Well, it's not hard to imagine various ways even a non-famous, average
person could be exploited or even hurt by putting up a website that appears
to be from them. Think you gave the example of posting porn in someone's
name, for instance. Most people don't have the legal or other resources to
pursue legal reddress, so that, to me, doesn't solve the problem. Better to
prevent using someone else's name in the first place, when it clearly is not
the name of the person using it and clearly refers to a specific,
identifiable individual, i.e. THIS John Smith.
Randall
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric S. Sande" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Grabbing domain names of well-known persons?
>Why should this be legal, any more than identity theft is?
It's "legal" if the name in question isn't trademarked, as Tom said.
If the USE of the name harms or injures the "famous person" then
it's on the injured party to seek remedy. Typically I believe that
intent would need to be proved.
A lawyer would have to address this, I believe that domain name
registration has more than a few gray areas, and there are more than
a few people making money by registering untrademarked domain
names and then selling them to the intended targets, or to the highest
bidder.
That's economics in action.
Here's an example. http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/322
The bottom line on that is that you really don't want to take on a
Fortune 10 company with very deep pockets and platoons of lawyers.
It can also be very ambiguous. My name, Eric S. Sande, is relatively
uncommon. But there are many Sandes, an appreciable number of
Eric Sandes, and even a few Eric S. Sandes in the world. But there
is only one genuine original Eric Stuart Sande.
That person isn't famous, and doesn't have platoons of lawyers. Or
even one lawyer on retainer. So he's defenseless, legally speaking.
Unless he is harmed, in which case he could expect remedy (if he pays
a lawyer to bring suit, fight the case and wins).
That would be a horrible worst case scenario. Having to fight for the
right to your name, that is.
************************************************************************
* ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <==
* ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <==
* Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name
* Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST
* Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L
* New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress
* Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
************************************************************************
* List archive at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
* RSS at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml
* Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived
************************************************************************
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database:
269.14.8/1066 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 11:10 AM
************************************************************************
* ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <==
* ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <==
* Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name
* Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST
* Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L
* New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress
* Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
************************************************************************
* List archive at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
* RSS at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml
* Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived
************************************************************************
