If there was ever any doubt what a corrupt duplicitous company
Facebook is, get this. If you sign up for Facebook, or they renew
their Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and require re
signing/agreeing, you are agreeing to a new condition acknowledging
facebook owns the copyright to the term, "book", particularly if used
as a suffix:.

http://tinyurl.com/7j94c9e

This means they can conceivably sue yer ass if you use the term
cookbook, specially if you use it on Facebook. Anyone who doubts
Facebook wants to own yer ass lock, stock, and barrel, is being
hopelessly naive.

nb

--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

On 24 Mar 2012 02:11:13 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>If there was ever any doubt what a corrupt duplicitous company
>Facebook is, get this. If you sign up for Facebook, or they renew
>their Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and require re
>signing/agreeing, you are agreeing to a new condition acknowledging
>facebook owns the copyright to the term, "book", particularly if used
>as a suffix:.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/7j94c9e
>
>This means they can conceivably sue yer ass if you use the term
>cookbook, specially if you use it on Facebook. Anyone who doubts
>Facebook wants to own yer ass lock, stock, and barrel, is being
>hopelessly naive.
>
>nb

WTF would normal folks want to be part of giving face... no different
from giving head... would it matter were it called Headbook?

On 24/03/2012 1:11 PM, notbob wrote:
> If there was ever any doubt what a corrupt duplicitous company
> Facebook is, get this. If you sign up for Facebook, or they renew
> their Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and require re
> signing/agreeing, you are agreeing to a new condition acknowledging
> facebook owns the copyright to the term, "book", particularly if used
> as a suffix:.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7j94c9e
>
> This means they can conceivably sue yer ass if you use the term
> cookbook, specially if you use it on Facebook. Anyone who doubts
> Facebook wants to own yer ass lock, stock, and barrel, is being
> hopelessly naive.
>
> nb
>
Facebook cannot copyright a common term such as the word "book".
"Facebook", a made up word they may possibly be able to copyright,
especially as there was no such definition prior to their use of the
term "facebook" but to the term "book" they cannot apply copyright.
Facebook cannot apply copyright to the term "cookbook", given that it
has been in common use for centuries. They may like to document it as
such but it wouldn't hold in a court of law.

--

Krypsis

You have come up with a good information. I do not think that this decision taken by Facebook is correct. Anyone can use the word "cookbook".

On 24 Mar 2012 02:11:13 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> This means they can conceivably sue yer ass if you use the term
> cookbook, specially if you use it on Facebook. Anyone who doubts
> Facebook wants to own yer ass lock, stock, and barrel, is being
> hopelessly naive.

Basically, you're a conspiracy theorist and scared of what you don't
know. So let them try and sue me.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 16:20:15 +1100, Krypsis >
wrote:

> On 24/03/2012 1:11 PM, notbob wrote:
> > If there was ever any doubt what a corrupt duplicitous company
> > Facebook is, get this. If you sign up for Facebook, or they renew
> > their Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and require re
> > signing/agreeing, you are agreeing to a new condition acknowledging
> > facebook owns the copyright to the term, "book", particularly if used
> > as a suffix:.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/7j94c9e
> >
> > This means they can conceivably sue yer ass if you use the term
> > cookbook, specially if you use it on Facebook. Anyone who doubts
> > Facebook wants to own yer ass lock, stock, and barrel, is being
> > hopelessly naive.
> >
> > nb
> >
> Facebook cannot copyright a common term such as the word "book".
> "Facebook", a made up word they may possibly be able to copyright,
> especially as there was no such definition prior to their use of the
> term "facebook" but to the term "book" they cannot apply copyright.
> Facebook cannot apply copyright to the term "cookbook", given that it
> has been in common use for centuries. They may like to document it as
> such but it wouldn't hold in a court of law.

Let's get real. FB isn't going to waste time, money and resources
suing people over using "cookbook" in a post. They are concerned
about internet sites that try to spoof the "Facebook" brand.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Krypsis wrote:

>> This means they can conceivably sue yer ass if you use the term
>> cookbook, specially if you use it on Facebook. Anyone who doubts
>> Facebook wants to own yer ass lock, stock, and barrel, is being
>> hopelessly naive.

>Facebook cannot copyright a common term such as the word "book".

Pull that hook out of your lip.

Did you see the Facebook movie? Zuckerberg was portrayed as an
ethically bankrupt nerd.

