0
ChasingBlueSky

What can we do about Skyride?

Recommended Posts

Quote

just no one has put the money into the lawyers pockets to address it yet. ;) I say yet because you never know what tommorrow may bring...



Just an observation, but for all you skydiving lawyers out there...

...ever heard of pro-bono?? I'm sure it wouldn't take much out of your already busy, client-filled day to further expose an injustice within your weekend hobby - thus making the greater community which belong to - even GREATER!!

So, c'mon...do some good - make a name for yourself, and hell - quit f***in' around on dz.com for 10 minutes and look up some precedents on the matter so we can file something!!!;)

Kahurangi e Mahearangi,
Kiwi, RB #926, AFF-I, FAA Snr. Rigger, RN/BSN/Paramedic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

for all you skydiving lawyers out there



I've deliberately kept myself out of this discussion for a while. Trust me, I've gotten a few pm's that I've tried to answer. Still, this stuff is going on in Georgia, which is somewhat difficult.

On top of that, while I'm familiar with trademark and copyright, that familiarity is in the vein as a radiologist would have with urology. Would you want a radiologist operatign on your pecker?

No. So I've done my best to lead people in the right direction.

Personally, I'd like to see this operation have to do some form of restitution for it's activities.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person,



Oooohhh! I like that!

It's nice to see it in writing!


I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person,



Oooohhh! I like that!

It's nice to see it in writing!



Yup, intnet to confuse, a very real issue.

Someone with a law background could let you know if it makes it even worse that it was done across state and international lines.

If you could prove loss of income because of this, it would help win your case a bit quicker.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yup, intnet to confuse



Where do you see intent in there? The Lanham Act doesn't require intent, but only a likelihood of confusion.

In terms of crossing state lines to do it, it just secures federal jurisdiciton and the protections of the Lanham Act (which it would have already had).

Still, as with everything, it isn't always so cut and dried. There are differentl levels of scrutiny with regards to marks (trademarks, service marks, etc.) that need to be considered, as well.

But, if there is a likelihood of confusion, then there appears to be an action.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Yup, intnet to confuse



Where do you see intent in there? The Lanham Act doesn't require intent, but only a likelihood of confusion.

Didn't realize the description was that broad. My background on "mark" infringment is related to only one college class and I have gone back to that book and looked up some of what I studied. They used the word "intent" in the textbook.

Intent: The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.

I would think that naming the false companies that close to existing companies or using trademarked names on a website would show intent. Even if it didn't it seems to fit the broader "likelihood" you mentioned. I'm certain if I started a company a photo company called Codak that I would be sued in a heartbeat.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When a web site is copied, in full (name, logo pictures of the real DZ's owner as well as his name) and only change the number, well I would think that's pretty cut and dry.

I used to have a hard time figuring which was my site and which wasn't until we increased the size of the banner.



I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How do you know that uspa is not behind all this.



And you would be....

