The Companies Who Support Censoring the Internet 299
RichiH writes "From Techdirt: 'A group of companies sent a letter to to Attorney General Eric Holder and ICE boss John Morton (with cc's to VP Joe Biden, Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano, IP Czar Victoria Espinel, Rep. Lamar Smith, Rep. John Conyers, Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Charles Grassley), supporting the continued seizure of domain names they don't like, as well as the new COICA censorship bill, despite the serious Constitutional questions raised about how such seizures violate due process and free speech principles.' A full list of companies who you might want to avoid buying from is included, as well."
Wall Street rules (Score:5, Insightful)
Diversified investment portfolios make boycotts virtually worthless.
Looks at list... Oh yeah, we're gonna stop these guys.. Hope and Change, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Diversified investment portfolios make boycotts virtually worthless.
Looks at list... Oh yeah, we're gonna stop these guys.. Hope and Change, right?
Lol, at the bottom of the /. page right now:
Everywhere I look I see NEGATIVITY and ASPHALT ...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about instead of snark, you contact your senators and representative, and vote for liberals (that's liberals, not Democrats) whenever possible? There are people in government trying to block this, you know. Hell, it'd already be law if not for Senator Wyden.
People who insist that voting doesn't matter aren't just part of the problem, they're the entirety of the problem. If they all voted, we'd have more than enough votes to toss out anyone who didn't respect the people.
Re:Wall Street rules (Score:5, Insightful)
...vote for liberals...
I'll have to conscript one. There are no liberals volunteering to serve. A lot of posers, but nothing realistic. And anybody who actually wants the job is probably unfit. It's better to reign in their authority no matter who we vote for. They have way too much power.
Re: (Score:2)
My senators and representatives? What am I, Comcast?
There may be the odd politician that will throw us a bone, but given the current electoral vetting process you can be damn sure that most of them never even make it onto the ballot. I do vote, bu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People who insist that voting doesn't matter aren't just part of the problem, they're the entirety of the problem. If they all voted, we'd have more than enough votes to toss out anyone who didn't respect the people.
Excuse me?
Sorry; firstly, me not enabling your government by voting is my right, in fact, it is one of the rights your system gave me. Secondly, if your system is going to fall over and shit it self like this every time someone doesn't vote just right, I have news for you. The system was broken from the get go.
Fix the system not the people.
Re:Wall Street rules (Score:4, Insightful)
Excuse me?
Sorry; firstly, me not enabling your government by voting is my right, in fact, it is one of the rights your system gave me. Secondly, if your system is going to fall over and shit it self like this every time someone doesn't vote just right, I have news for you. The system was broken from the get go.
Fix the system not the people.
See, you're confused. You say you don't want to "enable the government by voting". That's wrong on two counts:
1) The government is just a system. It doesn't need "enabling". It just is.
2) The plutocrats and corrupt politicians that you really have a problem with don't need your vote. They win by default when you don't vote. It is by not voting that you "enable" them.
Be an apathetic coward wallowing in self-pity if you like, you have that right, but don't delude yourself into believing that it isn't that very act that is causing the problem.
Re:Wall Street rules (Score:4, Insightful)
It is by not voting that you "enable" them.
Au contraire. Your vote implies your consent to their authority. Refusal to vote means refusal to consent. The government will assert its authority regardless, but not voting is a perfectly legitimate form of resistance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Change things from *inside* a democratic system? Great idea! How about... we all stop voting! Yeah, that'll show 'em! Lets cancel out their phony elections by not showing up en masse. But oh, wait, according to you, withholding your vote from a system you choose to not participate in because your moral standards don't allow you to is lazy.
Re:Wall Street rules (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether you vote or not really has little to do with whether you are resisting or capitulating.
There is a school of thought which says that if you vote, you're accepting the legitimacy of the system and the outcome and if you lost, you should just sit down and shut up. There is also a school of thought which says that by not voting you are forfeiting your voice and you should just sit down and shut up. Both of these arguments are usually employed by smug supporters of the status quo.
Voting for Rand Paul or Ru Paul or Ralph Nader or Mickey Mouse doesn't change anything either.
You won't be able to attain power within the party without compromising yourself enough so that it's _you_ who changes rather than the party. "Change the system from within" is, again, an argument of smug supporters of the status quo.
