USPTO only deals with trademarks registered in the US. French court, French rules (and French fries).
There are over 200 countries, and each of them have an office of trademarks. Google has servers in ~50 of these countries - but Adwords is different for eachregion.
Read your link - did the search. Found it quite interesting - certainly more complete.
Since the story you link mentions both terms though, "AXA" as well as "Direct Assurance" - I think it's still a decent chance they'll loose on the basis of AXA not being a word (except in the Ebonics sense as pointed out below).
The last appeal (better described
in an alternate story) was overturned because
all of the words involved were dictionary words, and that
it was unrealistic to expect a trademark search for every
AdWords sale.
However, there is no doubt that AXA isn't found in most
dictionaries, certainly not English or French - so it
would seem they actually have a good chance of loosing this
lawsuit.
The conversion of the plane to the test platform linked was after the Vietnam war. I also note that the laser is above the fuselage, it's certainly not "fixed", and definately doesn't fit the use described by the above post.
It's certainly feasible that secret government projects had high powered lasers prior to 1974 - but I highly doubt that after 30 years, this would still be a secret.
No, I'm saying that the sentry has a very similar configuration to the 747 - and a marriage of the sentry platform along with the megawatt laser mentioned in the article is the next logical step.
A queen off the edge of the battlefield - so to speak.
I'd be quite interested to see this. Anybody have a link? Are one of these mounted in a museum?
Google didn't help. It mentioned KC-135s being used to drop "Laser Guided Bombs", but nothing about destrictive lasers.
As Far as I remember, the first high powered lasers (red only) were invented in the late 70s. Lasers that were not powered by excited rubys were first invented in the early 80s. Liquid Lasers, not long after.
Hmm. People used to assume that the white-house was fitted with some sort of defense system too (watching too many GI Joe cartoons).
Then when a little cessna flew into the white house - everyone realized how dangerous such assumptions are...
It's well publicized that AF1 has the same anti-missile defense systems as an older fighter plane, but AF1 is old. It's upgraded occasionally, but I wouldn't bet on assuming that there is any large scale new technology on board.
Like one of these - The Sentry platform is well known to be able to stay in 24/7 (rotation) service for years at a time. Most of the electronics on the sentry have long since been miniaturized, and the power plant required to run the radar boom could easily be fitted to power the laser (possibly at the cost of blinking the rader during a fire sequence).
It's really too bad that you don't consider your own art and talent to be 'real' work.
By real work do you mean that you dig ditches or flip burgers? Once you are above that line in the work-force, you are paid for what you know more than the actual joules of energy output by your aching back. So, really, the first $6.00 an hour you make are for work, the rest is what you know.
That's a personal decision that you have made based on the probability that you will never "make it" in the music or programming industry in any large sense.
Don't stomp on my rights. Give away your own stuff, and leave my stuff out of it.
I'm not typically Republican but - why should the RIAA subsidize your wanting "stuff" just because you can't afford that stuff?
That's what capitolism is about. You get to prioritize your wants with how much cash you have to spend. If you feel you need music, learn to play a cheap instrument.
If music were something that should be subsidized, then it would be available from the Red Cross and Salvation Army. Hmm, their music probably isn't what you wanted to download though.
So now you listen to all types of music that you now, never have a reason to pay the artist for. And that $100 that, at one time, you could have spent on music anually - is probably put into other things.
Fine, it's not technically theft, but it surely does do damage. As a musician and a programmer, I find your point of view quite annoying.
I think your subject line does this subject a great deal of justice, and I'm happy to accept your argument on it merits (as you have presented a balanced, and rational point of view).
Yet, infringement of rights, is almost worse than theft. Infringement of rights describes what happens when a person or group is being opressed. If I make you fear standing up for yourself - without making a specific threat (assault), then I am infringing on your rights.
So, I'll accept it. It's a semantic difference, but I agree it can be an important distinction.
"You and I may be having two different conversations. I took issue with this statement:..."
I suppose every post should be a self-contained essay, but if you read down the chain from first-post on, I'm confident that the context of the statement that you took issue with will be effectively clear.
I do, however, forget that many folks view comments in 'time', 'reverse time' instead of nested or threaded (as I do). So I apologize if my statement was not properly put into context as referring to P2P copies.
The link is the only exclusion in the law that could possilby apply to the use of music copies. You are correct in saying that this law does not specify personal though.
What constitues a violation is everything else (as seen here).
"P2P is used by consumers isn't it?"
Technically, no. If you are not sharing it could be argued that you are consuming. However, if you are sharing then you are distributing. Distribution, regardless of form or price is either covered under manufacture or broadcast (section b and continued in the link above).
