24 Aug
2011
24 Aug
'11
8:03 p.m.
Hi Jim! Responses in-line.
On 8/24/2011 7:48 PM, Jim Brain wrote:
My point: If you don't want some dodgy
company to make a crappy product and trick buyers into thinking it's an
Atari item, consider your position on these C&Ds carefully. I see it
not as a "desperate grab for money" as much as a "ensuring no one else
tries to make a quick grab fr cash using the name".
Again, I see this as a "robot" email, and it did not take into account
the particulars of the site. As well, vigorously defending your name
does not have to mean sending out nasty letters like this.
I guess that's why I think they need to distinguish between the sites,
and handle them accordingly.
You don't treat a commercial for-profit organization who is trying to
pass off consumer ready equipment as true-blue new Atari equipment the
same as a hobbyist who like to write his own software and run it on
retro hardware.
This doesn't take hours of professional analysis to figure this out. I
can look at a website and tell you within about two minutes the
motivation and purpose of a site. If it's a commercial venture, C&D
them as much as you want.
My problem is the whole collateral damage thing.
Atari doesn't seem to give a shit that they are in the process of
destroying a community of their fans that took years to build. Perfectly
legal resources are disappearing daily now because of the threats.
Certain emulators aren't being distributed any more.
The stifling of legal research, hardware development, software
development, and first amendment protected communication is disgusting.
The fact that it's lazy lawyering, like others mentioned, doesn't excuse
the behavior.
If this sort of thing becomes more prevalent (which it
might),
enthusiasts might need to form "associations" that can handle protecting
or dealing with these things. The links would be on a association's
site (portal), etc.
It's a shame that this even needs done. It feels like extortion.
If a site were to actually be sued, I would (like to) think that the EFF
would step up and defend them. They've represented people on much weaker
legal ground.
Keith