It's not laziness to refuse to bother with methods which cannot work. Tilting at windmills is quixotic; arguing with them is a waste of breath. Unless you have some way of getting sand in the bearing or knocking down the base, you're best off just letting the windmill be and working around it the best you can.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hear hear!
Especially when we get suckered by wolves peeling off their sheep suits once they're voted in because we can't fire them after they show their true colors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wall Street rules (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And people wonder why their vote doesn't count anymore these days.
Re:Wall Street rules (Score:5, Insightful)
People who realize that voting doesn't matter are a tiny minority of the population. We are outnumbered 100 to 1 by the ignorant masses who buy into the phony conflicts between Democrats and Republicans, and don't even know what the actually important issues are (i.e. the ones where both parties always stand together against the public interest).
Re: (Score:2)
100 to 1 still means there are 3 million of you, if you could congregate in one state then you should be able to guide political processes without worrying about the mouth breathing masses.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it was mentioned, but nobody ever answers the question.
They just float it out there to give the illusion that they have some solution then go back to arguing about if the government should pay for the overpriced health care through taxes, then assign it to citizens, or if the government should mandate that the citizens pay for overpriced health care. Nearest I can tell the only thing that the health care legislation fixed was forcing the providers to accept people with pre-existing conditions, and that'
Re: (Score:2)
The cheapest thing would be to yank health insurance for everyone and say to hell with society, let darwinism weed out the weak links of society.
Not humane, but it is economical. Unless of course, human life, comfort, and dignity have a measurable value.
Re: (Score:2)
No-one who wants genuine change could get the media airtime required to stand a chance of being elected.
Re:Wall Street rules (Score:5, Interesting)
I think a big part of the problem is that actual systemic change isn't the sort of thing that happens without casualties. Every time in history that a society has attempted to redesign itself all at once, on the level that most internet-dwelling political savants want, it has led to either a civil war or mass starvation.
Change isn't free.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any words of encouragement for the few prudent voters drowning in a herd of sheeple that are hypnotized by corporate run media?
Re:Wall Street rules (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah. Awesome - I'll just make sure that I move out of Oregon so that I'm in on way supporting Nike, Adidas, or Columbia Sportswear (WTF?) through state business breaks of any kind. And discontinue my access to the internet, so I'm not supporting those companies And then I'll be sure not to watch a significant chunk of movies, from the film companies below. Or video games, since about 50% of games seem to come from Activision.
The thing is, I understand the concerns of these companies. I understand that they want to be able to attack forgeries piracy, wherever they may originate (and note, by "piracy", I mean the guys who make and sell copies of digital and other content and sell it for a profit as their own; not some kid in his basement playing an illegitimate copy of a game that he downloaded).
I just don't understand why so many are entertaining the idea - neigh, supporting it - of violating so many rights in such clear and offensive ways. Why not support bringing lawsuits against people who run domains like "CheapNikeKnockoffsRightHere.com" and then sell forgeries for a tenth the cost of the real thing rather than supporting yanking their domains without due process? In fact, yanking the domains should be a lengthy formal process; not a whim.
Also . . . ICE? Immigration? WTF?
Also . . . isn't it great that DHS/Homeland Security is now involved in EVERYTHING? The fate of the entire country is at stake! Code orange must now be raised to terrorism code red, because this guy has a dozen fake Rolexes! Oh noes!
Oh well. I still have netflix, starbucks, minivans, teh baby jebus, and nascar -- and as an American, that's all I need to be content and shut my mouth and look the other way.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not support bringing lawsuits against people who run domains like "CheapNikeKnockoffsRightHere.com" and then sell forgeries for a tenth the cost of the real thing rather than supporting yanking their domains without due process?
Because any judgments stemming from such lawsuits would be unlikely to even pay their legal bills, let alone recoup the financial losses. They're in a no win situation - sue and loose money, or don't sue and lose money. Just yanking domains is a much simpler alternative.
I'm not saying I agree with them, but I do sympathize. I'd like to think I wouldn't compromise my own principles if put in that situation, but with millions of dollars on the line things tend to get a bit tense.
Re: (Score:2)
So here you are making what sounds like a complex complaint about all of this, and you can't be bothered to look up what the "C" stands for?
Boycott (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Diversified investment portfolios make boycotts virtually worthless.
