Comments for IPLJ http://iplj.net/blog Fordham Intellectual Property Media and Entertainment Law Blog Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:43:18 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on Fordham International Intellectual Property Conference, Trade Panel: Trade Policy & IP Rights by The ACTA Conspiracy « Sköne Oke http://iplj.net/blog/archives/555/comment-page-1#comment-58374 The ACTA Conspiracy « Sköne Oke Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:43:18 +0000 http://iplj.net/blog/?p=555#comment-58374 [...] http://iplj.net/blog/archives/555 [McCoy] When talking about comprehensive free trade agreement, IP is a trading chip. When it is an IP focused agreement, can go to government and ask them if they will be strong on it… ACTA would sell itself if we have a package of appropriate measures. [...] [...] http://iplj.net/blog/archives/555 [McCoy] When talking about comprehensive free trade agreement, IP is a trading chip. When it is an IP focused agreement, can go to government and ask them if they will be strong on it… ACTA would sell itself if we have a package of appropriate measures. [...]

]]> Comment on Counterfeit Goods or Counterfeit Bads: The Copyright Anomaly by sue http://iplj.net/blog/archives/188/comment-page-1#comment-58351 sue Fri, 05 Feb 2010 05:44:51 +0000 http://iplj.net/blog/?p=188#comment-58351 www.paybags.com This site advertises that they sell authentic Louis Vutton, Chanel, Prada etc designer handbags. So, I went ahead and ordered few handbags, before ordering checked with them many times asking whether they are authentic; they said yes. They are authentic. When I received the bags, I took LV bags to LV store and they said these bags are total fake, not even close to real LV bags. He showed me the same real LV bag and it was not even close to the bags I got from Paybags.com. He said the the material, craftmanship, even the shape, structure, everything is different, though they said the same model of LV bag. Same experience is with Chanel. Chanel store said the bag I got is the perfect example of fake Chanel bag and they also explained me all the points to show how that bag was fake. When I came back, I contacted paybags.com and they are still saying their bags are authentic. They said, I can return, but they will charge 15% handling fees and I have to pay for postage. These bags are fake, why should I bear 15% handling fees and postage. It is illegal to sell fake, counterfeit items and buyers should not be punished for that. I contacted paypal, paypal said, user agreement gurantees you get item, they don't guarantee the quality. By saying that they are fully supporting the illegal activity. Please provide me justice. US (607) 821-7798 EMAIL US Sales: sales@paybags.com Feedback: feedback@paybags.com Suppliers: vendors@paybags.com Legal: legal@paybags.com Paybags Inc www.PayBags.com 4816 old cartersville rd, dallas, georgia, United States 274 Overdown Road (RG31 6PP), Berkshire, Reading, United Kingdom 126 boul pierre-bertrand (g1m2c2), quebec, Canada 128 ShanDing Road, Hongkong Paybags refund lei hong room 402?#6?fei e road 50,baiyun guangzhou ,guangdong ,china 510410 telephone number :13726742372 Regards, http://www.paybags.com

This site advertises that they sell authentic Louis Vutton, Chanel, Prada etc designer handbags.

So, I went ahead and ordered few handbags, before ordering checked with them many times asking whether they are authentic; they said yes. They are authentic.

When I received the bags, I took LV bags to LV store and they said these bags are total fake, not even close to real LV bags. He showed me the same real LV bag and it was not even close to the bags I got from Paybags.com. He said the the material, craftmanship, even the shape, structure, everything is different, though they said the same model of LV bag.

Same experience is with Chanel. Chanel store said the bag I got is the perfect example of fake Chanel bag and they also explained me all the points to show how that bag was fake.

When I came back, I contacted paybags.com and they are still saying their bags are authentic. They said, I can return, but they will charge 15% handling fees and I have to pay for postage.

These bags are fake, why should I bear 15% handling fees and postage. It is illegal to sell fake, counterfeit items and buyers should not be punished for that.

