What logo should it have then? McDonald's?
It looked hard to achieve, but this world is becoming weirder with each day. Either that, or I might be from outer space or something. If so, please, somebody take me back to my planet.
23.5.2013 02:56 #1
I think the companies are covering there arse, with the copy write people, as these have been around for some time.
23.5.2013 04:40 #2
They should sell them with a jolly rodger for a logo.
23.5.2013 05:05 #3
So since they do not price fix and charge you an extra 30% they are doing something illegal?
23.5.2013 08:10 #4
so they cant call a blu ray disc a blu ray disc????with a blu ray logo???
can i still call my computer a computer?????
can i still call my car a car ?????
can i patent the english language and sue everyone that uses it??????
this case is rediculous and the amount of stupidity in humans is growing daily.
i actually like the jolly rodger idea, maybe all the companies that make blank media should make a pirate logo and patent it and use it on all blank media.
23.5.2013 08:25 #5
Originally posted by dali: What logo should it have then? McDonald's?
It looked hard to achieve, but this world is becoming weirder with each day. Either that, or I might be from outer space or something. If so, please, somebody take me back to my planet. Take me too, I'm having a WTF? moment.
23.5.2013 10:13 #6
Originally posted by dali: What logo should it have then? McDonald's?
It looked hard to achieve, but this world is becoming weirder with each day. Either that, or I might be from outer space or something. If so, please, somebody take me back to my planet. HA!!!
Too funny!
I was thinking the same thing........"what logo is acceptable then"
SCREW OFF Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer and Philips
23.5.2013 14:12 #7
I don't want to live here anymore.
23.5.2013 15:57 #8
Look at the image for this article...it actually has the TM right in the logo. A trademark is owned...it can be licensed, it can be rented, it can be given away...but it is property. These four corporations spent a fortune developing bluray and (as much as I hate them) Sony put a lot of time, money, and effort into pushing the standard. Technically they could charge just for things being bluray compatible (and they do in many cases)...given that, shouldn't they also be allowed to charge for use of their logo? It isn't like you need the logo to make or sell a blank disk; the design department can easily make a new logo that spells out exactly what the disk is without infringing on the trademarked logo.
As for the other questions:
Yes, you can call it a bluray compatible disk...and you can probably even get away with calling it a bluray disk...but Imation can't put the Sony logo on the disks, nor any other Sony-owned logos on the disk (including the bluray logo) without permission.
Yes, you can still call your computer a computer...but Toshiba cannot sell a computer with a windows logo on a windows compatible PC if the computer doesn't come with windows.
You can still call your car a car...but KIA cannot put a Ferrari logo on their cars just because they work on the same roads.
No, using the McDonalds logo would also be trademark infringement.
It has nothing to do with the cost...would generic bluray disks be any more expensive if they had a nice; public domain; Jolly Rodger on them with "BluRay Compatible Blank Disk BD-R" written below? If they would be, I'd probably still buy them...just for the logo!
23.5.2013 18:40 #9
Originally posted by KillerBug: Look at the image for this article...it actually has the TM right in the logo. A trademark is owned...it can be licensed, it can be rented, it can be given away...but it is property. These four corporations spent a fortune developing bluray and (as much as I hate them) Sony put a lot of time, money, and effort into pushing the standard. Technically they could charge just for things being bluray compatible (and they do in many cases)...given that, shouldn't they also be allowed to charge for use of their logo? It isn't like you need the logo to make or sell a blank disk; the design department can easily make a new logo that spells out exactly what the disk is without infringing on the trademarked logo.
As for the other questions:
Yes, you can call it a bluray compatible disk...and you can probably even get away with calling it a bluray disk...but Imation can't put the Sony logo on the disks, nor any other Sony-owned logos on the disk (including the bluray logo) without permission.
Yes, you can still call your computer a computer...but Toshiba cannot sell a computer with a windows logo on a windows compatible PC if the computer doesn't come with windows.
