Jump to content

This is pushing it a bit


weena Janic
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 4030 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Athena Mornington wrote:

Call me crazy (and I know this is off-topic), but the views on this are up to 10165.

Is it possible that the brand name H-D is causing the thread to show up in web searches? It's rather bizarre to see so many views (not sure that I've ever seen that many on a thread in the forums before).

is some one playing with a link clicker program. probably weena the OP

if was jjust bc of the keyword showing up in google/bing/yahoo search then  the Brands Survey post would also be getting high view numbers

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Athena Mornington wrote:

Call me crazy (and I know this is off-topic), but the views on this are up to 10165.

Is it possible that the brand name H-D is causing the thread to show up in web searches? It's rather bizarre to see so many views (not sure that I've ever seen that many on a thread in the forums before).

Holy Moose In A Raincoat!

Could it  be the Harley lawyers deciding what they are going to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


16 wrote:

is some one playing with a link clicker program. probably weena the OP

if was jjust bc of the keyword showing up in google/bing/yahoo search then  the Brands Survey post would also be getting high view numbers

 

I noticed that, too. If you back up to look at the screen cap I posted to Czari (nice of you to get her out from under the rock, btw) you'll see it was just under 1200 and had gone up slightly the next time I looked. This morning LST it was at 10K.

The original OP was posted right about this time of day. Currently there are less than 400 people here according to the stats. It would be reasonable to assume that you watching 900 views in five minutes had little to do with people in the forum.

It would also be reasonable to assume that seeing the total views increase by an order of magnitude in a few hours has little do with either people in the forum or outside search bots hitting on the brand name (if so, where were they in the intervening days?). So the most likely reason is someone trying to prove something by faking results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dillon Levenque wrote:

Aye. I am pretty sure I've seen that officially used, although I just checked and the Second Life Status Grid times are listed in PST so I may have imagined it.

I can't remember ever seeing LST used and In World almost everyone I know uses the acronym "SLT" (Second Life Time) when planning things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Perrie Juran wrote:

I can't remember ever seeing LST used and In World almost everyone I know uses the acronym "SLT" (Second Life Time) when planning things.

Yeah, I was going to mention that I was pretty sure I'd reversed the order. Your interpretation as 'Second Life' rather than mine as 'Linden Standard' would make sense of that. I just went with my order because I frequently see references to "Linden Time"; I just kind of morphed that into a time zone and acronymed appropriately. After the second Sunday in March I'll be using LDT (presuming we manage to pull through this business on the 21st, that is).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dillon Levenque wrote:

 

Perrie Juran wrote:

I can't remember ever seeing LST used and In World almost everyone I know uses the acronym "SLT" (Second Life Time) when planning things.

Yeah, I was going to mention that I was pretty sure I'd reversed the order. Your interpretation as 'Second Life' rather than mine as 'Linden Standard' would make sense of that. I just went with my order because I frequently see references to "Linden Time"; I just kind of morphed that into a time zone and acronymed appropriately. After the second Sunday in March I'll be using LDT (presuming we manage to pull through this business on the 21st, that is).

Just stay away from the LSD.

Especially the brown LSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Everyone quotes the TOS regarding issues like these, in order to lend their position validity; but none of you seem to be quoting it very accurately.

For all I know I also get it wrong, but I also don't seem to inject nearly as much personal opinion into the matter.So I have a little bit of confidence that I am closer to the mark than anyone can appreciate. But I could be wrong about that.

 

Admittedly I didn't bother reading through seven pages of panty-bunching and nitpicking though, otherwise I would be talking more about that...

Also it would help if there were some sort of detailed breakdown ANYWHERE of this vague but vital issue by the writers of the TOS. So if you have a link to THAT, how about putting it up there for people to review?

 

As far as I can tell, The OP has done nothing wrong or in violation of anything by using brand names as keywords.

No apparent or reportable COPYRIGHT infringement exists.

 

Last time I checked, you could not generally COPYRIGHT a name (though it can be trademarked).

This means (it would seem) that use of ANY branded name in a visible listing would be a TRADEMARK violation, not a copyright issue. It would seem.

there is no crime commited using a brand name as a KEYWORD; you cannot MARKET the product as something made UNDER that brand name, which to my knowledge is the significant difference being ignored here.

