Quick reminder on one of the subplots here: titles are not copyrightable, period. "Examples of names, titles, or short phrases that do not contain a sufficient amount of creativity to support a claim in copyright include ... The title or subtitle of a work, such as a book, a song, or a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work." https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf
Just one extra reason the takedown notice is faulty and they need to actually look at the allegedly infringing work. (Even if the title is "The Old Guard Full Movie Download," that might be referring to my new CC-licensed documentary of the same name.)
There are a bunch of ways to implement end-to-end encryption for messaging, but ones that have the feature you describe generally also have the feature that if your computer dies, you permanently lose all your past DMs. That's a totally worthwhile trade-off sometimes (e.g., Signal, but see Signal PIN & concerns), but I'm not sure that Twitter DMs are where I want that.
It's also now a regular tactic to just point at big tech's bad behavior when your own is under scrutiny. You may recall the CRA rollback of ISP privacy rules, when the cry was "but Google and Facebook have user data too and the FCC isn't stopping them!"
I don't mean to nitpick, but I don't believe it's correct that "it's the fact that even this commercial product is expressive parody that keeps it from being trademark infringement." The court never identifies it as parody. It definitely is (and is identified as) expressive, though, and its the expressiveness that gets it First Amendment protection. FWIW, I think your references to it as an "homage" works well.
It's arguably not parody because it doesn't really comment on the original mark, the company, or its products. Though, to be clear, the court didn't decide either way.
I was really curious about the part where someone emails bragging about posting it on the company website, as that seemed like the only real connection between the email and the party, so I looked at the exhibit they cite.
That, of course, pretty strongly suggests it was not the emailer who posted it. I'd call that "misleading at best."
Brief: "The timing and nature of this email strongly suggested that Montgomery (or, at the very least, someone acting for him/Mycroft) sent it. Indeed, it includes a link to Montgomery’s Reddit post, and brags about posting Mr. Tumey’s correspondence on the Mycroft website—something, presumably, only Montgomery or someone else at Mycroft could have done. See id."
Exhibit: "Subject
Good job You Major Dumb Fuck, you are famous now as a terrible human being!
Message https://www.reddit.com/r/Mycroftai/comments/ezrf19/mycroft_is being targeted by a patent troll/
Also all your email conversations are posted in their website XO"
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Jef Pearlman.
Titles Are Not Copyrightable
Quick reminder on one of the subplots here: titles are not copyrightable, period. "Examples of names, titles, or short phrases that do not contain a sufficient amount of creativity to support a claim in copyright include ... The title or subtitle of a work, such as a book, a song, or a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work." https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf
Just one extra reason the takedown notice is faulty and they need to actually look at the allegedly infringing work. (Even if the title is "The Old Guard Full Movie Download," that might be referring to my new CC-licensed documentary of the same name.)
Re: Re: Re:
There are a bunch of ways to implement end-to-end encryption for messaging, but ones that have the feature you describe generally also have the feature that if your computer dies, you permanently lose all your past DMs. That's a totally worthwhile trade-off sometimes (e.g., Signal, but see Signal PIN & concerns), but I'm not sure that Twitter DMs are where I want that.
Whataboutism
It's also now a regular tactic to just point at big tech's bad behavior when your own is under scrutiny. You may recall the CRA rollback of ISP privacy rules, when the cry was "but Google and Facebook have user data too and the FCC isn't stopping them!"
Not Parody?
I don't mean to nitpick, but I don't believe it's correct that "it's the fact that even this commercial product is expressive parody that keeps it from being trademark infringement." The court never identifies it as parody. It definitely is (and is identified as) expressive, though, and its the expressiveness that gets it First Amendment protection. FWIW, I think your references to it as an "homage" works well.
It's arguably not parody because it doesn't really comment on the original mark, the company, or its products. Though, to be clear, the court didn't decide either way.
Thanks for the article!
(untitled comment)
I was really curious about the part where someone emails bragging about posting it on the company website, as that seemed like the only real connection between the email and the party, so I looked at the exhibit they cite.
That, of course, pretty strongly suggests it was not the emailer who posted it. I'd call that "misleading at best."
Brief: "The timing and nature of this email strongly suggested that Montgomery (or, at the very least, someone acting for him/Mycroft) sent it. Indeed, it includes a link to Montgomery’s Reddit post, and brags about posting Mr. Tumey’s correspondence on the Mycroft website—something, presumably, only Montgomery or someone else at Mycroft could have done. See id."
Exhibit: "Subject
Good job You Major Dumb Fuck, you are famous now as a terrible human being!
Message
https://www.reddit.com/r/Mycroftai/comments/ezrf19/mycroft_is being targeted by a patent troll/
Also all your email conversations are posted in their website XO"
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Jef Pearlman.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt