Rlilly
msg:4392482 | 2:44 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0) |
This is some good "legal" thoughts on this decision: [blog.ericgoldman.org...]
|
Rugles
msg:4392505 | 3:29 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0) |
While I dont sympathize with the counterfeiters, I don't like the idea of courts micro-managing the SERPS.
It strikes me as a dangerous thing.
|
travelin cat
msg:4392521 | 4:08 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0) |
It's not "micro-managing". It's called doing the right thing. These counterfeiters are blood suckers that should be prosecuted and have every penny they have made off of the owners of the trademarks/copyrights taken from them.
|
Rugles
msg:4392527 | 4:18 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Well, we will see where this leads.
|
greenleaves
msg:4392530 | 4:28 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| It's not "micro-managing". It's called doing the right thing. These counterfeiters are blood suckers that should be prosecuted and have every penny they have made off of the owners of the trademarks/copyrights taken from them. |
|
Which is why you support closing down a business without providing due process? (i.e. your right to contest)
|
JoaoJose
msg:4392543 | 4:33 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Does this mean Chanel can seize ebay? :-)
|
tangor
msg:4392550 | 4:40 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0) |
What I find troubling is the Chanel folks are surfing sites and making lists, without actually obtaining product from each... they sample a few (order product) and damn the rest. That said, I, too, think all infringers should be taken to task.
I didn't see anything in the two reports I read where any of the site holders were fined or faced a judge... just that their domains were seized. The judge may have overreached in demanding the search engines, facebook and twitter, too, delist and remove the seized sites from their indexes. As yet none of the SEs have complied. Some of the seizures were for sites in non-USA countries and, at present, none of those sites have been shut down. Perhaps a higher court will get involved. One of those wait and see kind of things.
|
Rlilly
msg:4392621 | 7:05 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0) |
@travelin cat This means that a judge can order the delisting of your site, shut down your business, without you even aware there WAS legal procedures against you? You actually like this broad power given to judges?
So because a site might say: "We sell HP compatible inkjet cartridges", some judge might not like that, think that it is infringement and get the site taken off the web?
There has to be a better way to deal with counterfeiters, this is not it. This is dangerous.
|
mhansen
msg:4392640 | 7:55 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Kinda touches home for me... I have a domain that starts with the word "fake..." then a popular brand name that also happens to be a general word used in conversation, with a completely different meaning. Like.. "shirts".
I used the site to discuss a completely unrelated topic, but clothing products related to overall topic did eventually come up in the content. When clothing was the topic of the page, adsense propagated ads from the related-brands line of products... and they didn't like it. In their opinion, I was promoting the fake versions of their real products, when in effect, the site had nothing to do with their products at all!
2+ years ago, the branded product maker demanded that I turn over the domain, even though it was their idea to put a new meaning on the common word, I refused... and still own it today.
It's one of those things that I just wait for the shoe to drop on so to speak. We lost a 10+ year old domain to the "O" company a couple years ago also... because it had the word "overstock" in the domain name and had a commerce site selling wholesale products. Our small 3 man shop was no competition for their lawyers, and it was easier to re-brand than to spend endless dollars fighting it. (thats when you realize the power of a mailing list)
MH
|
jecasc
msg:4392650 | 8:11 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0) |
This is not the first time something like this happens. Usually this is followed by several thousands of websites that get taken down by mistake.
Like in this case earlier this year:
US government mistakenly shuts down 84,000 websites
[techspot.com...]
|
loner
msg:4392730 | 11:58 pm on Nov 30, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Scary? Yes. Did it solve this particular problem? Yes.
|
davezan
msg:4392922 | 2:03 pm on Dec 1, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I could be wrong, but I don't see how Facebook et al can comply with that court decision if none of them are in its jurisdiction. Not unless either: a) they choose to follow it, or b) an order from a higher court reaching into their respective locations is made.
David
|
frontpage
msg:4393124 | 8:42 pm on Dec 1, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| A recent November 14 order went after an additional 228 sites; none had a chance to contest the request until after it was approved and the names had been seized. |
|
So much for due process.
Judge Kent Dawson
| appointed to that position by President Bill Clinton on April 6, 2000, |
|
|
|
