Home » General Chat » Circular File » Copyright laws (split from Serial help)
| |
| Re: Copyright laws |
Thu, 23 March 2006 01:42   |
|
 phulshof |
 | Crewman 2nd Class |
Messages: 12
Registered: November 2004 | |
|
| multilis wrote on Wed, 22 March 2006 17:50 |
Is it legal to borrow a CD from the library and make a copy onto a cassette in the US?
|
Sure, as long as you delete the copy as soon as you return the CD to the library.
| Quote: |
Is it legal to tape a show using a VCR and allow a friend to borrow the tape after in the US?
|
Most likely no, though that one's a bit murky. With the fair-use exemption it's always hard to say what the courts will rule as illegal.
| Quote: |
Since a copyright holder can sue, even if the abandonware site complies with cease distributing request (example suits of MP3 horders), do you have any example of such occuring and the result thus being tested in court?
|
No sorry, I have no such case law for you. I think it's partly for PR reasons, and partly because lawsuits are costly, and if there's little that can be gained financially from the person you wish to sue....
| Quote: |
Are you a judge on a supreme court of a member country of the Berne convention treaty?
|
No, I'm the Copyright Spokesman for the Foundation for Open Source in the Netherlands. I deal with copyright legislation in the Netherlands, Europe, and on rare occasions the US.
| Quote: |
Do you know what clause 2 of the Berne convention means?
|
Clause 2 of which article? Or do you mean the 2nd article?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/2.html
It defines what type of works are covered by the Convention.
[Updated on: Thu, 23 March 2006 04:48] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Copyright laws |
Thu, 23 March 2006 03:16 |
|
| phulshof |
| Crewman 2nd Class |
Messages: 12
Registered: November 2004 | |
|
| NingunOtro wrote on Wed, 22 March 2006 20:50 |
Oh yeah, very clearly you stated your own OPINION on a few facts. Far from objective and well-documented though. Probably just the version YOU feel most comfortable with.
|
Actually, in this case I was trying to give as accurate as possible statements about what the law is rather than giving my opinion of the law. This post of course may be different.
| Quote: |
Any human law, like any law of physics, should be an template as close as possible to describing the real thing, for brevity's sake so that we can use the law as a shortcut when arguing about facts.
|
In general I would agree with you, but copyright law is primarily needed to correct a market failure in a market that most governments recognise as being important to society. As such, copyright law is a necessary evil, and the balance of rights within it should be monitored carefully at all cost.
| Quote: |
In Spain, we have private copying exemption too, ... and its logic stinks.
|
I am not familiar with the private copying limitations and levies in Spain, but I actually have partial support for the ones in the Netherlands. Levies here allow you complete freedom in making private copies of film and music, even if you do not own the original. This was installed in order to keep the law upholdable rather than having to invade the privacy of people's homes. The idea of paying for something you may not be able to use is found in many different tax systems, like your taxes paying for roads or schools, even though you may not have a car or children.
| Quote: |
Whenever I am a bit distracted and leave my favorite cd on top of the stove, I can not turn it in for a refund or have it replaced for free, nor does it make legal any copy of my friends original I make to replace it.
|
I agree that you should be able to get it replaced for a nominal fee; a change that may come if the record labels insist that they're selling you a license to the music rather than selling you the cd. Your second line may be the case in Spain; in the Netherlands that's perfectly legal. Then again: in the Netherlands it's also legal to copy that cd if you didn't buy the original in the first place.
| Quote: |
Stars! files are freely downloadable from various places on the internet. The only real proof of the fact that you have complied with copyright law stipulations is the possession of an unique serial number obtained through an official seller (with your personal data on their records as proof, of course).
|
Proof of purchase not withstanding, a serial number does not fall under copyright law, no matter how badly some copyright owners might want it to be so.
| Quote: |
You still think you know anything about the real thing?
|
If by the real thing you mean whether I think I know a bit about copyright law, then: yes. Whether it's morally or ethically correct in its current state is a completely different discussion.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Copyright laws |
Thu, 23 March 2006 04:58 |
|
| Madman |
 | Officer Cadet 1st Year |
Messages: 228
Registered: November 2003
Location: New Zealand | |
|
| phulshof wrote on Thu, 23 March 2006 20:16 |
In general I would agree with you, but copyright law is primarily needed to correct a market failure in a market that most governments recognise as being important to society. As such, copyright law is a necessary evil, and the balance of rights within it should be monitored carefully at all cost.
