# France set to cut off Internet access for file sharing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 3, 2008, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-set-to-cut-off-internet-access-for-file-sharing/470895 "2008-11-03T18:19:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-set-to-cut-off-internet-access-for-file-sharing/470895/41 "2008-11-04T19:22:39Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Strike Three. Provide a cite that says a non-commerical error in calling a copy machine a Xerox machine constitutes a trademark violation. I’ll accept caselaw from any U.S. court. Wikipedia, especially a wikipedia article you have clearly misunderstood, is not acceptable. Okay sure why not. > **[Is there a term for “trade names that become generic”?](https://www.straightdope.com/21342607/is-there-a-term-for-trade-names-that-become-generic)** > > A STAFF REPORT FROM THE STRAIGHT DOPE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD > [@](#): > > Coke has won lawsuits against restaurants who serve another brand of cola when their customers ask for a Coke, although they did lose the proprietary right to the name “cola,” because it’s descriptive of the product. snip > [@](#): > > Words which have gone the way of “cola,” that is, former trademarks that have been ruled (legally) descriptive words, and therefore, no longer owned by the companies or individuals who invented them, include aspirin, brassiere, cellophane, corn flakes, escalator, granola, gunk, heroin, jungle gym, kerosene, linoleum, raisin bran, shredded wheat, tabloid, thermos, touch-tone, trampoline, yo-yo, and zipper. That was easy. Anyone who’s ever dealt with the South knows Coke works a generic name for soda or pop down there. All it takes is one southern waitress waiting on a southern person both using the local word for “pop” for trademark infringement to happen. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. How many years should those people serve? Meanwhile look at long list of things that have lost their trademark value. Everytime you use a trademark in a way not approved by it’s issuer you rob it of value. Further diluting it, and all the money spent getting name recognition behind it. When your office misuses Xerox you push the trademark closer to the edge. You’re taking money out of Xerox’s future pocket, and putting past money down the toilet, by your miss use of their intellectual property. Even if it isn’t illegal you’re doing the very same thing pirates do. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-set-to-cut-off-internet-access-for-file-sharing/470895/42 "2008-11-04T19:29:32Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > That was easy. Anyone who’s ever dealt with the South knows Coke works a generic name for soda or pop down there. All it takes is one southern waitress waiting on a southern person both using the local word for “pop” for trademark infringement to happen. That’s not a citation to caselaw regarding a \*\*non-commerical \*\*error, now is it? You snarked up the wrong tree. I’ll accept your apology anytime now. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-set-to-cut-off-internet-access-for-file-sharing/470895/43 "2008-11-04T19:31:50Z")
> [@Ponster](#): > > But isn’t my download speed at the mercy of the foreign proxy ? Truth, but if normal file sharing becomes impractical I expect a thriving industry of VPN services to pop up in legal safe heavens. Remember when pirates used to pay to access special newsgroup servers? . > [@gazpacho](#): > > Ip address, port fields? You have left 95% of the people behind. This is way to complex for most people. Sure lots of people could learn it if they put their minds to it but most wont. > > > [@](#): > > > > There’s tools that do that automatically for browsing anonymity. It’d extremely trivial to make a program that can automatically configure proxies from just a link. > > Freeweb suffers from from the fact that the record companies will look for music and Freeweb and start downloading it. If they get packets from people in France they will try and make the case that those people in France are sharing the files. I am skeptical that the courts will side with the argument the that particular node on free net is innocently passing the packet along and not sharing the file. That is a good possibility. It’ll be interesting to see what if any counter measures pop up. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-set-to-cut-off-internet-access-for-file-sharing/470895/44 "2008-11-04T19:36:40Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > That’s not a citation to caselaw regarding a \*\*non-commerical \*\*error, now is it? > > You snarked up the wrong tree. I’ll accept your apology anytime now. So what? Are those those southern waiters and waitresses criminal thieves deserving of jail? They did legally violate intellectual property after all. Just like a pirate. edit: oh snap oops could a mod fix my quote in the above post? ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-set-to-cut-off-internet-access-for-file-sharing/470895/45 "2008-11-04T19:40:23Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > For $40 Canadian a month I get, so far as I’ve found, unlimited up/download. Speed? 