Wrong. The diversified investment portfolios only give money to the current shareholders and the "financial advisors" (read as: investment salesmen). When you buy stock, you don't buy it from the company, but from the previous stockholder (unless it happens to be from a current company associate). The companies whose stock is public, ALREADY got their money from their Initial Public Offerings.
Boycotts do affect companies, as you don't affect their initial invetment, but their cashflow. Boycott a company long enough (and with enough people), and then they'll start worrying. By the way, with negative publicity, their stock values will decrease, and the stock the current owners are already holding will see their investment in jeopardy. The trick is to have your boycott reach enough people.
Alternate suggestion: Publish the negative stuff on twitter (I am not a lawyer, so be careful with libel lawsuits).
Re: (Score:2)
D'addario is on the list and I just can't shed their guitar strings like that
Re:Wall Street rules (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a little late for hope. I know mine's completely gone. I was disgusted by the letter from the companies to the government. It was full of lies and half truths. Some choice snippets that particularly galled me:
We run companies large and small that represent diverse aspects of America's intellectual property community.
There is no "intellectual property community", there are various and diverse artists, inventors, and technologists who have nothing to do with each other.
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.
Jesus H. Christ, what unmitigated bullshit! The RIAA is after file sharers not because they're losing money to pirates (studies show that pirates spend more on music than non-pirates), it's a blow agaisnt the indie artists who can't get radio airplay and depend on P2P. The indies are the RIAA's competetion. I don't know what's more unbelievable, that these sociopathic parasites spew this nonsense, or that people are actually stupid enough to believe it.
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.
Theft isn't rape, and copyright infringement isn't theft. This intellectual "property" they speak of does NOT belong to them any more than a renter owns his house. Like the renter, the IP moguls have a limited time monopoly, not ownership. The IP belongs to we, the people. And BTW, the extreme copyright lengths are stifling creativity, and software patents stifle innovation. Imagine how innovation would suffer if patents lasted as long a copyrights? And a software patent is like granting a patent to Disney for the idea of a cartoon mouse or duck.
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.
Our standard of living has been dropping for a couple of generations, unless you're one of the top 10% of earners. And there's that bald faced lie "stealing our property" again.
I can't read any more of that tripe without wanting to do violence, and since I hate violence I'll stop.
The list (Score:5, Informative)
Nike - Beaverton, OR
Achushnet - Fairhaven, MA
Curb Music Publishing - Nashville, TN
NBC Universal - New York, NY
Viacom - New York, NY
Callaway - Carlsbad, CA
Cleveland Golf - Huntington Beach, CA
Rosetta Stone - Arlington, VA
Activision - Santa Monica, CA
Adidas Group - Portland, OR
Xerox - Norwalk, CT
Hastings Entertainment, Inc. - Amarillo, TX
Fortune Brands - Deerfield, IL
Coty Inc. - New York, NY
EDGE Entertainment Distribution - Streetsboro, OH
Oakley, Inc. - Foothill Ranch, CA
PING - Phoenix, AZ
Louis Vuitton - New York, NY
D'Addario and Company - Farmingdale, NY
Monster Cable Products, Inc. - Brisbane, CA
Tiffany and Co. - New York, NY
Farouk Systems, Inc. - Houston, TX
Beam Global - Deerfield, IL
Chanel USA - New York, NY
True Religion Apparel, Inc. - Vernon, CA
Concord Music Group - Beverly Hills, CA
Village Roadshow Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA
National Basketball Association - New York, NY
National Football League - New York, NY
The Collegiate Licensing Company/IMG College - Atlanta, GA
Anderson Merchandisers - Amarillo, TX
Trans World Entertainment Corporation - Albany, NY
Timberland - Stratham, NH
Major League Baseball - New York, NY
Lightening Entertainment/Mainline Releasing - Santa Monica, CA
Sierra Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA
Voltage Pictures LLC - Los Angeles, CA
Worldwide Film Entertainment LLC - Westchester, CA
Nu Image, Inc. - Los Angeles, CA
Burberry Limited - New York, NY
Big Machine Records - Nashville, TN
The Little Film Company - Studio City, CA
Columbia Sportswear Company - Portland, OR
Re:The list (Score:5, Insightful)
Monster Cable Products, Inc. - Brisbane, CA
LoL, yeah, I could see how Monster Cable's business model could be threatened by free (as in bird) and open communication.
