Echo1 banned from ShotShow

[Dimitri]

Originally Posted by Jcotter

I hope you are right. According to Dr. Michael Geist,the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa you are not.

Notice what you posted?

According to the music industry document

Last I checked the Music Industry is not the Government of Canada, nor is it the Conservative Party of Canada.

Conservatives tabled C-11 back in like October 2011, and only the last couple days has it got any attention, why is that do you think?

Fact is, the Conservatives tabled a very mild version of the Copyright treaty that the Liberal signed Canada into, with no provisions beyond what is already illegal in the Criminal Code of Canada, and with a clear definition that even in cases relating to copyright infringement there are loop holes out of it with the way C-11 was written. Since its a Conservative Bill, and they have a majority government, the likely hood of them changing it is next to nil like everything else they have been doing.

This is pure sensationalism and a means to attack Harper's Government cause the Liberals and media do not know what else to do with themselves. That articles idea of "proof" that a SOPA style law will come into Canada through C-11 is very similar to Jean Chretien's idea of a proof.

Dimitri

[ViR]

Originally Posted by Augiedoggy18

As M102404 said, its not really possible to trademark something this obviously available to everyone (like a sock, etc). T-shirts have been made by thousands of companies for decades. Fruit of the Loom has zero expectation that anyone seeing a t-shirt will automatically identify it as a Fruit of the Loom product.

This is not the case with the SCAR. If you see an airsoft gun of that design, you would say "That's a SCAR." You wouldn't call it anything else no matter what the distributor was calling it (ASC, MK16, MK17, etc)....

Its possible for YOU to know its a SCAR, 98% of other people in the world would say "AK", "M4" or simply "rifle"..
What if I put AK stock on SCAR? What if its 15% longer or wider? Am I still violating the patent? Some people will be able to tell the difference, some won't.
Some tribes in Amazonian rain forest would not know whats a "t-shirt" or how it should look like.
Where do you draw the line? You can only patent something that could be recognizable by 90% of customers, or 75%, or 50%?

Because of constant "patent/copyright" laws, we as customers lose the most because prices go up..
Do you care if Cybergun CEO makes 1 extra million or that your gun is 50% cheaper?

What if Intel or AMD would have patented multiple core CPUs? We would be stuck with 1 manufacturer and paying a lot more..
Apple made record profits and they are still in court with Samsung. Guess who is paying for all those court fees? Customers..

And if you are on the side of the "law" and demand "only quality national made products", start a party and try to stop globalization so Chinese clones wont even make it here...

P.S. I don't even understand how gun manufactures sell their trademarks to be put on such shitty products..

P.P.S. I lost just thinking about "People of Walmart" site...

[Flashman]

It would appear that some posters are getting confused between patents, trademarks and copyrights. They are distinctly different.

A patent confers on an inventor the sole right to use, make or sell an invention for a period of time (20 years in Canada).

A trademark is some distinctive mark, name or logo that permits consumers to distinguish the trademark holders products from other manufacturers.

Copyright deals with protecting literary, musicial, dramatic or artistic works for the lifetime of the creator + 50 years.

[Jcotter]

Originally Posted by Dimitri

Last I checked the Music Industry is not the Government of Canada, nor is it the Conservative Party of Canada.

Conservatives tabled C-11 back in like October 2011, and only the last couple days has it got any attention, why is that do you think?

Fact is, the Conservatives tabled a very mild version of the Copyright treaty that the Liberal signed Canada into, with no provisions beyond what is already illegal in the Criminal Code of Canada, and with a clear definition that even in cases relating to copyright infringement there are loop holes out of it with the way C-11 was written. Since its a Conservative Bill, and they have a majority government, the likely hood of them changing it is next to nil like everything else they have been doing.

This is pure sensationalism and a means to attack Harper's Government cause the Liberals and media do not know what else to do with themselves. That articles idea of "proof" that a SOPA style law will come into Canada through C-11 is very similar to Jean Chretien's idea of a proof.

Dimitri

I've been hearing about C-11 for months. Yes it's getting more attention now after SOPA being tabled, but rightfully so. There is also talk that Canada is under pressure from US lobbyists to add these provisions, so that might be part of it as well.

It's not just the music industry.We know the Tories tend to side with big business ( not trying to start a left/right debate )

The Conservative government is readying a package of technical amendments to copyright reform Bill C-11 and hopes to see the legislation head to committee quickly after the House of Commons returns to business this month, Dean Del Mastro, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister.

A C-11 committee member specifically talking about the enabler provision.



Basically what you are saying is that Dr. Michael Geist,the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa doesn't know what he is talking about or, he is part of a big lefty conspiracy to tarnish the Harper Governments image.

May I ask how you have any insight into this issue, I'm not trying to be rude. ( my only insight comes from what I hear from other people and articles I read on the internet.) I know you were only trying to help put me at ease. I'd like to believe you are correct for Canada's sake but I am having a hard time believing you over this guy.

[Short Round]

This just went from Cybergun and FNH putting the ban hammer on Echo-1 to....

[Dimitri]

Originally Posted by Jcotter

There is also talk that Canada is under pressure from US lobbyists to add these provisions, so that might be part of it as well.

