Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Gov't Grants Olympics Ownership of Winter
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports that the Canadian government has introduced new legislation that grants Vancouver Olympic organizers broad powers to police the use of any commercial use of the words associated with the Olympics. These incredibly include 'winter, Vancouver, and games.' As Geist notes, the government 'has no time to deal with spam, spyware, privacy, or net neutrality, but commits to legislation on behalf of the organizers of a sporting event?'"
This is likely part of agreements made in secret host city dealings with the Olympic committees. It seems to happen in all other host cities. Next up is the restriction of references to non-sponsored products and services. Sure, your rights have been stricken... but at least you can enjoy a nice cold Coca Cola while you watch the sporting events on the CBC.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
The masses really ARE that stupid.
In any sane world, people restricting the use of the words "games", "Vancouver" and "winter" would prompt an immediate response from the masses. People would be calling and writing into Ottawa to complain.
In this world, people do nothing, and only us geeks get up in arms.
Consider what's been happening lately. It's been demonstrated that companies can and will be granted exclusive patent rights on obvious things, that other companies can and will be granted rights to parts of the human genome, and now that the very use of certain common and ancient words is being restricted.
When will this shit stop?
The governments of the western world talk a good talk about "freedom", but doesn't "freedom" mean the freedom to say "winter", the freedom to study human genetics, the freedom to write software without fear of patent suits?
Are we really "free", or merely "freer"? (Freer than, say, the North Koreans...)
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Dear Mr. Zonk and Cmdrtaco,
t has come to my attention that you have made an unauthorized use of the copyrighted words "WINTER", "VANCOUVER" and "OLYMPICS" (the "Work") in the preparation of a Slashdot article entitled "CANADIAN GOV'T GRANTS OLYMPICS OWNERSHIP OF WINTER" (the "Article"). I have reserved all rights in the Work, granted my the Canadian Government. Your work entitled "CANADIAN GOV'T GRANTS OLYMPICS OWNERSHIP OF WINTER" is essentially identical to the Work and clearly used the Work as its basis.
As you neither asked for nor received permission to use the Work as the basis for the Article nor to make or distribute copies, including electronic copies, of same, I believe you have willfully infringed my rights under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $150,000 as set forth in Section 504(c)(2) therein.
I demand that you immediately cease the use and distribution of all infringing works derived from the Work, and all copies, including electronic copies, of same, that you deliver to me, if applicable, all unused, undistributed copies of same, or destroy such copies immediately and that you desist from this or any other infringement of my rights in the future. If I have not received an affirmative response from you by [date give them about 2 weeks] indicating that you have fully complied with these requirements, I shall take further action against you.
Very truly yours,
The Krazy Kanuck Kommitee
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
No, "Winter" is not being given away, just the right to use the word in certain advertising contexts that could be confused with the winter games. Every Olympic games there are vulture companies that tie themselves in advertising knots to appear to be official supporters without actually being. They use phrases like "Official supporter of Winter sports". This always burns my bacon that they get away with it. If you want to cash in on the Olympics, then support them and get the rights. Otherwise, get lost.
The courts have better things do deal with than tie themselves in knots over this. I can't see this really being applied except in blatant cases, and overall I think it's a good thing. Another thing I can't see is why this is being painted so negatively.
I'll be fine, I don't believe in those entities anyway.
:(){
I submit that the bill is very excellently worded, and I challenge you (or anyone else) to read the bill and come up with an example where the bill would unfairly restrict your freedom. By that, I mean restrict you from doing anything except ambush marketing. Anyone that needs to use any of the "restricted" words in order to promote legitimate business can do so:So, as you can see, that little exception covers pretty much any legitimate use you might have. Describe how exactly this is Orwellian, please.
I know my law degree is in the mail, but even a layman can understand the following:
(1) No person shall, during any period prescribed by regulation, in association with a trade-mark or other mark, promote or otherwise direct public attention to their business, wares or services in a manner that misleads or is likely to mislead the public into believing that
(a) the person's business, wares or services are approved, authorized or endorsed by an organizing committee, the COC or the CPC; or
(b) a business association exists between the person's business and the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, an organizing committee, the COC or the CPC.
The law essentially says you cannot mislead the public with advertising or promotions that suggest your business is endorsed by or connected to the Olympic Games and/or one of the organizing committess.
The law goes on to say:
(2) In determining whether a person has acted contrary to subsection (1), the court shall take into account any evidence that the person has used, in any language,
(a) a combination of expressions set out in Part 1 of Schedule 3; or
(b) the combination of an expression set out in Part 1 of Schedule 3 with an expression set out in Part 2 of that Schedule.
So, the law does not prohibit a business from using the words "Vancouver", "winter" or "Whistler", only when they are used in combination with the following words and likely to cause to confusion with the Olympic trademarks and/or suggest an endorsement or relationship that does not exist:
1. Games
2. 2010
3. Twenty-ten
4. 21st
5. Twenty-first
6. XXIst
7. 10th
8. Tenth
9. Xth
10. Medals
That's pretty much it. Draconian? Not really. Overly broad? Perhaps.
Drugs, civil courts, politics, wildly inflated egos, corruption, endless corporate marketing, at least they could introduce some real blood sports to really reflect the true values of the modern Olympics, bring on the gladiators and the lions.
I'm bored with the same old same old, and no I don't see the achievement in a person willing to run around in circles day after day after day.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
If a business falsely claims to have sponsored an event or organization, give that organization the right to sue said business.
If a business claims to have sponsored a non-existing organization, give consumer associations the right to sue.
As a Canadian, I remember we went through this sort of thing the last time the Olympic Winter Games were held in Canada, in Calgary, in the year 1988.
There was a whack-a-mole attack on anything "infringing". God forbid you should use the word "Olympic". If an eatery in Toronto's Greek immigrant district was called "Olympic Restaurant", demands would be made to change the name.
This campaign reached its peak (IIRC) when demands were made that Olympic Airways, the national airline of Greece, stop flying to Canada under that name. The issue got some embarrassing press coverage. As a result, "Olympic Airways" was allowed to continue, on condition that it provide some free trips to the organization running the games.
It seems to me that the Olympic Games, like other businesses, is entitled to reasonable copyright and trademark protection. However, I am uneasy about special laws and draconian enforcement for the purpose.