Re: (Score:2)
You have something against overpriced, over-hyped, cables?
Monster, explain again how your super high fidelity cables are going to improve my HDMI connection, or even the analog audio of my (quieter than most but still) relatively noisy automobile environment. I keep forgetting what advantages your cables provide in such situations.
Re:The list (Score:5, Funny)
The bits get stuck if the copper does not point the right way. Low quality cables also cause bits to degrade which means that they will obviously not sound the same as the near perfect bits that have passed though Monster cables.
Nine out of ten Monster customers confirm that good cables sound better than cheap cables.
The other 10% confirm that bits are happier travelling through Monster cables and they are therefore more ethically acceptable.
Please note that if you are reading this over anything other than an audiophile quality ethernet cable you will not be able to understand it properly and will therefore think its all nonsense. Please try a better quality cable to understand properly.
Re:Bit (Score:2)
This bit supports Net Neutrality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbBqPkdheFg [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They sell 2m DVI cables for $89 CAD plus tax.
I think that's all you need to know.v
Re: (Score:2)
Odd List (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder what the common thread is?
Lawyers, guns, and money...
Re: (Score:3)
Wonder what the common thread is?
Lawyers, guns, and money...
Then the hookers can't be far behind!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Odd List (Score:5, Insightful)
What an odd group. Wonder what the common thread is? How is it that these companies cmae together to sign this letter?
It looks like a list of companies that have a lot tied up in their trademarks. Monster Cable is always suing other people over the Monster name. Xerox has always been on the verge of having it's name genericized. Fashion houses have almost their entire value in their brands. At least the tech companies can fall back on their patents to defend their turf.
Re: (Score:3)
Monster Cable is always suing other people over the Monster name.
Not just the name. They've also threatened to sue companies for selling cables that are a vaguely similar shape to their own cables - i.e. Monster cables are cable-shaped, so are the other company's, and this somehow constitutes trademark infringement. With this change in the law, they wouldn't even have to sue - they could just get an injunction to get the competitor's website taken down by seizing the domain name and it'd be up to said competitor to file a lawsuit challenging it.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. ALL of their value is in their brand and people notice and care if you try to use a fake.
Any people that care about such things will ostracize you for it. It's a self correcting problem that doesn't really need extra legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
So this is the list of companies that never will receive my money again. Not that it would be hard, I have hardly ever bought anything from any of these in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why nerd boycotts never work. It's like a Mormon boycotting Budweiser, or a hippie threatening to boycott the Ivory soap company. Not exactly great tactics. The only companies that would take you seriously are the ones you'll never have an excuse to boycott.
Re:The list (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you sure about that?
Viacom == CBS, Comedy Central (Colbert/Daily Show), BET, The CW, MTV, Showtime, many radio stations, last.cm, CNET, download.com, gameFAQs, GameSpot, Metacritic, techrepublic, tv.com, ZDNet, Simon & Schuster, Westinghouse, etc.
NBC Universal == General Electric, Comcast, NBC, USA network, MSNBC, CNBC, Bravo, Weather Channel, AT&T, Hulu, Vivendi, MCA, SyFy, Universal Music, Biography channel, National Geographic channel, A&E, Tivo, many radio/tv stations, etc.
Not to mention the many other subsidiaries of the companies and branches listed above. And that's just two companies. Chances are good that you'll buy something (or many things) in the next year that benefit Nike or Adidas or Activision, but are under brands and subsidiaries that we aren't familiar with.
It is extremely difficult to actually boycott a corporation these days. Hell, if you decided to boycott Proctor & Gamble, you'd probably never be able to buy a single thing for the rest of your life.
Re:The list (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, boycotts are mostly unworkable.
Don't merely deny yourself to deny them. Take your business to the competition. A problem with that is, sometimes there isn't any competition. Lack of competition, and the ongoing efforts to eliminate competition, are the biggest problems capitalism faces.
