The way to adjust your "friends'" behavior is not to hire a lawyer.
We're not talking a couple of buddies, this is a legal entity and this is a legal matter. Maybe the wording of the letter could have been less legalize, or maybe it couldn't (ask your gf), but in this way PCI-SIG can have absolute proof that it is defending it's trademark. Why should someone in PCI-SIG other than legal be responsible for contacting people? They would have to record and voice conversations and if the non-legal person screwed up on a personal correspondence, then PCI-SIG could be hosed.
The type of communications that you are referring to may be fine for a more one-on-one level between fairly small groups/individuals who are not engaging in any moderate scale or above enterprise, but is not appropriate amongst the "big boys". The very fact that the letter offered alternatives vs simply being a shut down or we'll crush you shows that they actually did care about what and how they were going about this, but no one seems to want to dwell on that, better to just get all puffed up.
No YOU are missing the point, not even close as a matter of fact. Your example should be changed to "a gas station that sells gas for Fords, but who used the offical Ford logo, thereby causing confusion as to whether or not the gas station is a Ford entity being asked to stop using the Ford logo. "
They asked that he stop using their trademark, NOT that he stop publishing the information. Night and day. Read the c&d letter before you go flying off the handle. He could have taken 5 minutes to make the changes necessary to the website to make PCI-SIG happy. Not to mention the fact that it doesn't matter how "small" a site is, trademarks MUST be defended and rules have to be followed. So if you had a "trademark" on your f*ck-you website and you didn't defend it against people also using it, then you'd lose any protections afforded you by having the trademark to begin with, whether those other sites were helping you or not.
OK, first, if he's using the "official" PCI logo, fine, stop using it. Understandable if he didn't get rights to the name.
Second, if he uses the word PCI, they surely can't stop him from just using it (which is a lot different than naming his site PCI something or another). i.e. If his site is the "Free List of PC Addon Cards" and he states within his site that the add on cards are restricted to those supporting PCI, then I can't see how they can bust him for that.
Third, in the C&D letter, they end it by saying that they recommend that he figure out a way to possibly have his site under the auspices of PCI-SIG. So fine, they aren't opposed to the concept of the site and they appear (at least on the surface) to be willing to work with him. So it doesn't appear to me to be quite as bad as everyone is making it out to be. Now if they were saying that he couldn't publish the information contained within the site, now THAT would be worthy of outrage.
On the upside, the DJ had a good stream of music, there were more women than you'd expect, and some in small metal bras
One of the women was probably Leslie.
I wasen't saying that you shouldn't do those things, only that people get a false sense of security doing those things. It's the "I have a $500 lock on my front door and a $.50 lock on my windows" thing. I shred to (have two shredders, one strip for most stuff, one cross cut for "important" stuff), but I religiously check my statements because I know that there are many other points of weakness.
People hand their credit cards over to Joe Sixpack or the waitress because they are actually there, and you can see what they do with your credit card, thus I think people feel more secure since they can see who handles their credit card, and what's being done with it.
And that's the scary part. Fact is that you don't see exactly what their doing. They take your card and disappear for several minutes, more than enough time to jot down the number/name (or simply save off the receipt) and also copy that 3 digit check code that everyone wants nowadays. Not too hard at that point to look the person up in the phone book to get their address, which is most likely their billing address, and then start charging. Now you may not be able to get things shipped, but you can certainly charge for services without a problem.
Oh and I forgot to mention the issue with students. Any student is completely hosed when it comes to security since your SSN is almost always used everywhere. I would assume that identity theft amongst students is rampant.
The secret to strong security: less reliance on secrets
The "funny"/scary thing is that the majority of credit card usage/processing falls under this statement.
Think about it. People shred there cc receipts, they demand secure links to ecommerce sites, they shroud their credit cards and SSN's from prying eyes. Yet, you hand your CC to Joe Sixpack at the gas station or the waitress at the restaurant. I remember back in the day when I worked at a service station, I relized back then that I could simply collect peoples CC#'s and use them surreptitiously. Yes there are more safeguards now, but it still is simple to do. Anyone who thinks that their CC is truely secure is fooling themselves.
