Slashdot Mirror
Latest UDRP Stupidity: Unix.org, Canadian.biz
The Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure, an expedited process for allowing corporations to steal domain names, continues to be abused as arbitrators stretch the definitions of "cyber-squatting" to any length in order to find for the corporate complainants. Lunenburg writes "Unix.Org, a site that was apparently used for noncommercial discussion of Unix(tm) operating systems, has been ruled a "cybersquatter" by a WIPO panel and given to the X/Open group. In spite of not actually matching any cybersquatting criteria, a WIPO panelist felt that by providing links to commercial sites, Unix.ORG was acting in "bad faith" and thus should be given over to the Open group." And WEFUNK writes "Exploiting an obvious technical error to help build their case, Molson Inc. has been awarded the seemingly generic canadian.biz domain from the original owner who "registered this name because I am Canadian and want to develop a Canadian business directory" and is now appealing to the courts." John Gilmore has a bit of commentary.
For now on, I'm only using IP addresses.
...That this is declared cybersquating, but when someone grabbed our robotics team website there wasn't a thing done about it. We really need to clean this stuff up.
What rights they have to it....wel I could name a few. One they are in Canada. That is a stretch though. They Make a beer call Molson Canadian. Personally, I don't think that means they get the right to the domain name unless they got it first. I guess money wins.
Great Linux Site
Reminds me of the problems 2600 was having with ford. Ford didn't like them linking to thier site so they sued them. 2600 then found out that ford was sueing a bunch of people for stupid reasons, such as Jaguarenthusiastsclub.com, which is an animal site. You can read about it HERE. The case recently got droped BTW.
I suppose you don't have deep corporate pockets to sue the bejeezus out of those scum.
/different from/ government dictation - exactly HOW?
That's what the difference is, of course.
Corporate dictation - better than
"Now tell me again that free speech guarantees should not be part of the incorporation charter of ICANN."
Blatant sarcasm mode on:
Free speech guarantees should not be part of the incorporation charter of ICANN.
BSM off.
You expect professional behaviour from ICANN?
You know what ICANN stands for don't you?
Idiots Controlling A Nationwide Network.
.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Funny how http://www.udrpinfo.com has its own cybersquatter(s)...
http://www.udrp.info - complete with an automatic homepage-changer, and Gator!
Buy it today!
Karma: \Kar"ma\, n. [Skr.] (Buddhism) One's acts considered as fixing one's lot in the future existence.
Molson figures they should have canadian.biz but left canadian.ca to wallow in the sorry state it is?
Kinda leaves a bad taste in the mouth...
Forget the twinkie defense or any other legal silliness, now we have the case of Molson Canada v. %2d%2d! I might cybersquat domain names just to get a court case named Big Company vs L33t Hax0r!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Oh bother.
[I] "registered this name because I am Canadian and want to develop a Canadian business directory"
It's a good thing this guy didn't capitalize the "am" in "I am Canadian". For "I Am Canadian" is a trademark owned by Molson, and this poor chap would be sued for even using that sentence as a defence!
Much agreed.
As a Canadian, I will tell you this: Molson, Inc likes to portray itself as THE REPRESENTATIVE of all things "canadian". Most suckers go gladly along with this, proudly wearing their corporate logo that claims "I am Canadian", and spouting that idiotic "Rant" commercial from a few years back (Guess where the actor, "Joe Canadian" is now? You guessed it...south of the border, working in the States. What was that about being Canadian again?) The primary market for Molsons is the brain-dead 20-something university "students" (so you can see why they've been so successful).
Nevermind that Molsons is the McDonald's of Canadian beer--terrible pisswater. They're also the Microsoft of Canadian beer, as they go around signing "exclusive" deals with bars and pubs--which is why you can only get Molson swill on tap at most canadian bars (look for the usual line up: Molson Canadian, Algonquin honeybrown, Coors Lite....if you see that, they've signed "the deal").
Does anyone know if--irony of ironies--Molsons has non-Canadian owners, like Labatt's?
It seems that microsoft.org is owned by a very large company (Microsoft) and isn't even being used. Could they be holding out to sell it to the highest bidder? Or, is this just another example of Cybersquatting?
Molson isn't even good
True. Perhaps they'd have more of a claim on the beer.shit domain. Of course they'd have to fight Anheuser-Busch for that one.
There's one thing computing teaches you, and that's that there's no point to remembering everything.
