ADAM CURRY OF MTV.COM GETS SUED BY MTV
Jacob C Kesinger
Hi. Note the crosspost (going to afu because I'm not
sure of the validity of my ref)
>Imagine the precedent this would set if it was allowed. Vanity license
>plates, your phone number, your last name (McDonald, etc.) could all become
>fair game for any big corporation that decides it wants to use some name
>space that you already have a legitimate claim to. MTV, Inc. is WAY out of
>line in this case. We can only hope this case is heard by a judge with a
>brain and some small understanding of the technologies involved.
I beleive Hutchinson Something or Other tried this a few
years ago in Canada (I read it in that bastion of Canadian
journalism, the Vancouver Province). They sued 20something smaller
companies that had the word 'Hutchinson' in their names, supposedly
because they felt it would confuse the public or some other
such excuse.
I don't consider the Province to be a reliable authority,
and I would like to know if anyone else has heard of it.
--Jake
David Lynch
>sure of the validity of my ref)
>>Imagine the precedent this would set if it was allowed. Vanity license
>>plates, your phone number, your last name (McDonald, etc.) could all become
>>fair game for any big corporation that decides it wants to use some name
>>space that you already have a legitimate claim to. MTV, Inc. is WAY out of
>>line in this case. We can only hope this case is heard by a judge with a
>>brain and some small understanding of the technologies involved.
I was hearing something about this just today.. My high school (for 4
more days..) is having problems with someone who opened an account in the
name of the school.. Needless to say, this person is completely
unaffiliated with the school, but according to the bank, as long as you
have a social security number, you can open an account in any name you wish..
--
erase...@iglou.com
Gretchen Miller
>>Imagine the precedent this would set if it was allowed. Vanity license
>>plates, your phone number, your last name (McDonald, etc.) could all become
>>fair game for any big corporation that decides it wants to use some name
>>space that you already have a legitimate claim to. MTV, Inc. is WAY out of
>>line in this case. We can only hope this case is heard by a judge with a
>>brain and some small understanding of the technologies involved.
No, Vanity license plates, your phone number, your last name, etc are
NOT fair game for any big corporation that decides it wants to use some
name space. And no, MTV Network, Inc (let's get it right...) is NOT way
out of line. What they are doing is necessary for maintaining a
trademark. It's like "Xerox", "Kleenex", and "Refrigerator"
(refrigerator used to be a trademark, by the way. Three guesses why it
isn't any more. I'll give you a hint, it's not because the owners went
out of business...). If MTV doesn't at least try to squash usages that
may infringe on their trademark, they WILL lose the trademark.
Whether they'll win the case is another issue.
toodles, gretchen
Ted Frank
a soft-drink called "Coca-Cola."
Adam Curry may have a legitimate grievance about the way MTV has treated
him, but his dire predictions for free speech and the like are completely
meritless. MTV is hardly asking for more than standard trademark
protection, something this country has had for decades.
--
ted frank Annual Shanda for the Goyim Award:
the law skool 1991: Michael Milken 1992: Woody Allen
the u of c 1993: Roseanne Arnold 1994: Canter & Siegel
kibo#=0.5
Ralph Knapp
Patlan) wrote:
> is a big strike against Mr Curry. Name ownership is a hotly-contested
> issue. The guidelines are kind of fuzzy (to me), and usually decided in
> court. Some examples: 1) Apple had to license the name 'Macintosh' from
> 'McIntosh'. (Because people might associate the Mac with expensive stereo
> equipment that looks like it was designed in the 60's? Duh!)
I believe they paid $1 million to license "Classic" - but not,
I think, from Coca-Cola.
Also, Apple Corps (Beatles-founded record label) sued and won over
rights to "Apple" - settlement involved Apple Computer staying away
from "music"-related products, impacting products like the MIDI adapter.
Thomas A. Maufer
csho...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Chuck Shotton) wrote:
> In article <1994May25....@midway.uchicago.edu>,
> th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) wrote:
>
> > Yeah, and a certain Atlanta company got upset at me when I tried to market
> > a soft-drink called "Coca-Cola."
>
> An internet domain name is not a trademark. Check out what constitutes an
> enforcable trademark before you spout opinion. MTV has no legal claim on
> mtv.com. It was registered to someone else first. Too bad for MTV.
Hear hear! Suppose some company had those initials and
they got their DNS name first? Would MTV have a claim?
