Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Library of Congress Threatens Washington Watch Wiki

Posted by kdawson on Mon May 07, 2007 06:11 PM
from the trademark-madness dept.
Government United States Politics
BackRow writes "Washington Watch, a site devoted to tracking the cost of federal legislation, has raised the hackles of the Library of Congress with a new wiki that makes an unfavorable comparison to the LOC's THOMAS legislative search engine. After Jim Harper, Washington Watch's creator and the director of information policy at the Cato Institute, announced the wiki, he received a nastygram from the LOC." Quoting: "After the announcement, he was contacted by Matt Raymond, the Director of Communications at the Library (and the author of the Library of Congress' blog). Raymond said that he possessed 'statutory and regulatory authority governing unauthorized use of the Library's name and logo and those of Library subunits and programs,' and he asked that Harper stop using the names 'Library of Congress' and 'THOMAS' in his marketing materials."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Library of Congress Threatens Washington Watch Wiki 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Obvious Solution (Score:5, Funny)

    by Qzukk (229616) on Monday May 07 2007, @06:12PM (#19029059) Journal
    Call it the Library of Progress, and refer to JEFFERSON.
    • Library of !=(Pro) + gress

      That would make a great T-shirt! (tm)

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by philpalm (952191)
      Quote from article:
      "I contacted Raymond about the issue, and he tells Ars that he was acting under Library of Congress Regulation 112, which says that "the use of the Library's name, explicitly or implicitly to endorse a product or service, or materials in any publication is prohibited, except as provided for in this Regulation." For Raymond, the issue here is that Harper was critical of the Library's own work in a way which endorsed his own; as Raymond puts it, "the use of THOMAS in the Washington Watch pr

    • In my opinion... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by It doesn't come easy (695416) * on Monday May 07 2007, @07:22PM (#19029793) Journal
      Whoever originally coined the word Con-gress ... should be modded the most insightful and prescient individual in history.

  • Cato Institute? Eh, whatever. (Score:3, Funny)

    by metrometro (1092237) on Monday May 07 2007, @06:18PM (#19029097)
    "Director of information policy at the Cato Institute..." Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to continue giving a shit after that?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by qbzzt (11136)
      "Director of information policy at the Cato Institute..." Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to continue giving a shit after that?

      Not if you believe that rights only belong to people who happen to agree with you.
      • A "free market in the field of government" rarely lasts, and only once that I can think of(maybe twice) has it lead to the second government not being a thousand times worse than the previous.
        • "A free market in the field of government" means that if a government is bad you have the option to abandon it, and the country it runs, and find a better place to live.

            • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

              by qbzzt (11136)
              It's my country. *I have a right to change it.*

              You have the right to try. You may or may not succeed.

              "Love it or leave it" is just more facist crap. Stop trying to strip me of my constitutional rights.

              I didn't realize I was doing that. I didn't write this .sig as a reply to you. I wrote it in 1998, as I was leaving Israel to build my life in the US. I hated conscription (I consider it a form of slavery), so I moved to a country where the government isn't as likely to vote my children into uniforms. Since th

    • "Director of information policy at the Cato Institute..." Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to continue giving a shit after that?

      Of course. Why else did you bring that Cato report to the restroom if you weren't going to take a nice dump and wipe your ass with it?

    • Cato Publications (Score:5, Informative)

      by binarybits (11068) on Tuesday May 08 2007, @08:07AM (#19035157) Homepage
      I'm a longtime Slashdot reader and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. I'm not sure why you're so hostile to the Cato Institute, but you might want to check out a few of our recent publications:



      Obviously, you're not going to agree with everything we publish, but you'd be hard-pressed to find another think tank that's done as much work on the issues near and dear to the hearts of Slashdotters.

        • If Nothing Else, Princpled. (Score:5, Informative)

          by Shihar (153932) on Monday May 07 2007, @06:50PM (#19029465)
          You can accuse Cato of a lot of things... lacking principles and being anyone's lap dog is roughly the last. Brooking's, American Heritage, and lots of other think tanks can be 'flexible' in what they advocate based upon the party flavor of the month. Cato is unbending, rock solid, and deeply principled. Now, you can argue that their principles are abhorrent, but anyone who knows anything about Cato can not say that their principles are bent by who gives them money. They are Libertarians who are as happy to criticize business, Democrats, Republics, and anyone else who violates their principles (and all three do, regularly).

          • You can accuse Cato of a lot of things... lacking principles and being anyone's lap dog is roughly the last.

            Being principled means two things - being consistent in the causes you advocate for and being consistent in the causes you do not advocate. Cato is pretty consistent in the first case, but the causes they choose to advocate for seem to be driven by their sponsors, perhaps leaving behind other causes that are not so beneficial for their sponsors, but may be more idealogically important to their principles.

