[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] 120 years and still not in the public domain
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] 120 years and still not in the public domain
- From: "Dean Sanchez" <DSANCHEZ(at)fcci-group.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:40:58 -0400
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcOJCAFtCdoyeXTzQ22TUpoUSGWDAgACh7eA
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] 120 years and still not in the public domain
I would tend to disagree with that assessment. That is the same reasoning used by the groups that push for standards that are encumbered by royalties or copyrights - the idea that one company or group should have control because "they can ensure that the standards are maintained". I don't agree with that argument, either. There are numerous standards that are in the public domain.
Companies and individuals have many reasons and arguments for why their 'Intellectual Property' (how I hate that phrase) should not enter the public domain, but I have yet to read or hear of one that IMHO provides any justification for diminishing the Public Domain.
Side note here: I almost wrote 'robbing from' instead of 'diminishing'. If the IP industry wants to equate infringement with theft, then the continued abuses and expansion of the industry is stealing from society.
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Jeremy Erwin
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 120 years and still not in the public domain
On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 11:39 AM, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> It's not copyright but trademark infringement :
> "Now the library group is suing the Library Hotel, accusing it of
> trademark infringement. "
> This may wind up having (or should) the same status as Kleenex. Yes
> "Kleenex" is a trademark but it is also something used so commonly
> that it is now a word. Having someone say "give me a Kleenex" in a
> film should be considered free advertising rather than trademark
> infringement whereas putting "Kleenex" on a box of paper tissues made
> by someone else would be infringement since one would be confusing the
> real "kleenex" with a competitors. I seriously doubt that ANY one
> would confuse the DDC in a library with a decorative theme in a
> Hotel...In this case, I hope the Judge sees fit to follow that line of
Some libraries do have an interest in maintaining a national standard.
If all the libraries subscribing to a interlibrary loan program know
that a particular book is filed under 323.156, book lending among
libraries is more efficient. But if Library A has been subscribing to a
OCLC list, and library B is using another classification service, then
the book might just be filed under 401.342. Hence, the OCLC and its
subscribing institutions have some interest in ensuring that the Dewey
Classification system does not become generic.
Where is the Hotel getting its cataloging data anyway?