Lawsuits and court cases are a lot of effort, and may fail. And are reactionary besides. Go on the offensive. Proposing alternative laws may be better. How about a constitutional amendment? A "Free Sharing" amendment, sort of like Free Speech. If it gained traction, would solve a lot of these issues. They'd be scared silly by the prospect of such an amendment actually becoming law. It would shift the debate, and they'd be too busy fighting to hang on to their intellectual monopolies to have the energy to keep up this continual testing of the waters to see how much censorship they can get away with.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the list of P&G brands on Wikipedia I cant find a single product on there that I have bought in the last year except possibly Duracell batteries (and if I was going to boycott P&G, I would ensure I bought Energizer batteries instead)
Re: (Score:2)
There is always the option for the latter to say "none of these products are satisfactory, so I buy none" rather than the consumer's slavish following.
So I'm assuming you posted this from an unsecured wireless AP.
Re: (Score:3)
> Are you sure about that?
Yes, quite sure thank you.
Try this change in your lifestyle: give up passive consumption of "entertainment". Instead take up a hobby; woodwork, bee-keeping, radio ham, whatever.
Suddenly, avoiding companies such as those listed above is trivial.
On the other hand, not everyone wants to live a 19th century lifestyle. Asking people to make that choice is one the conglomerates are happy to do; it means they win.
Holy hell (Score:2)
Keeping track of all the companies I need to boycott is getting tough. Maybe I should switch from a blacklist to a whitelist approach.
Xerox? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Xerox? (Score:5, Interesting)
Kudos for picking that one out. I notice that there's very little tech in this list. In fact, the overly large representation from sports-related companies has me wondering what's up with them. I know counterfeit sports apparel is a bit of a pain for them, but I didn't know that it was that bad.
Maybe Xerox is looking at finally taking on Apple and Microsoft over that whole GUI thing?
Re: (Score:2)
The volume of counterfeit golf clubs coming from Asia is huge.
Achushnet - Fairhaven, MA
Callaway - Carlsbad, CA
Cleveland Golf - Huntington Beach, CA
Nike - Beaverton, OR
PING - Phoenix, AZ
Re:Xerox? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of them make quality products, but some of them I have avoided specifically because I would like "unbranded" items. Just a quirk or mine, I guess.
Notice you don't see price "equalizers" on the list, like Google, Amazon, web travel sites, or heh, that famous "Kirkland" brand...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Amazon is already on my list for banning Wikileaks. Much more significant than what ICE does.
I personally believe that a war on counterfeit, branded items should be a higher priority (see all counterfeit CISCO gear). Nothing to do with censorship here. But if you sell CISCO gear, it is suppose to be from CISCO not from some Chinese knockoff. The reasons are plain and simple,
1. the company bears the blunt of complaints - if counterfeit stuff is broken, then the company image suffers, not the knockoff
Re:Xerox? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sports affilate groups (NBA, NFL, MLB, etc..) have much to lose if they lose their licensing monopolies. EG, they can currently charge Comcast/NBC for the "Priviledge" of airing the superbowl, and have sole copyright over the entire "Performance" of *all* games played under their banners, regardless of which agency is doing the filming. Ever paid attention to the small text at the beginning of football games? The text that spells out just how much the NFL really REALLY doesn't like having games recorded, etc?
[sarcasm]A free and open internet would permit game scores, stats, and dare I say it... FAIR USE (as in, the REAL deal) clips of game events to be proliferated without their having their fingers in the pie! I mean, Somebody MIGHT get to see a world record touchdown FOR FREE! [/sarcasm]
This same mentality is also applicable against the people who save up for the Season Pass tickets, get good seats on game day, and decide to bring the camcorder. Their camcorder footage is the property of [NBA/NFL/MLB/etc], and NOT them, and totally illegal as far as same is concerned. The fear that such footage might end up on YouTube, for free, makes their sphincters tighten.
THAT is why they support internet censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever paid attention to the small text at the beginning of football games?
Listen buddy, your overall idea is somewhat reasonable but your examples are over the top and make you look like you don't know anything about sports and/or the leagues' copyright concerns. Here, for example, is the actual text you refer to, which goes at the end of NFL games: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited."
The text that spells out just how much the NFL really REALLY doesn't like having games recorded
Sports leagues don't care
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with what you said, but disagree about the ethics. I think it's wrong that so much money gets channeled into sports.
For one thing, sports get boring when there's so much competition by sports equipment manufacturers. Records get broken by milliseconds because one of the guys used a special polymer in his shoe or something like that. That's not an athletics competition, that's a competition on which corporation can rake in more money to invest in gear that will bring no benefits to anyone. What's the
Re: (Score:2)
THAT is why they support internet censorship.
