Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As usual, another Mike Masnic article, is complete BS
They aren't breaking the law, they are using some obscure legal premise to fight a pest.
An obscure legal premise that helped make the internet what it was. An obscure legal premise that, if changed, would mean that I would almost certainly shut down Techdirt?
You have no clue what you're talking about.
The path of least resistance.
The ends justify the means? No. That's not how due process works.
Just like in order to get rid of the mob, the government used the tax code, because it was too difficult to use the criminal code, with people being the idiots that they were the mafia was able to easily maneuver themselves around it.
Re: Re: As usual, another Mike Masnic article, is complete BS
If Mike considers our reaction to repeated, expensive property damage
If that's your complaint, that's fine, then deal with THAT issue, rather than twisting laws to attack platform providers. There are laws in place to deal with the issue that you're discussing, but the wider impact is on lots of people who DON'T have that issue you're facing. Lots of people have found Airbnb to be a really useful way to generate extra income and for travelers it's been a godsend.
Now post your list of the 44 or admit you're an intellectually dishonest bullshitter.
Ah. I get it. You're being a pedantic asshole. Because you're not counting those that say cheetoh instead of cheeto.
Just because I don't have a stick up my ass about exactly how one spells cheetoh doesn't make me dishonest. The examples used clearly refer to the cheese puff, not the tiger. Either way, it's clear that CafePress allows it in other contexts. So the only one being dishonest here is you in pretending there's some massive distinction. That's not how it works.
Cheeto is a registered trademark, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Why you're surprised that Frito-Lay would not want to be associated with this (or Donald Trump in general), is strange.
That's not how trademark law works. But thanks for playing (and revealing your ignorance of the law). Trademark does not allow you to block any use of the word just because you dislike it. It only applies in cases where there is likely to be consumer confusion as to the origin of the products (i.e., if people think that Frito Lay actually made those shirts). That's not the case here, and thus the trademark claim does not apply.
Separately, as the article notes (did you even read it?), it looks like Cafe Press made this decision, rather than Frito Lay.
That says there are 62 products, but not all of them actually say Cheeto/Cheetos/Cheetoh or whatever. So I simply went through and counted the ones that did, and it's 44. I can't believe you're challenging this rather than just admitting you were wrong. Got the link and count.
I still don't understand what the counterclaim is for or how it works. Why would it keep Malibu in the current court case?
The counterclaim is for declaratory judgment of noninfringement. Basically not asking for cash, but wants the court to say "I do not infringe." That's a legitimate thing to bring to court, and now that it's there Malibu Media can't single handedly drop its side of the case any more. It's just as if the defendant had gone to court first and asked for a declaratory judgment ruling.
What if someone made a Hillary T-Shirt which compared her to a dishonest, power mad, feces-loving rodent and Disney complained that the ears on the picture violated trademark? Would anyone be bothered if it was pulled off of CafePress for *any* reason? Or would it be considered a "wild accusation" and sexist to boot?
Let's Encrypt should have filed for registration previously, and they wouldn't be in this situation.
Blech. I understand this advice, and I understand why lots of lawyers say this, but I think it's lame and only encourages over registration. Let's Encrypt has a perfectly viable common law mark on the name without registering it.
In Alchin's specific case, it's hard to see what counterspeech would deter his behaviour. He has no debate or point of view, as such. By his own admission, he's just someone who finds gratification in abusing and frightening women online. Given the language used, I suspect he was typing with one hand and masturbating with the other. Even the maximum sentence might have no effect on him, once he gets back out.
The counter speech is pretty obvious: spread the word of what he said, and let the rest take over. His reputation is harmed and that should be punishment enough.
You just made the case for removing any protections on freedom of speech. There is always a legitimate way to defend people like Zane.
Did you read the rest of the post? I am defending his right to speak. I'm not defending the content of his speech.
Sure I find Zane's comment's misogynist, but freedom of speech also means defending that right even by people I think may not deserve them. So yea, there is a legitimate defense of his trashy comments.
Congrats. You basically said the same thing I said in my post, but claim you're disagreeing with me.
Instead, this is explicitly correct use. The entire point of a trademark is to dispositive lay identify the mark owner, so there can be no ambiguities in what entity you're referring to. The bot company's use of the Twitch mark does just that - it explicitly tells users that their services work on Twitch, which is the entire point of trademarks.
That's the point of *nominative fair use*. The point of trademarks is to avoid consumer confusion and thinking that one product is something that it's not.
First, Tim Cushing gets this decision wrong and now Mike Masnick has fallen into that same hole?
What did we get wrong?
both of them would have realized that the crap they wrote doesn't come anywhere to helping copyright trolls.
I read the actual decision. And I didn't say anything at all about copyright trolls. So not sure what you're getting at other than a desire to attack me with ad homs.
I forgot, Mike Masnick would rather we live in a world where someone's intellectual property can be stolen without any compensation paid out to the person who created it in the first place.
What you believe as a strawman for me is kind of pointless, don't you think?
Maybe I should print up a bunch of T-Shirts and Sweaters with the "Techdirt" logo and make a lot of money selling them on my website. I bet they would have a real problem with that particular idea.
Nope. Go for it.
Of course, that's a trademark issue, rather than copyright. And we've often talked about the key differences there, including the fact that trademark is about consumer protection, so they don't buy one product thinking it's something else. But, honestly, go ahead and try to sell some Techdirt gear. You wouldn't be the first. I doubt anyone would actually buy it, because the people who do buy it tend to want to support *us* which is why they buy from *us*. But go ahead. We would not have a problem with you trying. In fact, if your site were big enough, it might even help get us some attention.