Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mark Shuttleworth Sends Out Apologies

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by bkor View Post
    I said that Canonical apologized in various ways. So I'm not talking about one response, I'm talking about multiple.

    Regarding your idiotic "arguments from authority": READ IT YOURSELF!!!

    "cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert": You're really saying that a lawyer is not a subject-matter expert?

    GET REAL ALREADY!!
    * cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter: A biased lawyer is hardly a consensus
    * any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
      * any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.
      You can't apply deductive reasoning to laws, as they are out of the formal logic scope.

      Comment


      • #53
        I don't see how that doesn't fall under fair use. There was never anything stating that the website was endorsed by Canonical (reading the content, it's clear that it's not). Using the logo is informative ? you can tell that the information is applicable to Ubuntu (otherwise you'd have to start taking down all the web articles that use the Ubuntu logo when reporting news about it). It's not even using the official colours, too. The favicon is really irrelevant, because it also falls under fair use (that's much smaller than web resolution and also of different colours). They're also not releasing a product with the Ubuntu name or profiting from that in any way.

        Sure, the lack of a disclaimer is not nice, but that's unintentional. Instead of a takedown notice, the site owners should have got sent a request for a disclaimer.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
          I don't see how that doesn't fall under fair use. There was never anything stating that the website was endorsed by Canonical (reading the content, it's clear that it's not). Using the logo is informative ? you can tell that the information is applicable to Ubuntu (otherwise you'd have to start taking down all the web articles that use the Ubuntu logo when reporting news about it). It's not even using the official colours, too. The favicon is really irrelevant, because it also falls under fair use (that's much smaller than web resolution and also of different colours). They're also not releasing a product with the Ubuntu name or profiting from that in any way.

          Sure, the lack of a disclaimer is not nice, but that's unintentional. Instead of a takedown notice, the site owners should have got sent a request for a disclaimer.
          The use of the logo was not nominative .The Ubuntu logo was used to brand the website itself and nothing else . Just look at the screenshot. That is not fair use at all. And the use of the word ubuntu "fixubuntu" in the url is accusative , not nominative. Companies and projects are in general entitled to protect their trademarks , for instance http://wordpress.org/about/domains/.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
            The use of the logo was not nominative .The Ubuntu logo was used to brand the website itself and nothing else . Just look at the screenshot. That is not fair use at all. And the use of the word ubuntu "fixubuntu" in the url is accusative , not nominative. Companies and projects are in general entitled to protect their trademarks , for instance http://wordpress.org/about/domains/.
            Nope, I'm not seeing that. By that logic, Canonical should be closing down Kubuntu, Xubuntu etc. websites because they have the word "Ubuntu" in them and they are not affiliated with Canonical. They even produce a product with that name!
            I also don't see how you can draw a distinction between "nominative" and "accusative". It's clearly nominative. It says that the website is about changing something in Ubuntu. Making the name "Fix the primary Linux distribution made by Canonical" makes zero sense (and http://fixtheprimarylinuxdistributio...canonical.com/ makes even less sense).

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
              The use of the logo was not nominative .The Ubuntu logo was used to brand the website itself and nothing else . Just look at the screenshot. That is not fair use at all. And the use of the word ubuntu "fixubuntu" in the url is accusative , not nominative. Companies and projects are in general entitled to protect their trademarks , for instance http://wordpress.org/about/domains/.
              When did you get your law degree?

              And which school? I'm going to call them and ask them to take you back because obviously the education didn't sink in the first time.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                Nope, I'm not seeing that. By that logic, Canonical should be closing down Kubuntu, Xubuntu etc. websites because they have the word "Ubuntu" in them and they are not affiliated with Canonical. They even produce a product with that name!
                I also don't see how you can draw a distinction between "nominative" and "accusative". It's clearly nominative. It says that the website is about changing something in Ubuntu. Making the name "Fix the primary Linux distribution made by Canonical" makes zero sense (and http://fixtheprimarylinuxdistributio...canonical.com/ makes even less sense).
                Kubuntu and Xubuntu are registered trademarks, property of Canonical. Domain names are liable for trademark infringement . For instance, wordpress have a strong position regarding domain names see http://wordpress.org/about/domains/

                And fixubuntu.com did not follow the tips from the EFF itself: https://www.eff.org/wp/tips-shutting-down-g

                Don't use the target's name alone in the domain name ? adding "sucks" is good, but you can be creative. Point is, www.badco.com is more likely to be perceived by a trademark owner as confusing than www.ihatebadco.com. And remember, if your content is good and people link to it, your site will likely come up in Google searches for your topic, no matter what your domain name is. Often, the domain name isn't worth the trouble.
                Futhermore, it does not matter the content of the website itself, "fix ubuntu " could be perfectly perceived as click-bait or trademark stuffing .

                It is absolutely clear that fixubuntu is the abusive one.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by dee. View Post
                  When did you get your law degree?

                  And which school? I'm going to call them and ask them to take you back because obviously the education didn't sink in the first time.
                  You do not need a mathematics PHD to understand that two plus two equals four. I giving plain and solid arguments instead of just invoking worthless fallacies.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                    Kubuntu and Xubuntu are registered trademarks, property of Canonical. Domain names are liable for trademark infringement .
                    (...)
                    And fixubuntu.com did not follow the tips from the EFF itself: (...)
                    It is absolutely clear that fixubuntu is the abusive one.
                    Yes, but this doesn't make it abusive!

                    The fact that a guy from EFF does want to follow or not to follow the rules of EFF (as long as he didn't state that he does it on behalf of his employer), is in his power and best interest based on his values.

                    Even more, the fact that he does not get any personal gain (like the site comes with no ads or endorsements) and he fight for a personal cause makes less likely an abuse, as Red Cross (an agnostic movement as of today) is an abuse of Christianity or the Pope.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                      And frankly , i have never been impressed with arguments from authority . If that's all you have, then move on, because that is a worthless argument to begin with .
                      The only one using argument from authority is you. You have no knowledge of the details of the law, no knowledge of the relevant case law, no knowledge about how the rules are actually applied in practice. EFF has relevant expertise and has provided case law that they claim back up their interpretation. You have provided nothing whatsoever other than your interpretation of their own position.

                      Argument from authority is only a fallacy if the person does not have any expertise in the subject and/or the person is trying to use their authority to dismiss evidence provided by the other side. You are doing both. In fact you have not even bothered to acknowledge the fact that the EFF presented case law to back up their position, not to mention even begin to explain why those cases do not support their position.

                      For example, you provide these arguments:
                      1 The ubuntu logo was used in the banner to brand the website
                      2 The favicon was the ubuntu logo
                      3 No disclaimer
                      4 No hint of parody or criticism , nothing!

                      However, you provide no evidence that any of these are remotely relevant to nominative fair use, and in fact your own source (which is wikipedia, not the EFF) directly contradicts at least 2 of your points. It provides several criteria, which you quote, but neither a disclaimer nor parady or criticism appear anywhere in your own list of criteria (or the article as a whole).

                      Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                      * cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter: A biased lawyer is hardly a consensus
                      Perhaps not, but you have

                      1. Provided no evidence that they are biased (the EFF are not lawyers for hire, they take on cases they think are relevant to their mission).
                      2. Ignore the fact that case law, which does indicate consensus.

                      Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                      * any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.
                      This is not deductive reasoning. Civil law systems use inductive reasoning, based on evidence provided in the history of case law on the subject.

                      I am not surprised you are ignoring the case law, though, since it clearly agrees with the EFF interpretation, not yours.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X