Boycott Browning? Are we CRAZY?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good lord.

Folks, there are companies worth banning. When S&W signed their deal with the Clinton administration in a Faustian pact, I was all for it. When Bill Ruger fronted the 10 rd capacity cap, I was for it. But this?!?

Ridiculous. This is about Browning making decisions (right or wrong) about who uses its copyrighted logo. That's their right. Let it be. :rolleyes:
 
Hi, Mike (Irwin):

I posted the original message here after seeing it on keepandbeararms. I wanted to get the more civilized comments I find on THR rather than the increasingly-disturbing stuff I'm seeing at KABA.

The comments posted here ran about the way they usually do. Usually, there are two or three who want to fight (boycott) anyone and anything they perceive as being "not pure" on the Second. Others actually read and reflect and then offer cogent comments.

It's one of the reasons I enjoy THR. You and other moderators have created an invironment which invites vigorous discussion without the "hunker-in-the-bunker" mentality seen elsewhere.

I'm writing a new column for G&A called "Guns In The Media." Kind of fun.

BTW, don't know if you heard, but Dad is writing for the NRA magazines now.
 
(said with tongue firmly in cheek)

I DON'T CARE WHAT SOME FOREIGN COMPANY DOES.

But seriously ( ;) ) ...

So, if the folks in Belgium who own Browning and Winchester decide to change their minds on something like marketing a time or two...is that a Belgian Waffle?

John
 
Under US law, simply copyrighting something or registering a trademark is not enough.

If, in a lawsuit, opposing counsel can show that your company allowed the free use of the copyrighted or trademarked item without specific agreements in place, then your company will lose control of that copyrighted or trademarked material.

And then you have some startup naming themselves the Browning Firearms Company.
 
I see the Ogre is conspicuous in his absence.

I too have dealt with trademark and cpoyright violations, and we were legally bound to defend our marks, or we lose the protection of those symbols.. like Xerox, Kleenex, and Band-Aids, you become open to free use.

And I learned long ago to never blame the real workers at a corporation for the acts of their marketing droids.
 
It just looks like a case of corporate lawyer playing CYA. No big deal.

As for protecting your product, I have had 3 other people start making Molon Labe hats after I did. The really sucky part is that all of them are EXACT copies of my artwork. (hats aren't as nice though!) I didn't really mind the first two, that is the nature of capitalism. The third one really ticked me off though, he not only stole my design, but he actually used pictures of MY HATS! Including the famous one of PSSsniper (from the HCI .50 report).

What does that have to do with this? Heck if I know, I just felt the need to vent. :p
 
"I see the Ogre is conspicuous in his absence."
:rolleyes:
Didn't even seen this thread until 60 seconds ago. Thank you very much.

I believe I stated my opinion clearly as posted above. Feel free to disagree. I feel no obligation to try to convert you to my opinion.
 
Speaking As A Webmaster......

STUPID STUPID STUPID


Browning has, in my opinion ground their heads into and orifice where there is a dank atmosphere and a bad smell.


Websites live and die off of links and the more links from the more sites the better your pageviews and the better your corporate recognition. I strongly encourage ANYONE that wants to link my website or my clients websites to do it...

It just makes sense. So much so in fact that almost all of my clients have linkus.html pages explaining how to link and offering free graphics that we have made for that purpose.


That opinion is for the links portion...

HOWEVER - I support Browning in their want to keep their logo pure. If they wish to restrict their logo/trademark/graphics... so be it.

I too protect my intellectual property and creations derived from it. I have asked a number of sites to remove M1 photographs that appear on my site and were my creation. Not doing so might help to dilute copyright protection from them if I know about it.




Linking directly to photos on my sites if you are a JERK is dangerous too... One time someone was posting on a RAP music boardusing a picture of one of NorcalPrecision.com 's rifles as his "avatar" a picture that appears on each post.

I simply changed the gun picture out for a picture of wierd Al in cornrows. (Wierd al wasnt wlll liked by rappers after he did a spoof of a certain rapper".

I watched the rap group for the next few days as his buds made fun of him and he posted accusing the boards administrator of 'messin with his sh**".

Hhehehe

Anyway, bottom line is that its my opinion Browning SHOULD enforce their trademark stuff but that it is foolish as hell to attempt to dissalow simple direct html linking.

There IS an ongoing debate about if you can link to someone who does not want to be linked.. I wouldn't think thered be much of a chance of a case myself. But ask a lawyer.


I am still boycotting Smith and Wesson and Ruger still for their respective political agreements or actions, but I will not boycott Browning for making a stupid webmastering decission.

(Of course I'd buy several other brands before Browning for other reasons anyway but I still won't acticvely boycot them like I do with Smith and Ruger. :)


Charles
 
i for one arent going to boycott browning because they protected thier copyrighted logo, a boycott would be dumb, and im not going to imply that GUNTALK is crooked for condemning such a boycott, even if they do sponsor his show....the whole notion of a browning boycott is crazy
BSR
 
Looking at the original Browning emails I noted that Dameworth isn't even a lawyer, just a clerk.
 
Couple of things...

For those of you so quick to jump on the "Hate KABA" bandwagon - as Newslinks Director for the organization, it's my job to provide links to firearm/freedom-related news and commentary. We have linked to numerous news and comments over the years, even the sub-American ooze spewed by Brady and crew. This in no way implies that we agree with said ooze - we're merely linking to it for informational purposes. (This, of course, is not to imply that GUNED is sub-American ooze). I published the link, because it was relevant. It's entirely up to the reader to determine how they feel about the story. The staff of KeepAndBearArms.com has not publicized one way or another whether or not we support a boycott or any other action.

Privately, I told Mike Smith of GUNED that while Browning has every right to request he remove their copyrighted logo/material, I find the move lacking in business sense. However, as far as I'm aware, any person can access Browning's website by doing a search and typing in their address into their browser window. To require them to remove the link is, in my mind, something akin to preventing someone to giving another person directions on the street to a particular address.

Boycott them or not -- that's entirely your business, but in this case, your condemnation of KABA and cheap potshots are unwarranted and wholly unappreciated. Thanks.
 
Oleg,

Any chance you could repost the "before" and "after" pictures from those KKK jerks? I haven't even seen the "after" picture and I was breathless with laughter...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
NRA Launches National Boycott Against ConocoPhillips
2 3
Replies
70
Views
3K
rick_reno
R
2
  • Locked
NRA "enemies" list- Geico wants off
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
NIGHTWATCH
N
Z
  • Locked
Boycotts and doing the Anti's dirty work for them
Replies
16
Views
909
joeschmoe
J
3
  • Locked
Boycott vs BS
Replies
1
Views
460
jimpeel
J
M
  • Locked
Germans begin boycott of American goods...
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Poodleshooter
P
Back
Top