allanj asks: I was reading through the NASA press release and read that they characterized their sail material as 'stiff'.... this sure makes it difficult to fold it together nicely in a spacecraft launched from Earth and then unfolding it in near space which, as I understand it, is the way this is perceived to work.
Well, of course, this is just a feasibility demonstrator. It's nothing like a vehicle yet.
Also, I'd like to know what they mean to do at arrival? I mean, you've got to apply the brakes at some point in time - just turning off the beam will keep you floating indefinately. Aero-braking perhaps? Or maybe a retro-rocket? Maybe one of those brand new ion-drives? Let's just skip the sail and use the ion-drive to get there:-)
Actually, using an ion engine to brake isn't a bad idea. Even an ion engine can't carry enough fuel to cross the distances a lightsail could, but it would be ideal for a short burst of comparatively strong thrust to pull off an orbit insertion for reasonably size gas giants, or possibly eventually another star.
It's fascinating techology, but I'd REALLY like to know what practical purpose this could have, that wouldn't be easier to solve with other technologies.
The trouble is we don't know yet what WILL be easier to solve with other technologies. ALmost all of them involve solving some sort of fuel-mass-acceleration equation. The beauty of a sail is that you keep your propulsion system at home.
It's not inconceivable that building a remotely useful interstellar probe would involve a large percentage of the resources of a given industrial society, say, ours. Anything we can do to make that process easier is good.
People have been talking about different tech to reach orbit for half a century, but you know what? We're still using plain old rockets that von Braun himself would understand. The only real advances we've made that have turned out to be practical are ones of efficiency.
I wouldn't get too concerned, anyway. It's not like the universe is going away anytime soon. We've got a lot of time to play around and find the one that works. ----
Eh? What is the practical use of this? I'm not disagreeing with the concept, which obviously works, but surely this is just another one of NASA's research projects that never go anywhere. They've got ion drives now, so why are they bothering with this?
Because they are not just the pack-up-your-satellite-and-go-places agency, they are the aerospace research & development agency.
Ion drives are clearly a much more practical propulsion for certain kinds of space probes, and will continue to be so for the future. Of course, this is only because NASA spent twenty years perfecting the technology with demonstrator projects... just like this light-sail one.
Light sails will also have their uses in the future. They won't have immediate practical applications, true, mainly because it doesn't make a lot of sense to power a lightsail by shooting your laser through a planetary atmosphere. You'll want to put it on the Moon, or a stray asteroid you can park someplace handy like L5. Then you can use light sails for applications where getting there fustest-with-the-mostest isn't the top priority -- say, ferrying stuff around the asteroid belt.
NASA have a promising drive technology in the form of their ion drive, why bother with something that isn't practical? They need to stop financing anything with the word "space" in it on the off chance it'll pan out and spend their money on real space projects.
Fine, YOU go tell Congress. I have some problems with their priorities as well. The fact is the budget of NASA is set legislatively, and has as much to do with politics foreign (Russian participation in ISS) and domestic (ISS hardware manufacture in 40+ states) as the pure goal of git-up-and-go-somewheres.
Right now the planetary probe program is something I'd defend against the common perception that they've been screwing up. (This stuff is hard. It doesn't always work.) I hope the MCO and MPL losses don't unduly delay continued Mars exploration, and NASA is doing everything it can to drum up interest in the quest for life in places like Europa.
If you want to criticize a waste of money, hit on the ISS and the shuttle program. Now more than ever those are all about getting into LEO and doing things... because we have an LEO vehicle. Talk about your circular justifications. I watch the manned program like the next geek, but it's a lot of money to spend on something that doesn't accomplish much besides... itself.
What NASA needs to do is MORE cutting-edge research like light sails, not less. Choose your targets better.
Devil Ducky wrote: You seem to have forgotten the other major project that NASA has been working on: The Mars landings. All of these probes (that keep crashing) are being sent there to explore for a hopeful manned mission. I read somewhere (I think on/.) about a time schedule for the manned mission being soon after the space station nears completion.
Take a deep breath.
There is no timetable. There is no realistic plan for a manned mission. There is, at this writing, no hope of Congress authorizing any funds for one.
The people at NASA would obviously love to be planning one, and they stretch every thin dime they're given in order to sneak in useful research in that direction. But the reality is that Congress has been led to believe that a Mars mission would cost between one and five hundred billion dollars, per proposals presented during the Bush administration, and they're all looking at the next election thinking they'd be lynched for approving it.
The Mars Direct proposals take a different approach, ditching the orbital launching platform, ditching the enormous crew, ditching the orbiter+lander approach that mimics Apollo, forgetting about a three-year journey with six weeks on surface, and achieving all its necessary redundancy in other ways. The budget is a far more realistic FORTY billion, and places skilled human scientists on the Martian surface for an entire year.
But it isn't NASA's plan, and while they've come close (Mars Semi-Direct), they are for all practical purposes enjoined by Congress from spending any taxpayer dollars on any planning for a Mars mission.
They even tried to get authorization for a TransHab module for ISS that would serve as a proving ground for Mars vehicle and habitat technology, but that was turned down. ----
I thought that ExTrans was "broken" for a long time. Now I've found out that ExTrans is finally working as designed. It just isn't very clear what it's supposed to do.
If you want to bold your text, choose "Plain Old Text", and put any of the "Allowed HTML" tags listed below it into your message.
If you have to post *about* HTML, and want to have HTML show up in your message, as you posted above, then choose "ExTrans". In other words, any HTML tags that ExTrans finds it TRANSLATES to plain text so that the HTML code appears in your post.
IMHO, both options I listed are badly named. The other option, HTML formatted, allows more HTML but not (for example) pre tags -- so I couldn't show you exactly what I meant in each example. ----
Lish wrote: I wonder, though, how thoroughly they are researching the psychological and group-dynamics aspects of having a crew stuck together in space for months on the trip there with little to do and even less contact with home. Keeping any group of people in a confined space for such an extended period is bound to cause problems. I assume there have been studies based on scientists in the Antarctic, oil-rig workers, MIR Astronauts, etc., but even those people have relatively easy contact with human civilization compared to the relay time associated with travel to Mars. And if an emergency occurred, help could be summoned within a reasonable amount of time. In space, those reassurances aren't there. Anyone know of any studies that would really compare to these conditions?
Well, here at the end of the twentieth century (or the beginning of the twenty-first), it's easy to say "gosh that would be psychologically debilitating!" Just a few generations ago, though, people regularly endured reasonably comparable conditions, often for nothing more rewarding than a good job. If you want a sense of how people endured under extreme conditions when separated from any kind of civilization or even emergency help for months at a time, read about Ernest Shackleton and the Endurance expedition (or any number of similar Arctic/Antarctic ventures), or military expeditions across the Americas, or what have you. The fact is that some of us feel MUCH TOO MUCH is made of the "psych factor".
Choose good people, build a team, you can tell how well they work together on Earth. If people are reasonably focused on their work and mission, they're not going to be interested in stirring up trouble with each other.
Reality Master sez: There simply is no reason, from Joe Public's point of view, to go to Mars. Yes, there is a lot to discover scientifically, but that usually doesn't interest the average joe. The moon was interesting because that was new, and we had the russians to beat.
I hear you (and believe me, I'm just as pragmatic). But the main thing isn't that the average joe thinks Mars is uninteresting. In fact, the preponderance of space operas like Armageddon and Mission to Mars (!) argues against that. The problem is that the average joe thinks Mars is too expensive to explore. They don't want to pay for it, especially when our national debt is measured in gajillions.
There's also a small contingent who use the red herring argument that "we should solve our problems on Earth first" (as if we will ever have all humanity's, or even just America's, problems solved). It even shows up here at/. all too frequently.
