[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Convincing you won't matter.
One can violate copyright and unless the owner
makes a case of it, no one comes to get you.
The folks doing P2P sharing are convinced no
one is coming to get them. Then one day...
a knock at the door.
The law will be made after the fact, Miles,
based on the "convenience" of using http/DNS
unique names to label the content. Someone
will notice that it's a "neat" idea.
len
From: Miles Sabin [mailto:miles@milessabin.com]
I'm not convinced.
Suppose I decided to start using "http://www.example.com/"; to denote
shrimp without permission form Example Inc, the rightful domain
registrant. Who would come and get me? Goons from Network Solutions? On
what basis? Abuse of a FQDN? Surely not: the only way to abuse a FQDN
is to interfere with it's mapping to and from an IP address, not a
concept. If anyone's going to come after me it'll be trademark lawyers.
But how is the situation here any different from my deciding to start
using "Example Inc" to denote shrimp? What's special (from a trademark
lawyers POV) about a FQDN as opposed to any other string of characters?
And if there isn't anything special about a FQDN, then we don't have to
imagine a privatized future ... it's the status quo: names can already
be owned and rights of ownership asserted.
I'm not claiming this is a good thing, merely that it's (not very much)
more of the same ...
|
