 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)Hyperflake ...and 216 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614265 Today 12 Topics 127551 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what do you make of cybersquatting laws and intellectual property rights? i think it's bullshit personally. ok, so obviously people that buy (name of famous person).com are exploiting that person's fame; but so what? no one person OWNS (or should own) the exclusive rights to their name. it's not like there's only one julia roberts out of the six billion people on earth. the thought that she and other celebs deserve to have web sites registered (thus paid for) by other people well in advance (months, years) on the merit of their fame alone is ridiculous. what's to stop an unemployed man named john smith in oregon for suing over the rights to johnsmith.com? the rich have it so good already, they need to stop bitching. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Didn't Frank Sinatra once threaten a shoemaker or something who was also named Frank Sinatra and used his name in the name of his business? I'm trying to remember where I read that... maybe it's an urban legend... Anyhoo I understand that in legal terms if you don't enforce your trademark you can lose the rights to it and anyone can use it. So the lawyers for big companies and big stars will get sue-happy if they detect a possible infringement that could be used as a precedent to argue that a trademarked name has entered the language as a generic term. Look at the way Microsoft's lawyers stomp all over anyone who uses the word windows, or even things that sound like windows (Lindows). Just recently the Phoenix browser (derivative of Mozilla) had to change its name because the Phoenix bios company thought it was an infringement. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there was a story on "20/20" about this writer for a newpapers with the same name a rolling stone band member something wyman. The wyman from rolling stones threatened to sue the guy for using his name lol well after the media started talking about it the law suit was dropped.. but yea its bs how people can sue over names and shit , its so ambiguous - unless you really try to be the person and spread harmful views and shit, not just some fan site ya know www.2600.com talks about this shit a lot after they got sued for having domains like www.FORDreallysucks.com etc.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we had a hotel in sydney called "the olympian", it had been called " the olympian" for around 70 years. yet, when sydney won the rights to host the olympics they had to change there name or face prosicution, [sp?] not real far after youve spent 70 years building up a decent name for yourself. [ +20rp3 ] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, hold on now. When you say intellectual copyrights, you bring in recordings to this... music and what not. I dont think those laws are bullshit... but I dont think thats what you were refering to... so lets not have this turn into a seperate debate... as far as .com's go... sure, ok, if someone named Julia Roberts wants to have a website called "Julia Roberts" then the laws get a little iffy. But thats usually not the case. Usually its some one who just randomly buys every domain they can, in hope of capitalizing on a name. Its not so much that they shouldnt be allowed to own it, but its clearly only being done to make money. And like, they have all the power... so they can demand like, millions of dollars for a domain name, that costed like 30 bucks... and so, if the star wants to put their name on the web, they are fucked. except for the exceptions, ie a girl with the name Julia Robets making a website, i think the laws are good. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'M GONNA BE SO PISSED IF NIGELLOVESHOMOS.COM IS TAKEN |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think that it's ridiculous that famous people *can't remember the recent story regarding this, but it's a member of a big UK band* who CHANGE their name to something commen like Dick Jones (for example) can then SUE a person who writes under the name Dick Jones (thats his REAL name) telling them they can't use their OWN name because it BELONGS to this famous/wealthy person. THAT is a LOAD of CROCK, i mean no one has SINGLE rights to a name, just because they are famous, and anyone with that name can't do squat. same with cybersquatters......i DO not think it's right that some "regular" folk buy up famous peoples names only to CHARGE them ridulous amounts to get the use of their name for a web site. it goes both ways......famous peepz and UNfamous peepz can both be greedy/childish/idiots! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hey your cat kicks ass zeus |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
before you get into cybersquatting, see McAnything really, fucking McDonalds |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that sounds like a radical way to expel ones feces. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you leave those cyber homeless alone!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*shudders* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