So what you do is to make reasonable efforts to keep things secure, but ALWAYS check your statements, and be ready to act if something happens.
But of course, physical security won't help at all if the company has a wireless network...
yes, another good point. Which simply stresses the importance of taking a, uh, holistic approach to security and to not to get too wrapped up in just a single aspect. We've all been in companies where they spend good money trying to secure their systems against "crackers" but yet anyone in the company has access to the server boxes and/or the passwords are written on the side of the monitors, etc.
You forgot to throw it into a safe, etc. Many people forget that PHYSICAL security can be just as, if not more, important than "logical" security. After all, how many times in movies have we seen the likes of Tom Cruise access a "absolutely secure" system by "simply" breaking into the location of the system?
OK, so this app runs Linux. There's a saying in sports relating to how one reacts to a positive event,
"act like you've been there"
Meaning, if you're a defensive end and just tackled the rb for no gain, don't break out into your "we just won the Superbowl" dance. You just did your job, be happy yes, but realize you've only really done what you were paid to do.
SO, when do articles like this start becoming meaningless. So SOMEcompany or SOMEperson SOMEwhere uses Linux to do SOMEthing. So what. If the DOD or Citibank chucks all their M$ stuff and goes Linux, hell yah, post that. But must we hear about every single little use (and this is a insignificant one at that). Just look at the "quality" of posts on this article, why, because there really isn't anything to say.
OK I'm a bit confused, eveyone is saying that this is a DMCA case, but when I read the complaint, I don't see where DMCA is explicitly mentioned. I see three patent infringement complaints and one software copyright complaint (in the original complaint). Is the software copyright complaint the DMCA part (even though it mentions the copyright act of '76, or is the entire thing wrapped up under the auspices of the DMCA because of the intent of the offending device? (i.e. circumventing security measures)
Because of the patent claims, couldn't this lawsuit have happened even with DMCA?
If the patent complaints are found valid, isn't this a valid (from a non legal standpoint) action by Chamberlin? If so, then why is eveyone bitching about DMCA?
but I think this case could show just how bad the DMCA really is to Joe Public
Well this may be a bad example since the defendant is selling a device to circumvent security measures designed for Joe Publics house. I think in this case the DMCA actually works in Joe Publics favor, since by giving Chamberlin an avenue to persue this action, it brings it into the "publics" eye. If they had to recourse, then they might have just simply said nothing and Joe Public would be unaware that that "secure" GDO they just purchased really isn't as secure as thought.
This seems analagous to a lock company suing a locksmith for duplicating keys (assuming these keys don't say "do not duplicate" on them)
I think what Chamberlin is saying is that their GDO technology effectively has "do not duplicate" on it, and Skylink is simply ignoring it.
Plus the key copying example isn't really a good analogy in this case, since in order to make a copy of a physical key, you must first POSSESS the physical key (well I know not necessarily, but in the most common use case you do). Therefore it wouldn't make any sense to be able to sue someone who creates a dupe of a key since the person wanting the dupe already has a working key in possession. A better example (though still not perfect) would be that of a locksmith who sold MASTER keys to anyone.
You bring up a good point. The copyright term doesn't make sense for all things copyrightable. People bring up Disney's use of pd stories and it's a good example. 100 years from now, someone could redo Star Wars and still make it profitable, while chances are that code that you just wrote today won't mean anything to anybody 100 years from now (probably). But then that begs the question of what IS a good term and a bigger problem might be that one term applies to everything.
I've made three documentaries and fully expect them to go public domain within a reasonable time.
Are you the copyright holder of these documentaries (vs a production co or other "evil" entity)? If so, you say that you "fully expect them to go public domain". Why would you need to fully expect it, couldn't you just release it explicitly into the pd? Do you feel that the general concept of copyright laws is "good" and what type of "term" would you put on them. If you thought that one (or all) of your documentaries had "staying power" financially, would you be for or against a copyright term that would end your copyright "in the middle" of this financially fruitful term. Since you're posting ac I assume you won't mind honest.
At a 95 year term you will not live to see "Star Wars" enter the public domain.