As far as I have been able to tell, this is how brand names can OPENLY appear in news articles, movies, songs and literature for example, without creating infringement; mere mention of a brand does not equal a TRADEMARK infringement.

Two songs with the same name by two different bands would not be an infringment on either, for example. Doing a cover of the other bands song and selling it as your own however, would be an obvious infringement.

 

Claiming ownership, stating 'made by', or placing branding directly ON a product so that it creates a false sense to the consumer of that item being licensed, endorsed, or MADE by the brand owner however would be a trademark and/or copyright infringement. And that would appear to be the major difference in play.

The TOS seems to specify identifying use of a brand name in a LISTING. Keyword spam is not using brand names in your keywords, it is using NON RELATED terms as keywords. There is a big difference. LL goes so far as to define a listing and a keyword separately in their terms, and if they were one and the same, it seeems that there would be no need for separate identification. The grey area would have already been covered in the legalese provided.

I have a hard time believing that keywords that to my knowledge are not visible can be considered a part of a visible listing, since you can't see what part of a keyword actually came back positively in a search. So a company filing a DMCA for an unverifiable infringement seems not just unlikely, it seems impossible and highly liable. How do you allege someone has done something you can't see? Filing a blanket DMCA based on assumption doesn't seem legally sound, it seems more like a reverse lawsuit waiting to happen. It only takes one false accusation by a company to get them sued for damages. I can't see a company protecting itself from penny theft while risking open litigation for thousands of dollars in damages as a very sound business model.

 

So if the above presumption/synopsis is true, then all of you in this thread who are acting like know-it-all bullies with your 'what-did-you-expect-crying-for-help-you-are-a-filthy-criminal" mob mentality toward the original poster are so out of line that THEY should be suspended or banned for their harrassment of an innocent customer with a legitimate problem.

Just saying.

 

I apologize to the OP for the mean-spirited behavior frequently displayed by the SL forum superfriends; the same mentality on all forums and weblogs that persists in the hearts of insensitive people with anger management issues mixed with internet anonymity. 

Most wouldn't behave this way face to face out of simple respect, or at least fear and cowardice; and the same fear that makes them feel like powerless cowards in life encourages them to become passive-aggressive loudmouths that lash out at others in their own helplessness.

It's a shame that anymore people can't just either be kind, or shut up. Sign of the times.

These forums usually suck, because I see alot of misinformed, hostile, pushy people insisting they are unequivocally right, and frankly getting nasty over it when anyone dares to challenge their authority...but as far as I can tell the loudest and most aggressive participants in these discussions are usually wrong and unable to admit it. Or at least not as right as they think they are, and still unable to admit it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Madeliefste Oh wrote:


weena Janic wrote:

--> no one can see or read that name brand in my listings <-- cause search words dont apear in your listings

That depends on how you tweak your browser, I can see the keywords of all listings in the markeplace

 

Can you (or someone who knows) share your tweakings? 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are currently approximately 2,000 listings that come back with the keyword search 'Harley".

At least 520 of those are vehicles.

None of them look like new listings.

 

There are currently approximately 300 listings that come back with the keyword "Davidson".

At least 120 of those are vehicles.

None of them look like new listings.

 

There are currently approximately 150 listings that come back with the keyword "Harley Davidson".

At least 70 of those are vehicles.

None of them look like new listings.

 

Obvious visible Harley logo infringement occurs in some of these listings, which is far more incriminating than a brand name being used as a keyword.

Many of these products appear in all three searches, which suggests the use of not only the search term Harley and Davidson, but also the term Harley Davidson in each keyword listing.

 

If all it takes to avoid trademark infringment is the use of a comma between two words, then it would seem this is a very weak avenue to pursue for IP protection or enforcement.

 

IF products were being blocked by LL on behalf of Harley Davidson for keywording of brand names, THEN there should be some sort of consistency, presumably none of these additional listings could or should exist currently.

 

This suggests that this is not a trademark or copyright issue at all, but just another LL 'delisting' glitch that should be ticketed for correction.

