4 ms·

Okay, so the problem is just the legal construct they're using? I guess I can see that, what should they use instead?

Brian_K_White 4y ago
I don't know how you arrived at such a silly idea from that comment. The problem is as stated, not this other inexplicable random nonsense that can not be derived or implied or extrapolated from that remark. As I said already, right there, but I guess I'll repeat, because that isn't stupid: An event organizer could stipulate a condition like that if they wanted, subject to local laws allowing. A property owner could stipulate a condition like that, subject to local laws allowing. The Rust Foundation is not necessarily either of those entities, and so has just no business at all even expressing an opinion on things that are none of their business. And even in cases where they might be the event organizer, a trademark copyright has no relationship one way or another with such things as what is essentially a dress code or a local facility security measure or behavior standard. They can absolutely say that guns are not allowed at any events they happen to host, the same as they can say that shoes and shirts are required. But none of that has any place in the document laying out terms protecting the use of a trademark. Carrying a gun, no matter if you like them or don't like them or think they should or should not exist at a programming conference, is in no universe a copyright issue, any more than say being black, or gay, or christian is.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  You capitalized "TRADEMARK" several times, so I thought you were bringing attention specifically to that aspect. I'm a bit confused now, based on your second comment. Was there another reason you were all-capsing "TRADEMARK"? It seems to me that an organization doesn't want their brand being associated with certain kinds of behavior. I realize you may want to engage in that behavior, but doesn't the brand have the right to control their logo? Edit: You heavily edited your comment after I had already replied to it, which is tricky. You should probably have written a new post if you had more to say. > Carrying a gun, no matter if you like them or don't like them or think they should or should not exist at a programming conference, is in no universe a copyright issue, any more than say being black, or gay, or christian is. I don't think being black, gay, or christian is the same as bringing a gun to a conference or event. For starters, we're talking about behaviors rather than identities. It's okay to be a gun owner, just like it's okay to be black, gay, or Christian. No one is trying to restrict any of those identities. What we're talking about here is that Rust doesn't want their brand and logo associated with certain behaviors. Namely, the behavior of bringing a gun to a technical meetup. You may feel that's an overreach, sure. But is it legal? Can't they restrict the use of their IP in any way compatible with the first amendment? If it's not legal in certain jurisdictions, can't they still restrict the use of their logo in those jurisdictions? If they can't, doesn't that mean all brands have lost all control of their IP in those jurisdictions?
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    "I don't think being black, gay, or christian is the same as bringing a gun to a conference or event." Those things are all equally out of scope of a trademark copyright document. And as I've repeated mutiple times now, an event organizer or a property owner are perfectly able to set such limits (assuming local laws allow). That could even be the foundation if they happen to be the ones hosting some event. I don't know why you keep ignoring that yet expect to be taken seriously as having any sort of point.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      I understand fully that you have made the point that property owners and event organizers are perfectly able to set limits on gun possession, and I agree with this statement. However, I don't see how the right of physical property owners to set limits on the use of their property restricts the rights of IP owners to set limits on the use of their property. You haven't made the connection between the two. If you feel you've made that point clearly, I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic. You'll have to reframe your argument instead of simply repeating it. I'm not picking up what you're putting down. > Those things are all equally out of scope of a trademark copyright document. This is where we disagree. I think it is squarely within the scope of trademark law, as long as it complies with the First Amendment, including fair use. That's what "ownership" means. If anyone were allowed to use any mark they want at any event they want, and the rights holder has no say over that, then what "rights" do they actually have? What does trademark actually mean? Let's take a hypothetical situation. Suppose you wanted to host a conference about all things Disney. You brand your conference with Disney logos, Disney word marks, and Disney characters. You advertise the event and charge money to attend. However, this Disney conference is also a satanic blood orgy. Does Disney have the right to restrict the conference from using their logo? Satanic blood orgies are allowed, the venue has okayed it, and it's allowed in the state. The satanic blood orgy aspect is legal and allowed. Doesn't Disney still have the right to send a cease-and-desist letter to the conference? If they don't, can you please explain how trademarks work in your worldview? Furthermore, if what you say is true, then what is the legal basis for all of these artists restricting at which events their songs can be played: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/28/all-the-artists-who-have-told-trump-to-stop-using-their-songs-at-his-rallies/?sh=3766256774b8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/28/all-t... It seems to me that a trademark, such as the Rust logo, should have more protection than a copyright of a song. So why can't Rust restrict the use of its logo based on the character of a gathering, while musicians can restrict the playing of their songs based on the character of those gatherings in the linked article?
galkk 4y ago
They should not have any business with that as this is clearly overreach.