Please complete your profile and you might get an answer. You've just joined DZ.com and this is your first post. Do not expect an answer from anyone until you identify yourself in your profile.
-----
~~~Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In terms of crossing state lines to do it, it just secures federal jurisdiciton



huh. I thought that all plaintiffs had to be diverse from all defendants, and the amount in controversy had to be in excess of 75 grand for federal diversity jurisdiction....it would be difficult, because I know that this cybersquatting and copyright infringement has effected DZs in Georgia as well.

I also was thinking that monopolistic practices might be a better platform for injured DZs to work from, because copyright issues are very difficult to prove (at least from what I remember from my property class). For monopolistic trade practices in Georgia, I think all one needs is the intent to expand one's business to the detriment of other businesses (an offshoot of McAvoy v. Medina), and a demonstrated loss. Lying about the existence (or lack thereof) of a DZ seems intent enough to me, so all one would need would be demonstrated damages (more difficult to prove).

I was wondering what the lawyers on here think about this. Danny Page, where are you?

Brie
"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I thought that all plaintiffs had to be diverse from all defendants, and the amount in controversy had to be in excess of 75 grand for federal diversity jurisdiction



Yes, for diversity jurisdiction under 28 USC section 1332. But, you also hav Federal jurisdiction under 28 USC section 1331, which provides that Federal courts may hear issues arising out of a "federal question." Federal copyright and trademark law give this federal question.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

In terms of crossing state lines to do it, it just secures federal jurisdiciton



huh. I thought that all plaintiffs had to be diverse from all defendants, and the amount in controversy had to be in excess of 75 grand for federal diversity jurisdiction....it would be difficult, because I know that this cybersquatting and copyright infringement has effected DZs in Georgia as well.

I also was thinking that monopolistic practices might be a better platform for injured DZs to work from, because copyright issues are very difficult to prove (at least from what I remember from my property class). For monopolistic trade practices in Georgia, I think all one needs is the intent to expand one's business to the detriment of other businesses (an offshoot of McAvoy v. Medina), and a demonstrated loss. Lying about the existence (or lack thereof) of a DZ seems intent enough to me, so all one would need would be demonstrated damages (more difficult to prove).

I was wondering what the lawyers on here think about this. Danny Page, where are you?

Brie



I have seen him jumping at ASC some time back.


Blue skies,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This whole threat (all 700+ contributions to it) begins to border on the ridiculous:

What can we do about Skyride? May be just set up a better (and more competitive) shop than they have? Rather than trying to enrich lawyers (though that seems to be the American way nouveau. Sadly!)

I have been involved on- and off (but never FT) with ASC and their outlying operations, both as a skydiver and staff member.

I have always been treated with professionalism and courtesy. Arguably, they have the BEST and best-MAINTAINED (through Chutingstar) student and tandem equipment in the state of Georgia. (And yes, there is equipment in circulation at other dz's that I refuse to jump.)

Also, ASC is the only true 7-day operation in GA (and for about 7 h driving distance out); I really appreciate that option.

Anyway, if Ben (who I know) and Quary (who I don't) make a few bucks by providing a service with a sophistication, that nobody else provides...so be it. Let it be noted that 40+ tandem rigs (Strong and Sigma), 80+ student rigs (Mirage) do not come cheap either. Not too mention a fully air-conditioned and carpeted packing area.

Flame away if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Anyway, if Ben (who I know) and Quary (who I don't) make a few bucks by providing a service with a sophistication, that nobody else provides...so be it. Let it be noted that 40+ tandem rigs (Strong and Sigma), 80+ student rigs (Mirage) do not come cheap either. Not too mention a fully air-conditioned and carpeted packing area.

Flame away if you want.



So the theft from other jumpers to provide these things are ok? Yes or no.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, if United Airlines or Continental undercut (or do a better job at marketing) my home-town airline Delta, you'll be outraged and prepare for legal action?

Realistically, it's called competition. It's the American way.

To give you an outright answer to your question: YES, it's ok. The Americans call it CAPITALISM. (You don't like it: get out of Iraq.)



Quote

So the theft from other jumpers to provide these things are ok? Yes or no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am very familiar with capitalism. However when UA creates a new advertising scheme they do not copy the Delta commericals, steal their artwork, etc and then claim it to be their own (I know the UA internet marketing team personally so I know this to be true). Middle man or direct marketing is not new, nor is theft. The business practice that skyride uses is not a bad thing in theory...but HOW they are doing it is.

