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?'"
I, can, do, this, too! (Score:4, Funny)
It's winter in Canada with a bunch of fucking moro (Score:1)
Just goes to show you, Canadian politicians are as corrupt as American politicians. They just have way less power.
Cease and desist! (Score:2)
If you don't stop, I'll complain to the RIAA/MPAA/God/Canada, and you'll be sorry then!
Re:Cease and desist! (Score:5, Funny)
I'll be fine, I don't believe in those entities anyway.
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: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.
Repeat of 1988 (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a whack-a-mole attack on anything "infringing". God forbid you should use the word "Olympic". If an eatery in Toronto's Greek immigrant district was called "Olympic Restaurant", demands would be made to change the name.
This campaign reached its peak (IIRC) when demands were made that Olympic Airways, the national airline of Greece, stop flying to Canada under that name. The issue got some embarrassing press coverage. As a result, "Olympic Airways" was allowed to continue, on condition that it provide some free trips to the organization running the games.
It seems to me that the Olympic Games, like other businesses, is entitled to reasonable copyright and trademark protection. However, I am uneasy about special laws and draconian enforcement for the purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
And that, in a nutshell, sums up the disgusting, corrupt, drug-enhanced, tax-wasting, nationalistic crapfest known as the Olympics.
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat of 1982 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise, it's the same BS heard from all of the people that are really too lazy to do anything real and just whine. I get so god damned sick and tired of hearing all of the whiners say 'oh...if we only just got together, we could change things'.
Get off your ass and do something if you want real change. Checking/punching/clicking a box at election time isn't anything more than every one else does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether GWB adds value or not,
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that it's a good idea to get some understanding of an issue, but you should get some understanding of what's already go
Re: (Score:2)
If the people writing these laws could be bothered to specify when these laws could be applied, there wouldn't be an uproar.
Arguing that a law serves a valid purpose misses the point entirely. People objecting to laws rarely object to the good parts. The CDA served a good purpose. The DMCA serves a good purpose. Captain Copyright served a good purpose. With friends like that, good purposes don't need enemies.
In other news... (Score:1)
I mean, really, I thought it was OK for people to do ANYTHING in advertising. Why can't you piggy-back on the success of a giant, if you can deceive small children in toy advertisements? Even if it wasn't such a common word as 'Winter.'
It just struck me, though. What are people supposed to say? 'This snowy season?'
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry guys, this madness has GOT to stop.
In reality:
The Olympics is a FOR-PROFIT venture. The officials running this rake millions upon millions into their pocketbooks
The term "olympic" dates back to the greeks. It's a common term and should not have been able to be trademarked by ANYONE, not even for a sporting event since those events originated in ancient times as well
If I want to open a fast food restaurant with a greek theme and call a bu
Water polo (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
'Cause the people that wrote them sure as hell weren't.
-nB
The Devil's Deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Devil's Deal (Score:5, Informative)
Or in whole countries. Here's the UK version, from 1995:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_199500
More recently when London decided to host an olympics, they also felt that this piece of legislation was necessary:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/20060012.htm [opsi.gov.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Olympics is scummy, but at least blame it for things that are its fault. Like trying to convince us that chess is a sport.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Kills off advertising (Score:1, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Didn't places like Olympic Paints get sued in Atlanta a few years back? Sure, they may have EVENTUALLY won - after the Oly folks cost them tens of thousands in legal bills...
It may not be exact, but I distinctly remember dozens of long-time busienss in Atlanta being threatened/sued. Most if these places had been around for years, if not DECADES before the Olympics ever came to town.
Re:Orwell was right. (Score:5, Informative)
2) In determining whether a person has acted contrary to subsection (1), the court shall take into account any evidence that the person has used, in any language,
(a) a combination of expressions set out in Part 1 of Schedule 3; or
(b) the combination of an expression set out in Part 1 of Schedule 3 with an expression set out in Part 2 of that Schedule.
1. Games, 2010, Twenty-ten, 21st, Twenty-first, XXIst, 10th, Tenth, Xth, Medals
2. Winter, Gold, Silver, Bronze, Sponsor, Vancouver, Whistler
This means you can fully well say "Winter" or "Games" all you want - you just can't say "Winter Games", "2010 Games", "Games Sponsor", "Vancouver Games", etc.
This does not seem as ridiculous as, say, trademarking the word "Winter", which is the FUD implied by the original article and many posters seem to imply.
Re: (Score:2)
And the Science Fair and other well-established competitions should be careful about giving gold, silver and bronze medals, or at least calling them that?
