raugturi’s Comments

• Nov 15th, 2021 @ 10:18am

  Good news

  on Hey North Face! Our Story About You Flipping Out Over 'Hey Fuck Face' Is Not Trademark Infringement

  I'm actually moving to a much colder climate and this just made my coat shopping simpler as I can now remove any North Face options from the list.

• Aug 6th, 2021 @ 7:13am

  Re: Re: Trade dress?

  on Oatly Loses Trademark Suit Against Glebe Farm Foods' PureOaty Product

  It's also worth noting that the gray Oatly one is their barista coffee creamer, the most direct competitor to PureOaty's product which also advertises as being best used for barista coffee. Oatly uses their blue-grey (which is very different from the blue used by PureOaty as you said) on their regular milk substitute.

• Feb 8th, 2021 @ 2:11pm

  (untitled comment)

  on Without Twitter, Trump Is Left To Write Tweets He Would Have Said On Paper

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e5td7-Bpvc

• Apr 19th, 2015 @ 4:52pm

  Re: 1201 time?

  on Bill Introduced To Fix Broken DMCA Anti-Circumvention Rules

  What if that "Backup" service allows others to access you files? At what point did it becoming infringing?

  
  
  At the point that you uploaded it to a system others can access, obviously. You're intentionally making it sound more complicated to confuse people. But its really very simple. It's legal to make copies for your own use, illegal to share those with other people. That's not difficult for you, me, or any court in the world to interpret, and you know it.
  
  

  What happens if your "non-infringing" backup gets put on your network share drive, and your roommates or family members take a copy and share it with their friends. At what point was it for a non-infringing purpose?

  
  
  Again you're just adding more arbitrary layers to make it seem more complicated than it really is. The only part of that I'm not clear on is whether or not sharing it on an internal network with your roommate is legal. But honestly that part doesn't even really matter, since the only part that'll get noticed and draw any action is the later, and completely obvious, part where it gets shared outside the friggin house.
  
  

  Further, it would be clear that this change would make "ripper" tools entirely legal (ie, they would not be against 1201 because there would be "non-infringing uses"). Yet clearly, people would use these tools to rip stuff and put it on torrents or otherwise "infringe". What a change to 1201 would do would be to tip the balance that currently exists.

  
  
  So? By that logic anything that could be used to commit a crime would be illegal. Like cars and guns and knives and rope and masks and gloves.