And please don't give me the old tired line about all the tech benefits that came out of the space program. Yes, benefits came out of it, but nothing that wouldn't have come out of industry anyway (only cheaper).
That's the usual ex post facto justification. Truthfully, the benefits come less in terms of specific inventions ("Tang! Space pens!") than in the development of a high-tech infrastructure and high-tech workforce to build it. (Hey kids! Where did the internet come from?) Eventually those people go into other lines of work and apply the knowledge they've gained. At the same time, the wider culture gains in terms of being challenged by the exploration. Zubrin talks of the Western Frontier's importance to the US, for example.
It's been said before, and it bears saying again. It is time for private industry to privatize space. Only when it pays for itself will humans have a permanent presence in space. Trying to rely on the fickle budgets of governments is just folly.
Perhaps. On the other hand, governments have done more for us in terms of space exploration so far than any private company. This may be a valid analogy, but so far it's failed to prove out.
Even counting the private satellite business and its LEO/GEO applications, from weather to communications, there's extremely limited and narrow-minded interest in space from the private sector. The most recent great hope for space privatization, including the financing of efforts to develop true low-cost launch systems, has crumbled in the face of the failure of Iridium. Just this last week, Gary Hudson left Rotary Rocket (the most promising candidate, with a flying vehicle), and Globalstar effectively began to run out of money. Without LEO constellations to launch, there's no investment potential in cheap rocketry.
And without cheap rocketry, we're stuck waiting for governments to do the right thing.
Frodo writes, incredibly: Russians are dealing with lauching spacecrafts since early 40's at least (even earilier, but in 40's they had results). So they probably have couple of clues. I don't know how much spacecraft did you launch, but they did launch a couple successfully, didn't they?
While I certainly would agree that in fact the Russians probably know a little more about space stations than we do, you should check your facts once in a while.
The first Russian spacecraft was Sputnik, which was launched in 1957... hardly the "early 40s".
Anyway, the question eellis asked was a little uninformed but it was a good question. The power requirements for a space station are a critical factor and should not be overlooked. The Russians do have some issues with the Proton launch vehicles. Despite the basic design being in use for four decades (though upgraded frequently), Proton vehicles have been blowing up or detonated by range safety at a disturbing rate the last couple of years.
Kazakhstan even required the Russians (whose Baikonur space complex ended up in another country after the USSR broke up) to halt launches until they could solve the safety problems. Meanwhile, the Zvezda -- which was much delayed in building -- was also delayed due to US concerns that launching it on a Proton was too risky.
The Proton got a hasty upgrade to a new propulsion system design and has launched successfully with that new design a couple of times now, which is why Zvezda is finally scheduled to go up. ----
eellis speculates wildly: On reading the press release, it seems that the Russians still haven't got a clue about generating the power required for a space station. [...] One of the designers of the solar array [told] me that the then planned array size of 60 feet was too small by a factor of 2. It seems that they've added some extra capacity, but nowhere near enough. So, this mission is doomed to fail. They'll run out of power.
What the bleep do you mean "doomed" and "fail"? Is it going to flicker on and off until something catches fire and the entire space station veers off course and crashes and burns spectacularly in Central Park? Or is it (worst case scenario) going to simply be chronically short of the expected power requirements, meaning the crews have to reroute the systems it supports, and perhaps give up some luxuries? I guess the second scenario isn't as ominous sounding.
Perhaps there is some truth to this -- there are always engineering disagreements on projects this big -- but the Russians aren't doing this alone, and there has been ample consideration given to the ISS power requirements.
The Service Module is only responsible for a small percentage of station power. When complete, the entire ISS power system will consist of four US-built arrays connected to the US Node 1 via the Z1 Truss, each with four 112x39' wings, as well as the solar arrays on the Zarya and Zvezda modules, and possibly (if the Russians meet their commitments) a separate array to power the Russian science modules (which are themselves not guaranteed). The aggregate power systems will produce 110 kW, of which 98 kW will come from the US-built main arrays. (By comparison, all of Mir's solar panels, including the US-built-and-delivered MCSA, produce a mere 30 kW.)
The first of the main arrays will be installed by ISS Crew 1 around November, so they won't be dependent on the Zvezda arrays for very long at all. Each PANEL on the array has more power capacity than BOTH the Zvezda wings, and there will be four panels.
In short, for the completed ISS, Zvezda will be providing about 1.5% of the power requirements.
In any case, the Mir power problems weren't related directly to the power-generation abilities of the solar arrays; they were related to the lousy Russian batteries that couldn't keep the station running when Mir lost the ability to stay pointed at the sun. Fortunately, ISS has better batteries and more of them. We'll see how this goes.
For the "mission" (whatever you meant by that) to be "doomed", the American-built main arrays would have to be so badly designed that they generate less than half the expected power. Anywhere in between that, and they will simply have to modify the science expectations until they can supplement the power systems. ----
Performer Guy writes: The CIA and the Times have already done the endangering. It seems like the Times has a lot to answer for in this. How the heck did they get the source of a 'secret' CIA document in the first place? Ultimately it has to be someone in the CIA who is responsible for this foul up.
It isn't a foul-up unless you believe that nothing the CIA has ever done is deserving of public scrutiny.
In fact, the CIA has been attempting to erase the record of its coup-related activities for several years. FOIA requests in 1997 revealed a number of "missing" documents.
[snip] This is simply amazing. I think the Times accusations have more to do with covering their own ass than concern for their unfortunate victims.
Well, it was a mistake, and clearly one they didn't intend to make. But I don't know that I consider the names in this list "victims". ----
... and so should the CIA operatives engaged in the overthrow of an elected foreign government. Some of them may even now hold high government positions, or have influence with current or future administrations. The New York Times is overdue opening the books on dark ops like these, shameful episodes in American history.
It's actions like this that make me question the deepest principles of our nation. In The Falcon and the Snowman spy case, a loyal American from a military family became disenchanted when his security clearance allowed him to see that the CIA was conspiring to overthrow a liberal government in a foreign country, including fake demonstrations and planted violence in the trade unions. The country in question was Australia. Yes, this is true. A loyal ally... unless they elect a government we don't like.
I have nothing but disgust for an operation supported by the United States that stole democracy from Iran for the next thirty years and handed it to, of all things, a king. How antithetical to American values is that?
Did you ever stop to think why the Iranians hated us so much they'd hold our people hostage for 444 days? ----
The website http://www.fedworld.gov/ offers a single search site for hundreds of federal websites. Originally started as a central BBS that let you look at other government BBS systems, it expanded into offerings via FTP and gopher before there was really a web.
Somebody also mentioned http://www.google.com/unclesam [no trailing slash: bad server config!]. (and get a load of the old glory colors on the Google logo: bet you see something similar on the home page by next weekend...)
It sounds like http://www.firstgov.gov/ (which IS live, just a placeholder) will be much more citizen-oriented, that is, getting the services to the people (like Social Security or VA records), rather than being a spreadsheets and reports searching site. I just don't think it's a very good name. help.gov? helpdesk.gov? services.gov? something "nineties" like my.gov? (Somebody else said) first.gov? The repeated G-O-V is silly. ----
First, Japanese companies stepped up production and captured market share in the US.
Second, Japan prevented American companies from marketing there (among many other protectionist measures).
Third, the US, concerned about the imbalance of trade, passed an anti-dumping law. Companies importing products like DRAM at prices far below the existing US market could have their products blocked or tariffed punitively.
Fourth, crushed by increasingly tight margins in the RAM market, American companies switched to mainly producing processors.
