Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mark Shuttleworth Sends Out Apologies

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
    He did not make it as a part of EFF, so he shouldn't have to make it using EFF rules.

    There are movies like "Supersize me" which are very popular and use a trademarked name: "Supersize menu" and ciriticized the Mc Donalds all over the movie. Similarly, Fat Head was criticizing expressly "Supersize me"
    Similarly, B*llsh!t! episodes use many nominative uses and criticize them all if they were the topic including Vatican.
    That's not the way fixubuntu.com was using the ubuntu logo and name. For once, look at the screenshot and tell where is the parody, the criticism, the disclaimer, or the use of the ubuntu logo other than branding the website.

    Where is the Wartmart Logo here?



    Where is it?

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
      That's not the way fixubuntu.com was using the ubuntu logo and name. For once, look at the screenshot and tell where is the parody, the criticism, the disclaimer, or the use of the ubuntu logo other than branding the website.

      Where is the Wartmart Logo here?



      Where is it?
      Let's compare with Supersize Me:
      "I'm loving it" is on the main poster. Supersize is on the main poster.



      Where is the disclaimer that is not a McDonalds enterprise?
      If you say: look, there is no McDonalds logo. Let's look on their DVD release:

      Comment


      • #73
        [IMG] [/IMG]

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
          Let's compare with Supersize Me:
          "I'm loving it" is on the main poster. Supersize is on the main poster.



          Where is the disclaimer that is not a McDonalds enterprise?
          If you say: look, there is no McDonalds logo. Let's look on their DVD release:
          /facepalm/

          sigh*

          That's a parody, obviously. It says "Documentary" That's a hint. That facial expression of that guys tells me suffering, unlikely to be endorsed by mcdonnals, . The way the french fries are in his mouth is grotesque, that's another hint of mockery and parody . Still, i do not see the McDonnals logo in the "supersize me " logo or branding ... or even the "mcdonnals" name anywhere in the cover. The "i'm loving it " motto is trademark of mcdonnals , however it appears in the cover as a quote from Peter Travers from the Rolling Stone magazine .

          In that back cover is clearly explained the nature of the movie which is a parody and/or critical to mcdonnals. You see the mcdonals logos only in photographs as a reference , is not used to brand the movie itself. Some disclaimer could be included within the movie but even then it might not be necessary . That's a very good Nominative Fair Use example and that's not the way fixubuntu.com was using ubuntu logos at all.

          So what is your point? Or are you just trying to give illustrative examples in my favor?

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
            /facepalm/

            sigh*

            That's a parody, obviously. It says "Documentary" That's a hint. That facial expression of that guys tells me suffering, unlikely to be endorsed by mcdonnals, . The way the french fries are in his mouth is grotesque, that's another hint of mockery and parody . Still, i do not see the McDonnals logo in the "supersize me " logo or branding ... or even the "mcdonnals" name anywhere in the cover. The "i'm loving it " motto is trademark of mcdonnals , however it appears in the cover as a quote from Peter Travers from the Rolling Stone magazine .

            In that back cover is clearly explained the nature of the movie which is a parody and/or critical to mcdonnals. You see the mcdonals logos only in photographs as a reference , is not used to brand the movie itself. Some disclaimer could be included within the movie but even then it might not be necessary . That's a very good Nominative Fair Use example and that's not the way fixubuntu.com was using ubuntu logos at all.

            So what is your point? Or are you just trying to give illustrative examples in my favor?
            Did you see the FixUbunto to use the logo... as for now it fixed so hopefully no complains from your side (visit www.fixUbuntu.com for making sure I'm right).

            So let's take the claims you said about this documentary:
            - That's a parody obviously, which makes that Fix Ubuntu is a critic, obviously.
            - you state: "I don't see (...) even the "mcdonnals" name anywhere in the cover" ". I'm not a native English speaker, but for me cover means both sides (the front side and the back side). If you look for the back side is shown: McDonalds logo four times: 2 times on the pack of fries, once on a McDonalds restaurant and once on the "coke glass". Also it reads clearly about McDonalds (with this typing). Even so, the two references from the front cover are still enough to not be necessarily the argument on your side, isn't it? You can't use the name of the product just because you don't use the name of the company, right? You can't use iPhone trademark (as non affiliated) and is not all right because you did not use the word Apple... but this seems to be your logic. If you miss the "I'm loving it" as being a direct reference to a McDonalds branding and the Supersize as being a McDonalds product, it seems you say: you're not selective of your proof but you're very selective at least in this specific proof on the other side.

