Not a trademark attourney, but the styling is distinct enough. The use of identical name could be problematic I would think?
However, I don't see how this is a "parody" -- I thought parodies have to be clearly different but use similar styling, i.e. call it "FedThen" and cleverly include the `24/7` or something in the lettering, maybe inside the "e" which gets shaped kind of like the "o"
The "End the FedNow!" merchandise is pretty clearly parody.
The stuff that just has the "FedNow" logo is borderline. I wonder why organizations do this, highlighting the logos of organizations they oppose. I have an EFF hoodie that says "National Security Agency" on the front and "Defund Big Brother" on the back, and I get questions all the time of "Do you work for the NSA?" and then have to turn around and show them the back. I wish parody apparel was always parody at a glance.
I think even just the "FEDNOW" standalone stuff could be considered parody. It's different from the real logo and I'm pretty sure the "O" is supposed to imply surveillance or that the fed is watching you.
Given that the NSA was created in secret and did not become public knowledge for many years after it's establishment I can see the subversive side of spelling out it's name on a hoodie. They still want to be No Such Agency.
> The U.S. Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Magazine, alleging apparel that parodies its FedNow system is not protected speech, but copyright infringement.
Looks like infringement of trademark, not of copyright.
It might be protected speech, but I suspect that Bitcoin Magazine isn't consulting a lawyer as much as they should.
You're really underselling it. They're replying to the Fed as if their cease-and-desist letter were no more than some sort of internet argument on Reddit or something. Here's a sample, to encourage folks to read the article and have a good hearty chuckle themselves:
> > “The Federal Reserve has extensively used and promoted the FEDNOW mark and has built up substantial goodwill in this invaluable asset. Financial institutions and consumers associate the FEDNOW mark with the Federal Reserve and its services.”
> An interesting point. For starters, what goodwill has the Federal Reserve built up? Have you seen the state of the working class today? Perhaps you have already forgotten how Fed policy directly led to mismanaged bond portfolios in regional banks across the country, such as Silicon Valley Bank, Signature, Silvergate or First Republic? Perhaps you have already forgotten about the historic inflation rates seen throughout the U.S. since government-imposed lockdowns all but forced the Treasury’s hand to stimulate the economy to the tune of trillions of dollars?
> There is no goodwill, Mr. Murphy. And certainly not substantial goodwill either.
Edit to add: there is an actual legal reply by an actual lawyer, to which you can assign your own value.
> For starters, what goodwill has the Federal Reserve built up? Have you seen the state of the working class today?
The Fed is why America can send pieces of papers and bits and receive trillions of dollars worth of goods and services. Thanks to this, Americans have the highest average disposable incomes in the world and the highest median income in the world behind a tiny tax haven. If Americans aren't able to benefit from this, they have no one to blame but themselves or the other parts of government.
> The Fed is why America can send pieces of papers and bits and receive trillions of dollars worth of goods and services.
Next year, and every year forward, arguably in part because of the Fed, America will be able to receive less dollars in goods and services for the same agreement,
due to US' objectively-falling creditworthiness, as rated by the large institutions and nations who are willing to lend to us.
The Fed isn't "another" part of government. It's owned privately. That is really the main issue. It functions to make its members rich, anything positive is kinda less benefit than if it were truly part of the government.
You might be thinking of the treasury.
You're wrong at just about every point. The Fed is autonomous but still part of the government. Congress can revoke this if they really wanted to, but they won't because even they know that they'll just use it for their political scheming like they do with anything else they can get their grubby hands on. Jerome Powell made most of his money in private equity, and he could have stayed there he wanted more. Now, his compensation is less than that of a first year associate at Goldman Sachs. Before you bring it up, no, a few million dollars in speaker fees doesn't make up for this opportunity cost for a banker at that caliber.
Yes, Jerome is a public servant who would give you the shirt off of his back.
We'll see what private financial institution gigs he parachutes into after his current role.
From another comment:
Ben Bernanke now serves on the board of two of them (Citadel, PIMCO). And Alan Greenspan serves on three (Deutsche Bank, PIMCO, Paulson & Co).
>Have you seen the state of the working class today?
is a better response in their minds than pointing out that FedNow has only really been around since the end of July, relatively few people are aware of it (AFAIK), and financial institutions are not going to confuse the Federal Reserve and a magazine. It's not about the Fed's goodwill, it's about the goodwill associated with the FedNow trademark, but they seem to think inflation is a counterargument.
Personally, I would have gone with "FED NO" on the shirts or included the "The digital panopticon is here" tagline on them.
Reading the Fed's C&D, their complaint is about the trademark, not copyright. The magazine's lawyer's response is also about trademark, not copyright. The author of this article isn't as familiar with the law as the lawyers are.
It appears that they didn't have a lawyer review the final version of an article about a legal case in which they're involved (since I think a lawyer would've caught the "copyright" bit).
When you're being sued, you should be careful about what you say about that, especially what you put in writing, and publish globally.
So I think this is one example of them not consulting a lawyer enough.
I'm not a lawyer but I suspect that confusing copyright and trademark isn't going to land them in particularly hot water.
And, their lawyer's response is pretty decent. I think that there's lots wrong with everything cryptocurrency, but their shirt looks like a rock solid parody.
Whoever posted an article doesn't seem to have been qualified to know what might and might not land them in hot water. So they should've had a lawyer review the final version. If they're missing that one, what else are they missing.
The Federal Reserve is a de facto branch of government. To the extent that it manages to legally and politically suppress this fact, and perhaps even has a plausible claim to create "trade" marks and whatnot, is just part of the general corruption surrounding it.
> Is the Federal Reserve a privately owned corporation?
>
> Yes and no. The Federal Reserve (the Fed) enjoys a unique public/private structure that operates within the government, but is still relatively independent of government to isolate the Fed from day-to-day political pressures in fulfilling its varying roles.
>
> The Federal Reserve System is considered to be an independent central bank. [0]
Sure, so not like Federal Express at all. Just because a part of the government is insulated and less accountable than the rest of the government, doesn't mean it isn't government - regardless of this "independence" it's still setting inescapable policy.
It has government oversight, but so does every other bank that operates in the United States. So not much of a distinction there.
The Federal Reserve is in effect a consortium of banks acting as an independent central bank more so than a government entity.
> The Fed is independent in the sense that monetary policy and related decisions are made autonomously and are not subject to approval by the federal government. [0]
It isn't just insulated, it is independent. The Federal Reserve's shareholders are the member banks, not the public.
> Federal Reserve Banks' stock is owned by banks, never by individuals. Federal law requires national banks to be members of the Federal Reserve System and to own a specified amount of the stock of the Reserve Bank in the Federal Reserve district where they are located. [1]
Federal Express, too, is subject to similar government oversight being a publicly traded private corporation.
The Federal Reserve chairman and all of the board of governors are appointed by the President. Banks have no involvement in the Federal Reserve. There are no Federal Reserve shareholders.
Banks are involved with the regional Federal Reserve Banks. But the Federal Reserve Banks are controlled by the Federal Reserve and have pretty minor powers.
> Banks have no involvement in the Federal Reserve.
Sure they don't. That's why Ben Bernanke now serves on the board of two of them (Citadel, PIMCO). And Alan Greenspan serves on three (Deutsche Bank, PIMCO, Paulson & Co).
If you've never heard of PIMCO, it is the investment bank that advises central banks on their policies and investments, including the Federal Reserve. But banks have no involvement, of course.
> PIMCO is one of the largest investment managers, actively managing more than $2 trillion in assets for central banks, sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, corporations, foundations and endowments, and individual investors around the world. [0]
Nope. They just bill us huge amounts to rule money. They are not a function of government. They are a for profit organization with zero loyalties to the US. When the well dries here, they just move on.
I don't have a problem with surveillance. I have a problem with surveillance under the undemocratic, nightmerican system of goverence with non-existent to weak checks and balances across the entire polis and an outdated constitution.
That said, Bitcoin is a state sponsored pyramid scheme, and only someone riding the coattails of early adoption and espousing permanent oligarch rule through its lack of taxation could ever speak highly of its poor design, replacing centralized banking with a centralized computing infrastructure arms race to the detriment of the world's resources. There, I said it.
First paragraph is on point. Sad about the second paragraph. That isn't a brave or impressive thing to say, it is a common and misinformed perspective.
Regarding Bitcoin, it's important to recognize that it's fundamentally about decentralization of financial control, not necessarily decentralizing value hoarding (though it largely does that too). It uses a distributed ledger technology, where the minting process (mining) and transfers (transactions) are verified by a consensus mechanism across a global network. This eliminates the need for central banking authorities, theoretically reducing the points of failure and censorship. It's designed to be a deflationary currency to counteract inflationary fiat systems, with a predictable supply that's governed by math, not by policy changes. While concerns about energy consumption are valid, the network is increasingly moving towards renewable energy sources and more efficient mining practices. Moreover, innovations like the Lightning Network are addressing scalability and resource issues, aiming to make Bitcoin more sustainable and accessible.
I think you should revisit your talking points / read the code / understand the thing you're talking about before having such a strong (false) statement.
> not necessarily decentralizing value hoarding (though it largely does that too)
I could have agreed with that if it had a fixed block subsidy. Not with the repeated halving that leaves each next generation with 32x less bitcoin to mine.
No, the second paragraph was correct. Bitcoin has been a complete failure at accomplishing any of those things you mentioned. They're all just wishful thinking by Satoshi and his fans, that never became reality. In practice it's not decentralized (the network is consolidated into just a few mining pools), it still requires central authorities to validate every transaction (the miners), it doesn't reduce points of failure (see any of the high profile collapses causing lots of people to lose their money) or censorship (historically disadvantaged groups largely aren't using cryptocurrency because it's overloaded with scams). The fixed supply is itself a man-made policy (it's not actually governed by math) and doesn't counteract inflation (see how often the bitcoin market has crashed). The use of renewable energy sources doesn't change that mining is a complete and total waste of energy (see any of the other coins that managed to ditch proof of work). Lightning network is also a complete failure of an experiment that solves nothing and only creates additional scaling problems (see here for a long list of problems, few of which have been addressed: https://github.com/davidshares/Lightning-Network). The number of open Lightning channels is actually shrinking because of how impractical it is to have your own channel (See also: https://bitcoinvisuals.com/lightning).
That's an example of sunk cost fallacy, where the miners have spent so much money (real dollars, not bitcoin) on otherwise useless ASICs that they obstruct any attempts at progress.
> It's designed to be a deflationary currency to counteract inflationary fiat systems,
Even if you take this conceit, we have to step back that bitcoin has irrevocably failed. Governments have definitely proved that they can regulate bitcoin transactions through various mechanisms. In China, mining is banned. In US, they are considered securities and regulated. No use case has emerged to truly transact in bitcoin. The only deflationary aspect is it's value in relation to fiat currency, which is still downstream to the supply of money controlled by central banks.
Personally, I don't think bitcoin is viable. The root of the problem is that no one is willing to transact in it. But beyond that, looking at it's implementation, I am not convinced that it accurately models the relationship between demand for the currency and the people willing to mine it. It seems very dogmatic to assume that it is just a logarithmic relationship between computing power and money supply. At the end of the day, there might not be a more efficient solution to establish demand for money than some kind of political process.
One of the reasons that the Nazis were especially effective at finding Jews in the Netherlands is because of their very detailed civil registry, that included religious affiliation.
French authorities were also forced to help the Nazis locate Jews during their occupation, and this is one of the reasons the French today don't keep official records on people's race or religious affiliations.
Just because you fully trust authorities today doesn't mean the guard won't turn over in the future for any number of reasons.
The point is to put into place systems that will protect you from abuses no matter who comes into power. Those systems, and how well they function, can act as a bellwether indicating how tyrannical the authorities are becoming. If you're lucky exposed weaknesses in those systems can be patched up, and corrupt individuals ousted to shore up your freedoms before things slip too far, but if nothing else those early warning signs can tell you when it's time to get out while you still can.
At the point where you've already been taken over by the new "Nazis" it doesn't much matter. They'll put into place the systems you fear anyway. You say the French today don't keep official records on people's race or religious affiliations, but corporations do, and so that data on the population already exists and could be obtained very quickly. The nice French government today won't touch that data, but New Hitler would.
In the meantime, because France doesn't want to consider race in statistics, it's made documenting, understanding, and addressing the massive racial discrimination problems they have very difficult. For years there have been calls for the French government to start collecting ethnicity data in their statistics because blinding yourself to problems means you can't solve them. (https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_international_compar...) The policy to avoid that kind of data collection was well-meaning, but it turns out that not collecting that data doesn't adequately protect the people of France, and in fact it's actually hurting them.