On 3/24/2012 1:56 AM, Sqwertz wrote:

> They just want a reason to be able to kick your ass off of facebook if
> you start making fun of them. They have no civil legal standing to be
> able to 'sue yer ass' for doing so, that was just faulty speculation.
> They cannot take away your right to free speech as long as it does not
> infringe on their business or trademarks.

It would be interesting to see how they'd argue they were harmed
by you having written the work cookbook, or whatever book. Good
luck with that.

nancy

On 2012-03-24, Krypsis > wrote:

> Facebook cannot copyright a common term such as the word "book".

Apparently, you didn't read the article and you haven't been keeping
up on copyright law. Shyster lawyers and greedy bastids are taking
the copyright/patent law to whole new levels of aburdity with the
courts cluelessly complicit. Apple will unleash a legion of
litigators on anyone who so much dots an "i" in front almost any term.
Believe it.

The primary tool is called a harassment suit. It doesn't matter
whether you are in the right or not. They sue you. Do you have the
financial resources to go to court and fight? Most do not and will
pay the settlement of a few thousand $$ and stop using the infringing
element. Now the plaintif has won, established a precedent, and is
legally stronger for it.

There are now whole companies that do nothing but litigate copyright
or patent infringement, real or imagined. It's become an established
industry. They are called patent or copyright trolls and have gone so
far as to sue ppl over copyrights or patents in which they don't even
have legal claim to. It's gotten so bad, many have only been stopped
by the very courts they are using to shake down others. Many are
merely gaming the system, but you may be a victim fleeced and left by
the side of the road before the scammer is stopped. The courts are
often helpless to stop the trolls cuz they are venturing into new
unchartered areas of itellectual property (IP) law or Judges just
don't know what to do.

Apparently, there's a concept in copyright/patent law that says if a
company, say Apple, uses the i-whatever term and doesn't actively
defend it in court, they can conceivably lose control of it. They
recently sued a company that copyrighted and used the name Icloud
seven yrs before Apple ever used the "i" term. Apple, by sheer weight
of legal resouces, prevailed and it was settled out of court. Icloud
changed their name. Hell, Harley-Davidson once attempted to patent
the distinctive sound it's off-beat motorcycle engines made, so it
could sue Japanese motorcycle companies.

It could be argued Facebook is actively defending its name so
imitators can't come up with similar names, like Profilebook or
Mugshotbook or whatever. The problem is, the more you sign up to
their premise and the more they win, the more power and control they
have. Can they --or will they-- actually sue you for using the term,
cookbook? That remains to be seen. If you think they cannot do so,
cannot at least send you a cease and desist (C&D) notice for using the
term cookbook, you are not paying attention and are sadly mistaken.

nb

--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

On 2012-03-24, Sqwertz > wrote:

> you start making fun of them. They have no civil legal standing to be
> able to 'sue yer ass' for doing so, that was just faulty speculation.

See my reply to krypsis.

nb


--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

On 2012-03-24, Nancy Young <replyto@inemail> wrote:

> It would be interesting to see how they'd argue they were harmed
> by you having written the work cookbook, or whatever book. Good
> luck with that.

Do you have the financial resources to fight Facebook (net worth $84
billion) if they did, in fact, sue you for using the term cookbook? I
didn't think so.

nb


--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

notbob wrote:

>> It would be interesting to see how they'd argue they were harmed
>> by you having written the work cookbook, or whatever book. Good
>> luck with that.
>
>Do you have the financial resources to fight Facebook (net worth $84
>billion) if they did, in fact, sue you for using the term cookbook? I
>didn't think so.

Facebook is a public company now, right? That means the adults (Board
of Directors) are in charge. Fuhgeddaboutit.

On 25/03/2012 12:16 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-03-24, > wrote:
>
>> Facebook cannot copyright a common term such as the word "book".
>
> Apparently, you didn't read the article and you haven't been keeping
> up on copyright law. Shyster lawyers and greedy bastids are taking
> the copyright/patent law to whole new levels of aburdity with the
> courts cluelessly complicit. Apple will unleash a legion of
> litigators on anyone who so much dots an "i" in front almost any term.
> Believe it.
>
> The primary tool is called a harassment suit. It doesn't matter
> whether you are in the right or not. They sue you. Do you have the
> financial resources to go to court and fight? Most do not and will
> pay the settlement of a few thousand $$ and stop using the infringing
> element. Now the plaintif has won, established a precedent, and is
> legally stronger for it.
>
> There are now whole companies that do nothing but litigate copyright
> or patent infringement, real or imagined. It's become an established
> industry. They are called patent or copyright trolls and have gone so
> far as to sue ppl over copyrights or patents in which they don't even
> have legal claim to. It's gotten so bad, many have only been stopped
> by the very courts they are using to shake down others. Many are
> merely gaming the system, but you may be a victim fleeced and left by
> the side of the road before the scammer is stopped. The courts are
> often helpless to stop the trolls cuz they are venturing into new
> unchartered areas of itellectual property (IP) law or Judges just
> don't know what to do.

