Ah, but notice that the lemur species known as the Aye-Aye [not sure if the similar sounding Dik-Dik is a pejorative used amongst the Aye-Aye to refer to members of the species who are being annoying - but I digress] avoided infringing the Ozz-meister by only using a 2-fold repetition in choosing their name. Clever! Of course there is a long-running and very ugly copyright dispute between the Aye-Aye and the english-speaking nautical community, which has long made a habit of using the disputed monkier in question to precede 'Captain' when responding to an order from said personage. It is legend that some of the ill-feeling in said dispute is due to a misapprehension on the part of the seamen, who on first seeing the Aye-Aye's notably long middle finger thought it was being raised in their direction. However this tale is, like so many nautical yarns, apocryphal.

But I'm afraid you're still on the hook, buster.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;406855][CODE][/CODE]
But I'm afraid you're still on the hook, buster.[/QUOTE]
Just as long as Disney isn't on my ass. They probably get medieval.

[URL="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150806/19510931877/news-corp-makes-copyright-claim-over-news-corps-live-video-stream-gop-debate.shtml"]News Corp. Makes Copyright Claim Over News Corp's Live Video Stream Of The GOP Debate[/URL]
[QUOTE]A few people also pointed out that you could watch the stream live via Sky News' YouTube livestream. The debate was officially the "Facebook/Fox News" debate, so it seems odd enough that it wasn't streaming anywhere on Facebook, but we'll leave that aside for now. Yet, with about 15 minutes left in the debate, the livestream on YouTube suddenly disappeared and you got this:

"Sky News L.." This video is no longer available due to a copyright by Fox News, LLC.

In short, Fox News issued a copyright takedown to YouTube over Sky News' streaming the debate. While that might sound perfectly reasonable, it seems worth pointing out that [B]both Fox News and Sky News are owned by the same company: News Corp.[/B]. Yes, News Corp. effectively DMCA'd itself. Because that's how copyright works.[/QUOTE]
The bold emphasis is from the original article.

All your pixels are belong to us
 

[URL="http://techraptor.net/content/copyright-troll-lodges-dmca-claims-for-using-the-word-pixels"]Copyright Troll Lodges DMCA Claims For Using the Word “Pixels”[/URL]
[QUOTE]Anti-piracy firm Entura International, working on behalf of Columbia pictures, has recently issued numerous DMCA notices to the site Vimeo. It seems they have taken aim at any video containing the word “pixels” in the title, even if the content of the videos is completely original, and many of the videos predate the movie Pixels by several years. The details of the claim can be seen at Chilling Effects.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;407517][URL="http://techraptor.net/content/copyright-troll-lodges-dmca-claims-for-using-the-word-pixels"]Copyright Troll Lodges DMCA Claims For Using the Word “Pixels”[/URL][/QUOTE]

Like frivolous civil injury lawsuits, thus type of legalistic action should be legally punishable.
A counterclaim should result in triple damages plus attorney fees plus court costs Yes?

But titles and content SHOULD be protected as intellectual property for those who care.

Author's remunerations matter !

[QUOTE=davar55;407544]Like frivolous civil injury lawsuits, thus type of legalistic action should be legally punishable.
A counterclaim should result in triple damages plus attorney fees plus court costs Yes?

But titles and content SHOULD be protected as intellectual property for those who care.

Author's remunerations matter ![/QUOTE]
This is drivel. You can do better.

First off, do coulda, woulda, shouldas mean that laws are or aren't working as intended?

After that, be clear on what is intended for, or by, whom.

Are you sure a dog didn't eat your homework?

[QUOTE=only_human;407563]Are you sure a dog didn't eat your homework?[/QUOTE]
It seems that I, too, "must try harder" because davar55's suggestion actually seemed reasonable to me. At least, I certainly don't think individual words in the language like "pixels" should be copyrightable by anyone, and the video company being targetted will presumably be suffering costs in defending itself against the copyright claims so counter-claims of some sort seem to me in order. Hope you can educate me and put me right, Ross.:unsure:

The problem first is with [I]should[/I]. Individual words [B]are[/B] protected. The protection is called a trademark. That you brought up copyright shows that that the entire idea of intellectual property being one thing is already working its insidious blurring of ownership.

Protecting a trademark requires diligence and if not actively protected, ownership can be lost. Trademark law is working as intended.

The takedowns that davar55 is replying about are caused by the Digital Millennium COPYRIGHT Act. This is an unintended effect of the law. Coca-Cola might be very happy if they just sent out DMCA claims on use of their product name rather than starting with lawyer letters. Perhaps that convenience could be added to the TPP legislation.

p.s.
How about I make seven movies about lurid words, consider that my using these words individually is so creative that they are copyright protectable to prevent others from copying my massive labor of creativity and then shut down the usage of the words wherever they occur as a desirable and deserving act to protect my creative work? Also see the blurring between the title and the work? This is too much to pursue in a postscript; and I haven't set this as my homework anyway. Should I?

I understand that words can be trademarked, but only if they are your own creation, am I right? Words which are in general use in language cannot be commandeerd in that way. So the [U]origin[/U] of the seven "lurid words" would be crucial in your example, wouldn't it?

(I ask those as questions because I am not familiar with the details of the law and prefer to hear about it from someone like you who is rather than wade through it all myself. You'll find me very lazy when it comes to doing homework.)

[QUOTE=Brian-E;407617]I understand that words can be trademarked, but only if they are your own creation, am I right? Words which are in general use in language cannot be commandeerd in that way. So the [U]origin[/U] of the seven "lurid words" would be crucial in your example, wouldn't it?

(I ask those as questions because I am not familiar with the details of the law and prefer to hear about it from someone like you who is rather than wade through it all myself. You'll find me very lazy when it comes to doing homework.)[/QUOTE]
When applying the correct law in first place one gets clarity. In this case trademark law is concerned with distinctive appearance and consumer confusion of products and usage.

By applying copyright law instead, I am able to apply all the power and convenience of a law designed to protect a creative work on a general instance of a word. This is a misuse of the law and going on about how this misuse should function and what is reasonable when the law is misused this way is beyond annoying. It is like using a littering law for firing a gun.

These are more inline with applying existing laws with intended protection although even some of these instances are stretches. DMCA takedowns have very limited overlap.
[URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/star-wars-the-force-awakens/lucasfilm-trademarks-patents-copyright-lawsuits/"]Star Wars lawsuits: who has Lucasfilm sued and why?[/URL]

In fact in some instances they have encouraged derivative works and parodies:
[URL="http://www.duetsblog.com/2014/10/articles/trademarks/star-wars-redefining-trademark-and-copyright-law-since-a-long-time-ago/"]Star Wars: Redefining Trademark and Copyright Law Since A Long Time Ago[/URL]
In this second article you may find that Darth Vader's breathing was just trademarked in 2009.
BTW if I had realized that [I]vader[/I] means father in German and considered that George Lucas' father has Swiss-German heritage, I might have found a plot spoiler in Darth Vader's name.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;407617]Words which are in general use in language cannot be commandeerd in that way.[/QUOTE]Wrong. Existence proof: "Windows". Context is important.