[QUOTE=xilman;407621]Wrong. Existence proof: "Windows". Context is important.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, context is very important. That is why Apple lost the fight over [I]App Store[/I]

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_store#.22App_Store.22_trademark[/url]
[QUOTE]"App Store" trademark
See also: Apple Inc. litigation § Amazon "App Store"
Due to its popularity, the term "app store" (first used by Apple's App Store for the iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad lines) has frequently been used as a generic trademark to refer to other distribution platforms of a similar nature on both mobile devices and other platforms such as smart TVs. The model has done so well in and become so recognized by consumer markets that businesses have begun developing and deploying their own, branded app stores for their employees and customer populations. However, Apple has asserted trademark claims over the phrase, and filed a trademark registration for "App Store" in 2008. In 2011, Apple sued both Amazon.com (who runs the Amazon Appstore for Android-based devices) and GetJar (who has offered its services since 2004) for trademark infringement and false advertising regarding the use of the term "app store" to refer to their services.[17] Microsoft filed multiple objections against Apple's attempt to register the name as a trademark, considering it to already be a generic term.[18]
[B]
In January 2013, Apple's claims were rejected by a US District judge, who argued that the company presented no evidence that Amazon had "[attempted] to mimic Apple’s site or advertising", or communicated that its service "possesses the characteristics and qualities that the public has come to expect from the Apple APP STORE and/or Apple products"[19] In July 2013, Apple dropped its case.[/B][/QUOTE]

P.S.
By using trademark law in the first place it becomes immediately apparent that that asserting protection to a generic word is extremely difficult. That is my point on using the correct law:
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark"]Generic trademark[/URL]

PPS:
On the merit of addressing the correct point:
[URL="https://screen.yahoo.com/weekend-emily-litella-violins-tv-000000080.html"]Weekend Update: Emily Litella on Violins on TV[/URL]

[QUOTE]
As early as 2002, a court rejected Microsoft's claims, stating that Microsoft had used the term "windows" to describe graphical user interfaces before the product, Windows, was ever released, and the windowing technique had already been implemented by Xerox and Apple many years before. Microsoft kept seeking retrial, but in February 2004, a judge rejected two of Microsoft's central claims. The judge denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction and raised "serious questions" about Microsoft's trademark. Microsoft feared a court may define "Windows" as generic and result in the loss of its status as a trademark.
[/QUOTE]Source: [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com,_Inc.[/URL]

It's quite interesting, I think, that Microsoft had no worries about possibly being associated with this [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_(film)"]widely derided film[/URL] from 1980. And I guess those involved in that film will have been too embarrassed to try to protect their multiple Golden Raspberry-nominationed effort.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;407679]It's quite interesting, I think, that Microsoft had no worries about possibly being associated with this [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_(film)"]widely derided film[/URL] from 1980. And I guess those involved in that film will have been too embarrassed to try to protect their multiple Golden Raspberry-nominationed effort.[/QUOTE]
Again, no.

Titles are not copyrightable. There is nothing in the movie name to protect unless they sought a trademark for merchandising. Any conflict would be with existing trademarks. Trademarks must be protected.

I didn't say this was an assignment to study or that it would be on the test so let's make this clear:
[URL="http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html"]What Does Copyright Protect?[/URL]
[QUOTE][B]Can I copyright the name of my band?[/B]
No. Names are not protected by copyright law. Some names may be protected under trademark law. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, [email]TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov[/email] or see Circular 34 "Copyright Protection Not Availalbe for Names, Titles, or Short Phrases".

[B]How do I copyright a name, title, slogan, or logo?[/B]
Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, [email]TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov[/email] or see Circular 34, for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark. [/QUOTE]

What homework I wanted davar55 to do was read the law about DMCA takedowns before writing how they should work. This is the law:
[url]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512[/url]
I am not a lawyer either and on this forum I have on several occasions criticized the supposition that laymen are at fault if the do not parse legalese. So regarding DMCA takedowns, I would have been more than happy with a peek of the Wikipedia page. I know almost nobody uses the real name and it is a burden to look for it, so here it is:
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act"]Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act[/URL]
Criticism: Improper removal of content
[QUOTE]
There is some evidence that ISPs tend to quickly take down allegedly infringing content on request by copyright holders, in situations where the content is actually non-infringing and should be preserved.[26][27] This may be because ISPs have much more to lose by forfeiting their safe harbor than by angering a user whose content is improperly removed.