Except that I want my "enemies" to be able to conduct surveillance. There are genuine reasons for surveillance where it's honestly the best tool for the job. I also want the oversight and accountability to ensure that nobody (especially not my "enemies") are abusing that power.
Very few people would be happy with their lives if there were suddenly no surveillance at all. There would be crime, corruption, disease, pollution, extinction, and abuses of authority everywhere. We'd be totally blindsided by extreme weather, incoming asteroids, solar flares, and earthquakes!
One of my favorite forms of surveillance is body cameras on police officers. Body cams are amazing tools! They help protect the police from false claims of abuse and aid them in training, while at the same time they help protect the public by helping us find tyrants and corrupt cops. Body cam systems aren't perfect (tapes "go missing", some cops can turn them off) but they can be improved, and they should be because surveillance (like most valuable tools) isn't all good or all bad. Don't throw away powerful tools because you fear how they can be abused. Develop robust systems of transparency, accountability, and (ironically) surveillance to make those tools work for our benefit.
I suspect you're aware that your rhetorical question rather neatly makes the point that taxing in crypto would immediately (and for crypto-bros, ironically) imbue them with value.
What’s the point you’re trying to make? Do cryptocurrencies have value or not? It’s one or the other, you can’t claim they have value when you want to tax them and then claim they don’t when you want to regulate them.
I’m not asking you to “give” my money value. I’m asking you to answer a simple yes or no question: does it currently have value or not? The way you’re trying to defend your obvious lack of consistency is purely circular. If it has value, you tax it. You can’t say that if you tax it then it’ll have value that justifies taxing it the first place.
I think your difficulty is in understanding what states hope to achieve by taxing, which is not in order to capture some "value" from the thing being taxed. To them, crypto obviously has no value beyond anything they can do with the crypto (i.e. none). On the other hand those that fall under the tax jurisdiction of a state have a tax liability and whatever unit they can satisfy that liability in has value.
The fact that states can't issue more crypto on demand is why they'd be stupid to ever pay attention to it, much less let people pay their taxes in it. Crypto is not even money in the sense that it doesn't represent a debt, which is where the value of money is derived from.
That's because your question is not meaningful. You haven't found some great way to catch people out, you've just found the limits of your understanding. That's great, it's a chance to understand where the problem with the posed dichotomy lies.
The reason I'm here is to discuss issues, which means more than single word answers. I'd love for you to respond in a way that actually challenged what I'm saying, or questioned it more deeply or whatever. I'm not here to win; I'm here to learn.
Whether or not crypto can be used to pay taxes is irrelevant to whether or not it holds the value to be taxed itself. But you’re demanding that I address an argument you made in an attempt to evade an argument I made. You’re now trying to have it both ways in more than one way. My question has a yes or no answer, you can either give me a yes or no or I’ll answer for you. I’m not interested in letting you continue to run from your obvious lack of consistency while asking me to let you try everything and see what sticks.
I'm not aware you've made an argument and I'm not demanding anything of you (beyond an implicit request to discuss in good faith). I'm not sure what I'm not being consistent about. I suspect you're assuming quite a bit about what my views are.
I addressed the specific point you made in your first sentence already in the thread. It having value is irrelevant to whether or not it can or should be taxed, but it being taxed is sufficient to give it value.
I already told you. Either it has value or it does not. “Depends on when” is not addressing it. If you don’t want me to assume your views, the state them directly, it takes a single word.
It’s relevant unless you plan on taxing things with no value.
Context is everything: Does a bar of gold have value? What about if you're alone on a desert island and dying of thirst? What's the value of a glass of water?
How about a £10 note? Does that have value? Does it depend on whether you're in the UK? Does it's value change depending on the availability of a money changer?
You absolutely can tax things with no value and poof, they suddenly have value. Everyone can now attach a real value to that thing dependent on how it will allow them to satisfy their tax obligations. Indeed, fiat currency has value precisely because of the tax obligations it can be used to satisfy.
No, your views on tax obligations are irrelevant to the discussion. If I have no tax obligations and I hold cryptocurrency, would you force me to pay taxes? If you plan to tax me on the value of the cryptocurrency itself, then you’re back to being forced to admit it had value in the first place. Tax obligations are an irrelevant facade you’re hiding the same circular argument behind.
