10 ms·
Who else hates the ignorance inherent in phrases like "the fair use law." They got it right in the very next sentence of their FAQ ("doctrine of fair use"). And
by eschaton 13y ago
Who else hates the ignorance inherent in phrases like "the fair use law." They got it right in the very next sentence of their FAQ ("doctrine of fair use"). And then they made the same mistake again later with "the parody law" instead of "the concept of parody" or something similar.
If you're going to attempt to make an argument about the law, you'd best at least try not to sound like an idiot. It's like the people in software who confuse copyright, trademark, and patent: Your business is IP, have at least the most cursory understanding of the concepts damn it!
- rspeer 13y agoThis company is obviously trying to lose a lawsuit. Someone is trying to move the goalposts of "fair use". That Web page is not written by someone who believes what they're saying, and the ignorance is probably part of the plan. Dumb Starbucks will get sued, and they'll hire a dumb lawyer, who will take the very dumb approach of fighting the case to the end, and then the company will get forcefully shut down for trademark violations. And the smart company that's bankrolling this, whoever they are, will point to the precedent of Starbucks v. Dumb Starbucks the next time they want to silence some actual fair use.
- seizethecheese 13y agoWoah, that is some epic speculation, and it actually seems plausible.