Thus, despite the law, intended to help American companies compete in the RAM market, there were few American companies selling RAM anymore; and RAM coming in from Japan, then the main source, was either turned away or heavily taxed. The end result was that the only RAM available was expensive. ----
bigdavex just hates sales taxes: That's not how I interpret the terminology, but no matter. How about the so-called "Inter-state Commerce" clause in the enumerated powers of Congress?... Regulating commerce between the states is a power of the U.S., not of the states.
Well, seeing as how sales taxes have been around a pretty long time, and just about every state in the union has one, I suspect they may have survived one or two constitutionality challenges over the last 211 years. But you're welcome to try.
You're prepared to have higher property and income taxes, though, right? ----
At last! Lotus releases a version of Symphony that works with dot matrix printers, not just those Selectric-style line printers! Now I can use the spreadsheet-that's-a-graph-and-word-processor-too to print out my love letters, pie charts, AND budget projections! I've been waiting for a new version since before Prince was The Artist Formerly Known As!
One important question: do you need an 80386SX computer with 1MB of RAM to run it? Otherwise I'm out of luck. Blasted MS-DOS 3.3! What if I run Desqview -- is it Quarterdeck certified? It doesn't conflict with Sidekick or other TSRs, I hope. Can't live without those.
I hope it fits on a single app floppy. I hate having to swap floppies just to run a program. 720K ought to be big enough for anything. ----
jhk asks: Does that mean, according to the most recent legal arguments about intellectual property, that NSI is in violation of IP law for owning someone else's trademarks?
Not per se. At this time the "property" status of domain names is still unclear. While there was a string of decisions through 1999 that supported the domain-holder-owns-it theory, two decisions this spring instead supported the domain-as-product-of-contract theory. In other words, it only exists as a product of a valid contract between you and the domain registrar.
Could a company like Microsoft sue NSI for trademark infringement and demand ownership of the name microsoft.com, which would necessitate direct access to the root nameservers?
Under current ICANN policy, and recent court decisions, registrars are pretty much wholly indemnified, unless they themselves do something intentional against a domain-holder. Essentially, this is to get registrars (NSI, joker.com, anybody) out of the middle of lawsuits between trademark/domain disputants, but it also has the effect of holding them essentially blameless in cybersquatting or domain-hijacking cases (cf. recent decision in sex.com case). ----
bigdavex REVEALS THE SECRET Constitutional clause that is being KEPT FROM THE PEOPLE: I do do not believe that the states have the right to levy such tax on these purchases. Here is article 1, section 10, paragraph 2 of the Constiution of the United States:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
Goods transferred from state to state are neither imports nor exports. What this clause did was reserve to the Federal government taxation authority over goods that cross the international border.
Indeed, in early America the vast majority of taxation was by states; the Federal government was severely limited in its powers to tax.
PyRoNeRd wrote: >>Case law is showing that having a domain name registered and pointing to a website >>is, for all intents and purposes, "commercial use".
>Well there you have it. That leaves no room for non-commercial domains. All sites on them >are "infringing" if someone registers the site name as a trademark (even if they do it after >the site went up or even just so they can steal the domain name).
That's a bit harsh. There's still plenty of room for sites based on names, e.g. John Smith has an assumed interest in johnsmith.com, or variations; prior art, e.g. the etoy defense; and so on. Probably the key issue is that only "famous marks" enjoy this level of protection. Clue Computing (clue.com) succeeded because the "Clue" board game was ruled not "famous" under the statute.
It is true that this dispute is a problem. An important case in the 1960s established eight points for a judge to determine whether trademark infringement had occurred. The problem is, when domain names on the internet are involved, two of those points are automatically in favor of the trademark owner: that the spheres of commerce may one day merge (too late), and that they are one and the same (worldwide). In essence, trademark law means that a domain name dispute is automatically 1/4 lost -- or won -- before it begins.
>There should be a "Non-trade Mark" registration procedure to protect the interest of non-commercial site owners.
That's a neat idea, but it would be difficult to police against intentional infringement. What I'd like to see is a "safe harbor" for personal sites such that if they follow a simple checklist under the law they can know they're safe, instead of waiting for a cease and desist letter some day.
>BTW: How can Linus Torvalds get a trade mark for Linux, while he doesn't use it in commerce?
The definition of "use in commerce" is broad, and doesn't require selling anything. Good for Linus/Linux, but bad for personal domain owners. ----
US courts do not have power over DNS. They have power over the individuals and businesses USING the DNS. Crucial difference.
Just because I register a domain name doesn't mean I'm suddenly outside the reach of US (or any other country's) trademark law.
>Excuse me, but ICANN sits at the top of the current DNS system most of us use. Shouldn't *they* have the final say on taking someone's domain name away? Why are these 3rd party courts involved and who gave them power to control who registers what?
Actually, NSI and ICANN have limited powers. Most of these domain-name cases have taken place merely as straightforward trademark cases without reference to the DNS at all. If I'm enjoined by a judge from using a name, it doesn't matter what NSI does.
But more specifically, the domain name registrars are conducting a business. As such, when they sell you the service of a domain name (whether or not the domain name is viewed as property/per se/), they are engaged in a contract with you. Normally a contract is spelled out, and also contract relief provisions. In the case of NSI, the Fairfax County, VA courts (where NSI is physically located) are the first place to go.
These "3rd party courts", as you say, are the same courts that were created in the United States over 200 years ago to manage the affairs of US citizens. They didn't spring up overnight, nor did they suddenly take over the internet. They always had jurisdiction.
[FooDNS example] (4) At some point US courts will suddenly decide that they have the absolute power to decide what domains I can and cannot allow? And who may register what?
Assuming you're based in Australia, then you would be open to a lawsuit under Australian law for similar injunctive relief. I assume, for example, that although Coca-Cola is a US company, they have made certain that Coca-Cola, Coke, etc. are all registered trademarks in your legal system.
It may be slightly more difficult for someone in a different jurisdiction to bring such a lawsuit, but don't think they couldn't do it at all.
Let's make it more complicated still. US company, fooDNS in Australia, and infringer based in Singapore. They could bring suit in Singapore and force the "owner" of the name to turn it over under Singaporean law.
For purposes of international trade, countries that don't recognize other countries' intellectual property will soon find themselves having economic or political problems (e.g. trade embargo). Thus there will be very few countries that would bar such lawsuits. ----
JohnJake sputters: Judges must learn that cyberspace is not just a "virtual world." Cyberspace is an alternative world! It is a complete reality with its own atmosphere, culter, people, and real-estate.
Uh, hello, JJ. Ever looked inside your computer? It's a bunch of electronic parts. It's connected to a big wire that goes everywhere. These are all just physical parts in the real world. You, yourself, are still sitting in a chair, real as could be, and you are still subject to all the laws of the real world.
Especialy since the US government has no jurisdiction over international property like the internet! They have no right to restrict use of a domain name simply because some big dollar is upset!
Again, the internet isn't a place, somewhere outside the real world. The people who connect to the internet and use it are still here, still subject to the same laws as before. One of those laws concerns trademarks.
I'm as concerned as you for individual rights vs. corporations, but this isn't the fight. Look instead to mattl.com (Mattel wants him to shut down), or Naked Juice journal (no domain at all), or Digital Divas (for once, a little guy with trademark law fully on their side).
This is a horibble step for the internet. I fear we will have to start copyrighting our domain names just to protect them!