--Doug Copland
Disclaimer: Duh! this never happened, CowyboyNeil never said that, you beleived me? What a shmuck!
Little Brother, watching the watchers
Well, I suppose the argument would be that when you copy music over the internet, the original still remains in place, while if Molson owns Canadian.biz, the original owner no longer has it.
Out of curiosity, what is the process involved in appealing these disputes? I see that some have taken ICANN to court, but doesn't ICANN have international authority in assigning these names? If I was a citizen of, oh, say Egypt, how much authority would Egyptian courts have over ICANN? Ultimately, what legal recourse does one really have when getting an unfavorable ruling from this body?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The YRO section's integrity is compromised by Michael's presence. What's worse is that this is treated similar to all questions of this nature regarding the /. editors -- refusal to speak to the problem, except to occasionally dismiss it as being a problem at all.
It's like asking a World Com executive to head up your taskforce on corporate malfeasance, or a Texas oil baron to lead the EPA. At this point, I think we should ask John Ashcroft to take over for YRO, just to finish casting the section as a total joke.
The enemies of Democracy are
Well, I was all set to rant and rave about how evil the WIPO and ICANN['t] and everyone else is. But after reading all of the links above (be honest: did you?), I have to say I'm reconsidering my stance.
I don't know if many of you remember the cybersquatting "name rush," so let me provide some background. Basically, when the web started exploding, there was a small but significant minority that would purchase tons of domain names of major corporations, betting that just a few would bring in a bunch of money when the trademarked domain name was sold back to its rightful owner.
Needless to say, these greedy bastards were ruining it for the rest of us. A few bright spots (Guy Kawasaki's holding mcdonalds.com hostage in exchange for donations to public schools) didn't make up for what was largely the profitting of a few at the expense at anyone else.
The rules put into effect against cybersquatting were necessary to save the web from anarchy and plutocracy. And if those rules were to disappear, or cease to be enforced, then we would be plunged back into that corporate-sponsored hell. These rulings seem terrible to us now, but if we want to save the 'Net, we need to be firm in our application of the rules. Those found in violation need to be held responsible for their actions, or we will find ourselves back in the web of 1996.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
What we need is to dump ICANN. However, it isn't feasable to do this in one fell swoop, at least not yet.
.tm domain for trademarked names, to which trademark disputes would be confined (ie. anyone can register mtv.com, but only the owner of the MTV trademark can register mtv.tm).
So, instead, we need DNS resolution in our libraries (glibc, etc.) and our internet applications (browsers, ftp & ssh clients, etc.) that include the concept of multiple root authorities, with easilly settable defaults.
Need to go to ICANN's unix.org? Fine, click a pulldown tab in your Mozilla 2.0 browser and select ICANN, or better yet, type http://icann//unix.org/ . Otherwise, stick with http://freenic//unix.org/ or (if opennic ever decides to dump ICANN peering) http://opennic//unix.org/
Obviously, old nomenclature would remain in place, using the system default for root authority (presumably Opennic and not ICANN).
It is only this approach, that will default to freedom but allow those of us who need to access ICANN-managed sites (most of the web today) to cross the line at will, that will enable us to free ourselves from ICANN's grip while still being able to make sensible use of the web.
Whether the alternative becomes Opennic, or some new entity ('freenic' anyone?) it needs to be constructed with a solid, equitable constitution that preserves freedom of speech above everything else, and does not favor large corporate or government interests over the rights of individuals, with an open, public, and fair judicial process for resolving name disputes. Ideally it would also include a
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Remeber Laurentide? Just "Canadian" in a different bottle...they even sold at the Montreal Forum during the Canadiens games back in the '80s...
And I do agree about the Microbrewries. Upper Canada Dark is far superior (as is Rickards Red, Old Micks Red etc)..
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
It should be completely obvious at this point that the system of domain name dispute resolution is nothing more than a method for those with money to take domains from those with less money. Since it wouldn't be politically feasible to actually state this, a set of rules that appear to have some other purpose but which easily allow the true purpose are necessary. The actual content of those rules is irrelevant so long as it meets that criterion.
So you really shouldn't be sick that something that isn't cybersquating is declared so, and that something that is cybersquating is not declared so. The term "cybersquatting" is irrelevant to the matter at hand, since it is nothing more than window dressing to the real matter -- who is declared to be economically more important. That's what should make you sick.
