An individual may find it difficult to fight a corporation in a court of law, but domain name disputes are not settled that way.
According to the article:
In a matter of weeks, Mr. Ellenbogen won the on-line rights to his company name, without having to confront the costly and time-consuming jurisdictional and discovery issues that inevitably arise in trademark litigation.
Also according to the article, the case would probably have taken two years to settle in the courts.
To me, this sounds promising for individuals without vast resources to fight an extended legal battle, quite possibly in a foreign country.
Furthermore:
To prevail, Mr. Ellenbogen needed to establish that he held the trademark to musicweb.com, that the registrant has no legitimate interest in the name, and that the registrant registered and uses the name in bad faith.
The two last critera are the interesting ones. If you are actively using a domain name, it will probably be quite difficult to show that you have no legitimate interest or that you are acting in bad faith.
Without the arbitration rules your position would be far worse. You would be infringing on a trademark (possibly knowingly), you would face litigation, and you would lose. This way, at least you have a fighting chance.
except, you have to wonder what the point is for wearing armor that bares every vital part of the body . ..
That's so those nasty evil warriors will stop to stare at your . . . eh . . . vital parts . . . giving you some extra time to knock them senseless. Sort of a safety measure in other words. Doesn't work with orcs by the way. Different cultural values sort of thing (just take a look at Miss Orc Universe and you'll know exactly what I mean.)
> Finally, I'm honestly curious as to what other/.rs believe would be better: error > checked(&corrected?) encrpytion, or encrpyted error checking.
This is a little off-topic, but why not...
You want to apply error correction to the encrypted stream, not the reverse.
A single bit error in the encrypted data will result in multiple bit errors to the decrypted data. And if you're uing a good encryption algorithm, chances are that a single bit error to the encrypted block will cause all the bits of the decrypted block to be unpredictible. If you originally had to deal with single bit errors, you now have to deal with burst errors as long as a single cipher block for every single bit error you had to handle before. And that's only in ECB mode. If you use a mode in which errors propagate, the situation is even worse.
Furthermore, the codewords of an ECC have more structure than the original data, and although this is a bit of a guess, that may help the cryptanalyst a bit.
According to one of the morning papers over here it was a criminal proceeding. Had the poor sap been found guilty he would have faced moderate fines, but a conviction would also have opened the door to civil proceedings in which IFPI could have been awarded significant damages.
I can't help but wonder why IFPI chose this as their first case in Sweden. They could have charged someone who was actually disseminating MP3 files, and would almost certainly have won. Instead they chose to persue a case that they were very unlikely to win. Can anyone figure out why?
Slashdot Mirror
An individual may find it difficult to fight a corporation in a court of law, but domain name disputes are not settled that way.
According to the article:
Also according to the article, the case would probably have taken two years to settle in the courts.
To me, this sounds promising for individuals without vast resources to fight an extended legal battle, quite possibly in a foreign country.
Furthermore:
The two last critera are the interesting ones. If you are actively using a domain name, it will probably be quite difficult to show that you have no legitimate interest or that you are acting in bad faith.
Without the arbitration rules your position would be far worse. You would be infringing on a trademark (possibly knowingly), you would face litigation, and you would lose. This way, at least you have a fighting chance.
This year, next year, who cares?
After all, it's only an error of one year in 2000. That's an 0.05% error. Not bad in this day and age!
I must say, I'm pretty impressed with how ahead of the times The Times must have been. E-mail in 1799 indeed!
> Finally, I'm honestly curious as to what other /.rs believe would be better: error
> checked(&corrected?) encrpytion, or encrpyted error checking.
This is a little off-topic, but why not...
You want to apply error correction to the encrypted stream, not the reverse.
A single bit error in the encrypted data will result in multiple bit errors to the decrypted data. And if you're uing a good encryption algorithm, chances are that a single bit error to the encrypted block will cause all the bits of the decrypted block to be unpredictible. If you originally had to deal with single bit errors, you now have to deal with burst errors as long as a single cipher block for every single bit error you had to handle before. And that's only in ECB mode. If you use a mode in which errors propagate, the situation is even worse.
Furthermore, the codewords of an ECC have more structure than the original data, and although this is a bit of a guess, that may help the cryptanalyst a bit.
According to one of the morning papers over here it was a criminal proceeding. Had the poor sap been found guilty he would have faced moderate fines, but a conviction would also have opened the door to civil proceedings in which IFPI could have been awarded significant damages.
I can't help but wonder why IFPI chose this as their first case in Sweden. They could have charged someone who was actually disseminating MP3 files, and would almost certainly have won. Instead they chose to persue a case that they were very unlikely to win. Can anyone figure out why?