'Cause that’s what I’m talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-set-to-cut-off-internet-access-for-file-sharing/470895/46 "2008-11-04T19:42:30Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > So what? Are those those southern waiters and waitresses criminal thieves deserving of jail? They did legally violate intellectual property after all. Just like a pirate. So what? So you were flat out wrong in your snarky reply to me. An apology is due. I’m waiting. As for your question, you tell me. Is there an applicable criminal statute for trademark violations? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-set-to-cut-off-internet-access-for-file-sharing/470895/47 "2008-11-04T19:58:08Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > So what? So you were flat out wrong in your snarky reply to me. An apology is due. I’m waiting. > > As for your question, you tell me. Is there an applicable criminal statute for trademark violations? So you claim use of Xerox as a generic word doesn’t rob Xerox of the money they’ve invested in their trademark? That was my point. Is there a different logic with which you label copyright infringement as theft? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-set-to-cut-off-internet-access-for-file-sharing/470895/48 "2008-11-04T20:02:38Z")
And for what it’s worth I did get pretty snarky and I do apologize. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-set-to-cut-off-internet-access-for-file-sharing/470895/49 "2008-11-04T20:03:12Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > So you claim use of Xerox as a generic word doesn’t rob Xerox of the money they’ve invested in their trademark? That was my point. Is there a different logic with which you label copyright infringement as theft? That’s not what I said. I said that instructing my secretary to xerox something does not constitute a trademark violation. You said I was wrong, and you were quite rude about it. I want either a cite to support your position, or an apology. Until you provide one or the other, we have nothing to discuss. Edit: OK, I accept the offered apology. Response to your point to follow by separate post to avoid missing edit window. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-set-to-cut-off-internet-access-for-file-sharing/470895/50 "2008-11-04T20:04:54Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > That’s not what I said. I said that instructing my secretary to xerox something does not constitute a trademark violation. You said I was wrong, and you were quite rude about it. I want either a cite to support your position, or an apology. > > Until you provide one or the other, we have nothing to discuss. Post above you. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-set-to-cut-off-internet-access-for-file-sharing/470895/51 "2008-11-04T20:18:58Z")
The example I gave does not cost Xerox any money. We have a copy machine in my office. If I tell my secretary to xerox something, to copy something, or to use the magic box to make more of something, she is going to go to the copy machine and run my document through it in accordance with my instructions. No money changes hands as a result of that transaction. We don’t sell copies of documents as “Xerox” products. No one will be more or less likely to purchase Xerox products because of what I said to my secretary in the privacy of my office. No trademark infringement has occurred. The example you gave is different. A restaurant customer asks for a Coke ™. The restaurant serves a similar product not sold by Coca-Cola, Inc. The customer may be confused, thinking they received a Coke when in fact they recieved a different product. This may make them more or less likely to purchase Coke products in the future. Infringement has occured. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-set-to-cut-off-internet-access-for-file-sharing/470895/52 "2008-11-04T20:27:21Z")
Yea but the more you use Xerox to mean copy the less it means Xerox™ and the more it means generic copy, and the less rights Xerox has over it. Trademark owners lose their rights when a term shifts to far into generic usage. Rights over name recognition Xerox has invested considerable resources into establishing. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-set-to-cut-off-internet-access-for-file-sharing/470895/53 "2008-11-04T20:35:09Z")
I don’t know if the French measure will completely stamp out piracy in France and I imagine technological systems will stay one step ahead of enforcibility (is that a word?) However, I can imagine it might make for example, parents more aware and wary of their children’s activities online, and in general may deter a signficant chunk of casual computer users who download and upload copyright infringeing material. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-set-to-cut-off-internet-access-for-file-sharing/470895/54 "2008-11-04T20:47:36Z")
Overly Simplistic Note: An establishment serving a soda product calling (relatively) interchangeable items by the other’s name is using the name in a commercial fashion – it’s selling one product but calling it another (whether out of laziness or duplicitousness is irrelevant). ETA: Remember kids, refresh your browser before posting! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/france-set-to-cut-off-internet-access-for-file-sharing/470895.md?page=2)