Who else hates the ignorance inherent in phrases like "the fair use law." They got it right in the very next sentence of their FAQ ("doctrine of fair use"). And then they made the same mistake again later with "the parody law" instead of "the concept of parody" or something similar.
If you're going to attempt to make an argument about the law, you'd best at least try not to sound like an idiot. It's like the people in software who confuse copyright, trademark, and patent: Your business is IP, have at least the most cursory understanding of the concepts damn it!
This company is obviously trying to lose a lawsuit. Someone is trying to move the goalposts of "fair use". That Web page is not written by someone who believes what they're saying, and the ignorance is probably part of the plan.
Dumb Starbucks will get sued, and they'll hire a dumb lawyer, who will take the very dumb approach of fighting the case to the end, and then the company will get forcefully shut down for trademark violations.
And the smart company that's bankrolling this, whoever they are, will point to the precedent of Starbucks v. Dumb Starbucks the next time they want to silence some actual fair use.
...so, Starbucks paid some guerrilla marketing company millions of dollars to stage an absurd publicity stunt.
Supporting Facts:
1. All publicity is good publicity.
2. All branding is identical, verbatim, (e.g. no
use of small, medium, large; instead branded sizing
parlance is used) forcing the customer to closely
inspect the imitation for flaws. This forces a level of
psychological engagement in the customer that would not
occur in regular, legitimate establishments.
3. Starbucks, for all it's popularity, rarely experiences
negative press. Thus, their brand can easily tolerate
examples of light trolling.
4. Dubious "news" coverage offers vectors for market
penetration into sectors that represent the Lowest
Common Denominator, without cheapening Starbucks'
brand. In other words, they can speak to an audience
that they'd rather not be associated with, without
having to directly engage them. They can inject their
brand's presence into the daily lives of people who
would not ordinarily pay attention to their usual modes
of advertising.
5. Without an entity to claim credit for this activity,
this parody only serves to provide increased exposure
to Starbucks. A well executed parody without an author
will provide no alternate context to the premise of the
joke. If there is any meaning or theme to the parody,
the audience can barely guess at what it should be, if
the intent of the performer cannot be discerned.
6. Hypothesis: The "Dumb" shop will only stay open for as
long as the minor local news publicity lasts. It's
there only to make people use the word "Starbucks" as
frequently as possible, in as many sound bites as
possible, trigger some water cooler conversation for
about a week (word of mouth buzz), and then die.
Given the location of this particular business, in the middle a neighborhood densely populated by hip and wealthy show-business professionals, it's quite possible that the whoever is running it knows exactly what they're doing legally.
Odds are quite heavy it's some sort of art project / prank.
5 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 27.4 ms ] threadIf you're going to attempt to make an argument about the law, you'd best at least try not to sound like an idiot. It's like the people in software who confuse copyright, trademark, and patent: Your business is IP, have at least the most cursory understanding of the concepts damn it!
Dumb Starbucks will get sued, and they'll hire a dumb lawyer, who will take the very dumb approach of fighting the case to the end, and then the company will get forcefully shut down for trademark violations.
And the smart company that's bankrolling this, whoever they are, will point to the precedent of Starbucks v. Dumb Starbucks the next time they want to silence some actual fair use.
Supporting Facts:
Odds are quite heavy it's some sort of art project / prank.