I contacted paypal, paypal said, user agreement gurantees you get item, they don’t guarantee the quality. By saying that they are fully supporting the illegal activity.

Please provide me justice.

US (607) 821-7798
EMAIL US
Sales: sales@paybags.com
Feedback: feedback@paybags.com
Suppliers: vendors@paybags.com
Legal: legal@paybags.com
Paybags Inc
http://www.PayBags.com
4816 old cartersville rd, dallas, georgia, United States
274 Overdown Road (RG31 6PP), Berkshire, Reading, United Kingdom
126 boul pierre-bertrand (g1m2c2), quebec, Canada
128 ShanDing Road, Hongkong

Paybags refund

lei hong
room 402?#6?fei e road 50,baiyun
guangzhou ,guangdong ,china 510410
telephone number :13726742372

Regards,

]]> Comment on Sports and the Right of Publicity by William http://iplj.net/blog/archives/354/comment-page-1#comment-58305 William Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:10:17 +0000 http://iplj.net/blog/?p=354#comment-58305 If a high school wants to televise a basketball game, do the players need to consent to the broadcast? What if someone gets interviewed? Are there any articles on point? Thanks. If a high school wants to televise a basketball game, do the players need to consent to the broadcast? What if someone gets interviewed? Are there any articles on point? Thanks.

]]> Comment on Protection for Genetically Modified Organisms by Tony Wheeldon http://iplj.net/blog/archives/721/comment-page-1#comment-58276 Tony Wheeldon Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:01:11 +0000 http://iplj.net/blog/?p=721#comment-58276 In the case of plants particularly where the GM technology is dispersed through pollen as in the Canadian case of Mr. Schmeiser. I would argue that the company knowingly and intentionally by it's free dispersal, wanted or unwanted, of it's patent is divesting it's right over not only the pollen, but the patent itself , by their acts. As it stands it is in the companies interests to spread pollen as widely as possible and to then have the ability to harvest "users" of it's patent. Alternately I would arge that if if the pollen remains in the ownership of the company then the intentional or reckless dispersal where such property is dispersed onto adverse land then it constitutes a tresspass. There is no continuation of any historical usage where farmers give any right or licence to pollen freely available to let their crops be pollenated. Does a tresspasser gain ownership rights by their intentional, designed and purposeful act of tresspass? It would seem that in the case that the companies holding such patents then these rights have been extracted from legislators. If I do not confine my dog and it bites a passerby or defecates on a neighbors lawn then I do not have the right of charging the passerby for pet hire or charging the neighbor for fertiliser. In the case of plants particularly where the GM technology is dispersed through pollen as in the Canadian case of Mr. Schmeiser.
I would argue that the company knowingly and intentionally by it’s free dispersal, wanted or unwanted, of it’s patent is divesting it’s right over not only the pollen, but the patent itself , by their acts.
As it stands it is in the companies interests to spread pollen as widely as possible and to then have the ability to harvest “users” of it’s patent.

Alternately I would arge that if if the pollen remains in the ownership of the company then the intentional or reckless dispersal where such property is dispersed onto adverse land then it constitutes a tresspass.
There is no continuation of any historical usage where farmers give any right or licence to pollen freely available to let their crops be pollenated.
Does a tresspasser gain ownership rights by their intentional, designed and purposeful act of tresspass? It would seem that in the case that the companies holding such patents then these rights have been extracted from legislators.
If I do not confine my dog and it bites a passerby or defecates on a neighbors lawn then I do not have the right of charging the passerby for pet hire or charging the neighbor for fertiliser.

]]> Comment on Wireless Squatters, Please Stand Up by wireless http://iplj.net/blog/archives/362/comment-page-1#comment-58275 wireless Mon, 13 Jul 2009 03:42:09 +0000 http://iplj.net/blog/?p=362#comment-58275 nice article guys, keep posting yeah !!!! nice article guys, keep posting yeah !!!!

