The Transportation Security Administration has setup a new page on their website to react to the recent story about a woman being detained at DCA Reagan Airport for spilling her toddler's "sippy" cup. I'm not going to discuss the specifics of that case, as it's not important.
What is interesting, is that the new section of TSA's website is called "MythBusters". As many of you may know, MythBusters is the name of a hugely popular TV show on the Discovery Channel.
It turns out that Discovery Communications has registered the term MythBusters with the US Trademark office as: Entertainment services in the nature of non-fiction television programming featuring examination of popularly held beliefs and misinformation; information regarding same provided via a global computer network.
Trademark isn't really an area of IP law that I know too much about. My (limited) expertise thus far is mainly in copyright - as it is the area that I'm most likely to get myself in trouble with.
I know that the US government has carved itself a number of exceptions in other areas of the law. For example, the US government cannot commit the tort of "patent infringement" - and instead, merely has to pay "reasonable and entire compensation" to a patent owner for the unauthorized use of a patent.
So - I pose the question to those out there who know more about the law than me:
Can TSA name a section of their website MythBusters (note, even the same capitalization as the TV show) without breaking any laws? TSA's new website provides video footage that examines popularly held beliefs and misinformation, which is then delivered via a global computer network (the Internet).
Is this legit, or did TSA fail to run this by their in-house counsel?
Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
Friday, June 15, 2007
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
RIAA Liars
The RIAA launched a new website recently: P2P Lawsuits. It's a one stop shop for anyone who has been sent a letter from the RIAA. They make it nice and easy to pay them their extortion... er, settlement money.
The most interesting part of the site, I think, is their FAQ.
In particular, I like this question the most:
Q: If I have Wi-Fi at home, how can you be sure it was me who did the downloading?
A: The fact that a wireless connection is involved does not mean that the individual engaging in copyright infringement cannot be identified. Cases are routinely pursued where a wireless connection is involved.
This is a total lie.
From the data that they have collected (essentially, logging onto a p2p network and downloading one or more files from you) - they have absolutely no way to know which computer in your house, or worse, which computer in your apartment building was using the Internet connection.
If you are dumb enough to accidentally share your home movies/homework folder too, and they download your World History final exam - then they may be able to claim that you are the evil-file sharer.. However, with just an IP address, they don't have anything.
Why are they lying? Because by stating this, they may get people to settle who would otherwise have a pretty reasonable defense.
Yes, there have been timing attack papers in the past few year (Kohno et all, in particular), and there are ways of fingerprinting a remote OS, even passively. However, none of these techniques will reveal which specific computer was using a wifi connection.
The RIAA are liars. Plain and simple.
The most interesting part of the site, I think, is their FAQ.
In particular, I like this question the most:
Q: If I have Wi-Fi at home, how can you be sure it was me who did the downloading?
A: The fact that a wireless connection is involved does not mean that the individual engaging in copyright infringement cannot be identified. Cases are routinely pursued where a wireless connection is involved.
This is a total lie.
From the data that they have collected (essentially, logging onto a p2p network and downloading one or more files from you) - they have absolutely no way to know which computer in your house, or worse, which computer in your apartment building was using the Internet connection.
If you are dumb enough to accidentally share your home movies/homework folder too, and they download your World History final exam - then they may be able to claim that you are the evil-file sharer.. However, with just an IP address, they don't have anything.
Why are they lying? Because by stating this, they may get people to settle who would otherwise have a pretty reasonable defense.
Yes, there have been timing attack papers in the past few year (Kohno et all, in particular), and there are ways of fingerprinting a remote OS, even passively. However, none of these techniques will reveal which specific computer was using a wifi connection.
The RIAA are liars. Plain and simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)