I didn't necessarily say that any use of the term would be necessarily true, I only suggested that even in marketing speak, the term can used entirely truthfully, at least at the time of publication (it may get verified later, invalidating the claim).
Of course, it's not really an "un-something-able" word, either.
"Unprovable" can also sometimes be true. There are numerous things that literally cannot ever be proven.
A couple of extenuating factors to consider.... the first being that money doesn't serve as an effective replacement for someone you genuinely care about, and the second is that if one is seriously going to commit a crime, particularly a major one such as murder, they will have to anticipate every possible avenue by which they could either get caught or even strongly incriminated, and develop a mitigation strategy for it that has a maximum likelihood of success. The effort of doing this is typically not outweighed by any potential gain
... that the company that first popularized the use of the word "lemon" to specifically describe a problematic car (popularized in the 60's) is now having its very own name being used to describe an undesirable level of vehicular emissions?
It is relatively trivial to write and share unbreakable crypto with pre-shared one time keys/pads which are generated by good random generators. Key/pad distribution is difficult, but if we are talking about small groups of people then in-person key/pad exchange is realistic, so you can establish networks of people with essentially unbreakable 2-way encryption.
As an OTP must necessarily be just as long as the message that you encrypt with it, if you are exchanging data in-person anyways, why not just exchange the message instead of the OTP?
An encryption is considered unbreakable if it requires a copy of the original key to decode into the original message, and there is absolutely no way to ever tell whether any key you might try to use to decrypt it actually gives you the original message unless you knew in advance what the original message was.
I can't say I know for sure, but I think that they have this notion that if someone other than authorized government personnel or law enforcement tries to use such a backdoor, that others will be sufficiently incompetent at using it that they will draw attention to themselves, and therefore get caught.
I didn't say you shouldn't do that, I asked why does it matter?
Note I further did not ask why boot time in general should matter.... I asked specifically why they are rebooting frequently enough that the time that systemd is reputed to save at boot time should matter, because it does only amount to a few seconds saved per boot.
Whether or not Disney holds a MICKEY MOUSE trademark that effectively inhibits the free use of the public domain in Canada would not, for a single second, enter the mind of a judge who had to decide on how to treat the mark in the US when Steamboat Willie enters the public domain
I wasn't suggesting it would enter a judge's mind. I was saying that given the fact that the cartoon is public domain in these jurisdictions while Disney still retains full control over their trademarks in those jurisdictions, it seems nothing less than irrational to think that the same would not happen in the US. A judge doesn't have to consider what happens internationally to decide on the matter, they would only need to look entirely at local law. If Steamboat Willie fell into public domain in the USA, there is no reason to think that would somehow grant other people the free privilege to use Mickey Mouse in their own works, because Mickey Mouse is trademarked. Using Peter Pan as a precedent to the contrary is not really a counter-precedent because while the story. was copyrighted, the character name and image of the character from the story had no IP protection at all. Mickey Mouse has trademark protection.
However, given the repeated long-windedness of your replies, you evidently have far more patience for discussing this matter than I. Peace out.
My go-to example is the character of Peter Pan, which is in the public domain in the US because the works in which he originated are in the public domain in the US. Anyone here can freely use the character in any manner of creative work; in fact a new Peter Pan movie was just released recently. However, at the same time, there are also PETER PAN trademarks for intercity bus services, and for peanut butter. That the character cannot freely be used to sell peanut butter does not prevent anyone from freely writing new books, performing the original J.M. Barrie play, making a film adaptation of the play, etc
Yes, but that's because the name Peter Pan, as it refers to the name of the main character in the story that is now in public domain, was not under any trademark in the first place (any trademark status it has since acquired, such as the name of a particular brand of peanut butter, or bus services, or the like, happened after the work fell into public domain). Further, even if the character had been trademarked, trademarked status could not stop people from copying the public domain work (although it may have been able to prevent other people from using the character in their own works, but that I will admit that is conjecture. Had the character been called something that was simply descriptive of him, such as "Orphan Flying Boy", any trademark status on that term would have become genericized after the work fell into public domain).
US copyright law and US trademark law control what is and isn't legal in the US. What foreign countries do has no particular bearing here. I cannot imagine why you keep bringing it up, as though it mattered even a little.