The enemies of Democracy are
You, sir, are making a common mistake. There is a clear difference between stealing someone's domain name (there is only one Unix.org) and 'stealing' someone's song for your own listening purposes, which does not diminish its value unless you would have otherwise paid for it.
See, taking the domain name away from someone destroys the value to you, as you no longer have it. But copying a song may actually raise the value of the song, and thus the artist, by increasing exposure. This can be true even for mainstream, payola-based artists.
Pay attention, son.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
BTW, it's not like that kind of exclusive licensing is that uncommon. Look at most restaurants... Pepsi or Coke products?
The complainant argues that the domain name is indistinguishable from their trademark. Respondent asserts that the trademark has become diluted to a generic, and is therefore not enforcable. According to the ruling:
Basically WIPO is saying that you can not defend a domain name by asserting that a trademark has become a generic. If you wish to challenge a trademark, you must do it in the jurisdiction where the trademark originates. As long as the trademark is considered valid in its original jurisdiction, it is accepted as valid in WIPO proceedings.
Nope, no sig
I thought I'd take a look at unix.org to see what their take on the decision would be.
I was a might suprised to find it blocked by the wonderful corporate content filter.
Checking the URL checker I got the following response:
URL Checker
Thank you for your submission. Below please find a listing of the category (ies) in which your submitted URL appears. For a detailed description of each category, visit our filtering categories section.
The Site: www.unix.org
is categorized by N2H2 as:
Pornography
Should you still wish to inquire about the URL in question after checking with your System Administrator, please submit your request to N2H2's Review Editors for further analysis.
They have rights to the site because they own the Canadian trademark on the word "Canadian". I'm more pissed off at the Canadian trademark board then anyone else.
Yes, it's sad that the name of my (and ~30 million other Canadians') great country has been made synonymous with what is in essence bottled piss. Imagine if Coors Lite was called "American Beer", and "I Am American" was trumpeted as a commercial slogan in commercials for an inferior product!
Freedom: "I won't!"
LOL! Sorry... Rickards Red and related beers are NOT Microbrews. They're brewed by Molson! Unless you're talking about a different Rickards Red... :)
Other domain names in arbitration:
music.com - RIAA says they have the rights to this, since they "own music"
switch.com - Apple claims they deserve it because of their oh-so-clever ad campaign. But Cisco says it belongs to them, because they make switches, and can afford the most lawyers.
fordreallysucks.com - Now Chevy is claiming rights to this one, as it is a fundamental part of their corporate philosophy.
bendoverandtakeit.com - Microsoft is pursuing this one, using an argument similar to Chevy's.
"I am a cipher, a cipher, wrapped in an enigma, smothered in secret sauce" -Jimmy James
I almost took this poor dude's side, until I read an absolutely preposterous remark.
Being Canadian isn't just about drinking beer...
As long as I can remember, being a Canadian has been about drinking beer. Good beer, too. Canadian beer. Besides, Canadian.biz is kind of like saying Cuba.biz. Nobody really cares.
Is that a real poncho? I mean, is that a Mexican poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
Corrupt
Michael, you guys are so two-faced, it's unbelievable. You people will go on and on about you guys aren't stealing music and other IP, but go apeshit when the evil, nasty corporations are stealing domain names (another form of IP).
Nonsense. When someone violates copyright they are not stealing anything. Neither the original creator, nor those who comply with the creator's copyrights, nor those others who do not, are being deprived of anything. Hence, by the very defintion of the word 'stealing,' no theft is taking place. This is why the law clearly differentiates between theft and copyright violation, and a remedial understanding of this should be required before idiots like yourself start banging away on their keyboards.
As to domanin names, the original holder of the domain name is most definitely being deprived of that name, i.e. the name is being taken away from them.
Does this make it theft? Arguably so, since this is being done in an extralegal fashion (not via a court of law). It is arguable that it isn't, since virtually every registrar has a clause in the contract you sign basically saying "you're paying for this, but we can deprive you of it anytime we like, for any reason we like, and you agree to this." However, it remains to be seen whether or not such contract clauses are in fact enforcable (in any other industry they would clearly not be enforcable). If it turns out that this notion of 'we can deprive you of the service you've paid for anytime we like' is in fact an illegal stipulation, then that portion of the contract is void, and depriving a party of the domain name for which they paid would in fact arguably be "theft" of a sort. Certainly more so than most of the things people around here like to label "theft."
Either way, it is in no way analogous to copyright violation, bandwidth misuse, or any number of other things which are constantly, and erroneously, being called theft around here.