That's in the US. Other countries have a more enlightened view of
copyright and aren't so beholden to the corporates.
>
> Apparently, there's a concept in copyright/patent law that says if a
> company, say Apple, uses the i-whatever term and doesn't actively
> defend it in court, they can conceivably lose control of it. They
> recently sued a company that copyrighted and used the name Icloud
> seven yrs before Apple ever used the "i" term. Apple, by sheer weight
> of legal resouces, prevailed and it was settled out of court. Icloud

They didn't copyright the name before Apple did. They should have.

> changed their name. Hell, Harley-Davidson once attempted to patent
> the distinctive sound it's off-beat motorcycle engines made, so it
> could sue Japanese motorcycle companies.

And lost! At least one US judge had a clue.
>
> It could be argued Facebook is actively defending its name so
> imitators can't come up with similar names, like Profilebook or
> Mugshotbook or whatever. The problem is, the more you sign up to
> their premise and the more they win, the more power and control they
> have. Can they --or will they-- actually sue you for using the term,
> cookbook? That remains to be seen. If you think they cannot do so,
> cannot at least send you a cease and desist (C&D) notice for using the
> term cookbook, you are not paying attention and are sadly mistaken.
>
> nb
>
No one can copyright a word that exists in common use. You are not
paying attention. iMac, Itouch, iPhone, iPad, iCloud are all unique
words. Apple could quite conceivably have pre-copyright on any word with
a lower case i followed by an upper case letter then the rest of the
word. In that sense, most words written that way could be unique with a
few exceptions. The concept could easily cover "iCookbook" but that's
not what you are arguing.

--

Krypsis

On 24/03/2012 5:03 PM, sf wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2012 02:11:13 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> This means they can conceivably sue yer ass if you use the term
>> cookbook, specially if you use it on Facebook. Anyone who doubts
>> Facebook wants to own yer ass lock, stock, and barrel, is being
>> hopelessly naive.
>
> Basically, you're a conspiracy theorist and scared of what you don't
> know. So let them try and sue me.
>
Exactly, it wouldn't look good in the press and that's what Facebook
would be most concerned about.

--

Krypsis

On Mar 23, 9:25*pm, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2012 02:11:13 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
> >If there was ever any doubt what a corrupt duplicitous company
> >Facebook is, get this. *If you sign up for Facebook, or they renew
> >their Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and require re
> >signing/agreeing, you are agreeing to a new condition acknowledging
> >facebook owns the copyright to the term, "book", particularly if used
> >as a suffix:.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/7j94c9e
>
> >This means they can conceivably sue yer ass if you use the term
> >cookbook, specially if you use it on Facebook. *Anyone who doubts
> >Facebook wants to own yer ass lock, stock, and barrel, is being
> >hopelessly naive.
>
> >nb
>
> WTF would normal folks want to be part of giving face... no different
> from giving head... would it matter were it called Headbook?

So, you consider oral sex to be abnormal? That is astoundingly ****ed
up.

--Bryan

On 24 Mar 2012 13:32:18 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> On 2012-03-24, Nancy Young <replyto@inemail> wrote:
>
> > It would be interesting to see how they'd argue they were harmed
> > by you having written the work cookbook, or whatever book. Good
> > luck with that.
>
> Do you have the financial resources to fight Facebook (net worth $84
> billion) if they did, in fact, sue you for using the term cookbook? I
> didn't think so.
>
The term "cookbook" is used all the time on Facebook and no one is
being sued.


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 2012-03-24, Krypsis > wrote:

> No one can copyright a word that exists in common use. You are not
> paying attention.

I'm not paying attention!!??