            Sure, the line has to be drawn somewhere, resources are not infinite. But that doesn't mean the line

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by sumdumass (711423)

              Being principled means two things - being consistent in the causes you advocate for and being consistent in the causes you do not advocate. Cato is pretty consistent in the first case, but the causes they choose to advocate for seem to be driven by their sponsors, perhaps leaving behind other causes that are not so beneficial for their sponsors, but may be more idealogically important to their principles.

              So when I find some organization that believes in much of the same stuff I do and I then donate or do

          • "I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity." - Nietzsche, Götzen-Dämmerung (1889)

          • Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by metrometro (1092237) on Monday May 07 2007, @06:42PM (#19029373)
            Oh boy. For what it's worth, I work for a D.C. government watchdog and am very familiar with Cato. I read their books, I go to their events. Their office is sweet - lots of windows, big atrium. Bottom line is their science positions are intellectually dishonest at a comprehensive level, and that keeps them well funded by industry. So yeah, I distrust the information they put out, because they have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders.

            • Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever. (Score:5, Informative)

              by tourvil (103765) on Tuesday May 08 2007, @07:11AM (#19034319)

              Oh boy. For what it's worth, I work for a D.C. government watchdog and am very familiar with Cato. I read their books, I go to their events. Their office is sweet - lots of windows, big atrium. Bottom line is their science positions are intellectually dishonest at a comprehensive level, and that keeps them well funded by industry. So yeah, I distrust the information they put out, because they have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders.

              It would be worth a lot more if you cited some examples and/or sources. I know very little about Cato, so I have no reason to give their studies more or less weight than others. But your post, which is currently modded 5 Insightful, gives me no information on why I should distrust their information.

            • Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever. (Score:5, Interesting)

              by binarybits (11068) on Tuesday May 08 2007, @07:52AM (#19034861) Homepage
              I would be curious to know which industry sources funded my paper criticizing the DMCA. [cato.org] Or for that matter, their recent papers criticizing the Bush administration's civil liberties record [cato.org] and the NSA's wiretapping program. [cato.org]

              It's also interesting that you don't cite any "false information." Are we supposed to just take your word for it that a lot of what we put out is false?

                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by binarybits (11068)
                  The problem is that metrometro didn't point to any specific examples of "false information," so there's not much I can do to respond to such a vague accusation. Instead, I thought I'd highlight our recent work on issues of particular interest to Slashdot readers in order to give readers some context. I'm not going to claim everything we publish is high quality (we publish about a dozen books, 50 papers, and hundreds of articles every year), but in my experience, the vast majority of what we publish is of hi
          • It's called a track record. Ignoring it is called insanity.

  • Ironic, no? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JohnnyBGod (1088549) on Monday May 07 2007, @06:18PM (#19029111)
    Does anyone else find it ironic that a library, of all organizations, is (supposedly) exercising its IP rights?
    • Especially the library of congress!!

      Now talking about the repository of information for the United States is forbidden?!?!!

      • Re:Ironic, no? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MindStalker (22827) <jlarsen AT fsu DOT edu> on Monday May 07 2007, @06:47PM (#19029439) Journal
        The offending bit was.
        "WashingtonWatch.com provides a more user-friendly and interactive way for the public to learn about legislation than the Library of Congress' THOMAS site. It's all about government transparency."

        Sorry, but its still legal to say that Nike provides a better running experience than Reebok (assuming its true).

        The Library has no trademark ground to stand on, BUT they have extra Federal Statute protecting their name. When did it stop becoming a government "of the people"??

  • The LOC is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HaeMaker (221642) on Monday May 07 2007, @06:20PM (#19029131) Homepage
    The LOC is wrong. Making a comparative in an endorsement is protected speech, and goes beyond trademark protection.

    If he had said, "The LOC, and their THOMAS service, fully back the use of Washington Watch." that is misuse of trademark in the context of an endorsement.

    To say a service is like another service only better, fully protected.

    IANAL/JM2c.
    • Mod parent up. This isn't about stealing copyrighted material as all the other knee-jerk responses would have you believe - it's about using a trademark in an advertisement. Owning a trademark doesn't mean you control every utterance of a word.

      "Trademark dilution" lets owner of a "famous" mark stop any use that blurs or tarnishes its distinctiveness -- even if there is no chance that consumers will be confused. Because the concept of dilution has such potentially broad reach, there are specific defenses in the federal Lanham Act that are applicable to claims of dilution. "All forms of news reporting and news commentary" are exempted, as are comparative advertising, and "noncommercial use".

      • any use of a LOC logotype or emblem however would not be protected, as they can qualify as trademarks.

        Possibly, although I think the Lanham Act would still let you get away with it in the context of comparative advertising; even if you can't, it's not germane to this conflict anyway -- Cato wasn't using the LoC logo or emblem, they were just using the names in otherwise-generic text.

        I think this guy at the LoC is in over his head; he should have called Legal before he hauled off and started sending out nast
        • since it just fits into their image of the USG as a bunch of corrupt, wasteful, generally inept bureaucrats.

          Er, just exactly how does this image conflict with reality?