Slashdot hypocrisy 101.
Idiocy 101, more like it.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The word "Canadian" is, unquestionably, generic. "Canadian" is a word whose usage is far, far more broad than the context of beer. A Google.com search for "canadian -beer" yields almost 4 million results!
Yeah, and "stupid -bush" turns up about the same number. That doesn't mean the words don't have a deep and meaningful connection.
----------
I am an expert in electricity. My father held the chair of applied electricity at the state prision.
Trademarks are only valid in the appropriate context.
Buick likely has Century trademarked on their car, but that does not prevent Century from being used elsewhere.
Having the Sale of the Century! generally shouldn't infringe, nor should Century 21 Realty.
Nissan.com is having this same fight (and somewhat winning)
A lot of (heavily tech impaired) users have trouble understanding that there are TLD's besides ".com"
/dev/null \;
Yes.
It is absurd for us to hold ourselves to the least common denominator. A degree of literacy is required to make use of the internet and the web. Claiming otherwise, or even claiming that pandering to illiteracy would be a good thing, is akin to arguing for the replacement of text in all the books in all our libraries with color pictures because the "reading-impaired" can't understand all those big words.
The sooner we divest ourselves of these sorts of idiotic fallacies and begin educating people so that they can make sensible use of technology, the sooner people will begin to have a positive, useful computing experience (rather than the constant frustration most people are confronted with today).
Note that this doesn't mean everyone needs to understand what
find / -type f -exec grep blah {}
means, nor does it mean that so-called "user friendly" interfaces are a bad thing (when properly implimented to facilitate knowledge and understanding, not obscure it) but basic concepts such as IP addresses, domain names, registrars, root authorities, filesystems, network connections, system memory, system storage, are something anyone wishing to use a computer should be required and expected to understand.
A modern computer connected to the internet has a lot more in common with a library than it does a toaster, and it is time we started treating it as such.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
They have rights to the site because they own the Canadian trademark on the word "Canadian". I'm more pissed off at the Canadian trademark board then anyone else.
They have rights to the word "Canadian" as it pertains to beer..... nothing else.
I am not Canadian(TM), I am CANADIAN.
However, Molson beer is Canadian(TM)
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
Sad, but fair.
domain names are not "intellectual property". they are much more akin to "actual property". a domain name has much more in common with a walking stick than a patent.
that being said, your brain probably has more in common with a walking stick
go back to community college english 101. read some books. learn some ideas, such as: hate to be so harsh, but did you even think through your argument? or just click submit? if you and i each have a domain name, and we exchange them, we each still have a domain name. that is not IP, that is actual physical property.
MORTAR COMBAT!
According to some whois queries that I just ran you can register such high quality domain names as fuckicann.[com/net/org], fuckwipo.[com/net/org] and fucknsi.[net/org].
As a side, several years ago when NSI was pounding the company that I worked for in the butt hard core because they had a problem in their root servers, I proceeded to register fucknsi.org while on hold with them. Their tech support didn't believe that I could have a domain when I said my email contact was everyone.should@fucknsi.org.
Of course, you're probably just wasting your $10.
My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
Ideally it would also include a .tm domain for trademarked names, to which trademark disputes would be confined
You realize ".tm" would only be meaningful to people who use the English word "Trademark" don't you? If we're really trying for a valid, international solution, it won't depend on abbreviations of English legal terms.
(Yes, English is [currently] the defacto language of the internet. One argument at a time, please.)
Nope, no sig
The comment from John Gilmore is (in conclusion) "Now tell me again that free speech guarantees should not be part of the incorporation charter of ICANN."
Hard to argue against that. Until, that is, you remember that John's definition of freedom of speech extends to running an open mail relay that he knows is being used by spammers. The tacitly admitted reason is that securing it might inconvenience his friends (to the extend that they'd have to remember a password), but the touted reason is that it's a freedom of speech issue. Sure, whatever.
John Gilmore doesn't necessarily represent my ideas about what constitutes freedom of speech, and you really have to consider everything he says on a case by case basis to decide if it's an informed insight, or just blind kneejerk rhetoric. I believe he's right in this case, but let's be careful about just quoting him as though he's the authority on everything related to net issues.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
At least you're not alone.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Possibly a poor choice of examples. Anheuser-Busch actually does claim to have exclusive rights to use the word words "king" and "kings" when referring to beer in the United States. They smacked-down a beer store in Oregon this year for using the phrase "Beer of Kings" in a advertisement. As the market owner puts it in the article, "Basically, she [AB's rep] told me that anything to do with beer and kings, they owned".
