Drew 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (88) comment rss

  • On the post: Pork Board Admits It Knows Unicorns Don't Exist, But Claims It Doesn't Matter

    Drew ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2010 @ 09:33am

    Re: Re:

    Proof is in the pudding: Title 17, chapter 1, section 107 of the US Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html)

  • On the post: Pork Board Admits It Knows Unicorns Don't Exist, But Claims It Doesn't Matter

    Drew ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2010 @ 09:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I did mention I was busy right, so sorry for not doing this research earlier.

    Anyway, a little further research actual shows that the Plaintiff MUST take into account Fair use according to the law as fair use is a limitation of copyright; see Title 17, chapter 1, section 107(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html).

    Further just because a defense is classified as affirmative does not mean that the defendant has broken the law, just that the burden of proof is on them.

  • On the post: Pork Board Admits It Knows Unicorns Don't Exist, But Claims It Doesn't Matter

    Drew ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2010 @ 08:59am

    Re: Can you prove that Unicorns don't exist?

    Well with the admission from the Pork Board:

    "We certainly understand that unicorns don't exist," said Ceci Snyder

  • On the post: Pork Board Admits It Knows Unicorns Don't Exist, But Claims It Doesn't Matter

    Drew ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2010 @ 08:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Although that is true, from the defendants perspective that is a large mountain. But you've proven my point in a sense, the plaintiff's also have a large cost scenario here too (probably more as their lawyers would be higher priced) with the same uncertainty of win/lose.

    So from the Plaintiff perspective when looking at this specific instance you have an April fools day post and a slogan 'the new white meat'. Now If I come into the costbenefit analysis of bringing a C&D, to be followed by a law suit; if the initial cost of the C&D is say $5,000 (a rather low estimate I think) then the benefit would have to outweigh this. So the benefit from the C&D would be, what exactly? Having a fictional product (Unicorn Meat) ad taken down? Was this ad costing them in people not buying Pork because they were laughing about Unicorn meat?

    So while I see your point that posting a parody may be more costly, I don't see why the Plaintiff would waste the time/energy/money (my/your/our tax dollars btw) to pursue this from the outset. Let alone that I believe it is ridiculous to assume that because I have a copyright/trademark on the phrase 'the other white meat' that this then covers every combination of the phrase 'the ___ white ___' ('the other white milk' and 'the new white meat').

  • On the post: Pork Board Admits It Knows Unicorns Don't Exist, But Claims It Doesn't Matter

    Drew ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2010 @ 08:11am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Although yes you are right that it is an affirmative defense (thats what I get for responding during training and not reading up a bit first)...where the facts of the plaintiff's claim are proven but they have a valid 'reason'. Such things as 'self-defense' are in this same class of affirmative defense.

    With this in mind if it did go to trial the burden of proof for this is on the defendant. However the plaintiff still should review whether they would likely win if the case went to trial to include if the fair use doctrine came into play.

  • On the post: Pork Board Admits It Knows Unicorns Don't Exist, But Claims It Doesn't Matter

    Drew ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2010 @ 08:00am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Nice, but no, if you need a refresher try Wikipedia (and if you want to try and disclaim what they say then look at their 'source documents'):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

  • On the post: Pork Board Admits It Knows Unicorns Don't Exist, But Claims It Doesn't Matter

    Drew ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2010 @ 07:54am

    Re:

    Welcome to a blog, where Opinions are presented...when they are facts usually there is research there. But hey I guess you are all for wasting tax payers money on high priced lawyers who don't truly understand that parody is covered under the 'fair use' doctrine of Trademark law, and just for fun here are some facts for you:

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/510/569/case.html

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=2nd&navby=case&no=977063v2&exact=1

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=11th&navby=docket&no=0112200opnv2

    Which lawyers are expected to know and be aware of so as to advise their clients on whether moving forward with an action, such as a C&D would likely succeed if it had to move to trial. To me, in my opinion, the lawyers for the Pork Board are not providing good legal advise and merely racking up additional billable hours.

