5 ms·

MIT ordered the renaming of this? It's sad when learning institutions act like corporations.

chaz 15y ago
Why should anyone should be allowed to arbitrarily use an institution's name as though they sponsored a publication, event, organization, etc?
- gruseom 15y ago
  Because the students of MIT, and its freethinking traditions, are as much a part of its name as its administrators are.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  I don't think anyone was confusing the MIT Lockpicking Guide as an official publication. In fact, as I recall, it had a fairly sizable disclaimer that did pretty well to disperse such notions. I really don't see how this could be a problem, but the name of the United States Chamber of Commerce isn't.
pavpanchekha 15y ago
It seems reasonable that MIT wouldn't want it implied that MIT wrote the guide. You'd have the right to ask me to rename something I wrote from "mcantelon's guide to DDOSing websites". Clearly MIT has enough of a sense of humor to allow the current name to stay.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  If 'mcantelon's' was a school that you attended, I would say you would be well within your reasonable rights to write such a thing.
  - joesb 15y ago
    If you owned a company "burgerbrain inc". Is it "well within reasonable right" for any of your employee to write "burgerbrain's guide to lock picking" without asking for your permission? Do you think it is within your right to write "[company you work for now]'s guide to X" without asking for permission from your employer? Just because a person is part of an organization doesn't mean he has the right to represent the organization in anyway he wants.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      Personally yes. I would not have an issue with that. I do not believe that using a name is not sufficient to say that someone is "representing" that organization. Certainly not in this case. Even if I did not except your example as acceptable, there is an ocean's difference between a private corporation and a non-profit educational institution. This difference can clearly be seen in how these two classes of organization generally handle themselves. However, since you disagree, consider the following: If instead of using MIT's name for all of these years without permission, they had been using MIT's land (you know, real tangible property) under Massachusetts law that land would now belong to the people using it without permission. Adverse possession kicks in there after 20 years, and as of a few days ago they were using the name for 20 years without permission.
artursapek 15y ago
Everybody, including corporations, institutions, and even just people, care about their name and its associations.

chaz 15y ago

Why should anyone should be allowed to arbitrarily use an institution's name as though they sponsored a publication, event, organization, etc?

gruseom 15y ago
Because the students of MIT, and its freethinking traditions, are as much a part of its name as its administrators are.
burgerbrain 15y ago
I don't think anyone was confusing the MIT Lockpicking Guide as an official publication. In fact, as I recall, it had a fairly sizable disclaimer that did pretty well to disperse such notions. I really don't see how this could be a problem, but the name of the United States Chamber of Commerce isn't.

pavpanchekha 15y ago

It seems reasonable that MIT wouldn't want it implied that MIT wrote the guide. You'd have the right to ask me to rename something I wrote from "mcantelon's guide to DDOSing websites". Clearly MIT has enough of a sense of humor to allow the current name to stay.

burgerbrain 15y ago
If 'mcantelon's' was a school that you attended, I would say you would be well within your reasonable rights to write such a thing.
- joesb 15y ago
  If you owned a company "burgerbrain inc". Is it "well within reasonable right" for any of your employee to write "burgerbrain's guide to lock picking" without asking for your permission? Do you think it is within your right to write "[company you work for now]'s guide to X" without asking for permission from your employer? Just because a person is part of an organization doesn't mean he has the right to represent the organization in anyway he wants.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Personally yes. I would not have an issue with that. I do not believe that using a name is not sufficient to say that someone is "representing" that organization. Certainly not in this case. Even if I did not except your example as acceptable, there is an ocean's difference between a private corporation and a non-profit educational institution. This difference can clearly be seen in how these two classes of organization generally handle themselves. However, since you disagree, consider the following: If instead of using MIT's name for all of these years without permission, they had been using MIT's land (you know, real tangible property) under Massachusetts law that land would now belong to the people using it without permission. Adverse possession kicks in there after 20 years, and as of a few days ago they were using the name for 20 years without permission.

artursapek 15y ago

Everybody, including corporations, institutions, and even just people, care about their name and its associations.