Re: (Score:2)
According to what I see there, you can't say "Twenty-ten 10th" (no matter how stupid it sounds), but you can say "Winter events". List 2 requires something from list 1 to be a problem.
And "Whistler?" What's that, the name of the mascot or something? I guess they can't have the 10th exhibition of Whistler's paintings this winter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think there may be one good part of this though under "exceptions":
In the USA, too (Score:2)
Personally, I'm nothing but sick of the damn games. I honestly don't care, not even one tiny bit, about them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because everybody loves the Olympics. Even Doctor Who, apparently.
Attention Slashdot owners! (Score:5, Funny)
t has come to my attention that you have made an unauthorized use of the copyrighted words "WINTER", "VANCOUVER" and "OLYMPICS" (the "Work") in the preparation of a Slashdot article entitled "CANADIAN GOV'T GRANTS OLYMPICS OWNERSHIP OF WINTER" (the "Article"). I have reserved all rights in the Work, granted my the Canadian Government. Your work entitled "CANADIAN GOV'T GRANTS OLYMPICS OWNERSHIP OF WINTER" is essentially identical to the Work and clearly used the Work as its basis.
As you neither asked for nor received permission to use the Work as the basis for the Article nor to make or distribute copies, including electronic copies, of same, I believe you have willfully infringed my rights under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $150,000 as set forth in Section 504(c)(2) therein.
I demand that you immediately cease the use and distribution of all infringing works derived from the Work, and all copies, including electronic copies, of same, that you deliver to me, if applicable, all unused, undistributed copies of same, or destroy such copies immediately and that you desist from this or any other infringement of my rights in the future. If I have not received an affirmative response from you by [date give them about 2 weeks] indicating that you have fully complied with these requirements, I shall take further action against you.
Very truly yours,
The Krazy Kanuck Kommitee
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Typical (Score:2)
Maybe not... (Score:2)
Alright, I got my First Post [slashdot.org] and had my fun, so now I've read TFA, and I have to ask...
By that wording, it seems possible that "considered" merely means these are pointers, not actual rules -- thus, a federal court should "consider" someone's "Winter clothing line" or somesuch, but should
Re: (Score:2)
huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (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.
Easy solution (Score:2)
or :
01impyc gam3s !
or
That event which should rename nameless due to legal usage of certain word pertaining to greece, plays, and the snowy season.
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: (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, arra
Re: (Score:2)
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.
From the bill... (Score:2)
I wish people would read the text before going off on how unfair it is. It is very well written, and I invite people to re
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: (Score:2)
This is the winter olympics we're talking about. They won't be running around in circles. They'll be skating around in circles!
Re: (Score:2)
It is a shame that the general laws in any country are not sufficient to deal with such deceiving of the public already.
Can you trust them, I seem to remember some story about some Olympic Cafe from several years ago.
Even if the cases eventually get thrown out, there can be a chilling effect. Especially in... wait for it... winter!
Laws often get put on the books with some publicly stated purpose but then get used for whatever they can be used for.
all the bes
I think he means... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
F
Re: (Score:2)
But very likely, they are not. So then it's just a case of false advertising. No need to protect words like "winter".
But there actually might be a need for stricter laws regarding false advertising. (In my view, there definitely is.)
Of course (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't, but they do understand kickbacks [wikipedia.org].
I work for PepsiCo (Score:4, Interesting)
We're promoting our official beverages and foods to be enjoyed at our alternative Quadrennial Cold-Climate-Oriented Amateur Athletic Competition Festival (QCCOAACF).
[my apologies if QCCOAACF actually means something in some Inuit language]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I see no danger in this as you are quite obviously not referring to the Olympic® Winter® Games® 2010® in Vancouver®.
London Olympics (Score:2)
The same craziness happened for the London Olympics too [bbc.co.uk]. (Although nothing our government does at the moment surprises me).
Rich.
Time for new words! (Score:2)
Santa Claus sued .... (Score:2)
When did the olympics become so commercial? (Score:1)
When did things change?
Re: (Score:2)
When did things change?
The same time everything else did.... When somebody figured out that there was a buck to be made. It seems to me that other age old traditions have changed in order to make a profit. Christmas used to be about giving...now it's about buying, Thanksgiving used to be about celebrating our bounty (in the US)...now it's about buying...
Take war for example. Wars used to be declared for merely crappy reasons, now they're declared so Halliburton can get in on the looting and pillaging.
The world changed to refl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Let's get back to the _real_ spirit of the Olympics. As in 1936, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
You're funny. They're actually for the benefit of the organizers [wikipedia.org], to encourage nationalism [wikipedia.org] and promote athletes.
