I heard many stories like this on the "festival circuit." They're a big reason I chose to free Sita Sings the Blues (which consequently earned me more money that any distributor would have). Getting a conventional distribution deal was just about the worst thing that could happen to an independent filmmaker in 2008.
I'm doing my part to increase that association without people having to suffer flying shards of glass in their kitchens. Eventually the pyrex brand will become disassociated with heat-resistant glass, but consumers are paying a high price for this change. They may be injured, their meals ruined, and they certainly won't be getting refunds for their broken purchases.
Again, consider if an unlicensed seller were passing off soda lime glass as pyrex. That would become the poster child for stricter Trademark enforcement, and you can bet the "endangering consumers" argument would be front and center.
My point is that if passing off soda lime glass as pyrex is somehow the consumers' fault for not being "knowledgable/educated" enough, then surely the moron in a hurry who addressed his comment to "Mike" is equally to blame.
Personally, I think Techdirt has some responsibility to let readers know who wrote what articles. Likewise I think Corning has some responsibility to sell genuine pyrex under the pyrex brand. Do I think we need more laws to enforce this? No. But the comment I responded to blamed consumers for being sold soda lime glass as pyrex. I found this ironic.
I'm imagining everyone in Congress shaking each others' hands, saying, "Victory! Now we have twice as many funders to choose from! Who wants to be funded by Tech now? Rubio? Boozman? Hatch? And whoever wants to stick with Hollywood can get twice as much now! Twice as much money for Congress! Let's have a party!"
I love The Day The LOLcats Died video. It is totally infringing copyright. Some people are saying it's Fair Use because it's "parody," but legally it's not parody, it's satire, and satire isn't covered by Fair Use. If distinguishing between parody and satire sounds idiotic, it is, but that's what our brilliant courts have determined. According to them parody uses the work to comment on the work itself (changing the lyrics to make fun of the song American Pie itself), while satire uses the work to comment on another issue (using the melody to talk about SOPA).
I mention this because SOPA and PIPA are merely results of our copyright laws. Let's not forget that as long as we have our copyright laws, we'll keep getting things like SOPA and PIPA. Stop cutting of the Hydra's heads and drive a stake through its heart instead.
Most artists are not exactly "doing fine," because most artists never have, and never will, "do fine" financially. That's true whether it's in the most proprietary, copyright-maximalist system imaginable, or a Free Culture utopia. Most artists are poor. If copyright actually made artists money, I'd support it. It doesn't. Conversely, the benefit of Free Culture isn't that it's a magic way for all artists to suddenly make lots of money. It's not. But it will allow for more art, and better art, and civil liberties, and freedom of expression, and cultural progress. More artists would be able to create and survive without copyright, and many would do better financially, but most would still "starve", just like today, and just like before copyright was ever invented.
#7 totally corroborates my own less formal findings. People buy Sita Sings the Blues DVDs to support me, and because they want a tangible object for their libraries. The survey's 100% was nice to see, and not surprising:
I wanted to support the band: 100%
I wanted to own the music: 61%
I wanted to own a tangible version of the album (CD/Vinyl): 61%