The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Lexicus]

De facto means in fact?

It isn't similar to SLAPP (or "de facto" SLAPP) because manufacturing a knock-off LEGO glock is not "public participation" in any sense of that term.

 

[Sommerswerd]

How about commenting on the substance of my argument wrt why this is bad? This is de facto legal SLAPP. Unless you disagree that anti-SLAPP style regulations are a good thing.

I have commented on the substance of your argument at length. This is not SLAPP at all, so your arguments based on SLAPP are faulty in their premise. So there isn't much to comment on beyond that. So I wasn't commenting on that particular aspect of your argument. Another thing... this is the Gun Control quarantine thread, not the SLAPP thread. Even assuming I wanted to debate SLAPP (I don't, but I did enjoy John Oliver's piece on it and his hilarious roast of Bob Murray at the end ), this thread isn't really the place for that.

Given that this is the Gun Control Thread, I will offer some speculation that what is really going on here, is that you (TMIT) are in favor of this product for political reasons related to gun-control/gun-rights/gun-regulation, etc., and you see LEGO as a villain because they are forcing what you see as a cool collector's item gun off the market.

So having decided you are on the gunmaker's side, you are attempting to reverse engineer a superior legal and moral position for your chosen side, based on a bunch of faulty arguments and incorrect premises. It has been demonstrated to you that your argument is incorrect, but you can't/won't accept it, because your position isn't based on law or any expertise in law, it's based on your feelings of comradarie with the cause of the gunmaker, which cannot be changed or reasoned away.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Could be inspired by mega bloks, lol.

This is a pretty meritless, bad faith argument. Unless you were joking/ being facetious (thus the "lol") It's clearly inspired by LEGO.

Re: your point about the substance of your argument. Our discussion on this has basically been:
1. Me commenting/joking that LEGO could/would sic their lawyers on Culper
2. You saying they had no ability/grounds to do so
3. Me disagreeing and proving that I was correct by showing that LEGO had done exactly that
4. You arguing that LEGO could only do that because they are a large wealthy powerful famous company
5. Me agreeing that this was the partly the case, but also that Culper had in fact copied LEGO
6. You going back to #4 (meaning the argument has run its course). You also said some stuff about SLAPP, which as has been pointed out, isn't relevant.

What I tried to reference earlier, that I think is getting lost in the woods a little, is that while it is of course the case, that LEGO being a large, wealthy, powerful, famous, company, plays a role in their ability to push smaller actors around regarding their brand... the reason LEGO is large, wealthy, powerful, famous, company, is because they built this massive internationally recognizable brand in the first place. In fact, it is precisely the fame and fortune of the LEGO brand, which gives them a good argument that they are entitled to protect the brand in the first place.

So you can call them a "bully" because of their wealth and fame, but their creation of the brand that they are trying to protect from attack/abuse, is the source of the wealth and fame, that are now using to in turn, protect the brand that is the source of the wealth and fame. The two issues are inextricably linked and the one is the source of the other.

As demonstrated above, this hasn't been demonstrated as factual at all. I see no LEGO branding on the device, just a reference to plastic blocks that interlock.

This is another bad faith argument that has no merit at all. They obviously are blatantly copying LEGO's brand. It couldn't be clearer. If you are pretending not to see that then there is nowhere to go from there.

Now if you want to argue that they can blatantly copy LEGO's brand but they should be able to get away with it because "technically" they didn't use the "LEGO" name, then you're incorrect. It's that simple.

 

[Farm Boy]

Should as an ought, or should as in prediction?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I have commented on the substance of your argument at length.

Nope

This is not SLAPP at all, so your arguments based on SLAPP are faulty in their premise. So there isn't much to comment on beyond that.

Derp

The reason this is bad is not unlike the reason that anti-SLAPP is a thing. Especially if the reason the gun company backed down was "c" from above.

Let's make this clear, since it has gone over a few people's heads:

Saying X is bad for the same reason SLAPP is bad is not equivalent to saying "X is SLAPP".

With that out of the way...no, you have not addressed that. It is one thing if the gun company (maybe mistakenly, maybe not) thought they'd fail on the merits. It's another if they agreed only because the court battle would be prohibitively expensive for them, regardless of conclusion.

