You're asking a really interesting question - and one that the courts haven't really addressed yet, as far as I know. The ADA specifically forbids discrimination in the enjoyment of certain kinds of activity - notably those defiend as "public accomodations."
(a) General Rule. No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.
. The list of things defined as public accomodations is extensive and seems to be extremely inclusive extending so as to encompass pretty much all social, commercial, and political venues. It hasn't yet been decided websites or online commercial activities - like XBox live - fall under that definition.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, has stated that a web site could qualify as a public accommodation. Specifically, the Court declared that "the owner or operator of a store, hotel, restaurant,..., web site, or other facility (whether in physical space or in electronic space) that is open to the public cannot exclude disabled persons from entering the facility and, once in, from using the facility in the same way that the non-disabled do." Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 179 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 68 U.S.L.W. 3432 (U.S. Jan. 11, 2000) (No. 99-772)).
Note that they specifically mention S.3804 which includes some decent legal requirements for site seizure - ironically enough, if those had been in place the actions by ICE would likely have not been allowed. The Summary notes for instance that the bill
Directs any actions against domestic domains to be in the judicial district where the domain name registrar or registry is located or, if such a domain is located or doing business in more than one judicial district, in the judicial district of its principal place of business. Allows any actions against nondomestic domains to be brought in the District of Columbia if: (1) such a domain is used within the United States to access an infringing site; (2) the site directs business to U.S. residents; and (3) the site harms U.S. intellectual property rights holders. Requires a court determining whether a site directs business to U.S. residents to consider factors including: (1) whether goods or services are being provided to U.S. users; (2) intent; (3) prevention measures; and (4) whether any prices for such goods and services are indicated in U.S. currency.
We run companies large and small that represent diverse aspects of America's intellectual property community. While our employees live in different regions of the country, and work to produce a variety of goods and services, they have several important things in common - they work hard, they are committed to quality and innovation and they welcome competition. However, allowing others to unfairly compete by stealing the ideas, innovations and intellectual property rights created by our employees cannot be tolerated. This theft diminishes our ability to keep and create jobs, and makes it far more difficult to attract the capital needed to invest in new products and services. In order to protect our free enterprise system, and the standard of living it has contributed to our nation, it is critical that we multiply our efforts to identify and punish the criminals who steal what we create and produce.
Thus, we appreciate the effort and energy behind Operation in Our Sites. The actions announced on November 29, 2010 once again demonstrated that, just as in the physical world, prosecutors and courts can judiciously assess evidence and distinguish between legitimate businesses and criminal enterprises that flout the law and profit from the ingenuity of others. We believe that the online marketplace can only work for consumers and creators if there is respect for property rights and the rule of law - and urge you to continue to act against the kinds of domains that you have targeted. Unfortunately, there are far too many sites stealing from our businesses but we believe that your efforts will drive consumers to the many legitimate online ventures and services that we have worked hard to foster and support.
We encourage you to work with your colleagues in the Administration and the Congress toward enactment of the principles central to S. 3804 - the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. The legislation crafted by Senators Leahy and Hatch was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and will undoubtedly be reintroduced this congress. The proposal expounds upon the law enforcement techniques at the heart of "Operation In Our Sites" and will ensure that rogue sites cannot evade U.S. jurisdiction by escaping offshore to foreign-based registrars, registries and country codes in order to peddle stolen American intellectual property back into the U.S. market. In addition, the Leahy-Hatch proposal provides an entirely new level of protection for U.S. rights holders by establishing the legal framework necessary to disrupt the business models of the illicit, offshore sites by starving them of the financing, advertising and access to consumers upon which they depend. The carefully balanced measure would allow American law enforcement officials and U.S. courts to deny thieves the ability to use the Internet to enter the U.S. market and undermine our businesses while reaping financial gain for themselves.
We hope that you will continue dedicating resources to Operation in Our Sites and work toward the Obama Administration's endorsement of the Leahy-Hatch legislation.
Leisure Suit Larry 7 (1996) did it with Scratch n Sniff cards, so did Leather Goddesses of Phobos back in the mid 80's and as far as LSL7 goes...it added about as much to the experience as you'd imagine. Decent gag, nothing much more.
Depends. Whilst Copyright typically doesn't protect the expression of an idea, it can do so within a limited set of circumstances, specifically those that meet the standard of Substantial Similarity. There's a bunch of competing tests to establish if substantial similarity exists, they can all be found in the linked article, but in general if the work in question is so similar as to raise judicial eyebrows then there's a pathway for legal intervention.