  • On the post: Pork Board Admits It Knows Unicorns Don't Exist, But Claims It Doesn't Matter

    Drew ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2010 @ 07:34am

    A little more from the Washington Post article....

    So first we have this from the article (the spokesperson for PB):

    'Pork Board spokeswoman Ceci Snyder said the board's attorneys are instructed to protect the "Other White Meat" trademark in all cases to avoid future legal challenges to the slogan. "Clearly there's some fun being had, and we can laugh, too," Snyder said. "But in the end they're just following the law."'

    I don't understand how wasting money on clearly a parody work avoids future legal challenges to their slogan, let alone how they are following the law. Then if you really think about it if a new product came out and had the slogan 'The new white meat', this seems like a completely different phrase and would be a different trade mark...or is the PB trying to claim any phrase that has the phrase 'the ___ white meat' in it? But then again the PB has done this in the past as mentioned in the Washington Post article where they sent a C&D in 2007 to someone selling t-shirts for 'the other white milk'. I seem remember that the 'moron in a hurry' can get confused easily, however I don't think they would get confused (which is how Trademarks are supposed to be judged confusion) between 'milk' and 'pork'. So more than likely the PB is trying to claim that any phrase in commerce that has the phrase 'the ___ white ___' conflicts with their trademark slogan. Seems a bit of a stretch to me, what if my slogan for a new paint was 'the other white...beige' would they send me a C&D?

    Just remember...this is our tax dollars at work.


    For reference here are the links for the Washington post article and the 'milk' page:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062201657.html

    http://thelactivist.blogspot.com/2007/02/overzealous-big-pork-stomps-on.html

  • On the post: New Zealand Media Claiming That Huge Local Film Success Story Is Being Harmed… By 200 Downloaders?

    Drew ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2010 @ 06:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I mean how many people buy boxed DVD sets of shows that were on TV, I bet that market is really small...

  • On the post: New Zealand Media Claiming That Huge Local Film Success Story Is Being Harmed… By 200 Downloaders?

    Drew ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2010 @ 12:27pm

    Re:

    "... only that previous movie leaks have caused that type of damage."

    Where your evidence?

  • On the post: ACLU Jumps Into Case Where North Carolina Wants Detailed Info On Your Amazon Purchases

    Drew ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2010 @ 11:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Actually...

    Although generally these are seen to be directed at law enforcement, what many do not truly understand is that law enforcement is part of the government. These rules cover the government and trickle down to cover law enforcement as well.

  • On the post: ACLU Jumps Into Case Where North Carolina Wants Detailed Info On Your Amazon Purchases

    Drew ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2010 @ 11:21am

    Re: Re: Re: ACLU

    Well since you asked...

    "Show me anywhere that the Constitution or Bill of Rights says anything like "separation of church and state." I'll help you out...it doesn't! It just says that the government can't prohibit people from exercising their religion freely or to establish a national religion (think church of england)."

    Specifically you are correct, the exact words 'separation of church and state' do not exist in the constitution, the exact words that do exist are first in artcile 6 (as mentioned by DH) "... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Then in the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...".

    Now couple these with the fourteenth amendment, which in part states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." and you have a nice and tight generalized 'separation of church and state'.

    With the above in mind a qualification for public office that requires the elected to affirm the existance or non-existance of god violates the constitution and would easily be struck down if they attempted to enforce such a law.

  • On the post: ACLU Jumps Into Case Where North Carolina Wants Detailed Info On Your Amazon Purchases

    Drew ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2010 @ 07:40am

    Re: Little known fact

    Wow, learn something new everyday. For some reason in my mind 'use taxes' seem to violate some part of the constitution, not that I can find anything specific at this time. More so these seem to violate basic common sense; for instance I live in Oregon where there are no Sales taxes and purchase many goods, if I then move to a state that has a 'sales and use tax' then wouldn't I have to pay a 'use tax' on all my goods since I would then be a resident of that state?

