Previous Next Index Thread
Previous Next Index Thread
J. S. Greenfield (greeny@nando.net) wrote:
>The other two examples are notably different, in that a book entitled
>"The Smith Barney Book" and a newspaper column entitled "The Smith
>Barney Column" could _easily_ have Smith Barney as its source.
>Therefore, we have potential for a likelihood of confusion, and
>therefore potential for infringement.
Don't you think that preventing people from having those titles is an
infringement of their free speech rights? Especially in the newspaper
case, or a free book (noncommercial). I do. And this has been the
crux of my argument. Your argument that "the message could be gotten
out" by other means doesn't change the fact that it still an
infringement of free speech. Just like I said that most conversations
can be carried out on the 'net without the word "fuck", preventing
people from using it is still considered an infringement of their free
speech in this medium.
This is based on the way the word "fuck" is used currently on the 'net
(and currently the way trademarks are used on the www). It's just
that it has gotten to a point where stopping it causes harm.
That fact that "fuck" might be trademarked by someone doesn't, and
shouldn't, change things.
I have tried to argue about this from a legal standpoint, where such a
use could be considered as "accepted" by the legal system (without
going into the issues of free speech). You and others have said it is
wrong. It remains to be seen whether Lissack will lose in court
though (he has changed his pages). But if it isn't accepted by the
legal system (if you are right), then I think it's sad.
--Ram
me@ram.org || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
Waiting for the revolution. Nuclear vision, genocide.
Computerise god, it's the new religion.
Program the brain, not the heart beat. ---Black Sabbath