Well what is a fair term then? 10years, 20years? When is a good time for George to give up rights to his work? It's been 25 years since Star Wars came out but he's still making content based on the original concept and it obviousy still has the ability to produce revenue. Should anyone be allowed now to come out with directly derivative works (toys, games, etc) that could and probably would weaken "the franchise" (not to say that he's not doing a good job himself of weakening it, but that's another story). If he and then his offspring want to keep on coming out with Star Wars movies and to make money from them, exclusively, yeah, it may suck for the guy who has the great SW story that could never be made into a movie, but lifes like that sometimes.
In doing so, I cannot help but reuse certain notes and patterns that have been used before: cadences, melodic techniques, even the serial method
Excellent point. This brings up a broader issue concerning copyrights and content media. Seems to me that the act of "copying" varies by media right? i.e. can a particular filmatic sequence be copyrighted (think Woo's doves and standoffs), if not, then why can some patterns in musical compositions be copyrighted? How much of a musical composition does it take to copyright? These might already be answered, IANAM and IANAL so I have no idea. Any input here would be appreciated.
I'm tired of hearing whiners (whah whah, someone created something and they won't let me use it, whah) who are decidely one sided without a hint of actually talking about the issue but instead just want to mount their podiums.
I would like the hear the opinions of those out there who create copyrighted content, and prefereably those who generate some revenue from this content. I say generate revenue because it's not to difficult to see how someone who creates works but them puts them pd might have a negative opinion. Instead, does anyone who actually makes a living (or some part of one) from creating copyrighted content think that this is a GOOD thing?
Slashdot Mirror
The way to adjust your "friends'" behavior is not to hire a lawyer.
We're not talking a couple of buddies, this is a legal entity and this is a legal matter. Maybe the wording of the letter could have been less legalize, or maybe it couldn't (ask your gf), but in this way PCI-SIG can have absolute proof that it is defending it's trademark. Why should someone in PCI-SIG other than legal be responsible for contacting people? They would have to record and voice conversations and if the non-legal person screwed up on a personal correspondence, then PCI-SIG could be hosed.
The type of communications that you are referring to may be fine for a more one-on-one level between fairly small groups/individuals who are not engaging in any moderate scale or above enterprise, but is not appropriate amongst the "big boys". The very fact that the letter offered alternatives vs simply being a shut down or we'll crush you shows that they actually did care about what and how they were going about this, but no one seems to want to dwell on that, better to just get all puffed up.
You're missing the point.
No YOU are missing the point, not even close as a matter of fact. Your example should be changed to "a gas station that sells gas for Fords, but who used the offical Ford logo, thereby causing confusion as to whether or not the gas station is a Ford entity being asked to stop using the Ford logo. "
They asked that he stop using their trademark, NOT that he stop publishing the information. Night and day. Read the c&d letter before you go flying off the handle. He could have taken 5 minutes to make the changes necessary to the website to make PCI-SIG happy. Not to mention the fact that it doesn't matter how "small" a site is, trademarks MUST be defended and rules have to be followed. So if you had a "trademark" on your f*ck-you website and you didn't defend it against people also using it, then you'd lose any protections afforded you by having the trademark to begin with, whether those other sites were helping you or not.
OK, first, if he's using the "official" PCI logo, fine, stop using it. Understandable if he didn't get rights to the name.
Second, if he uses the word PCI, they surely can't stop him from just using it (which is a lot different than naming his site PCI something or another). i.e. If his site is the "Free List of PC Addon Cards" and he states within his site that the add on cards are restricted to those supporting PCI, then I can't see how they can bust him for that.
Third, in the C&D letter, they end it by saying that they recommend that he figure out a way to possibly have his site under the auspices of PCI-SIG. So fine, they aren't opposed to the concept of the site and they appear (at least on the surface) to be willing to work with him. So it doesn't appear to me to be quite as bad as everyone is making it out to be. Now if they were saying that he couldn't publish the information contained within the site, now THAT would be worthy of outrage.
I'm pretty sure the scragly beard would have given him away
;)
Yeah, but how much do you want to bet that many of the, uh, affection starved attendees still hit on him/her/it anyway
On the upside, the DJ had a good stream of music, there were more women than you'd expect, and some in small metal bras
One of the women was probably Leslie.