You're free to write a story about a wizarding school somewhere in the remote parts of the UK, you're fine writing a story involving said wizarding students fighting against some great evil, you're on shakey ground when the heroic lightning-bolt scarred Harry Motter and his two friends (one poor, the other both a girl and smart) battle the forces of wizardy prejudice, and you're probably going bankrupt if you go ahead and skip the pretense. It's all a matter of degree really.
Slashdot ran a similar story back in March, so much that needs to be said probably already has been.
I'm sure there's going to be a lot of disussion about laptops being tools - being useful in some instances, harmful in others - so I'm going to avoid that point and instead raise the issue of accessability. As it is, educational attainment is scewed by socio-economic status - be it grades, prestige of the institution attended, networks formed, or whatever other measure desired. I'm not sure I want laptops in class if they're providing yet another unfair advantage to the economically priviledged kids, if indeed laptop use could be construed as such. Poorer kids already face significant hurdles in the classroom, are laptops going to prove to be yet another?
TFA claims all files need to be encrypted but the law doesn't. I pasted the text a couple of replies down..there's nothing in there about encrypting records if they're not on portable media, being broadcast wirelessly, or travelling across public networks.
I'm not so sure it's a test of the law at all. At least there's no way to know without more details about how the breach occured. The law can be found here (pdf). TFA states the breach occured because of an SQL injection - but nothing beyond that.
In the interests of stimulating a little chatter, the law calls for
(1) Secure user authentication protocols including:
(a) control of user IDs and other identifiers;
(b) a reasonably secure method of assigning and selecting passwords, or use of unique identifier technologies, such as biometrics or token devices;
(c) control of data security passwords to ensure that such passwords are kept in a location and/or format that does not compromise the security of the data they protect;
(d) restricting access to active users and active user accounts only; and
(e) blocking access to user identification after multiple unsuccessful attempts to gain access or the limitation placed on access for the particular system;
(2) Secure access control measures that:
(a) restrict access to records and files containing personal information to those who need such information to perform their job duties; and
(b) assign unique identifications plus passwords, which are not vendor supplied default passwords, to each person with computer access, that are reasonably designed to maintain the integrity of the security of the access controls;
(3)Encryption of all transmitted records and files containing personal information that will travel across public networks, and encryption of all data containing personal information to be transmitted wirelessly.
(4) Reasonable monitoring of systems, for unauthorized use of or access to personal information;
(5) Encryption of all personal information stored on laptops or other portable devices;
(6) For files containing personal information on a system that is connected to the Internet, there must be reasonably up-to-date firewall protection and operating system security patches, reasonably designed to maintain the integrity of the personal information.
(7) Reasonably up-to-date versions of system security agent software which must include malware protection and reasonably up-to-date patches and virus definitions, or a version of such software that can still be supported with up-to-date patches and virus definitions, and is set to receive the most current security updates on a regular basis.
(8) Education and training of employees on the proper use of the computer security system and the importance of personal information security.
While I agree with your general point, I wonder if you’re not understating the positive side of entertainment media. All those shows you listed are what create unifying shared cultural moments – the quintessential water cooler conversation topics. A significant part of what makes American’s American, or the French French, or what have you, is their shared cultural touchstones – which are in turn created, propagated, reified, and dissected in popular media.
Take for instance Jerry Springer. Horrendous exploitation on one hand. On the other? A morality play in which the audience and the host cooperate to establish shared social values and negotiate the ins and outs of simplistic moral cautionary tales. CSI? Stupid science and convenient plot twists on the one hand. On the other...a not too bad exploration of moral and legal questions, and a fantastic jumping point for further conversation. TV is what you make of it. There is a degree of depth present if you’re willing to put the effort in and find it. Watch American Idol with your kids and have a conversation about what an Idol is as portrayed on the show – popularity versus meritocracy. Watch Survivor and discuss teamwork. Watch The Apprentice and let the warnings of bad hair pieces sink in for themselves.
Anyone interested in a far better framing of the argument should consider looking at Joshua Gamson’s Freaks Talk Back. It’s an interesting inversion of that idea that trash TV is in actually, complete trash.
And this is why I blanket block all ads on all sites. It's an incrediably blunt instrument, but its the only way to avoid this kind of thing apparantly.
