Is Access Copyright Claiming a Trademark in ©?

Howard Knopf points to Access Copyright’s revised site design that includes a trademark notice on the © symbol. A search of the trademark database does not show an attempted registration of the © alone.


  1. Except that it isn’t what Access Copyright is claiming. The trademark is for the configuration of the word “Access” with the copyright symbol. Plenty of other examples where a common word or symbol has been trademarked when used in conjunction with other words or symbols.

  2. Bob: If you look at the screenshot in the linked article, you’ll see a TM next to the © logo by itself at the end of the orange column on the right.

    I’m guessing somebody at Access Copyright reads this blog though, because the trademark notice in question is now gone.

  3. Regardless…you put the TM symbol at the end of the trademark, not by each component

  4. I hope with was simply a misinterpretation because this is almost as laughable as when Donald Trump tried to trademark the phase “You’re Fired”.

  5. Whoops, I missed the latest tweet. I retract my comment.

  6. Where would we all be without the tireless efforts of Geist and Knopf to save us all from the evil that is Access Copyright?

    Dr. Geist, are you the primary author of all your blog postings and tweets, or do you have graduate students doing a lot of the grunt work? This posting is so ridiculous, it’s hard to imagine a serious scholar taking the time to write it.

    At the very least, one would expect the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce law to understand how a logo trademark works.

  7. Jeff Power says:

    John maybe if you slowed down and actually took a moment to look on knoff’s site you would notice the copyright symbol in the orange part by itself has the TM next to it.
    Access Copyright obviously having realized their error have removed it. They didn’t do a very good job you can still see a bit of white below the C.

  8. Jeff – do you believe AC was asserting a trademark claim over the C? Because that was Knopf’s claim, and Geist’s clear intention in the posting.

    Just one more pointless and ideologically-driven attack against professional artists asserting their rights. Shameful.

  9. Jeff Power says:

    I’d assume an error, but none the less a pretty sloppy one from a company dealing in copyright

  10. Yes, and certainly must-read headline news over here. What a sad bit of trivial nonsense. Good-bye to any hope of good-faith negotiation from this side.

  11. @degen
    “Good-bye to any hope of good-faith negotiation from this side.”

    So it’s official. During the current legal process in front of the Copyright Board, Access Copyright will refuse to bargain in good faith. Thanks for the heads-up.

  12. Tax Payer says:


    I hope your usual ad hominem ranting will be confined to your lunch hour, so you can get back to your normal presumably well-balanced policy neutral and non-judgmental government duties…

  13. RE: Degen
    For an apparent member of the Ontario Arts Council, you do come off as a ranting child on the Internet. I think that if I was a member of a government organization I wouldn’t act in this manner. So John, do all members of the council behave in this immature fasion, or just you?

  14. Ah yes, now I’m to keep my opinions on copyright to myself because of my day job. Such an atmosphere of open dialogue over here.

  15. Jeff Power says:

    I thinks it’s the fashion of delivery, not the substance

  16. C’Mon people, it was a mistake, it was reported upon, AC corrected the mistake…end of story. This NEVER happens in journalism….right? John, you’re making a mountain out of a molehill.

  17. @Degen
    …”Where would we all be without the tireless efforts of Geist and Knopf to save us all from the evil that is Access Copyright?”

    Where would we all be without the tireless efforts of Degen attempting to denigrate the irrefutable evidence?

    Yes, mistakes can be made. And corrected, preferably in a public and apologetic fashion.

    BTW I found something that I think you might find interesting, or amusing:

  18. Great, I look forward to Knopf and Geist’s apology for jumping to a ridiculous, and wrong, conclusion for the sole purpose of embarrassing an organization they ideologically oppose and have demonstrated nothing but contempt for at every opportunity despite numerous good faith attempts by that organization to create meaningful dialogue.

    Let me know when that’s published.

  19. Jeff Power says:

    Thats a great video and so bang on the money, should make everyone think, thanks for posting

  20. There clearly is a trademark in “Access Copyright” with the copyright symbol. But there was never any suggestion that the symbol in isolation could be the subject of a trademark. Howard should have known better.

  21. Yes, because AC, NEVER does anything stupid…

    No more homework, no more books…

    High school and elementary students…REALLY?!?!! How manly elementary school papers, or even high school, do you know that were published in major journals, newspapers, or any other mainstream media.

