Is it just me or does it seem like our entire culture has become sticklers for the letter of the law over the last ten years? Maybe it's too many TV episodes where they torpedo someone through the backdoor, but it just feels like LE and regular citizens have started exploiting laws when they can't punish someone else in normal ways. While I recognize the need for a way to resolve legitimate disputes, I also don't want to live in a world where the wrong commma or "plant life" can create legal headaches. Too often, lawsuits are used to punish someone instead of remedying a broken situation. Will common sense ever return or will we have to walk on eggshells to avoid getting sued by the chicken industry.
The problem with a direct system is that it's pretty easy for that restaurant to bypass the taxes that are normally accessed on alcohol. By funneling everything into a middleman, the state can insure that the brewer gets taxed, the middleman and the restaurant. The big vs. little is just a red herring, this is just a cash grab by the state.
Defamation, slander, even beating the fair use defense is admitedely a stretch, but TPM acted did act unethically in this case and while the NYSE shouldn't get any love for being ham fisted, TPM should have taken the high road by correcting the mistake and using a photo of one of the hedge funds involved instead. If you look at the bigger picture, this really isn't about trademark law, it's about journalistic integrity. In the blog post Mike writes how he doesn't see how the NYSE was harmed, but if this was a case where the brands were more recognizable by consumers then this harm would be clear.
A.) They're not "suing" anybody yet, but if TPM tries to raise a fair use defense, they may run into trouble because the NYSE had nothing to do with the original story. B.) This is exactly what they are complaining about,
"your unauthorized used of the images of the trading floor, tarnishes NYSE's trademarks and it's affiliated companies by associating NYSE trademarks with entities and issue with which it is not affiliated or relevant."
Again, this doesn't make the NYSE right, but you can see their point. Can you imagine the uproar if TPM used a Starbucks photo for a story about slave labor in China? Even though the two had nothing to do with each other, Starbucks brand would still be guilty by association. The NYSE is a 200 year old institution, the hedge funds that were busted for sleazy behavior were young companies that had much less regulation. To use a NYSE photo with the story is almost slanderous. The mere fact that no one seems to acknowledge this is proof that the NYSE has a branding problem and should be defending their reputation somehow.
If you go back to the original article, you'll see that TPM used the NYSE photo on a story about insider trading at unrelated hedge funds. It would be a bit like Mike writing a story about tainted beef at Burger King and then using a picture of McDonalds to illustrate it. Most people might not appreciate the difference when it comes to finance, but clearly the NYSE shouldn't be associated with people who weren't even members. While their trademark claim may or may not be overreaching, TPM did make a mistake in this case and could have easily changed photos to rectify it. While they may ultimately end up being in the right, I don't think this is a case where TPM is doing the right thing.
I'm not sure that this is such a bonehead strategy. The people buying kindles have disposable income and the ebook market is taking advantage of them. If the book publishing industry really does move to 100% digital then they will look like dinosaurs, but there is a huge difference in the print medium vs. music and film. The pricing makes it harder for them to compete with piracy, but makes sense if they are only addressing a niche audience.
You know what's even more interesting than the story that you linked to? The fact that AP takes a screenshot of the blog's photo and then claim's ownership of the photo in the story. Just because they left part of the computer program showing apparently negates any copyright claim that this anonymous blogger has.
I don't think it matters if the press freedoms don't exist outside of Iceland because the original story will be out there for people to find. Part of the problem with Wikilinks is because they are groundzero for a story they are being targeted, if it becomes impossible to shut them up, then the info will get out there because other reporters in Iceland will have a chance to expose it. Maybe other countries won't get to see the raw data, but at least they'll be a place where whistleblowers can leak data without repurcusions.
If they would have originally fought the C&D agreement instead of entering into a settlement issue, they could have claimed parody, but after they signed the contract, then this case becomes about whether or not they breached the contract.
Didn't the studios use this threat to force a bunch of blogs to pull step by step instructions for ripping a DVD to your hard drive? I remember something about this four or five years ago, but haven't seen them try anything since. It wouldn't surprise me to see them try and take a swipe at them though. At the very least the threat of a lawsuit would have a chilling effect on this type of reporting and would help push this kind of information further underground. Somehow I doubt that they'd end up winning, but that's never stopped them from suing before.
I think that this might be nitpicking a bit. Clearly, they mean that customers can walk away at any point without a termination fee. I equate this to saying no lease required because rent is month to month. Of course you're entering into some kind of agreement, it's just a lot more flexible than the competition. I was a subscriber to MetroPCS a few years ago and had zero problems when I wanted to cancel.
If it was up to me, all of the seats would be priced the same, but would go down in price each day (and availability) until every game gets sold out. Those who scoop in early for premium spots will pay more while freeloaders could step in and see a game on the cheap in the bleacher seats. It probably wouldn't maximize the revenue they could get, but it would do great things for the concession sales and the large crowds would energize the team for the entire season.