What sucks is that I'd actually like to support the sites I frequently visit, and ad views clearly have a significant effect on their various bottom lines, but I just can't justify exposing myself to whatever that week's ad-based crazy shit danger happens to be. It's similar to how I feel about porn sites - the responsible part of my wants to subscribe and send them a little cash for the assistance rendered by their presentation of jiggly bits being jiggly...but that same responsible part is also well aware that any kind of commercial interaction with said pornographers has a suspicious way of going horribly wrong.
So now I find myself chosing between doing that right thing - supporting the services I use - and the secure thing. And as it happens, the secure thing wins out.
IP protection is offered globally. Check out WIPO or TRIPS, they both facilitate the application of American trademarks around the world. If anything, you're more harshly effected by this ruling as those outside of the US lack the 1st Amendment protections of citizens. We have no info' on whether Facebook has bothered to get international protections specifically, or is just going to rely on American enforcement, but it's not true to think that this has no effect on you - in the same way that Coke hasn't got to worry when trading in Japan, or Microsoft in Russia.
Your point is well made - the internet, like all media really, is about performance. I'm not sure that teens, or anyone really, is confused by that - any moreso than when they see a guy get impaled in a movie and proceed to kick some terrorist ass - but it's a relevent point that should be noted. That's where parents come in, contextualising what's being seen. Anyway, the internet is more about presenting the potential options rather than dictating how every fuck should proceed. It's more the fact that anal is possible at all that matters. As an educational tool then it's priceless, especially for those growning up with socially marginalized sexual interests.
And as for Gary Glitter...date more girls from Essex.
Oh, and the amateur stuff that's all over the place now really addresses your concern. There is some really intimate, honest, sex going on online these days and it's a wonderful counterbalance to the grunting, gurgling, orifice assualt we usually get.
Excellent point man, I should have been more precise. I was trying to get at the idea that there's a lot more to sexual combinations than the missionary position. Some guys are going to be into other dudes, some are going to be into anal, some are going to enjoy facials, others are going to be all about group activities. Your old brother isn't going to have all of those, neither are the guys at school. I meant the mechanics of it all, what can go into where and with whom - you're completely right though, for the other stuff...thats what kids should be learning from their parents.
True, but dirty magazines lack the breadth of the internet. You’re not going to find that your dad’s secret stash accurately reflects the full expanse of sexual predilections, and you can bet your local corner-store isn’t stocking anything that’s slightly off kilter. Moreover, the internet isn’t just the pictures. It’s the movies, the chartrooms, the message boards – all those sister-sites that would inevitably fall under the same restrictions.
While it’s almost a rite of passage, a teen shouldn’t have to sit up in the early AM watching scrambled porn and hoping for an occasional flash of breast. They shouldn’t have to try to sneak into an adult store so they can indulge their curiosity about leather, or call sex lines to see if they actually like dudes. The internet gives kids the opportunity to explore their own undefined sexuality without leaving the house – it’s a great way for teens to learn what they like, what they don’t like, what’s even possible, without incurring the risks of going out into the world and doing the same.
I guess I’m just trying to say that good parenting should be about letting your kids grow up safely into holistic people – and that includes a developed sexual identity. Part of that means providing them the ability to learn, to explore, and ultimately to decide.
Thats what I don't understand about this anti-porn crusade. It's good parenting to allow your kids to experiment and explore in a safe environment - and surely home is the safest of all? When parents let their kids drink a little at home it's not because they want them to be alcoholics, its because they realise that kids are curious; make bad choices; and need to learn to deal with the complexities of the adult world in managable pieces - the same should be true of sexuality.
When I was going through those awkward teenage years I got curious, like pretty much every other guy ever born. But, unlike those unlucky enought to be born before the internet, I had a safe place to experiment and explore - somewhere I could get away from with the yank of a power cord, complete with anonymity and free from labels. I didn't need to hang out in sketchy nightclubs inviting all kinds of potential dangers, I didn't need to risk STDs or scarring or pregnancy or whatever else - it was all safe and relativly educational, and without having to leave the house. I could look at girl bits and relieve some pressure, I could look at guy bits and see if those odd feelings were going to last or if they were passing, I could look at various combinations of those and explore the full richness of human sexual experience - and I could do a little light flirting when and where it *ahem* arose.
I want my kids looking at porn at home. It's safer than looking for sex on the streets, and they just may learn a few things.
No. First, you can't trademark everything - there are limits built into the system. Second, trademarks can be ruled invalid or lost through non-use. Third, trademarks are targeted at industry and not the public.
