At 10:57 AM 7/13/99 -0400, you wrote:
>At 08:12 PM 7/12/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>At 05:01 PM 7/12/99 -0400, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>No I didn't, ICANN's counsel wrote the long passage you quoted.
Martin:
Sorry if I misattributed; one cannot always tell!
As to the NSI argument, your comparison to Prodigy is also well
taken, but there is a subtle difference. Prodigy was a content issue,
while the Lockheed Martin v. NSI matter was domain names only,
specifically skunkworks, a trademark owned by LH and for the
domain name registration of which to another party LH went after
NSI for contributory trademark infringement. And of course my
"untouched by human hands" expression clearly simplifies a
complex argument, the gist of which was that NSI could not
possibly screen every proposed domain name against every
registered trademark. (Now, of course, WIPO and others want
the domain name applicant to do that, entirely subverting (as
has NSI) a principle and centuries-long tenet of U. S. trademark
law, namely, that it is the responsibility of the trademark owner
to police its own marks.)
Bill
>>
>[snip]
>
>Bill Lovell:
>
>>As to that, I was privileged to hear a description by an NSI attorney
>>in the Lockheed Martin v. Network Solutions case at the Ninth
>>Circuit, wherein it was said in effect that such compilations "are
>>untouched by human hands," more or less, hence NSI cannot be held
>>legally responsible for the content thereof (I should maybe shoot
>>myself for siding with NSI and saying so, but I personally believe
>>that the argument is correct). But again, if one cannot be held legally
>>responsible for any content in a data base, how can one claim a
>>copyright in it? You would claim the whole pile while absolving
>>yourself for liability for its bits and pieces? Maybe so, but I believe
>>you existing or wannabe registrars cannot have it both ways.
>>
>
>Your point about the contradiction of this argument as far as IP ownership
>is well-taken, however as for the point about "untouched by human hands"
>being a defense against liability, if this is what NSI's attorney said,
>then it appears to be factually incorrect, as NSI does touch the data when
>it filters the name for content, i.e. seven dirty words.
>
>As for the legal correctness of the argument, it was this type of software
>filtering that torpedoed Prodigy's argument that it shouldn't be held
>liable for the contents of its bulletin boards because the content was
>"untouched" by Prodigy's hands.
>
>
>
>
>>
>
