[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: Jeremy Erwin <jerwin(at)ponymail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:48:01 -0400
- In-reply-to: <AE4FEB771101014D8694547908E81CCC0F6C9D@postal.fcci-group.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 02:40 PM, Dean Sanchez wrote:
> 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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Jeremy Erwin
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 1:07 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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?