can you profess to want to abolish private property and at the same time lay claim to a trademark of a name without it being paradoxical? even if you offer that name for use so long as it is not defamed in the process? i need answers people!!
can I buy a vowel ?
Sounds dicey. Maybe if the clause regarding other people using the trademark is worded in such a way that it gives everyone the right to use the trademark as long as they don't do anything to stop others from using it (instead of "as long as they don't defame it...") If this were the case then I don't think it would be paradoxical because the person holding the trademark would not be getting any of the usual benefits from the trademark, it would only be used to defeat the idea of trademark (in the sense that trademarking something so that no one else can trademark it, but then putting NO stipulations on how anyone can use the trademark - apart from insisting that no one can do anything to keep said trademark to themselves - is a case of using trademark law to defeat trademark law.) But if the stipulations on others using the trademark hinge on the other uses "not defaming" the trademark, and if the trademark holder is the one who decides if other uses constitute "defaming", then I would say it does conflict with the desire to do away with property type rights. blah blah blah. Was that a serious question? Or have I been trolled?
damn, ive been non/accused of being a coward and a troll in one day. and im coming down with something and that something is snot good. heres document excerpts. is there a conflict?
"ABOLISH PRIVATE PROPERTY"
"The XXX are opposed to all forms of property ownership, be they physical or intellectual property rights."
"The XXX therefore try to act as unconstrained as possible by the laws against infringement of copyrights and trademarks."
"the XXX do not claim any copyrights or trademarks on their adaptations or their original scripts, on their accounts of their performances, on their position papers and press releases, or on the photographs, audio recordings and video excerpts that appear on this website."
"Any and all of these materials may be quoted, re-printed, excerpted, adapted or modified, even without mentioning the source, at will."
"The only claim is made upon the name "XXX," which is a trademark of the XXX. All rights reserved. No objection will be made to any group of activists who adopt the name "XXX" and stage similar protests against XYZ where they live, provided that the destruction of property is not involved in these protests."
From the information given and in the absence of more vowels I would say yes XXX can stand on that platform because it seems their sole purpose for doing so would be to avoid being reamed in a court of law, which shows an awareness of potential enemies, which is not to be discounted, but to answer the specific question can they do it without being paradoxical, no, certainly not, but few of us, or more precisely, none, of us get through a day without being that. Sorry to hear of your oncoming illness, medicate thoroughly and call no one for three days.
i dont know. i agree they are trying to protect themselves somehow in the real world but can they possibly be taken seriously that they want all property rights abolished if in the same document they assert control over a piece of intellectual property, even if they are generous in its usage? its still saying, this is mine but you can borrow it w/o asking as long as you dont break it. that is a far cry from saying, this belongs to noone, use it as you will. like the shrub says, im all for enlightened dictators as long as im the dictator.
Well, first, the XXX ideology is not one I agree with. I like owning the few things I own, no apologies. And now my curiosity demands that I move to the next level and ask, who is this XXX?
well, thats why it annoys me so. if you are going to spout such an extreme position at least you could do your best to live within that ideology. that an inconsistency is so apparent doesnt bode well for the rationality espoused. a person who holds that property should be abolished should not be concerned with protecting their property rights even if you apply jims twisted logic that they are ultimately freeing the words by controlling them.
ill tell you about xxx if you give me your email address.
|
- dave 1-16-2001 7:26 pm
can I buy a vowel ?
- bill 1-16-2001 7:45 pm [add a comment]
Sounds dicey. Maybe if the clause regarding other people using the trademark is worded in such a way that it gives everyone the right to use the trademark as long as they don't do anything to stop others from using it (instead of "as long as they don't defame it...") If this were the case then I don't think it would be paradoxical because the person holding the trademark would not be getting any of the usual benefits from the trademark, it would only be used to defeat the idea of trademark (in the sense that trademarking something so that no one else can trademark it, but then putting NO stipulations on how anyone can use the trademark - apart from insisting that no one can do anything to keep said trademark to themselves - is a case of using trademark law to defeat trademark law.) But if the stipulations on others using the trademark hinge on the other uses "not defaming" the trademark, and if the trademark holder is the one who decides if other uses constitute "defaming", then I would say it does conflict with the desire to do away with property type rights. blah blah blah. Was that a serious question? Or have I been trolled?
- jim 1-16-2001 8:53 pm [add a comment]
damn, ive been non/accused of being a coward and a troll in one day. and im coming down with something and that something is snot good. heres document excerpts. is there a conflict?
"ABOLISH PRIVATE PROPERTY"
"The XXX are opposed to all forms of property ownership, be they physical or intellectual property rights."
"The XXX therefore try to act as unconstrained as possible by the laws against infringement of copyrights and trademarks."
"the XXX do not claim any copyrights or trademarks on their adaptations or their original scripts, on their accounts of their performances, on their position papers and press releases, or on the photographs, audio recordings and video excerpts that appear on this website."
"Any and all of these materials may be quoted, re-printed, excerpted, adapted or modified, even without mentioning the source, at will."
"The only claim is made upon the name "XXX," which is a trademark of the XXX. All rights reserved. No objection will be made to any group of activists who adopt the name "XXX" and stage similar protests against XYZ where they live, provided that the destruction of property is not involved in these protests."
- dave 1-17-2001 12:14 am [add a comment]
From the information given and in the absence of more vowels I would say yes XXX can stand on that platform because it seems their sole purpose for doing so would be to avoid being reamed in a court of law, which shows an awareness of potential enemies, which is not to be discounted, but to answer the specific question can they do it without being paradoxical, no, certainly not, but few of us, or more precisely, none, of us get through a day without being that. Sorry to hear of your oncoming illness, medicate thoroughly and call no one for three days.
- jimlouis 1-17-2001 2:06 am [add a comment]
i dont know. i agree they are trying to protect themselves somehow in the real world but can they possibly be taken seriously that they want all property rights abolished if in the same document they assert control over a piece of intellectual property, even if they are generous in its usage? its still saying, this is mine but you can borrow it w/o asking as long as you dont break it. that is a far cry from saying, this belongs to noone, use it as you will. like the shrub says, im all for enlightened dictators as long as im the dictator.
- dave 1-17-2001 2:38 am [add a comment]
Well, first, the XXX ideology is not one I agree with. I like owning the few things I own, no apologies. And now my curiosity demands that I move to the next level and ask, who is this XXX?
- jimlouis 1-17-2001 2:54 am [add a comment]
well, thats why it annoys me so. if you are going to spout such an extreme position at least you could do your best to live within that ideology. that an inconsistency is so apparent doesnt bode well for the rationality espoused. a person who holds that property should be abolished should not be concerned with protecting their property rights even if you apply jims twisted logic that they are ultimately freeing the words by controlling them. ill tell you about xxx if you give me your email address.
- dave 1-17-2001 3:25 am [add a comment]