Suppose that the accounting firm of Mankin, Townsend, and
Virgo had already claimed mtv.com? Moreover, suppose that
they have a desire to be on the Internet today.... They
have as much claim to mtv.com as MTV does. Adam Curry
got it first. If MTV wants is bad enough, maybe they
should offer to buy the name from Adam? :) Now don't
all you people rush out and register all the major
companies' names! Oh no, another 'get rich quick'
scheme! :)
Tom
--
_________________________________________________________________
Thomas A. Maufer, CBSI Voice: +1 301 286-0708
NASA/GSFC, Code 520 Fax: +1 301 286-1768
Greenbelt, MD 20771
mathew
Chuck Shotton <csho...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu> wrote:
>An internet domain name is not a trademark. Check out what constitutes an
>enforcable trademark before you spout opinion. MTV has no legal claim on
>mtv.com. It was registered to someone else first. Too bad for MTV.
It is common practice to register company names which big companies
are likely to want, and then sell them at a profit.
For example, one might go to Russia and register "IBM Russia" as a company
name, and then sell the rights to the name to IBM when they start an
operation in Russia.
There are in fact people who make a living this way. I can imagine it
might end up similar with domain names.
I mean, if I had a penny for every time someone's decided they'd like
to call their UUCP machine "mantis", I'd have eight or nine pence by
now.
mathew
--
Seeking a decent bug-tracking system for Windows, DOS, UNIX, Mac...
http://www.mantis.co.uk/~mathew/
Magnus Y Alvestad
-Magnus
bill nelson
: In article <cshotton-2...@oac2.hsc.uth.tmc.edu>,
: Chuck Shotton <csho...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu> wrote:
: >An internet domain name is not a trademark. Check out what constitutes an
: >enforcable trademark before you spout opinion. MTV has no legal claim on
: >mtv.com. It was registered to someone else first. Too bad for MTV.
:
: It is common practice to register company names which big companies
: are likely to want, and then sell them at a profit.
Maybe in the UK. However, in the US - a trade name has to be used, or the
protection is lost.
Bill
Ted Frank
>In article <cshotton-2...@oac2.hsc.uth.tmc.edu>,
>csho...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Chuck Shotton) wrote:
>> In article <1994May25....@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>> th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) wrote:
>>
>> > Yeah, and a certain Atlanta company got upset at me when I tried to market
>> > a soft-drink called "Coca-Cola."
>>
>> An internet domain name is not a trademark.
But "MTV" is a trademark.
And an internet domain name that uses a trademark in a way that creates
confusion is in violation of the Lanham Act.
>>Check out what constitutes an
>> enforcable trademark before you spout opinion. MTV has no legal claim on
>> mtv.com.
So I can start a television network called "MTV Com"? I don't think so.
>>It was registered to someone else first. Too bad for MTV.
Who it was registered to was MTV. Curry's second, too bad for Curry.
>Hear hear! Suppose some company had those initials and
>they got their DNS name first? Would MTV have a claim?
That's a different case.
>Moreover, suppose that
>they have a desire to be on the Internet today.... They
>have as much claim to mtv.com as MTV does. Adam Curry
>got it first.
(1) Adam Curry got it first, while employed by MTV.
(2) MTV had "MTV" first, and all rights to the name.
>If MTV wants is bad enough, maybe they
>should offer to buy the name from Adam? :)
Other way around.
>Now don't
>all you people rush out and register all the major
>companies' names! Oh no, another 'get rich quick'
>scheme! :)
Funny how the law doesn't countenance such a scheme.
--
ted frank "Nothing in this analysis turns on the nutritional value
the law skool of a Monterey Ranch Chicken Sandwich."
the u of c
kibo#=0.5 -- 61 U.Chi.L.Rev. 650 n.45 (1994)
Herbert Ruessink
In <1994May27....@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
About the mtv.com controversy:
>: (1) Adam Curry got it first, while employed by MTV.
>Now, this puts a different slant on things. I agree that this
>makes the point debatable. If I had set up a domain server, since
>I have no interest in MTV, then they would not have any cause for
>action.
Adam Curry was employed by MTV at the time of registering mtv.com.
However, his activities were initially not connected with MTV (Curry
claims), and he discussed using the name with the relevant people at MTV
(they did not object, written proof is available, Curry claims), MTV
gave permission for use of mtv.com for information exchanges related to
Curry's show on MTV (written proof available, