ROR

[btc123shares]

it seems WU knows what will happen.

[Lauda]

I said this on reddit too --- Sometimes it is just nice to see a bully being bullied.  

The unfortunate part is.... The bully, with the amount of money to their disposal, can easily change their business model, to accomodate for this competition, or invest in a competing technology, and become a bully again.

They already profitted hugely on their previous model, and they might just adopt to the change.  

With Bitcoin, not really. The problem still lies in the people more than in the technology (yes Bitcoin is not perfect).
Adopting Bitcoin would be the way forward, and later on some other currency to be the alternative. Companies like WU would go bankrupt very quickly.

[Q7]

I don't see anything offending or breach of copyright trademark. Even the colors are different

[Velkro]

crazy that such a big company cares about that shit 

Crazy that they cause because of this free advertisement to bitcoin

[TKeenan]

Here's the story behind this.

I posted the picture on my large bitcoin facebook page.  www.facebook.com/BITCOlN

Two days after posting, I received an email from facebook saying that Western Union Holdings, Inc filed a DMCA claim against me, citing their ownership of the Western Union *trademark* (strangely, not their copyright on the ad), and that Facebook decided to remove the content.

I went ahead and filed a counter-claim, where I had to swear that I believe Facebook wrongfully granted their takedown request.  Now, Western Union has 10 days to either file a federal court order, or Facebook will reinstate the image.  I see it as a win/win situation.  If western Union actually sues me for posting the image, it will come back to bite them 1000x over in negative PR alone.  Plus, I'm not the original content creator, and the image should be legally protected as "comparative advertising".  

Forget about 'comparative advertising' - you are also fully protected by 'fair use' parody.  Further, your Facebook 'use' is not a commercial use; and still further, there is no 'likely to confuse (as to source of goods)' - an essential element of trademark infringement.  There could be some argument from WU that 'dilution' is causing damage as your use is disparaging to their mark.  However, 'fair use' takes care of that again.  

Dude - don't worry about those fuckers at WU.  Their lawyers are pussies and they just want to stick it to their client with tons of fees 'to defend their brand'.  Their lawyers know this goes no where.  They just love more billable hours.  Let WU spend the money - it's fun!  The more WU spends on dumb ass stuff like this, the less profit they book at the end of the year.  Therefore, you are duty bound as a Bitcoin enthusiast to cause WU to further waste their money.  Take every action imaginable to keep WU's lawyers busy.  

However, this trademark issue is the least of WU's worry.  Bitcoin is going to take over remittance 100% in about 3 years.  WU is either going to be based on bitcoin, or they are going to be eliminated.  

[TKeenan]

Excellent!  Who can come up with others? We should make a Bitcoin bounty to pay for a parody competition.  Can anyone organize that?  

[TKeenan]

Maybe try something with this one...

[TKeenan]

Or this one...

[bitllionaire]

It is nice to see how streissand effect works in the net 

[darkmule]

The instability in bitcoin value makes it such that by the time you receive, it may have lost 10-15% of its value.

Actually, it makes it much more likely that it will have increased 10-1000% in value.

This actually results in the likelihood that you might not receive it at all because whoever you contracted with might just decide to default on the deal and keep their BTC.

Don't tell anyone this is bad for something that wants to be a currency, because they won't believe you.

[Lauda]

The instability in bitcoin value makes it such that by the time you receive, it may have lost 10-15% of its value.

Actually, it makes it much more likely that it will have increased 10-1000% in value.

This actually results in the likelihood that you might not receive it at all because whoever you contracted with might just decide to default on the deal and keep their BTC.

Don't tell anyone this is bad for something that wants to be a currency, because they won't believe you.

Well the other person is wrong. Bitcoin doesn't change it's price by 10-15% in 1 hour often, thus this is false.
You're right. Over time you have more value, or if you're lucky and you get bitcoins a few days before a spike.