I wasen't saying that you shouldn't do those things, only that people get a false sense of security doing those things. It's the "I have a $500 lock on my front door and a $.50 lock on my windows" thing. I shred to (have two shredders, one strip for most stuff, one cross cut for "important" stuff), but I religiously check my statements because I know that there are many other points of weakness.
People hand their credit cards over to Joe Sixpack or the waitress because they are actually there, and you can see what they do with your credit card, thus I think people feel more secure since they can see who handles their credit card, and what's being done with it.
And that's the scary part. Fact is that you don't see exactly what their doing. They take your card and disappear for several minutes, more than enough time to jot down the number/name (or simply save off the receipt) and also copy that 3 digit check code that everyone wants nowadays. Not too hard at that point to look the person up in the phone book to get their address, which is most likely their billing address, and then start charging. Now you may not be able to get things shipped, but you can certainly charge for services without a problem.
Oh and I forgot to mention the issue with students. Any student is completely hosed when it comes to security since your SSN is almost always used everywhere. I would assume that identity theft amongst students is rampant.
The secret to strong security: less reliance on secrets
The "funny"/scary thing is that the majority of credit card usage/processing falls under this statement.
Think about it. People shred there cc receipts, they demand secure links to ecommerce sites, they shroud their credit cards and SSN's from prying eyes. Yet, you hand your CC to Joe Sixpack at the gas station or the waitress at the restaurant. I remember back in the day when I worked at a service station, I relized back then that I could simply collect peoples CC#'s and use them surreptitiously. Yes there are more safeguards now, but it still is simple to do. Anyone who thinks that their CC is truely secure is fooling themselves.
So what you do is to make reasonable efforts to keep things secure, but ALWAYS check your statements, and be ready to act if something happens.
But of course, physical security won't help at all if the company has a wireless network ...
yes, another good point. Which simply stresses the importance of taking a, uh, holistic approach to security and to not to get too wrapped up in just a single aspect. We've all been in companies where they spend good money trying to secure their systems against "crackers" but yet anyone in the company has access to the server boxes and/or the passwords are written on the side of the monitors, etc.
Unplug your machine and never turn it on.
You forgot to throw it into a safe, etc. Many people forget that PHYSICAL security can be just as, if not more, important than "logical" security. After all, how many times in movies have we seen the likes of Tom Cruise access a "absolutely secure" system by "simply" breaking into the location of the system?
(well I know not necessarily, but in the most common use case you do)
Yes I said that there were exceptions.
See Paragraph 3
Thanks for pointing that out.
Not that it matters, since a half-decent lawyer could nail the plaintiff for filing frivilous lawsuits.
So you believe that their patent infringement claims are unfounded as well?
Because of the patent claims, couldn't this lawsuit have happened even with DMCA?
Of course that should have said "without the DMCA"
OK, so this app runs Linux. There's a saying in sports relating to how one reacts to a positive event,
"act like you've been there"
Meaning, if you're a defensive end and just tackled the rb for no gain, don't break out into your "we just won the Superbowl" dance. You just did your job, be happy yes, but realize you've only really done what you were paid to do.
SO, when do articles like this start becoming meaningless. So SOMEcompany or SOMEperson SOMEwhere uses Linux to do SOMEthing. So what. If the DOD or Citibank chucks all their M$ stuff and goes Linux, hell yah, post that. But must we hear about every single little use (and this is a insignificant one at that). Just look at the "quality" of posts on this article, why, because there really isn't anything to say.
OK I'm a bit confused, eveyone is saying that this is a DMCA case, but when I read the complaint, I don't see where DMCA is explicitly mentioned. I see three patent infringement complaints and one software copyright complaint (in the original complaint). Is the software copyright complaint the DMCA part (even though it mentions the copyright act of '76, or is the entire thing wrapped up under the auspices of the DMCA because of the intent of the offending device? (i.e. circumventing security measures)
Because of the patent claims, couldn't this lawsuit have happened even with DMCA?
