Library of Congress Threatens Washington Watch Wiki

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."

Ironic, no?

[JohnnyBGod]

Does anyone else find it ironic that a library, of all organizations, is (supposedly) exercising its IP rights?

The LOC is wrong

[HaeMaker]

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.

LOC Needs Thicker Skin

[WrongSizeGlass]

"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.

I pay may taxes.

[EaglemanBSA]

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.

Re:Ironic, no?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. A supportable reason for the existence of trademarks is to let consumers know the true source of a good. In this case, the good is information. Cato should not be trying to mislead the public about what search engine they are using by misappropriating the IP of the United States Library of Congress. Yes, the THOMAS legislative search engine sucks (or it did last time I used it). But that does not mean some private company should be able to come along and mislead the public into thinking their search engine is the official one. This whole announcement reeks of a publicity stunt, since Cato should not be doing what it has in the first place and certainly not complaining loudly when they are called on their misdeeds. For shame, Cato.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be nice to live in a world where you can just systematically disregard the positions of someone else because you've already decided they're wrong because of who they are.

It's hell...

[Black Parrot]

...having to compete.

And so much easier to send a C&D than to actually compete.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[qbzzt]

"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.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[metrometro]

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.

[WilliamSChips]

It's called a track record. Ignoring it is called insanity.

Re:Ironic, no?

[MindStalker]

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"??

Re:I want a letter!

[Romancer]

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 resources or brands or logos as public property in the way you may have meant (as in completely free use). It's more likely the same rights anyone has to use a corporate name, brand, or logo. They can't restrict discussion or reference.

The LOC statute is irrelevant.

[AllParadox]

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.

Re:If Nothing Else, Princpled.

[sumdumass]

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 something to support that organization, It makes anything they do suspect because of my funding?

I mean seriously, we aren't talking about the chicken and egg concept here, we are bypassing it with you logic and going straight to connecting dotted line without paying attention to the numbers to paint whatever picture we want. Here is the scoop. I I run a business and someone is saying things benificial to my business, If it support them, I benefit. It doesn't not mean I tell them what to say.

The same can be said for politics in general. There was a lot of hubub going on about Charlie Tree (not sure on spelling and don't care enough to check) the chinese embassy worker who showed up to the white house with bags of cash called campaign contributions at the same times China was stealing nuclear secrets from the US the some claim led to their Nuclear arms program being successful. Nobody has convincingly made the case Clinton was selling secrets for campaign contributions. Similarly, Al Qeada has came out in support of some democrat leaders and their policies. This doesn't mean they are connected. Although there is enough other evidence that some kook could make a small case for that.

Whenever I see someone discount something specifically because of funding when they organization survives on donations, I see it as that person looking for a reason to be in denial. It s just that simple.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[Retric]

Considering your response is a straw man argument, I think I will go with the parent post.

For those who need help following the conversation.

"because they have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders."

= Because some of there sources are tainted they have lost credibility.

"know which industry sources funded my"

Here is some non tainted information so not everything is tainted so you're wrong. (with an implicit argument that the parent said everything was tainted.)

"a lot of what we put out is false?"

Once again putting words in the parents post. If 1% of what they say is total bullshit then they have zero credibility. It's like soup, if it's 1% crap then it's not edible. It's not a question of balancing some scale either you constantly use creditable methods or you're a crackpot there is no middle ground.

PS: If you ever want to work with a credible think tank you should consider getting out soon their methods are clearly influencing your critical thinking skills.