Uh, that would be trademarking domain names. Yes, that would be wise, if you have a good one. Still, this is no precedent; the precedents were set years ago already, and encoded into US trademark law several years ago. The fact is that the existing domain name system, as designed, forces individuals into direct conflict with corporate interests. This is a double-edged sword; witness Slashdot itself, which could not exist without the internet. Yet at the same time individuals who only want to use the net to reach a wide audience must now step carefully amid trademark issues. With power comes responsibility. It's a little like people moving to the suburbs, then trying to stop anyone else from moving in next door and "ruining" it. The wonderful benefits of the net come from this power, but they also expose people to conflicts they aren't necessarily prepared for. ----
>But I still don't think trademark law applies to DNS.
Well, that's a nice sentiment, but at this point we're looking at close to a decade of case law that says otherwise.
The most applicable decision was probably Panavision vs. Toeppen. Toeppen was a domain-name reseller who registered panavision.com. The court said:
"We reject Toeppen's premise that a domain name is nothing more than an address. A significant purpose of a domain name is to identify the entity that owns the web site.... The domain name serves a dual purpose. It marks the location of the site within cyberspace, much like a postal address in the real world, but it may also indicate to users some information as to the content of the site, and, in instances of well-known trade names or trademarks, may provide information as to the origin of the contents of the site.... Using a company's name or trademark as a domain name is also the easiest way to locate that company's web site.... Moreover, potential customers of Panavision will be discouraged if they cannot find its web page by typing in "Panavision.com," but instead are forced to wade through hundreds of web sites. This dilutes the value of Panavision's trademark.... Toeppen's use of Panavision.com also puts Panavision's name and reputation at his mercy."
[The MTV case is cited. It was really the first example of someone -- former VeeJay Adam Curry, in this case -- trying to assert simple first-come-first-served rights. He lost.]
>Assuming that I gave them the incorrect address out of malice or as a prank, would I have violated PETA's trademark?
Not as an individual. But if you ran, say, an 800-number directory service, you certainly would have. DNS isn't a peer-to-peer system, it's a central registry.
>Let's say that CmdrTaco gave me that slip of paper because he owns the meat packing plant
Oh my yes. Most certainly a trademark dilution case. Anything done to confuse or deceive consumers strikes to the heart of the origins of trademark law.
>Can Coke stop me from giving people directions to the Pepsi store whenever people ask for directions to Coke? Or even worse, can they stop me from giving people directions to the coal mine?
Heh. Famous issue, here. It's trademark dilution for a restaurant to give you a Pepsi when you order a Coke. They have to say, for example, "We serve Coke, is that all right?" Coke and Pepsi (like the recording industry) send agents out to catch violators, or at least, used to. In essence, both your examples are very much trademark dilution.
The key is *commercial use*. The DNS is considered to be a directory that consumers rely on to give them correct information, not throw them in the wrong direction. Personally, you can do WTF you like. See, DNS doesn't exist on its own. That's the problem. It's run by people. ----
john said: [in reply to dhartung, myself]: >>The internet isn't exempt from real-world laws.
>And real world laws, and many prior court ruleings, allow for the use of other's material for a variety of uses, including parody, commentary, critisism, etc... >"Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: [remainder of copyright law snipped]
Wonderful. You understand copyright law. Too bad this is a trademark case.
>PeatingTA, is clearly a commentary, and/or criticism of PethicalTA. Wether or not PeatingTA makes money or not is irrelevant. >Weird AL certianly makes money off HIS parodies, yet they are still protected as fair use.
And indeed, the Tasty Animals site remains online. The parody content was unaffected by this ruling. There is no argument that the parody content is protected (although there are other ways it could infringe PETA trademarks, e.g. a parody logo, or copyrights, e.g. excessive quoting).
>The mass judge is clearly an idiot who ignored YEARS of precidents protecting fair use rights.
Actually, the judge in question is in Virginia (the quoted article is from the Boston Globe, but datelined Norfolk, VA). The NSI contract states that the jurisdiction of choice is the local courts in Fairfax County, Virginia, and secondarily the Eastern District Federal District Court encompassing it, so most domain name rulings come through courts in this area. (Unfortunately, and rather ironically, they're not online.)
Fair use is a concept deriving from copyright law. Fair use under trademark law is a little more difficult to prove, which is the defendant's responsibility (and under civil litigation, you may recall, the standard isn't innocent until proven guilty; it's preponderance of the evidence). Fair use does not supersede confusion. If there's a chance the consumer may be confused by, say, a "Coke adds life" pro-drug parody bumper sticker, well, the parody producer is in a difficult legal position.
The 1995 Trademark Dilution act clarified case law somewhat, but while it explicitly protects parody and fair use, there is a direct contradiction once a domain name is involved. Case law is showing that having a domain name registered and pointing to a website is, for all intents and purposes, "commercial use". This is where Doughney ran into trouble, even though his parody was arguably "non-commercial" in that it was not intended to be profitable. By having a live domain name, he was invading the sphere of commerce in question, the internet namespace, and therefore open to trademark dilution questions.
In short, "fair use" does not normally extend to domain names. petasucks.org WOULD be a clear parody in terms of the name, but peta.org itself is a collision.
Keep in mind that this is FAR from being a precedent-setting decision. The real precedent was years ago, when Planned Parenthood won back the plannedparenthood.org name from a group that used it to distribute anti-abortion literature.
Or perhaps he's a militant PETA zealot. Or perhaps he's one of those RIAA/MPAA/metallica/DMCA types who beleives that fair use should be abolished.
Or perhaps he's actually a jurist who applies the law regardless of whether he approves of the plaintiff, the defendant, either, or neither. Why make assumptions you can't support? Why not simply argue the law?
Which are you?
Which do you think I am? I don't have to explain myself.
In any event, you, and that judge, are wrong.
I would suggest you do more reading on trademark law before you say that again. In any case, the 1995 Trademark Dilution law is quite clear, and the 1999 Anticybersquatting law is even clearer. (I suggest you read them.)
Domain names aren't a public domain thing, or property of the government. They are the property of the maintainer of the database
Not exactly. There is a public interest in internet addressing that is legally recognized.
(and there is more than one, just thing of alternic). What is to prevent me from creating my own database of, and having people register to me? Will the government ultimately rule over my business if I do?
What makes you think that just by setting up a database, you operate outside of applicable law?
This is a persistent meme among netizens. I recognize its origins, but it's really just a fantasy. The fact is that the internet never was a separate place from the real world and never has been. Just because it's on the internet doesn't automagically erase the book of laws that people operate under. The internet, after all, is just a big wire. It's the actions of the people on either end of the wire that are regulated.
Essentially, you're saying that you would set up a parallel name registry. Such a registry may well be ignored as a toy (e.g. alternic, surprise surprise). But if that name registry came to mean anything at all, which I suppose would mean significant commercial interests, all it would take is one judicial ruling to assure that your registry was under the same legal authority. Say one of your registry's users decided to use existing trademarks as names, e.g. cocacola.alt. Don't you think that Coke would STILL sue them? Do you think that because they're on a separate registry, they are somehow immune from trademark law? Unh-unh. They're still on the same planet as the rest of the world, and the same trademark laws still apply.
As I said, I see the appeal, but I don't see how it would work in the real world. Because, you see, there's only one real world, and we're all in it. ----
1. So, all I have to do is have a trademark for one domain and I automatically get two more for free because others already paid for them and my lawyers scared them off.
Actually, the point is that if the ruling had gone the other way, all you would have to do is create a fictitious organization and website to use a domain name that reflected someone else's trademark.
The rest of the story is really irrelevant. It was a mark that the average person would associate with the trademark holder; the parody was diluting the trademark. This is the real world. The internet isn't exempt from real-world laws. ----
Slashdot Mirror
allanj asks:
:-)
I was reading through the NASA press release and read that they characterized their sail material as 'stiff'.... this sure makes it difficult to fold it together nicely in a spacecraft launched from Earth and then unfolding it in near space which, as I understand it, is the way this is perceived to work.
