Ironic That Xerox Wants Laws To Break The Copying Machine On The Internet
from the things-change... dept
We’ve already discussed the list of companies that have come out in favor of censoring the internet via domain name seizures and laws like COICA which extend the ability to censor the web through breaking the basic DNS system. As some pointed out, one of the names on the list that really stood out was Xerox, who signed on because it wants to crack down on those selling counterfeit Xerox parts. However, given Xerox’s history as the leading purveyor of machines that copy stuff — which set off a massive rethink of copyright laws, you would think the company wouldn’t be so eager to pin onerous new regulations on the “copy machine” that is the internet.
Filed Under: coica, copyright, domain seizures
Companies: xerox
Comments on “Ironic That Xerox Wants Laws To Break The Copying Machine On The Internet”
Trademark vs Copyright
It’s sad that everyone always wants to lump trademark and copyright infringement (and even patents) together as such.
Sounds like Xerox only cares about the Trademark (and potentially Patent) infringement cases here, which is primarily what “counterfeit goods” infringe. The Trademark laws are generally designed help consumers identify authenticity from a given company, and give those companies some way to make sure their customers are not confused, so this is a pro-consumer concept.
A digital copy of a digital work is identical (for all intents and purposes) to the original, and often times better than the original (no nag messages, better interoperability, etc.) – so more strict digital copyright law is essentially anti-consumer in that regard.
Why must they lump all this into one act/bill that must be swallowed all at once?
Re: Trademark vs Copyright
It is a fairly simple tactic, designed to lump Counterfeiting and Actual Theft (which people would agree are bad) with Trademark, Digital Copy-Infringement and Patents (which people usually consider confusing, benign/good and confusing, in that order)
Same as those lists of talking points that jump from talking about poisonous counterfeit medication from china to talking about people downloading movies.
It is forging a link, and just like blacksmithing it requires repeated blows with a heavy hammer to bend into shape.
So here we have Xerox, a company that is rightfully worried about bad counterfeit parts (which damage their reputation by being shoddy even more then they damage Xerox’s bottom line by being from another supplier), getting bound up with a bunch of content producers who want to have free reign to treat everyone like criminals.
It is regrettable.
Re: Re: Trademark vs Copyright
designed to lump Counterfeiting…(which people would agree are bad)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You’re new here, aren’t you?
Re: Re: Re: Trademark vs Copyright
I would separate “counterfeiting” in two cases: Tricking the Consumer and Unlicensed Copy.
The Tricking the Consumer case is the one people would obviously agree is bad (if I want to buy an original Cisco part, it damn better be an actual Cisco part).
The Unlicensed Copy case (where the consumer does know it is a copy from a different manufacturer) I would say is more similar to the Digital Copy-Infringement, which the poster above classified as being seen as “benign/good” for most people.
The confusion here is that not only are people lumping “counterfeiting” with several other things, but also that “counterfeiting” itself is also a lump of at least two different situations.
Re: Re: Re: Trademark vs Copyright
Not terribly new, no.
I stand by the statement. People generally want what they are paying for. A bottle of CocaCola had better contain CocaCola, not BobsCola, and so on, and no one likes to be tricked.
yes, there is a smallish subclass of things, purses, some designer clothing and accessories where counterfeits have something of a positive reputation simply because it creates a broader price point, but in those situations the consumer usually knows that they are purchasing an unauthorized product (at a lower price) and would not be so accepting if they were being tricked instead.
IP laws are good...
when applied to *other* people.
No Such Thing
Pro tip: there is no such thing as irony in the business world. What’s financially good for you is right, what’s financially bad for you is wrong, period, end of story.
Re: No Such Thing
I knew someone who worked for a large corporation a few years ago who told me about their interview process for prospective new employees. One of the questions was along the lines of “Suppose that we gave you a button your desk and every time you pushed it the company would make $100. However, every time you pushed a poor person in a third world country would also die. Further suppose that neither you nor the company would be held liable for that. Would you push the button?” Prospective employees that answered “no” were eliminated from further consideration.
Re: Re: No Such Thing
Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot??
That is Seriously FU??#% UP!
Re: Re: Re: No Such Thing
Every time you sped $100 on yourself instead of sending it to a poor person in a third world country to pay for clean water and medicine, you effectively kill them. So don’t get so righteous. The question could be seen as an exercise in thinking imaginatively past knee jerk reactions.
Re: Re: No Such Thing
Tell tall tales much?
Re: Re: Re: No Such Thing
Nope. I had that question come up in an interview. I got the job, because I reasoned why I’d said ‘no’.
Re: Re: Re: No Such Thing
“Tell tall tales much?”
Denial much?
They Don't Care
They don’t sell internets, so they don’t care. This is the same company that passed up the opportunity to be the leaders in the personal computer revolution because they wanted to keep their copier business alive. Morons.
Kinda like how Sony gripes about “piracy”, yet makes blank CDs and DVDs.