Previous Next Index Thread
Previous Next Index Thread
Andrew C. Greenberg (werdna@gate.net) wrote:
>In article <4r1kbu$jsg@hecate.umd.edu>, me@ram.org wrote:
>> But if the magazine is about Rolex, the company, I do think it's
>> reasonable (including the publisher's hopes). Is there anything I'm
>> missing here?
>A small thing called the law of unfair competition. You seriously need
>to read up on the subject.
I am familiar with it. I fail to see the relevance though. In the
Rolex example, the Rolex magazine isn't doing anything wrongful or
deceptive (and I don't think the title is chosen to confuse). The
magazine is ABOUT Rolex watches.
According to the Unfair Competition Law page on the Cornell Law School
server:
"The law of unfair competition is primarily comprised of torts that
cause an economic injury to a business, through a deceptive or
wrongful business practice."
What Lissack is doing isn't something I'd call a business practice.
It even remains to be seen whether it's "unfair", deceptive, or
wrongful.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps he could be found guilty of "unfair
competition". I think that's very unjust given that it sets a
precedent for not being able to parody effectively and to not be able
to criticise freely (not in a restricted manner).
--Ram
me@ram.org || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
TWISTED HELICES' Traversing a Twisted Path is now out on CD, with over
70 minutes of twisted music in a cool gimmick diecut CD case.