    Access Copyright: Outrageous and Unnecessary

    “This would include access to university email accounts.” Every e-mail account would be scanned for infringing material? Ya, right, where do they get off? That sure is a good use of MY tax dollars.

    Canadian copyright collecting society uses lies to pit creators against schools

    “Brief Quotes”. The video is fiction. Yes, C-32 adds an exception for education, but any use still has to undergo the three-step test to see if the use qualifies as fair. So, just because there is an exception, it doesn’t mean free to copy.

  22. Is the apology published yet?

  23. Did AC apologize for lying in their little propaganda video about the education exception in C-32? I consider this far worse than Knopf, perhaps, poking a little fun at them.

  24. olderguy says:


    Your trolling has no end. AC makes a mistake, Knopf calls them on it, and Geist does a short blog pointing to Knopf and calling into doubt the trademark claim. Now Knopf and Geist need to apologize? Pathetic.

  25. Well, AC didn’t produce a video about the educational exception in C-32. The one the Writers Union produced contained no lies, only valid predictions based on analysis of the exception and the past advocacy of educational representatives. I have documented much of that here:

    AC’s tariff proposal is still before the Copyright Board, who rightly has the task of adjudicating its details. You can see how the Board felt about many of the initial kneejerk objections you’ve referenced here:

    You may disagree with the predictions of the TWUC video’s participants, but your disagreement does not make those predictions lies.

    So, we’ve established you were wrong about AC producing the video, and wrong about there being lies in it. I guess that means you’ll be admitting and embracing your wrongness, and apologizing. If you want to just tag your apology onto the end of Geist and Knopf’s, feel free.

  26. Crockett says:

    Some fun huh?
    lol, a copyright organization making a glaring typographical mistake on their website about trademarking a copyright symbol.

    Come on, it’s funny … now everyone have a drink, put away their indignation and go home.

  27. LOL
    John, you crack me up. I’m beginning to think Mr. Degan believes the whole world owes him an applogy. At least this goes a long way toward explaining his trollish behaviour.

    Are you going to keep coming back to this site with short posts to say you are still waiting on that appology? I’ve noticed you tend to do that sort of thing a lot.

  28. Yes, yes, all in good fun… said the troll.

    No need to talk about this embarrassingly adolescent attack any longer. Let’s just all laugh it off.

    What a gang of apologists. It would be terrifying if I wasn’t fully aware of how small your numbers actually are.

  29. LOL OK, I was wrong about who produced it. I can admit when I’M wrong. 😉 I like how you skirted the entire point about the three-step test though. You’re good at skirting, I should take some lessons from you. I speak my mind way to plainly way too often. You seem to think the test is not needed and C-32 gives free reign, hence agree with the video. Geist says it is still required.

    John Degen, poet, novelist, Literature Officer for the Ontario Arts Council

    Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law

    Who am I going to believe in a matter of law…’nuff said.

    Either way, like Crockett said, we should all have a pill and relax…the long weekend is coming after all.

  30. LOL — it’s so great when we all agree to just pretend the ongoing wrongness is just so funny.

    You made a point about a three-step test?

    BTW, since you’re making the appeal to authority, check here for how accurate Geist’s law-talking is:

    Barry Sookman wrote the textbook on computer law:

    “Sookman: Computer Law: Acquiring and Protecting Information Technology (Carswell, 1989-1999); the leading five-volume text, Sookman: Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (Carswell, 1999-2009); and Copyright: Cases and Commentary on the Canadian and International Law, co-authored with Steven Mason (Carswell, 2009), Intellectual Property Law in Canada: Cases and Commentary, co-authored with Steven Mason (Carswell 2010). Barry Sookman is also the author of the book Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Terms: Judicial, Legislative and Technical Definitions (Carswell, 2001-2009). In addition, he is a contributing author to the following books: Gordon Henderson’s Copyright Law in Canada (Carswell, 1994); Barbara McIsaac’s The Law of Privacy in Canada (Carswell, 2000-2003), which was published by McCarthy Tètrault authors; George Takach’s The Software Business (McGraw Hill 1999); and Marco Giovanoli’s International Monetary Law: Issues for the New Millennium (Oxford 2000). Mr. Sookman is also the author of numerous articles dealing with information technology and intellectual property. As well, he is an adjunct Professor who teaches copyright at Osgoode Hall Law School, and a frequent speaker on legal issues related to computer, E-Commerce, Internet law and intellectual property.”