That's the big one and I'm constantly confused as to why people demand protections from the commercial sector but then rant and rampage when it's given to them. If you want to open your own website for family use and you call it FacetoFacewithUnity100 - that's allowed! If you want to call it FaceofMe and include thousands of pictures of your face...thats allowed! If you load it up with ads, call it FaceBoook and post links all over the 'net trying to get people to accidentally click - thats a commercial action, it's fraudulant, and it's not allowed. Trademark is designed to keep the public safe. Sure it benefits industry too, but ultimatly it's about ensuring we know where our products come from and can make informed decisions when selecting them. If some company owns Face in telecommunications, and another in cooking, and another in porn...it doesn't limit my use of the term in any way unless I go into business...and that's a whole different ball-game.
Most of the complaints are arising out of ignorance of the law, and a little internet hyperbole thrown in for good measure. Facebook no more owns the word "face" than Microsoft owns "windows" or McDolands owns "big." The 1st Amendment and Fair Use standards still apply to trademark terms. What is being stopped here, however, is the specific use of a specific term in a specific instance. You're no longer allowed to create a social networking site using Face-, that's all. Hell, even that's not quite true - there are a number of legal routes to doing so if you wanted including challenging the trademark, Fair Use, concurrent use, geographic protections, different industry, and so on. The system is designed to protect consumers from deliberate confusion, and its a good one for all it's flaws. Sure it could do with a little revision but its equally important that people spend some time and actually understand the system they're slamming...inevitablly its not nearly as illogical, stupid, or flawed as some would have you believe.
There's a great comment on TFA that really nails is. I'm reproducing it here for convenience:
What Facebook are trying to trademark is the use of the word "face" in electronic applications (Telecommunication as an alternative word for "online") offering social (i.e. facebook like) applications. This make a lot of sense. Just like many other generic terms used in a non trivial way.
the word "face" is not descriptive in the way that "myface" describes (literally) an application where people may comment and interact socially. This is why also Apple's FaceTime will not breach the trademark, as it is using the word face literally (enabling the other side of the conversation to see your face) and not referring to the word Face in the non-dictionary meaning of it, which is attributed to facebook's phenomena (namely social networking). This doesn't give facebook the rights for the use of the word face for a face recognition software, or for other non related use.
I personally agree that facebook should get the rights for the usage of the word face in the "social network" meaning, as they created this meaning, and protect them from people launching services named faceXXX or XXXface that may indicate relationship to facebook. This is just like caterpillar trademarking the word "cat" for construction and manufacturing equipment (but not getting rights for CatFeeder, or LolCats).
The problem is that we're not, as a species, able to dissociate symbol from meaning. Our entire lives are spent navigating symbols and meanings and interpreting the subtle, subconscious, or merely obtuse. I've heard it described as us being "Homo Narrans" i.e. storytelling animals. The fact of the matter is simply that we tell stories - our lives and histories are processes of constant narrative using common cultural symbols as shared points of understanding. The swastika is a symbol that has become embedded with significant cultural short-hand and its impossible for people to divorce that specific alignment of lines from historical events.
I've posted the link to the relevent law a couple of comments down but it would seem that the most important issue was one of fraud. SeaGate in effect lured him into Minnesota with promises of a job that didn't exist and he suffered the financial repercussions. His eventual firing wasn't at issue, but rather that SeaGate seemed to have hired him away from a decent job so as to put him in a placeholder position as a means of drumming up a little business - they weren't hiring him in good faith.
Slashdot Mirror
. The list of things defined as public accomodations is extensive and seems to be extremely inclusive extending so as to encompass pretty much all social, commercial, and political venues. It hasn't yet been decided websites or online commercial activities - like XBox live - fall under that definition.
I found mention here of the following
Weird. My ex always sent me off to increase my "online activities" whenever I made "continued attempts to enter".
Slashdot's been working on breaking it's own records...only 14 days since this was posted originally.
Leisure Suit Larry 7 (1996) did it with Scratch n Sniff cards, so did Leather Goddesses of Phobos back in the mid 80's and as far as LSL7 goes...it added about as much to the experience as you'd imagine. Decent gag, nothing much more.
In fine Slashdot tradition...they don't dismiss fair use at all. Looks good and makes for a bit of internet rage though.
Depends. Whilst Copyright typically doesn't protect the expression of an idea, it can do so within a limited set of circumstances, specifically those that meet the standard of Substantial Similarity. There's a bunch of competing tests to establish if substantial similarity exists, they can all be found in the linked article, but in general if the work in question is so similar as to raise judicial eyebrows then there's a pathway for legal intervention.