I'm not the one demanding new users sign an agreement acknowledging
Facebook's copyright of the term Book. You best pull yer head out.

nb

--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

Bryan wrote:

>> WTF would normal folks want to be part of giving face... no different
>> from giving head... would it matter were it called Headbook?
>
>So, you consider oral sex to be abnormal? That is astoundingly ****ed
>up.

That reminds me the late and despicable Jerry Falwell. He used to
shock his sheep-followers by claiming oral sex was exclusively the
province of *** people.

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 00:59:43 +1100, Krypsis >
wrote:

> On 24/03/2012 5:03 PM, sf wrote:
> > On 24 Mar 2012 02:11:13 GMT, > wrote:
> >
> >> This means they can conceivably sue yer ass if you use the term
> >> cookbook, specially if you use it on Facebook. Anyone who doubts
> >> Facebook wants to own yer ass lock, stock, and barrel, is being
> >> hopelessly naive.
> >
> > Basically, you're a conspiracy theorist and scared of what you don't
> > know. So let them try and sue me.
> >
> Exactly, it wouldn't look good in the press and that's what Facebook
> would be most concerned about.

NB is making a mountain out of a molehill *again*. There's nothing
confusing about:
"You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook,
the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Book and Wall), or any
confusingly similar marks, except as expressly permitted by our Brand
Usage Guidelines or with our prior written permission."

They aren't concerned about what users write on FB, they're concerned
about web sites that try to rip off their name, section names and
trademark with sound/look alikes.

As far as "Poke" goes... what a useless piece of cr*p. You poke, get
poked back (no message to go with it), repoke, re-repoke it's a never
ending cycle at the emotional level of kindergarten.


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 25/03/2012 1:21 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-03-24, > wrote:
>
>> No one can copyright a word that exists in common use. You are not
>> paying attention.
>
> I'm not paying attention!!??
>
> I'm not the one demanding new users sign an agreement acknowledging
> Facebook's copyright of the term Book. You best pull yer head out.
>
> nb
>
Having a user sign an agreement acknowledging Facebook's copyright of
the term "Book" in no way grants Facebook a copyright on a term in
common use in the English language. Test it in a court of law and then
see what happens. There have been many precedents thus far on companies
attempting to do that and they invariably lose. Remember, "book" is in
common use OUTSIDE of Facebook. Any common use of the term "Facebook"
explicitly refers to Facebook's operations. They coined the term, they
have copyright. They do not have copyright on the generic term "book" no
matter how many users sign an agreement to that effect.

--

Krypsis

On 25/03/2012 1:48 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 00:59:43 +1100, >
> wrote:
>
>> On 24/03/2012 5:03 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On 24 Mar 2012 02:11:13 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> This means they can conceivably sue yer ass if you use the term
>>>> cookbook, specially if you use it on Facebook. Anyone who doubts
>>>> Facebook wants to own yer ass lock, stock, and barrel, is being
>>>> hopelessly naive.
>>>
>>> Basically, you're a conspiracy theorist and scared of what you don't
>>> know. So let them try and sue me.
>>>
>> Exactly, it wouldn't look good in the press and that's what Facebook
>> would be most concerned about.
>
> NB is making a mountain out of a molehill *again*. There's nothing
> confusing about:
> "You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook,
> the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Book and Wall), or any
> confusingly similar marks, except as expressly permitted by our Brand
> Usage Guidelines or with our prior written permission."
>
> They aren't concerned about what users write on FB, they're concerned
> about web sites that try to rip off their name, section names and
> trademark with sound/look alikes.
>
> As far as "Poke" goes... what a useless piece of cr*p. You poke, get
> poked back (no message to go with it), repoke, re-repoke it's a never
> ending cycle at the emotional level of kindergarten.
>
>
It seems not Bob is not right! ;-)


--

Krypsis

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 07:04:14 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
> wrote:

>On Mar 23, 9:25*pm, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>> On 24 Mar 2012 02:11:13 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>
>> >If there was ever any doubt what a corrupt duplicitous company
>> >Facebook is, get this. *If you sign up for Facebook, or they renew
>> >their Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and require re
>> >signing/agreeing, you are agreeing to a new condition acknowledging
>> >facebook owns the copyright to the term, "book", particularly if used
>> >as a suffix:.
>>
>> >http://tinyurl.com/7j94c9e
>>
>> >This means they can conceivably sue yer ass if you use the term
>> >cookbook, specially if you use it on Facebook. *Anyone who doubts
>> >Facebook wants to own yer ass lock, stock, and barrel, is being
>> >hopelessly naive.
>>
>> >nb
>>
>> WTF would normal folks want to be part of giving face... no different
>> from giving head... would it matter were it called Headbook?
>
>So, you consider oral sex to be abnormal? That is astoundingly ****ed
>up.
>
>--Bryan

It all depends on how you define "is"!

