3 ms·

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 co

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?
Turing_Machine 4y ago
> 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. I find your attempted dichotomy between "identities" and "behaviors" unpersuasive. "Okay to be black at our conference, not okay to wear corn rows", "Okay to be gay at our conference, not okay to kiss another member of the same sex", "Okay to be Christian at our conference, not okay to pray"? Yeah, no. And yes, I agree with the OP that this kind of stuff has absolutely no business being in a trademark document, of all things. > Can't they restrict the use of their IP in any way compatible with the first amendment? Sure they can. And I'm permitted to point and laugh at their petty control-freakiness, and become even less likely to use Rust for anything than I was before (the probability of that was already extremely low, btw, for actual technical reasons rather than political virtue signaling, but a discussion of that would not be on-topic for this thread).
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > "Okay to be black at our conference, not okay to wear corn rows", "Okay to be gay at our conference, not okay to kiss another member of the same sex", "Okay to be Christian at our conference, not okay to pray"? Well, aside from the fact that being black has little to do with wearing corn rows, and being gay has little to do with kissing (I'll grant that praying is tightly coupled to being Christian), I think it's fine for an IP holder to set a dress code, and to prohibit what kind of sexual activity can be endorsed using their IP. That's their right. Doesn't Disney get to say "no" to strip clubs who want to hold Disney nights, with official Disney logos and everything? The legal basis for them saying no to that is trademark law, which itself is rooted in the US Constitution. The praying thing would be a can of worms because of how religion works in our country, we'd have to talk about a more specific hypothetical for that to be a vehicle for productive discussion. > And yes, I agree with the OP that this kind of stuff has absolutely no business being in a trademark document, of all things. Okay, so you agree with me that the original poster was saying that the problem was with the legal vehicle used to enforce this policy. That poster made it seem that my inference was silly and inexplicable random nonsense, so I'm glad I'm not the only one who took it that way. But that still doesn't clear up if they can't use trademark for this purpose, and nothing you've said in your post really addresses that. Also there is a question of whether or not Rust should be able to restrict whether or not firearms are allowed at events aspiring to strongly associate themselves with Rust, specifically by using their trademarked logo. >> Can't they restrict the use of their IP in any way compatible with the first amendment? > Sure they can. And I'm permitted to point and laugh at their petty control-freakiness Great! So we are in agreement. But then why do you assert that Rust can't use trademark to restrict the use of their IP to events that don't permit weapons? I understand that you think it's the wrong use of trademark (and others have said that maybe a separate venue or event license is more appropriate), but that still doesn't mean that trademark can't be used like this. That is not clear to me. Either way, this seems like the best outcome, where everyone exercises their free speech rights, and right to association, while maintaining ownership rights. Rust gets to build a community they want, you get to not associate with them if you so choose, you and I are free to use whatever language we want, you and I are free to laugh at anyone we want, and the only thing you can't do is hold an event with Rust IP and allow people to bring their guns. You are still free to hold an event and invite people to bring their guns, but you won't be allowed to use the Rust IP. A small price to pay for freedom and liberty.

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?

Turing_Machine 4y ago

> 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. I find your attempted dichotomy between "identities" and "behaviors" unpersuasive. "Okay to be black at our conference, not okay to wear corn rows", "Okay to be gay at our conference, not okay to kiss another member of the same sex", "Okay to be Christian at our conference, not okay to pray"? Yeah, no. And yes, I agree with the OP that this kind of stuff has absolutely no business being in a trademark document, of all things. > Can't they restrict the use of their IP in any way compatible with the first amendment? Sure they can. And I'm permitted to point and laugh at their petty control-freakiness, and become even less likely to use Rust for anything than I was before (the probability of that was already extremely low, btw, for actual technical reasons rather than political virtue signaling, but a discussion of that would not be on-topic for this thread).

ModernMech 4y ago
> "Okay to be black at our conference, not okay to wear corn rows", "Okay to be gay at our conference, not okay to kiss another member of the same sex", "Okay to be Christian at our conference, not okay to pray"? Well, aside from the fact that being black has little to do with wearing corn rows, and being gay has little to do with kissing (I'll grant that praying is tightly coupled to being Christian), I think it's fine for an IP holder to set a dress code, and to prohibit what kind of sexual activity can be endorsed using their IP. That's their right. Doesn't Disney get to say "no" to strip clubs who want to hold Disney nights, with official Disney logos and everything? The legal basis for them saying no to that is trademark law, which itself is rooted in the US Constitution. The praying thing would be a can of worms because of how religion works in our country, we'd have to talk about a more specific hypothetical for that to be a vehicle for productive discussion. > And yes, I agree with the OP that this kind of stuff has absolutely no business being in a trademark document, of all things. Okay, so you agree with me that the original poster was saying that the problem was with the legal vehicle used to enforce this policy. That poster made it seem that my inference was silly and inexplicable random nonsense, so I'm glad I'm not the only one who took it that way. But that still doesn't clear up if they can't use trademark for this purpose, and nothing you've said in your post really addresses that. Also there is a question of whether or not Rust should be able to restrict whether or not firearms are allowed at events aspiring to strongly associate themselves with Rust, specifically by using their trademarked logo. >> Can't they restrict the use of their IP in any way compatible with the first amendment? > Sure they can. And I'm permitted to point and laugh at their petty control-freakiness Great! So we are in agreement. But then why do you assert that Rust can't use trademark to restrict the use of their IP to events that don't permit weapons? I understand that you think it's the wrong use of trademark (and others have said that maybe a separate venue or event license is more appropriate), but that still doesn't mean that trademark can't be used like this. That is not clear to me. Either way, this seems like the best outcome, where everyone exercises their free speech rights, and right to association, while maintaining ownership rights. Rust gets to build a community they want, you get to not associate with them if you so choose, you and I are free to use whatever language we want, you and I are free to laugh at anyone we want, and the only thing you can't do is hold an event with Rust IP and allow people to bring their guns. You are still free to hold an event and invite people to bring their guns, but you won't be allowed to use the Rust IP. A small price to pay for freedom and liberty.