            So as for now FixUbuntu fixes all criticism from your side (as you seem to not be a lawyer so read disclaimer) that it can be "confused" as an Ubuntu affiliated site. Also Mark apologized and most people publicly believed before that that Canonical:
            * Canonical ?abused trademark law? to target a site critical of Ubuntu
            * Canonical Apologizes For Trademark Bullying... And Again... And ...
            * Canonical, Ltd.'s Trademark Aggression - Bradley M. Kuhn
            * Canonical shouldn't abuse trademark law to silence critics of its ...
            * Shuttleworth sorry for Canonical trademark notice and open source

            More facts that you probably noticed: Mark did not only apologize to FixUbuntu in his blog but also on Google+, so maybe Mark felt that the facts are not on his side, but at least I'm glad that you think you have all the facts.

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
              Did you see the FixUbunto to use the logo... as for now it fixed so hopefully no complains from your side (visit www.fixUbuntu.com for making sure I'm right).

              So let's take the claims you said about this documentary:
              - That's a parody obviously, which makes that Fix Ubuntu is a critic, obviously.
              - you state: "I don't see (...) even the "mcdonnals" name anywhere in the cover" ". I'm not a native English speaker, but for me cover means both sides (the front side and the back side). If you look for the back side is shown: McDonalds logo four times: 2 times on the pack of fries, once on a McDonalds restaurant and once on the "coke glass". Also it reads clearly about McDonalds (with this typing). Even so, the two references from the front cover are still enough to not be necessarily the argument on your side, isn't it? You can't use the name of the product just because you don't use the name of the company, right? You can't use iPhone trademark (as non affiliated) and is not all right because you did not use the word Apple... but this seems to be your logic. If you miss the "I'm loving it" as being a direct reference to a McDonalds branding and the Supersize as being a McDonalds product, it seems you say: you're not selective of your proof but you're very selective at least in this specific proof on the other side.

              So as for now FixUbuntu fixes all criticism from your side (as you seem to not be a lawyer so read disclaimer) that it can be "confused" as an Ubuntu affiliated site. Also Mark apologized and most people publicly believed before that that Canonical:
              * Canonical ?abused trademark law? to target a site critical of Ubuntu
              * Canonical Apologizes For Trademark Bullying... And Again... And ...
              * Canonical, Ltd.'s Trademark Aggression - Bradley M. Kuhn
              * Canonical shouldn't abuse trademark law to silence critics of its ...
              * Shuttleworth sorry for Canonical trademark notice and open source

              More facts that you probably noticed: Mark did not only apologize to FixUbuntu in his blog but also on Google+, so maybe Mark felt that the facts are not on his side, but at least I'm glad that you think you have all the facts.
              I have already broken down and debunked every single claim and argument you are making there and much more from others. I could run in circles all day around you too, but i am bored of this.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                I have already broken down and debunked every single claim and argument you are making there and much more from others. I could run in circles all day around you too, but i am bored of this.
                Obviously you didn't. You statements are just of context of Mark just said. And based on this you said: "Mark never accepted wrongdoing". Isn't it the base of your argument? And you said Mark was right, just the template was wrong.

                Anyway, the things are different if you look for the whole context: in fact you are the only one here playing the innocent card for Mark, and no one seems to defend it. Creationists or evolutionists, various people with various legal expertize.

                Certainly some things you stated (at least for the last argument) are obviously (emphasis mine) wrong:
                - you stated that one thing is obviously a parody, even for me Supersize me is not a parody, compared with Fat Head which it is. Supersize me is a critical as Fix Ubuntu is. Anyway isn't it for you FixUbuntu not a critical site on Ubuntu and is made obvious by reading its content?
                - you stated that Canonical did not misbehave, but almost every public outlet said that Canonical did it. Are all this dumb?
                - you state "evolutionism" vs "creationism" in the idea that you live as a smart guy in a world of fanatics. Isn't it a red herring?