]]> Comment on Counterfeit Goods or Counterfeit Bads: The Copyright Anomaly by leo http://iplj.net/blog/archives/188/comment-page-1#comment-58272 leo Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:02:08 +0000 http://iplj.net/blog/?p=188#comment-58272 hi amanda good report, my opinion is ethictly counterfeit items is not good for the wealthy multimillionare corporations, but it is one of the reasons that attracts millions of tourists around the world to come visit unites states to check out and buy the fake handbags, jewelry,etc. so at the same time they spend in hotels, restaurants, etc. and if they like the country THEY can buy our foreclosures homes in CASH!!!! that stimulates the economy. Don't blame that counterfeit ONLY is the reason that the us economy is down, it's because we have nice smart people as Madoff who actually started that NASDAQ and stole $50 trillions from the economy and scare all big investors away from the usa, plus or country spends most of our taxes in military as new bombs, tanks, satelllites, missiles, new guns, etc. actually usa wants to control the world by their rules, plus has the most military around the world . And you believe that 911 attacks were from terrorist that were funded by producing counterfeit. go research on www.youtube.com and check how to buildings how it falled. maybe everything is a conspiracy??? my last word is , if you want counterfeit to finish or decrease is the the original makers or manufactures sell their products at reasonable prices that about 90% americans can afford for example to make a LV bag is only $100- $300 cost and they want to riff-off people paying $1000-$3000. hi amanda good report,
my opinion is ethictly counterfeit items is not good for the wealthy multimillionare corporations, but it is one of the reasons that attracts millions of tourists around the world to come visit unites states to check out and buy the fake handbags, jewelry,etc. so at the same time they spend in hotels, restaurants, etc. and if they like the country THEY can buy our foreclosures homes in CASH!!!! that stimulates the economy. Don’t blame that counterfeit ONLY is the reason that the us economy is down, it’s because we have nice smart people as Madoff who actually started that NASDAQ and stole $50 trillions from the economy and scare all big investors away from the usa, plus or country spends most of our taxes in military as new bombs, tanks, satelllites, missiles, new guns, etc. actually usa wants to control the world by their rules, plus has the most military around the world . And you believe that 911 attacks were from terrorist that were funded by producing counterfeit. go research on http://www.youtube.com and check how to buildings how it falled. maybe everything is a conspiracy??? my last word is , if you want counterfeit to finish or decrease is the the original makers or manufactures sell their products at reasonable prices that about 90% americans can afford for example to make a LV bag is only $100- $300 cost and they want to riff-off people paying $1000-$3000.

]]> Comment on Is All Publicity Good Publicity? by abenatar http://iplj.net/blog/archives/724/comment-page-1#comment-58254 abenatar Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:42:00 +0000 http://iplj.net/blog/?p=724#comment-58254 I think that this is an interesting posting about a sub-genre of the general impact of internet media development. The mass following of celebrity gossip websites certainly satiates many people’s interest in tabloid news. Coincidentally, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (the “celebrity”) signed a bill in 2005 that strengthened the state’s anti-paparazzi laws, specifically adding liability for “physical invasion of privacy or constructive invasion of privacy, or both”. CA CIVIL §?1708.8. The bill generally imposes liability on those who trespass, attempt to trespass, or assault with the intent to record images of someone that correspondingly invades their “privacy”. However, the use of the “reasonableness” standard for assessing whether or not someone’s privacy was invaded exposes the conundrum of inconsistent application of the statutory language. What is reasonable privacy to general Perez Hilton Blog readers is likely objectionable conduct to some others. But this seems similar to supermarket checkout lines in the pre-internet age: where some people read the national enquirer while others picked out candy-bars. Thus, since historically the standard had likely always been equally divergent, I’m not convinced that the advent of information availability via the internet is the root of the “problem”. But is paparazzi really a social issue that we want our legislators to focus on? Princess Diana’s death was a terrible tragedy, but I can’t recall another instance where a celebrity has died as a result of photographers. Last year, the town of Malibu, California entertained the notion of strengthening their anti-paparazzi laws, and the mayor asked Ken Starr (former President Clinton investigator and present Dean of Pepperdine Law School) to lead the drafting committee. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/starr.paparazzi/ . But the controversial experimental legislation was never enacted, as the mayor followed the position of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and decided to use traffic and public disturbance laws as the primary technique to deal with paparazzi dangers. http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2008/10/30/news/news7.txt . I believe that the laws should not to further amended to restrict first amendment rights. The ends do not justify the means. If celebrities do not want the burden of constant media attention, they should choose a different profession. This whole situation seem to be the equivalent of becoming a doctor, but then complaining when your patients call you during non-business hours – it all comes with the territory of just meeting all of your expectations. I think that this is an interesting posting about a sub-genre of the general impact of internet media development. The mass following of celebrity gossip websites certainly satiates many people’s interest in tabloid news. Coincidentally, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (the “celebrity”) signed a bill in 2005 that strengthened the state’s anti-paparazzi laws, specifically adding liability for “physical invasion of privacy or constructive invasion of privacy, or both”. CA CIVIL §?1708.8.