I keep bringing the matter up because it shows that even in countries which have almost identical copyright and trademark laws to those that exist within the USA, the most significant difference being what the legal lengths of copyright have been, causing Steamboat Willie to fall into public domain in those jurisdictions, Disney has not lost any trademark control in those jurisdictions, one of them being directly north of the USA (Steamboat Willie entered public domain in Canada several years ago, not long after the turn of the century, IIRC, and although copyright terms in Canada were since recently extended, in preparation for participation in the TPP, the extension did not impact the status of works that had already fallen into public domain).
There is nothing magic or special about the US's copyright or trademark laws that would suggest that what would happen within the US should be even slightly different than what has already happened elsewhere when those jurisdictions have extremely similar laws. Your apparent indifference about what happens in other countries simply because they are not subject to US law does not mean that what happens elsewhere will not also happen within the USA when the conditions are sufficiently similar, which in this particular matter, they do indeed happen to be. Believing otherwise is at best naive, wilfully ignorant at worst.
>[?
You insist on alleging that somehow, by making the Steamboat Willie cartoon public domain, that this should cause trademark dillution.
This is not substantiated by any precedent where the name of something is not otherwise a general description of the trademarked item, and is actually countered by the fact that despite the fact that the cartoon is public domain in many international jurisdictions, Disney has *retained* the trademark in those jurisdictions. Freedom to copy and distribute the work in those jurisdictions does not make the title character public domain, only the work itself. The only notable difference is that because of the trademarked status of the character within the work, attribution is still required, but that is only to satisfy trademark law, not copyright law. Further, trademark and copyright law are similar enough in some of these jurisdictions to US law that there is plenty of reason to believe that it will be exactly the same in the US, if Disney does allow their copyright to expire on the work in the US. As you have observed, trademark cannot be used to prohibit a work from becoming public domain, but such public domain status only dillutes the trademark when the trademark itself is too general to refer only to whatever the owner created, which Mickey Mouse will not be, because other people copying Steamboat Willy does not cause Mickey Mouse to suddenly be theirs.... it only makes the copy of the cartoon theirs.
Copyright and trademark are quite orthogonal, in general... what happens to one does not generally affect the other except when one is incorrectly attempted to be used as control on the other.
So you should be allowed to lie in court? Freedom of speech. Verbally harrass an employee at work (lewd sexual advances that have already been declined, for example)? Freedom of seech. Yell "Fire" in a crowded theater for fun? Freedom of speech.
Bear in mind that imposing a caveat that a person who says something should always be accountable for what they say is also an argument against anonymity. Where do you draw the line?
They already have lost the copyright on Steamboat Willie in several international jurisdictions.... the trademark, however, still remains entirely valid in those jurisdictions, and does not dilute Disney's ownership at all. There is absolutely no compelling reason to believe that it will not be exactly the same in the US when the copyright on the work expires there, assuming that it does not somehow get extended again
The fact that the film can be freely distributed in jurisdictions where the copyright has expired does not impact Mickey Mouse's distinctiveness as a trademarked character, because the work being copied does not constitute unauthorized use of the trademark because in turn, that work originally had authorization to use Mickey Mouse in the first place. Because of Disney's retained ownership of the trademark, the caveat on its public domain status is that it is actually not possible to legally copy Steamboat Willy without attribution, as one may ordinarily be able to with a public domain work that does not utilize trademarks. But this is only because the title character remains trademarked by Disney, and not because the work itself is not public domain. One could, for example, as with any public domain work, freely make a derivative work using another lead character.
The Dastar Corp case you mention also illustrated the distinction between trademarks and copyright, and that ownership of one cannot be used to exercise control over the other when it is not applicable. To the best of my understanding, the result of that case did not lead to the dilution or surrender of any trademark owned by any party... it merely established that, as should be expected, a public domain work may be freely copied. If anything, this case exactly illustrates my point.... that trademarks can be retained even after a work falls into public domain.
The Shredded Wheat case you referred to was lost by Nabisco because the company was trying to apply entirely generic words that happened to describe what was done to the product as a trademark. The judge said nay, nay to that... as can reasonably be expected. However, Mickey Mouse could not be argued to be a generic term because "Mickey" is very obviously a name, and not just a general description of the mouse as "shredded" was for "wheat" in the case you referred to. Had Disney used a titular name for their character that was simply descriptive of him in other English words, then they would indeed, as you have noted, probably lose their trademark status on the character as works using that character went into public domain.
Of course... but if they don't actually talk about it with anyone else, or share the results of their work with anyone, then any laws prohibiting circumvention are unenforceable in that context.