This also suggests that most people do NO research whatsoever before spouting off their official misinformation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dirtnap Mumfuzz wrote:

Everyone quotes the TOS regarding issues like these, in order to lend their position validity; but none of you seem to be quoting it very accurately.

For all I know I also get it wrong, but I also don't seem to inject nearly as much personal opinion into the matter.So I have a little bit of confidence that I am closer to the mark than anyone can appreciate. But I could be wrong about that.

 

I'm snipping what you wrote, because beyond this point I've quoted, the rest of your post is inaccurate and irrelevant , it's also as mean spirited and such as you claim everyone else has been towards the end, and no one needs that quoted.

You are incorrect, and you are getting it wrong as far as this topic goes. As I, and others, have already pointed out by providing links to the listing guidelines. Here, try this link again, and this time, read it.

https://marketplace.secondlife.com/listing_guidelines

Now, scroll your self to roughly 1/4 of the way down the page. There is a subtopic that says

 

SL MARKETPLACE LISTING GUIDELINES

Go there.

If you want information on branding, keyword spam, and things like this, you will find it all right there in that section. But since, even after posting this already in the thread, some still insist others haven't read the guidlines...I'll post some portions quoted directly..

Under branding guidelines...scroll to "this is not acceptable"-but please do read the rest of the branding guidelines area as well, it is important.

"Lists of unrelated brand names cannot be included in a listing or hidden by using white-on-white text, tiny fonts, special HTML code, or other means intended to circumvent the rules. (See also Keyword Spam below.)"

This is where the violation occurred here-the branding used, yes even in keywords it's still branding. It does happen quite often, sometimes because people are confused about what is and is not allowed, and sometimes not. Any brand you don't own, is unrelated to your product, period. They even tell you to be wary of using "inspired by" because it lends to unfamiliar territory with the potential to be problematic.

Now, let's go to the keyword spam area, since that's the most relevant to this topic..

Scrolling to near the bottom you'll find a section that says

"Disallowed Actions"

You'll find keyword spam discussed there. The most relevant portion of that guideline, to this topic, would be this part...

"Keyword spam is the use of words (such as brand names, item names, or other terms) that have nothing to do with the item listed so that the listing will appear in search results. Keyword spam is not allowed because it clutters the SL Marketplace and makes buying and selling more difficult. In addition:"

 

 If you'd read the previous replies at all, you will see your opinion of everyone else isn't all that accurate either. A lot of good information was posted. Yes some people are snide, rude, crass, but that doesn't apply to everyone, or even most people for that matter. Most of the other posters actually posted relevant and accurate information as far as branding is concerned and why it's taboo. I'm not certain why you believe your opinion is the truth when it's nearly the exact opposite of what the guidelines actually say. Not my interpretation of the guidelines, but the actual words presented, at face value. They aren't vague guidelines like so many others we have and so very much of the general sl TOS.

Using a brand name anywhere on/with/by/for/in your product(s) you have no legal right to use, or have not been granted rights to use I should say, can get you in hot water both in rl and in sl(as the op now knows). Will it always? No. Not every violation gets caught. Why take the risk though? It's a bit of a stupid one, if you ask me. Even if a merchant doesn't mind their stuff being removed for breaking guidelines, I am pretty sure they would mind having the reputation that might come along with being that person who breaks the guidelines. Then again, maybe they wouldn't. But as a consumer, since I have options, I wouldn't shop with someone who uses brand names, at all, unless they owned them. It wouldn't matter if it was keywords, on the ad, in the description, or anywhere. It's just a no-brainer thing for me, even without the guidelines. I could be all alone out there on that branch but I am guessing, because I actually read the thread in it's entirety, I am not.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for actually posting up the section of the TOS I am referring to, and trying to self-righteously and incredulously misquote it.

This is the sort of myopicity I am referring to really. Ignorance is one helluva drug, it would seem. 

 

Again, according to the same TOS, KEYWORD spam and TRADEMARK infringement are two different things.

Lumping them together doesn't make you more right, just less literate.

 

I cannot be held responsible for your inability to comprehend and/or delineate between the two.

I do thank you for performing it publicly though, I couldn't have asked for a better example.

