Although I agree with the previous post in general, there are a couple of parts I don't agree with. AC brings up a good point with libraries, but I don't think they're actually the same as pirating. I don't know about the libraries elsewhere, but at mine, I can borrow CDs and tapes (audio and video) as well as books. I'm sure DVDs will be available there soon. The thing is, the selection is still limited, and I have to return it (or pay for it) eventually. With piracy, I have a permanent copy for myself. Also, as far as copying books, it's a lot simpler to copy a CD than to photocopy an entire book. Try it. One more thing - many authors (and publishers) hate libraries.
While I personally agree that it is better to have an original copy, with all of the manuals, packaging, etc., I know many people who don't feel that way at all. And economically, things would have to get really cheap to match the price of making a copy. That alone is reason enough for some people to pirate.
What can they do? You can't recall DVDs and DVD players, because people won't return them, not to mention it would be too expensive. You can't just change the keys, because that would stop current DVD players from working. The bad PR from that is more than enough to prevent it, not to mention the PO-ed customers who would start complaining, and the possibility of class-action suits.
I think the DVD makers will just have to bite the bullet and accept that piracy will happen. Sure, it might take a little bite out of their profits, but it won't kill them, any more than it killed VHS tapes or CDs.
Don't forget, it can also help you pass out in the snow. That can kill you even if it isn't that cold otherwise. But lets face it, the morning after having a bunch of scotch, don't you tend to wish you'd frozen to death (or been beaten to death, or shot, or something)?
We're freezing here, too. It should do what I do. Get a warm blanket, dress in layers, and always carry a bottle of scotch. That'll keep you warm when it's freezing.:)
I think one of the major premises of this article is flawed. The trend is not that internet companies are becoming more interested in politics. It is that politically active companies are becoming more interested in the internet.
I grant that there is more involvement in politics from some of the more notable names on the net. That is simply because net companies are maturing, changing from start-ups to more settled, fully managed (ahh!) companies. It is certainly understandable for a company, as it matures, to become interested in a larger scope of influence. Therefore, it is natural for these companies to become interested in politics inasmuch as they can use a little money to gain a little influence to shape a little law to gain a big-ass profit. This is no different from what traditional companies do.
Nevertheless, the growth of existing net business does not explain the growth in campaign contributions from net companies. Rather, this is the result of more and more large (traditional) companies becoming "netified." These companies, after establishing their net presence or spinning off their internet-based "child" companies, continue to make donations as always. The only change is that they are now considered "internet" companies.
This brings to mind the recent article about Arthur C. Clarke, where he mentions his asteroid. Can I buy a plot of land there? I'd love to say I own part of Arthur C. Clarke.:)
Seriously, though, what is the point of buying this real estate? Can anyone really expect these claims to hold up if and when we do get to space? And what if we just can't live there? Oh, well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Btw, does anybody really want to live on Uranus? (Sorry, couldn't help myself?)
Although I certainly agree the cybersquatting is bad (my company has suffered from it), there are several reasons why I must (ugh!) agree with Clinton.
First, as other posters have astutely pointed out, there are many reasons why one might ask for a domain name that is very close to another known domain name. It would be impossible for a law to fully account for the possible reasons for gaining a domain name, and so the determination of whether something is cybersquatting instead of mere coincidence would have to be left to the courts.
Also, there is the international aspect. For example, what if an Australian decides to get www.yahoo.au? (I don't know if this is taken) IANAL, but obviously, this would not be governed by US law. On the other hand, it might be handled by the courts, according to international treaties/laws/etc.
Finally, how do you determine what is too close. This differs from my first reason in that it does not deal with the motive, only the effect. At what point would a domain name be too close? If I chose www.¥ah00.com would that be too close? What about www.¥ah00chie.com? www.¥/\|-|()().com? Sure, I'm getting kind of silly here, and these are all quite obvious (and impossible, in one case), but the point is, it's easy to spoof a name in clever ways. I don't believe that the law could account for all possibilities here. Which means it would again come back to the courts to decide what is too close.
It seems that, in any case, it must come back down to the courts to decide what is cybersquatting and what is not. The creation of a law regarding this is both improper and futile. Of course, this is just my two bits, you're welcome to yours.
One final thought: I don't think this should be governed by US laws at all. I feel the best way to resolve this issue (and others) is to create an international body, made up of equal (yes, equal)membership from all internet-using countries. This body would pass laws and maintain a court system which all of these countries (by treaty or whatever) would uphold.
Slashdot Mirror
Although I agree with the previous post in general, there are a couple of parts I don't agree with. AC brings up a good point with libraries, but I don't think they're actually the same as pirating. I don't know about the libraries elsewhere, but at mine, I can borrow CDs and tapes (audio and video) as well as books. I'm sure DVDs will be available there soon. The thing is, the selection is still limited, and I have to return it (or pay for it) eventually. With piracy, I have a permanent copy for myself. Also, as far as copying books, it's a lot simpler to copy a CD than to photocopy an entire book. Try it. One more thing - many authors (and publishers) hate libraries.