  • LOC Needs Thicker Skin (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Monday May 07 2007, @06:21PM (#19029141) Homepage

    "the use of THOMAS in the Washington Watch press release in a negative way is clearly used in the context of endorsement, rather than general criticism."
    Used in a negative way is an endorsement? Maybe Raymond should read a few of those books in his library.
  • Did Matt Raymond sent the nastygram to Washington Watch because the Library of Congress is part of the legislative branch, and Washington Watch can be perceived as critical of the corruption in Congress? Or did someone on the THOMAS team get personally insulted that someone could develop a better system than theirs, and push to punish the creator of the superior system out of jealousy? The latter seems a bit extreme, which leads me to believe Congressmen are scared of people knowing how much the government is actually spending on pork projects that they're even willing to have the Library of Congress send threatening letters to people who share the Library's vision for open information.
  • Why fight it? Rename it "nook of crooks" and still everyone's gonna know what's meant.

  • I pay may taxes. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EaglemanBSA (950534) on Monday May 07 2007, @06:29PM (#19029239)
    How soon before we're not allowed to make derogatory remarks about Congress itself, or the president? I was under the impression that the government and everything it owns, collectively, belong to the American People, but apparently I'm wrong.
    • as long as your right to criticize the King of Thailand is unfettered, you live in a free country.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by exi1ed0ne (647852)

      I was under the impression that the government and everything it owns, collectively, belong to the American People, but apparently I'm wrong.

      I believe you have that backwards unfortunately. Anything that can be construed as a financial instrument is subject to seizure under the Trading With the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The laws are already there on the books to take all your stuff, as was done with gold in 1933.

      Or in slash-speak: a beowulf cluster of laws own all

      • Trademark and copyright are hardly the same thing. You could go and make your own
        conception of an MTA map and you would be well within your rights. Now, whether or
        not state and municipal agencies *ought* to restrict access and reuse of goods
        produced in the public interest is another matter.

  • It's hell... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Monday May 07 2007, @06:36PM (#19029315)
    ...having to compete.

    And so much easier to send a C&D than to actually compete.
  • Nothing new here folks, remeber the same sort of thing with The Onion [google.com] using the Presidential Seal?
  • The PR flak at the LOC quoted:

    Library of Congress Regulation 112, which says that "the use of the Library's name, explicitly or implicitly to endorse a product or service, or materials in any publication is prohibited, except as provided for in this Regulation."
    This regulation may restrict the use of the term "Library of Commerce", but it doesn't appear to limit the use of such terms as "THOMAS".
      • Tank Engine, its Thomas the Tank Engine. Oh and I wish that they would change the song back to the original one, the new one drives me nuts...
  • Is there anyone here that knows when Civil Servants stopped signing their letters that way?

  • The LOC statute is irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AllParadox (979193) on Monday May 07 2007, @07:15PM (#19029701)
    This is not a situation where some commercial outfit is making money off of using the name of the Library of Congress. If I see some commercial business doing that, I will turn them in myself.

    This is plainly about freedom of political speech, a right enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    Mr. Harper's use of the site, even his comparison of his search engine against THOMAS, is aimed at promoting his personal political agenda, both for his site and including his comparison.

    Congress did not repeal the First Amendment.

    For once, somebody has a beef with some meat on it. This is where you hire the attorney to reply with a nastygram.
  • The last time I checked, the LOC was a government funded operation. Maybe the Matt-ster should look at that generous paycheck he gets from the sweat off of MY hard working brow. But then again, there is that pesky law called the, "First Amendment." But what I think is most significant is the part where a government official has all the time in the world to bring down the full force of the government against a citizen that questions the governments authority; That is something worth investigating.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Romancer (19668)
      You can say any comparison you want in your marketing materials, just so long as you have the fine print at the bottom saying that their logis if used are the property of their respective owners.
      • The library of congress is not a private organization. Anything it owns is public property, including its logo. I'm pretty sure it will be discovered that the only time this guy really has the right to stop a citizen is if that citizen is using the name and/or logo in a fraudulent manner. For instance, a false claim that the LOC endorses his product.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Romancer (19668)
          I'm not sure it works that way. Just because something is not a private organization, doesn't mean that it has no rights to restrict its brand or logo. Public property is sticky that way. Like the ways public land is used is restricted by the operators and can have restrictions like "no motorbikes" and "no 2 stroke engines in watercraft" The use of the public property is limited.

          In this case I think you're right about the way he used it but I don't think it's a blanket law that allows the use of govt resour
          • From TFA,

            'I contacted Raymond about the issue, and he tells Ars that he was acting under Library of Congress Regulation 112, which says that "the use of the Library's name, explicitly or implicitly to endorse a product or service, or materials in any publication is prohibited, except as provided for in this Regulation."'

            Reading the rest of the article explains that this guy is claiming that a comparison WAS an endorsement. This regulation is intended to assure that nobody can fraudulently claim the LOC endo

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.