(In Europe, "Beer of Kings" is actually the centuries-old slogan of Budjovick Budvar N.P, the Czech brewery that Anheuser-Busch stole the name from in 1876. Budvar didn't officially give AB permission until 1911, meaning Anheuser-Busch built its empire on trademark infringement. It's a small irony, but a painful one.)
Proud to be / Smiley-free / Since Nineteen / Ninety-Three
Unfortunately the overcrowded courts are very willing to enforce arbitration awards.
So the winner can easily get a judgement from the court.
Did anyone bother to even check the wayback machine before jumping to conclusions? (You see it's a game, where you jump to conclusions, nevermind)
Link
Apparently they had some cheesy links up, and nothing up since 1998.
Guess what, they WERE squatters./B>
Go see the archive for yourself. If that isn't a squatted domain, I don't know what is.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
.biz was created so the registrars could charge whoever has foo.com to get foo.biz. plain and simple.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
So does Molson.
A winner is you!
Your argument only works if the price of the thing stolen is so high that a single sale would cover the cost of making it and if that sale had already occured. Pretty stupid argument.
Once again, you demonstrate why a modicum of education on intellectual property would be very useful before people begin banging away on their keyboards when discussing, or in your case, trolling, this particular subject.
Lost potential sales does not, and never has, equaled theft, either in law, or in common use of speech (outside of rhetoric deliberately employed by copyright and intellectual property cartels, which hardly counts as it is intended to change the language to their political advantage).
Your argument requires that deprivation of potential sales would equal theft (which in fact would make every act of competition equal to "theft."). A pretty stupid argument.
Oh, and by the way, I do make my own literature, art, and movies available, freely, under a GPL-like license, so unlike trolls like yourself I actually do put my money where my mouth is.
Thank you for playing.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Buick == GM
Maybe he was going to make the Canadian Business Directory, and hadn't registered the trademark yet.
Next, Molson will be going after people using a red maple leaf on their flags - clearly an infringement upon their brand...
I mean, as a Canadian, aren't you just a bit offended that a word so closely tied to your identity has been usurped by a corporation for its own gains?
One of their slogans seems to be I am Canadian. (Forgive me for being unfamiliar with their marketing - we don't drink much Molson here...)
Can you legally even say that aloud anymore without infringing upon their trademarks?
Not being Canadian, I won't try to tell you how you should feel, but I'm just a bit curious.
(Maybe it's such a good beer that Canadians don't mind - I honestly don't know...)
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
-- My Weblog.
Now I don't even drink beer but I have to say that I loved that "I am Canadian" theme ad, especially the "Anthem" one which showed many historical Canadian setups interwoven with the song.
A question for you: Have you heard Bud Lite's advertisement response to the I am Canadian theme? They (at least last summer) had these incredibly corny "Brewed In Ontario" radio ads that are 100X 'worse' than the Molson ones (if you think the Molson ones are bad, that is.) They are so bad and 'machiso-oriented' that they make Don Cherry (of Hockey Night In Canada) look feminime.
As a proud Canadian (in the original, true, and untrademarked sense) I find Molson's exclusive claim to the word "Canadian" especially ironic when they don't even seem to own the rights to canadian.com or canadian.ca.
Of course, the fact that the apparent technical error (Hex garbage like %2%2 showing up in the registrar's file) played such an important part of this case makes the decision extend beyond IP ownership issues by holding registrants liable for mistakes by their registrars while also raising concern about ICANN's lack of technical competence. Molson deliberately played up this angle to the "judge" by doing a business name search for %2%2 and proposing that since any such business (obviously) doesn't exist, the original owner must be a cybersquatter - even though the registrar seems to admit to the mistake with their database.
I will be actively protesting this decision by drinking my share of some real (although sadly, no longer Canadian owned) Canadian beer along with some pints from our many fine Canadian microbreweries.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
You realize ".tm" would only be meaningful to people who use the English word "Trademark" don't you? If we're really trying for a valid, international solution, it won't depend on abbreviations of English legal terms.
.tm would be the best approach.
//china//domain.tlds and reserve a TLD for chinese trademarks that ends in some chinese character(s) I can't type here. Ditto for any other language purists out there.