Wielding "court cases are too expensive to fight" is also a major factor (not the only one, but damned significant) in how we got asset forfeiture to be such rampant cancer in the US. Have fun paying attorney fees to get your < 10k back.

In each of these cases, someone who may (or very much might not be) guilty of wrongdoing (criminal or civil) sees effective punishment prior to any demonstration of said wrongdoing.

Given that this is the Gun Control Thread, I will offer some speculation that what is really going on here, is that you (TMIT) are in favor of this product for political reasons related to gun-control/gun-rights/gun-regulation, etc.

One would hope it's related to gun control, or it would be off topic. That said, I am indeed broadly against constraining liberty w/o coherent basis for doing so. I hold those who support constraining my liberty (or liberty of others) without coherent basis in disdain.

I am a random citizen arguing on a forum, so my position here does not compel much of anything. If anybody is being political in this example to a fault, it's LEGO, since they are clearly willing to go after a gun while apparently being incapable of going after direct competitors who actually produce lego-like things which could...you know...compete with and/or actually impede the performance of LEGO's company.

So having decided you are on the gunmaker's side, you are attempting to reverse engineer a superior legal and moral position for your chosen side

Don't need to reverse engineer. When controlling actions of others, I demand basis as a moral principle. If you don't disagree with that principle, perhaps you should be forced to reconsider...in keeping with your own stance, in that case. After all, if we don't need any coherent reason to compel others to do/not do things, then we don't need any coherent basis to, say...kick you off platforms or use force to punish opinions of yours we don't like.

This is a pretty meritless, bad faith argument. Unless you were joking/ being facetious (thus the "lol") It's clearly inspired by LEGO.

I agree it's bad faith, but less so than LEGO. Since your stance is clearly "they get away with this because they can", I don't see why random internet guy can't mirror the tactics for illustration and expect that we at least apply standards consistently. After all, that's something I can do.

5. Me agreeing that this was the partly the case, but also that Culper had in fact copied LEGO

Don't think it's definitive that LEGO is being copied actually. This is a disagreement on facts, rather than some of our other disagreements here.

This is another bad faith argument that has no merit at all. They obviously are blatantly copying LEGO's brand. It couldn't be clearer. If you are pretending not to see that then there is nowhere to go from there.

No lego displayed, block pattern used routinely on a variety of plastic blocks (not just LEGO), a device that is clearly different in usage.

• If I produce a screwdriver-themed device, I'm not necessarily copying the brand of a particular tool manufacturer.
• When a grocery store makes a generic version of a cereal, they are not necessarily infringing on the "brand" of say cookie crisp. Even if they're producing cookie shaped sugar nonsense that appears extremely similar (and given the largely sugar content, probably only marginally differs in taste).
  
• But somehow, having circle shapes on colored blocks consistent with multiple toy building blocks is specifically infringing on the LEGO brand, in contrast to above. To the extent that pointing this out is in "bad faith" and has "no merit". Even though in contrast to above examples, a gun and toy building blocks are significantly less similar than cereal is to cereal.

 

[Samson]

Saying X is bad for the same reason SLAPP is bad is not equivalent to saying "X is SLAPP".

But you said:

How about commenting on the substance of my argument wrt why this is bad? This is de facto legal SLAPP. Unless you disagree that anti-SLAPP style regulations are a good thing.

That is saying the this is in fact legal Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But you said:

That is saying the this is in fact legal Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

Yeah, I didn't frame that properly when I got frustrated and attempted to repeat it. "De facto" usage was wrong in that context. So I admit that mistake, but it still doesn't change the essence of what I said previously, or my argument for why using legal leverage to bully/compel action is a bad thing for similar reasons that SLAPP is a bad thing.

 

[Samson]

Yeah, I didn't frame that properly when I got frustrated and attempted to repeat it. "De facto" usage was wrong in that context. So I admit that mistake, but it still doesn't change the essence of what I said previously, or my argument for why using legal leverage to bully/compel action is a bad thing for similar reasons that SLAPP is a bad thing.

Fair enough, I can kind of see your point. The other thing :

Don't think it's definitive that LEGO is being copied actually.

