intellectual property

Labour’s great big education McCockup

Labour has bombed another social media release and following on from the Greens have nicked a private company’s intellectual property in order to score political points.

Megan Woods kicked it all off posting this image.

image003

She was quickly followed by NZ Labour and David Cunliffe both tweeting it and whacking it on Facebook.   Read more »

I knew nuffink, I was just providing storage…bullshit

Billy Big Steps should get used to wearing orange

Billy Big Steps should get used to wearing orange

This is the standard defence of Kim Dotcom from his apologists and publicists and biographers…it goes something like this.

He is not storing the files, he is providing space with a set of rules to be used. The users of that space have a choice to follow the rules or not and store legitimate data or store illegal files etc.

He receives take down notices and acts on them. What else is he supposed to do?

Would you like Google to shut down as well?

Followed by this:

What do you mean by theft and copyright infringement? Do you also wish for the owners of YouTube to be lynched for providing a medium of copyright infringement? Or are you referring to the false accusations of years ago? About the trial that the US has delayed numerous times, assumingly because they have no real evidence against him after illegally stealing his property under no warrant after bribing Key? Again, I can tell your hearts are in the right place, but your government is the true enemy of the people. NZ, US, wherever. They’re all tyrannies, US especially.   Read more »

Tagged:

US manning up against Chinese

The US is fighting back against the Chinese PLA hackers and getting stroppy over intellectual property theft.

With President Obama preparing for a first meeting with China’s new president, a commission led by two former senior officials in his administration will recommend a series of steps that could significantly raise the cost to China of the theft of American industrial secrets. If milder measures failed, the commission said, the United States should consider giving companies the right to retaliate against cyberattackers with counterstrikes of their own.  Read more »

Protect Marriage’s morals don’t extend to copyright laws

ᔄ the tipline

Whale,

As you’re probably aware, ProtectMarriageNZ recently used a song from YouTube without permission from their owners.

I thought you might also like to know that the wedding ring in their logo is stolen.

To be specific, they have literally searched “wedding ring” in Google images and take the first suitable result. (It’s about 6 rows down when I search, it may move up or down a little due to the magic of Google). This is a quite blatant form of theft, which Google has recently tried to address by including a ‘royalty free’ image search, but apparently they decided to ignore this and take the image they wanted instead.

The image itself is here – On The Grooms List – I got in contact with the site owner on twitter, they sourced the image from Prestige Wedding Bands.

I can’t see the image on their site, so it may be that it’s actually a stock image, but if that’s the case, I highly doubt they actually paid for rights for it (especially since every time someone posts this information on their Facebook wall it gets deleted quite rapidly).

It may be considered petty to attack them over something like this, but if you’re going to build an organization based around a moral standpoint, you should at least follow those morals through….and not steal songs or images.

And they wonder why I call them repeaters

ᔄ Stuff.co.nz

Stuff has stolen my photo and written a story based on my post (Don’t Come Monday) of yesterday about a staff member “cocking up” a Dio school magazine. Despite the licensing on my blog being Creative Commons – Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share Alike they have not provided a single link, or even a mention as to where they go the story and photo from. You can tell it is my photo because I blurred the faces. Given that Stuff actually named the gorl concerned when I did not shows they had no need to blur the photo. It is doubtful they could obtain the photo from anywhere else.

As readers can see I have attributed this post. You would think a responsible media organisation could do the same.

I think I will bill them. For want of a link they could have avoided that. Does anyone have an idea of going rate for use of photos?

A disgruntled employee sabotaged a commemorative booklet for his boss’ teenage daughter, drawing a lewd image on her photo that was then printed and distributed to her school friends.

Emily O’Halloran, 18, is captain of the rowing team at wealthy private Diocesan School for Girls.

With the rowing season just finished, she planned a 40 page booklet for her team-mates to celebrate her final year at the Auckland school.

The school’s ”purpose statement” is to: Be more than you ever imagined!

She unfortunately got much more than she imagined.

Emily’s father Martin O’Halloran, chairman of influential advertising group agency DDB, volunteered to organise design and printing through his business.

But a staff member involved had a dispute with O’Halloran midway through the project and drew a large, comical male genitalia on a photo of Emily posing with team-mates.

The drawing went unnoticed and the booklet was printed.

”It was a silly and stupid prank by someone who is no longer with DDB,” O’Halloran said.

