At 03:42 PM 7/13/99 +0000, you wrote:
>
>
>> When a data base comes about as a byproduct of providing another
>> service such as domain name registration, however, that data base
>> is simply a necessary result of the service already being performed
>> ... (I might add that this whole data base issue has much further
>> and far-reaching echoes: many in the scientific research field have
>> decried the possiblity of being cut off from scientific data they
>> need for their research, and for which copyright protection has
>> also been proposed.)
>...
>> 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?
>
>Isnt this the heart of the IP paradox? A service is performed; there
>are no new IP rights. A database 'comes about' as the result of
>service performed, and there are no new IP rights. *Somebody
>else* wants to use that db, and IP rights burst forth.
Problem is, they don't really "burst forth." The registrar looks closely
one day and says, "hey, look at all this data we've collected! Let's
claim we own it!
>
>Specifically, a registry is necessary for DN service, and a registrar
>builds the db. *Only when registration is opened to competition, are
>there IP rights to the first registrar.
Not even then. What's competition got to do with it? There is no
creativity on the part of any registrant in the decision of whoever to
go with registrar A rather than registrar B. It is those individual
decisions by domain name seekers (prospective registrants) that
make the data base of A different from that of B, and not anything
done by either A or B.
>
>It seems therefore that either every monopoly is a 'natural' one -- or
>the IP concept exactly expresses the 'both ways' idea: 'upstream'
>liability (to the registrant, where the data came from) is nil, but to
>anybody 'downstream' there's a magical wall of copyright.
>
Or so they would have us believe. :-)
>Logically, its bullshit. Unfortunately, the obvious rectification -- that
>rights stay forever with the source -- has embarrasing
>consequences (like giving America back to the First Nations).
That is indeed bs, but I don't see any problem with the consequences.
I write a book and have someone publish it for me while I myself
retain the copyright (if I'm smart). The copyright stays with me until
X years after I die, and then the book falls into the public domain
-- anyone in the world can publish a book of Shakespeare's plays
without infringing anyone's copyright since there is none any more.
One
>concludes that registrants *voluntarily surrender (some) rights to a
>registrar in order that the db can be maintained *for their
>convenience. A further implication is that those rights are (some)
>payment to a registrar to perform this service.
Yeah, but that's what Yahoo tried to do with the emails that people
posted on lists or whatever, and they backed off in a hurry!
>
>But where does that conclusion give a registrar 'downstream' IP
>rights against another registrar? Where does it give one registrar
>any priority over another at all - for instance, when a registrant
>wishes to move hys data from one to the other? On the contrary, it
>opens registration to negotiation, which has two obvious
>implications. First, if you think your data are worth more than
>someone else's (e.g. a 'famous name' or a 'killer phrase'), then
>wouldnt you want to sweeten the pot with some further
>consideration to keep them from being parlayed elsewhere?
>Second, isnt this negotiability exactly why there might be more
>than one registrar? (Why do you think so many folks want to get
>into the registrar act? Why do you think ICANN is in place, if not to
>*limit the number and prevent the market from collapsing?)
Negotiate what? Nonexistent IP rights? Too many in this field (and
in ifwp.org) know all sides of marketing, too many sides of internet
technology, but barely squat about IP.
>
>With all the smoke that is being blown about in our name, isnt it
>high time existing or potential domain name holders asserted our
>*fundamental right to decide? The question is, do we really want
>'competition' among registrars -- that is, to leave ourselves forever
>open to extortion? Or do we prefer to hold absolutely all names on
>a par, with the same fixed rate for everyone, on condition that
>'whois' type information is not to be parlayed as IP *ever*? Noting
>that USBank recently sold its entire customer database (including
>account balances and date of last activity) for $4m, I dont believe
>we can have it both ways much longer.
Yes; I'm joining into the USBank lawsuit. And this discussion we are
now having is an assertion, by you (Kerry Miller) and me, at least, of
our rights. The fact that registrar A runs a better WHOIS than does
registrar B might persuade one to deal with A rather than B -- that is
one of the ways in which competition can occur other than by price
-- but that doesn't mean that either A or B "owns" one atom of the
data so presented.
Bill Lovell
Bill Lovell