    Then again, who are you going to believe in all this.

  31. Troll
    Although, “troll” is the “official slang” term for you and others like you.

    From Wikipedia:
    “In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

    With you constantly putting down our host, I’d class that as pretty inflammatory.

  32. RE: Blackberry Playbook
    Perhaps the playbook was unfairly singled out. But the issue of transferring DRM protected digital media between devices is a valid one. If my computer dies and I have to build a new one from scratch, I will lose the ability to play DRM protected music and movies since the license will be lost. The same issue applies if I want to transfer DRM protected media from one device to another. The average life cycle of such a device is about 2-3 years, so I should have to re-buy all my content when I replace my device? I think not.

    I recently had a similar issue with Cyberlink PowerDVD. I purchased it, for $90 and installed it on my desktop. Later, I bought a media center and wanted to move the installation over. I want to MOVE it, and stay legit. I e-mailed them, phoned them, posted on their boards and after months of arguing, the final answer was that I had to purchase a new copy. I told them in no uncertain terms what I thought of them and downloaded a freeware player that works just as well…and faster. I will never *buy* another product from Cyberlink.

    Geist vs. Sookman

    six of one: half a dozen of the other. It’s a matter of opinion at this level. The question is, “Is what’s proposed possible to enforce?” I don’t think it is. I don’t think people in Canada will accept it or respect it no more than the Americans accept or respect the DMCA.

    And I truly think the US lies about their piracy numbers because I’ve done many tests on bittorrent and any time I’ve tested, every file I picked was 80%+ with American peers. Good to see the DMCA at work.

  33. IamMe – honestly, I have sympathy for your troubles with content. But we will not get to solutions by removing basic and universally agreed upon rights (from all of us). And we certainly won’t get to solutions with the group of “jokers” currently advancing their careers in the name of free culture.

    You want solutions? You need to start frequenting a different blog.

  34. Crockett says:

    Tinted glasses …
    @Degen “Barry Sookman wrote the textbook on computer law …”

    Yes quite knowledgeable, and he is often retained to promote the case of the media industries, and rightly so as he is an expert, but then will his blog represent views without prejudice?

    You constantly insinuate Geist is a puppet, and we are to believe you that Sookman is any better?

    Please 0_o

  35. ..”But we will not get to solutions by removing basic and universally agreed upon rights (from all of us)”

    While I agree with your statement, I don’t agree with the way you advocate that it be applied.
    Let’s leave aside your focus on the second clause of Article 27 of the United Nations Declaration, while seeming to ignore the first clause of that same article. The phrasing is open enough to interpretation that both you and the opposite end of the spectrum can find justification in their positions based on the same article.

    “Rights” are not absolute, they have limits.
    Article 19 does not give someone the “right” to express hate speech, nor inciting to riot, nor a host of other forms of expression that can be construed to be detrimental to society as a whole.
    Likewise Article 12 has it’s socially mandated exceptions and limitations.
    And what do you make of Article 22? What specific rights does it involve and what limitations?
    And take a close read of Article 26, something quite relevant to the discussions here.
    And read the last Article, Article 30.

    While simultaneously respecting the spirit of the those rights, society has to craft workable and practical rules surrounding those rights, ALL of them. Extreme interpretations of any of these rights works against everyone. Actions and interpretations that were true last decade aren’t always true today.

    …”And we certainly won’t get to solutions with the group of “jokers” currently advancing their careers in the name of free culture.”

    The lack of respect you show in those words will always be returned 10 fold. Don’t you find it intriguing that there is a large, and growing, segment of society that take these thinkers seriously? Are they an aberration or a foretaste of the future rushing upon us? What makes you so sure?

