For the Cure Worse Than the Disease
Long time fans of MidnightRanter can probably guess what this will be about. There have been a lot of rants over the years (ok one or two) showing a very different view of the Susan G. Komen For the Cure than is presented in the media. There has been a lot of questioning here of their strong arm methods, intimidation tactics and expenditures from all that money they take in. For a long time this was just a lone voice in the wilderness. Until this came to light. It even earned a small spot on the Colbert Report where he roundly mocked it. Dear readers, in something even I didn't foresee, they have spent over a million dollars a year to make the words "for the cure" and the color pink don't get associated with anyone else but them. Now, there are a lot of good arguments for copyright protection, eliminating confusion in the marketplace and making sure that no one attempts to appropriate the Komen look and feel for their own ends. The last thing anyone really wants is for people who are trying to give their money to charity be swindled into giving it to a profit generating franchise. However, that's not what was happening in these cases. These were other charities, mostly of the "mom-and-pop" variety who were also giving all proceeds to fight breast cancer. They suddenly found themselves on the wrong end of a pack of lawyers who were threatening anyone who used the phrase "for the cure" or the color pink. Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident, this was done over 100 times and to the tune of over a million dollars per year. If only the story ended here
To point out, groups who steal a charity's name to scam money for themselves should be hounded and harassed to the fullest extent of the law, and maybe even a little more so. Those kinds of scum are why Komen has that many lawyers on staff and why we have copyright laws in the first place. However, the purpose of these laws is not so one larger entity can scare the crap out of smaller entities. When charities are reporting they are scared out of business by these kinds of tactics, that's not the intent of intellectual property laws. These smaller charities are trying to do a little bit of good and they used a common phrase and/or a color. "For the Cure" MIGHT be coming close to true intellectual property or a service mark. . .except of course Komen didn't ever register it as such. Pink is a color in the public domain. They don't have a special pink to represent them, it's not like Tiffany Blue which is a trademarked color. It is possible to trademark colors, they didn't. They just sent in lawyers, made some charities go broke trying to hire their own lawyers. Which may have been the intent all along.
Let's face it, there's no trademark on "for the cure" directly and they really can't trademark something that generic. "Komen for the Cure" sure, they could trademark that and in deed have. . .along with over 200 other things. The more outrageous claims were about the usage of the color pink. There were legal threats over groups who wanted to promote breast cancer awareness and their charities by using the color pink in association with their charity. Now, are these groups wanting to use the color pink because of all the years Komen et al spent drilling into our heads that pink means breast cancer awareness? Yes. The companies were taking advantage of the Skinner Box like association we have. Does that make it illegal? No. Most of Barbie's crap comes in pink and Komen hasn't sued Mattel yet. Before Komen, we associated pink femininity and women in general, hence Komen's appropriation of it for breast cancer awareness. It's good they've done a lot to advance the cause of breast cancer awareness and there is little doubt some women have been saved through their efforts to promote mammograms and early detection. However, all those things are not cures, as we think of them. They are treatments, they are awareness and they are even a political agenda, but not a cure. It might be working in the long term for a cure, but raising awareness is not a cure. They raise money form donors so they can lobby Congress for more funding, but also to hold races (them ain't cheap), put up lots of commercials on TV and crank out t-shirts. As pointed out in earlier rants, there's a lot more money coming in than going out.
The various "for the cure" organizations were, as far as most investigating can determine, all small time charity outfits. They were out there in the middle of America trying to "raise awareness" (remember that old gem?) and shovel a little money towards breast cancer research. Why would Komen have a problem with that? They're all for getting as many people as possible sending money to breast cancer research. They hold big races, partner with large corporations, make t-shirts and get celebrity endorsements all to make sure people know the dangers of breast cancer, and subsequently give money. Of course, the hidden bit of that is they want the money to come to THEM. They took the time, effort and legal fees to trademark over 200 things associated with them. One deal that was reached with one defendant was to use the phrase "for the cure" wen dealing with lung cancer. Which means it's not about the phrase being suspect, but only the phrase near tits. The head counsel at Komen says they're not in the business of running non-profits out of business, yet that's happening and Komen profits because money that may have gone to the little guy now flows to Komen.
