Slashdot Mirror
Library of Congress Threatens Washington Watch Wiki
BackRow writes "Washington Watch, a site devoted to tracking the cost of federal legislation, has raised the hackles of the Library of Congress with a new wiki that makes an unfavorable comparison to the LOC's THOMAS legislative search engine. After Jim Harper, Washington Watch's creator and the director of information policy at the Cato Institute, announced the wiki, he received a nastygram from the LOC." Quoting: "After the announcement, he was contacted by Matt Raymond, the Director of Communications at the Library (and the author of the Library of Congress' blog). Raymond said that he possessed 'statutory and regulatory authority governing unauthorized use of the Library's name and logo and those of Library subunits and programs,' and he asked that Harper stop using the names 'Library of Congress' and 'THOMAS' in his marketing materials."
Does anyone else find it ironic that a library, of all organizations, is (supposedly) exercising its IP rights?
The LOC is wrong. Making a comparative in an endorsement is protected speech, and goes beyond trademark protection.
If he had said, "The LOC, and their THOMAS service, fully back the use of Washington Watch." that is misuse of trademark in the context of an endorsement.
To say a service is like another service only better, fully protected.
IANAL/JM2c.
How soon before we're not allowed to make derogatory remarks about Congress itself, or the president? I was under the impression that the government and everything it owns, collectively, belong to the American People, but apparently I'm wrong.
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
It must be nice to live in a world where you can just systematically disregard the positions of someone else because you've already decided they're wrong because of who they are.
...having to compete.
And so much easier to send a C&D than to actually compete.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"Director of information policy at the Cato Institute..." Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to continue giving a shit after that?
Not if you believe that rights only belong to people who happen to agree with you.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Oh boy. For what it's worth, I work for a D.C. government watchdog and am very familiar with Cato. I read their books, I go to their events. Their office is sweet - lots of windows, big atrium. Bottom line is their science positions are intellectually dishonest at a comprehensive level, and that keeps them well funded by industry. So yeah, I distrust the information they put out, because they have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders.
It's called a track record. Ignoring it is called insanity.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I'm not sure it works that way. Just because something is not a private organization, doesn't mean that it has no rights to restrict its brand or logo. Public property is sticky that way. Like the ways public land is used is restricted by the operators and can have restrictions like "no motorbikes" and "no 2 stroke engines in watercraft" The use of the public property is limited.
In this case I think you're right about the way he used it but I don't think it's a blanket law that allows the use of govt resources or brands or logos as public property in the way you may have meant (as in completely free use). It's more likely the same rights anyone has to use a corporate name, brand, or logo. They can't restrict discussion or reference.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
This is not a situation where some commercial outfit is making money off of using the name of the Library of Congress. If I see some commercial business doing that, I will turn them in myself.
This is plainly about freedom of political speech, a right enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Harper's use of the site, even his comparison of his search engine against THOMAS, is aimed at promoting his personal political agenda, both for his site and including his comparison.
Congress did not repeal the First Amendment.
For once, somebody has a beef with some meat on it. This is where you hire the attorney to reply with a nastygram.
All is paradox. Retired lawyer, so this is just one more layman's opinion.
I mean seriously, we aren't talking about the chicken and egg concept here, we are bypassing it with you logic and going straight to connecting dotted line without paying attention to the numbers to paint whatever picture we want. Here is the scoop. I I run a business and someone is saying things benificial to my business, If it support them, I benefit. It doesn't not mean I tell them what to say.
The same can be said for politics in general. There was a lot of hubub going on about Charlie Tree (not sure on spelling and don't care enough to check) the chinese embassy worker who showed up to the white house with bags of cash called campaign contributions at the same times China was stealing nuclear secrets from the US the some claim led to their Nuclear arms program being successful. Nobody has convincingly made the case Clinton was selling secrets for campaign contributions. Similarly, Al Qeada has came out in support of some democrat leaders and their policies. This doesn't mean they are connected. Although there is enough other evidence that some kook could make a small case for that.
Whenever I see someone discount something specifically because of funding when they organization survives on donations, I see it as that person looking for a reason to be in denial. It s just that simple.
This guy criticised a service of the government's library, and got a nastygram/Cease-and-Desist. Perhaps this is an advance test of the feasibility of using lawyers to squash criticism of the government, much like how corporations often do the same?
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Considering your response is a straw man argument, I think I will go with the parent post.
For those who need help following the conversation.
"because they have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders."
= Because some of there sources are tainted they have lost credibility.
"know which industry sources funded my"
Here is some non tainted information so not everything is tainted so you're wrong. (with an implicit argument that the parent said everything was tainted.)
"a lot of what we put out is false?"
Once again putting words in the parents post. If 1% of what they say is total bullshit then they have zero credibility. It's like soup, if it's 1% crap then it's not edible. It's not a question of balancing some scale either you constantly use creditable methods or you're a crackpot there is no middle ground.
PS: If you ever want to work with a credible think tank you should consider getting out soon their methods are clearly influencing your critical thinking skills.