- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 3,142
- Reaction score
- 18
Well ... there were actually precedent cases that owners and office bearers of common carriers such as forums were held liable to content they deliver. As a moderator, I of course don't want to see anything close to that happens.
YES. AND EVEN IF YOU WOULD LIKELY WIN, DO YOU WANT TO DROP $50,000+ ON LAWYERS TO BE FOUND.. NOT LIABLE?
Back to the topic: my take is that we can look at this issue from two perspectives, legal and ethical.
I WOULD JUST TACKLE THE LEGAL ASPECT WHICH IS THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT.
I agree that it would be difficult to summarily judge whether a domain name is cybersquatting or not
NO IT'S NOT. IS THERE REALLY DOUBT THAT SEADOOS.COM, DISNY.COM, MICRASOFT.COM, AND OTHER FAMOUS DISTINCTIVE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS WHICH ARE ROUTINELY OFFERED HERE ARE *NOT* CASES OF CYBERSQUATTING?
WOULD YOU BET THE FARM ON GETTING A JUDGE TO BUY THAT IN FEDERAL COURT?
(that's why we need the courts or UDRP arbitration); but it would be safe to disallow sales of domain names against which disputes have been formally filed, not to mention those that already come with unfavorable ruling, in order to safeguard both this forum and its members (who are potential buyers) from future legal cosequences.
SORRY, BUT THAT IS SIMPLY ABSURD. SEE BELOW.
On the other hand, it is not particularly ethical to KNOWINGLY sell a domain name that has UDRP or legal complications. It may not be criminal (which actually depends on respective jurisdiction) or immoral (which then depends on individual conviction) but probably falls outside good business practice or professional codes. And as part of the industry, we shouldn't encourage that at all, to say the least.
IT IS COMPLETELY MOOT. NO ONE CAN TRANSFER A NAME THAT IS SUBJECT TO A UDRP DISPUTE! THE REGISTRARS AUTOMATICALLY LOCK DOWN THE NAME AS PART OF THE UDRP PROCEDURE. SO IT CAN'T BE SOLD/ TRANSFERRED ANYWAY. IT IS MOOT.
SO --IF THIS IS THE OFFICIAL LINE-- IT IS VERY DISCOURAGING.
IT LOOKS LIKE A GREEN LIGHT FOR BUSINESS AS USUAL..
YES. AND EVEN IF YOU WOULD LIKELY WIN, DO YOU WANT TO DROP $50,000+ ON LAWYERS TO BE FOUND.. NOT LIABLE?
Back to the topic: my take is that we can look at this issue from two perspectives, legal and ethical.
I WOULD JUST TACKLE THE LEGAL ASPECT WHICH IS THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT.
I agree that it would be difficult to summarily judge whether a domain name is cybersquatting or not
NO IT'S NOT. IS THERE REALLY DOUBT THAT SEADOOS.COM, DISNY.COM, MICRASOFT.COM, AND OTHER FAMOUS DISTINCTIVE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS WHICH ARE ROUTINELY OFFERED HERE ARE *NOT* CASES OF CYBERSQUATTING?
WOULD YOU BET THE FARM ON GETTING A JUDGE TO BUY THAT IN FEDERAL COURT?
(that's why we need the courts or UDRP arbitration); but it would be safe to disallow sales of domain names against which disputes have been formally filed, not to mention those that already come with unfavorable ruling, in order to safeguard both this forum and its members (who are potential buyers) from future legal cosequences.
SORRY, BUT THAT IS SIMPLY ABSURD. SEE BELOW.
On the other hand, it is not particularly ethical to KNOWINGLY sell a domain name that has UDRP or legal complications. It may not be criminal (which actually depends on respective jurisdiction) or immoral (which then depends on individual conviction) but probably falls outside good business practice or professional codes. And as part of the industry, we shouldn't encourage that at all, to say the least.
IT IS COMPLETELY MOOT. NO ONE CAN TRANSFER A NAME THAT IS SUBJECT TO A UDRP DISPUTE! THE REGISTRARS AUTOMATICALLY LOCK DOWN THE NAME AS PART OF THE UDRP PROCEDURE. SO IT CAN'T BE SOLD/ TRANSFERRED ANYWAY. IT IS MOOT.
SO --IF THIS IS THE OFFICIAL LINE-- IT IS VERY DISCOURAGING.
IT LOOKS LIKE A GREEN LIGHT FOR BUSINESS AS USUAL..
