Canadian Gov't Grants Olympics Ownership of Winter 145
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports that the Canadian government has introduced new legislation that grants Vancouver Olympic organizers broad powers to police the use of any commercial use of the words associated with the Olympics. These incredibly include 'winter, Vancouver, and games.' As Geist notes, the government 'has no time to deal with spam, spyware, privacy, or net neutrality, but commits to legislation on behalf of the organizers of a sporting event?'"
The Devil's Deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Good going! (Score:5, Insightful)
The courts have better things do deal with than tie themselves in knots over this. I can't see this really being applied except in blatant cases, and overall I think it's a good thing. Another thing I can't see is why this is being painted so negatively.
Re:Good going! (Score:3, Insightful)
If I owned a small guest house in London, I am banned from advertising that states "Thinking of coming to the London Olympics in 2012 ?, come stay with us at our comfortable hotel.
Sorry, you have to buy the rights to use those words !
That makes me a vulture does it ?
Considering that it's largely taxpayers money that's building the fucking event, I think they could relax a bit on the heavy handed copyright.
This is a good simile for software copyrights. Basic building blocks, common to all, arranged in a certain way can now be owned.
Dear God People! (Score:3, Insightful)
And even if it was law, it does serve a valid purpose - to crack down on "ambush" marketing, where companies try to underhandedly suggest they are associated with the olympics when they are not.
Save all the extremist knee-jerk reactions for after 1) the bill is made into law and 2) it is used to sue some poor sob who uses the word 'winter' on a lost dog poster.
Re:The Devil's Deal (Score:3, Insightful)
look up Jim Thorpe. And actually, the first pro athlete only was allowed in the olympics back in 1988, not that long ago. it was the dream team that started it. but its ok, they now let pro athletes in lots of the "popular" sports. but, lots of olympic athletes actually work pretty menial jobs. I've heard home depot employs loads because they give them so much leeway to practice their sports.
Re:Good going! (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, reading the text of the bill, I don't see that even being a prohibited use. The stated reasoning of the bill is to act as "protection against certain misleading business associations". The wording instructs the courts to interpret whether the use of the protected words is for the purpose of misleading the consumer into believing that you are a sponsor of the games when you are not. Your case does not fall into that category, and would thus not be prohibited by the act. Thirdly, even if it was, if you owned a small guest house in Vancouver, you would not need to advertise "Thinking of coming to the Olympics in 2010" - you would more than likely be able to rent out the house in that time period. I don't even see a need to mention the event in that context - those shoping around will know.
The act is written to narrowly interpret a broad spectrum of words. By that I mean, the courts are allowed to consider many words that could potentially be infringing, but those words must be used in a misleading manor in order to be prohibited.
All in all, it's one of the better balancing acts my government has done in order to prohibit ambush marketing, and I aplaud it. So, your argument doesn't really hold water with me.
Challenge! (Score:5, Insightful)
I submit that the bill is very excellently worded, and I challenge you (or anyone else) to read the bill and come up with an example where the bill would unfairly restrict your freedom. By that, I mean restrict you from doing anything except ambush marketing. Anyone that needs to use any of the "restricted" words in order to promote legitimate business can do so:So, as you can see, that little exception covers pretty much any legitimate use you might have. Describe how exactly this is Orwellian, please.
Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Our freedom of expression (freedom of speech) is listed in section 2. As far as the second amendment, we don't really have a need to carry guns.
Re:From the bill... (Score:5, Insightful)
Drugs, civil courts, politics, wildly inflated egos, corruption, endless corporate marketing, at least they could introduce some real blood sports to really reflect the true values of the modern Olympics, bring on the gladiators and the lions.
I'm bored with the same old same old, and no I don't see the achievement in a person willing to run around in circles day after day after day.
Re:Dear God People! (Score:4, Insightful)
How about using public outrage to smack down any silly legislator who proposes this kind of stuff so maybe he gets a clue that this isn't what the citizens want?
Remember, a "knee-jerk reaction" can be used to kick someone in the ass.
Re:As usual, no one ever bothered to read the bill (Score:5, Insightful)
If a business falsely claims to have sponsored an event or organization, give that organization the right to sue said business.
If a business claims to have sponsored a non-existing organization, give consumer associations the right to sue.
That wouldn't be trademark infringement (Score:1, Insightful)
That's not to say that this is a good thing, but please, get some understanding of the issue before acting like the word "winter" will be banned.