                Maybe I'm a guy that lives by a different standard, but all people around seem to be fairly on the same line. Isn't it you who seem to be a bit out of touch with reality?

                At last: your arguments will never go to a court, and I think what you say hopefully does not apply in a state of law. The reason is simply because courts should operate "beyond a reasonable doubt", and as you are here a tiny minority makes me think that (your arguments don't hold any water) is it very unlikely that attacking FixUbuntu (tm) in court would change anything, a jury will not be persuaded and the site will stay intact. Free speech allows sites like: Boycott Novell to be alive

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                  Which law case did you bring seven times? are you hallucinating too?

                  I was the one who brought the screenshot , mentioned, explained and quoted the "nominative Fair Use" doctrine, no one else. I already explained why fixubuntu.com can't use that doctrine as an excuse . What else do you need?

                  Again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use. That's what the EFF is citing too, and fixubuntu.com did not pass that test, is that simple.

                  Here is the quote again:

                  That's exactly what i am saying. So i am not laying obviously.

                  How can i dodge anything if you are not pointing out to anything!? I have nothing to admit because you are not saying anything at all! The three points enumerated by the fair use simply do not match the way fixubuntu.com is using the ubuntu logo, none of them!. I am presenting the evidence and the law. All you have to do is to compare. using a trademarked logo to brand your own website is NOT fair use. Why is that so hard to understand for you?

                  Well, it seems that for you, is not reasonable to think that , the opinion of a lawyer representing the client or itself is a biased opinion towards the client or itself . Creationists can cite hundreds of scientists who claim that evolution is wrong. I guess that you are one of those who believe those creationists claims then.
                  Wow, that is impressive. You managed to write that much while somehow avoiding addressing even a single one of my points. It is pointless trying to have a discussion with someone who refuses to actually respond to what others say.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
                    Obviously you didn't. You statements are just of context of Mark just said. And based on this you said: "Mark never accepted wrongdoing". Isn't it the base of your argument? And you said Mark was right, just the template was wrong.
                    That's only about what he actually said. And that's actually what he said. Go and read his posts and you'll find out that is what he is actually saying. How many times do i have to repeat this? I have already read it, and actually understood , the Canonical response. They are even accusing that media outlets of sensationalists, and i agree with that.


                    Anyway, the things are different if you look for the whole context
                    Of course, that's what i have been saying since the beginning .

                    in fact you are the only one here playing the innocent card for Mark, and no one seems to defend it. Creationists or evolutionists, various people with various legal expertize.
                    Maybe i am not one of those sheep who blindly follows the ochlocracy without thinking. No blatantly biased lawyers are credible , much less when they are blatantly wrong, this also demonstrates their bias

                    Certainly some things you stated (at least for the last argument) are obviously (emphasis mine) wrong:
                    - you stated that one thing is obviously a parody, even for me Supersize me is not a parody, compared with Fat Head which it is. Supersize me is a critical as Fix Ubuntu is. Anyway isn't it for you FixUbuntu not a critical site on Ubuntu and is made obvious by reading its content?
                    That's matter of opinion if you believe that "supersize me" is not a parody, i have no seen the movie but the front cover looks like a parody to me besides the "documentary" label, while the back cover makes it look more like criticism .

                    Still, you do not see the mcdonls words in "supersize me". You still do not see the mcdonals logo or name in the front cover. The 'i'm loving' it ' phrase is a quote from Peter Travers . In the back cover you only see the mcdonal's trademark logos in photographs as a reference, and the 'mcdonals' name at the syllabus . You do not see the mcdonals logos nor name as part of the brand of the movie, nowhere. That's fair use

                    fixubuntu.com was exactly the opposite. The owner misused the Canonical's ubuntu trademark only to brand the website. Nothing else. You do not see any clear hint of parody nor criticism, not even a disclaimer .And the name fixubuntu.com does not implies criticism. However, it could imply an endorsed service . So, what are you trying to argue?

                    - you stated that Canonical did not misbehave, but almost every public outlet said that Canonical did it. Are all this dumb?
                    Yes , they are.