    These States need to be slapped down for their greedy fingers and find better ways to generate revenue.

  • On the post: ACLU Jumps Into Case Where North Carolina Wants Detailed Info On Your Amazon Purchases

    Drew ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2010 @ 07:12am

    Re: ACLU

    I guess North Carolina, being a relatively new state, did not get the memo about separation of church and state. Oh, wait it was the 12th state to ratify the constitution. I guess that means they can argue they never signed up for no amendments. /sarcasm

    How has this not been challenged and changed?

  • On the post: Trademark Cluelessness: The Other White Meat

    Drew ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2010 @ 06:34am

    Re: The Letter Was a Joke!

    Lol, the April fool's joke......created on the 5th of May....

  • On the post: Parked Car Gets Multiple Speed Camera Tickets

    Drew ( profile ), 25 Jan, 2010 @ 12:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Missing data

    I love this line here:

    "...the post is just about how one unlucky guy stupid enough to keep parking his can in the camera's direct line of site..."

    I am guessing your argument is 'How foolish of the man to park in front of his own house when he knows darn well that he could be wrongfully ticketed?' So he parks in front of his house and because of where they setup the camera he should jump through hoops to ensure he does not get wrongfully ticketed? I believe that sums up your mis-guided argument quite well. Maybe you would like a police officer to follow your car when you drive and pull you over for each infraction that a different car does?

  • On the post: Parked Car Gets Multiple Speed Camera Tickets

    Drew ( profile ), 25 Jan, 2010 @ 12:48am

    Re: Missing data

    "...I am confident that the vast majority of the tickets issued are valid, and that the presence of such as device (bright yellow and easy to see) has had the desired effects of lowering speed in that particular area."

    I see people like you still use your own thoughts, instead of facts or studies to back up what you say. What should concern everyone is that traffics laws were designed for a person (a Police Officer) to witness an infraction taking place and then enforce the law. When you start down the dark path of letting machines police humans then you are taking 'human judgement' out of the equation, I fear for your society to come into being.

  • On the post: Woman Filming Parts Of Sister's Birthday Party At Theater, Charged With Felony Movie Copying

    Drew ( profile ), 05 Dec, 2009 @ 12:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in a broader context.

    Now who is naive and sometimes just plain old stupid.

    Show me one example of any protectionist group that has throttled back after they get what they want? Show me any group that rolls these pointless, unconstitutional and overly broad restrictions and laws back?

  • On the post: NYC Cabbies Who Resisted Credit Card Machines… Now Making More Money Because Of Them

    Drew ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2009 @ 11:18pm

    Re:

    Although I see some of your points you seem to have had an aversion to using the VCR. I would say it was maybe your generation (having no idea which one that is) however I know many baby boomer's who avidly recorded shows, typically just on one tape and then watching them at their convenience. Further every "generation" I have spoken with and interacted with used the VCR for such limited activities. The first VCR's were clunky and expensive, and several tapes had to be used just to record a few shows; once they were advanced enough and cheap enough almost everyone had one and not only to watch pre-recorded movies distributed by the industry but as a recorder for when some show was on and they had to do something else.

    One parting thought, just because a piece of technology was difficult to use by you does not mean everyone else felt the same way. (vice-versa as well)

  • On the post: Musician Making A Living With Forty Committed True Fans

    Drew ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2009 @ 12:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yes, Go Matthew!

    Thank you for the very detailed reply, I figured from your other posts that you would post something more than just overall figures.

    I can understand about getting frustrated when the people you work with don't seem to want to put forth an effort to truly build a business, in your case I would imagine that some just want to make some music and that's it? At my job, which is enterprise level technical support, I have coworkers that always want the quick answer instead of finding out how to get the answer. It seems the old addage 'If you give someone a fish they eat for a day, if you teach someone how to fish they eat for a lifetime' is true in many different businesses.

Next >>