 

Also, since you probably didn't actually read any further than the part you wanted to gety angry about and continue to misrepresent, why don't you go ahead and outline how my understanding of current U.S. trademark and copyright law is completely and totally innacurate. If you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dirtnap Mumfuzz wrote:

Thank you for actually posting up the section of the TOS I am referring to, and trying to self-righteously and incredulously misquote it.

This is the sort of myopicity I am referring to really. Ignorance is one helluva drug, it would seem. 

 

Again, according to the same TOS, KEYWORD spam and TRADEMARK infringement are two different things.

Lumping them together doesn't make you more right, just less literate.

 

I cannot be held responsible for your inability to comprehend and/or delineate between the two.

I do thank you for performing it publicly though, I couldn't have asked for a better example.

 

Also, since you probably didn't actually read any further than the part you wanted to gety angry about and continue to misrepresent, why don't you go ahead and outline how my understanding of current U.S. trademark and copyright law is completely and totally innacurate. If you can.

I read your entire reply. I did not lump trademark and keyword spam together, in fact I didn't even use the word trademark. I posted the relevant information in the guidelines, the portions pertinent to this topic, and also provided a link to the guidelines so anyone unfamiliar can read at their leisure. Not everyone knows where, or what, they are. I did not post my opinion as to why the products were removed, nor my interpretation of the guidelines. I posted the exact reason why this person's products were removed. I know this is the reason why, because the OP said it was, and the lab told the OP it was when the products were removed. Yes you are correct in saying the lab selectively removes things. Not every item gets flagged, or found. So this allows many, thousands even, violations to exist on the mp. That is an area they seriously need to work on when it comes to the marketplace. They rely pretty heavily on residents reporting violations. That said, it still doesn't mean you can,(read:should) use whatever words you want, wherver you want them, because other merchants do it too.

You have your opinion and I have mine. Then we have the guidelines which are not vague in the least, right there in print for us. We seem to disagree on what they say, however. I take them at face value based only on the words on the screen. I don't read more into them than what they put before my eyes.  If we all just went with our own definitions, or perceived ones, sl would be even more screwed up than it already is. That's why the guidelines are there. Even if I may not always agree with all of their guidelines or TOS, I am glad some are a lot less vague than others. I wish they were all this clear.

But, I'll bow out of the conversation. I'm not fond of the rude junk, either, and really not fond of participating in or perpetuating it.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this post had been dormant for so long until you necroed it, I just went back and read it all, start to finish. I knew I'd commented somewhere so I was self-motivated, but I did not recall all the hostility you described.

ImaTest was a bit stern, I thought, but polite and straightforward. Hardly anyone else was even what I'd call snarky, given the attitude of the OP.

By far, the rudest and snottiest comments in this entire thread have been made by you. OP is a distant second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"dormant for so long"?

This topic was created in early December. Last post was December 14th.

Approximately a month old is a long time to you? I mean maybe you mean relative to relationship terms.

I think that registers as a serious medical condition. I hear they have a medication for that. You can buy it online.

 

There is nothing polite about misinformation, and declaring keyword spam is why someone got an IP infringement warning seems like a whole lot of just that. Warping definition leads to clinical pack mentality fueled by hysterical and ignorant behavior. Talk about rude.

 

 

Ohhh you were joking. 

For a clownfish, you're not that funny.

 

Enough of that nasal drivel, on to important matters.

Application of common sense needs to occur from this point forward, for any of this to make a difference.

See, I made a funny.

 

Actually I used the word trademark; and perhaps you should consider doing so as well, because until someone can tell me otherwise that is what using a brand name is (unless some other logo or depiction is also used, but not being a judge OR a lawyer on the topic, I wouldn't know; hence my previous gratuitous use of 'seems' to indicate I am making queries, not declarations), and calling a spade a spade is rather relevant, and important to proper comprehension. Otherwise there is a real risk of thinking terms and their definitions are interchangeable, which will make you look stupid pretty quickly. Which is why I try to excersize cautious consideration around definitions. And if trademark is the wrong term to apply to the use of a name brand, then I will adjust accordingly, but I'm pretty sure that's the right order.

