In the Future, All Space Marines Will Be Warhammer 40K Space Marines

[eldargal]

Also both the USSR and China tried to put the means of production in the hands of the workers, particularly with agriculture, and both times it resulted in famine. Turns out when people don't have a profit motive and aren't being ordered about they do a really, really terrible job.

Regardless, Communism doesn't work. I mean when your response to criticism is 'well we haven't got Star Trek replicators yet' I think you need to have a good, hard look at your ideology.

[Caitsidhe]

We might not see anything in court as previously said most issues are settled in mediation. We are unaware of any of the conversation that is occuring between the different parties. I would imagine that the asking of amazon to take down the book was an initial defence to protect their trademark till it was determined what exactly was going on. In the same way Apple and Samsung have had their products variously blocked around the world on alleged claims of infringement. Indeed for all we know the parties may have come to an agreement with regard to this and so resolved be back available. Amazon might have decided not to act on this request, after all it was a request and not a mandate.

If we accept the Author at her word (and I have no reason not to) there was zero discussion between her and Games Workshop despite her best efforts. They merely ignored her. This means the only discussions that happened were between Games Workshop and Amazon. No change in the situation came until the author, in frustration, got more attention when she appealed for public help and received it. You and I have a different way of looking at things. A "cease and desist" order doesn't sound like a request. The law doesn't look at it that way either if there was no real intent to follow up. However, I am willing to consider the fact that Games Workshop might have issued it without bothering to really look into the matter. That is unprofessional and idiotic, but it isn't full of malign intent. In other words, they either acted like idiots or they acted like brutes. I'm not sure which label they prefer. I don't expect to hear anything more about it because I think Games Workshop knows they wouldn't win in court and all they are reaping from this exercise in futility was bad press.

In a painting it would be very hard to distinguish Scotch tape from any other form of sticky tape such as sellotape for instance. If the image of the packaging was included in your picture then how it was composed would determine whether or not it violated their copyright (as you would have to include their logo to distinguish it).

This may be a difference of country. In the United States I can paint a portrait of ACTUAL Scotch Tape right down to the little TM mark indicating a Trademark. Warhol's Soup Can painting is an excellent example of this. The painting is not an infringement on their Copyright or their Trademark. This is because it in no way can be confused with soup, nor was Warhol selling any. I can write a book called Scotch Tape and do fiction or parody as I see fit. The Trademark is not an issue because referencing a real world product or company doesn't impede the Trademark. In the United States, at least, you don't get to own ideas utterly simply by planting a flag on them.

If the term Space Marine was genric, then when the mark was registered there was sufficient time for people to raise objections about it, and if they were valid the mark would never have been granted.

Again, I've been reading up on Trademark in the United Kingdom since I like to know something before I say too much. Your laws and our laws don't seem to differ in any substantial way in regards to the meat and potatoes of this issue. Trademark cannot be applied the way it was attempted here. I think you and I can agree on the substantial issue that the book in question doesn't infringe, has nothing to do with Games Workshop, and Amazon did the right thing in putting it back up. I think you and I can also agree on the fact that it should probably have been researched before it was taken down.

[gendoikari87]

Also both the USSR and China tried to put the means of production in the hands of the workers, particularly with agriculture, and both times it resulted in famine. Turns out when people don't have a profit motive and aren't being ordered about they do a really, really terrible job.

Regardless, Communism doesn't work. I mean when your response to criticism is 'well we haven't got Star Trek replicators yet' I think you need to have a good, hard look at your ideology.

No china put the means of production in the hands of the government. and yes, being as one of the prerequisites for communism is moving past a scarcity based economy, it's a valid criticism to those who know nothing of what they're ****ing talking about, as you clearly do not.

[gendoikari87]

In other words, Communism is a load of fanciful nonsense that has been used as justification to kill tens of millions of people since 1917.

Wrong. That would be fascism parading around as communism. Now yes you can make teh accusation that in attempting to implement a socialist society, you run the risk of instead creating a fascist one, that's fair. But to say socialism doesn't work because of the few ones that turned to fascism is just ****ing ignorance.

[Caitsidhe]

<laughs> I'm not in Kansas anymore am I Toto? I just noticed this thread had been moved in location. I was "this" close to commenting on the weird tangent into the nature of Communism and why I thought it should get its own thread. Down here that doesn't matter I expect. I'm not jumping into that pool of economic and political voodoo. That is way over my head.

[Psychosplodge]

As I said, we have a higher standard of debate down here...

[Wolfshade]

I think we are approaching consensus here Caitsidhe. (the internet must be broken)

I think we both agree that GWs request to stop the book was done before the content of the book was known.
If the book was a dilution of GW's brand then it would be seen as prudent, as it's not it would be seen as rash or if you prefer brutish.

When attempting to block such things it is often easier to target the service provider (Amazon) rather than content provider. Indeed this is evident in the way that instead of stopping Pirate Bay and closing it down, ISPs in the UK have been told to block access to it. The service provider is often not bothered too much about whether or not the case has merit as the specific custom is not going to effect it's business and so it is the weakest link.

I think the issue is how the term was being used, if you see space marine as adjective noun then it is common usage and so not a trademark issue, the same was I can use 40,000 in normal usage (though that again is owned by GW). However, if you see it as Space Marine as a proper noun then it is no longer common usage and is GW registered trademark. it is a subtle difference I know but the distinction is clear.

Consider the household item the vacuum cleaner. A very famous brand is Hoover and indeed if I spoke of an hoover you would know exactly what I meant, but I could never sell my vacuum cleaner as an hoover.

[Caitsidhe]

I think we are approaching consensus here Caitsidhe. (the internet must be broken)

Perhaps, but I prefer to believe that people like you and I can engage in a civilized debate (even a passionate one) and actually come to some conclusions and mutual agreement on the points upon which can be agreed upon. Likewise, I like to believe that such people can also agree to disagree when the discussion makes it clear. Far too many people argue just for the sake of argument and thus don't actually care about the search for truth in the debate. I'm glad that you and I don't fall into that grouping.

I think we both agree that GWs request to stop the book was done before the content of the book was known.
If the book was a dilution of GW's brand then it would be seen as prudent, as it's not it would be seen as rash or if you prefer brutish.

I think this is likely, so I will defer and agree to it. The cynical part of me wants to believe that they knew better and were making an aggressive move to try and expand their IP, but in researching "how" Games Workshop and some other companies just use search engines and send "automated" letters, I am convinced they didn't do it on purpose. I think they need to REVIEW that process. I think accuracy is more important than quantity in this case.

When attempting to block such things it is often easier to target the service provider (Amazon) rather than content provider. Indeed this is evident in the way that instead of stopping Pirate Bay and closing it down, ISPs in the UK have been told to block access to it. The service provider is often not bothered too much about whether or not the case has merit as the specific custom is not going to effect it's business and so it is the weakest link.

I think that is how it happened too, and therein lies the problem. Treating EVERYONE as hackers and pirates, assuming guilt and acting as if every artist is a thief is not a good way to run a business nor public relations. While I understand the mentality of going after Amazon, my issue is the lack of context and assumption that I (and everyone else) is by default a thief. If they are going to make the jump into literature and such, they are going to accept that the same process by which they try and look for and stop people from scanning and distributing their books via PDF is not appropriate.

I think the issue is how the term was being used, if you see space marine as adjective noun then it is common usage and so not a trademark issue, the same was I can use 40,000 in normal usage (though that again is owned by GW). However, if you see it as Space Marine as a proper noun then it is no longer common usage and is GW registered trademark. it is a subtle difference I know but the distinction is clear.

I'm not so sure about this part (in our agreement). My reading and understanding of Trademark is that it deals in specifics, not generalities. By my understanding, I can write a book about Space Marines if I want as long as it is clearly not the Space Marines of Games Workshop. In short, the product line is defined by more than a generic name. We would have no argument at all if as... see below...

Consider the household item the vacuum cleaner. A very famous brand is Hoover and indeed if I spoke of an hoover you would know exactly what I meant, but I could never sell my vacuum cleaner as an hoover.

Hoover is a very distinct, i.e. near unique name and applied to vacuum cleaners. This is a strong Trademark and you will get no argument from me about their ability to say, "you can't call your machine a Hoover." The context counts, however, as I could certainly write a book about an evil Hoover that starts killing people (silly as such a story would be) and I would not require their permission. I would probably ask for it to be polite, but in such a flight of fantasy and parody, it is not required.

The issue comes into clarity with the word "cola" which is generic, while coca-cola is not.

[Denzark]

Flaunting ignorance is not pretty. Again if you haven't read Das Kapital and The communist manifesto, you need to STFU about communism and what is and isn't communist. And probably all economics as well.

Really? So there are no good sports commentators who have never played the sport they comment upon? I can't talk about what is an Islamic country becuase I haven't read the Koran? What a stupid argument - I don't need to eat a sh*t sandwich to know it won't taste nice and it will make me vomit.

You are clearly sensitive about this Comrade Gendoikariavisch - are you a red under the bed or bouncing up and down on it with a picture of Comrade Che on your nighty?

[Mr Mystery]

Well this has gone awry!

Me, I've been mucking about with a custom sofa design website....£760ish for a corner sofa/sofa bed combo? Not bad at all!