"When did things change?"
I suppose it's less about the Olympics in particular changing and more about the nature of professional (more or less) sports in general. There is a lot of money to be made in sports, and everybody wants their piece of the
As usual, no one ever bothered to read the bill... (Score:5, Interesting)
(1) No person shall, during any period prescribed by regulation, in association with a trade-mark or other mark, promote or otherwise direct public attention to their business, wares or services in a manner that misleads or is likely to mislead the public into believing that
(a) the person's business, wares or services are approved, authorized or endorsed by an organizing committee, the COC or the CPC; or
(b) a business association exists between the person's business and the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, an organizing committee, the COC or the CPC.
The law essentially says you cannot mislead the public with advertising or promotions that suggest your business is endorsed by or connected to the Olympic Games and/or one of the organizing committess.
The law goes on to say:
(2) In determining whether a person has acted contrary to subsection (1), the court shall take into account any evidence that the person has used, in any language,
(a) a combination of expressions set out in Part 1 of Schedule 3; or
(b) the combination of an expression set out in Part 1 of Schedule 3 with an expression set out in Part 2 of that Schedule.
So, the law does not prohibit a business from using the words "Vancouver", "winter" or "Whistler", only when they are used in combination with the following words and likely to cause to confusion with the Olympic trademarks and/or suggest an endorsement or relationship that does not exist:
1. Games
2. 2010
3. Twenty-ten
4. 21st
5. Twenty-first
6. XXIst
7. 10th
8. Tenth
9. Xth
10. Medals
That's pretty much it. Draconian? Not really. Overly broad? Perhaps.
Re:As usual, no one ever bothered to read the bill (Score:2)
OK, fine, but why specificity? Is it really legal to mislead the public now with advertising or promotions that suggest your business is endorsed by or connected to random entity when it is in fact not? If not, why is the law needed, if so, why not fix it and write a general law?
all the best,
drew
http://www. [youtube.com]
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.
Re:As usual, no one ever bothered to read the bill (Score:2)
No 'Winter 'or 'Twenty-Ten'? (Score:2)
It's a requirement of getting the games.. (Score:2)
Hoo...ray! (Score:1)
I'm really glad, as a Canadian, my government is doing this. I think we've seen in the past all the social, economic and environmental problems that stem from an Olympic host-city not have complete trademark sovereignty. Now all those cheap, knock-off t-shirts and gimmicky souvenirs will associated with large highly commercialized events will be avoided, hence the negative financial impact on the licensed vendors; and the environmental fallout of the landfills of the world when this crap get thrown out two
Crippled Speech (Score:3, Funny)
Vancouver Winter Games
Vancouver Winter Games
Vancouver Winter Games
Vancouver Winter Games
Just wanted to get that in for our Canadian friends. If you read this in Canada, I am hereby claiming "Prior Art" and granting all Canadians free use of any or all parts of the phrase "Vancouver Winter Games" in perpetuity.
Re: (Score:2)
Michael Geist is misrepresenting the bill (Score:1, Interesting)
From the fucking bill:
Words like "Winter" and "Vancouver" appear in Part 2 of Schedule 3. Using these words by themselves in combination with each other fo
Canadian Fascism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Event Formerly Known as the Winter Olympics (Score:2)
I wonder (Score:2)
Olympics has always been extortion and corruption (Score:2)
I always go out of my way to avoid the products of ANY company that aligns itself with the olympic brand. It's marketing at its most pathetic and annoying.
The way the olympic commitee jets around the world expecting to be showered with gifts and bribes in order to choose cities is possibly the worst examp
I am torn (Score:2)
Why is it their responsibility? (Score:2)
Whatever (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Olympics = Spend, not gain, billions (Score:4, Informative)
If I wanted to make a profit, there are plenty of things I'd consider before hosting the Olympics. Like.... not hosting the Olympics and keeping the money in my pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Needless to say, of course, that's in a context where a lot of sporting facilities were built for it not at the expense of the Olympic committee but at local government expense. That's fair as long as the facilities, which go on to be locally owned and used -- are actually used. A majority of ours were, the most visible exception being the huge ski-jump tower I can see from my window as I type. Ski-jumping just isn't a big sport except for a few Olympians. We w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's really going on is that politicians love legacies. They love to go around telling people "I'm the guy that got that bid rolling!" That they had to give jobs to relatives of the crooks on the committee, or figure out how to give kickbacks to these guys is irrelevant. All that matter