Finally, the parent poster is trying to invalidate the value of right to copy based on the innocuous fact that the copyright is not property. However, according to the law value is explicitly protected (see chapters 8 and 10 regarding royalties and royalty dispersement).
This would not prevent the RI/MPAA servers from getting "result lists" that point to your IP as the source. It would only prevent the MP/RIAA servers from contacting your machine directly. As well as prevent you from contacting the RI/MPAA servers directly. Sounds like somebody has a great idea that isn't as complete a solution as you would hope.
If I am interpreting your amended statements correctly - you are saying that an individual artist should not be granted the full copyright protection that is currently offered.
If your argument is that monolithic corporations should not be granted copyright protection for, say, the 'life of the company'. I fully agree. Yet, if I have a 'unique' way of organizing information, then I feel I should be protected from Disney taking my work and re-distributing it without paying me.
If I want to protect myself from the big corporations, then I also get automatic protection from independant individuals with mass publishing capabilities (web site owners, P2P sharers). Sadly, monolithic institutions get the same protection, but that protection is still based on an individual artist's rights (Yes, I use artist very broadly).
If you write an essay on the merits of P2P and how it benefits society, should I be able to send that to everybody on a P2P network? What if you were about to sell that essay to a newspaper? I find it equally as interesting that you did not simply copy the NY Times story into your post. You respect their right to display their copyright materials after a registration process has been completed. How does that benefit society?
I really don't think your views are that far off the mark, but I see copyright being broader in the eyes of the original framers than you seem to state. The right for an artist to obtain value from the reproduction and performance of that artist's work is an integral part of copyright, and always has been. They way I read history, the protection of monolithic organizations is the only unintended result of copyright.
I believe that the argument lies between personal and manufacture/distribution.
Since you can rightfully be sued for anything in this country there is no guarantee that you won't find yourself in court defending your actions. That's why I point out that 1 copy to 1 friend is safe. Easy for a lawyer to defend your action here.
However, once you've made more than 1 copy, you start playing on the edge of the only exclusion that protects you (as manufacture is covered in a different part of the law, and has no exclusions).
A much more important point is that Fair Use, the way that portion of the law is written, is specifically for nonprofit use, such as Schools, libraries, government and archives.
Fair use also covers nonprofit use of a song in parody.
The gray area is when you distribute part or a portion of the song in a critique, news story or educational work. This can constitute fair use, but doesn't have to. In otherwords you may find yourself defending said actions to a jury of your peers.
--
Last point, copyright does not only cover distribution but specifically, "performance" and "reproduction". distribution is treated as a derivitive of reproduction (as it rightly is).
As the above post alludes to, my point is the link between Organized Crime and P2P at a school district.
Oranized crime is not in the business of harrassment, vandalism, assault and rape. Although these crimes are sometimes derivitives of an organized money making venture, or staying out of jail.
I see no scenario where P2P music sharing could even be a derivative of Organized Crime.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there has been a quick change by Google. However, I don't believe that the US google service was in question.
Adwords is different for each region.
There are over 200 countries, and each of them have an office of trademarks. Google has servers in ~50 of these countries - but Adwords is different for each region.
Since the story you link mentions both terms though, "AXA" as well as "Direct Assurance" - I think it's still a decent chance they'll loose on the basis of AXA not being a word (except in the Ebonics sense as pointed out below).
The last appeal (better described in an alternate story ) was overturned because all of the words involved were dictionary words, and that it was unrealistic to expect a trademark search for every AdWords sale.
However, there is no doubt that AXA isn't found in most dictionaries, certainly not English or French - so it would seem they actually have a good chance of loosing this lawsuit.
It's certainly feasible that secret government projects had high powered lasers prior to 1974 - but I highly doubt that after 30 years, this would still be a secret.
A queen off the edge of the battlefield - so to speak.
Google didn't help. It mentioned KC-135s being used to drop "Laser Guided Bombs", but nothing about destrictive lasers.
As Far as I remember, the first high powered lasers (red only) were invented in the late 70s. Lasers that were not powered by excited rubys were first invented in the early 80s. Liquid Lasers, not long after.
Actually this is the final product of the same research that was the backdrop of that movie.
Then when a little cessna flew into the white house - everyone realized how dangerous such assumptions are...
It's well publicized that AF1 has the same anti-missile defense systems as an older fighter plane, but AF1 is old. It's upgraded occasionally, but I wouldn't bet on assuming that there is any large scale new technology on board.
