I think most of us view the world as a place where adults are expected to
interact in a fair and reasonable manner. We normally don't engage in such
juvenile activities such as name calling using every possible four letter
word in the known lexicon. My right to free speech is far too important
to react to such distasteful verbage on the part of Mr. Larson or anyone else.
I'm easy to get along with, if Mr. Larson had approached me in a polite and
civil manner, I probably would have taken the page down, removed the images
and edited the text to remove any direct or illusory references to his service
provider firm. But that was not to be, his threats and name calling compells me to
stand my ground. Actually, the page was intended to be a satire and critique
of the industry in general rather than something squarely aimed at Mr. Larson
or his firm.
Unfortunetely, Mr. Larson and Ms. Pourciau don't understand
U.S. Copyright law. There are certain limitations with respect to exclusivity-of-use in regard
to copyrighted objects. Basically put, copyright law has to strike a balance in
giving reasonable protection to intellectual property while NOT constituting an
overt abridgement of our 1st amendment rights. If copyright laws gave absolute
exclusivity of use of copyrighted objects, it could cause grievous impairment
to the free flow of information. One example would be use of the word "Ford"
or the familiar blue oval logo of the company with the Ford script emblazoned.
Obviously the name "Ford" and blue oval logo are protected under U.S. law and
I can not build and sell automobiles called Ford or apply the blue oval logo
to them, these are protected trade and service marks of the Ford Motor Company.
But the law allows me to use the Ford name and the blue oval for the purposes
of news reporting, commentary, critique, parody, or other journalistic pursuits.
This is called Fair Use and this
chapter of the copyright law IS important here because it allows one to
make direct references to a particular party in the name of journalistic freedom.
Let's say I was an automotive journalist and I wrote an article that was
critical of a Ford Motor Company product, well Ford management probably wouldn't
like that, but in this case 1st amendment rights are more compelling. If the
Ford Motor Company had exclusive use over the Ford name or the Ford logo, I
would have to write my article without using "Ford" in any way and use the term
"Brand F" instead. Obviously such absolute exclusivity of use would constitute
a serious impairment of my 1st amendment rights and the copyright law recognizes
this which why the "Fair Use" chapter was written into law. Had it not, the copyright
law probably would have NOT withstood any serious 1st amendment challenge.
This issue was recently broached by America On Line (AOL) and the
use of objects copyrighted by AOL on various anti-AOL sites that have
sprouted up across the internet. The rather humourless management of
AOL took great exception to the use of AOL copyrighted objects such as
icons or other on-screen graphics that the creators of anti-AOL sites
snapshotted and used on their anti-AOL web pages. AOL management threatened
lawsuits and otherwise harassed the creators of these anti-AOL pages over
the use of their copyrighted objects on their pages. But in the end, AOL
could NOT enjoin the use of these objects on the anti-AOL pages because
of the Fair Use doctrine. Those individuals who put up the anti-AOL pages
were obviously not going in the business as AOL, but merely offering
critique or commentary on AOL.
In the end, if Mr. Larson and Ms. Pourciau put as much effort into
their service provider business as they have in attacking or otherwise
harassing me, they would probably would be patently sucessful. If they
wallow in red ink, it is by their own hand rather than some machination
on my part regardless of what my intentions are. I will continue assert
my right to free speech, but I really don't bear them any malice in this respect.
Cliff Larson should be a happy camper!.gif)
I like to go back and freshen my pages on occassion and in doing so I replaced those images that alluded to his firm with others that I thought conveyed the content of the page that much better. Not that I had to, but I found something better and (tsk tsk) I won't be promoting his firm either for which he gave me reams of credit for in his silly phone calls to me. I didn't mind promoting his firm at first, we are not competitors as we service different markets and dial-ups don't figure prominently in our plans like they do for Mr. Larson. Had all this nonsense never started, I might have refered potential clients to Mr. Larson if I thought he could have serviced them better from his location. But all that is water over the proverbial dam now, and if referals are to made, they'll obviously be directed somewhere else.