader, anyone who dares dissent your views without your prior consent shouldn't comment, right?
LOL! Huh. I welcome dissenting views with open arms. Dissent away. I'm all ears. I'll never run from a debate and stomp my feet and refuse to talk to dissenters.
I can't help but laugh. What makes you an authority over what 'scares' Mike and what the heck have you said that would even be worthy of fear.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
hat's a very lucid and well reasoned way to say "The law must assume that all member of the public are total morons completely incapable of distinguising one thing from another without being spoon-fed by corporations"
Me, I find that a rather sad.
The point isn't whether the public can tell the goods apart (that's consumer confusion, which is not the issue in dilution), the point is whether the brand is harmed by the diluting use. I think something that neither you nor Mike is considering that protecting a mark doesn't mean the public is harmed in the process. It's not a zero sum game. Don't make the knee-jerk reaction that stronger rights for the mark holder equates to making the public worse off. I don't think that's how it works.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
If you want to get moral about it, copyright is a slight immorality that we all tolerate so long as copyright results in a net benefit to society.
Yep. Without copyright laws, people could copy as they please. But there is in fact copyright, and people cannot copy as they please. Without laws against murder, people could murder as they please. But there is in fact laws against murder, and people cannot murder as they please.
You can call the copyright rights artificial just like you can call the right to not be murdered artificial. So what? All rights are artificial.
And if copyright is something that "we all tolerate," then why are so many people pirates? And who are you to decide for yourself that copyright doesn't benefit society? You are only one person, and if you don't agree with a law then tough. People don't get to decide which laws are worth respecting and who's rights are OK to violate.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
If I violate your rights, does it matter to you? The reality is that people are consciously choosing to violate other people's rights, and only an apologist would pretending like it doesn't matter. If it would matter to you that your rights are violated, then it should matter to you when it happens to someone else.
Here's where you may be getting confused. Copyright isn't actually a right, it's a privilege granted to you for a limited time by the people who copyright is suppose to benefit, us, the public. So when you start talking morality, you're already off track when talking about copyright. If you want to talk morality, then it's moral to ignore copyright because copyright itself has become amoral (wasn't when it was created, now it is).
Copyright grants its holder certain rights. Either somebody has a right or they don't. The distinction between right and privilege is passe. You may not personally agree with copyright, but too bad for you. You don't get to decide which rights matter and which rights don't. I don't get to decide which of your rights are worth respecting and you don't get to do the same with other people's rights. It doesn't matter how terrible I think your right is to not be murdered, nothing gives me the right to murder you.
As for trolls, while you may bring an argument or two to the table, the people you chose to defend demonize and dehumanize themselves. They chose to come here, insult everyone indiscriminately, ignore any logic, and then leave without providing responses, logic, or evidence of their own. We don't do that to them, we just follow the path they laid out for themselves.
Nonsense. There are many on Techdirt who are very abusive, yet they aren't called trolls so long as they are toeing the line. It's only when somebody has a dissenting view do you guys feel the need to label them pejoratively.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Same thing with all the articles that defend the pirates. Every effort to take any action against a pirate is put under the microscope and dissected at the subatomic level. But then everything a pirate does is glorified and defended--facts and law be damned. That's not simply helping people out. That's pirate apologism.
And then there's articles like this one, where you reiterate the mantra that "wrong or not, it really doesn't matter" and "focusing on morals is missing the point." That's not simply discussing how people can be better off. That's pirate apologism.
I don't care if you want to help people out. That's admirable. But it's all the pirate apologism that really bothers me--and the fact that it's denied even though it's patently obvious. Give me a break. Techdirt is all about apologizing for and defending the pirates. And it's about blaming the pirates' victims for the pirates' conscious decision to violate their rights. That's the part that bothers me.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
You're trying to downplay the fact that people are having their rights violated, and you've decided that since you think the victims would be better off not worrying about their rights then it's not a big deal that people violate them. In other words, you've made yourself the arbiter of what's important and what's not. You put yourself and your views ahead of the law and other people's rights. I'm sorry that you disagree with the law, but that doesn't excuse anyone's decision to violate it.
