Community Page
- techliberation.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- There seems to be a cottage industry dedicated to papering-over the negative effects that Internet piracy has on creative artists and others who toil to produce content. We devalue creative work by...
- My off the cuff response is that it doesn't make sense to compare the costs for a website of this size to a state website which serves 1/50th of the users. if it includes database support,...
- Regardless of what may or may not be happening with robots.txt files (a subject about which I have no data,) the fact remains that Google doesn't pay for content and doesn't produce...
- Thanks to our old friend, the DMCA, such devices such as the ones Chadlee mentioned, are illegal. Macrovision corporation is even succeeding in making plain old CGMS/Macro removal boxes disappear...
- Who records off an HDMI output anyway? All HDCP does is to create a slew of devices that dont work, especially Blu-ray players that enforce HDCP and off brand tv's that have non HDCP compliant...
The Technology Liberation Front
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
I agree with Jim that the media’s treatment of Judge Kozinski has been outrageous. While reading up on the controversy, I was interested to come across this interview with Reason magazine. Here are his very sensible thoughts on copyright:
Reason: Do you see any big threats to fre ... Continue reading »
Reason: Do you see any big threats to fre ... Continue reading »
1 year ago
I'm not a lawyer nor a judge, but my understanding is that company's MUST complain and take legal action if people start using their trademarked brands as verbs or as a non-proper noun. If they don't, they can lose their trademark on the term and all of a sudden Hasbro can start shipping "Barbie" dolls. It often seems silly or mean-spirited when Google sends it lawyers to stop "Google" from being used as a verb in a dictionary, but it is side effect of trademark law - not an attempt to "control the way people communicate."
If there are any trademark attorneys in the audience, please let me know if my understanding is correct.
1 year ago
Trademark law is a law to control the way people communicate. Specifically, it's intended to prevent people from using certain words and phrases ("trademarks") to defraud others about (or even misconstrue) the source or origin of goods and services. (Same goes for distinctive designs, trade dress, etc.)
In a way, Kozinski is stating a tautology. Copyrights and trademarks are all about controlling communication and information. He must be lamenting the overuse of these laws, such as when a company tries to prevent competitors from using its name in advertisements (or to direct the placement of advertisements, as on Google), and when AP tries to restrict quotation from their stories beyond what copyright's fair use doctrine allows them.
(n.b. In the text you quoted, he's collapsing copyright and trademark a little bit casually. "Barbie" is a trademark of Mattel, which almost certainly does not hold a copyright in that term.)