They do not need to be copying LEGO. If they are tarnishing the LEGO brand then they are at fault. If someone was to look at the Block19 and think badly of LEGO because the logo looked so much like it they assumed it was made by LEGO then they would lose on the Tarnishment rules. It is a lot closer than the Deere & Co. v. MTD Prods case:

MTD Products advertised its Yard Man lawn tractor in a commercial where its tractor and some barking dogs chase an animated miniature deer around a lawn.
The court found that the use risked “the possibility that consumers will come to attribute unfavorable characteristics to a mark and ultimately associate the mark with inferior goods and services.”
​

This seems a whole lot closer than that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

They do not need to be copying LEGO. If they are tarnishing the LEGO brand then they are at fault. If someone was to look at the Block19 and think badly of LEGO because the logo looked so much like it they assumed it was made by LEGO then they would lose on the Tarnishment rules.

To be fair, the linked cases are about using trademarks in other advertisements, and that's not what's happening with LEGO. Still, enough people could hypothetically associate LEGO specifically, maybe. And then LEGO would still need to demonstrate harm in that context, that "tarnishment" occurred (aka general negative feeling about LEGO resulting in adverse consequences arose from the gun somehow damaging its brand in the eye of consumers). Those are some big "ifs".

The legal theory of “tarnishment” is of concern to any advertiser who displays its competitor’s brand name in a bad light. Under tarnishment, an action is based on the theory that an unauthorized user of one’s trademark is degrading or casting a negative impression on one’s brand. Generally, the tarnishment cause of action is used when a competing product of an inferior quality has a name similar to a superior and famous brand name. The theory of tarnishment has been extended to advertisements.

The link then goes on to give the example you cite above. It's...a) again not necessarily LEGO (or only LEGO) that has a complaint here because their explicit trademark isn't in use and b) not clear in what way LEGO is portrayed in a negative light. Especially b.

I'm not saying LEGO has no chance of succeeding on the merits, but stating "this is maybe/likely a reference to our product that makes no assertions to the quality of LEGO in general" seems like an uphill battle to demonstrate "tarnishment" on the merits. At minimum, LEGO would have to show that this diminished the value of their product. I don't think that would be easy to do.

In this same article, gun company could make a claim to the "parody" section. Consider this part:

In the end, the test of whether a parody is successful is whether there is consumer confusion about the relationship of the parodist and the target brand. Because of the nature of parody, the advertiser is trying to approach and benefit from the other’s brand identity. An acceptable parody, however, must balance two conflicting factors. Use of the other’s trademark must be close enough to the user’s brand name to be recognized, but far enough away as to avoid consumer confusion. Some courts have said that a parodist may use only as much of the original brand name needed to “call to mind” the original brand. Thus, if a company intends to parody another, it should not use the competitor’s entire logo, name or jingle, but only what consumers need to will recognize what their advertisement is referring to.

I don't think there's much room for confusion about an actual gun called "glock 19" being different from "LEGO", while it does appear to be close enough to be recognized (even though I hold LEGO would not be a sole claimant here).

 

[Samson]

Rare UK gun news: Guntrader (Gumtree for shooters) got hacked. Now the location of 111,000 people who bought or sold guns is available as a google maps compatible file

Criminals have hacked into a Gumtree-style website used for buying and selling firearms, making off with a 111,000-entry database containing partial information from a CRM product used by gun shops across the UK. The database contains names, mobile phone numbers, email addresses, user geolocation data, and more including bcrypt-hashed passwords.

Dumped online last week onto an animal rights activist's blog, the reformatted Guntrader breach data was explicitly advertised as being importable into Google Earth so randomers could "contact as many [owners] as you can in your area and ask them if they are involved in shooting animals."

The file emerged on a clearnet site hosted in Iceland and presents a severe risk not only to British firearm and shotgun certificate holders but also anyone who moved house to one of the addresses mentioned in the leak of the stolen database, which contains data up to five years old.

Firearms are attractive to criminals. Targeted robberies and burglaries to steal them, while unusual, are certainly not unknown. Police have previously issued warnings to the licensed firearms community emphasising personal safety after a spate of robberies targeting licensed firearms owners outside their homes and at rifle ranges; the Guntrader breach could lead to a spate of such crimes.
​

The 111,000 location entries from the Guntrader DB break-in plotted on Google Earth. Click to enlarge

 

[Lexicus]

Firearms are attractive to criminals. Targeted robberies and burglaries to steal them, while unusual, are certainly not unknown. Police have previously issued warnings to the licensed firearms community emphasising personal safety after a spate of robberies targeting licensed firearms owners outside their homes and at rifle ranges; the Guntrader breach could lead to a spate of such crimes.

