Recent content by jslator

...just looking for an update to this question that someone posted a few months back. I didn't see anything new come out at NAMM that would give the MR8mkII a run for its money. Any new "scratchpad" type recorders hit the market in the last few months? If not, I'll probably go with the Fostex.

Deja vu! What year is this again? It's like old home week around here. :D

A wicked, wicked tremolo pedal and a rare Boss funk machine... http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=015&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&viewitem=&item=250049458956&rd=1&rd=1 http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=015&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&viewitem=&item=250049472652&rd=1&rd=1

It's about a year and a half old, but barely used. I was going to use it for smaller projects, songwriting demos and the like, but that just never materialized. It's basically been sitting idle since I bought it. I was going to put it on E-Bay, but I thought I'd see if anyone here wants it...

Here's an odd question for you Ethan - Do human bodies act as effective bass traps? My current room has some serious bass issues (luckily I'm moving to a new room shortly), but I swear that if I have a few people standing around listening to a mix, the bass in my mix position becomes louder...

LOL! I notice Kurt doesn't seem to fare so well on forums where he can't delete and edit other people's posts. ;)

Which is why I find it amazing that you still can't understand what the issue is. I'll give you another hint - it's not a question of whether you can trademark a name, whether "Ted Fletcher" is a trademark, or even whether Alan owns that trademark. It's whether Steve can be held liable for...

You obviously didn't actually read that case. The doctrine of contributory trademark infringement doesn't apply where there is a legitimate dispute between the parties as to the veracity of the trademark. Reread my earlier comments. If Steve and Ted had effectively conspired to infringe...

Just to be clear, Steve is not using the trademark as a trademark. Only one who uses a trademark as a trademark can be liable for infringement. Using it "as a trademark" means applying it to your own goods and services. Steve isn't doing that. So, it doesn't matter who owns it, Steve can not...

The law doesn't work that way. If it did, think of the damage that could be done. All anybody would have to do is allege a trademark violation against somebody and nobody would be legally allowed to distribute, transport, sell, advertise, buy or otherwise deal with any of that person's...

Regarding the above points, I'll repeat what I posted on another thread (to the annoyance of many, no doubt): There is a very important point that has been made in this thread a few times, but that people seem to keep glossing over. If there is to be any clarity in this discussion whatsoever...

We could always go back to "trial by battle". Each side to a dispute picks a champion and we throw them in a ring together. It's a messy but efficient way of resolving disputes.

He did in the demand letter to Steve. It's not. Feel free to search the US and UK trademark registries. They're online and free. It is possible. But, you need the consent of the person (among a host of other legal requirements). I somehow doubt that Ted's consent will be forthcoming.

Uh, no. Maybe the BBB is taken more seriously where you live, but around here its pretty much useless, even for consumer complaints. And if you went to them trying to get a wrongful dismissal claim (or something like Steve's issue) sorted out, I'm pretty sure you'd either get laughed at, or...

I am a lawyer. The whole point is that my client couldn't afford to pay the enormous legal fees it would have taken to fight the bully even though my client was in the right and the bully, by its own admission, had no legitimate claim.