If somebody wants to spend their money putting what may ultimately only be superficial systems in place that make them feel more secure, why should they be prohibited from doing so?
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't necessarily say that any use of the term would be necessarily true, I only suggested that even in marketing speak, the term can used entirely truthfully, at least at the time of publication (it may get verified later, invalidating the claim).
Of course, it's not really an "un-something-able" word, either.
"Unprovable" can also sometimes be true. There are numerous things that literally cannot ever be proven.
Perhaps you failed to notice that I listed *TWO* extenuating factors... even where one is inapplicable, the other generally is.
Or else murder would be far more common.
The word you are probably meaning to use is "atypical", not "abnormal".
If you don't want to be downmodded, I strongly recommend investing in a thesaurus.
A couple of extenuating factors to consider.... the first being that money doesn't serve as an effective replacement for someone you genuinely care about, and the second is that if one is seriously going to commit a crime, particularly a major one such as murder, they will have to anticipate every possible avenue by which they could either get caught or even strongly incriminated, and develop a mitigation strategy for it that has a maximum likelihood of success. The effort of doing this is typically not outweighed by any potential gain
[nt]
What makes you think slashdot is in the top ten?
Wow... I wasn't expecting to be actually proven right.
Thanks for that.
Oh, and I'm not Jewish.
Notable exception: "unverified".
I'd ask what the fuck you are talking about, but I somehow expect that any answer you might give would be equally incomprehensible,
I know some people who would say, word for word, the exact same thing about marriage. So perhaps the problem isn't the game, but how you play it.
... that the company that first popularized the use of the word "lemon" to specifically describe a problematic car (popularized in the 60's) is now having its very own name being used to describe an undesirable level of vehicular emissions?
As an OTP must necessarily be just as long as the message that you encrypt with it, if you are exchanging data in-person anyways, why not just exchange the message instead of the OTP?
An encryption is considered unbreakable if it requires a copy of the original key to decode into the original message, and there is absolutely no way to ever tell whether any key you might try to use to decrypt it actually gives you the original message unless you knew in advance what the original message was.
I can't say I know for sure, but I think that they have this notion that if someone other than authorized government personnel or law enforcement tries to use such a backdoor, that others will be sufficiently incompetent at using it that they will draw attention to themselves, and therefore get caught.
Note I further did not ask why boot time in general should matter.... I asked specifically why they are rebooting frequently enough that the time that systemd is reputed to save at boot time should matter, because it does only amount to a few seconds saved per boot.
Why are you rebooting your machine so freqently that the time that systemd might save at boot time should even matter so much?
I wasn't suggesting it would enter a judge's mind. I was saying that given the fact that the cartoon is public domain in these jurisdictions while Disney still retains full control over their trademarks in those jurisdictions, it seems nothing less than irrational to think that the same would not happen in the US. A judge doesn't have to consider what happens internationally to decide on the matter, they would only need to look entirely at local law. If Steamboat Willie fell into public domain in the USA, there is no reason to think that would somehow grant other people the free privilege to use Mickey Mouse in their own works, because Mickey Mouse is trademarked. Using Peter Pan as a precedent to the contrary is not really a counter-precedent because while the story. was copyrighted, the character name and image of the character from the story had no IP protection at all. Mickey Mouse has trademark protection.
However, given the repeated long-windedness of your replies, you evidently have far more patience for discussing this matter than I. Peace out.
Yes, but that's because the name Peter Pan, as it refers to the name of the main character in the story that is now in public domain, was not under any trademark in the first place (any trademark status it has since acquired, such as the name of a particular brand of peanut butter, or bus services, or the like, happened after the work fell into public domain). Further, even if the character had been trademarked, trademarked status could not stop people from copying the public domain work (although it may have been able to prevent other people from using the character in their own works, but that I will admit that is conjecture. Had the character been called something that was simply descriptive of him, such as "Orphan Flying Boy", any trademark status on that term would have become genericized after the work fell into public domain).
I keep bringing the matter up because it shows that even in countries which have almost identical copyright and trademark laws to those that exist within the USA, the most significant difference being what the legal lengths of copyright have been, causing Steamboat Willie to fall into public domain in those jurisdictions, Disney has not lost any trademark control in those jurisdictions, one of them being directly north of the USA (Steamboat Willie entered public domain in Canada several years ago, not long after the turn of the century, IIRC, and although copyright terms in Canada were since recently extended, in preparation for participation in the TPP, the extension did not impact the status of works that had already fallen into public domain).