Despite not being legally versed I have read a little bit on the subject, and I can tell you that copyright and trademark though closely related are meant to define two separate bodies or types of material; and are usually treated as two very different issues, and require different processes whose outcomes are dependent on the merits of each situation.

Last time I checked, Harley Davidson was a trademark, not a copyright.

You are reinterpreting the definition 'unrelated brand names' to mean mean ANY brand name use, and according to "the letter of the law" that is obviously flat wrong. Otherwise there would be no need to specify 'unrelated brand names' it would just say do not use brand names. Since Harley Davidson is a motorcycle, using it as a keyword on a motorcycle listing would NOT be keyword spam. Nor would it be referenced in the section of the TOS regarding keyword spam. Simple.

As a result, I am declaring that your claim that the TOS definition of keyword spam somehow IS applicable or relevant to or the same thing as any sort of brand infringment is the best proof anyone could provide that you are absolutely not taking it on face value; i.e. misinterpeting, and seeking to impress your misunderstanding upon others.

Just saying.

 

So since you posted up the pertinent information for all to read, let's see what can be seen.

 

Despite what most people think. LL is pretty consistent at what they do. And arguably what they do best is legally protect themselves.

Presumably the TOS is expected to be a binding document so that leads me to believe we are supposed to try to interpret it verbatim. And I see all manner of indication that LL has tried to impress this concept upon the TOS recipient.

The fact that LL goes as far as to provide examples of how closely mimicing a trademarked brand is still an infringement indicates their interest in covering all possible loopholes.

Even providing a variety of examples of what not to do. Even though everyone does it constantly. Because it is actually rather common knowledge, I have found, that there is nothing new just new versions of what has been around for a very long time. But still they offer examples for clarity. And to legally protect themselves.

If I recall correctly, on the topic of copyright and trademark matters, LL directs the reader in another document to review the applicable laws after a brief introduction, and contact information for filing a complaint for either situation. I seem to have noticed two separate procedures.

They don't offer their interpretation of the law, they only define those terms and conditions they can control, and they cannot dictate -or predict- copyright or trademark law.

Despite all of this, keyword spam means using NON related terms so that your listing appears with non related items. It does not mean brand name  violation or infringement in any form. Otherwise it would simply be stated and resolved. 

In other words, listing some shoes but putting the brand name word for a boat or airplane or other NON related search term would cause spamming of search terms, and hinder its functionality.

Unless I am mistaken, that would be a proper interpretation of keyword spam. If this is true, then keyword spam has nothing to do with brand name anything unless that brand name was for something non related. 

Unless someone can show it to me, it seems quite apparent there is no where a statement that says 'you may not use any copyrighted and/or trademarked name or brand in your keyword terms" and given the scrutiny applied to other issues that it is actually by all indications well within their authority to prevent confusion by defining the terms. But to endorse such an action as using brand names for any purpose would be asking to get sued into the stone age the minute the law was redefined.

 

My opinion, if you should find it sufficiently boring enough to disregard entirely, is that LL is smart enough to dictate what they can (to legally protect themselves), interfere when they must (to legally protect themselves) and not endorse or promote any action that could be considered liable or litigious (to legally protect themselves). 

But opinion doesn't really apply on a subject that is supposed to be considered a legally definable boundary, does it.

All I know is that I don't know nothin'. And that's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dirtnap Mumfuzz wrote:

"dormant for so long"?

This topic was created in early December. Last post was December 14th.

Approximately a month old is a long time to you? I mean maybe you mean relative to relationship terms.

I think that registers as a serious medical condition. I hear they have a medication for that. You can buy it online.

 

There is nothing polite about misinformation, and declaring keyword spam is why someone got an IP infringement warning seems like a whole lot of just that. Warping definition leads to clinical pack mentality fueled by hysterical and ignorant behavior. Talk about rude.
 

 

Ohhh you were joking. 

For a clownfish, you're not that funny.

 

 

Yes, a post that was active for about a week and has been entirely quiet for more than a month has been 'dormant for so long'.

There has been no pack mentality nor hysterical behavior demonstrated by anyone in this thread. 

No, I was not joking.

I took a look at your profile. I will give you credit for honesty. The four words after the colon are certainly true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 4030 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...