You can still call your car a car...but KIA cannot put a Ferrari logo on their cars just because they work on the same roads.
No, using the McDonalds logo would also be trademark infringement.
It has nothing to do with the cost...would generic bluray disks be any more expensive if they had a nice; public domain; Jolly Rodger on them with "BluRay Compatible Blank Disk BD-R" written below? If they would be, I'd probably still buy them...just for the logo! Over the years there is not much that I have agreed with you on. But this is one. You are 100% right.
23.5.2013 20:08 #10
Originally posted by cazer: Originally posted by KillerBug: Look at the image for this article...it actually has the TM right in the logo. A trademark is owned...it can be licensed, it can be rented, it can be given away...but it is property. These four corporations spent a fortune developing bluray and (as much as I hate them) Sony put a lot of time, money, and effort into pushing the standard. Technically they could charge just for things being bluray compatible (and they do in many cases)...given that, shouldn't they also be allowed to charge for use of their logo? It isn't like you need the logo to make or sell a blank disk; the design department can easily make a new logo that spells out exactly what the disk is without infringing on the trademarked logo.
As for the other questions:
Yes, you can call it a bluray compatible disk...and you can probably even get away with calling it a bluray disk...but Imation can't put the Sony logo on the disks, nor any other Sony-owned logos on the disk (including the bluray logo) without permission.
Yes, you can still call your computer a computer...but Toshiba cannot sell a computer with a windows logo on a windows compatible PC if the computer doesn't come with windows.
You can still call your car a car...but KIA cannot put a Ferrari logo on their cars just because they work on the same roads.
No, using the McDonalds logo would also be trademark infringement.
It has nothing to do with the cost...would generic bluray disks be any more expensive if they had a nice; public domain; Jolly Rodger on them with "BluRay Compatible Blank Disk BD-R" written below? If they would be, I'd probably still buy them...just for the logo! Over the years there is not much that I have agreed with you on. But this is one. You are 100% right.
You new pals seem to be forgetting this:
Quote:One-Blue claims that "Imation and its Blu-Ray products, including Blu-Ray discs, are especially made for use in an infringement of the patents." This is what's confounding everybody. Not some obvious logo consideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
23.5.2013 22:30 #11
Originally posted by Jemborg: This is what's confounding everybody. Not some obvious logo consideration. Exactly!
24.5.2013 05:05 #12
When last I looked, there were 21 blu-ray patents, plus various sundry fees and royalties. Using the blu-ray logo on blank discs means those royalty fees have been paid.
therefore; improper use of the Blu-ray logo on blank discs means that the royalties have NOT been paid which results in copyright infringement.
24.5.2013 07:16 #13
I insist: "The companies claim that Imation selling blank Blu-ray discs with the official logo encourages buyers to use the discs for infringement when recording."
That's what shocked most of us.
Besides that, it's been years since I took the wise decision of dismissing all kinds of writable optical media for good.
24.5.2013 08:30 #14
Originally posted by dali: I insist: "The companies claim that Imation selling blank Blu-ray discs with the official logo encourages buyers to use the discs for infringement when recording."
That's what shocked most of us. Maybe they're pissed their blank discs are not being used for infringement. :P
24.5.2013 08:40 #15
Do a deal & stick a Pirate Bay logo on it....cos in the vast majority of the blank discs I've seen I've yet to encounter any with actual 'data' on them other than a film file or music.
The whole blank media thing is a joke, what do they honestly think 99% of it is used for, they should just add a little surcharge & pay-off the copyright Nazis.
It is amusing that Sony as a film copyright holder makes all the appropriate kit to copy them.
Maybe they should be nicked for 'facilitating piracy' too?
As for use of the actual Blu-ray symbol well I guess if they haven't paid for it they haven't paid for it.
If it really is as cut & dried as suggested I suspect either Sony (and the others in the group) are asking for silly money in an out of court settlement and/or maybe Imitation think they have some grounds to ask for a fairer settlement on a lesser infringement?