;-)

John Kuthe...

On 3/24/2012 9:32 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-03-24, Nancy Young<replyto@inemail> wrote:
>
>> It would be interesting to see how they'd argue they were harmed
>> by you having written the work cookbook, or whatever book. Good
>> luck with that.
>
> Do you have the financial resources to fight Facebook (net worth $84
> billion) if they did, in fact, sue you for using the term cookbook? I
> didn't think so.

It's basic that you need to show you were harmed in order to
sue for reparation. I wouldn't even bother getting a lawyer.
Not that I'm paranoid that Facebook is going to sue me or anyone
for saying cookbook. Textbook. Book em, Dano. Etc.

Before you go saying I swallowed the koolaid, I don't like
Facebook and I fail to see its charms.

nancy

On 2012-03-24, Krypsis > wrote:

>>
> Having a user sign an agreement acknowledging Facebook's copyright of
> the term "Book" in no way grants Facebook a copyright on a term in
> common use in the English language. Test it in a court of law and then
> see what happens. There have been many precedents thus far on companies
> attempting to do that and they invariably lose. Remember, "book" is in
> common use OUTSIDE of Facebook. Any common use of the term "Facebook"
> explicitly refers to Facebook's operations. They coined the term, they
> have copyright. They do not have copyright on the generic term "book" no
> matter how many users sign an agreement to that effect.

You are the one NOT paying attention.

I never claimed they had, in fact, legal right to the terms or would
win in court. I merely suggested they might possibly sue you. Like I
replied to the other poster, do you have the financial resources to
fight an 84 billion dollar company to find out who is legally right?
I sure as Hell do not.

Feel free to continue espousing your idealistic legal fantasies,
Krypsis, and pray you are never the target. In the meantime, real ppl
are being sued by real lawyers for real money, whether there exists
any real legal right or not.

nb

--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

notbob > wrote in
:

> On 2012-03-24, Krypsis > wrote:
>
>>>
>> Having a user sign an agreement acknowledging Facebook's copyright of
>> the term "Book" in no way grants Facebook a copyright on a term in
>> common use in the English language. Test it in a court of law and
>> then see what happens. There have been many precedents thus far on
>> companies attempting to do that and they invariably lose. Remember,
>> "book" is in common use OUTSIDE of Facebook. Any common use of the
>> term "Facebook" explicitly refers to Facebook's operations. They
>> coined the term, they have copyright. They do not have copyright on
>> the generic term "book" no matter how many users sign an agreement to
>> that effect.
>
> You are the one NOT paying attention.
>
> I never claimed they had, in fact, legal right to the terms or would
> win in court. I merely suggested they might possibly sue you. Like I
> replied to the other poster, do you have the financial resources to
> fight an 84 billion dollar company to find out who is legally right?
> I sure as Hell do not.
>
> Feel free to continue espousing your idealistic legal fantasies,
> Krypsis, and pray you are never the target. In the meantime, real ppl
> are being sued by real lawyers for real money, whether there exists
> any real legal right or not.
>
> nb
>


ROFLMAO!!!

Crapsis and its postulating bullshit just got bitch slapped!!! :-)

--
Peter
Tasmania
Australia

On 2012-03-24, Krypsis > wrote:
> On 25/03/2012 1:48 AM, sf wrote:

>> NB is making a mountain out of a molehill *again*. There's nothing
>> confusing about:
>> "You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook,
>> the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Book and Wall), or any
^^^^
>> confusingly similar marks, except as expressly permitted by our Brand
>> Usage Guidelines or with our prior written permission."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So, they are plainly stating you can't use "Book" without their
permission. Or is that some sorta code for "We are not requiring our
permission to use the word Book with a capital B"? I admit I never
got more than B's (is that copyrighted yet?) in English.

>> They aren't concerned about what users write on FB, they're concerned
>> about web sites that try to rip off their name, section names and
>> trademark with sound/look alikes.

So, if they are so concerned about outside infringement, why are they
demanding inside users agree to their conditions?

