At 01:28 PM 7/5/99 -0700, you wrote:
>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.)
Okay, then you might have said that.
>
>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).
My house, my car, my computer, etc., are all denied to others "who
might want" them, for the simple reason that I got there first. If any
commercial or non-commercial users can't get the use of whatever
because they were asleep at the switch and woke up too late to the
existence of the internet and domain names, well, tough apples.
I vaguely recall that the American economy has long thrived on the
efforts of someone to "corner the market" in sow bellies, tea leaves,
etc., etc., and while there has been legislation that has curtailed
the abuses of such practices, such as those against insider
trading and the like, if I happen to buy into a seemingly blah IPO
and the thing surprisingly makes huge profits, well, good for me.
If I bought enough stock that there was none left for anyone else,
all such others "who would want" that stock would be denied my
chance for profit, for which I again say, tough apples. If there is
something to be done about the guy who buys 200 common words
for resale, I haven't seen anything appropriate yet, and of course
I agree wholeheartedly that the abomination before us right now
ought to die a painful death. (A parallel with the stock market
does exist in various requirements that stock be paid for -- I am
not a securities attorney and don't play the market so I don't
know the details. It would seem that in conceiving its bastard
dispute resolution policy NSI not only helped create the conflict
but also tailored it to allow the most egregious abuses.)
Bill Lovell
>
>--
>Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