|
I'd agree that it is a necessary evil, but I think that any sense of balance went out the window a long time ago. There are ways that copyright can be used to better society (like GPL software), but quite a lot of copyright (particularly older works that are no longer available or the author is long dead) is restrictive in a way that isn't helpful.
| Quote: |
I am not familiar with the private copying limitations and levies in Spain, but I actually have partial support for the ones in the Netherlands. Levies here allow you complete freedom in making private copies of film and music, even if you do not own the original. This was installed in order to keep the law upholdable rather than having to invade the privacy of people's homes. The idea of paying for something you may not be able to use is found in many different tax systems, like your taxes paying for roads or schools, even though you may not have a car or children.
|
I see two problems with this:
* the first is that I (indirectly) and society as a whole get some benefit from roads and schools (I happen to not have a car or children), whereas the levies go to service a private organization (whatever the equivalent of the RIAA etc. is). The levies are supposed to go back to the artists, but really (as I understand it) go back to the middlemen, and _some_ of it might get back to the artists with the big labels, and other artists are left in the cold. I don't see how a small band that self-publishes is going to get it's share (tiny though it may be).
* the second is that in some countries even with the levies, the copying is still illegal (I think this might be the case in Canada), so if you don't copy, you are paying for something you don't use, if you do, you are breaking the law. I would fight such levies being introduced in New Zealand unless it came with a pretty liberal 'fair-use' law.
Perhaps these are both better managed in the Netherlands, and I'm guessing you know way more about the subject than I do. My understanding is that many of our rights are being taken away piece by piece (although copyright is only part of the problem) to the point where both our cultural heritage and software are under threat.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Copyright laws |
Thu, 23 March 2006 06:58 |
|
| phulshof |
| Crewman 2nd Class |
Messages: 12
Registered: November 2004 | |
|
| Madman wrote on Thu, 23 March 2006 04:58 |
I'd agree that it is a necessary evil, but I think that any sense of balance went out the window a long time ago. There are ways that copyright can be used to better society (like GPL software), but quite a lot of copyright (particularly older works that are no longer available or the author is long dead) is restrictive in a way that isn't helpful.
|
I agree that some of the latest additions to copyright law are not beneficial to society, and are mostly the result of strong lobbying by the entertainment industry. We're doing our best to reverse some of those decisions.
| Quote: |
the first is that I (indirectly) and society as a whole get some benefit from roads and schools (I happen to not have a car or children), whereas the levies go to service a private organization (whatever the equivalent of the RIAA etc. is). The levies are supposed to go back to the artists, but really (as I understand it) go back to the middlemen, and _some_ of it might get back to the artists with the big labels, and other artists are left in the cold. I don't see how a small band that self-publishes is going to get it's share (tiny though it may be).
|
There should indeed be a closer watch on where the levies go. I have noted however that at least in Dutch political parties there is now more attention paid to this, and the artists are slowly starting to sound their voices as well. The intention however is for levies to be used to compensate the artists so they may produce more works for society to enjoy. The end goal is supposed to be improvements for society.
| Quote: |
the second is that in some countries even with the levies, the copying is still illegal (I think this might be the case in Canada), so if you don't copy, you are paying for something you don't use, if you do, you are breaking the law. I would fight such levies being introduced in New Zealand unless it came with a pretty liberal 'fair-use' law.
|
I agree that this is ridiculous. Levies should not be compensation for illegal behaviour. In the Netherlands (but I believe also in Canada), levies are imposed to compensate artists for legalised behaviour that would normally fall under copyright law, but has been exempt in return for the levies. That is also the reason why in the Netherlands the levy system is under scrutany now that companies use DRM to make the copies 'impossible'. No private use => no levies, at least that's the feeling with many Dutch politicians.
