On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 01:13:28PM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote:
> >
> This comment exhibits the mind set of assuming that all domain name
> registrations involve businesses, or at least providers of goods or services
> of some kind, as would be the case with trademarks.
I do not have such a mindset.
> That is precisely the
> root of the whole conflict: the very existence of the academic community,
> game clubs, mushers, group authoring, other individuals, etc., is ignored.
>
> Bill Lovell
That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain
names are there to be *used*, not *sold*. If someone does a
non-commercial site at "catsup.com" that, in my view, should be
strongly protected, and the site owner should be able to thumb their
nose at Heinz with no fear of legal hassle. (That's why I don't
support the proposed bill under discussion -- too much potential for
legal harassment.)
But if someone registers 200 common words for resale, that should
not be protected. It is not only denying access to commercial users
who might want the name, it is denying access to non-commercial
users just as much (if not more, since non-commercial users wouldn't
be able to pay the speculator).
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