> It seems not Bob is not right! ;-)

Are you speaking morally right or legally right?

nb

--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

On 2012-03-24, Nancy Young <replyto@inemail> wrote:

> It's basic that you need to show you were harmed in order to
> sue for reparation.

And you honestly believe that the vast legal dept for Facebook could
not come up with that legal arguement!? God, you ppl are living in a
fantasyland.

> Before you go saying I swallowed the koolaid, I don't like
> Facebook and I fail to see its charms.

I'm jes playing Devil's advocate. If Facebook actually did have rock
solid legal copyright to the term Book, would they give a flying fsck
if you agreed to or signed anything? So, you gotta ask, why you gotta
sign an agreement? C'mon ppl, drink that cup o' joe. Get that brain
in gear!

nb

--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

On 3/24/2012 11:35 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-03-24, Nancy Young<replyto@inemail> wrote:
>
>> It's basic that you need to show you were harmed in order to
>> sue for reparation.
>
> And you honestly believe that the vast legal dept for Facebook could
> not come up with that legal arguement!? God, you ppl are living in a
> fantasyland.

Yet Christine says cookbook on Facebook all the time and I
don't thing she keeps moving to stay ahead of the Facebook
legal team. Because they wouldn't have a leg to stand on and
they aren't even interested in this whole scenario.

nancy

On 2012-03-24, Nancy Young <replyto@inemail> wrote:


> they aren't even interested in this whole scenario.

You ppl funny!

nb

--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

I think Petey is stoned.

>>> Having a user sign an agreement acknowledging Facebook's copyright of
>>> the term "Book" in no way grants Facebook a copyright on a term in
>>> common use in the English language.

>> I never claimed they had, in fact, legal right to the terms or would
>> win in court. I merely suggested they might possibly sue you.

>Crapsis and its postulating[sic] bullshit just got bitch slapped!!! :-)

What time is it where you are? Like 3 a.m., maybe? You should be in
bed instead of sleep-posting.

notbob wrote:

>>> "You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook,
>>> the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Book and Wall), or any
> ^^^^
>>> confusingly similar marks, except as expressly permitted by our Brand
>>> Usage Guidelines or with our prior written permission."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>So, they are plainly stating you can't use "Book" without their
>permission.

Now that Petey has endorsed your viewpoint, will you consider the
possibility you're off the mark?

notbob wrote:

>I'm jes playing Devil's advocate. If Facebook actually did have rock
>solid legal copyright to the term Book, would they give a flying fsck
>if you agreed to or signed anything? So, you gotta ask, why you gotta
>sign an agreement? C'mon ppl, drink that cup o' joe. Get that brain
>in gear!

I know! They do it to trigger crazed rants on the Internet by
conspiracy freaks who have nothing better to think about.

Am I right? What did I win?

On Mar 23, 7:11*pm, notbob > wrote:
> If there was ever any doubt what a corrupt duplicitous company
> Facebook is, get this. *If you sign up for Facebook, or they renew
> their Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and require re
> signing/agreeing, you are agreeing to a new condition acknowledging
> facebook owns the copyright to the term, "book", particularly if used
> as a suffix:.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7j94c9e
>
> This means they can conceivably sue yer ass if you use the term
> cookbook, specially if you use it on Facebook. *Anyone who doubts
> Facebook wants to own yer ass lock, stock, and barrel, is being
> hopelessly naive.
>

Thanks to whichever troll that was, I learned that the domain
"CockBook.com" is for sale, for the price of a five-year old Corolla.

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2012-03-24, Krypsis > wrote:
>
>>>
>> Having a user sign an agreement acknowledging Facebook's copyright of
>> the term "Book" in no way grants Facebook a copyright on a term in
>> common use in the English language. Test it in a court of law and then
>> see what happens. There have been many precedents thus far on companies
>> attempting to do that and they invariably lose. Remember, "book" is in
>> common use OUTSIDE of Facebook. Any common use of the term "Facebook"
>> explicitly refers to Facebook's operations. They coined the term, they
>> have copyright. They do not have copyright on the generic term "book" no
>> matter how many users sign an agreement to that effect.
>
> You are the one NOT paying attention.
>
> I never claimed they had, in fact, legal right to the terms or would
> win in court. I merely suggested they might possibly sue you. Like I
> replied to the other poster, do you have the financial resources to
> fight an 84 billion dollar company to find out who is legally right?
> I sure as Hell do not.
>
> Feel free to continue espousing your idealistic legal fantasies,
> Krypsis, and pray you are never the target. In the meantime, real ppl
> are being sued by real lawyers for real money, whether there exists
> any real legal right or not.
>
> nb
>
Let's just say I am not participating in Facebook. I had an account, got a
gazillion people popping up who wanted to be my friends (or "liked" or
whatever it's called) that I didn't know simply based on the fact I knew a
few people. I decided it's not the medium for me. I don't care what kind
of goofy agreements they try to get people to sign, it has no legal
standing.