  36. I am a by nature a technologist. Watching and living through technology births, trends, and deaths for more decades than I care to mention (irrelevant anyway).
    But one thing I have realized, is that society always ends up using the technology in not quite the way I expected. Sometimes disturbing and sometimes delightful, but always unexpected. So I started to watch society trends as well.
    From the birth of the hobby/home computer in the early ’70s, to the ubiquitous presence today – 40 years. The birth of Linux in 1991, and the usage everywhere today. The dawn of Napster, and the P2P technology of today. Hobbyists like to share, and when they can do so easily and effectively they often “produce” something that changes the world. The power of “sharing” is starting to catch hold in many areas. The Human Genome project was completed much quicker than expected, and that speed can be laid directly at the door of “sharing”.
    The concept that “sharing” is better, not only for individuals but also for society, is starting to take hold everywhere.
    We are at the dawn of the digital age, and digital bits can be transmitted, copied, and spread around the world in the blink of an eye. This has dire implications for all the industries built up around the concepts of “Intellectual Property” (I know, please don’t nitpick). But that same transmission and copying also gives “sharing” a momentum that has never been seen before. And it’s just starting.
    Take a look at this kind technology:
    It’s in it’s infancy, about where home computers were 40 years ago. But we won’t have to wait 40 years, the same free exchange of ideas that brought Linux and the whole of the GPL based projects to where they are today, the same ideals that allowed the Human Genome project to succeed much sooner than expected, are at work here as well. In 10-15 years you should be able to download/pirate a “copy” of my bicycle, if not my car, or my house.

    I have no idea where society will take this technology, but for sure won’t be good for some entrenched interests. Nor some individuals, perhaps me. The technology is coming, the society trends are there. It certainly won’t be the same as it is today.

    Dreamers and schemers. Dreamers tend to share, liberally. Schemers tend to own, even if they can be generous. We all have some of each within us. All through modern history, the schemers were the successful ones. In the digital age, the dreamers have the tools and the inertia. As a society, we have to strike a new balance. A balance that will be quite different from the past.

  37. Oh brother, you guys are just all over the place — by which I mean scattered, not ubiquitous. As if it makes a difference explaining vocabulary here.

    Crockett, show me where I’ve “insinuated” that Geist is a puppet. My explicit, unhidden, forthright, critical opinion of Michael Geist is as follows:

    1. He is often flat-out wrong in his presentation of the law and current practice (see many Sookman rebuttals for factual evidence of this). I don’t think the CRC in Internet Law should be wrong about that law — call me unreasonable.

    2. He doesn’t seem to care about being wrong, as long as he gets an opportunity to express his theories in the media — see his recent interview on BNN in which he again referenced the Playbook tax despite the fact that Sookman had meticulously proven his wrongness on that subject.

    3. In official settings, such as before Parliament, he pretends to not be attached the extreme wing of free culture, but then he retweets, encourages and refuses to criticize the expressions of that extreme — Jesse Brown’s stealing of content, the gaming of the online consultation, etc. This is simple dishonesty, and I’m surprised more people here don’t call him on it.

    4. He is carefree and very strategic about throwing around the term “lobbyist” and implying that copyright-holders have privileged access to government, even as he clearly enjoys a private pipeline to the scheduling and details of pending legislation.

    5. He leaves his own people hanging in the wind. After encouraging an uprising of objections to the Copyright Board on the AC tariff, he has kept his head tucked away on that decision against those objections, which was, undoubtedly, devastatingly embarrassing for some of the objectors with a career dog in the fight.

    These are my opinions. Of course, in the worldview here, all this fairly indisputable stuff surrounding the good doctor makes him a “dreamer, not a schemer,” while hard-working creative professionals dedicated to Canadian culture are accused of scheming and colluding.

    Call me all the names you want. As long as the attack on professional artists continues, I’ll speak against it.

  38. RE: Degen
    Copyright is a privilege, not a right:

  39. Jeff Power says:

    @Eric L
    That’s why when I tlak about my own interests in copyright I often use the phrase “Rights granted to me in copyright”. Many of the arguments I have with other creators is about their idea that the law is their to protect something which is naturally theirs. As apposed to having granted them rights which they don’t naturally have.

  40. Again, while I agree that he might be singling out the Playbook unfairly, the problem of transferring protected content is an issue and a serious one. While you and others on the strict copy-write side are over blasé about this fact, I assure you when it comes to pass the consumer will retaliate ten fold.

    As for the AC tariff, while Geist was very vocal with his opinion I disagree he caused an uprising. The proposed tariff did that all by itself causing institutions such as the University of Windsor, University of Alberta and Athabasca University. York University is operating under the interim tariff, but has a press release indicating they plan to leave AC, which I surmise is the plan for many institutions.