As far as calling that poster a "troll," I think it's ridiculous and childish. So what if his view is that it's wrong and that it's important to discuss that aspect? If you disagree with him, state your case. But calling him names and making fun of him isn't productive. Labeling anyone who reminds you of an uncomfortable truth a "troll" says more about you than it does about them.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
But it does matter that it's wrong. If it weren't wrong, it wouldn't matter that it happens. But because it is wrong, it matters that it happens. You and Mike and the rest of the gang might not think that it matters that it's wrong, but in the real world when someone is doing something wrong, it actually matters.
The fact that you don't/won't acknowledge that much speaks volumes, and it's a big part of what makes Techdirt a pirate-apologist blog. The Techdirt m.o. is to just gloss over the fact that piracy is wrong and to pretend like it doesn't even matter that people's rights are being willfully violated.
Can I willfully violate your rights? Would you think it didn't matter then? If not, why not? I know you don't have a good answer.
And honestly, referring to a dissenter as a "troll" is just sad. You're trying to demonize and dehumanize a person who has a different point of view. Shame on you. And shame on creating an atmosphere that isn't conducive to differing points of view.
On the post: Too Much Secrecy: Press Ask The Court To Open Up Bradley Manning Court Martial
Re: Re: Re: A Comparison.
On the post: Too Much Secrecy: Press Ask The Court To Open Up Bradley Manning Court Martial
Re: A Comparison.
On the post: Poor Ben & Jerry Must Have Had A Rough Adolescence If They Think Ice Cream Can Be Confused With Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Weird Al, I would think, would be able to use the parody defense, but in the copyright context. Different deal entirely. Not sure what ApologetiX is. Mad Magazine, insofar as the issue is trademark, isn't using the parody of a mark as a mark. In other words, they aren't selling their goods using the parody mark to identify their own goods. Their goods are still identified as "Mad Magazine." Contrast that to the situation you have here, where Ben & Cherry's is using the parody to identify their own line of goods, the Ben & Cherry's videos. (Hope that helps. I've been studying all day and I'm fried at the moment, so sorry if it's unclear.)
On the post: Poor Ben & Jerry Must Have Had A Rough Adolescence If They Think Ice Cream Can Be Confused With Porn
Re: Re: Re: A couple of points about average joe's comments
To be sure, sometimes BOTH defenses apply.
I think I get your point. At first I said the parody defense is not available when it's being used as a mark. That's right in the statute, which provides: 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(c)(3) (West 2012) (emphasis added).
So I'm correct to say that the parody defense is not available for Ben & Cherry's since they are using it as a mark, i.e., as a source identifier. (They are also using it commercially, but that's irrelevant here.)
But then in my later post, I said that the parody defense it's not available when it's commercial use. In my mind, using it as a mark means using it commercially, so I was (purposefully) conflating the two. But the statute only says the defense is not available when it's used as a mark. It doesn't say the defense is not available when it's commercial use. So I suppose you could have a situation where the use is not as a mark but is commercial, and there the defense would be available.
If that's not right, let me know. Otherwise, thanks for pointing out my error.
On the post: Poor Ben & Jerry Must Have Had A Rough Adolescence If They Think Ice Cream Can Be Confused With Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
On the post: Poor Ben & Jerry Must Have Had A Rough Adolescence If They Think Ice Cream Can Be Confused With Porn
Re: A couple of points about average joe's comments
Point taken. My bad. I don't know the numbers of when it's successful and when it's not.
On the post: Poor Ben & Jerry Must Have Had A Rough Adolescence If They Think Ice Cream Can Be Confused With Porn
Re: A couple of points about average joe's comments
I didn't say the parody defense was not available when the use is non-commercial. I said it's not available when the use is commercial.
Here's what I said:
"The key is to note that the defense is not available when parodies are used as a mark."
I then quoted the "Chewy Vuitton" case which states:
"Although the TDRA does provide that fair use is a complete defense and allows that a parody can be considered fair use, it does not extend the fair use defense to parodies used as a trademark."
To which I added:
"From what I understand, the porn defendants are issuing the film series under the "Ben & Cherry's" mark. If so, the parody defense is not even available."