.tm style domains, and kept out of the mainstream domains the rest of us use, I really couldn't care less if there is one, or a 100, such little domains, or what language the TLD characters are taken from.
Unless you would like to push for Esperanto as the Official Language of the Internet (I would support you in this argument, even though it would mean I'd have to learn Esperanto from scratch), I think you are going to have to concede, and live with the fact, that English is the defacto language of the internet, and that for the domain system to work at all we have to accept that, to some degree.
Thus,
However, it isn't as simple as that, because, with more than one root authority to choose from, China could, for example, have
As long as Trademark nonsense is reserved for
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
But back to what happened with Unix.org ... that's an outrage.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Take a look at the index file below:
Dang it.. what more can we say? so many #'s in a row.. its obviously Porn or a message from Bin Laden to his followers!
to them, any form of Unix is obscene after all. So the Pornography description makes sense in a Gatesian way.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
They (Molson) will never get 'genuine' bad publicity over this because the primary drinkers of the beer are those who are stupid enough to drink it. Such people couldn't care less about 'domain name dispute protocols' or other such crap. Unless it would have prevented their favourite hockey player from being traded away or something, then this will not reach 99.99% of Molson's core market.
Imagine if Coors Lite was called "American Beer", and "I Am American" was trumpeted as a commercial slogan in commercials for an inferior product!
I don't need to imagine it. I've lived overseas a number of times, and we Americans have the emberressment of "Budweiser, King of Beers" being promoted (successfully) in such places as the UK, Germany, and elsewhere as (a) the quitisential American beer (despite our numerous excellent brews (especially our Micro-brews), this is the bottled urin most of the world associates with American beer.
What makes it even more emberrassing is that the label closely resembles the 'true' Budweiser of Czech fame, Budweiser Budvar, which in contrast to the American pisswater variety is one of the finest Pilsners on the planet. Only Corporate American arrogance could ever lead to such a situation, where a nasty, cheap knockoff of arguably one of the world's finest pilsners has the audacity to call itself the King of Beers and even try to displace that which it mimics so poorly in that product's native markets.
Kind of sheds an interesting light on the psychology of the Corporate Moghuls fleecing our economy and driving into the ground these days (cf Enron, Xerox, Worldcom, and a whole bunch more coming soon to a courtroom near you).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Buick has been GM for a very long time. For the interested or uninformed, GM owns/operates/has a large stake in the following automobile makes:
Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, EV1, Holden, Hummer, Oldsmobile, Open, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn, Vauxhall. As well the former 'Geo' which is now operated by Chevy anyway.
What?
Open = Opel, and EV1 is the up and coming line of electric vehicles from GM.
They also have joint-venture sort of deals going on with: Fiat, Fuji/Subaru, Isuzu, and Suzuki.
What?
You're missing the point about context - Molson's trademark is only enforceable against another company making a beer called "Canadian" it is not applicable in any other market sector. Therefore it's entirely legit for somebody to publish a business directory called "Canadian". It is also too generic a term to be enforceable as far as I can tell (like Windows).
Imagine if Coors Lite was called "American Beer"
Isn't that what those pesky Europeans are always saying? Not a beer thread goes by when someone doesn't accuse American of only producing Bud and Coors as if we don't have smaller brewers in number in every state.
SHHH! Don't give any of the big brewerys any ideas. It's only a matter of time before patriotic pride comes through and they start the "American Pride" commercials.
I read the internet for the articles.
What trademark?
Molson only owns Canadian when referring to beer. And the corresponding logos, they don't own the word, just its reference to beer.
Trademarks only cover ONE field. It's perfectly legal to apply for the trademark "Canadian" in any field that does not compete with Molsen's swill. GM can trademark a "Canadian" automobile, and Molsen can trademark a "Century" Beer and they are just as valid as the trademarks for for Canadian beer and Century cars. IF the person in question had a trademark on "Canadian" in any field besides beverages his trademark is just as valid as Molsen's.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Technically, they own the "Canadian" trademark as it relates to beer. You could still decide to go open "Canadian Discount Used Cars" or "Canadian Flapping-Headed Pigfuckers, Inc" and it would be legal. (Err, the name of the business, that is. I'm pretty sure pigfucking itself is illegal.)
There's some history of all this on Budweiser Budvar's page on the trademark dispute. Basically, it looks like it's not completely clear on either side - kind of like if someone had started making "Deutsche Bier" in the US, then started exporting to Germany.
fencepost
just a little off
For your education, of course, I wasn't using circular reasoning, I was demonstrating the tautological fact that one takes something because one wants it. Are claiming that you copy other people's work because you don't want it?!
