[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote,
> 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.
Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough ...
I'm not convinced that there's anything _new_ here: copyright and
trademark law already exists and applies to any string, FQDNs included.
So your vision of a horrific future is actually a vision of the present.
A present, you'll note, in which trademark law is already hedged around
with the qualification that common terms can't be trademarked, and that
trademark owners can lose their rights if their marks pass into common
usage (eg. [Hh]oover).
Cheers,
Miles
|
