Comments on: A Super-Suggestion for the NFL http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/02/a_supersuggesti.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:39:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Matt http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/02/a_supersuggesti.html/comment-page-1#comment-4700 Matt Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:58:00 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/02/a_supersuggesti.html#comment-4700 <p>Other commenters have said it...it's a trademark thing. People defending patents and copyrights have the option of being reasonable, but trademarks are different. If you don't behave like a total and utter jackass, persecuting every person or group who even the most demented IP lawyer thinks could possibly be found liable for trademark infringement by the most brain-dead jury in America, you run the risk of losing the right to sue the people who really are guilty of deliberate substantive infringement. Only in trademark law is judicious discretion considered synonymous with abandonment.</p> Other commenters have said it…it’s a trademark thing. People defending patents and copyrights have the option of being reasonable, but trademarks are different. If you don’t behave like a total and utter jackass, persecuting every person or group who even the most demented IP lawyer thinks could possibly be found liable for trademark infringement by the most brain-dead jury in America, you run the risk of losing the right to sue the people who really are guilty of deliberate substantive infringement. Only in trademark law is judicious discretion considered synonymous with abandonment.

]]> By: Anon E. Mouse http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/02/a_supersuggesti.html/comment-page-1#comment-4699 Anon E. Mouse Sat, 03 Feb 2007 19:02:45 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/02/a_supersuggesti.html#comment-4699 <p>Basically, its a size and type of establishment requirement, even if for free. The law as drafted by your friendly lobbyist.... We're in (5)(B)(i)(II) below:</p> <p>----------------------<br /> 17 USC sec. 110: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [which lists the general CR violations], the following are not infringements of copyright:"<br /> ...<br /> (5) (A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), communication of a transmission embodying a performance or display of a work by the public reception of the transmission on a single receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes, unless--<br /> (i) a direct charge is made to see or hear the transmission; or<br /> (ii) the transmission thus received is further transmitted to the public;<br /> (B) communication by an establishment of a transmission or retransmission embodying a performance or display of a nondramatic musical work intended to be received by the general public, originated by a radio or television broadcast station licensed as such by the Federal Communications Commission, or, if an audiovisual transmission, by a cable system or satellite carrier, if--<br /> (i) in the case of an establishment other than a food service or drinking establishment, either the establishment in which the communication occurs has less than 2,000 gross square feet of space (excluding space used for customer parking and for no other purpose), or the establishment in which the communication occurs has 2,000 or more gross square feet of space (excluding space used for customer parking and for no other purpose) and--<br /> (I) if the performance is by audio means only, the performance is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space; or<br /> (II) if the performance or display is by audiovisual means, any visual portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 4 audiovisual devices, of which not more than 1 audiovisual device is located in any 1 room, and no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space;</p> Basically, its a size and type of establishment requirement, even if for free. The law as drafted by your friendly lobbyist…. We’re in (5)(B)(i)(II) below:

———————-
17 USC sec. 110: “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [which lists the general CR violations], the following are not infringements of copyright:”
…
(5) (A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), communication of a transmission embodying a performance or display of a work by the public reception of the transmission on a single receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes, unless–
(i) a direct charge is made to see or hear the transmission; or
(ii) the transmission thus received is further transmitted to the public;
(B) communication by an establishment of a transmission or retransmission embodying a performance or display of a nondramatic musical work intended to be received by the general public, originated by a radio or television broadcast station licensed as such by the Federal Communications Commission, or, if an audiovisual transmission, by a cable system or satellite carrier, if–
(i) in the case of an establishment other than a food service or drinking establishment, either the establishment in which the communication occurs has less than 2,000 gross square feet of space (excluding space used for customer parking and for no other purpose), or the establishment in which the communication occurs has 2,000 or more gross square feet of space (excluding space used for customer parking and for no other purpose) and–
(I) if the performance is by audio means only, the performance is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space; or
(II) if the performance or display is by audiovisual means, any visual portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 4 audiovisual devices, of which not more than 1 audiovisual device is located in any 1 room, and no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space;

]]> By: dearieme http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/02/a_supersuggesti.html/comment-page-1#comment-4698 dearieme Fri, 02 Feb 2007 20:36:18 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/02/a_supersuggesti.html#comment-4698 <p>What if a pub holds a "Superbowel" party?<br /> Or "Soopahbowl"? Or "Superbole"? or "Sooperbowl"?</p> What if a pub holds a “Superbowel” party?
Or “Soopahbowl”? Or “Superbole”? or “Sooperbowl”?

]]> By: Sameer http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/02/a_supersuggesti.html/comment-page-1#comment-4697 Sameer Fri, 02 Feb 2007 19:19:38 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/02/a_supersuggesti.html#comment-4697 <p>I think you may be confused about copyright vs trademark. The word superbowl is trademarked so you can't use the word superbowl to describe your own soccer championship. The claim that you can't call your superbowl party a superbowl party seems a bit silly, but I can see why that makes sense. The problem with the church, however, is one of copyright. It is illegal to show a copyrighted work in a "public environment" without a license. Ie if I buy a DVD and then show it in a movie theatre to random people, that would be a violation of the copyright. The superbowl's claim is that if you have a screen smaller than 55 inches, then it is a private showing, whereas a larger screen is a public showing. That is a pretty dubious distinction, but it is a different claim than the trademark one.<br /> </p> I think you may be confused about copyright vs trademark. The word superbowl is trademarked so you can’t use the word superbowl to describe your own soccer championship. The claim that you can’t call your superbowl party a superbowl party seems a bit silly, but I can see why that makes sense. The problem with the church, however, is one of copyright. It is illegal to show a copyrighted work in a “public environment” without a license. Ie if I buy a DVD and then show it in a movie theatre to random people, that would be a violation of the copyright. The superbowl’s claim is that if you have a screen smaller than 55 inches, then it is a private showing, whereas a larger screen is a public showing. That is a pretty dubious distinction, but it is a different claim than the trademark one.

]]> By: Doug Murray http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/02/a_supersuggesti.html/comment-page-1#comment-4696 Doug Murray Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:28:33 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/02/a_supersuggesti.html#comment-4696 <p>I have to wonder whether their extreme defense might devalue the term more than a liberal fair use policy would.</p> I have to wonder whether their extreme defense might devalue the term more than a liberal fair use policy would.

]]> By: dan http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/02/a_supersuggesti.html/comment-page-1#comment-4695 dan Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:25:10 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/02/a_supersuggesti.html#comment-4695 <p>You are incorrect about the need to defend copyrights. Both copyright and patent infringement can be prosecuted arbitrarily by the holder. It is trademarks that must be vigorously defended in all cases or the holder risks losing them. The product name "Formica" would be a trademark, not a copyright.<br /> </p> You are incorrect about the need to defend copyrights. Both copyright and patent infringement can be prosecuted arbitrarily by the holder. It is trademarks that must be vigorously defended in all cases or the holder risks losing them. The product name “Formica” would be a trademark, not a copyright.

]]> By: BobH http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/02/a_supersuggesti.html/comment-page-1#comment-4694 BobH Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:48:51 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/02/a_supersuggesti.html#comment-4694 <p>Interesting that they can copyright "superbowl" when the name is "super bowl".</p> <p>Interesting also that they vigorously opposed use of the term in the first years of the game's existence.</p> Interesting that they can copyright “superbowl” when the name is “super bowl”.

Interesting also that they vigorously opposed use of the term in the first years of the game’s existence.

]]>