I don't know how you arrived at such a silly idea from that comment. The problem is as stated, not this other inexplicable random nonsense that can not be derived or implied or extrapolated from that remark. As I said already, right there, but I guess I'll repeat, because that isn't stupid: An event organizer could stipulate a condition like that if they wanted, subject to local laws allowing. A property owner could stipulate a condition like that, subject to local laws allowing. The Rust Foundation is not necessarily either of those entities, and so has just no business at all even expressing an opinion on things that are none of their business. And even in cases where they might be the event organizer, a trademark copyright has no relationship one way or another with such things as what is essentially a dress code or a local facility security measure or behavior standard. They can absolutely say that guns are not allowed at any events they happen to host, the same as they can say that shoes and shirts are required. But none of that has any place in the document laying out terms protecting the use of a trademark. Carrying a gun, no matter if you like them or don't like them or think they should or should not exist at a programming conference, is in no universe a copyright issue, any more than say being black, or gay, or christian is.

ModernMech 4y ago
You capitalized "TRADEMARK" several times, so I thought you were bringing attention specifically to that aspect. I'm a bit confused now, based on your second comment. Was there another reason you were all-capsing "TRADEMARK"? It seems to me that an organization doesn't want their brand being associated with certain kinds of behavior. I realize you may want to engage in that behavior, but doesn't the brand have the right to control their logo? Edit: You heavily edited your comment after I had already replied to it, which is tricky. You should probably have written a new post if you had more to say. > Carrying a gun, no matter if you like them or don't like them or think they should or should not exist at a programming conference, is in no universe a copyright issue, any more than say being black, or gay, or christian is. I don't think being black, gay, or christian is the same as bringing a gun to a conference or event. For starters, we're talking about behaviors rather than identities. It's okay to be a gun owner, just like it's okay to be black, gay, or Christian. No one is trying to restrict any of those identities. What we're talking about here is that Rust doesn't want their brand and logo associated with certain behaviors. Namely, the behavior of bringing a gun to a technical meetup. You may feel that's an overreach, sure. But is it legal? Can't they restrict the use of their IP in any way compatible with the first amendment? If it's not legal in certain jurisdictions, can't they still restrict the use of their logo in those jurisdictions? If they can't, doesn't that mean all brands have lost all control of their IP in those jurisdictions?
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  "I don't think being black, gay, or christian is the same as bringing a gun to a conference or event." Those things are all equally out of scope of a trademark copyright document. And as I've repeated mutiple times now, an event organizer or a property owner are perfectly able to set such limits (assuming local laws allow). That could even be the foundation if they happen to be the ones hosting some event. I don't know why you keep ignoring that yet expect to be taken seriously as having any sort of point.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    I understand fully that you have made the point that property owners and event organizers are perfectly able to set limits on gun possession, and I agree with this statement. However, I don't see how the right of physical property owners to set limits on the use of their property restricts the rights of IP owners to set limits on the use of their property. You haven't made the connection between the two. If you feel you've made that point clearly, I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic. You'll have to reframe your argument instead of simply repeating it. I'm not picking up what you're putting down. > Those things are all equally out of scope of a trademark copyright document. This is where we disagree. I think it is squarely within the scope of trademark law, as long as it complies with the First Amendment, including fair use. That's what "ownership" means. If anyone were allowed to use any mark they want at any event they want, and the rights holder has no say over that, then what "rights" do they actually have? What does trademark actually mean? Let's take a hypothetical situation. Suppose you wanted to host a conference about all things Disney. You brand your conference with Disney logos, Disney word marks, and Disney characters. You advertise the event and charge money to attend. However, this Disney conference is also a satanic blood orgy. Does Disney have the right to restrict the conference from using their logo? Satanic blood orgies are allowed, the venue has okayed it, and it's allowed in the state. The satanic blood orgy aspect is legal and allowed. Doesn't Disney still have the right to send a cease-and-desist letter to the conference? If they don't, can you please explain how trademarks work in your worldview? Furthermore, if what you say is true, then what is the legal basis for all of these artists restricting at which events their songs can be played: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/28/all-the-artists-who-have-told-trump-to-stop-using-their-songs-at-his-rallies/?sh=3766256774b8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/28/all-t... It seems to me that a trademark, such as the Rust logo, should have more protection than a copyright of a song. So why can't Rust restrict the use of its logo based on the character of a gathering, while musicians can restrict the playing of their songs based on the character of those gatherings in the linked article?

galkk 4y ago

They should not have any business with that as this is clearly overreach.