As for your GPL troll ... your ability to remain ignornant on that subject while reading slashdot indicates a level of deliberate obtuseness normally reserved for Microsoft astroturfers and Trolls, a level of intelligence beneath that of the average non-human primate, or both.
In other words, you can't think of a reason why you should be allowed to ignore my requirements for copying while I have to honour yours (as enshrined in the GPL) so I must be a troll again. You have read the GPL, haven't you? You are aware that it places restrictions on copying the work, aren't you?
Ever heard of reasoning, or is it just something that happens to other people?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
True, these are very different beasts. But just because you wouldn't have paid for the song doesn't mean that you weren't unjustly enriched when you downloaded it without permission of the copyright holder. Maybe you don't want to pay for the song, and if the download wasn't available, you wouldn't have listened to it. But if you listen to your downloaded MP3 and enjoy it, perhaps listen to it again...you're taking something that doesn't belong to you and gaining benefit from it. So what's in it for the artist? Sure you wouldnt have paid them either way, but it sure isn't fair for you to be getting the satisfaction of listening to their music when they dont want you to, and you give nothing in return....
Especially Canada!
"I am a cipher, a cipher, wrapped in an enigma, smothered in secret sauce" -Jimmy James
No. You were defining taking (or copying) something because you want it as theft, then using that definition to 'prove' that taking something because you want it is theft. Classic circular reasoning, and a sure sign of a very limited intellect.
You are correct, though, you are making tautologies right and left
Even replicating something you earnestly desire does not, and never has, equalled "theft" or "stealing" in the English language, or under U.S. law.
In other words, you can't think of a reason why you should be allowed to ignore my requirements for copying while I have to honour yours (as enshrined in the GPL) so I must be a troll again.
Your GPL ignorance is astounding. Either you are a troll (most likely) or you are woefully ignorant and should do a little research before displaying such ignorance for all too see.
The GPL is an imperfect attempt to insure freedom in a society, and within a legal regime, that is designed to destroy freedom when it comes to sharing so-called intellectual property. As such, it is only required because there is copyright, and is a countermeasure against said restrictions. Get rid of copyright and you get rid of the need for a license such as the GPL.
But you probably already knew this. If not, 3 seconds on google (or slashdot's search facility) would have made this clear, had you bothered.
Your last sentence clearly identifies you as a troll, as does your posting history (as another pointed out). I only respond this one last time to hopefully insure the idiocy you display does not mislead another. As for reasoning, I've already pointed you toward a resource where you can remedy your sore lack of education and understanding. As with the proverbial horse being led to water, no one can force you to drink.
Now go educate yourself, troll. While you've provided me with a good, hearty laugh over lunch, I am not your teacher, and I'm through feeding you. Drink, or don't drink and remain ignorant
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
sorry, but there's plenty of evidence that mp3 distribution actually increases album sales, even of mainstream groups. record sales actually increased last year in spite of the mp3 boom, including all the various equipment made by major companies (including sony, a member of the RIAA) which is intended solely to facilitate the use of mp3 audio.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They have rights to the site because they own the Canadian trademark on the word "Canadian". I'm more pissed off at the Canadian trademark board then anyone else.
So does Global TV, operators of canada.com, have a trademark on "Canada"? How much of a license fee does the Government of Canada pay?
I did not do that, you are using a petty and pedantic interpretation of what I said in order to avoid addressing the issue. Again.
Desire, curiosity, even by mistake, to name just three of a dozen or more common reasons. So not only is your definition circular, it ignores huge swaths of reality in the process (as most tautologies tend to do).
Acting on desire or curiosity to steal something is hardly a great defence, so the huge swathes of reality I'm ignoring comes down to accidental copies, hardly the issue at hand.
Even replicating something you earnestly desire does not, and never has, equalled "theft" or "stealing" in the English language, or under U.S. law.
Read US law before making assertions about it: Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec 107:
So, yep, it is against the law in the US; taking a copy will have an impact on the market at least insofar that you have reduced it by one persion who could reasonably be assumed to have been a paying customer otherwise. UK law is in flux at the moment as EU laws shift but the end result will almost certainly be the same as US law.
Get rid of copyright and you get rid of the need for a license such as the GPL.
