3 ms·
What, exactly, is it that the author doesn't understand? It seems pretty clear to me that he's pointing out the ridiculous abuse of trademark law for something
by greyfade 16y ago
What, exactly, is it that the author doesn't understand?
It seems pretty clear to me that he's pointing out the ridiculous abuse of trademark law for something that should only be covered by Copyright.
- tzs 16y agoThe author doesn't seem to understand that the purpose of a trademark is to protect the use of a mark as an identifier of a product or service. He offers no argument that a piece of music cannot function this way, and offers no argument as to why it would be good to allow other people to use the same work to misrepresent their produce or service as being that of the original.