Like one of these - The Sentry platform is well known to be able to stay in 24/7 (rotation) service for years at a time. Most of the electronics on the sentry have long since been miniaturized, and the power plant required to run the radar boom could easily be fitted to power the laser (possibly at the cost of blinking the rader during a fire sequence).
That's exactly my point, in more specific words.
Without permission, you cannot.
By real work do you mean that you dig ditches or flip burgers? Once you are above that line in the work-force, you are paid for what you know more than the actual joules of energy output by your aching back. So, really, the first $6.00 an hour you make are for work, the rest is what you know.
How is artistic output not worth something?
Don't stomp on my rights. Give away your own stuff, and leave my stuff out of it.
I'm not typically Republican but - why should the RIAA subsidize your wanting "stuff" just because you can't afford that stuff?
That's what capitolism is about. You get to prioritize your wants with how much cash you have to spend. If you feel you need music, learn to play a cheap instrument.
If music were something that should be subsidized, then it would be available from the Red Cross and Salvation Army. Hmm, their music probably isn't what you wanted to download though.
So now you listen to all types of music that you now, never have a reason to pay the artist for. And that $100 that, at one time, you could have spent on music anually - is probably put into other things.
Fine, it's not technically theft, but it surely does do damage. As a musician and a programmer, I find your point of view quite annoying.
Yet, infringement of rights, is almost worse than theft. Infringement of rights describes what happens when a person or group is being opressed. If I make you fear standing up for yourself - without making a specific threat (assault), then I am infringing on your rights.
So, I'll accept it. It's a semantic difference, but I agree it can be an important distinction.
I do, however, forget that many folks view comments in 'time', 'reverse time' instead of nested or threaded (as I do). So I apologize if my statement was not properly put into context as referring to P2P copies.
What constitues a violation is everything else (as seen here).
Technically, no. If you are not sharing it could be argued that you are consuming. However, if you are sharing then you are distributing. Distribution, regardless of form or price is either covered under manufacture or broadcast (section b and continued in the link above).
Finally, the parent poster is trying to invalidate the value of right to copy based on the innocuous fact that the copyright is not property. However, according to the law value is explicitly protected (see chapters 8 and 10 regarding royalties and royalty dispersement).
This would not prevent the RI/MPAA servers from getting "result lists" that point to your IP as the source. It would only prevent the MP/RIAA servers from contacting your machine directly. As well as prevent you from contacting the RI/MPAA servers directly. Sounds like somebody has a great idea that isn't as complete a solution as you would hope.
If your argument is that monolithic corporations should not be granted copyright protection for, say, the 'life of the company'. I fully agree. Yet, if I have a 'unique' way of organizing information, then I feel I should be protected from Disney taking my work and re-distributing it without paying me.
If I want to protect myself from the big corporations, then I also get automatic protection from independant individuals with mass publishing capabilities (web site owners, P2P sharers). Sadly, monolithic institutions get the same protection, but that protection is still based on an individual artist's rights (Yes, I use artist very broadly).
If you write an essay on the merits of P2P and how it benefits society, should I be able to send that to everybody on a P2P network? What if you were about to sell that essay to a newspaper? I find it equally as interesting that you did not simply copy the NY Times story into your post. You respect their right to display their copyright materials after a registration process has been completed. How does that benefit society?
I really don't think your views are that far off the mark, but I see copyright being broader in the eyes of the original framers than you seem to state. The right for an artist to obtain value from the reproduction and performance of that artist's work is an integral part of copyright, and always has been. They way I read history, the protection of monolithic organizations is the only unintended result of copyright.
Since you can rightfully be sued for anything in this country there is no guarantee that you won't find yourself in court defending your actions. That's why I point out that 1 copy to 1 friend is safe. Easy for a lawyer to defend your action here.
However, once you've made more than 1 copy, you start playing on the edge of the only exclusion that protects you (as manufacture is covered in a different part of the law, and has no exclusions).
Fair use also covers nonprofit use of a song in parody.
The gray area is when you distribute part or a portion of the song in a critique, news story or educational work. This can constitute fair use, but doesn't have to. In otherwords you may find yourself defending said actions to a jury of your peers.
--
Last point, copyright does not only cover distribution but specifically, "performance" and "reproduction". distribution is treated as a derivitive of reproduction (as it rightly is).
While the original intent was to protect bit-for-bit copying of music, the actual law does not make a distinction (unless I missed something).
Oranized crime is not in the business of harrassment, vandalism, assault and rape. Although these crimes are sometimes derivitives of an organized money making venture, or staying out of jail.
I see no scenario where P2P music sharing could even be a derivative of Organized Crime.