There are also a number of sites where I can get free movies, but I still use Netflix. My point wasn't that I can't understand why people wouldn't use Geocities (seems pretty obvious given how crappy they are), it's why would Geocities want to shut down all of that free content for no reason? Unless the cost of running the HTML pages is greater then the ad revenue that they are making isn't it best to let sleeping dogs lie?
Not sure if Lycos' Angelfire ever sold for as much, but that was my first web page. Wish I could remember the domain to go back and look at it, but it was something really funky like angelfire.com/biz2/redbaron/somethingorother/mypage.html
Don't understand killing Geocities either, but maybe there are extra costs to serving up that many pages. Would be interesting to see a list of sites that Yahoo! overpaid for (ahem broadcast.com) to get a sense of how much they wasted on buying other people's first mover advantage.
It does sound like he has a lousy hosting company, but there should be consequences when the studios make these types of false accusations. I bet if some random person started filing DMCA complaints against the official Wolverine site, it would never even get pulled down.
I have to say I was a bit disappointed by the link. Considering that it was written for bloggers, it would have been nice to see more quick easy bullet points instead of it sounding like it was a legal doc. Regardless of the format though, some of the advice just isn't practical for most non-profits and bloggers.
For example, if you can afford to have an attorney review each post before it goes online, then why would you need a guide like this. Most bloggers have limited resources and it would have been nice to get advice that reflected this. Also, in an age where anonymous message board posts and comments can break a story, how are bloggers suppose to tell the difference between "tabloid" sources and "respected" publications. One of my top blog posts last year was sourced from a Doom9 forum posting, could this have exposed me to liability whereas the same article in the New York Times wouldn't? I understand the need to be more cautious with sources you can't identify, but this guide makes no attempt at recognizing the realities of being part of the blogging community. The sphere is built on links, yet we're not supposed to link unless it's to some kind of official report.
While I realize that libel laws can be harsh and that this guide is designed to create a 100% bullet proof defense against this kind of liability, but I would have rather seen some practical advice on when you might be better off leaving a link out or finding another corroborating source.
It would also have been nice to see them focus more on how to present an opinion without getting sued, especially since most blogs are 100% opinion. End of the day, it seemed like this info would be of more use to newspapers or professionally run sites then it would be to the vast majority of bloggers who are just normal people interested in sharing their thoughts online.
Is it just me or does it seem like our entire culture has become sticklers for the letter of the law over the last ten years? Maybe it's too many TV episodes where they torpedo someone through the backdoor, but it just feels like LE and regular citizens have started exploiting laws when they can't punish someone else in normal ways. While I recognize the need for a way to resolve legitimate disputes, I also don't want to live in a world where the wrong commma or "plant life" can create legal headaches. Too often, lawsuits are used to punish someone instead of remedying a broken situation. Will common sense ever return or will we have to walk on eggshells to avoid getting sued by the chicken industry.
All about taxes
The problem with a direct system is that it's pretty easy for that restaurant to bypass the taxes that are normally accessed on alcohol. By funneling everything into a middleman, the state can insure that the brewer gets taxed, the middleman and the restaurant. The big vs. little is just a red herring, this is just a cash grab by the state.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The NYSE Has A Point
Defamation, slander, even beating the fair use defense is admitedely a stretch, but TPM acted did act unethically in this case and while the NYSE shouldn't get any love for being ham fisted, TPM should have taken the high road by correcting the mistake and using a photo of one of the hedge funds involved instead. If you look at the bigger picture, this really isn't about trademark law, it's about journalistic integrity. In the blog post Mike writes how he doesn't see how the NYSE was harmed, but if this was a case where the brands were more recognizable by consumers then this harm would be clear.
Re: Re: The NYSE Has A Point
A.) They're not "suing" anybody yet, but if TPM tries to raise a fair use defense, they may run into trouble because the NYSE had nothing to do with the original story. B.) This is exactly what they are complaining about,
"your unauthorized used of the images of the trading floor, tarnishes NYSE's trademarks and it's affiliated companies by associating NYSE trademarks with entities and issue with which it is not affiliated or relevant."
Again, this doesn't make the NYSE right, but you can see their point. Can you imagine the uproar if TPM used a Starbucks photo for a story about slave labor in China? Even though the two had nothing to do with each other, Starbucks brand would still be guilty by association. The NYSE is a 200 year old institution, the hedge funds that were busted for sleazy behavior were young companies that had much less regulation. To use a NYSE photo with the story is almost slanderous. The mere fact that no one seems to acknowledge this is proof that the NYSE has a branding problem and should be defending their reputation somehow.
The NYSE Has A Point
If you go back to the original article, you'll see that TPM used the NYSE photo on a story about insider trading at unrelated hedge funds. It would be a bit like Mike writing a story about tainted beef at Burger King and then using a picture of McDonalds to illustrate it. Most people might not appreciate the difference when it comes to finance, but clearly the NYSE shouldn't be associated with people who weren't even members. While their trademark claim may or may not be overreaching, TPM did make a mistake in this case and could have easily changed photos to rectify it. While they may ultimately end up being in the right, I don't think this is a case where TPM is doing the right thing.