You say context is everything and yet refuse to share the contexts you believe cryptocurrency has value. You lack confidence in your own consistency.
I have no interest in whether crypto should be taxed based on value or the colour of the sky or anything.
I think I do now understand the point you're trying to make, which is that should you be taxed on your holdings of a commodity for simply holding them? Let's talk about something different - pebbles say, since crypto is so loaded. Do you think that changes the discussion?
That's a question I have no opinion on. It's just political. That said, tax has always been about taxing something that is valued by the tax payer not the tax recipient, so I see no inconsistency with a state saying they don't value pebbles but still taxing people based on their holdings of it.
That’s not any better, you’re just changing how you’re being inconsistent. You want to regulate crypto on your perception of its value while taxing it on my perception of its value.
As for whether I think pebbles should be taxed, no. I don’t think you should be taxed for holding anything, regardless of anyone’s perception of its value. Taxes are to pay for state services you use and should be directly proportional to your use of them and nothing else. Paying your fair share is not the job of my cryptocurrency.
Your problem is you completely misunderstand what tax is for in a sovereign state. Of course you then fail to understand why states might wish to tax things you think are irrelevant to them in terms of holdings. You can rant at your living in within the confines of a state, but you're deluded if you think crypto has anything to offer the situation.
I suggest you understand how a little more about how currencies actually function (hint, you won't find it in a mainstream economics textbook, but the mechanisms are well understood). Alternatively you can get angry in your ignorance. I'm relaxed either way. In any case, I'm done here. Take care.
You'll get them, but you'll have to be 91 to start collecting, and they will be worth less than it took to print them, because some "people" think that giving more tax breaks to those that need it the least is a better use of the money you've been forced to pay into the system.
The size and complexity of both of those has increased since the 50s, a time when "every American"¹ was far better off financially with their takehome.
That might be the case. However, the point is the motivation of the Fed to pursue this case. Most countries in the West might not nominally apply censure, but copyright, trademark, and libel laws are a complex minefield that the press and anyone politically active must carefully navigate, lest the Powers That Be use it to gleefully sue their opposition and pesky dissenters into oblivion.
Trademarks require enforcement or they can become effectively invalid. Any alternative motivation is speculative, trademark simply REQUIRES this action. I don't think the Fed has any special status in this respect.
They could agree on a compromise where the Fed receives $0.50 for every item sold. Maybe a cease&desist is the usual way negotiation about such a deal is started, but in this case this makes them appear very petty.
I appreciate that they used the least original means of criticism that was never-the-less sufficient to agitate the Fed into threatening legal actions.
It's easy to agitate a federal agency if you do something novel or extreme. The fact that this was sufficient really highlights how petty the Fed's actions are.
Well, it appears that just because this is a parody does not mean it is fair use.
I noticed that in the lawyer response, a court case was cited. I did a search for this court case and found plenty of analysis. It turns out that the Congress passed a law, the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, which specifically provided protections from parodies. But...
> ... the concern with the TDRA's "fair use" parody clause is twofold. First, it is too broad in some respects by immunizing all non-source-denoting parodies from liability in one fell swoop. The main criticism of such a broad-brush approach is that it fails to assess the message communicated by the parody and its effect on the reputation of the mark. Second, the clause is, quite ironically, too narrow in other respects, as it excludes from its ambit certain source-denoting parodies that might be deserving of protection.
So the question, I guess, is whether this parody is excluded by the poorly-worded TDRA. Remember that earlier this year the Supreme Court sided with Jack Daniels in a trademark parody dispute against a dog toy manufacturer!
The St. Louis Fed, a block from the Arch, has an "Economy Museum" with a gift shop. I wonder what they'd have, or if other branches have gift shops (I think they do tours at least?). They say you can get some free shredded money as a souvenir.
Apparel: https://store.bitcoinmagazine.com/products/fednow-shirt-1?_p...
Not a trademark attourney, but the styling is distinct enough. The use of identical name could be problematic I would think?
However, I don't see how this is a "parody" -- I thought parodies have to be clearly different but use similar styling, i.e. call it "FedThen" and cleverly include the `24/7` or something in the lettering, maybe inside the "e" which gets shaped kind of like the "o"