Then the owners and stockholders should be branded traitors and shot for their attacks on civil liberty..after all, they go after consumers and service providers... Extreme positions invite extreme reprisals...right? Apparently, if one has enough money to bribe...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's worth noting that while Nike supports stronger anti-counterfeiting laws (natch), they wrote Senator Wyden asking him not to break the internet. [techdirt.com] From the letter:
"The Internet is too important to our economy and to advancing American values to be inappropriately regulated and censored under the guise of protecting IP"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The sports companies are there for a very good reason: illegal streaming of live games and content. And they totally deserve it. Buying a yearly subscription for the NFL, NBA and MLB easily costs more than many cable subscriptions. They won't have success in taking the streams down (many are out of the US or P2P-based), but they can still threaten to stop providing money for their bought-off politicians and beaurocrats.
Re: (Score:2)
The oppressed becoming the oppressor? Somebody has to suffer.
D'Addario (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed. Try Ernie Ball - I have been using them for years and love them.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm - that's amazing customer service given that he has been dead since 2004.
But still - great strings and a good company to deal with.
Re:D'Addario (Score:5, Informative)
Ernie Ball also went totally Microsoft free after the BSA screwed them for $100,000:
http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you can get them, try the gold plated strings. They cost more, but they sound good and proportionately, last a lot longer than they cost more.
Me too (Score:2)
Dammit, I was hoping that was a different D'Addario. Loved their phosphor bronze strings..
Re: (Score:2)
Me too. I use(d) D'Addario strings. Now I have a reason to hate them.
I'm really glad my employer wasn't on that list. There are way too many Oregon companies there.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should do some research before you judge. From the comments on the Tech Dirt article (TFA), a comment by Jim D'Addario... [techdirt.com]
I personally wouldn't allow this action to deter me from using D'Addario strings. Their interest in this document is simply trying to limit the rampant counterfeiting of their product.
By the way, you might find this article interesting [metafilter.com]...
Re: (Score:3)
I did. It's bollocks. Sounds like Gerry Harvey whining that he cant compete with businesses that don't have assanine procedures. His post if full of weak thought terminating cliche's meant to distract you from what he's actually trying to do
That's right, you could never understand. Now eat
Re:D'Addario (Score:5, Interesting)
Nike can jam it, AFAIC, but if you read the comments attached to TFA you might have seen this comment from Jim D'Addario [techdirt.com]...
Jim D'Addario, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 6:10am
You really should visit and talk to some companies that are living this experience. There is no way to file a legal law suit in every instance someone is stealing my D'Addario Strings trademark. We are family owned business in the USA with sales of $150 million. Sounds big, and rich and all that!!! However last year we spent $750,000 on legal battles and got nowhere. We would be bankrupt trying to protect the 1000 jobs that we provide here in the USA. We are not General Motors, IBM or NIke. The scale is not there.
If we were allowed legitimate access to the Chinese market and the Chinese were not counterfeiting our product we would be able to create 200 to 500 more jobs in the USA.
Don't paint everyone with a broad stroke of the brush. Telling the companies on the list to work harder is an insult. We work as hard as we possibly can already (its 5:30 AM where i am right now and dont stop working until 6:30 PM.
I have personally visited stores in four Chinese cities to see 7 out of 10 sets of my brand of strings are fake. The packaging is perfect, right down to the American flat and the words "Printed and Made in USA". The strings are shxt.
I wonder how that would make you feel if you started a brand name from nothing in 1974 and built it to the largest in the world only to watch people completely rip it off.
So your suggestioin to me is to work harder and sue everyone? I may as well close up or cash out and watch the 1000 jobs evaporate. Or better, maybe i should move the factory to China and destroy another 1000 US jobs?
Go on Alibaba.com and witness the hundreds of thousands of fake product listings. There is nothing on the site that is real or legitimate. At some point the government has to take some kind of police action. This is not just a civil matter, there are criminal (grand larceny) implications here.
I agree there should be due process before a site is shut down. I dont know what that process should be, but when threre is clear evidence submitted to a government agency that a site is selling fake merchandise the government should have some authority to put a URL on hold until they can defend themselves. Let the theives absorb the burden of defending themselves, don't expect the legitimate folks to foot the bill.