[Updated on: Thu, 23 March 2006 07:03] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Copyright laws |
Thu, 23 March 2006 09:03 |
|
| Madman |
| Officer Cadet 1st Year |
Messages: 228
Registered: November 2003
Location: New Zealand | |
|
| phulshof wrote on Fri, 24 March 2006 01:17 |
DRM has nothing to do with copyright infringement (although the entertainment industry loves to promote them as such), but has everything to do with keeping and gaining control over how multimedia can be used by the customers, and control how artists can promote their work to the public.
|
Well, copyright protection is selling point for DRM, and attempts to close the 'analogue hole', even though it's clear it's really about keeping the entertainment industry in control so thay can make more money, never mind what else gets hurt in the process. Between what is currently being done around the world with copyright, patents, DRM and things like the American DMCA, things are looking a bit grim.
| Quote: |
It is highly important that politicians are made aware of what DRM is and what it is not.
|
I hope the politicians are saner where you are than they are here - in New Zealand even the supposed 'left wing' government is prepared to bend over backwards to help big industry in the name of 'free trade' - but that's getting off topic even for a thread that has gone off topic.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Copyright laws |
Thu, 23 March 2006 16:29 |
|
| NingunOtro |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 105
Registered: September 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium | |
|
I see many interesting things have been said while I had some sleep. I can agree with almost all of them, and I'd particularly like to thank phulshof for his effort talking Ashlynn into changing her inapropiate comment.
Dank je wel, vriend.
Though I base most of my comments on sheer logical thinking and not exact knowledge of the texts of the concerned laws, I can shed some light on the facts by illustrating how the spanish levy system came to be.
Spanish copyright law includes a private copy provision dated back to the era of analog recording, introduced when analog casettes became popular. Of course its articulate deals with analog recording and is limited by the extent of what was tecnically feasible then. Analog copies lose quite a lot of quality and were thus not suitable for commercial reselling or use as alternative master tape. Thus a levy system was imposed on blank analog sound and later video casettes, because there was not much more you could use them for then recording radio and television emissions, in bad quality and not commercially useful. A special authors association was founded to redistribute among its members the income gathered through these levies (in Spain, the SGAE, General Society of Authors and Editors).
Reality has changed since then in many different ways: copies went digital and were suddenly usable as commercial grade mastertapes; ethics degraded from don't do anything bad to don't do anything if the risk outweights the benefits, and #### the law; etc. And many other changes that affect judgement of the current situation.
At a certcain moment, the Editors part of forementioned SGAE began sueing in court most of the manufacturers and importers of digital recorders. To avoid hazardous and millionnaire sentences to the few members already sued and those to follow, based on the outdated analog legislation, the professional association of electronics enterprises, facing bankruptcy of their members with those trials, reached an hastily improvised PRIVATE AGREEMENT with the SGAE to abide by a levy system. It was raised to the category of law afterwards without proper scrutiny of the underlying mechanics that gave SGAE a monopoly position on things that were none of its business.
Since then (and the agreement expires shortly if it has not already) the only ones that defend it is the beneficiary SGAE. On top of the end user of digital media, the electronics industry also regards the levies as an big error, as the levy now, being a nominal quantity, stands for more than 2/3 of the final selling price of the media. Legally selling blank CD and DVD can thus not compete with illegal import, and national production of media (because they can not evade taxes and levies) is being rendered impossible.
An ancient law on copyright is being mercilessly abused to provide compensation for piracy loses, and law abiding people are punished by paying compensations for the loses the pirates cause without being significantly inconvenienced.
But that is the way laws work in the absence of ethics: the righteous and "stupid" ones pay for everything, and the criminals have luxury flats everywhere they like. And politics and lawmaking being more a crooks business in neocon future than anything else, more is to be feared by the standard John Doe in the near future.
If we were esteemed intelligent 'enough', they would have contacted us.
If we can not find them, either we are not smart enough, or they are smarter at hiding.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Copyright laws |
Thu, 23 March 2006 17:37 |
|
| BlueTurbit |
 | Lt. Commander
RIP
BlueTurbit died Oct. 20, 2011 |
Messages: 835
Registered: October 2002
Location: Heart of Texas | |
|
| Quote: |
and I'd particularly like to thank phulshof for his effort talking Ashlynn into changing her inapropiate comment.
|
| Quote: |
Though I base most of my comments on sheer logical thinking and not exact knowledge
|
You need to do some fine tuning and work on that logic IMO. Just maybe Ashlyn was not steered but felt remorse and apologized on her own. Give credit where it's due, please. It is very presumptuous and somewhat illogical to assume only that someone else influenced her in this matter. You think? Knowledge and logic complement each other. And wisdom is the trump card. 
[Updated on: Thu, 23 March 2006 17:39]
BlueTurbit Country/RockReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Copyright laws |
Fri, 24 March 2006 03:23 |
|
| NingunOtro |
| Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 105
Registered: September 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium | |
|
| Blue Turbit said: |
You need to do some fine tuning and work on that logic IMO. Just maybe Ashlyn was not steered but felt remorse and apologized on her own. Give credit where it's due, please. It is very presumptuous and somewhat illogical to assume only that someone else influenced her in this matter. You think? Knowledge and logic complement each other. And wisdom is the trump card.
|
It might just be that it was more fine-tuned than you care to understand, Blue. I am the one the comment was about and know about the circumstances that triggered her reaction. It has taken her months to say anything at all. And then I have to believe she is all suddenly able to say the wrong thing and change it and apologize only 1.10 hours later. It is not that illogical to think that somebody who lives with her and happens to be participating in the same thread with a sound attitude had something to do with it. Not that he needed to force her to change her mind, but a simple comment on the issue could have been enough to make her think about it. I could still be wrong, I'd prefer to be wrong, but considering the previous evidence probability was against her.
I don't know if I have any trump card, but I certainly have more knowledge of the underlying fact and enough grasp on logic to back up my thoughts on this matter.
But anyway, unless she wants to say something about it herself, I consider the incident closed and nobody elses business.
@phulshof
Well, eventually, I am an unmarried man, but I would not go as far as to talk about any form of control whatsoever over an other human being, no matter what kind of relation ties you to her. Sometimes just a little comment on someones attitude can do wonders, and you happen to be there with her and publishing in the same thread. I can still be wrong though, and you can also be gentlemanlike enough to say you had nothing to do with it, and perhaps she was able to do it all by herself and then she deserves to be praised. Only she can tell.
About illegal import: if it is bought at an selling point within the country, the seller has the legal duty to cash the levy, short of acting against the law. If you buy it legally outside the country, either you were on a trip -with the associated costs-, or you ordered from home and have to pay for transport or postage -more than just paying the levy I suppose-. By illegal import I thus clearly meant bulk import for resale with the clear intent of not cashing the levy.
About your comments on politicians: you can't be serious, just look at what is happening in france right now with De Villepins new First Job Contract (CPE). Look at the differences between direct parliamentary ratification of the European Constitution and the results of the dutch and french referendums on the matter (the spanish one was a real shame for the people, inundated by mere institutional propaganda). See how they are still trying to find back doors instead of complying with the peoples democratic will. Ask most americans why they are still in Iraq, why they went there in the first place. I'm afraid politicians are playing a game of power, not peoples game.
And with this, as far as I am concerned, the topic gets closed.
[Updated on: Sat, 08 April 2006 13:39] by Moderator
If we were esteemed intelligent 'enough', they would have contacted us.
If we can not find them, either we are not smart enough, or they are smarter at hiding.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Copyright laws |
Fri, 24 March 2006 03:55 |
|
| phulshof |
| Crewman 2nd Class |
Messages: 12
Registered: November 2004 | |
|
| NingunOtro wrote on Fri, 24 March 2006 03:23 |
About your comments on politicians: you can't be serious
|
Why not? The industry was planning a levy on mp3 players here (a rather hefty one at that), and after comments from the public and consumer organizations politicians started to take notice. After a political debate on this issue we haven't heard about this initiative again.
If you don't educate politicians on your views of the matter (especially as a consumer organization) you cannot expect them to make the right decisions on your behalf.
I'm not saying you will always sway them in your direction, but the least you need to do is show them how you feel. It sometimes actually helps.
[Updated on: Fri, 24 March 2006 03:55] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Copyright laws |
Fri, 24 March 2006 05:04 |
|
| Madman |
| Officer Cadet 1st Year |
Messages: 228
Registered: November 2003
Location: New Zealand | |
|
| phulshof wrote on Fri, 24 March 2006 20:55 |
Why not? The industry was planning a levy on mp3 players here (a rather hefty one at that), and after comments from the public and consumer organizations politicians started to take notice. After a political debate on this issue we haven't heard about this initiative again.
If you don't educate politicians on your views of the matter (especially as a consumer organization) you cannot expect them to make the right decisions on your behalf.
I'm not saying you will always sway them in your direction, but the least you need to do is show them how you feel. It sometimes actually helps.
|
It's a little more complicated than education. There are several ways of influencing politicians:
Firstly, there are a few reasonable ones that will actually pay attention to what you say, and might be swayed that way. It's really helpful and worthwhile to try and educate those ones.
Then there are the ones who are mostly just interested in power (sadly they are in the majority in all parts of the political spectrum, and what the first sort seem to turn in to). Reasoned argument doesn't work directly with them, so the thing to do is to embarrass them (without making yourself look like a fool in the process, so at all costs you've got to seem reasonable). If a politician realizes the level of public protest is going to make something more trouble than it's worth, cost them votes, or make them look like an idiot, then they'll back down.
The trick is numbers and perceived numbers. I've heard it suggested that for every person out protesting on the street, there are up to 100 with that point of view who aren't so motivated, so a politician doesn't see the thousand people unhappy with them - they see the tens of thousands invisibly behind them. Go visit your representative, or write a letter, or email (in that preferred order, they have different multiplier effects). Put in submissions in any consultation process. Write letters to the newspaper. Join an organization (politicians will take much more notice of those than individuals). On your own, you don't make much difference, but when the numbers add up, and there is a perception that the wider public who aren't saying anything agree with you, it is sometimes possible to move things in your direction.
The third sort is the idealogues (New Zealand has suffered from this), and nothing will shift them except voting them out of office and trying to get someone better.
Another thing to do is join a political party with views similar to yours, and try to (a) educate them so they have the best possible policies, and (b) try to give them a bigger vote to implement those policies. That's an awful lot of work, and comes with a fair bit of baggage though, so that's certainly not for everyone.
All this isn't easy - on the other side there are organizations with paid lobbyists and a very slick presentation (particularly when it comes issues where there is a lot of money tied up in it, such as copyright, DRM or patents), and sometimes these are contributors to the politician or politician's party as well. Often (this is a hard one) there are other countries pressing for a particular outcome. You've got to effectively make your voice louder than theirs, or they will win.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Copyright laws |
Tue, 29 August 2006 19:48 |
|
| yartrebo |
 | Petty Officer 3rd Class |
Messages: 43
Registered: July 2006
Location: North America | |
|
The problem is that the whole concept of copyright is wrong and harmful. Naturally, stuff like the Copyright Extension Act of the DMCA or the NET act are just going to make the problem worse by making copyright broader.
Copyright is giving a total monopoly to a single entity without society receiving anything in return. Not only are monopolies in general very harmful, but information is naturally a zero-cost good to replicate and it's also the prime ingredient in getting even more information (fan fiction and code reuse are examples of this).
Considering that the profit incentive gives very little motivation on anything other than large-scale corporate projects, society is giving up an awful lot of money, equality, and freedoms AND probably have less creative material written to boot.
As far as people violating copyright goes, so long as they're not being hypocritical about it (ie., bootlegging music and then refusing to make a game they wrote free software), then I don't see the problem. I'm certainly only be helped by their actions, as what they contribute I get to use.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Copyright laws |
Wed, 30 August 2006 01:40 |
|
| Marduk |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
Also consider that the copyright, patent and trademark laws are incorrectly, often illegally implemented and enforced. The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), a marvelous bit of mathemagical trickery, has been patented. Despite being ineligible for patenting. Not only that, 10 different people have seperately received said patent. God only knows what having 10 competing patent holders means.
But the FFT is integral to essentially all forms of digital signal processing. So listening to the radio, MP3s, or CDs, talking on the telephone, and watching television are all technically illegal. In fact, reading this over the internet is illegal. You fiends!