If the patent complaints are found valid, isn't this a valid (from a non legal standpoint) action by Chamberlin? If so, then why is eveyone bitching about DMCA?
but I think this case could show just how bad the DMCA really is to Joe Public
Well this may be a bad example since the defendant is selling a device to circumvent security measures designed for Joe Publics house. I think in this case the DMCA actually works in Joe Publics favor, since by giving Chamberlin an avenue to persue this action, it brings it into the "publics" eye. If they had to recourse, then they might have just simply said nothing and Joe Public would be unaware that that "secure" GDO they just purchased really isn't as secure as thought.
This seems analagous to a lock company suing a locksmith for duplicating keys (assuming these keys don't say "do not duplicate" on them)
I think what Chamberlin is saying is that their GDO technology effectively has "do not duplicate" on it, and Skylink is simply ignoring it.
Plus the key copying example isn't really a good analogy in this case, since in order to make a copy of a physical key, you must first POSSESS the physical key (well I know not necessarily, but in the most common use case you do). Therefore it wouldn't make any sense to be able to sue someone who creates a dupe of a key since the person wanting the dupe already has a working key in possession. A better example (though still not perfect) would be that of a locksmith who sold MASTER keys to anyone.
The link is hardly informative. It gives no extra information at all.
What do you mean not informative, follow the links provided in the links to see the actual court filings with have ALL the information.
The original complaint
The amended complaint
The summary judgement motion
Oooh circuitry on the lcd panel itself. Does that mean that I'll get floating point errors and gp's if I press the glass to see the pretty colors?
You bring up a good point. The copyright term doesn't make sense for all things copyrightable. People bring up Disney's use of pd stories and it's a good example. 100 years from now, someone could redo Star Wars and still make it profitable, while chances are that code that you just wrote today won't mean anything to anybody 100 years from now (probably). But then that begs the question of what IS a good term and a bigger problem might be that one term applies to everything.
I've made three documentaries and fully expect them to go public domain within a reasonable time.
Are you the copyright holder of these documentaries (vs a production co or other "evil" entity)? If so, you say that you "fully expect them to go public domain". Why would you need to fully expect it, couldn't you just release it explicitly into the pd? Do you feel that the general concept of copyright laws is "good" and what type of "term" would you put on them. If you thought that one (or all) of your documentaries had "staying power" financially, would you be for or against a copyright term that would end your copyright "in the middle" of this financially fruitful term. Since you're posting ac I assume you won't mind honest.
At a 95 year term you will not live to see "Star Wars" enter the public domain.
Well what is a fair term then? 10years, 20years? When is a good time for George to give up rights to his work? It's been 25 years since Star Wars came out but he's still making content based on the original concept and it obviousy still has the ability to produce revenue. Should anyone be allowed now to come out with directly derivative works (toys, games, etc) that could and probably would weaken "the franchise" (not to say that he's not doing a good job himself of weakening it, but that's another story). If he and then his offspring want to keep on coming out with Star Wars movies and to make money from them, exclusively, yeah, it may suck for the guy who has the great SW story that could never be made into a movie, but lifes like that sometimes.
In doing so, I cannot help but reuse certain notes and patterns that have been used before: cadences, melodic techniques, even the serial method
Excellent point. This brings up a broader issue concerning copyrights and content media. Seems to me that the act of "copying" varies by media right? i.e. can a particular filmatic sequence be copyrighted (think Woo's doves and standoffs), if not, then why can some patterns in musical compositions be copyrighted? How much of a musical composition does it take to copyright? These might already be answered, IANAM and IANAL so I have no idea. Any input here would be appreciated.
I'm tired of hearing whiners (whah whah, someone created something and they won't let me use it, whah) who are decidely one sided without a hint of actually talking about the issue but instead just want to mount their podiums.
I would like the hear the opinions of those out there who create copyrighted content, and prefereably those who generate some revenue from this content. I say generate revenue because it's not to difficult to see how someone who creates works but them puts them pd might have a negative opinion. Instead, does anyone who actually makes a living (or some part of one) from creating copyrighted content think that this is a GOOD thing?
The fact of the matter remains that there was an understood agreement that copyright would expire after a certain time after creation.
How has this changed, all they did was extend the term?