Permalink
Aug 25, 2000

Sex.com Ruling: It Wasn't Stolen
General IP Issues8/25/2000; 11:05:08 PM 'There are lots of nasty and nefarious things you can do to a website -- crack it, hijack it, black it out -- but one thing you can't do, no matter how evil your intention, is steal its domain name. Even if you take it without asking and never give it back.'Oh this is just stupid. If it's not property that can be stolen, then somebody please explain to me how it's property that can be squatted!Can it get any more obvious that all the legal system cares about in these disputes is who has the money? I do not suggest this as a wild-eyed conspiracy theory. Consider the Napster trials. Who looks more respectable to a judge, a Multi-Billion Dollar International Music Consortium with everybody in suits and lots of money, or a legal team defending, in the final analysis, a teenager? I'm suggesting that money -> respect -> won lawsuits is what is occurring.When Coca-Cola Inc. accuses Joe Shmoe of stealing domain names ('squatting'), domain names are intellectual property that can be stolen and hence Coke.com must be given up. When Joe Shmoe the First accuses Joe Shmoe the Second (neither of whom are multi-national business interests) of domain name theft, suddenly domain names don't meet the legal definition of property.Truthfully, I suspect that domain names don't meet the definition, and never have, and the laws should be revised to reflect the fact that they are. (I need to look for the definition of property... pointers appreciated.)


Permalink
Aug 25, 2000

TRUSTe Accused of Breaking Its Own Privacy Rules
Privacy from Companies
8/25/2000; 11:02:30 PM 'The nonprofit Internet privacy organization TRUSTe allowed an outside company to track visitors to its Web site without visitors' permission or knowledge, said Interhack, a Internet security firm.'


Permalink
Aug 25, 2000

Trade Groups Support Napster
Music & MP3
8/25/2000; 10:54:27 PM 'Several trade groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs today with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disputing claims made by Judge Marilyn Patel, who ruled against Napster in a case brought by the recording industry.'


Permalink
Aug 25, 2000

Time-Warner steps in it, again
Music & MP38/25/2000; 10:17:02 PM Odds are good you all read Davenet, given who's hosting this website, but still, this deserves to be archived here so people can find it in the future. Time-Warner violates what is essentially their own law...'This hypocrisy is making a joke of the US Constitution. If the litigants can't keep their own act clean, how dare they sue others to stop what is clearly an expression of free speech.'Agreed.


Permalink
Aug 23, 2000

Future of Digital Music Senate Meeting
Personal Commentary
8/23/2000; 4:48:10 PM It's 5:52 EST, and on C-SPAN 2 is the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on the Future of Digital Music, with Lars Ulrich, the Napster CEO, and the RIAA that took place on September 11, 2000. It's out of date in lawsuit terms, but hey, get it straight from the horse's mouth(es).


<- Future Posts Past Posts ->

 

Site Links

 

RSS
All Posts

 

Blogroll