How is possible for the public to ask the legitimate manufacturers to bear the role of the government and police every instance of fraud with a law suit? It would be tens of millions of $$$ a year.
Learn more before developing such strong views and 'black listing' good people.
Jim D'Addario - CEO D'Addario and Company
Re:D'Addario (Score:5, Insightful)
I was right there with Jim until he basically said the accused parties are guilty until proven innocent. Sounds kinda bass-ackwards to how I was raised...
Personally, I don't have a problem with D'Addario's position, I use only GHS strings on my guitar :P
Re: (Score:2)
Re:D'Addario (Score:4, Insightful)
But isn't that exactly what custody is? Or are you suggesting that even if a guy goes on a killing spree with hundreds of witnesses and multiple video recordings, he should be completely free until the day the jury convicts him?
No, but that's why he gets a bond hearing, so that the judge, prosecutors, and defense can decide whether he should be permitted to go free until he's convicted or not.
Re: (Score:3)
So in short, you want the government to sue the pirates for you. You do have a legal avenue if fake products are brought INTO this country, but what to do if they are sold online or overseas? Some etailers such as ebay will remove fakes from their sites if presented with proof or a legal claim. Still, I hate to say this, but the burden of protecting YOUR copyrights and trademarks is up to you. You can't expect the government to do this for you. In other times a country might have considered such acts b
The new aristocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Text of the Letter (Score:5, Informative)
An upside (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There - fixed that for you NIke...
Re: (Score:2)
TFA is propagandist garbage. (Score:2)
Maybe there is an issue out there, but TFA is slanted like Goebbels propaganda. Anybody have a link to an evenhanded report on the matter?
Oh man...you're in for a shock (Score:2)
Add: National Association of Realtors (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The term 'realtor' is apparently 'srs bzns.' But a little more long-windedly, it's a term that for some reason has enormous protection on it, usually enforced by the NAR. I'm not quite sure why but they seem to be trying to make it about as privileged as 'doctor' or 'engineer.' (That's 'civil engineer,' for which there are some specific certifications you have to qualify for before you can call yourself that.) If you are somehow in real estate, you may not call yourself a 'realtor' unless you are a memb
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Add: National Association of Realtors (Score:4, Interesting)
Sports (Score:2)
Internet Access is a Privlage, Not a Right (Score:4, Funny)
You still enjoy free speech, but only on Tuesdays or Sundays while wearing your knickers standing on the toilet in your bathroom with a government trained jaguar lying in the tub. The jaguar won't have been fed in six days due to a bureaucratic mix up (turns out it is impossible to file triplicate copies of feeding form W-FU-HMBOY-5 after a Ted Stevens look-alike found the warehouse).
Don't worry, if the jaguar bites you Medicare will cover the ER expense. But only for the first 20 minutes. After that unionized monkeys trained to act like doctors will stand over your corpse throwing feces at the wall while inviting the nurses to a smoke out on Friday. It's gonna be a killer time.
While this may seem a horrible way to ensure a basic human right, the courts can find no legal means to prevent it (the feces slinging monkeys, or the free speech).*
*Please note that only certain subjects are approved on Sundays, such as: the mating calls of feral cats, ingredients found in a bag of Pop Rocks, and Tommy Wiseau.
Register domains elsewhere? (Score:2)
Maybe time to move DNS out of the USA?
Re:Register domains elsewhere? (Score:5, Informative)
This is already being done. The Cesidian Root has been providing an alternative global DNS for years.
They even still resolve wikileaks.org
Full Disclosure: I run 2 of the root servers/resolvers for the Cesidian Root and fully support IPv6 too :)
IP "Czar"? (Score:2)
Victoria Espinel's actual title is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. It's a mouthful, I know, but the "czar" title is a ridiculous media creation.
Intellectual Pooperty (Score:2)
As the one who submitted the story, I am happy that the tag intellectualpooperty made it onto the front-page. Similar to Digital Restriction Management, it's an easy, somewhat tongue-in-cheek way to adapt and subvert the terminology of the other side.
And if only one single person realizes that the term _property_ is being abused due to me using _pooperty_, then yay.
Re: (Score:2)
One orifice to rule them all!
Re: (Score:2)