    From York’s website (Speaking of operating under the interim tariff):
    “This will give us all the time needed to take steps necessary to implement the fair dealing guidelines and transition to a copying regime outside of Access Copyright.”

    I suspect a lot of other Universities operating under the interim tariff are waiting to see how those who have already severed ties fair out.

    “You want solutions? You need to start frequenting a different blog.”

    That’s a bold statement, you insinuate this is the only blog I read. I read many blogs, some regularly, others not so much. My primary source for information, however, is not this blog. While it may be the first place I learn of some issues, my primary source for information is the multitude of news articles available freely on Google, Yahoo, Canoe, CNN, and other such sites. If you follow the news, you learn that Canada is lining up to have one of the most restrictive copyright regimes in the world, save that of France, perhaps. While at the same time, again, all freely available through the previously mentioned sites, much of the world, including the US, UK, Ireland and the EU as a whole have either relaxed or is looking at relaxing regulations.

    That begs the question, “Why is Canada taking such a particularly hard-line on this issue?” We have a lower piracy rate than most of the world, our music industry is growing faster than in the US. Yet, we’re still years behind the rest of the developed world in Internet service, paying vastly more for a service which would be considered substandard in most countries. Again, we’re years behind the rest of the developed world in media services such as the “stunted” excuse for Netflix we have here. It doesn’t take long searching on the news sites to find out why, outrageously high licensing fees, sparse population and low bandwidth caps are the reasons most often cited. Piracy is never mentioned as a reason by the actual vendors. It’s only the RIAA and MPAA that likes to throw that around.

    So John tell me, with all this, why do we need such an onerous and intrusive take on copyright that even more strict than the DMCA? The same DMCA, that MOST analysts, including the guy who created it, consider to be a complete failure in what it was designed to do…stop piracy. If ANYTHING has affected piracy numbers in the US, services like Hulu, Pandora, Netflix, and so many more are to thank. If I lived in the US, why would I download pirated music, when I can listen to it on Pandora for free? Why would I download TV shows or record them, when I can watch them on free/cheap services such as Hulu and Netflix. It’s services like these that are the real weapons against piracy, not heavy handed laws like the DMCA or HADOPI, that people ignore anyway. Give people some viable alternatives.

    Canadians aren’t the stupid little lapdogs that you and the rest of the copyright collective like to think. We see what’s going on in the rest of the world and wonder why not here. So go ahead, push your draconian laws and watch piracy skyrocket as people get fed up…because it will.

    Every country that has tried has failed…why should Canada be any different? Is Harper, of all people, going to be the silver bullet? LOL I think not…. I guess we’ll learn from our mistakes when we should have already learned from the mistakes of others.

  41. IamMe, you need to stop telling me what I think. I have nothing but respect for Canadians, being one myself. I think I explained in helpful detail the things I don’t respect. Quite typically, those things are all overlooked and a new conversation is started.

    I think I know why:

  42. Crockett says:

    @Degen – Crockett, show me where I’ve “insinuated” that Geist is a puppet.
    “Degen said: It sounds to me like Del Maestro was saying the bill was flawed but fixable. Wakey wakey.”

    So what exactly is it you are trying to say here John?

  43. You can’t handle the Truth!!!
    Were you referring to me or yourself? LOL I simply overlooked the points that I don’t have enough knowledge to comment on, leaving those for others, and commented on the two I did. Ever since I’ve been posting here, you continually avoid answering questions about the technical aspects, feasibility and enforceability of such legislation, as well as questions about the failure of such legislation in all countries that have tried it. So, I guess we each have our flaws and will continue to agree to disagree.

    My apologies, I was responding to two posts at once, not starting a new conversation. ;-P I suppose I should keep them separate eh…or at least do them in order?

    Harper and Moore are Canadians as well, so being Canadian doesn’t mean you automatically respect Canadians. :-O

  44. Crockett,

    See point #4 above. And then, I guess, go check your definition of “puppet.”

    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

  45. Crockett says:

    OK then …
    So, now it’s the ‘Government’ that is Geist’s puppet?

    Wow, he must be a very intelligent, thoughtful man with important things to say if he can single handedly have such huge influence over government policy.

    How’s that hat coming John, need more tinfoil?