Everything is a remix

Great video about the problems of intellectual property law and how the laws are being used to actually constrain development:

Our system of law doesn’t acknowledge the derivative nature of creativity. Instead, ideas are regarded as property, as unique and original lots with distinct boundaries. But ideas aren’t so tidy. They’re layered, they’re interwoven, they’re tangled. And when the system conflicts with the reality… the system starts to fail.

Weasel Words from Dirty Rich Henry

Rich Henry is speaking…rubbish

Getfrank, our online magazine which originally started as a student’s idea has experienced rapid growth for four years since its launch. As with many online businesses the journey over the last few years has been an incredible learning experience with things changing on a daily basis.

As you may be aware, Getfrank has recently come under some scrutiny from the NZ Bloggers Union. We have always worked to maintain constructive, solid and positive relationships with our contributors who have provided us permission to publish their articles on Getfrank.

Getfrank greatly appreciates feedback from our contributors and readers of the magazine and as such, we are continually looking at how better we can work to provide content that our readership has come to expect and demand from Getfrank.

To our many supporters and partners, can I express our heartfelt thanks for standing beside us on this journey.

If you have any questions or concerns feel free to get in touch. We’re always here.

Regards,

Richard Henry

[email protected]

The arrogance of the man. Pure marketing gooblydegook. If Rich Henry thinks making agreements three years ago and then ignoring the content providers and pocketing money when payments were due providers and thinking that is maintaining “constructive, solid and positive relationships” then he is very much deluded.

I had to contact Rich Henry, and when I did he basically told me to get stuffed tossing agreements made by his organisation out the window.

Since not a single bit of the content of his site is produced by him he essentially owes content providers around $60,000 for the past couple of years and ongoing residuals of $5,000 per month. Without the content providers content he wouldn’t have been able to say “content that our readership has come to expect and demand from Getfrank.”

Rich Henry and Get Frank plus their advertisers and ad booking agents and other business partners are thieves. They take content on false pretenses and they sell that same content to advertisers. Without the content they would have nothing to sell. They are stealing.

It seems that the NZ Bloggers Union will now have to get a little more serious with Rich Henry and Get Frank….perhaps even Shane Bradley. A little exposé into the related companies and their relationships to each other seems to be in order.

Chrisco always trying to rip someone off

Chrisco has been caught in the WRONG again. Not content with selling over-priced hampers on both sides of the Tasman, ripping off their poor customers they have also been caught using the domain name of a competitor in Australia and redirecting traffic.

Hamper King is one of their competitors in Australia and their domain name is hamperking.com.au Chrisco though went and registered the domain hamperking.com through Melbourn IT. This was the start of their undoing.

Australia has much tougher laws for cyber squatters and by registering the domain through an Australian provider opened them up to action through the World Intellectual Property Organisation. The case and verdict can be viewed on WIPO’s website.

The Complainant is an Australian company that supplies Christmas hampers, toys, gifts, home furnishings and electronics through its website at “www.hamperking.com.au”. It is the owner of the trademark HAMPER KING which was registered in Australia on March 27, 2006.

The Respondent is a New Zealand company registered in Australia as a foreign company. It registered the disputed domain name on January 12, 2006.

The Complainant’s representative issued a letter of demand to the Respondent on October 30, 2008 notifying that the Complainant was the registered owner of the trademark HAMPER KING. The letter informed the Respondent that it was in breach of the Complainant’s trademark rights through using the disputed domain name to divert internet traffic to the Respondent’s website. The Respondent was requested to cease using the domain name and transfer it to the Complainant.

On October 31, 2008 the Respondent’s representative agreed to cease using the domain name but would not agree to transfer it to the Complainant.

Can you believe that Chrisco failed to respond? Skankers! WIPO found that Chrisco:

…has not rebutted any of the Complainant’s claims, the Panel considers that there has to be a strong probability that the Respondent’s awareness of the Hamper King business was the motivation for registering and using the disputed domain name. Also, the Panel considers the Respondent’s choice of the words HAMPER KING was not merely coincidental but was to gain some sort of advantage in relation to a competitor. In this case the Respondent intentionally redirects Internet users to its website for commercial gain.

In view of the above, and on a balance of probabilities, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

It isn’t then surprising that Chrisco was ordered to transfer the domain name <hamperking.com>to the Complainant.

Chrisco, always trying to rip someone off.