There is nothing magic or special about the US's copyright or trademark laws that would suggest that what would happen within the US should be even slightly different than what has already happened elsewhere when those jurisdictions have extremely similar laws. Your apparent indifference about what happens in other countries simply because they are not subject to US law does not mean that what happens elsewhere will not also happen within the USA when the conditions are sufficiently similar, which in this particular matter, they do indeed happen to be. Believing otherwise is at best naive, wilfully ignorant at worst.
.... but wouldn't beaming the energy back down to earth kind of make collecting it in space in the first place sort of pointless?
This is not substantiated by any precedent where the name of something is not otherwise a general description of the trademarked item, and is actually countered by the fact that despite the fact that the cartoon is public domain in many international jurisdictions, Disney has *retained* the trademark in those jurisdictions. Freedom to copy and distribute the work in those jurisdictions does not make the title character public domain, only the work itself. The only notable difference is that because of the trademarked status of the character within the work, attribution is still required, but that is only to satisfy trademark law, not copyright law. Further, trademark and copyright law are similar enough in some of these jurisdictions to US law that there is plenty of reason to believe that it will be exactly the same in the US, if Disney does allow their copyright to expire on the work in the US. As you have observed, trademark cannot be used to prohibit a work from becoming public domain, but such public domain status only dillutes the trademark when the trademark itself is too general to refer only to whatever the owner created, which Mickey Mouse will not be, because other people copying Steamboat Willy does not cause Mickey Mouse to suddenly be theirs.... it only makes the copy of the cartoon theirs.
Copyright and trademark are quite orthogonal, in general... what happens to one does not generally affect the other except when one is incorrectly attempted to be used as control on the other.
So you should be allowed to lie in court? Freedom of speech. Verbally harrass an employee at work (lewd sexual advances that have already been declined, for example)? Freedom of seech. Yell "Fire" in a crowded theater for fun? Freedom of speech.
Bear in mind that imposing a caveat that a person who says something should always be accountable for what they say is also an argument against anonymity. Where do you draw the line?
They already have lost the copyright on Steamboat Willie in several international jurisdictions.... the trademark, however, still remains entirely valid in those jurisdictions, and does not dilute Disney's ownership at all. There is absolutely no compelling reason to believe that it will not be exactly the same in the US when the copyright on the work expires there, assuming that it does not somehow get extended again
The fact that the film can be freely distributed in jurisdictions where the copyright has expired does not impact Mickey Mouse's distinctiveness as a trademarked character, because the work being copied does not constitute unauthorized use of the trademark because in turn, that work originally had authorization to use Mickey Mouse in the first place. Because of Disney's retained ownership of the trademark, the caveat on its public domain status is that it is actually not possible to legally copy Steamboat Willy without attribution, as one may ordinarily be able to with a public domain work that does not utilize trademarks. But this is only because the title character remains trademarked by Disney, and not because the work itself is not public domain. One could, for example, as with any public domain work, freely make a derivative work using another lead character.
The Dastar Corp case you mention also illustrated the distinction between trademarks and copyright, and that ownership of one cannot be used to exercise control over the other when it is not applicable. To the best of my understanding, the result of that case did not lead to the dilution or surrender of any trademark owned by any party... it merely established that, as should be expected, a public domain work may be freely copied. If anything, this case exactly illustrates my point.... that trademarks can be retained even after a work falls into public domain.
The Shredded Wheat case you referred to was lost by Nabisco because the company was trying to apply entirely generic words that happened to describe what was done to the product as a trademark. The judge said nay, nay to that... as can reasonably be expected. However, Mickey Mouse could not be argued to be a generic term because "Mickey" is very obviously a name, and not just a general description of the mouse as "shredded" was for "wheat" in the case you referred to. Had Disney used a titular name for their character that was simply descriptive of him in other English words, then they would indeed, as you have noted, probably lose their trademark status on the character as works using that character went into public domain.
Of course... but if they don't actually talk about it with anyone else, or share the results of their work with anyone, then any laws prohibiting circumvention are unenforceable in that context.
... but you circumvent for genuinely personal and private use, how the heck would anyone else even know you ever did it, let alone prosecute you?
If somebody wants to spend their money putting what may ultimately only be superficial systems in place that make them feel more secure, why should they be prohibited from doing so?