Well, of course, this is just a feasibility demonstrator. It's nothing like a vehicle yet.
Also, I'd like to know what they mean to do at arrival? I mean, you've got to apply the brakes at some point in time - just turning off the beam will keep you floating indefinately. Aero-braking perhaps? Or maybe a retro-rocket? Maybe one of those brand new ion-drives? Let's just skip the sail and use the ion-drive to get there
Actually, using an ion engine to brake isn't a bad idea. Even an ion engine can't carry enough fuel to cross the distances a lightsail could, but it would be ideal for a short burst of comparatively strong thrust to pull off an orbit insertion for reasonably size gas giants, or possibly eventually another star.
It's fascinating techology, but I'd REALLY like to know what practical purpose this could have, that wouldn't be easier to solve with other technologies.
The trouble is we don't know yet what WILL be easier to solve with other technologies. ALmost all of them involve solving some sort of fuel-mass-acceleration equation. The beauty of a sail is that you keep your propulsion system at home.
It's not inconceivable that building a remotely useful interstellar probe would involve a large percentage of the resources of a given industrial society, say, ours. Anything we can do to make that process easier is good.
People have been talking about different tech to reach orbit for half a century, but you know what? We're still using plain old rockets that von Braun himself would understand. The only real advances we've made that have turned out to be practical are ones of efficiency.
I wouldn't get too concerned, anyway. It's not like the universe is going away anytime soon. We've got a lot of time to play around and find the one that works.
----
Eh? What is the practical use of this? I'm not disagreeing with the concept, which obviously works, but surely this is just another one of NASA's research projects that never go anywhere. They've got ion drives now, so why are they bothering with this?
... just like this light-sail one.
... because we have an LEO vehicle. Talk about your circular justifications. I watch the manned program like the next geek, but it's a lot of money to spend on something that doesn't accomplish much besides ... itself.
Because they are not just the pack-up-your-satellite-and-go-places agency, they are the aerospace research & development agency.
Ion drives are clearly a much more practical propulsion for certain kinds of space probes, and will continue to be so for the future. Of course, this is only because NASA spent twenty years perfecting the technology with demonstrator projects
Light sails will also have their uses in the future. They won't have immediate practical applications, true, mainly because it doesn't make a lot of sense to power a lightsail by shooting your laser through a planetary atmosphere. You'll want to put it on the Moon, or a stray asteroid you can park someplace handy like L5. Then you can use light sails for applications where getting there fustest-with-the-mostest isn't the top priority -- say, ferrying stuff around the asteroid belt.
NASA have a promising drive technology in the form of their ion drive, why bother with something that isn't practical? They need to stop financing anything with the word "space" in it on the off chance it'll pan out and spend their money on real space projects.
Fine, YOU go tell Congress. I have some problems with their priorities as well. The fact is the budget of NASA is set legislatively, and has as much to do with politics foreign (Russian participation in ISS) and domestic (ISS hardware manufacture in 40+ states) as the pure goal of git-up-and-go-somewheres.
Right now the planetary probe program is something I'd defend against the common perception that they've been screwing up. (This stuff is hard. It doesn't always work.) I hope the MCO and MPL losses don't unduly delay continued Mars exploration, and NASA is doing everything it can to drum up interest in the quest for life in places like Europa.
If you want to criticize a waste of money, hit on the ISS and the shuttle program. Now more than ever those are all about getting into LEO and doing things
What NASA needs to do is MORE cutting-edge research like light sails, not less. Choose your targets better.
----
Devil Ducky wrote: /.) about a time schedule for the manned mission being soon after the space station nears completion.
You seem to have forgotten the other major project that NASA has been working on: The Mars landings. All of these probes (that keep crashing) are being sent there to explore for a hopeful manned mission. I read somewhere (I think on
Take a deep breath.
There is no timetable. There is no realistic plan for a manned mission. There is, at this writing, no hope of Congress authorizing any funds for one.
The people at NASA would obviously love to be planning one, and they stretch every thin dime they're given in order to sneak in useful research in that direction. But the reality is that Congress has been led to believe that a Mars mission would cost between one and five hundred billion dollars, per proposals presented during the Bush administration, and they're all looking at the next election thinking they'd be lynched for approving it.
The Mars Direct proposals take a different approach, ditching the orbital launching platform, ditching the enormous crew, ditching the orbiter+lander approach that mimics Apollo, forgetting about a three-year journey with six weeks on surface, and achieving all its necessary redundancy in other ways. The budget is a far more realistic FORTY billion, and places skilled human scientists on the Martian surface for an entire year.
But it isn't NASA's plan, and while they've come close (Mars Semi-Direct), they are for all practical purposes enjoined by Congress from spending any taxpayer dollars on any planning for a Mars mission.
They even tried to get authorization for a TransHab module for ISS that would serve as a proving ground for Mars vehicle and habitat technology, but that was turned down.
----
This is ExTrans
This post and the one next to it have exactly the same body except for the text between the tags.
----
This is Plain Old Text
This post and the one next to it have exactly the same body except for the text between the tags.
----
I thought that ExTrans was "broken" for a long time. Now I've found out that ExTrans is finally working as designed. It just isn't very clear what it's supposed to do.
If you want to bold your text, choose "Plain Old Text", and put any of the "Allowed HTML" tags listed below it into your message.
If you have to post *about* HTML, and want to have HTML show up in your message, as you posted above, then choose "ExTrans". In other words, any HTML tags that ExTrans finds it TRANSLATES to plain text so that the HTML code appears in your post.
IMHO, both options I listed are badly named. The other option, HTML formatted, allows more HTML but not (for example) pre tags -- so I couldn't show you exactly what I meant in each example.
----
Lish wrote:
I wonder, though, how thoroughly they are researching the psychological and group-dynamics aspects of having a crew stuck together in space for months on the trip there with little to do and even less contact with home. Keeping any group of people in a confined space for such an extended period is bound to cause problems. I assume there have been studies based on scientists in the Antarctic, oil-rig workers, MIR Astronauts, etc., but even those people have relatively easy contact with human civilization compared to the relay time associated with travel to Mars. And if an emergency occurred, help could be summoned within a reasonable amount of time. In space, those reassurances aren't there. Anyone know of any studies that would really compare to these conditions?
Well, here at the end of the twentieth century (or the beginning of the twenty-first), it's easy to say "gosh that would be psychologically debilitating!" Just a few generations ago, though, people regularly endured reasonably comparable conditions, often for nothing more rewarding than a good job. If you want a sense of how people endured under extreme conditions when separated from any kind of civilization or even emergency help for months at a time, read about Ernest Shackleton and the Endurance expedition (or any number of similar Arctic/Antarctic ventures), or military expeditions across the Americas, or what have you. The fact is that some of us feel MUCH TOO MUCH is made of the "psych factor".
Choose good people, build a team, you can tell how well they work together on Earth. If people are reasonably focused on their work and mission, they're not going to be interested in stirring up trouble with each other.
----
Reality Master sez:
/. all too frequently.
There simply is no reason, from Joe Public's point of view, to go to Mars. Yes, there is a lot to discover scientifically, but that usually doesn't interest the average joe. The moon was interesting because that was new, and we had the russians to beat.
I hear you (and believe me, I'm just as pragmatic). But the main thing isn't that the average joe thinks Mars is uninteresting. In fact, the preponderance of space operas like Armageddon and Mission to Mars (!) argues against that. The problem is that the average joe thinks Mars is too expensive to explore. They don't want to pay for it, especially when our national debt is measured in gajillions.