                    - you state "evolutionism" vs "creationism" in the idea that you live as a smart guy in a world of fanatics. Isn't it a red herring?
                    Well, creationists usually cite at least 900 scientist coming from prestigious universities who vocally support their ridiculous creationists "theories". But 900 scientist is not consensus against hundreds of thousands of unbiased scientists who disagree them. Still, i do not believe in creationism , and only because it is a simply ridiculous 'theory' . So, there you have, good luck with your biased EFF experts that are defending their own political stance and good luck your fallacious argument from authority .

                    Maybe I'm a guy that lives by a different standard, but all people around seem to be fairly on the same line. Isn't it you who seem to be a bit out of touch with reality?
                    Well, i do not belong to your church. Maybe there IS a tea party after all.

                    At last: your arguments will never go to a court, and I think what you say hopefully does not apply in a state of law. The reason is simply because courts should operate "beyond a reasonable doubt", and as you are here a tiny minority makes me think that (your arguments don't hold any water) is it very unlikely that attacking FixUbuntu (tm) in court would change anything, a jury will not be persuaded and the site will stay intact. Free speech allows sites like: Boycott Novell to be alive
                    There is no doubt that Ubuntu trademarks are private property. Canonical has a very, very good chance to win that hypothetical lawsuit .

                    As you can see, you are dry now.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                      (...)
                      That's matter of opinion if you believe that "supersize me" is not a parody, i have no seen the movie but the front cover looks like a parody to me besides the "documentary" label, while the back cover makes it look more like criticism .
                      Still, you do not see the mcdonls words in "supersize me". You still do not see the mcdonals logo or name in the front cover. The 'i'm loving' it ' phrase is a quote from Peter Travers . In the back cover you only see the mcdonal's trademark logos in photographs as a reference, and the 'mcdonals' name at the syllabus . You do not see the mcdonals logos nor name as part of the brand of the movie, nowhere. That's fair use

                      fixubuntu.com was exactly the opposite. The owner misused the Canonical's ubuntu trademark only to brand the website. Nothing else. You do not see any clear hint of parody nor criticism, not even a disclaimer .And the name fixubuntu.com does not implies criticism. However, it could imply an endorsed service . So, what are you trying to argue?
                      "Supersize me" doesn't use McDonalds as Fix Ubuntu doesn't use Canonical, right? I think you would agree that Supersize is (or exactly was) a McDonalds product. And the gameplay "supersize" + me is the same as Ubuntu + Fix. Explain to me the difference, as for one I don't see it. Even more, McDonalds is certainly attacked both on the back cover and all over the documentary, is it certainly unscientific and is an oversimplification of what McDonalds is and what Supersize is also. Given this, it was not closed and I don't know any legal lawsuit from McDonalds against "Supersize me" and certainly not on trademark grounds.

                      As for now there was added a disclaimer, to make things clear, other than this, I don't think anyone got there and thought is an Ubuntu page, or affiliated, not anymore than "Boycott Novell" was a Novell affiliated site.

                      Look here for the B. Novell site:
                      http://web.archive.org/web/200702122...ottnovell.com/

                      You don't see disclaimer anywhere!

                      Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                      Well, creationists usually cite at least 900 scientist coming (...) . So, there you have, good luck with your biased EFF experts that are defending their own political stance and good luck your fallacious argument from authority .
                      Well, i do not belong to your church. Maybe there IS a tea party after all.
                      Why did you answer with another red herring? My accusation was that creationism (which it happen that I personally disagree with) was a red herring from your side. You answer that creationism is false but you didn't address the part of red herring, isn't it?
                      Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                      There is no doubt that Ubuntu trademarks are private property. Canonical has a very, very good chance to win that hypothetical lawsuit .
                      As you can see, you are dry now.
                      Mark here:
                      https://plus.google.com/116812394236...ts/5jdibY5iR9b
                      This was a bit silly on our part, sorry. Our trademark guidelines specifically allow satire and critique ('sucks sites') and we should at most have asked him to state that his use of the logo was subject to those guidelines.
                      So the content part was not the name but the Ubuntu logo. So it is clear to me that. The disclaimer could not be even necessary (at least from what Mark said), as it wasn't necessary in Supersize me, or in other documentaries or internet sources, or any place that uses it for parody, critic or any other form of free speech.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X