We'll see when it gets to court.
24.5.2013 09:23 #16
I don't object to Sony suing for trademark logo infringement (I think they should), but the reason cited is just ridiculous and at best would be considered conjecture in a court of law.
24.5.2013 11:11 #17
Originally posted by Interestx: Do a deal & stick a Pirate Bay logo on it....cos in the vast majority of the blank discs I've seen I've yet to encounter any with actual 'data' on them other than a film file or music.
The whole blank media thing is a joke, what do they honestly think 99% of it is used for, they should just add a little surcharge & pay-off the copyright Nazis.
It is amusing that Sony as a film copyright holder makes all the appropriate kit to copy them.
Maybe they should be nicked for 'facilitating piracy' too?
As for use of the actual Blu-ray symbol well I guess if they haven't paid for it they haven't paid for it.
If it really is as cut & dried as suggested I suspect either Sony (and the others in the group) are asking for silly money in an out of court settlement and/or maybe Imitation think they have some grounds to ask for a fairer settlement on a lesser infringement?
We'll see when it gets to court. Most people I know that do that sort of thing have left burnable media behind long ago. Hell, some computer makers are talking about dropping the optical drive all together as a standard issue. Sorta like the floppy and IDE controler on new motherboards.
24.5.2013 11:47 #18
Originally posted by Scaldari:
Most people I know that do that sort of thing have left burnable media behind long ago. Hell, some computer makers are talking about dropping the optical drive all together as a standard issue. Sorta like the floppy and IDE controler on new motherboards. Me too.
Although I did get a good deal & buy a Blu-ray burner & another (but just a BD ROM device for making copies if I needed to) at one time.
I use hard drives connected to a media player now.
Huge amounts of space released by not having hundreds of discs in cases everywhere...and they are not the annoying dust magnate either.
Just moved from 2tb up to 3tb drives, so there's even less of them around too.
One day - when I find a decent enough NAS solution I like - they'll all get tucked away out of sight completely & storage will no longer feature in my living room at all.
That'll be a happy day.
24.5.2013 12:17 #19
Remember when Disney sued Sony for making machines that could record TV shows etc on a tape?
Sony is now a big player in Hollywood(although some investor is trying to get them out right now). It should be noted that Sony are part of the group trying to get Imation stopped using a logo. Imation is a spin-off of 3M Co. Haven't bought any of their label blanks for years.
24.5.2013 17:00 #20
Wow, who knew all this info? I didn't. I am sure all this will be settled sooner or later. :-) At least I can still buy the blank discs and use them without any delay. :-)I am sure this was an oversight.
24.5.2013 19:02 #21
Quote:One-Blue claims that "Imation and its Blu-Ray products, including Blu-Ray discs, are especially made for use in an infringement of the patents." Interesting. I'm looking at three different discs on my desk from 2 different brands, and they all have the Blu-ray logo on them...
24.5.2013 19:36 #22
Originally posted by dali: Originally posted by Jemborg: This is what's confounding everybody. Not some obvious logo consideration. Exactly! Their disks ARE especially made for infringement of patents...being clear about the use of blank disks in general might be a bit out of place, but ultimately they are not suing because the disks are any better at piracy than Sony disks; they would lose that before it got to a judge. They are suing over a logo.
24.5.2013 22:56 #23
Who uses these BD disks anyways? I've been using hard drives to store my ISO images for years now.
28.5.2013 13:35 #24
So Imation selling blank Blu-ray discs with the official logo is "encouraging buyers to use the discs for infringement when recording". Stupidest thing I ever heard. Are they then saying that doing it with Sony branded blank discs isn't? I'm sure Imation has paid any royalty fees that cover the use of the logo so it's more likely that Imation is just selling more of them because they're cheaper and Sony is getting pissed off. Remember too that unlike other hardware manufacturers Sony has a vested interest in the movie business.
1.6.2013 11:53 #25