You're free to write a story about a wizarding school somewhere in the remote parts of the UK, you're fine writing a story involving said wizarding students fighting against some great evil, you're on shakey ground when the heroic lightning-bolt scarred Harry Motter and his two friends (one poor, the other both a girl and smart) battle the forces of wizardy prejudice, and you're probably going bankrupt if you go ahead and skip the pretense. It's all a matter of degree really.
So wait...now I'm supposed to play with myself in public bathrooms? Sheesh it'd hard to keep up with the rules...
Same as the mean time for most things involving teenagers - about 3 minutes unless they're reciting baseball stats.
Slashdot ran a similar story back in March, so much that needs to be said probably already has been.
I'm sure there's going to be a lot of disussion about laptops being tools - being useful in some instances, harmful in others - so I'm going to avoid that point and instead raise the issue of accessability. As it is, educational attainment is scewed by socio-economic status - be it grades, prestige of the institution attended, networks formed, or whatever other measure desired. I'm not sure I want laptops in class if they're providing yet another unfair advantage to the economically priviledged kids, if indeed laptop use could be construed as such. Poorer kids already face significant hurdles in the classroom, are laptops going to prove to be yet another?
Note the use of the qualifier "reasonable"...the get out clause in every law ever written.
TFA claims all files need to be encrypted but the law doesn't. I pasted the text a couple of replies down..there's nothing in there about encrypting records if they're not on portable media, being broadcast wirelessly, or travelling across public networks.
In the interests of stimulating a little chatter, the law calls for
While I agree with your general point, I wonder if you’re not understating the positive side of entertainment media. All those shows you listed are what create unifying shared cultural moments – the quintessential water cooler conversation topics. A significant part of what makes American’s American, or the French French, or what have you, is their shared cultural touchstones – which are in turn created, propagated, reified, and dissected in popular media.
Take for instance Jerry Springer. Horrendous exploitation on one hand. On the other? A morality play in which the audience and the host cooperate to establish shared social values and negotiate the ins and outs of simplistic moral cautionary tales. CSI? Stupid science and convenient plot twists on the one hand. On the other...a not too bad exploration of moral and legal questions, and a fantastic jumping point for further conversation. TV is what you make of it. There is a degree of depth present if you’re willing to put the effort in and find it. Watch American Idol with your kids and have a conversation about what an Idol is as portrayed on the show – popularity versus meritocracy. Watch Survivor and discuss teamwork. Watch The Apprentice and let the warnings of bad hair pieces sink in for themselves.
Anyone interested in a far better framing of the argument should consider looking at Joshua Gamson’s Freaks Talk Back. It’s an interesting inversion of that idea that trash TV is in actually, complete trash.
And this is why I blanket block all ads on all sites. It's an incrediably blunt instrument, but its the only way to avoid this kind of thing apparantly.
What sucks is that I'd actually like to support the sites I frequently visit, and ad views clearly have a significant effect on their various bottom lines, but I just can't justify exposing myself to whatever that week's ad-based crazy shit danger happens to be. It's similar to how I feel about porn sites - the responsible part of my wants to subscribe and send them a little cash for the assistance rendered by their presentation of jiggly bits being jiggly...but that same responsible part is also well aware that any kind of commercial interaction with said pornographers has a suspicious way of going horribly wrong.
So now I find myself chosing between doing that right thing - supporting the services I use - and the secure thing. And as it happens, the secure thing wins out.
IP protection is offered globally. Check out WIPO or TRIPS, they both facilitate the application of American trademarks around the world. If anything, you're more harshly effected by this ruling as those outside of the US lack the 1st Amendment protections of citizens. We have no info' on whether Facebook has bothered to get international protections specifically, or is just going to rely on American enforcement, but it's not true to think that this has no effect on you - in the same way that Coke hasn't got to worry when trading in Japan, or Microsoft in Russia.
Your point is well made - the internet, like all media really, is about performance. I'm not sure that teens, or anyone really, is confused by that - any moreso than when they see a guy get impaled in a movie and proceed to kick some terrorist ass - but it's a relevent point that should be noted. That's where parents come in, contextualising what's being seen. Anyway, the internet is more about presenting the potential options rather than dictating how every fuck should proceed. It's more the fact that anal is possible at all that matters. As an educational tool then it's priceless, especially for those growning up with socially marginalized sexual interests.
And as for Gary Glitter...date more girls from Essex.
Oh, and the amateur stuff that's all over the place now really addresses your concern. There is some really intimate, honest, sex going on online these days and it's a wonderful counterbalance to the grunting, gurgling, orifice assualt we usually get.
