RE: namespace reprise
Convincing you won't matter. One can violate copyright and unless the owner makes a case of it, no one comes to get you. The folks doing P2P sharing are convinced no one is coming to get them. Then one day... a knock at the door. The law will be made after the fact, Miles, based on the "convenience" of using http/DNS unique names to label the content. Someone will notice that it's a "neat" idea. len From: Miles Sabin [mailto:miles@m...] I'm not convinced. Suppose I decided to start using "http://www.example.com/" to denote shrimp without permission form Example Inc, the rightful domain registrant. Who would come and get me? Goons from Network Solutions? On what basis? Abuse of a FQDN? Surely not: the only way to abuse a FQDN is to interfere with it's mapping to and from an IP address, not a concept. If anyone's going to come after me it'll be trademark lawyers. But how is the situation here any different from my deciding to start using "Example Inc" to denote shrimp? What's special (from a trademark lawyers POV) about a FQDN as opposed to any other string of characters? And if there isn't anything special about a FQDN, then we don't have to imagine a privatized future ... it's the status quo: names can already be owned and rights of ownership asserted. I'm not claiming this is a good thing, merely that it's (not very much) more of the same ...
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format