lawrenson wrote:Hi,

And suppose you make a straw with the word "Coke" on it? Can the drinks company claim an infringement then?

Cheers,
Malc

I think that would largely depend on whether the straw was designed for the nose or the mouth...

But yeah, I imagine Coca Cola could successfully take action against someone who used their trademark on a drinking straw.

On the other hand, you see examples in the US all the time of smaller business ventures playing fast and loose with other people's trademarks and (presumably) copyrighted characters. I was on vacation last week at a seaside resort and took the kids to a boardwalk amusement park which shall remain nameless. They have crude but obvious imitations of various cartoon characters (Disney, Warner Bros., others) all over their rides, and I'm pretty sure they're not paying a dime for the right to do so. In the same town there is a Middle-earth themed restaurant called, "The Hobbit", with unlicensed representations of Tolkien characters all over the place.

Point being, just because something is a trademark or copyright violation doesn't make it worth the while of the owning entity to pursue it legally. Some things fly under the radar, some infringements are such small potatoes that it isn't cost-effective to litigate.

lawrenson wrote:Hi,

yeah, but the USA isnt the whole world. Apologies for not conforming with the somewhat capitalist views there.

Cheers,
Malc

Ditto.

lawrenson wrote:Hi,

yeah, but the USA isnt the whole world. Apologies for not conforming with the somewhat capitalist views there.

Funny, I don't recall the U.S. making anyone conform to our "capitalist views." That would have been the soviets with socialism.

If something is life or death then it should be available, period.

It is that way here, now, and has been. I agree 100%.

And suppose you make a straw with the word "Coke" on it? Can the drinks company claim an infringement then?

Yes, the name Coke is a trademark. Of course, if you are talking about one straw that you keep in your house, I really doubt they would care. Produce a bunch and market them for a proft (or loss), and the story is different.

bbarsh wrote:
Two different things here. The T-shirt guy is selling an item with copyrighted or trademarked material on them illegally. The restaurant is not selling/distributing anything. That is legal. I know this is getting technical, but just make the distinction between a physical product and it is easier.

That might very well be the case, and I see the distinction you're making. I don't know if the distinction is legally valid, mind you, between a "physical product" and what the restaurant and theme park are selling (an "experience" I guess you'd call it). I'm somewhat dubious; the distinctive likenesses of the characters, in my admittedly limited understanding, are what are protected, so I'd say it would be actionable should the "injured" party decide to notice. I doubt I could open up a "Bilbo Baggins Buffet and Pipeweed Lounge" in Oxford without getting a nastygram from the Tolkien estate.

EDIT: Oh, and coincidentally, just realized I'm wearing my "The Hobbit" t-shirt from said restaurant today  . Actually, it's in my lap at the moment; it's still pretty muggy here and the air conditioning doesn't get up to my "man cave" very effectively. They produce a new one every year. The design is crap, with the restaurant's name on the breast, and a largish picture of what is obviously Gandalf fighting Smaug (yeah, they might not have even read the damn book, LOL) on the back.

JasonZavoda wrote:
As bad as soviet imperialism was, the original revolution was far better than what it replaced.

Considering more people were murdered under communism (all countries) during the 20th century(in excess of 100 million ) than were killed in all the wars of the 20th century combined, I find it hard to fathom that it was far better than what it replaced.

But that isn't the topic of this thread.

[quote="bbarsh]Funny, I don't recall the U.S. making anyone conform to our "capitalist views." [/quote]

I didn't say you did. Tho I would also say that is extremely debatable.

And, as has been said, if you made an implement for snorting a certain recreational drug, I suspect the soft drinks company wouldnt come anywhere near you, if your intentions were clear.

Cheers,
Malc

lawrenson wrote:

I didn't say you did. Tho I would also say that is extremely debatable.

My bad, I read that wrong. Too much multitasking.    But we are never going to agree on the anti-american thing, so let us let one go. I am not saying you are anti-american, but there sure seems to be a whole lot of it out there.

And, as has been said, if you made an implement for snorting a certain recreational drug, I suspect the soft drinks company wouldnt come anywhere near you, if your intentions were clear.

Cheers,
Malc

Sounds like you have the beginnings of a business plan, Malc  

bbarsh wrote:
Sounds like you have the beginnings of a business plan, Malc  

Hey! The nasal Cola straw was my idea! Now I gotta sue to protect my IP...

Rabbit_67 wrote:
Considering more people were murdered under communism (all countries) during the 20th century(in excess of 100 million ) than were killed in all the wars of the 20th century combined, I find it hard to fathom that it was far better than what it replaced.

But that isn't the topic of this thread.

Then you need to study some history Rabbit. You do realize that following the revolution Russia was a Republic and that the provisional govrnment under L'vov and then Kerensky were trying to establish free elections but were undermined by the Petrograd Soviet. Why they renewed an offensive against the Germans (though it was speculated that there were promises from the Allies of backing for the Republican government if they did so) seems almost suicidally naive considering the feeling of the population and the extreme privation already caused by the war (and the general subsistance living standard that the old imperial government had kept in place).

But even in the soviet era the average Russian had a better standard of living than anything imagined or possible under the Czar. Under the Stalinist era, which was the height of soviet imperialism, there were several genoicidal exterminations, the Ukranians being the largest group, and in general the Russian soviet was terribly oppresive and descending rapidly back to an aristocratic imperialism.

If you want to reach your 100 million in deaths you need to add in Mao and his purges, which is kind of the double jeopardy round where atrocities can really sky rocket. But again you are looking at an imperial China with Mao having more power than any Chinese emperor since Qin Shi Huang (whose idea of Miniature Gaming was extreme) rather than anything resembling the definition of the poltical form of communism.

The term communish can no longer be seperated from its 20th century personification of dictatorialism and oppression anymore than a swastika can be seen in most western cultures except as a symbol of nazism. It is a loaded term. But it doesn't alter the fact that imperialism led to as great or greater oppression of the bulk of the population who suffered under it, and the French Revolution with all its horrors and the Russian revoltuion with its failed attempt at a Republic both led to an immediate improvenment in the living standard of those populations and to a historicaly rapid improvenment in the level oppression they lived under.

Unfortunately capitalism which is a resource management game, leads back to aristocratic imperialism once the reserves of unclaimed property have been used up. It worked well enough during the 19th century expansion into unclaimed territory (or at least territory possessed by any culture unable to defend its claims) but now we are entering the birth cycle of the merchant-family rulership. Wealth becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer family groups, while family groups who provide labor lose property and exist at subsistence level (government housing/company housing).

How this gets back to Trademark and copyrights is that it becomes rarer and rarer that either benefit the originator of the intellectual property and both simply become tools of controlling profit and limiting creativity. (One of the greatest crimes against humanity was perpetrated by Thomas Edison and J.P. Morgan who managed to suppress the work and experimentation of Nikolai Tesla, thank you the capitalist system). Currently both Trademark and copyright law are a kind of lottery fixation that some people believe are the keys to wealth. So, we get small press publishers and writers lining themselves up and defending Hasbro because they see themselves somehow as equal to that corporate monstrosity.

Common law is what we want to make it. Saying that a game is using the AD&D rule system when the original coiners of the term have passed away and the term itself left unused for over a decade and a half, is somehow morally wrong is either delusional or disingenuous, but I don't assign any kind of positive morality to captialism, just an ackowledment of our basic animal nature.

The man with food eats, and owes nothing to the man without. I believe that is the gist of Ayn Rand (hankering back for the days when she lived in Czarist Russia).