CAFTA Treaty Exports DMCA

PingXao writes "The BSA, RIAA and MPAA successfully lobbied the U.S. Congress to include DMCA-like provisions in the recently approved CAFTA treaty, according to CNet. Among other provisions, Chapter 15 of the treaty requires treaty signatories to allow software patents, extend Copyright protections to 70 years after the author's death, and make it illegal to produce 'circumvention devices' for protected works."

Your tax dollars at work

[Kaseijin]

Let's find out who these asshole law makers are and publish their names....

Done [house.gov] and done [senate.gov].

Re:Do lawmakers really think

[cpt kangarooski]

Well it has to be used in commerce, and no one would argue that the MM mark isn't.

The issue is whether the expiration of a copyright (or patent) can cause certain associated trademarks to expire. And the answer is that they can.

A trademark has to indicate that a marked good or service originates from a specific source which maintains a given level of quality (regardless of whether the quality is good or bad). The 'Coke' trademark, for example, must indicate that one entity (the Coke company) makes all the goods with that mark, and maintains quality controls over it.

Additionally, the mark cannot be the generic term for the marked good or service (i.e. the Coke company cannot get a trademark for 'soda' or 'pop' or 'soft drink'), nor can the mark be merely descriptive of the good or service in question. This is because the public and competitors are entitled to use those words as well.

In the case of Mickey Mouse, if the character entered the copyright public domain, then anyone is entitled to create works with that character. A trademark is not a substitute for a copyright, after all. This means that now Disney cannot control the quality of copies of creative works (a sort of good) using the character. Furthermore, since the name 'Mickey Mouse' is the generic name for that character, the trademark has suffered genericide.

So yes, Disney's brand would not only be hurt, it would -- with regards to some of their marks, anyway -- be destroyed.

Of course, they could fight where there was infringement on the 'Disney' trademark, but this just means that people making their own Mickey Mouse works have to avoid confusing people as to the origin of them. It doesn't mean that they cannot use the character, or that they even have to change it. Rather, they just say something like 'Joe Smith's Mickey Mouse' instead of 'Disney's Mickey Mouse,' which is what Disney would have to start doing, if they don't already.