While I personally agree that it is better to have an original copy, with all of the manuals, packaging, etc., I know many people who don't feel that way at all. And economically, things would have to get really cheap to match the price of making a copy. That alone is reason enough for some people to pirate.
What can they do? You can't recall DVDs and DVD players, because people won't return them, not to mention it would be too expensive. You can't just change the keys, because that would stop current DVD players from working. The bad PR from that is more than enough to prevent it, not to mention the PO-ed customers who would start complaining, and the possibility of class-action suits.
I think the DVD makers will just have to bite the bullet and accept that piracy will happen. Sure, it might take a little bite out of their profits, but it won't kill them, any more than it killed VHS tapes or CDs.
Funny how, that whole time they were supposedly searching, they never once saw any sign of a stable version of Windows. :)
Don't forget, it can also help you pass out in the snow. That can kill you even if it isn't that cold otherwise. But lets face it, the morning after having a bunch of scotch, don't you tend to wish you'd frozen to death (or been beaten to death, or shot, or something)?
We're freezing here, too. It should do what I do. Get a warm blanket, dress in layers, and always carry a bottle of scotch. That'll keep you warm when it's freezing. :)
"So, are they going to price themselves out of business or make billions of dollars?"
Well, they've already done the latter (many times over), so maybe they're going for the former this time.
I'll tell you one thing, if I had Gates' money, I would find it hilarious to see how much I could screw people before they came to their senses.
I think one of the major premises of this article is flawed. The trend is not that internet companies are becoming more interested in politics. It is that politically active companies are becoming more interested in the internet.
I grant that there is more involvement in politics from some of the more notable names on the net. That is simply because net companies are maturing, changing from start-ups to more settled, fully managed (ahh!) companies. It is certainly understandable for a company, as it matures, to become interested in a larger scope of influence. Therefore, it is natural for these companies to become interested in politics inasmuch as they can use a little money to gain a little influence to shape a little law to gain a big-ass profit. This is no different from what traditional companies do.
Nevertheless, the growth of existing net business does not explain the growth in campaign contributions from net companies. Rather, this is the result of more and more large (traditional) companies becoming "netified." These companies, after establishing their net presence or spinning off their internet-based "child" companies, continue to make donations as always. The only change is that they are now considered "internet" companies.
I can't say for sure, but I bet the military would be based around either Quake III or AD&D.
Well, my college professors (some of whom are older than god) certainly thought so. "When somebody asks you if you're a god, you say, 'YES'!"
This brings to mind the recent article about Arthur C. Clarke, where he mentions his asteroid. Can I buy a plot of land there? I'd love to say I own part of Arthur C. Clarke. :)
Seriously, though, what is the point of buying this real estate? Can anyone really expect these claims to hold up if and when we do get to space? And what if we just can't live there? Oh, well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Btw, does anybody really want to live on Uranus? (Sorry, couldn't help myself?)
If you can't remember college, that's probably because of the barley. ;-}
I know that's what happened to me.
Although I certainly agree the cybersquatting is bad (my company has suffered from it), there are several reasons why I must (ugh!) agree with Clinton.
First, as other posters have astutely pointed out, there are many reasons why one might ask for a domain name that is very close to another known domain name. It would be impossible for a law to fully account for the possible reasons for gaining a domain name, and so the determination of whether something is cybersquatting instead of mere coincidence would have to be left to the courts.
Also, there is the international aspect. For example, what if an Australian decides to get www.yahoo.au? (I don't know if this is taken) IANAL, but obviously, this would not be governed by US law. On the other hand, it might be handled by the courts, according to international treaties/laws/etc.
Finally, how do you determine what is too close. This differs from my first reason in that it does not deal with the motive, only the effect. At what point would a domain name be too close? If I chose www.¥ah00.com would that be too close? What about www.¥ah00chie.com? www.¥/\|-|()().com? Sure, I'm getting kind of silly here, and these are all quite obvious (and impossible, in one case), but the point is, it's easy to spoof a name in clever ways. I don't believe that the law could account for all possibilities here. Which means it would again come back to the courts to decide what is too close.
It seems that, in any case, it must come back down to the courts to decide what is cybersquatting and what is not. The creation of a law regarding this is both improper and futile. Of course, this is just my two bits, you're welcome to yours.
One final thought: I don't think this should be governed by US laws at all. I feel the best way to resolve this issue (and others) is to create an international body, made up of equal (yes, equal)membership from all internet-using countries. This body would pass laws and maintain a court system which all of these countries (by treaty or whatever) would uphold.