Chilling Effects estimates that OSPs remove allegedly offending content even though approximately 60% of all takedown notices are flawed. Notices can be flawed in several ways. Many fail to follow the requirements of the statute. [B]Others ask for material to be taken down for reasons such as trademark infringement and defamation that are unrelated to copyright infringement[/B].[28][/QUOTE]

Now I know I was harsh about his proposals concerning a law that he didn't look at -- but I merely want him to have an idea what he is talking about before saying how it should work. I'm telling this to you because of your gentle admonishment of my tough love message to him and your support for his ideas. I've tried everything else first. This thread we are currently reading is a record of me doing that.

As regarding his remedies, safe harbor protection prevents all of that.

But what really got my goat was his justification for his screed:
"Author's remunerations matter !"

Of course they do and protection is essential to receiving compensation but wouldn't it be more direct to take media conglomerates to task for the way they control the revenue and compensation?

[QUOTE=only_human;407683]Now I know I was harsh about his proposals concerning a law that he didn't look at -- but I merely want him to have an idea what he is talking about before saying how it should work. I'm telling this to you because of your gentle admonishment of my tough love message to him and your support for his ideas. I've tried everything else first. This thread we are currently reading is a record of me doing that.[/QUOTE]
No, I was not admonishing you, Ross.

It's true that I was trying to take a bit of the heat away from davar55, but that heat is coming from many sources here at the moment (as you well know). I picked your contribution arbitrarily.

I appreciate the information you write about intellectual property and the law surrounding it. It's a subject about which I am completely ignorant, as I have demonstrated.:blush:

[QUOTE=Brian-E;407689]No, I was not admonishing you, Ross.

It's true that I was trying to take a bit of the heat away from davar55, but that heat is coming from many sources here at the moment (as you well know). I picked your contribution arbitrarily.

I appreciate the information you write about intellectual property and the law surrounding it. It's a subject about which I am completely ignorant, as I have demonstrated.:blush:[/QUOTE]
I appreciate that empathy and it motivates me to explicitly say that I value davar55's contributions and consider him to be very helpful in keeping things rolling so that issues are more thoroughly discussed.

[QUOTE=only_human;407690]I appreciate that empathy and it motivates me to explicitly say that I value davar55's contributions and consider him to be very helpful in keeping things rolling so that issues are more thoroughly discussed.[/QUOTE]

I sense irony... :)

[QUOTE=davar55;408627]I sense irony... :)[/QUOTE]
I am quite sincere. The most boring thing for a soapbox would be complete agreement on vexing problems.

[QUOTE=only_human;408628]I am quite sincere. The most boring thing for a soapbox would be complete agreement on vexing problems.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree.

I got like 8 pages in and decided to go ahead and take the chance that I'm repeating someone else's statement.

I think the key thing to think about, at least one version of it, is what would happen if an industry, like car manufacturing, became way more digital in nature. What if you could take a bunch of raw materials, throw them in a large car-sized box and have a car pop out a few days later. Would the original creater deserve full price for the copy?

(Forget spellcheck, creater is so a word.)

Before I do any more homework on existing copyright law,
let me ask a question or two.

Could I write a book on a math topic, give it the title
"The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevski",
(I assume his American copyright is expired),
publish, advertise and sell it as such, piggybacking
on his fame and reputation for greatness,
and legally or logically get away with it?
And if your answer is yes, does that make sense as
being a proper copyright result?

Isn't the whole issue that of giving credit and reward
where credit and reward are due?

Property rights, intellectual ones, are a prime means
of providing "justice for all." You must not throw out
this baby with the bath-water of complexity of our
physical and electronic society.