There's also a small contingent who use the red herring argument that "we should solve our problems on Earth first" (as if we will ever have all humanity's, or even just America's, problems solved). It even shows up here at
And please don't give me the old tired line about all the tech benefits that came out of the space program. Yes, benefits came out of it, but nothing that wouldn't have come out of industry anyway (only cheaper).
That's the usual ex post facto justification. Truthfully, the benefits come less in terms of specific inventions ("Tang! Space pens!") than in the development of a high-tech infrastructure and high-tech workforce to build it. (Hey kids! Where did the internet come from?) Eventually those people go into other lines of work and apply the knowledge they've gained. At the same time, the wider culture gains in terms of being challenged by the exploration. Zubrin talks of the Western Frontier's importance to the US, for example.
It's been said before, and it bears saying again. It is time for private industry to privatize space. Only when it pays for itself will humans have a permanent presence in space. Trying to rely on the fickle budgets of governments is just folly.
Perhaps. On the other hand, governments have done more for us in terms of space exploration so far than any private company. This may be a valid analogy, but so far it's failed to prove out.
Even counting the private satellite business and its LEO/GEO applications, from weather to communications, there's extremely limited and narrow-minded interest in space from the private sector. The most recent great hope for space privatization, including the financing of efforts to develop true low-cost launch systems, has crumbled in the face of the failure of Iridium. Just this last week, Gary Hudson left Rotary Rocket (the most promising candidate, with a flying vehicle), and Globalstar effectively began to run out of money. Without LEO constellations to launch, there's no investment potential in cheap rocketry.
And without cheap rocketry, we're stuck waiting for governments to do the right thing.
----
Frodo writes, incredibly:
... hardly the "early 40s".
Russians are dealing with lauching spacecrafts since early 40's at least (even earilier, but in 40's they had results). So they probably have couple of clues. I don't know how much spacecraft did you launch, but they did launch a couple successfully, didn't they?
While I certainly would agree that in fact the Russians probably know a little more about space stations than we do, you should check your facts once in a while.
The first Russian spacecraft was Sputnik, which was launched in 1957
Anyway, the question eellis asked was a little uninformed but it was a good question. The power requirements for a space station are a critical factor and should not be overlooked. The Russians do have some issues with the Proton launch vehicles. Despite the basic design being in use for four decades (though upgraded frequently), Proton vehicles have been blowing up or detonated by range safety at a disturbing rate the last couple of years.
Kazakhstan even required the Russians (whose Baikonur space complex ended up in another country after the USSR broke up) to halt launches until they could solve the safety problems. Meanwhile, the Zvezda -- which was much delayed in building -- was also delayed due to US concerns that launching it on a Proton was too risky.
The Proton got a hasty upgrade to a new propulsion system design and has launched successfully with that new design a couple of times now, which is why Zvezda is finally scheduled to go up.
----
eellis speculates wildly:
On reading the press release, it seems that the Russians still haven't got a clue about generating the power required for a space station. [...] One of the designers of the solar array [told] me that the then planned array size of 60 feet was too small by a factor of 2. It seems that they've added some extra capacity, but nowhere near enough. So, this mission is doomed to fail. They'll run out of power.
What the bleep do you mean "doomed" and "fail"? Is it going to flicker on and off until something catches fire and the entire space station veers off course and crashes and burns spectacularly in Central Park? Or is it (worst case scenario) going to simply be chronically short of the expected power requirements, meaning the crews have to reroute the systems it supports, and perhaps give up some luxuries? I guess the second scenario isn't as ominous sounding.
Perhaps there is some truth to this -- there are always engineering disagreements on projects this big -- but the Russians aren't doing this alone, and there has been ample consideration given to the ISS power requirements.
The Service Module is only responsible for a small percentage of station power. When complete, the entire ISS power system will consist of four US-built arrays connected to the US Node 1 via the Z1 Truss, each with four 112x39' wings, as well as the solar arrays on the Zarya and Zvezda modules, and possibly (if the Russians meet their commitments) a separate array to power the Russian science modules (which are themselves not guaranteed). The aggregate power systems will produce 110 kW, of which 98 kW will come from the US-built main arrays. (By comparison, all of Mir's solar panels, including the US-built-and-delivered MCSA, produce a mere 30 kW.)
The first of the main arrays will be installed by ISS Crew 1 around November, so they won't be dependent on the Zvezda arrays for very long at all. Each PANEL on the array has more power capacity than BOTH the Zvezda wings, and there will be four panels.
In short, for the completed ISS, Zvezda will be providing about 1.5% of the power requirements.
In any case, the Mir power problems weren't related directly to the power-generation abilities of the solar arrays; they were related to the lousy Russian batteries that couldn't keep the station running when Mir lost the ability to stay pointed at the sun. Fortunately, ISS has better batteries and more of them. We'll see how this goes.
For the "mission" (whatever you meant by that) to be "doomed", the American-built main arrays would have to be so badly designed that they generate less than half the expected power. Anywhere in between that, and they will simply have to modify the science expectations until they can supplement the power systems.
----
Performer Guy writes:
The CIA and the Times have already done the endangering. It seems like the Times has a lot to answer for in this. How the heck did they get the source of a 'secret' CIA document in the first place? Ultimately it has to be someone in the CIA who is responsible for this foul up.
It isn't a foul-up unless you believe that nothing the CIA has ever done is deserving of public scrutiny.
In fact, the CIA has been attempting to erase the record of its coup-related activities for several years. FOIA requests in 1997 revealed a number of "missing" documents.
[snip] This is simply amazing. I think the Times accusations have more to do with covering their own ass than concern for their unfortunate victims.
Well, it was a mistake, and clearly one they didn't intend to make. But I don't know that I consider the names in this list "victims".
----
... and so should the CIA operatives engaged in the overthrow of an elected foreign government. Some of them may even now hold high government positions, or have influence with current or future administrations. The New York Times is overdue opening the books on dark ops like these, shameful episodes in American history.
... unless they elect a government we don't like.
It's actions like this that make me question the deepest principles of our nation. In The Falcon and the Snowman spy case, a loyal American from a military family became disenchanted when his security clearance allowed him to see that the CIA was conspiring to overthrow a liberal government in a foreign country, including fake demonstrations and planted violence in the trade unions. The country in question was Australia. Yes, this is true. A loyal ally
I have nothing but disgust for an operation supported by the United States that stole democracy from Iran for the next thirty years and handed it to, of all things, a king. How antithetical to American values is that?
Did you ever stop to think why the Iranians hated us so much they'd hold our people hostage for 444 days?
----
Actually, this isn't entirely new.
...)
The website http://www.fedworld.gov/ offers a single search site for hundreds of federal websites. Originally started as a central BBS that let you look at other government BBS systems, it expanded into offerings via FTP and gopher before there was really a web.
Somebody also mentioned http://www.google.com/unclesam [no trailing slash: bad server config!]. (and get a load of the old glory colors on the Google logo: bet you see something similar on the home page by next weekend
Also, http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Services/ has been around for a long time.
It sounds like http://www.firstgov.gov/ (which IS live, just a placeholder) will be much more citizen-oriented, that is, getting the services to the people (like Social Security or VA records), rather than being a spreadsheets and reports searching site. I just don't think it's a very good name. help.gov? helpdesk.gov? services.gov? something "nineties" like my.gov? (Somebody else said) first.gov? The repeated G-O-V is silly.
----
Sources of the DRAM drought:
First, Japanese companies stepped up production and captured market share in the US.
Second, Japan prevented American companies from marketing there (among many other protectionist measures).
Third, the US, concerned about the imbalance of trade, passed an anti-dumping law. Companies importing products like DRAM at prices far below the existing US market could have their products blocked or tariffed punitively.