The Ebook Market Is A Fad
I'm not sure that this is such a bonehead strategy. The people buying kindles have disposable income and the ebook market is taking advantage of them. If the book publishing industry really does move to 100% digital then they will look like dinosaurs, but there is a huge difference in the print medium vs. music and film. The pricing makes it harder for them to compete with piracy, but makes sense if they are only addressing a niche audience.
They ought to just copyright the documents and then seize wikileaks domain since the IP lawyers seem to have more pull than the actual cops.
AP Hypocrisy
You know what's even more interesting than the story that you linked to? The fact that AP takes a screenshot of the blog's photo and then claim's ownership of the photo in the story. Just because they left part of the computer program showing apparently negates any copyright claim that this anonymous blogger has.
I don't think it matters if the press freedoms don't exist outside of Iceland because the original story will be out there for people to find. Part of the problem with Wikilinks is because they are groundzero for a story they are being targeted, if it becomes impossible to shut them up, then the info will get out there because other reporters in Iceland will have a chance to expose it. Maybe other countries won't get to see the raw data, but at least they'll be a place where whistleblowers can leak data without repurcusions.
Not Parody
If they would have originally fought the C&D agreement instead of entering into a settlement issue, they could have claimed parody, but after they signed the contract, then this case becomes about whether or not they breached the contract.
Rip and Burn
Didn't the studios use this threat to force a bunch of blogs to pull step by step instructions for ripping a DVD to your hard drive? I remember something about this four or five years ago, but haven't seen them try anything since. It wouldn't surprise me to see them try and take a swipe at them though. At the very least the threat of a lawsuit would have a chilling effect on this type of reporting and would help push this kind of information further underground. Somehow I doubt that they'd end up winning, but that's never stopped them from suing before.
I think that this might be nitpicking a bit. Clearly, they mean that customers can walk away at any point without a termination fee. I equate this to saying no lease required because rent is month to month. Of course you're entering into some kind of agreement, it's just a lot more flexible than the competition. I was a subscriber to MetroPCS a few years ago and had zero problems when I wanted to cancel.
What comes to mind to me is now Amazon beat their 4th quarter numbers.
They are just upset because once TV moves to the internet, they can't fine anyone anymore.
I can't believe that the market for books for the blind is so large that they are lobbyists for it. There has to be more to the story than this?
Dutch Auction
If it was up to me, all of the seats would be priced the same, but would go down in price each day (and availability) until every game gets sold out. Those who scoop in early for premium spots will pay more while freeloaders could step in and see a game on the cheap in the bleacher seats. It probably wouldn't maximize the revenue they could get, but it would do great things for the concession sales and the large crowds would energize the team for the entire season.
Re: Re: Don't Forget About Angelfire
There are also a number of sites where I can get free movies, but I still use Netflix. My point wasn't that I can't understand why people wouldn't use Geocities (seems pretty obvious given how crappy they are), it's why would Geocities want to shut down all of that free content for no reason? Unless the cost of running the HTML pages is greater then the ad revenue that they are making isn't it best to let sleeping dogs lie?
Don't Forget About Angelfire
Not sure if Lycos' Angelfire ever sold for as much, but that was my first web page. Wish I could remember the domain to go back and look at it, but it was something really funky like angelfire.com/biz2/redbaron/somethingorother/mypage.html
Don't understand killing Geocities either, but maybe there are extra costs to serving up that many pages. Would be interesting to see a list of sites that Yahoo! overpaid for (ahem broadcast.com) to get a sense of how much they wasted on buying other people's first mover advantage.
Shoot First Questions Later
It does sound like he has a lousy hosting company, but there should be consequences when the studios make these types of false accusations. I bet if some random person started filing DMCA complaints against the official Wolverine site, it would never even get pulled down.
I have to say I was a bit disappointed by the link. Considering that it was written for bloggers, it would have been nice to see more quick easy bullet points instead of it sounding like it was a legal doc. Regardless of the format though, some of the advice just isn't practical for most non-profits and bloggers.
For example, if you can afford to have an attorney review each post before it goes online, then why would you need a guide like this. Most bloggers have limited resources and it would have been nice to get advice that reflected this. Also, in an age where anonymous message board posts and comments can break a story, how are bloggers suppose to tell the difference between "tabloid" sources and "respected" publications. One of my top blog posts last year was sourced from a Doom9 forum posting, could this have exposed me to liability whereas the same article in the New York Times wouldn't? I understand the need to be more cautious with sources you can't identify, but this guide makes no attempt at recognizing the realities of being part of the blogging community. The sphere is built on links, yet we're not supposed to link unless it's to some kind of official report.
While I realize that libel laws can be harsh and that this guide is designed to create a 100% bullet proof defense against this kind of liability, but I would have rather seen some practical advice on when you might be better off leaving a link out or finding another corroborating source.
It would also have been nice to see them focus more on how to present an opinion without getting sued, especially since most blogs are 100% opinion. End of the day, it seemed like this info would be of more use to newspapers or professionally run sites then it would be to the vast majority of bloggers who are just normal people interested in sharing their thoughts online.