Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 9 Sep 2012 @ 4:22pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I had to guess, any such reply if it comes is likely to be along the lines of "the law is the law and because it's the law it's therefore right". Still, I could have got the guy all wrong.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 9 Sep 2012 @ 10:40am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
When you say it, you think it means you're clever and you're right.
Ohh, and no, it doesn't. The opposite in fact since my argument assumes that most other people are capable of the same kind of reasoning I find in myself.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 9 Sep 2012 @ 7:43am
Re:
Apparently no one else sees this as just being an easy way for Ben and Jerry's to get a lot of free publicity
Is that on the "no publicity is bad publicity" theory? Coz I have to say, even if B&J themselves had made the porn film it would likely have no effect on my purchasing decision for icecream. A company acting like a bullying twat for no good reason I can see on the other hand does have some chance of doing no matter who they are attacking.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 9 Sep 2012 @ 7:32am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Trademark itself sure - its original intent of confusion is at least somewhat valid. Personally I think the bar is set way to low (or more likely, rather than assuming people can't tell the difference I think the assumed "moron level" is the law biased in favour of large established organisations), but whatever. At least there's some basis for confusion and some potential "harm" of the customer buying another brand when they thought it was yours. But this? Dilution and "tarnishing"?
Almost everyone in the thread seems to agree we're not talking about anyone confusing any kind of association between the 2 products so in your scenario of the arore-mentioned "moron in a hurry" (who apparently isn't really a moron), explain the need for a law that protects against the thought process that goes;
"Well I've been eating Ben and Jerry's Icecream for years and I know I like it, but now I know someone completely not associated with them made a porn film I can't possibly buy from them again"
or even
"Hmmm I fancy an icecream, look there's a Ben & Jerry's and a Haagen Dazs next to each other hmmm I heard both are great icecream. Oh but wait, I heard someone else once made a pornfilm with names like B&J's flavours... guess it's Haagen Dazs then"
Or, as someone else mentioned for this case, even on the infinitessimal chance that such an loose association with sex might play some tiny part in putting someone off (I dunno, how many religions or cultures with strict sex taboos eat icecream?), what's the difference in sexual association between "Peanut Butter D-Cup" and "Karamel Sutra"?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 9 Sep 2012 @ 2:04am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
fair enough.... would you care to explain why? My personal experience (OK those are slightly facetious examples by hopefully you get the point) suggests that such a "negative association" has no effect on my purchasing and brand decisions. I honestly can't see anyone deciding not to, for example, read Harry Potter because there's a spoof porn film of it (which AFAIK there is...).
In the absence of a change in a purchasing decision I don't see any harm. So if you (or anyone else.. AJ seems to be of a similar mind as you) have a different thought process that you think does affect purchasing decisions, or creates some other harm beyond a nebulous "ooo it's got a similar name and it's... icky!" I'd be genuinely interested to hear.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 8 Sep 2012 @ 2:26pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
"consumers will not think the striptease joint under common ownership with the jewelry store"
That is the exact opposite of an inability to recognize the difference.
I was referring not to the difference between the physical objects but to the difference between the 2 thought-associations for the individual. Perhaps I'm odd, but even on the off chance that when I next go for a B&J icecream (which commonly used acronym is waaaay more likely to cause a "hur! hur! He said BJ!" reaction than a porn film with similar names IMO) I think of the porn film I'm capable of holding that thought completely separate in my mind from a decision to buy icecream.
The same is true of any other product that happens to have a similar name but completely different function. Somewhat co-incidentally I did once meet a stripper called Tiffany and I can say it has had exactly zero "tarnishing" effect on the jewellery brand. Nor does the number of splinters I've had stuck in various parts of my body over the years tarnish my image of Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and I know a couple of people terrified of spiders who liked the Spiderman films (though god knows why).
Since I don't believe I have some unique ability to hold my thought processes seperate in this way, I'm struggling to see how this "tarnishing" effect that the law describes could cause any significant "harm" (presumably to change a purchasing decision) in anyone of normal cognitive function.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 8 Sep 2012 @ 1:50pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
That doesn't mean it should be a legitimate claim, though. But, under the law as it currently stands, it is a legitimate legal claim.Yes, and that's exactly what saddens me - that "harm" can be claimed (presumably monetarily since US law usually seems to work that way) and expression (whether interesting or not) suppressed on the basis of a law based on people having the reasoning power of a bowl of porridge. My opionion is that whether or not some small portion of the populous do have the reasoning power of hot cereal it's no way to write law. I wasn't asking anyone else to share my opinion, nor was I suggesting it wasn't a law, I was simply commenting that I find laws based on "lowest common denominator" to be disturbing.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 8 Sep 2012 @ 12:37pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
If that's your takeaway from that quote, I question your comprehension skills.
Really? Why?