  46. Crockett,

    It’s okay, man. He’s just a person like you and me. You don’t have to cling to this weird ideological loyalty.

    You’re free. Go think for yourself.

    Or, find yet another way to deflect and ignore the real words I’ve said. Your choice, theoretically.

  47. Jeff Power says:

    We credit scarcely any persons with good sense
    except those who are of our opinion.
    Francois de La Rochefoucauld

  48. Dreamers and schemers.

    John, I admit I may not have been clear. But the point I was trying to make is that in a digital age, the hobbyists that like to share, those “dreamers”, are not only on equal terms with the professionals, they have the advantage.
    This advantage is so pronounced even certain professionals can see the benefits to sharing and open cooperation. The efficacy of information and ideas and expression is in it’s use, not in it’s creation. The more people that use it, the more it grows. The digital age means an amazing amount of people can use it immediately, and the feedback causes it to grow exponentially.

    So where does the professional creator fit in this new paradigm?

    The advantages to society, and the individual (including professionals), are so overwhelming that we can’t simply discard the paradigm. I don’t have sure answers, but I do know the old framework is incompatible with the new paradigm. Attempts at strengthening the old framework are counterproductive (and effectively doomed). I will resist those attempts in varying degrees.
    We need to think outside the box, and try new approaches to these fundamental changes in society. I wasn’t the first, and I won’t be the last, that has had to reorient my perspectives, adapt to the changes brought on by a digital world. It *can* happen, individually and collectively.

    John, concern for professional creators is admirable. I am concerned too. But your antipathy towards Michael and other “dreamers” appears to be based on your focus to strengthen the old framework. An approach that dreamers, and the current trends in society, will resist.

  49. I think I’ve been exceedingly clear about my antipathy and on what it is based. I made a list. And you all deliberately ignored it, as you always do.

    Again, don’t assume you know what I think about any of this.

    Your lecture only works if we accept the received notion that professional creators are not “thinking outside the box,” willing to “try new approaches,” and “adapt to changes,” which I happen to know, from daily experience in the world of professionla creation over the last two decades, is untrue.

    So where does that leave us. You’re telling me we need to embrace change, and I know that we have already done so. I’m telling you to keep your hands off my rights, and you say you don’t want to take them; you just want to “interpret” them.

    Based on how I see folks here “interpreting” the information and methods of the good doctor, you’ll have to forgive me for not wanting to hand my rights over to your interpretation. Lazy thinking never made a good law — and I don’t know how anyone could not agree that Geist’s playbook tax and AC trademark notions are not 100% lazy thinking, to name just two recent examples.

  50. Not to point out the obvious, but Geist’s “playbook tax”, while poorly worded is a valid concern for anyone who owns DRM protected digital media. The AC trademark thing was Knopf. Geist simply pointed to it. AC made a mistake and were called on, big deal…move on.

  51. I read your list. I just don’t accept it as evidence of anything you are claiming. I’m not ignorant, stupid, or evil, yet I still disagree with you.

    I am pretty careful not to assume what you are thinking anymore. You are pretty adamant about people not knowing what you actually “think”, so much so that it appears that you are hiding something. That still doesn’t stop me from commenting on how you seem, or appear.

    I never claimed there aren’t professional creators that aren’t trying to adapt or think outside the box, I was implying that you don’t appear to be. If you would like to refute that with some specifics of recent “out of the box” ideas or activities, I would be interested.

  52. “I think I’ve been exceedingly clear about my antipathy and on what it is based. I made a list. And you all deliberately ignored it, as you always do.”

    I also read your list, as I specifically stated in this quote:

    “I simply overlooked the points that I don’t have enough knowledge to comment on, leaving those for others, and commented on the two I did.”

    i.e. I commented on points #2 and #5.

  53. @Degen
    “And you all deliberately ignored it, as you always do.”

    Kind of like how you always ignore or slough off questions about the technical aspects, feasibility and enforceability of legislation such as C-32, as well as questions about the failure of such legislation in all countries that have tried it.


  54. It’s been fun.
    Either way, I probably won’t be around much so everyone have a great long weekend. John, if I lived close to you I’d take you out for drink. I enjoy the back and forth prattling, it makes me think.

  55. Joe Clark says:

    Your Unicode is, as ever, borked
    The copyright symbol is not actually “©.”