Look at Jan's website, look at what teason has to say. Are you ok with his website being stolen? Are you ok with Bret Finely, McGowan, Kent, etc having their work stolen from them for profit? How about the theft of Trademarked names?

How can you defend that theft? What about the bait/switch practices?
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chasing:

all good and rational points. I certainly don't condene the IP infringements! (However, how stupid does one have to be to realize that there are no snow-capped mountains or red-clay deserts in Georgia).

And NO, I am not ok with the stolen IP and think that Ben and Quary (sp) are now certainly in a position to pay up, that is to pay royalties. (Before ordering the next fancy car.)

I really don't want to comment on the bait/switch but understand the benefits to up-jumpers. Realistically, it makes all the difference for having an all-A/C, carpeted environment versus packing in an airplane hangar.



Quote

I am very familiar with capitalism. However when UA creates a new advertising scheme they do not copy the Delta commericals, steal their artwork, etc and then claim it to be their own (I know the UA internet marketing team personally so I know this to be true). Middle man or direct marketing is not new, nor is theft. The business practice in theory that skyride uses is not a bad thing...but HOW they are doing it is.

Look at Jan's website, look at what teason has to say. Are you ok with his website being stolen? Are you ok with Bret Finely, McGowan, Kent, etc having their work stolen from them for profit?

How can you defend that theft? What about the bait/switch practices?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are many dz's that do well and benefit the sport. These dz's do not steal from other jumpers. Stealing from one jumper to help another doesn't make sense and it isn't legal. Aircraft maintenance, carpets, airconditioning and rigging are not reasons to condone theft.

I don't care that Cary owns a Lotus or what Ben does in his personal life either. Theft is Theft. That makes it bad for the sport - there is not ONE single good factor because of that.

There are no excuses for what they do.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I really don't want to comment on the bait/switch but understand the benefits to up-jumpers. Realistically, it makes all the difference for having an all-A/C, carpeted environment versus packing in an airplane hangar.



So for you then the End Justifies the Means.

Does it not bother you that they have those things in part due to their Dishonest and probably Illegal Business Practices?

Do Honor and Integrity not have any value to you at all?

Does supporting a business that will LIE, Cheat and STEAL not bother you at all?

IF so, it may be time to reevaluate your own personal integrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Chasing:

all good and rational points. I certainly don't condene the IP infringements! (However, how stupid does one have to be to realize that there are no snow-capped mountains or red-clay deserts in Georgia).

And NO, I am not ok with the stolen IP and think that Ben and Quary (sp) are now certainly in a position to pay up, that is to pay royalties. (Before ordering the next fancy car.)

I really don't want to comment on the bait/switch but understand the benefits to up-jumpers. Realistically, it makes all the difference for having an all-A/C, carpeted environment versus packing in an airplane hangar.



Quote

I am very familiar with capitalism. However when UA creates a new advertising scheme they do not copy the Delta commericals, steal their artwork, etc and then claim it to be their own (I know the UA internet marketing team personally so I know this to be true). Middle man or direct marketing is not new, nor is theft. The business practice in theory that skyride uses is not a bad thing...but HOW they are doing it is.

Look at Jan's website, look at what teason has to say. Are you ok with his website being stolen? Are you ok with Bret Finely, McGowan, Kent, etc having their work stolen from them for profit?

How can you defend that theft? What about the bait/switch practices?




im narrowing down who you are.! you have some really stupid things to say sometimes. so why dont you just pm me who you are tantalum! that way it will save me some time and effort:|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

In terms of crossing state lines to do it, it just secures federal jurisdiciton



huh. I thought that all plaintiffs had to be diverse from all defendants, and the amount in controversy had to be in excess of 75 grand for federal diversity jurisdiction....it would be difficult, because I know that this cybersquatting and copyright infringement has effected DZs in Georgia as well.

I also was thinking that monopolistic practices might be a better platform for injured DZs to work from, because copyright issues are very difficult to prove (at least from what I remember from my property class). For monopolistic trade practices in Georgia, I think all one needs is the intent to expand one's business to the detriment of other businesses (an offshoot of McAvoy v. Medina), and a demonstrated loss. Lying about the existence (or lack thereof) of a DZ seems intent enough to me, so all one would need would be demonstrated damages (more difficult to prove).

I was wondering what the lawyers on here think about this. Danny Page, where are you?

Brie



I have seen him jumping at ASC some time back.


Blue skies,

Winsor



you are more likely to find danny at skydive atlanta. although he travels also, im sure if you wanted to find him at a dz fun jumping or working he would be at skydive atlanta. at least that is where i see him in ga most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0