[Skeksis]

I don't see anything offending or breach of copyright trademark. Even the colors are different

Well they used their full logo which they obviously didn't like. I'm not sure if they have any legal grounds to squash it though, it's more just the threat of possible action.

[scarsbergholden]

The instability in bitcoin value makes it such that by the time you receive, it may have lost 10-15% of its value.

Actually, it makes it much more likely that it will have increased 10-1000% in value.

This actually results in the likelihood that you might not receive it at all because whoever you contracted with might just decide to default on the deal and keep their BTC.

Don't tell anyone this is bad for something that wants to be a currency, because they won't believe you.

Well the other person is wrong. Bitcoin doesn't change it's price by 10-15% in 1 hour often, thus this is false.
You're right. Over time you have more value, or if you're lucky and you get bitcoins a few days before a spike.

Well the price of bitcoin really could go either way by the time the receiver is able to pay for whatever they plan on paying for or converting the received bitcoin to fiat. If the receiver is going to convert to fiat then the time they would be exposed to price changes would only be ~a hour, however if they plan on paying for various things with the bitcoin they receive then the time they are exposed to price swings is much longer, potentially several weeks 

[darkmule]

Forget about 'comparative advertising' - you are also fully protected by 'fair use' parody.

Fair use is a copyright defense.  It is not a trademark defense.

Further, your Facebook 'use' is not a commercial use;

This is true, but I wouldn't rely on this much.  It is pretty easy for a trademark plaintiff to gin up some ludicrous claim that a defendant somehow profits in some intangible way from an "infringing" use and then claim that the use is therefore "in commerce."  That's why I didn't even mention that potential defense, because unless you're a lawyer, you shouldn't be telling people facing a potential lawsuit that they're completely in the clear. 

Citing fair use in a trademark dispute just demonstrates this further.

Just because the *non-lawyers* Western Union is using to make its stupid claims are confusing copyrights and trademarks does not mean that this is a wise choice or that we shouldn't avoid it ourselves.

[BitmoreCoin]

You guys forgot to put the 1-2% it costs to buy the BTC then the 1-2% to sell it! You also forgot to put the hoops you have to jump through to buy bitcoin. Much tougher then filling out a form at WU.

If we are paid with BTC in salary, then these costs will be eliminated.

[LiteCoinGuy]

 

[turvarya]

You guys forgot to put the 1-2% it costs to buy the BTC then the 1-2% to sell it! You also forgot to put the hoops you have to jump through to buy bitcoin. Much tougher then filling out a form at WU.

I pay 0.35% to buy and to sell. There might be some other small fees for transaction Bank to Exchange, but summa summarum it should be less than 1%

[LiteCoinGuy]

You guys forgot to put the 1-2% it costs to buy the BTC then the 1-2% to sell it! You also forgot to put the hoops you have to jump through to buy bitcoin. Much tougher then filling out a form at WU.

I pay 0.35% to buy and to sell. There might be some other small fees for transaction Bank to Exchange, but summa summarum it should be less than 1%

and we are only at the beginning of that industry.

[wunkbone]

You guys forgot to put the 1-2% it costs to buy the BTC then the 1-2% to sell it! You also forgot to put the hoops you have to jump through to buy bitcoin. Much tougher then filling out a form at WU.

I pay 0.35% to buy and to sell. There might be some other small fees for transaction Bank to Exchange, but summa summarum it should be less than 1%

Many people do not use exchanges and I would say the average 'cost' for these kinds of trades (either on forum or via ATMs) would be in the 5% range. I think this is still cheaper then using Western Union, however these kinds of trades should be factored in when marking cost comparisons

[seriouscoin]

At this stage, there will be companies who would handle all the exchange and charge a reasonable fee 1-3%. Exchanges will be cheaper if you have high volume, thus it makes more sense for service providers opening up.

As Bitcoin becomes mainstream, you will not have to worry about volatility and avg person can comfortable use bitcoin to send money. (even avg person hold a small fund in bitcoins for online shopping)

Bottom line is still alot cheaper than WU.