Read the GPL again. Copyright serves the aims of the GPL, without it we would be much worse off. The GPL's main function is to enforce the "commons" of software. It does this by using copyright to force people to re-release modifications. Without copyright there is nothing to enforce this turn-and-turn-about approach to software and the GNU/EFF's aims fail. Large companies would be able to take code and use it to produce binaries with no source code and there would be nothing you could do about it.
You've had four posts on this thread and have single-mindedly avoided the question of why a person should be denied payment for work when that work is used by someone else, if that's what they ask for. You've tried sematics, pedantry, ad hominem argument, pretending you didn't understand what I was saying, insults, and blank refusal to answer direct simple questions on your irrational claim that you should be protected by copyright and others shouldn't.
In short: fuck off.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
So you mean now we can have people's domains revoked because the information they gave the registrar is not technically correct? WHOO!
That's only like, 3/4 of the domains out there!
Exactly which nation would that be?
"Foster's. Australian for Piss."
Ok - time to clear this one up right now. Nobody in Australia - and I mean nobody - drinks Fosters. I can't even recall the last time I saw if available for sale in a liquor store, or on tap in a pub.
Oh, sure, we have some very ordinary mass produced, mass marketed beers (Caslemaine XXXX, Swan Gold, Emu Export, and others). We also have some really good mass market beers (Redback would be a personal favourite; even Victoria Bitter isn't that bad). However, calling Fosters an Australian beer is so far from the truth it defies description. It's not brewed here, and it's not sold here - so how exactly is it Australian?
Russ %-)
... and never, ever play leapfrog with a unicorn.
Simply put, this is bullshit.
The guy for UNIX.org had a legitimate use for his site; he was not using it to squeeze money. He had a site-in-progress and had paid $5,000 dollars. Why pay 5k to cybersquat? That's absurd.
Furthermore, does this ruling mean that OpenFucks (aka OpenHypocrites, and those fucks who use the word Open in their name but are against those principles) gets to steal this persons domain name, but he doesn't get compensated the $5,000 dollars he spent on it?
Cybersquatting may be an issue. I argue that its no different than an investment. If people think a domain name may be valuable for its name, they buy it. Any problems with it can be solved by having the rights to such expire after a certain time of inactivity, with a hearing if the person objects because they're working on something in progress (as this person did).
Auto-terminating a person's rights to a domain-name after say one year of them not associating any website with it would almost completely solve cybersquatting problems. After all, a cybersquatter who purchases 5000 sites is certainly not going to able to put up sites for all of them (also do a redundancy check for simply putting the same page on diff. domain names).
In any case, ICANN's rules are crap. The only way to prove someone cyber-squats is if they explicitly ask for money for their site and buy many domain-names for such. One instance is certainly not proof.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I don't drink Molson or Labatt products. I drink mainly imports (Irish, mostly), and microbrew, or brewpub beer. Big-brewery beer is chemically enhanced piss.
This space left intentionally blank.
I must have missed that post. I remember him saying that nobody lost anything when things were copied and making false assertions about the law.
... one which seems to be rather unanimous, by the way.
OK, this is my last post on the subject. You'll have the last deceitful word I'm sure, but anyone perusing your posting history and this thread will not be mislead by your nonsense.
I do find it irritating how you do put words in my mouth which I never wrote, which of course is your intent as a troll (I refer anyone to your posting history if they are in any doubt).
I never made any assertions about copyright violations not being illegal. Quite the contrary. I stated that copyright violation is not the same as theft, and as the AC poster noted, I have backed that up factually. Both the law, and every publicly available online dictionary, corroborate that fact which you seem unable or unwilling to grasp: copyright violation may be wrong, but it is not theft. Why. Because nothing is taken.
Potential profits are not "something", they are a nebulous, theoretical value which in at least one case can be pretty firmly shown to be $0.00 (the $18,000 program that almost certainly none of the copyright violators would have ever paid for, regardless), though as a theoretical value its size is irrelevant.
If you equate the taking of theoretical, or potential profit with theft, then you have by definition redefined every act of competition, legal or illegal, as theft, which is demonstrably nonsense.
End of story.
You've now had three different people point out the error of your assumptions, your fallacious arguments, and your conclusions. You have been led to water and clearly chosen not to drink.
Your perogative, but don't be surprised at the disdain you earn from critically thinking people as a result.
Oh, and by the way, identifying you as a troll isn't name calling. It is a value judgement on the quality of your posts
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy