I'm not entirely sure how you're going to prove trademark infringement. Courts have argued whether Google's use is even commercial, much less if the use has a significant likelihood of confusion (mainly because Google's act of only putting these ads in a sponsored link is usually sufficient for the ordinary user to know that the trademark owner isn't sponsoring these advertisements of competitors.
What about dilution? I see a hard time because the majority of the trademark use is behind the scenes unknown to the user. Unless by typing in one trademark and getting another via sponsored links that's considered dilution by blurring, which I suppose is a possibility.
Just some random thoughts aloud, but I don't think this suit is going pass through. If it does, we might get some interesting new direct case law on the subject though.
I couldn't tell if the Copyright bigwigs that heard the argument were actually taking it seriously, but I sincerely hope that any appearance of sincerity was simply there for the sake of keeping respect for the hearings.
The one thing that I learned at the hearing was that you have to be fucking crazy in order to be a lawyer on their side. Even I (a soon to be unemployed law school graduate) didn't think that I could make this argument with a straight face even for tons of money.
That's what they mean by a copyright claim.
The only thing that was arguably be "retroactively disabled" were his subscriptions. He can still read his books that were on the Kindle, and he can still transfer new books onto his Kindle by plugging it in a computer and putting free books from third party sites on there.
As for losing access to archived books. I agree that sucks, but here's an idea: BACK IT UP on your computer. It's as easy as plugging it in and dragging and dropping them all on some folder in your HD.
I'm just more surprised that people here at Slashdot seem to condone this practice of buying big ticket items and then returning them constantly for "defects."
It's still high, yes. But it could be a lot worse.
As far as our government is concerned right now, ripping DVDs IS illegal when doing so circumvents the CSS, which is a violation of the DMCA. Everything that is being asked for is CURRENTLY illegal under the DMCA, regardless of what you or many other wishful thinking nerds believe. I don't understand why asking for these exemptions are a slippery slope -- how can you give up rights that you currently don't have under the law?
Now I understand your frustration, because it really is unfortunate that this is where we're at. But we don't succeed by ignoring the laws. We succeed by working with them, compromising, and then, hopefully, overcoming them with logic, common sense, and hopefully the backing of the American populace.
For example, one of the exemptions listed was for Media Film Studies education. The exemption was granted in 2006 and was a boon to that academic industry. This year, they are arguing that their 2006 exemption was so successful and necessary that they are asking to expand the exemption to encompass even more uses. They used clear factual examples, compelling legal arguments, and logic to show the LOC that it is necessary to expand their rights, and I hope that they get it.
To some (or most) these may seem like small potatoes sure, but they're a legitimate foot in the door. The odds of an exemption being granted that simply asks for something as broad as "everything that is under fair-use" is extremely unlikely. But, if we continue to succeed at these exemptions and show Washington that this is where the people are heading, this is what society needs, and these are the reasons why we are having issues, maybe that becomes one more brick in the wall to convince them that the DMCA is not a good idea.
Link to Original Source