Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Correction required?

   

   MadderMak (profile), May 26th, 2010 @ 12:40am

   
   

   "When that failed, the city sued"... tfa seems to have it the other way around :)

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: Correction required?

   

   Mike Masnick (profile), May 26th, 2010 @ 1:11am

   
   

   Indeed. Oops. Fixed.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   The downplayed "exercise" is the real story.

   

   out_of_the_blue, May 26th, 2010 @ 3:38am

   
   

   "(why this is a criminal, rather than a civil, matter is left as an exercise to the reader)" -- Because The Rich control the police, and in short, under the emerging corporate feudalism, whatever The Rich say is a crime, police and prosecutors *make* a crime. The incidents only look odd if you are under the delusion that the freedoms of the 20th century still exist, when from everywhere, we're being restricted by corporate powers and our former public servants.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Ummmm

   

   Josef, May 26th, 2010 @ 3:42am

   
   

   The company complained and the city responded by arresting the vendors. That's how it works. I'm wondering if Coach is just trying to get a precedent set so they can sue all the broadband providers in the US so they can get a big settlement.
   
   Can I sue the city for not preventing murder?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Define Despotism

   

   Chris in Utah (profile), May 26th, 2010 @ 4:04am

   
   

   Read the sujbect its enough said.
   
   Ye I wish to share more: We live in a society that expects it from there government now. Wonder why stuff like this goes on? The term is reality engineering and the corporate lawyer backing the case sounds like just the kind of ass hole we look up to these days.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Right....

   

   Dark Helmet (profile), May 26th, 2010 @ 5:43am

   
   

   "Coach is suing the city of Chicago, because some vendors were selling counterfeit goods at the Maxwell Street Market."
   
   Yeah, best of luck shutting down that monster of a tradition. The Maxwell Street Market has been around for DECADES, and they've always sold counterfeit and stolen goods. The city itself has tried to shut it down for years. They even moved it off of Maxwell Street about a decade and a half ago. It doesn't work. Mostly because the Maxwell Street Market is a Chicago tradition (hell, it was featured in the Blues Brothers for Christ's sake).
   
   Pretty much every manufacturer of every consumer good could sue the city of Chicago over Maxwell Street if this was allowed....

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Ban all sales

   

   Pixelation, May 26th, 2010 @ 5:52am

   
   

   "Dear Coach, all sales of any goods/ services have been permanently banned within the Chicago city limits. You are welcome. The Overlords of Chicago."

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Not enough..

   

   Seth, May 26th, 2010 @ 5:56am

   
   

   Obviously the city should have tortured and publicly executed the counterfeiters!
   
   oh, wait..

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   contributory/vicarious infringement

   

   qwerty, May 27th, 2010 @ 11:54am

   
   

   It sounds as though the Supreme Court's decision in Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, 76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996), is likely the basis for suing the city. If the city is the operator of the Maxwell Street Market, it may be held responsible for the sale of counterfeit goods depending on the control it exerts over the market and its knowledge of such sales.
   
   Not that I agree with it or think it is a good idea to sue the city.
   
   [url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/76_F3d_259.htm[/url]

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Re: Ummmm

    

    Richard (profile), May 27th, 2010 @ 11:33pm

    
    

    I was going to make a similar comment. There are no, as far as I'm aware, safe harbours for offline. If the can establish that in case law, then it will help them push to get it removed from DMCA.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment