| Re: Copyright laws |
Fri, 01 September 2006 17:28   |
|
 Marduk |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
I don't agree that trademarks should be so limited. Consider the trademarked Coke bottle shape - it is not a practical or efficient shape for containing liquids (not cheap, either), so the only reason someone else would make a bottle of that shape is to benefit from confusion with Coke products. It seems reasonable to me to award a trademark for a completely impractical container shape whose purpose was to be distinct from other offerings, and whose shape has been used continuously in association with the company name (in advertising when they weren't producing the actual bottles) since it's introduction.
As for UPS trademarking the color green, TSR trademarking the word Nazi, and similar trademark abuses, they are all clearly illegal. The rules are spelled out as plainly as any part of the law has ever been. It is only because of corruption in government that such abuse can occur, and in that sense it doesn't make a bit of difference what the rules are. If they aren't followed, you can't legitimately claim they are the source of the problem.
I've read almost every single bit of copyright, patent and trademark law (of the US), and there is no comparison. Trademark law wasn't considered as important because trademarks are far less often subject to infringement, and it shows in the lack of unnecessary clauses, additions and exclusions. It hasn't changed much in the 340-odd years we've had it, the only serious change was including trade dress as a protectable symbol. And that occured before the Revolutionary War.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Copyright laws |
Sat, 02 September 2006 16:24 |
|
| Marduk |
| Ensign |
Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
| yartrebo wrote on Sat, 02 September 2006 11:23 |
I personally hate marketing and advertising and am not much of a materialist, so my views are probably more than a bit biased.
|
Yup, you're biased. Then again, who isn't on most issues? I personally really enjoy marketing (from the creative side), but am disgusted that it works on so many people. To paraphrase the old saying about technology, any really good marketing is indistinguishable from brainwashing.
I am biased from the creative end; I don't want someone else to make money from the things I create, in effect stealing from me. However, I also see the value in limiting the scope of protection - given that typically over 95% of the money made by a book, game, CD, DVD or similar product is made in the first six months of it's release, 75 years after the death of the author (or other rights-holder) is clearly ludicrous.
My own games and game supplements (release pending the creation of more, since I want to have a cushion against busy times so I can continue releasing on a regular schedule) all assign the works to the public domain 20 years after the release date. That seems fair enough to me, holds true to the spirit of copyright and avoids the crazy alterations in the law altogether.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Copyright laws |
Fri, 03 November 2006 21:20 |
|
| Orange |
 | Officer Cadet 1st Year |
Messages: 215
Registered: November 2005
Location: TO, ONT, CA | |
|
"I've read almost every single bit of copyright, patent and trademark law and there is no comparison. Trademark law wasn't considered as important because trademarks are far less often subject to infringement, and it shows in the lack of unnecessary clauses, additions and exclusions. It hasn't changed much in the 340-odd years we've had it, the only serious change was including trade dress as a protectable symbol. And that occured before the Revolutionary War." by Marduk
Yes and No - extensive changes in case law have happened
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