The bill generally imposes liability on those who trespass, attempt to trespass, or assault with the intent to record images of someone that correspondingly invades their “privacy”. However, the use of the “reasonableness” standard for assessing whether or not someone’s privacy was invaded exposes the conundrum of inconsistent application of the statutory language. What is reasonable privacy to general Perez Hilton Blog readers is likely objectionable conduct to some others. But this seems similar to supermarket checkout lines in the pre-internet age: where some people read the national enquirer while others picked out candy-bars. Thus, since historically the standard had likely always been equally divergent, I’m not convinced that the advent of information availability via the internet is the root of the “problem”.

But is paparazzi really a social issue that we want our legislators to focus on? Princess Diana’s death was a terrible tragedy, but I can’t recall another instance where a celebrity has died as a result of photographers. Last year, the town of Malibu, California entertained the notion of strengthening their anti-paparazzi laws, and the mayor asked Ken Starr (former President Clinton investigator and present Dean of Pepperdine Law School) to lead the drafting committee. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/starr.paparazzi/ . But the controversial experimental legislation was never enacted, as the mayor followed the position of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and decided to use traffic and public disturbance laws as the primary technique to deal with paparazzi dangers. http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2008/10/30/news/news7.txt .

I believe that the laws should not to further amended to restrict first amendment rights. The ends do not justify the means. If celebrities do not want the burden of constant media attention, they should choose a different profession. This whole situation seem to be the equivalent of becoming a doctor, but then complaining when your patients call you during non-business hours – it all comes with the territory of just meeting all of your expectations.

]]> Comment on Is All Publicity Good Publicity? by FredJouldd http://iplj.net/blog/archives/724/comment-page-1#comment-58247 FredJouldd Thu, 28 May 2009 19:32:08 +0000 http://iplj.net/blog/?p=724#comment-58247 Thanks, good article. Thanks, good article.

]]> Comment on Fordham International Intellectual Property Conference, Breakfast Roundtable: Creativity and the Internet by Jessicaapem http://iplj.net/blog/archives/528/comment-page-1#comment-57852 Jessicaapem Sun, 10 May 2009 14:31:00 +0000 http://iplj.net/blog/?p=528#comment-57852 Wow! Thank you! I always wanted to write in my blog something like that. Can I take part of your post to my site? Of course, I will add backlink? Wow! Thank you! I always wanted to write in my blog something like that. Can I take part of your post to my site? Of course, I will add backlink?

]]> Comment on Chinese Courts And The Media by mfox http://iplj.net/blog/archives/692/comment-page-1#comment-57789 mfox Fri, 08 May 2009 17:58:57 +0000 http://iplj.net/blog/?p=692#comment-57789 Really interesting post. Really interesting post.

]]>