Author Topic: Michael DeMarco's last minute legal response to lawsuit.  (Read 34041 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mike_Lice

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
  • Respect: +318
Re: Michael DeMarco's last minute legal response to lawsuit.
« Reply #75 on: February 02, 2015, 12:05:56 AM »
+1
Barbara Weed owns the domain name www.freedomainradio.co.uk. Wonder what will happen when Stefan has the trademark for "freedomain radio". Will he start ordering people like Barbera to take the site down?

Elucidated

  • Kallipolis Agitator
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 668
  • Respect: +213
Re: Michael DeMarco's last minute legal response to lawsuit.
« Reply #76 on: February 02, 2015, 03:54:26 PM »
0
 
Quote from: Wikipedia
Domain names The advent of the domain name system has led to attempts by trademark holders to enforce their rights over domain names that are similar or identical to their existing trademarks, particularly by seeking control over the domain names at issue. As with dilution protection, enforcing trademark rights over domain name owners involves protecting a trademark outside the obvious context of its consumer market, because domain names are global and not limited by goods or service.
This conflict is easily resolved when the domain name owner actually uses the domain to compete with the trademark owner. Cybersquatting, however, does not involve competition. Instead, an unlicensed user registers a domain name identical to a trademark, and offers to sell the domain to the trademark owner. Typosquatters—those registering common misspellings of trademarks as domain names—have also been targeted successfully in trademark infringement suits. "Gripe sites", on the other hand, tend to be protected as free speech, and are therefore more difficult to attach as trademark infringement.

 
“A gripe site is a type of website devoted to the critique and or mockery of a person, place, politician, corporation, or institution. “

 
“The web gives ordinary individuals the opportunity to publicly criticise the rich and powerful, including multinational corporations. Time and money is invested in the hope of gaining satisfaction by airing a perceived grievance and embarrassing the party which is the target of the "gripe".”

 
“In an attempt to shut down a gripe site, companies have sued the gripe site owner alleging defamation, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, libel and copyright infringement. Public Citizen, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, for example, have defended gripe site owners in court on the grounds that free speech gripe sites are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or civil liberties provisions of constitutions in other countries.”


 


 

Elvis_left_the_building

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Lewd and raunchy freethinker
  • Respect: +21
Re: Michael DeMarco's last minute legal response to lawsuit.
« Reply #77 on: February 02, 2015, 06:14:31 PM »
+1
Quote from: Wikipedia
Domain names The advent of the domain name system has led to attempts by trademark holders to enforce their rights over domain names that are similar or identical to their existing trademarks, particularly by seeking control over the domain names at issue. As with dilution protection, enforcing trademark rights over domain name owners involves protecting a trademark outside the obvious context of its consumer market, because domain names are global and not limited by goods or service.
This conflict is easily resolved when the domain name owner actually uses the domain to compete with the trademark owner. Cybersquatting, however, does not involve competition. Instead, an unlicensed user registers a domain name identical to a trademark, and offers to sell the domain to the trademark owner. Typosquatters—those registering common misspellings of trademarks as domain names—have also been targeted successfully in trademark infringement suits. "Gripe sites", on the other hand, tend to be protected as free speech, and are therefore more difficult to attach as trademark infringement.

 
“A gripe site is a type of website devoted to the critique and or mockery of a person, place, politician, corporation, or institution. “

 
“The web gives ordinary individuals the opportunity to publicly criticise the rich and powerful, including multinational corporations. Time and money is invested in the hope of gaining satisfaction by airing a perceived grievance and embarrassing the party which is the target of the "gripe".”

 
“In an attempt to shut down a gripe site, companies have sued the gripe site owner alleging defamation, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, libel and copyright infringement. Public Citizen, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, for example, have defended gripe site owners in court on the grounds that free speech gripe sites are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or civil liberties provisions of constitutions in other countries.”




She comes from the country with horrible food and tea time. Those Brits do not have any First Amendment.

mikef

  • FDR Authority
  • ****
  • Posts: 317
  • Respect: +133
Re: Michael DeMarco's last minute legal response to lawsuit.
« Reply #78 on: February 03, 2015, 12:21:42 AM »
+1
Barbara Weed owns the domain name www.freedomainradio.co.uk. Wonder what will happen when Stefan has the trademark for "freedomain radio". Will he start ordering people like Barbera to take the site down?


I'm starting to suspect that might be the motivation behind registering the TM, to pry that domain away from her.  It's not like there aren't dozens of other TLDs to squat as well should they get that one.


Whether it is or not for that purpose, with his list of enemies growing it's probably a good defensive move to get it locked down.  He should have done it years ago really.   Can't really fault him for doing it now.   More MMD influence I guess.

Argent

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Respect: +83
Re: Michael DeMarco's last minute legal response to lawsuit.
« Reply #79 on: February 03, 2015, 02:23:19 AM »
0
I'm interested in the corporation aspect of it. I think LDD was a new registration as well. Did he get it to provide himself with some legal shelter for future cases like this? Is he going to have to pay more taxes on his donations than maybe he did previously?

mikef

  • FDR Authority
  • ****
  • Posts: 317
  • Respect: +133
Re: Michael DeMarco's last minute legal response to lawsuit.
« Reply #80 on: February 03, 2015, 04:55:16 AM »
0
People seem to me making a big deal about this LDD Corp thing but I'm sitting here wondering what significance it could possibly have to anything.   It seems relatively insignificant to me.  It could just be my lack of imagination as to what the possibilities might be though.       

AnneCap

  • FDR Interested
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Respect: +5
Re: Michael DeMarco's last minute legal response to lawsuit.
« Reply #81 on: February 03, 2015, 05:48:28 AM »
0
People seem to me making a big deal about this LDD Corp thing but I'm sitting here wondering what significance it could possibly have to anything.   It seems relatively insignificant to me.  It could just be my lack of imagination as to what the possibilities might be though.     

I think you're right. More likely than not, it's just a more tax-effective way for Molyneux to pay his employee(s) and run his business.

Elvis_left_the_building

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Lewd and raunchy freethinker
  • Respect: +21
Re: Michael DeMarco's last minute legal response to lawsuit.
« Reply #82 on: February 03, 2015, 06:42:53 AM »
0


Whether it is or not for that purpose, with his list of enemies growing it's probably a good defensive move to get it locked down.  He should have done it years ago really.   Can't really fault him for doing it now.   More MMD influence I guess.


Given how much a fan of IP Stefan really is, that move is in accordance with his principles. ;D Is it necessary to sustain his business in the given environment? If so, at least it would not be hypocrisy. Casting cheap shots on critics by shutting their sites down that way would be the problem.

So, there is bad faith and good faith. :D I hope this chick has good faith and visit the church quite often. ;) http://www.out-law.com/page-5700

Her site is most likely a gripe site which went unnoticed for years. His attempt could be failing.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2015, 03:55:14 PM by Elvis_left_the_building »

Mike_Lice

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
  • Respect: +318
Re: Michael DeMarco's last minute legal response to lawsuit.
« Reply #83 on: February 03, 2015, 11:23:40 AM »
0
The fact that Stefan has a corporation is just Hilarious, because when you listen to the podcasts where he talks about corporations, he says they are evil.

Corporations are run by "high end fascist mercantilist pseudo capitalists", according to Stefan. min 30:35


IAmMe

  • FDR Interested
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Going balls out all the way!
  • Respect: +11
Re: Michael DeMarco's last minute legal response to lawsuit.
« Reply #84 on: February 03, 2015, 01:41:12 PM »
0
Quote from: Wikipedia
Domain names The advent of the domain name system has led to attempts by trademark holders to enforce their rights over domain names that are similar or identical to their existing trademarks, particularly by seeking control over the domain names at issue. As with dilution protection, enforcing trademark rights over domain name owners involves protecting a trademark outside the obvious context of its consumer market, because domain names are global and not limited by goods or service.
This conflict is easily resolved when the domain name owner actually uses the domain to compete with the trademark owner. Cybersquatting, however, does not involve competition. Instead, an unlicensed user registers a domain name identical to a trademark, and offers to sell the domain to the trademark owner. Typosquatters—those registering common misspellings of trademarks as domain names—have also been targeted successfully in trademark infringement suits. "Gripe sites", on the other hand, tend to be protected as free speech, and are therefore more difficult to attach as trademark infringement.

 
“A gripe site is a type of website devoted to the critique and or mockery of a person, place, politician, corporation, or institution. “

 
“The web gives ordinary individuals the opportunity to publicly criticise the rich and powerful, including multinational corporations. Time and money is invested in the hope of gaining satisfaction by airing a perceived grievance and embarrassing the party which is the target of the "gripe".”

 
“In an attempt to shut down a gripe site, companies have sued the gripe site owner alleging defamation, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, libel and copyright infringement. Public Citizen, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, for example, have defended gripe site owners in court on the grounds that free speech gripe sites are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or civil liberties provisions of constitutions in other countries.”




She comes from the country with horrible food and tea time. Those Brits do not have any First Amendment.


Not exactly worded as such, but we do have free speech.

And what's wrong with our tea time? Don't you like scones and cream?