Political lobbying such as is done by Americans is downright illegal here. And I am still waiting for you to show me a single law that the Conservatives have tabled that they changed due to external pressure, or changed period for that matter. Cause there hasn't been any since the majority, and previously only limited changes were allowed based on the wants from the Liberals and NDP, and even that was minimized, which is why they said Harper ran Parliament like a biker gang.

Till we see the changes we will not know the direction of their changes. Its all bullsh*t speculation, once we see them, if they are anything like SOPA, the Conservatives know it will fail, and their own supports will bail on them. So its highly doubtful that they'd go that direction. Perhaps you should wait instead of speculating on something they have not publicly disclosed?

Originally Posted by Jcotter

It's not just the music industry.We know the Tories tend to side with big business

You do realize we are in Canada and not the United States right? In the US the GOP and Dems both work for big business regardless of what anyone says, its not a "left or right" issue like people make it in either country. Even when Bush was still in charged, and the Conservatives only had a minority, there was still plenty of conflict between the 2 parties due to Harper's idea that our trade should be more important, and their protectionist attitude towards their own businesses.

And you do also realize, unlike the Liberals who have always resorted to funding themselves with corporate/businessmen/union donations (as high as 75% in some years) even after the ban on corporate donations by hosting 500$ a plate fundraisers for sale corporate donors to bypass the donation limits. The Conservative party traditionally only raised 10-15% of their political funding through corporate/businessman/union donations.

I'm sorry, but please stop while your not too far behind, cause your ignorance of Canadian politics is showing.

Dimitri

Originally Posted by Dimitri

And you do also realize, unlike the Liberals who have always resorted to funding themselves with corporate/businessmen/union donations (as high as 75% in some years) even after the ban on corporate donations by hosting 500$ a plate fundraisers for sale corporate donors to bypass the donation limits. The Conservative party traditionally only raised 10-15% of their political funding through corporate/businessman/union donations.

I've been trying to get this point across for years, but some people just have a hate on for the Conservatives and will believe anything that makes it easier to support their position. When compared to the Liberals, the Conservatives are about as friendly to big business as Iran is to Israel. The Liberals, on the other hand...did you know that the previous three leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada met privately with the Deputy Chair of the 2nd largest bank in Canada (the 5th largest bank in the world, incidentally) pretty much monthly? I was there, in the meetings, and I heard the subject matter.

Of course, during that time, the Liberals were in Opposition. While they were in Government, I didn't see too much of the Prime Minister. But the Finance Minister was a pretty regular visitor.

Not coincidentally, other frequent delegates includes McGuinty, Miller, and other prominent Liberals/Socialists in power across Ontario.

As far as "Big Business" in Canada is concerned, it doesn't get much bigger than our Financial Institutions. And from my perspective, they have (or had) the Liberal Party of Canada in their pocket.

[Jcotter]

Ever hear of the f-35? Without asking questions how would I ever better my understanding? I'm not liberal either. They weren't the only ones with shady fundraising tactics. The cons have donor clubs as well and Harper outright refused to work with elections Canada to close fundraising loop holes.

I was trying to keep an open mind and get an understanding of an issue that could effect us all. I was trying to avoid the same old left vs right debate. You guys keep going there. Your political allegences have blinded you.

The conservatives are big business friendly. They have always supported lower corporate taxes and have a history of siding with big business. ( big telecom ring any bells) I never claimed the liberals were any better. They are not in power now. I'm on my phone at work and have to go. I wish I could have left a more detailed response. It usually comes back to bite me when I don't. I'll write more later.

Got to go. Looking forward to a civil discussion.

This doesn't need to get political at all. Your colors are showing as much as mine. Neither is really important or relevant to the conversation.

[Jcotter]

Fair enough. I honestly was trying at first not to go down that path. The convo always ends up the same way when I do.

Is there anyway we can continue the discussion without the right and left bashing? I'll check back at break time.

[Dimitri]

Originally Posted by MadMorbius

I've been trying to get this point across for years, but some people just have a hate on for the Conservatives and will believe anything that makes it easier to support their position.

Your entire post is spot on, including the first bit. But still wanted to interject the other side that many people on the fence do not realize.

Dimitri

[SuperHog]

After reading this article on Popularairsoft, I now have no sympathy and support for Cybergun in the way they handled the matter. Yes, they have license rights but to pick a major show that Jag is displaying all their 2012 offerings including echo1, and shutting down their whole booth for 4 echo1 guns (JP-29, JP-50, JP-44 and JP-45) and 1 VFC MK16 that they are going after for license fees, is bullying!

http://popularairsoft.com/news/echo1...odels-recalled

They could have gone in and removed only those 5 guns. The rest of the booth was fine and contained other gun manufacturers distributed by Jag.

I would counter that Jag should have known better than to flaunt copyright / trademark infringment so openly, particularly when the trademark / copyright holders were present at the same venue.

[SuperHog]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

I'd say that those companies did it to themselves

a company who has spent the money to license trades has every right to protect their property.


good on Cybergun for standing up for their rights over companies that flaunt the law.

I am glad you are residing with the license holders.

Are you going to do anything about clone sales at your March venue?

[Deadpool]

The real problem with Cybergun is they are dicks for doing it in front of everyboby at ShotShow.