Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zangi]

Your statement about what the law does is rather vague.  Companies have sued for profit for a long time.

Does not mean expanding the capability to sue for profit is not an issue...

[Loud Whispers]

http://rt.com/usa/270517-obama-fast-track-trade/
You guys seen this putinews article?

[mainiac]

Does not mean expanding the capability to sue for profit is not an issue...

Oh hey no it does.  But when I say "your statement is vague" what I mean is "your statement is vague".

[wierd]

Mainiac--

I am pretty sure that the statement was intended in the context of the behaviors of modern corporations to make use of copyright, and similar protections that were enacted to perform a certain civil function (To ensure that the knowledge being used by those companies can be widely circulated, to better the public knowledge and thus to improve the state of the art through later mass adoption and later incremental innovations--For patents, and to provide incentive to creative works creators (the people doing the creative thought process) to support them while they create their next work-- for copyright) in exchange for a financial function (they get exclusive use rights for a time), getting used instead for purposes that they were never, EVER intended for.

Such as, stifling all competition in the market, locking down markets so that actual free trade never happens, and thus regionalized pricing can continue while real capital gets moved around; Using copyright like it was itself a commodity that can be bought and sold, so that it can be used as such a cudgel, etc.

He was stating that he did not want corporations to have their ability to abuse those features INCREASED, since the only thing that might possibly be beneficial from that (in a far off stretch) is that the corporations make more money, and where the detrimental action that such enabling would cause would be significantly more deleterious overall. 

Essentially, I believe he is saying that he does not want to see the power of corporations to abuse the legal system, abuse features of copyright, patent, and mark protection, and other such institutions or features, increase for the sole purpose of increasing their private profits.

That is significantly less vague.

I say this, because the stated reason deter of many corporate lobbyists in their messages to congress and government to expand on those features to make them EASIER to abuse in those ways, is that without that enablement, they will make less profit, and less profit is bad, m'kay.

So the, "but muh PROFITS!" line is apt.  There have even been some absurd claims by corporations that lost potential profits be granted as remunerations. Last I checked, a corporation is not ENTITLED to potential profits or market share.

[Zangi]

^  Muh profits, your petty laws and regulations cannot obstruct it.

Also, didn't realize you meant my statement was vague.  Thought it was referring to the bill or more generally how words written on paper can be vague and open for loopholesinterpretation.

[Bohandas]

You know you 'muricans do it too? It's just that a) We tend to have more of them in Europe and b) the list of what is protected doesn't overlap.

We care less though. Our regional names aren't really enforced - there's "bourbon" made outside of Kentucky, for example. I despise it and would make it illegal if I could. I'm sure people from Champagne or Feta feel the same. This might actually be a small part of the treaty I could support.

Hmm I feel quite the opposite. Obviously bourbon can be made outside kentucky. Why should kentucky have a monopoly on the name? It's the same exact product, but if it's made in kentucky it's special and gets a special name because......reasons?

It's absurd. If you feel like bourbon from kentucky is actually better, slap a "made in kentucky" sticker on there and the free market™ can decide if it's worth it or not. Don't try to build some sort of legally enforced monopoly because you don't want any competition.

A special name or a special sticker would functionally be the same. I'd prefer the version that preserves this as something that is traditionally Kentucky.

And it's not about eliminating competition. From the recipe, Jack Daniels could be called a bourbon, but it's from Tennessee and the company has the respect not to market themselves that way. They still outsell every bourbon. Bourbon competes with all other of whiskeys, and they get along just fine without hijacking the name.

The recipe is all that matters. Burbon 8s burbon, even if it's made in China or in Uganda or on the freakin moon

[penguinofhonor]

I don't think so. If you get a burger with the same recipe as a Big Mac from somewhere that's not McDonald's, it's not called a Big Mac. Bourbon outside Kentucky should be the same way.

There should be a middle ground for names between "one person/company has access to it" and "everyone in the universe has access to it" and regional protections seem like a good way to go about that.

[Bohandas]

I don't think so. If you get a burger with the same recipe as a Big Mac from somewhere that's not McDonald's, it's not called a Big Mac. Bourbon outside Kentucky should be the same way.

There should be a middle ground for names between "one person/company has access to it" and "everyone in the universe has access to it" and regional protections seem like a good way to go about that.

That's different, that's a trademark (And when you get down to it I'm against intellectual property too). Furthermore I personally never associated Boutbon with Kentucky or even the united states until you brought it up. It's not even certai  that it's a real toponym, and even if it is it is unclear whether it is derived from Bourbon County Kentucky or Bourbon Street, New Orleans, Louisiana; and since nobody has suggested that it be limited to bourbon produced in either of those specific places the point is moot anyway. This is if anything even stupider than the European standard.

EDIT:
This sort of naming serves no purpose other than to be pointlessly confusing and to promote jingoistic regionalism. If it is to be regulated in any way at all it should be to putlaw the regional names (ie all bourbon would be re labeled "whisky" all tequila wouls be relabeled "mezcal", all champagne would be relabeled "sparkling wine" et cetera.)

[penguinofhonor]

I'm guessing you think regional culture is pointless. Also, how are food names connected to jingoism?

[Loud Whispers]

Hey guys has anyone at this junction of their life considered Obama

[mainiac]

As a scapegoat?

[itisnotlogical]

Aren't some ancient Disney characters that haven't been used in forever still under copyright, even though they haven't been used in several decades? Some of the oldest shorts are getting close to 100 years old, and keeping them under copyright at this point is absurd and really disgusting to me. Very messed up, like how Happy Birthday (the song) is copyrighted and Hallmark will sue the bejeesus out of anybody using it without authorization. Something that's approaching the level of cultural heritage should not be kept under lock and key like that. Could you imagine if the Statue of Liberty were copyrighted and nobody could make derivative works, including paintings, replicas, photographs, etc.?

[scriver]

Something that's approaching the level of cultural heritage should not be kept under lock and key like that. Could you imagine if the Statue of Liberty were copyrighted and nobody could make derivative works, including paintings, replicas, photographs, etc.?

In France it is actually forbidden to photograph buildings and public art without a license from the... Copyright holder, I guess it would be? They recently pushed to make similar laws ratified for all of the EU.

[itisnotlogical]

That's disturbing. Sorry Europe. What is the justification? Why is such a law reasonable to some people?

[Bohandas]

Aren't some ancient Disney characters that haven't been used in forever still under copyright, even though they haven't been used in several decades? Some of the oldest shorts are getting close to 100 years old, and keeping them under copyright at this point is absurd and really disgusting to me. Very messed up, like how Happy Birthday (the song) is copyrighted and Hallmark will sue the bejeesus out of anybody using it without authorization. Something that's approaching the level of cultural heritage should not be kept under lock and key like that. Could you imagine if the Statue of Liberty were copyrighted and nobody could make derivative works, including paintings, replicas, photographs, etc.?

I wholeheartedly agree. I think intellectual property protections need to be cut way way down. You shouldn't be allowed to copyright or patent anything for more than ten years

Something that's approaching the level of cultural heritage should not be kept under lock and key like that. Could you imagine if the Statue of Liberty were copyrighted and nobody could make derivative works, including paintings, replicas, photographs, etc.?

In France it is actually forbidden to photograph buildings and public art without a license from the... Copyright holder, I guess it would be? They recently pushed to make similar laws ratified for all of the EU.

What a bunch of assholes