Jill

On 2012-03-24, jmcquown > wrote:

> Let's just say I am not participating in Facebook. I had an account, got a
> gazillion people popping up who wanted to be my friends (or "liked" or
> whatever it's called) that I didn't know simply based on the fact I knew a
> few people. I decided it's not the medium for me. I don't care what kind
> of goofy agreements they try to get people to sign, it has no legal
> standing.

Are you ppl obtuse?

Here's how it works. They send out a cease and desist notice (C&D).
You c&d or not. Your choice. If not, they file a lawsuit against
you. You answer the lawsuit or not. If not, there could be a
monetary judgement and/or fines levied against you in your absence.
If yes, you will need to hire an attorney to advocate on your behalf.
All of this costs $$$$!!! If you could just ingnore it, EVERYBODY
WOULD! Freakin' DUH!! Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Last
option, capitulate and/or settle out of court. Most likely, an out of
court settlement will involve you paying the litigant $$$$, which is
the whole point.

Copyright trolls have done this to everyone from huge coprorations to
little old ladies, nine year old kids, and dead people! They don't
expect you to fight it, but to settle to avoid huge legal costs. Even
large corporations typically settle rather than fight, knowing they
will save money in the long run.

You think you can ignore it if it happens to you? Silly you.

notkidding


--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

On 24 Mar 2012 15:26:25 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> So, if they are so concerned about outside infringement, why are they
> demanding inside users agree to their conditions?

It's called covering your ass and strengthening your position in a
court of law.
<http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2012/03/facebook-revises-user-agreement-to-bolster-trademark-claim-on-word-book.html>


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 24 Mar 2012 16:09:43 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> On 2012-03-24, Nancy Young <replyto@inemail> wrote:
>
>
> > they aren't even interested in this whole scenario.
>
> You ppl funny!
>
Maybe so, but you're just plain crazy.


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 24 Mar 2012 19:17:35 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
> Are you ppl obtuse?
>
> Here's how it works. They send out a cease and desist notice (C&D).
> You c&d or not. Your choice. If not, they file a lawsuit against
> you. You answer the lawsuit or not. If not, there could be a
> monetary judgement and/or fines levied against you in your absence.
> If yes, you will need to hire an attorney to advocate on your behalf.
> All of this costs $$$$!!! If you could just ingnore it, EVERYBODY
> WOULD! Freakin' DUH!! Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Last
> option, capitulate and/or settle out of court. Most likely, an out of
> court settlement will involve you paying the litigant $$$$, which is
> the whole point.
>
> Copyright trolls have done this to everyone from huge coprorations to
> little old ladies, nine year old kids, and dead people! They don't
> expect you to fight it, but to settle to avoid huge legal costs. Even
> large corporations typically settle rather than fight, knowing they
> will save money in the long run.
>
> You think you can ignore it if it happens to you? Silly you.
>
> notkidding

You've been living on a mountain top for too long. You probably think
you need a gun to protect yourself from the government too.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 2012-03-24, Sqwertz > wrote:

>> element. Now the plaintif has won, established a precedent, and is
>> legally stronger for it.

> An out of court settlement does not create a legally citable or
> significant precendent. The case must be heard in it's entirety.

Unless the defendent fails to contest, then the plaintiff wins by
default. You make a good point, Steve, it not setting a legally
significant precedent, but it bolsters the plaintiffs legal standing,
nonetheless, jest as getting untold numbers of rubes to sign the
agreement does.

nb

--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

On 3/24/2012 4:03 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-03-24, > wrote:
>
>>> element. Now the plaintif has won, established a precedent, and is
>>> legally stronger for it.
>
>> An out of court settlement does not create a legally citable or
>> significant precendent. The case must be heard in it's entirety.
>
> Unless the defendent fails to contest, then the plaintiff wins by
> default.

It would be stupid not to respond if one was to be sued.

nancy