And then I said later in another post:
"As I've shown elsewhere in this thread, the parody defense is not even available since the use is commercial."
On the post: Poor Ben & Jerry Must Have Had A Rough Adolescence If They Think Ice Cream Can Be Confused With Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
You expect me to prove the case without having all the facts. You think I have access to the facts needed to prove that this use harms Ben & Jerrys. LOL! I can tell you the theory and the law, and I can explain how I think the theory and the law might apply here (as I've already done), but the proof would come from surveys. Note too that you can't prove that this doesn't harm Ben & Jerry's.
Many people would be amused and entertained by the parody names, which is their whole point. If the names were successfully prevented from being used, fewer people would see them and be entertained, meaning they are by definition worse off.
The whole point, as far as I can tell, is for Ben & Cherry's to ride the coattails and to make money from and at the expense of Ben & Jerry's. As I've shown elsewhere in this thread, the parody defense is not even available since the use is commercial. The law balances the First Amendment and rightholders' concerns. You appear to think that no balance is needed and we should always favor free speech over rightholders. First of all, it's commercial use so the First Amendment concerns are not full force. Second of all, protecting the rightholders actually protects the public.
On the post: Poor Ben & Jerry Must Have Had A Rough Adolescence If They Think Ice Cream Can Be Confused With Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
On the post: Poor Ben & Jerry Must Have Had A Rough Adolescence If They Think Ice Cream Can Be Confused With Porn
Re: Dilution, not infringement
I noticed that too (except for the 65(b)(2) thing; nice catch), and I thought it was funny that Tim (the author of this article) was so focused on consumer confusion (which isn't really the issue) that he missed the First Amendment and due process issues. Where's the cries of prior restraint and due process?
On the post: Poor Ben & Jerry Must Have Had A Rough Adolescence If They Think Ice Cream Can Be Confused With Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
The key is to note that the defense is not available when parodies are used as a mark. The "Chewy Vuitton" case makes this point: Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252, 266-67 (4th Cir. 2007).
From what I understand, the porn defendants are issuing the film series under the "Ben & Cherry's" mark. If so, the parody defense is not even available. That doesn't mean it's necessarily diluting, though. You have to do that analysis separately.
On the post: Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hate spelling Nazis, but that's just funny.
So those who disagree with you shouldn't criticize your bad position?
I welcome the challenge. If you think my position is wrongheaded on a particular point, please state why you think so.
You keep ignoring the answer and imposing your own answer.
Mike hasn't answered the question. He popped in to make an excuse for not answering. Nor have I imposed my answer on him. If he thinks any part of copyright is good, then I'd like to hear about it. If he thinks it's all bad, I want him to be honest about it. It's the pretending that he thinks parts are good while refusing to identify those parts because he doesn't really believe it that gets to me.
Since when do I need you to ask me to post my opinion for me to post it? You must be the IP extremist cult leader, anyone who dares dissent your views without your prior consent shouldn't comment, right?
LOL! Huh. I welcome dissenting views with open arms. Dissent away. I'm all ears. I'll never run from a debate and stomp my feet and refuse to talk to dissenters.
I can't help but laugh. What makes you an authority over what 'scares' Mike and what the heck have you said that would even be worthy of fear.
And yet Mike runs away every time. Funny that.
On the post: Poor Ben & Jerry Must Have Had A Rough Adolescence If They Think Ice Cream Can Be Confused With Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Me, I find that a rather sad.
The point isn't whether the public can tell the goods apart (that's consumer confusion, which is not the issue in dilution), the point is whether the brand is harmed by the diluting use. I think something that neither you nor Mike is considering that protecting a mark doesn't mean the public is harmed in the process. It's not a zero sum game. Don't make the knee-jerk reaction that stronger rights for the mark holder equates to making the public worse off. I don't think that's how it works.
On the post: Too Much Secrecy: Press Ask The Court To Open Up Bradley Manning Court Martial
Re: Cynicism or experience talking...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/1034
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres /pdf/705006p.pdf
On the post: Too Much Secrecy: Press Ask The Court To Open Up Bradley Manning Court Martial
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look, I just think that punks who violate their oath to this country should pay for their crimes. You apparently OK with a free for all.
Next >>