Disney, by arranging for stronger copyright protections on their works, has actually reduced the legal protection they receive. Copyright is limited in scope and can be ignored or overturned in all kinds of circumstances. As part of their plan, they have let a number of their trademarks lapse. Trademarks receive the strongest IP protection the law provides. The rules governing trademarks are very clear, not considered to be controversial or excessively limiting, are easy to enforce (though many companies choose not to and thereby lose their rights permanently), and inherently last as long as the company wants them. Mickey Mouse, Snow White, and all the others used to be trademarks - as such, the works they have striven so desperately to protect by copyright would have been completely protected against copying. Now that they've abandoned many of their trademarks in favor of copyrights, the arcane loopholes of copyright law make it legal to freely use many of the oldest Disney characters.
Of course, judges and lawyers are often corrupt and/or incompetent and just because something is perfectly legal doesn't mean the law won't punish you for it. Just as the law often ignores all manner of lawbreaking.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Copyright laws |
Wed, 30 August 2006 10:24 |
|
| yartrebo |
| Petty Officer 3rd Class |
Messages: 43
Registered: July 2006
Location: North America | |
|
Trademarks these days aren't any better. Their original purpose, which is quite beneficial, is so that people wouldn't be misled as to the source of a good. Trademarks definitely shouldn't be permitted on characters and the likes (that's the realm of ideas, not products and services and certainly isn't in the public interest). BTW, Snow White and most other early characters used by Disney aren't even their invention. Snow White is from the Brothers Grimm.
And yes, patents are the pits. The MPlayer project that I've contributed to is easily in violation of 1,000 patents (FFT patents, DWT patents, DCT patents, MPEG1/2/4 patents, MP3 patents, and many others). The only reason they haven't been sued is probably because the country it's based in doesn't recognize software patents, at least for the moment.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Copyright laws |
Wed, 30 August 2006 15:14 |
|
| Marduk |
| Ensign |
Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
Trademarks cover any phrase, logo, symbol or likeness (which also covers what's called 'trade dress', a distinctive look for a company's products) that a company uses publicly. It is possible to trademark something like a bottle shape, as Coke did, provided it is not in use anywhere else.
Cartoon characters can be, and have been (all the classic Warner Brothers characters, for example), trademarked as likenesses. They are properly trademarkable in the same manner that a logo is - trademarks are not limited to products and services. They are protection for company identity.
Creation of an image has nothing to do with trademarking an image. If a company does not protect it's trademark rights in even a cursory manner, it loses them. In practical terms, a 'cease and desist' letter is sufficient effort to retain one's rights. The law is also very lenient in terms of 'first discovery'. As long as you act to protect your rights as shortly after you learn that someone else is infringing, it doesn't matter how long they were actually using your trademarks beforehand.
Snow White, being a story nearly 1000 years old (or possibly older, but the earliest version known so far is an Italian folk tale from the 1100's), was in the public domain and not under any form of protection when Disney adopted it. None of the characters or plots in the Grimm tales could be copyrighted, only the specific versions of the stories written, what's called 'original content'. For the same reasons anyone can use a 'Snow White' or 'Cinderella' character however they wish. Why do you think Disney never tried to stop porn versions of Snow White and Cinderella, even though Disney claimed such damaged their image? But the likenesses created by Disney could have been protected even now as trademarks.
By the way, the US doesn't allow software patents either. But just because they're illegal doesn't mean the government won't hand them out or that rent-a-judges won't enforce them. Think what the recent DNA patent means... we are in
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Copyright laws |
Fri, 01 September 2006 16:05 |
|
| yartrebo |
| Petty Officer 3rd Class |
Messages: 43
Registered: July 2006
Location: North America | |
|
I was talking about what trademark SHOULD be, not what it is today. I'm quite aware of how broad an array of things can be trademarked. Even the color green is trademarked (by UPS).
What I was saying is that anything beyond a simple logo is against the public public interest to have trademarked. A 2 inch by 1 inch stamp on the corner of an otherwise brown piece of cardboard makes it quite plain as to who made or authorized a product. Since the public doesn't gain anything from broader trademarks, why allow them?
[Updated on: Fri, 01 September 2006 16:06] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 15 06:36:11 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Sorry it took this long ... Have not been able to keep up with the longer threads ...