What??? GUN OWNERS,,,, being Robbed?!?!? Impossible!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Now why, after verifying someone purchasing a firearm can do so legally, are they being tracked/geo-located?

Imagine if people were tracked similarly for other products. If it isn't okay for those, it also isn't okay for legally owned firearms. At least, not if you want coherent policy.

 

[Lexicus]

Imagine if people were tracked similarly for other products.

 

[Samson]

Now why, after verifying someone purchasing a firearm can do so legally, are they being tracked/geo-located?

Because they could not be arsed to do it properly:

Why are gun shops recording all this data?
British firearms laws say every transfer of a firearm (sale, drop-off for repair, gift, loan, and so on) must be recorded, with the vast majority of these also being mandatory to report to the police when they happen. This is a time-consuming process, especially for gun shops making lots of transfers every day.
Guntrader aimed to automate the tedious administrative side with its combined CRM and stock management product, which also interfaced with its website.
The product generated automatic emails to police firearms licensing units containing legally required data. It does not appear that these emails were captured in the stolen database.​

 

[uppi]

Now why, after verifying someone purchasing a firearm can do so legally, are they being tracked/geo-located?

Imagine if people were tracked similarly for other products. If it isn't okay for those, it also isn't okay for legally owned firearms. At least, not if you want coherent policy.

Uhh, just imagine that Amazon would store your address after a purchase...

Are you even aware what CRM is?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

British firearms laws say every transfer of a firearm (sale, drop-off for repair, gift, loan, and so on) must be recorded, with the vast majority of these also being mandatory to report to the police when they happen.

Sounds like a problem.

Uhh, just imagine that Amazon would store your address after a purchase...

Address for shipping makes sense, some of these other things...less so. Maintaining database of specific gun ownership as opposed to expensive car ownership, ownership of gold, ownership of certain medical products seems...arbitrary.

Phones are a big problem too. Especially when people don't opt into some of the tracking done.

 

[choxorn]

as opposed to expensive car ownership

You mean like, a state-issued alphanumeric sequence uniquely identifying a car with its owner, which has to be updated every year, and which the state can use to track a car and identify the owner if it is used in a crime? Boy, sure would be arbitrary if we had something like that.

 

[Farm Boy]

That's taxes!



And it doesn't seem to stop cars getting stolen or chopped up or particularly aid in recovery. So it's nice we've tested that one.

Firearms are attractive to criminals. Targeted robberies and burglaries to steal them, while unusual

They are unusual, though it happens. It's a bad idea. A kid around here used a handgun to try and rob a guy with a CC permit the other week. The permit holder must have a pretty good draw. Kid made it a couple miles before he passed. Major suck.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You mean like, a state-issued alphanumeric sequence uniquely identifying a car with its owner, which has to be updated every year, and which the state can use to track a car and identify the owner if it is used in a crime? Boy, sure would be arbitrary if we had something like that.

You got me there. Though, the more I think about it the more what the government already does annoys me. UK doesn't have the US second amendment, but that's the only distinguishing factor wrt this comparing guns to cars (the latter not being "arms").

That's taxes!

And it doesn't seem to stop cars getting stolen or chopped up or particularly aid in recovery. So it's nice we've tested that one.

Both true.

They are unusual, though it happens. It's a bad idea. A kid around here used a handgun to try and rob a guy with a CC permit the other week.

This doesn't sound like a typical scenario where a gun owner is specifically targeted. I'd bet that usually, when someone specifically targets a gun owner, they attempt to steal while the person is a) not there and b) not in possession of the gun. Stealing from someone with a gun, and especially trying to steal specifically the gun from the person with the gun, doesn't sound like an odds-on proposition. Unless maybe you're a cop operating a forfeiture racket. But even then it's probably more dangerous than stealing other things that way.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's a high risk proposition, yes. It's unusual. But people do stupid things, like leave guns in their registered cars, and thus they get stolen.