As noted here this weekend, Sam Adams (the beer) has taken conciliatory steps towards Sam Adams (the candidate). In fact, in a press release issued by Boston Brewing, the company appears to be stepping down entirely.
On the other hand, there have been occasions over the years when individuals actually named “Sam Adams” have registered domain names that included the words Sam Adams, and we have had no quarrel with that.
Similarly, we believe that Sam Adams, the mayoral candidate, has every bit as much right to use his name as we do. Our namesake, the patriot Samuel Adams, stood for public service and free speech, and we do too. We hope these URLs will, in fact, be transferred to candidate Sam Adams where they rightfully belong.
Candidate Sam Adams – shout your name from the rooftops and your Web site!
This half-assed effort at smoothing things over isn't convincing to me or to anyone else. In my own ear, these words ring hollow to me for (at least) a couple of reasons.
First, the implicit statement here is that, until the sites are actually legally transferred to Adams, there's still an issue. "We hope these URL will...be transferred to candidate Sam Adams where they rightfully belong," along with being grammatically incorrect, injects the corporate IP lawyers' thought that there's a difference between buying them for a candidate, and a candidate buying them for himself. By saying "shout your name from...your website," it appears that Boston Brewing is saying "once it's in your name, we no longer care."
Subtle, but still troubling.
Let me ask you this, Boston Brewing geniuses. Having myself once run a campaign for a local candidate, and having gone to steps to put together a website, I'm privy to a couple of facts. Many candidates don't own their campaign. It's actually funded by a committee, run by a campaign manager, and manned by a bunch of different people who do different things, often without the candidate's specific knowledge. What's the difference between a campaign committee buying a candidate a URL and a couple of well-wishing DJ's doing the same? It seems to me the implication here is that, unless Sam Adams himself actually owns these URL's, we're still operating solely by the good graces of Boston Brewing. They're being nice, as opposed to actually acknowledging that they're full of shit.
Further, I was thinking about their original Cease and Desist letter (again, viewable here). It alleges a serious violation of Federal law by Mark and Dave and, if read in the broad sense it was meant, by Sam Adams (the candidate) if used for his campaign. Suddenly we're supposed to just accept that Federal law was not an issue?
This pisses me off. Lawyers (which, again, I am one of) threaten non-lawyers with inaccurate readings of laws, implicitly accusing people of violating the law in a strong-arm attempt to bully people into submission. When it doesn't work, or when the back-lash finally hits them, they drop the issue. If the law was really being broken, I'm sure they wouldn't. They knew when they wrote the letter that the use of the URL's, as intended, was legal. They were simply trying to protect their monopoly on the name Sam Adams.
Really, they expect me to believe they don't use Google? Either that's true and these are the stupidest people alive, or it's a lie and they are guilty of super-assholery. Either way, I'm still not done boycotting.
Not unless, and until, a full apology is rendered for this capricious act of corporate violence against everyman will I back down from this boycott. Mark and Dave themselves continue to request that a Boston Brewing lackey speak directly to them, and they continue to be refused. Not until their website indicates that they've been given a satisfactory apology will I consider this war over.
I encourage anyone still reading this drivel to take the same stand.
(P.S. Still waiting for someone to accept the Wikipedia challenge...)
1 comment:
the corporate IP lawyers thought that there's a difference between buying them for a candidate, and a candidate buying them for himself.
What about a supporter of a candidate buying domains so that the supporter can express his or her own views? That, too, is totally legitimate, and not infringing on these creeps' trademark. Even if Mark and Dave intended all along to keep the domains and sing the praises of Sam the Tram themselves, it's none of these corporate goons' business.
Post a Comment