Fourth, crushed by increasingly tight margins in the RAM market, American companies switched to mainly producing processors.
Thus, despite the law, intended to help American companies compete in the RAM market, there were few American companies selling RAM anymore; and RAM coming in from Japan, then the main source, was either turned away or heavily taxed. The end result was that the only RAM available was expensive.
----
bigdavex just hates sales taxes: ... Regulating commerce between the states is a power of the U.S., not of the states.
That's not how I interpret the terminology, but no matter. How about the so-called "Inter-state Commerce" clause in the enumerated powers of Congress?
Well, seeing as how sales taxes have been around a pretty long time, and just about every state in the union has one, I suspect they may have survived one or two constitutionality challenges over the last 211 years. But you're welcome to try.
You're prepared to have higher property and income taxes, though, right?
----
At last! Lotus releases a version of Symphony that works with dot matrix printers, not just those Selectric-style line printers! Now I can use the spreadsheet-that's-a-graph-and-word-processor-too to print out my love letters, pie charts, AND budget projections! I've been waiting for a new version since before Prince was The Artist Formerly Known As!
One important question: do you need an 80386SX computer with 1MB of RAM to run it? Otherwise I'm out of luck. Blasted MS-DOS 3.3! What if I run Desqview -- is it Quarterdeck certified? It doesn't conflict with Sidekick or other TSRs, I hope. Can't live without those.
I hope it fits on a single app floppy. I hate having to swap floppies just to run a program. 720K ought to be big enough for anything.
----
jhk asks:
Does that mean, according to the most recent legal arguments about intellectual property, that NSI is in violation of IP law for owning someone else's trademarks?
Not per se. At this time the "property" status of domain names is still unclear. While there was a string of decisions through 1999 that supported the domain-holder-owns-it theory, two decisions this spring instead supported the domain-as-product-of-contract theory. In other words, it only exists as a product of a valid contract between you and the domain registrar.
Could a company like Microsoft sue NSI for trademark infringement and demand ownership of the name microsoft.com, which would necessitate direct access to the root nameservers?
Under current ICANN policy, and recent court decisions, registrars are pretty much wholly indemnified, unless they themselves do something intentional against a domain-holder. Essentially, this is to get registrars (NSI, joker.com, anybody) out of the middle of lawsuits between trademark/domain disputants, but it also has the effect of holding them essentially blameless in cybersquatting or domain-hijacking cases (cf. recent decision in sex.com case).
----
I do do not believe that the states have the right to levy such tax on these purchases. Here is article 1, section 10, paragraph 2 of the Constiution of the United States:
Goods transferred from state to state are neither imports nor exports. What this clause did was reserve to the Federal government taxation authority over goods that cross the international border.
Indeed, in early America the vast majority of taxation was by states; the Federal government was severely limited in its powers to tax.
----
PyRoNeRd wrote:
>>Case law is showing that having a domain name registered and pointing to a website
>>is, for all intents and purposes, "commercial use".
>Well there you have it. That leaves no room for non-commercial domains. All sites on them
>are "infringing" if someone registers the site name as a trademark (even if they do it after
>the site went up or even just so they can steal the domain name).
That's a bit harsh. There's still plenty of room for sites based on names, e.g. John Smith has an assumed interest in johnsmith.com, or variations; prior art, e.g. the etoy defense; and so on. Probably the key issue is that only "famous marks" enjoy this level of protection. Clue Computing (clue.com) succeeded because the "Clue" board game was ruled not "famous" under the statute.
It is true that this dispute is a problem. An important case in the 1960s established eight points for a judge to determine whether trademark infringement had occurred. The problem is, when domain names on the internet are involved, two of those points are automatically in favor of the trademark owner: that the spheres of commerce may one day merge (too late), and that they are one and the same (worldwide). In essence, trademark law means that a domain name dispute is automatically 1/4 lost -- or won -- before it begins.
>There should be a "Non-trade Mark" registration procedure to protect the interest of non-commercial site owners.
That's a neat idea, but it would be difficult to police against intentional infringement. What I'd like to see is a "safe harbor" for personal sites such that if they follow a simple checklist under the law they can know they're safe, instead of waiting for a cease and desist letter some day.
>BTW: How can Linus Torvalds get a trade mark for Linux, while he doesn't use it in commerce?
The definition of "use in commerce" is broad, and doesn't require selling anything. Good for Linus/Linux, but bad for personal domain owners.
----
US courts do not have power over DNS. They have power over the individuals and businesses USING the DNS. Crucial difference.
/per se/), they are engaged in a contract with you. Normally a contract is spelled out, and also contract relief provisions. In the case of NSI, the Fairfax County, VA courts (where NSI is physically located) are the first place to go.
Just because I register a domain name doesn't mean I'm suddenly outside the reach of US (or any other country's) trademark law.
>Excuse me, but ICANN sits at the top of the current DNS system most of us use. Shouldn't *they* have the final say on taking someone's domain name away? Why are these 3rd party courts involved and who gave them power to control who registers what?
Actually, NSI and ICANN have limited powers. Most of these domain-name cases have taken place merely as straightforward trademark cases without reference to the DNS at all. If I'm enjoined by a judge from using a name, it doesn't matter what NSI does.
But more specifically, the domain name registrars are conducting a business. As such, when they sell you the service of a domain name (whether or not the domain name is viewed as property
These "3rd party courts", as you say, are the same courts that were created in the United States over 200 years ago to manage the affairs of US citizens. They didn't spring up overnight, nor did they suddenly take over the internet. They always had jurisdiction.
[FooDNS example] (4) At some point US courts will suddenly decide that they have the absolute power to decide what domains I can and cannot allow? And who may register what?
Assuming you're based in Australia, then you would be open to a lawsuit under Australian law for similar injunctive relief. I assume, for example, that although Coca-Cola is a US company, they have made certain that Coca-Cola, Coke, etc. are all registered trademarks in your legal system.
It may be slightly more difficult for someone in a different jurisdiction to bring such a lawsuit, but don't think they couldn't do it at all.
Let's make it more complicated still. US company, fooDNS in Australia, and infringer based in Singapore. They could bring suit in Singapore and force the "owner" of the name to turn it over under Singaporean law.
For purposes of international trade, countries that don't recognize other countries' intellectual property will soon find themselves having economic or political problems (e.g. trade embargo). Thus there will be very few countries that would bar such lawsuits.
----
JohnJake sputters:
Judges must learn that cyberspace is not just a "virtual world." Cyberspace is an alternative world! It is a complete reality with its own atmosphere, culter, people, and real-estate.
Uh, hello, JJ. Ever looked inside your computer? It's a bunch of electronic parts. It's connected to a big wire that goes everywhere. These are all just physical parts in the real world. You, yourself, are still sitting in a chair, real as could be, and you are still subject to all the laws of the real world.
Especialy since the US government has no jurisdiction over international property like the internet! They have no right to restrict use of a domain name simply because some big dollar is upset!
Again, the internet isn't a place, somewhere outside the real world. The people who connect to the internet and use it are still here, still subject to the same laws as before. One of those laws concerns trademarks.
I'm as concerned as you for individual rights vs. corporations, but this isn't the fight. Look instead to mattl.com (Mattel wants him to shut down), or Naked Juice journal (no domain at all), or Digital Divas (for once, a little guy with trademark law fully on their side).
This is a horibble step for the internet. I fear we will have to start copyrighting our domain names just to protect them!
