SOCAN letter to p2pnet
p2pnet.net News:- Canada’s SOCAN, now internationally famous for having lost its bid to tax Canadian ISPs by up to 10% of their income (in the process drawing a court decision that ISPs are “intermediaries” who aren’t bound by Canadian copyright legislation) has sent p2pnet a Cease & Desist letter.
So what caused SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) to get in touch with us, and by your actual snail-mail, no less?
Something to do with the various stories in which we’ve mentioned SOCAN – for example, the one in which we explain how it tried to browbeat doctors, dentists and other health care practitioners into coughing up every time they played music for their patients?
Nope.
Then it was the story where we said SOCAN wanted the Supreme Court of Canada to rule that ISPs should pay the society 25 cents per subscriber per year, as well as 10% of any gross profit ISPs make through advertising sales? And that if the court ruled in favour, the way could be clear for other rights holders – such as Hollywood – to force ISPs to collect ‘royalties’ for their members?
Nope.
How about when they lost the case, then?
Nope. Not that either …
… well, OK. Kind of.
A while back we started including logos, or other pix, in some articles to add a little flavour – to brighten them up. For example, we sometimes use pictorial lampoons of the RIAA logo. We’ve also had IBM, or Dell, or HP, or CRIA, or Cisco logos. And so on. There must be several hundred up by now.
Anyway, we used SOCAN’s in our story on its Tax ISPs effort, of which the Montreal Gazette said: “If somebody robs your store, and drives away in a Chevrolet, you should be able to sue General Motors. This is the absurd ‘logic’ behind a case going to the Supreme Court …”
The logo is why we got the C&D letter.
“The SOCAN logo is a registered trademark and SOCAN must closely monitor the use made of its mark,” says a letter from legal counsel Colleen M.P. Stanley, going on:
“Under Canadian law unauthorised use of a trademark may adversely affect the distinctiveness associated with the mark, which may ultimately result in a loss of trademark rights. Accordingly, we must request that you immediately cease and desist from any and all further use of the SOCAN logo.”
“ultimately result in a loss of trademark rights” eh?
Well, that’s a relief. For a moment we thought it was just SOCAN bulging its muscles at p2pnet out of pique.
But since that’s not the case, and because we wouldn’t want to be responsible for SOCAN losing its trademark, we have, of course, replaced the image.
July 16th, 2004 at 8:13 pm
lol
July 16th, 2004 at 8:31 pm
Are they serious? wot a gas !
Morgan
July 16th, 2004 at 8:42 pm
A number of dissident sites have found a way to fight back when pressured to remove the logo of the entity they are protesting. They redraw a modified version of it as a parody piece – perhaps some kind of butchered image or text covered in blood (or other bodily substance) or some kind of caricature. Let’s see now … what can that SOCAN image be morphed into?
July 16th, 2004 at 9:13 pm
lol covered in some “other bodily substance.” i like it and that about sums it up !!!! : )
July 17th, 2004 at 3:04 am
What whining losers. Might as well replace the name with Suck-An. They’re gonna get rolled on by P2P anyway. It’s a fundamental market and social force that can’t be stopped. Cya fools.
July 17th, 2004 at 5:31 am
How about a nice pile of steamy Crap!!!!!!!!
July 17th, 2004 at 2:49 pm
Unbelievable! It makes me proud to be a Canadian, he says as he picks himself up off the floor
p2pnet shold now organize a SOCAN logo contest. But wait! You’d probaby get a C&D for that too! hahahaha
July 18th, 2004 at 12:58 am
animated gif
http://www.unitethecows.com/images/topics/shit.gif
July 18th, 2004 at 1:51 am
First, I am not a lawyer. This is not meant to be legal advice, merely a statement of my opinion.
In the Canadian Trade-mark act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/t-13/105826.html):
“20. (1) The right of the owner of a registered trade-mark to its exclusive use shall be deemed to be infringed by a person not entitled to its use under this Act who sells, distributes or advertises wares or services in association with a confusing trade-mark or trade-name, but no registration of a trade-mark prevents a person from making
(a) any bona fide use of his personal name as a trade-name, or
(b) any bona fide use, other than as a trade-mark,
(i) of the geographical name of his place of business, or
(ii) of any accurate description of the character or quality of his wares or services,
<b>in such a manner as is not likely to have the effect of <i>depreciating the value of the goodwill</i> attaching to the trade-mark.</b>”
So your use was probably infringing. I would stay away from a “parody” of their mark, as there doesn’t seem to be an exception in the Trade-mark act for parody, nor an example in case-law that I can find to deal with the use of trademarks in parody.
July 18th, 2004 at 2:57 am
Yep. Well, let’s see what happens next, if anything.
I had some fun with this but joking aside, I’m really disgusted that an organization such as SOCAN would resort to such pettiness.
I wonder how much its members (in effect) had to fork out for legal advice, research, consultation on the wording, etc.
Cheers!
July 18th, 2004 at 5:18 am
There is a long history of court cases ruling that parodies of trademarks/copyrights are fair use, not infringement. The US Supreme Court ruled a decade ago that 2 Live Crew’s parody of “Pretty Woman” was fair use. Jordache Jeans lost in it’s attempt to crush a parody of it’s trademark logo.
But the bad news is that since there is no specific fair-use exemption for parody in copyright or trademark law, this might need to be decided on a case-by-case basis. But unless you have the deep pockets of Harvard Lampoon or Mad Magazine, your best option usually is, unfortunately, to capitulate if threatened by a trademark holder without a sense of humor.
Although trademark holders are obligated to go after any unauthorized duplication of their logo – or risk losing their trademark – it’s quite possible that SOCAN would let a parody slide by.
Jon, would it be possible to post a scan of the C&D letter, or would that constitute trademark infringement – as their logo is sure to be on the letterhead?
July 18th, 2004 at 2:11 pm
Apart from an introductory “It has been brought to our attention …” and a concluding “We look forward to receiving your written confirmation that you are complying with the above request,” etc, the quotes in the story are the letter. (My reply was the story ; )
p2pnet may not be Harvard Lampoon or Mad Mag. However, before the Net, The Foot stomped ants with impunity. These days us ants can stomp back and many antish stomps a serious pain can make, as Yoda would say.
SOCAN and all the other entertainment industry feet should remember that.
Cheers!
July 18th, 2004 at 3:36 pm
I was referring to Canadian law. If you make a parody of a trademark registered in Canada, you can still be charged with an offense in Canada under Canadian law, which isn’t as protective of the rights of parody as US case law is.
July 18th, 2004 at 5:16 pm
After doing some Googleing i came across a case of a trademark holder trying to close down a dissenting website’s parody – by claiming to own the actual letter combination of it’s name. In other words, making the claim that it’s own name could not be uttered. (maybe similar to the “G_d” substitution of “God” in Hebrew texts?)
…so much for my plans to create a website under the name socansux.com.
http://www.adlusa.com/adl/perjury1.htm