your precedent is not the same as this case. when you said:
> So hey, sure, why not codify that into case law
> as well? And what a business plan: "Sure, I'll
> license you to use the name ThisDomain.com next
> year - in exchange for 105% of the revenues you
> earn from it
the license should confer a right to possess [and use] why you retain the right to own the domain name. the retention of owner ship would preclude any claim to compensation, you can't be conpensated for loss of ownership if you never lose the ownership.
i'd be interested to see if there is a claim agains network solutions for breaching the standard of care in that they were advised that the change of ownership was a fraudulent act.
if this was a clerical error between two different registries then it would be difficult [but not impossilbe] to cancel a change of ownership request [due to the lack of legal content to the 'contract']. when the dot com TLD name space is broken up, a protocol for dealing with clerical and human errors between registries would be helpful, useful, damn well essential.
[duty of care from DONOGHUE v STEVENSON [1932] All ER Rep 1 [HL].
if the RIAA are smart enoenough to use technology to persue technology then why is it taking soo damn long to implement a technology which we'd want to pay for and use!! [has the idiot who suggested that p2p sharing of audio files would never work been fired]?
suppose this means that if there is a tagging service for movies, DON'T USE IT!! cos it will only be sold to the movie industry and aid in their crusade against the [theft and] sharing of motion pictures
if i were a record company exec with millions of dollars at risk then i would consider sending Matt CAD110,000 one day before the end of the financial year.
sending this information to the RevCan would ensure that Matt has to declare income or deal with tax evasion charges.
if you're looking for a non-berne treaty country, try china. there behaviour recently doesn't indicate any regard for copyright.
there wasn't anything new in the article but two points which it did cover were
encrypted traffic is easy to detect and
ppl tend to forget about temp files which can contain an unencrypted copy.
the first point doesn't bother me until the traffic is easy to decrypt. the second point is a common occurance [even though i hate to generalise]. the only simple solution i've found is an app called evidence eliminator [for which i do not work or hold any type of equity].
this program is more paranoid than me [which is a healthy sign]. my fave feature is that it does clean out your windoze 9X or NT swap files.
if you work with information which is sensitive enough to require encryption then erasing [using multiple passes and re-writes to erase] your temp files is essential to guard against your HDD being compromised.
the issue of authenticating the recieptant wasn't dealt with in this article but a link to this story - http://www.infoworld.com/articles/ca/xml/01/03/12/ 010312camentor.xml called USPS delivers a digital, signature-certified mail system dealt with how the US Postal Service is dealing with identity authentication when sending email to a US Federal Govt address.
Personally, i'd be happy if the NZ IRD [Inland Revenue Department] issued me with a personal digital ID. my employer issuing a second for work email would also be great.
Slashdot Mirror
your precedent is not the same as this case. when you said:
> So hey, sure, why not codify that into case law
> as well? And what a business plan: "Sure, I'll
> license you to use the name ThisDomain.com next
> year - in exchange for 105% of the revenues you
> earn from it
the license should confer a right to possess [and use] why you retain the right to own the domain name. the retention of owner ship would preclude any claim to compensation, you can't be conpensated for loss of ownership if you never lose the ownership.
i'd be interested to see if there is a claim agains network solutions for breaching the standard of care in that they were advised that the change of ownership was a fraudulent act.
if this was a clerical error between two different registries then it would be difficult [but not impossilbe] to cancel a change of ownership request [due to the lack of legal content to the 'contract']. when the dot com TLD name space is broken up, a protocol for dealing with clerical and human errors between registries would be helpful, useful, damn well essential.
[duty of care from DONOGHUE v STEVENSON [1932] All ER Rep 1 [HL].
if the RIAA are smart enoenough to use technology to persue technology then why is it taking soo damn long to implement a technology which we'd want to pay for and use!! [has the idiot who suggested that p2p sharing of audio files would never work been fired]?
suppose this means that if there is a tagging service for movies, DON'T USE IT!! cos it will only be sold to the movie industry and aid in their crusade against the [theft and] sharing of motion pictures
sending this information to the RevCan would ensure that Matt has to declare income or deal with tax evasion charges.
if you're looking for a non-berne treaty country, try china. there behaviour recently doesn't indicate any regard for copyright.
- encrypted traffic is easy to detect and
- ppl tend to forget about temp files which can contain an unencrypted copy.
the first point doesn't bother me until the traffic is easy to decrypt. the second point is a common occurance [even though i hate to generalise]. the only simple solution i've found is an app called evidence eliminator [for which i do not work or hold any type of equity].this program is more paranoid than me [which is a healthy sign]. my fave feature is that it does clean out your windoze 9X or NT swap files.
if you work with information which is sensitive enough to require encryption then erasing [using multiple passes and re-writes to erase] your temp files is essential to guard against your HDD being compromised.
the issue of authenticating the recieptant wasn't dealt with in this article but a link to this story - http://www.infoworld.com/articles/ca/xml/01/03/12/ 010312camentor.xml called USPS delivers a digital, signature-certified mail system dealt with how the US Postal Service is dealing with identity authentication when sending email to a US Federal Govt address.
Personally, i'd be happy if the NZ IRD [Inland Revenue Department] issued me with a personal digital ID. my employer issuing a second for work email would also be great.