[Forwarded with permission from the author, Beth Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Having recently been through the federal court system process to protect my copyright and trademark rights against a very large online provider, who was infringing on my rights (as part of a pattern and practice of doing so to other small content providers). Therefore my opinions are tempered by real practical experience -- in fact, the last 19 months of my life have been spent on protecting my rights. I believe there needs to be a dispute resolution forum, which is inexpensive enough for small content providers to protect themselves and go through a neutral, 3rd party process, when their rights are in jeopardy. Whether ICANN is the proper authority or not, I really don't know -- but yes, I would be happy to participate in some meaningful dialogue about the practical ramifications of any decision-making body, ICANN or others. >From the perspective of the small, independent intellectual property creator, you would never vote to leave dispute resolution to the courts if you'd ever been through litigation in US Federal Court. (It's complex rules governing discovery, etc., coupled with the Court's lack of understanding of the online world, the status of case law in the U.S. (which is NOT settled, let alone the rest of the world) and the new copyright legislation in the US, which is supposed to comply with the rest of the world are among the major hurdles -- on top of dealing with a big company who can afford to pay it's big law firm attorneys very well to delay, obstruct and avoid until you're exhausted, broke and fighting with your beleagured attorneys, who just want to settle and get enough money to cover the time they've invested -- and that's before the depositions begin!) [There are two wonderful articles about the subject every small owner should read: ] San Francisco Chronicle published an article by Reynolds Holding, "Discovery, It Turns Out, Is the Better Part of Judgments" which covered the Purcell's difficulties in their litigation against AOL for copyright infringement of their forum, Pictures of the World. Holding wrote, "...it's not only offensive, it's dangerous. Because it suggests you can win in our legal system by refusing to play, hoping your opponent will tire, run out of money and just go away." > Brenda Sandburg, in her article in American Lawyer Media (9/29/98) also wrote about this case, quoting Judge Larson asserted that "AOL has indulged itself in treating discovery as a game, rather than a means to progress toward a fair trial. By requesting an extension of time to respond to discovery and then servicing not one single response, but only blanket objections, AOL violated both the spirit and the letter of the rules governing discovery." Worst of all? Once the Purcell's settled the case (the evening before trial), they were barred from discussing the terms of the settlement by the confidentiality order. Hope this helps to clarify some of the issues, dangers and pitfalls I see -- it's only going to get worse and more difficult for the small if we don't do something collectively Beth. __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
