Gedrene wrote:
aghogday wrote:
The difference between trademarks and copyrights is not a pedantic one, they are governed by different laws in the US Code. A trademark is registered and information is copyrighted, two processes that require completely different actions.
it's pedantic because the outcome is the same when we come to fair use. Autism Speaks said it knew it was a parody site. That is the benchmark by which fair use for parody is measured.
aghogday wrote:
It is my understanding that the autism speaks lawyers determined the site did not comply with fair use guidelines in using autism speaks trademarks
And that is supposition. We know it was a parody site. We know it was fair use. You even admitted to saying that if it had gone to court then the parody site should have survived. The measure of what is considered parody you know is untenable because you said Autism Speaks knew it was parody.
aghogday wrote:
and this is what the lawyers get the big bucks for, to interpret the law, and pursue issues that are important enough to pursue.
Lawyers do not get big bucks to interpret the law. They get big bucks to win a case, get their client's way, or lose it in the least harmful way possible. You have no understanding of US law if you don't understand that Lawyers will worm around the law to lie, cheat, steal and destroy within socially acceptable standards.
aghogday wrote:
There is no strong leaning towards anything, other than opinion at this point; there is no site to make any judgement on at this point in time
untrue. Your insistence that there is no proof is based on misreading the terms of fair use and on supposition of other's intentions. That is not a good case. That'll hold up as well as a cardboard castle in a tropical rainforest.
If fair use guidelines are determined not to be met, as was contended by autism speaks lawyers, trademark infringement laws do apply, not copyright infringement laws, so it is no pedantic difference.
I didn't state that autism speaks knew the site was a parody site, I stated that another site was put up as a parody that met fair use guidelines, that is a completely different website.
I didn't state the parody site would have survived if it had gone to court, I said a court would have determined whether or not fair use guidelines were met, if the case had gone to court; it didn't go to court so there is no way of determining it one way or another. No one can provide any accurate judgement of whether or not the site met fair use guidelines at this point because the site no longer exists.
There is no court case, because the cease and desist letter was complied with.
An understanding of US law has nothing to do with ethical behaviors of lawyers, and that is an unwarranted sweeping generalization of lawyers to suggest they steal, lie, and cheat. It's a stereotype of an entire profession, where there are many responsible, ethical individuals that practice law as well, that do it to the best of their ability. There is no evidence of unethical behavior by these lawyers, only opinion and speculation on the legalities of an issue that never went to court, and no longer exists in the record.
22 Nov 2011, 6:48 am