Excellent point man, I should have been more precise. I was trying to get at the idea that there's a lot more to sexual combinations than the missionary position. Some guys are going to be into other dudes, some are going to be into anal, some are going to enjoy facials, others are going to be all about group activities. Your old brother isn't going to have all of those, neither are the guys at school. I meant the mechanics of it all, what can go into where and with whom - you're completely right though, for the other stuff...thats what kids should be learning from their parents.
True, but dirty magazines lack the breadth of the internet. You’re not going to find that your dad’s secret stash accurately reflects the full expanse of sexual predilections, and you can bet your local corner-store isn’t stocking anything that’s slightly off kilter. Moreover, the internet isn’t just the pictures. It’s the movies, the chartrooms, the message boards – all those sister-sites that would inevitably fall under the same restrictions.
While it’s almost a rite of passage, a teen shouldn’t have to sit up in the early AM watching scrambled porn and hoping for an occasional flash of breast. They shouldn’t have to try to sneak into an adult store so they can indulge their curiosity about leather, or call sex lines to see if they actually like dudes. The internet gives kids the opportunity to explore their own undefined sexuality without leaving the house – it’s a great way for teens to learn what they like, what they don’t like, what’s even possible, without incurring the risks of going out into the world and doing the same.
I guess I’m just trying to say that good parenting should be about letting your kids grow up safely into holistic people – and that includes a developed sexual identity. Part of that means providing them the ability to learn, to explore, and ultimately to decide.
Thats what I don't understand about this anti-porn crusade. It's good parenting to allow your kids to experiment and explore in a safe environment - and surely home is the safest of all? When parents let their kids drink a little at home it's not because they want them to be alcoholics, its because they realise that kids are curious; make bad choices; and need to learn to deal with the complexities of the adult world in managable pieces - the same should be true of sexuality.
When I was going through those awkward teenage years I got curious, like pretty much every other guy ever born. But, unlike those unlucky enought to be born before the internet, I had a safe place to experiment and explore - somewhere I could get away from with the yank of a power cord, complete with anonymity and free from labels. I didn't need to hang out in sketchy nightclubs inviting all kinds of potential dangers, I didn't need to risk STDs or scarring or pregnancy or whatever else - it was all safe and relativly educational, and without having to leave the house. I could look at girl bits and relieve some pressure, I could look at guy bits and see if those odd feelings were going to last or if they were passing, I could look at various combinations of those and explore the full richness of human sexual experience - and I could do a little light flirting when and where it *ahem* arose.
I want my kids looking at porn at home. It's safer than looking for sex on the streets, and they just may learn a few things.
No. First, you can't trademark everything - there are limits built into the system. Second, trademarks can be ruled invalid or lost through non-use. Third, trademarks are targeted at industry and not the public.
That's the big one and I'm constantly confused as to why people demand protections from the commercial sector but then rant and rampage when it's given to them. If you want to open your own website for family use and you call it FacetoFacewithUnity100 - that's allowed! If you want to call it FaceofMe and include thousands of pictures of your face...thats allowed! If you load it up with ads, call it FaceBoook and post links all over the 'net trying to get people to accidentally click - thats a commercial action, it's fraudulant, and it's not allowed. Trademark is designed to keep the public safe. Sure it benefits industry too, but ultimatly it's about ensuring we know where our products come from and can make informed decisions when selecting them. If some company owns Face in telecommunications, and another in cooking, and another in porn...it doesn't limit my use of the term in any way unless I go into business...and that's a whole different ball-game.
There's a great comment on TFA that really nails is. I'm reproducing it here for convenience:
The problem is that we're not, as a species, able to dissociate symbol from meaning. Our entire lives are spent navigating symbols and meanings and interpreting the subtle, subconscious, or merely obtuse. I've heard it described as us being "Homo Narrans" i.e. storytelling animals. The fact of the matter is simply that we tell stories - our lives and histories are processes of constant narrative using common cultural symbols as shared points of understanding. The swastika is a symbol that has become embedded with significant cultural short-hand and its impossible for people to divorce that specific alignment of lines from historical events.
I've posted the link to the relevent law a couple of comments down but it would seem that the most important issue was one of fraud. SeaGate in effect lured him into Minnesota with promises of a job that didn't exist and he suffered the financial repercussions. His eventual firing wasn't at issue, but rather that SeaGate seemed to have hired him away from a decent job so as to put him in a placeholder position as a means of drumming up a little business - they weren't hiring him in good faith.