In essence, what we have is a bigger charity squeezing out the smaller charities so the large one can maintain a bigger piece of the pie. They're doing so in a way protected by law and in a way designed to make sure THEY weren't taken advantage of by the less scrupulous. The only thing that can be said is if you're going to give money to breast cancer research, find another organization. National Cancer Society does a lot of great work, there are smaller local groups (for now) and plenty of others out there who do good work. Heck, donate directly to hospitals and research labs, bypass the administration altogether and make sure as much money as possible goes to helping people.
You know, where the money SHOULD be going.
So it is written, so do I see it.
To point out, groups who steal a charity's name to scam money for themselves should be hounded and harassed to the fullest extent of the law, and maybe even a little more so. Those kinds of scum are why Komen has that many lawyers on staff and why we have copyright laws in the first place. However, the purpose of these laws is not so one larger entity can scare the crap out of smaller entities. When charities are reporting they are scared out of business by these kinds of tactics, that's not the intent of intellectual property laws. These smaller charities are trying to do a little bit of good and they used a common phrase and/or a color. "For the Cure" MIGHT be coming close to true intellectual property or a service mark. . .except of course Komen didn't ever register it as such. Pink is a color in the public domain. They don't have a special pink to represent them, it's not like Tiffany Blue which is a trademarked color. It is possible to trademark colors, they didn't. They just sent in lawyers, made some charities go broke trying to hire their own lawyers. Which may have been the intent all along.
Let's face it, there's no trademark on "for the cure" directly and they really can't trademark something that generic. "Komen for the Cure" sure, they could trademark that and in deed have. . .along with over 200 other things. The more outrageous claims were about the usage of the color pink. There were legal threats over groups who wanted to promote breast cancer awareness and their charities by using the color pink in association with their charity. Now, are these groups wanting to use the color pink because of all the years Komen et al spent drilling into our heads that pink means breast cancer awareness? Yes. The companies were taking advantage of the Skinner Box like association we have. Does that make it illegal? No. Most of Barbie's crap comes in pink and Komen hasn't sued Mattel yet. Before Komen, we associated pink femininity and women in general, hence Komen's appropriation of it for breast cancer awareness. It's good they've done a lot to advance the cause of breast cancer awareness and there is little doubt some women have been saved through their efforts to promote mammograms and early detection. However, all those things are not cures, as we think of them. They are treatments, they are awareness and they are even a political agenda, but not a cure. It might be working in the long term for a cure, but raising awareness is not a cure. They raise money form donors so they can lobby Congress for more funding, but also to hold races (them ain't cheap), put up lots of commercials on TV and crank out t-shirts. As pointed out in earlier rants, there's a lot more money coming in than going out.
The various "for the cure" organizations were, as far as most investigating can determine, all small time charity outfits. They were out there in the middle of America trying to "raise awareness" (remember that old gem?) and shovel a little money towards breast cancer research. Why would Komen have a problem with that? They're all for getting as many people as possible sending money to breast cancer research. They hold big races, partner with large corporations, make t-shirts and get celebrity endorsements all to make sure people know the dangers of breast cancer, and subsequently give money. Of course, the hidden bit of that is they want the money to come to THEM. They took the time, effort and legal fees to trademark over 200 things associated with them. One deal that was reached with one defendant was to use the phrase "for the cure" wen dealing with lung cancer. Which means it's not about the phrase being suspect, but only the phrase near tits. The head counsel at Komen says they're not in the business of running non-profits out of business, yet that's happening and Komen profits because money that may have gone to the little guy now flows to Komen.
In essence, what we have is a bigger charity squeezing out the smaller charities so the large one can maintain a bigger piece of the pie. They're doing so in a way protected by law and in a way designed to make sure THEY weren't taken advantage of by the less scrupulous. The only thing that can be said is if you're going to give money to breast cancer research, find another organization. National Cancer Society does a lot of great work, there are smaller local groups (for now) and plenty of others out there who do good work. Heck, donate directly to hospitals and research labs, bypass the administration altogether and make sure as much money as possible goes to helping people.
You know, where the money SHOULD be going.
So it is written, so do I see it.