Uh, that would be trademarking domain names. Yes, that would be wise, if you have a good one. Still, this is no precedent; the precedents were set years ago already, and encoded into US trademark law several years ago. The fact is that the existing domain name system, as designed, forces individuals into direct conflict with corporate interests. This is a double-edged sword; witness Slashdot itself, which could not exist without the internet. Yet at the same time individuals who only want to use the net to reach a wide audience must now step carefully amid trademark issues. With power comes responsibility. It's a little like people moving to the suburbs, then trying to stop anyone else from moving in next door and "ruining" it. The wonderful benefits of the net come from this power, but they also expose people to conflicts they aren't necessarily prepared for.
----
>But I still don't think trademark law applies to DNS.
Well, that's a nice sentiment, but at this point we're looking at close to a decade of case law that says otherwise.
The most applicable decision was probably Panavision vs. Toeppen. Toeppen was a domain-name reseller who registered panavision.com. The court said:
"We reject Toeppen's premise that a domain name is nothing more than an address. A significant purpose of a domain name is to identify the entity that owns the web site.... The domain name serves a dual purpose. It marks the location of the site within cyberspace, much like a postal address in the real world, but it may also indicate to users some information as to the content of the site, and, in instances of well-known trade names or trademarks, may provide information as to the origin of the contents of the site.... Using a company's name or trademark as a domain name is also the easiest way to locate that company's web site.... Moreover, potential customers of Panavision will be discouraged if they cannot find its web page by typing in "Panavision.com," but instead are forced to wade through hundreds of web sites. This dilutes the value of Panavision's trademark.... Toeppen's use of Panavision.com also puts Panavision's name and reputation at his mercy."
[The MTV case is cited. It was really the first example of someone -- former VeeJay Adam Curry, in this case -- trying to assert simple first-come-first-served rights. He lost.]
>Assuming that I gave them the incorrect address out of malice or as a prank, would I have violated PETA's trademark?
Not as an individual. But if you ran, say, an 800-number directory service, you certainly would have. DNS isn't a peer-to-peer system, it's a central registry.
>Let's say that CmdrTaco gave me that slip of paper because he owns the meat packing plant
Oh my yes. Most certainly a trademark dilution case. Anything done to confuse or deceive consumers strikes to the heart of the origins of trademark law.
>Can Coke stop me from giving people directions to the Pepsi store whenever people ask for directions to Coke? Or even worse, can they stop me from giving people directions to the coal mine?
Heh. Famous issue, here. It's trademark dilution for a restaurant to give you a Pepsi when you order a Coke. They have to say, for example, "We serve Coke, is that all right?" Coke and Pepsi (like the recording industry) send agents out to catch violators, or at least, used to. In essence, both your examples are very much trademark dilution.
The key is *commercial use*. The DNS is considered to be a directory that consumers rely on to give them correct information, not throw them in the wrong direction. Personally, you can do WTF you like. See, DNS doesn't exist on its own. That's the problem. It's run by people.
----
john said:
[in reply to dhartung, myself]:
>>The internet isn't exempt from real-world laws.
>And real world laws, and many prior court ruleings, allow for the use of other's material for a variety of uses, including parody, commentary, critisism, etc...
>"Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: [remainder of copyright law snipped]
Wonderful. You understand copyright law. Too bad this is a trademark case.
>PeatingTA, is clearly a commentary, and/or criticism of PethicalTA. Wether or not PeatingTA makes money or not is irrelevant.
>Weird AL certianly makes money off HIS parodies, yet they are still protected as fair use.
And indeed, the Tasty Animals site remains online. The parody content was unaffected by this ruling. There is no argument that the parody content is protected (although there are other ways it could infringe PETA trademarks, e.g. a parody logo, or copyrights, e.g. excessive quoting).
>The mass judge is clearly an idiot who ignored YEARS of precidents protecting fair use rights.
Actually, the judge in question is in Virginia (the quoted article is from the Boston Globe, but datelined Norfolk, VA). The NSI contract states that the jurisdiction of choice is the local courts in Fairfax County, Virginia, and secondarily the Eastern District Federal District Court encompassing it, so most domain name rulings come through courts in this area. (Unfortunately, and rather ironically, they're not online.)
Fair use is a concept deriving from copyright law. Fair use under trademark law is a little more difficult to prove, which is the defendant's responsibility (and under civil litigation, you may recall, the standard isn't innocent until proven guilty; it's preponderance of the evidence). Fair use does not supersede confusion. If there's a chance the consumer may be confused by, say, a "Coke adds life" pro-drug parody bumper sticker, well, the parody producer is in a difficult legal position.
The 1995 Trademark Dilution act clarified case law somewhat, but while it explicitly protects parody and fair use, there is a direct contradiction once a domain name is involved. Case law is showing that having a domain name registered and pointing to a website is, for all intents and purposes, "commercial use". This is where Doughney ran into trouble, even though his parody was arguably "non-commercial" in that it was not intended to be profitable. By having a live domain name, he was invading the sphere of commerce in question, the internet namespace, and therefore open to trademark dilution questions.
In short, "fair use" does not normally extend to domain names. petasucks.org WOULD be a clear parody in terms of the name, but peta.org itself is a collision.
Keep in mind that this is FAR from being a precedent-setting decision. The real precedent was years ago, when Planned Parenthood won back the plannedparenthood.org name from a group that used it to distribute anti-abortion literature.
Or perhaps he's a militant PETA zealot. Or perhaps he's one of those RIAA/MPAA/metallica/DMCA types who beleives that fair use should be abolished.
Or perhaps he's actually a jurist who applies the law regardless of whether he approves of the plaintiff, the defendant, either, or neither. Why make assumptions you can't support? Why not simply argue the law?
Which are you?
Which do you think I am? I don't have to explain myself.
In any event, you, and that judge, are wrong.
I would suggest you do more reading on trademark law before you say that again. In any case, the 1995 Trademark Dilution law is quite clear, and the 1999 Anticybersquatting law is even clearer. (I suggest you read them.)
If you want change, write your congressman.
----
Domain names aren't a public domain thing, or property of the government. They are the property of the maintainer of the database
Not exactly. There is a public interest in internet addressing that is legally recognized.
(and there is more than one, just thing of alternic). What is to prevent me from creating my own database of, and having people register to me? Will the government ultimately rule over my business if I do?
What makes you think that just by setting up a database, you operate outside of applicable law?
This is a persistent meme among netizens. I recognize its origins, but it's really just a fantasy. The fact is that the internet never was a separate place from the real world and never has been. Just because it's on the internet doesn't automagically erase the book of laws that people operate under. The internet, after all, is just a big wire. It's the actions of the people on either end of the wire that are regulated.
Essentially, you're saying that you would set up a parallel name registry. Such a registry may well be ignored as a toy (e.g. alternic, surprise surprise). But if that name registry came to mean anything at all, which I suppose would mean significant commercial interests, all it would take is one judicial ruling to assure that your registry was under the same legal authority. Say one of your registry's users decided to use existing trademarks as names, e.g. cocacola.alt. Don't you think that Coke would STILL sue them? Do you think that because they're on a separate registry, they are somehow immune from trademark law? Unh-unh. They're still on the same planet as the rest of the world, and the same trademark laws still apply.
As I said, I see the appeal, but I don't see how it would work in the real world. Because, you see, there's only one real world, and we're all in it.
----
1. So, all I have to do is have a trademark for one domain and I automatically get two more for free because others already paid for them and my lawyers scared them off.
Actually, the point is that if the ruling had gone the other way, all you would have to do is create a fictitious organization and website to use a domain name that reflected someone else's trademark.
The rest of the story is really irrelevant. It was a mark that the average person would associate with the trademark holder; the parody was diluting the trademark. This is the real world. The internet isn't exempt from real-world laws.
----