Now suppose that the “restaurant” that adopts the name “Tiffany” is actually a striptease joint. Again, and indeed even more certainly than in the previous case, consumers will not think the striptease joint under common ownership with the jewelry store. But because of the inveterate tendency of the human mind to proceed by association, every time they think of the word “Tiffany” their image of the fancy jewelry store will be tarnished by the association of the word with the strip joint.
That suggests that I as as consumer am incapable of associating a single word or name with 2 separate concepts and realising the difference. How would you read it?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 8 Sep 2012 @ 12:24pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
And my point is that I am capable of simultaneously seeing the similarities of the pardody and realising that the one has nothing to do with the other.... if I fancy an ice-cream there is exactly zero chance of me thinking "Well I was going to buy a Ben & Jerry's but since someone once made a porn film about it I won't now.". This is, I hope, true of most rational humans and so I find it rather sad that there appears to be legislation that assumes the opposite.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 8 Sep 2012 @ 9:06am
Re:
Giving a library the right to make as many copies and to distribution them as much as they like is a pure recipe for killing what little ebook market may exist.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 8 Sep 2012 @ 8:40am
Re: Great, but
but you still need a way to get them to know about you and your products.
Given that typing in "forums librarians" into Google returned about 1.7M results, I'd imagine that doing a little research to find the most popular and engaging with them would do the job pretty well...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 8 Sep 2012 @ 8:29am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you suggesting that the rights holders should each be required to write bots that are better than Google's?
Technically, unless they want to be served for perjury, the US government requires them to have a better bot than Google if they want to use one.
That they don't makes them at least as big a lawbreaker as the people they target (Hmm more techically since AFAIK perjury is a criminal offence and copyright infringement by and large civil). That they don't need a better bot than Google is little short of criminal on the part of the government. Last time I looked the law was supposed to apply equally to everyone.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 1:42pm
Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
That'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"
On the post: Libraries Go Direct To Indie Authors, Rather Than Deal With Big Publisher Ebook Limits
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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:
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.
Almost everyone in the thread seems to agree we're not talking about anyone confusing any kind of association between the 2 products so in your scenario of the arore-mentioned "moron in a hurry" (who apparently isn't really a moron), explain the need for a law that protects against the thought process that goes;
"Well I've been eating Ben and Jerry's Icecream for years and I know I like it, but now I know someone completely not associated with them made a porn film I can't possibly buy from them again"
or even
"Hmmm I fancy an icecream, look there's a Ben & Jerry's and a Haagen Dazs next to each other hmmm I heard both are great icecream. Oh but wait, I heard someone else once made a pornfilm with names like B&J's flavours... guess it's Haagen Dazs then"
Or, as someone else mentioned for this case, even on the infinitessimal chance that such an loose association with sex might play some tiny part in putting someone off (I dunno, how many religions or cultures with strict sex taboos eat icecream?), what's the difference in sexual association between "Peanut Butter D-Cup" and "Karamel Sutra"?
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: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
In the absence of a change in a purchasing decision I don't see any harm. So if you (or anyone else.. AJ seems to be of a similar mind as you) have a different thought process that you think does affect purchasing decisions, or creates some other harm beyond a nebulous "ooo it's got a similar name and it's... icky!" I'd be genuinely interested to hear.
On the post: Poor Ben & Jerry Must Have Had A Rough Adolescence If They Think Ice Cream Can Be Confused With Porn
Re: Re: *unghh*
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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
The same is true of any other product that happens to have a similar name but completely different function. Somewhat co-incidentally I did once meet a stripper called Tiffany and I can say it has had exactly zero "tarnishing" effect on the jewellery brand. Nor does the number of splinters I've had stuck in various parts of my body over the years tarnish my image of Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and I know a couple of people terrified of spiders who liked the Spiderman films (though god knows why).
Since I don't believe I have some unique ability to hold my thought processes seperate in this way, I'm struggling to see how this "tarnishing" effect that the law describes could cause any significant "harm" (presumably to change a purchasing decision) in anyone of normal cognitive function.
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: 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: 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Really? Why?That suggests that I as as consumer am incapable of associating a single word or name with 2 separate concepts and realising the difference. How would you read it?
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: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
On the post: Libraries Go Direct To Indie Authors, Rather Than Deal With Big Publisher Ebook Limits
Re:
On the post: Libraries Go Direct To Indie Authors, Rather Than Deal With Big Publisher Ebook Limits
Re: Great, but
On the post: Copyright Holders Still Sending DMCA Takedowns On Content That's Been Gone For Months
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That they don't makes them at least as big a lawbreaker as the people they target (Hmm more techically since AFAIK perjury is a criminal offence and copyright infringement by and large civil). That they don't need a better bot than Google is little short of criminal on the part of the government. Last time I looked the law was supposed to apply equally to everyone.
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: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Me, I find that a rather sad.
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: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
On the post: Why People Pirate: The Story Of Avatar
Re: Re: Re: honestly, for me...
Next >>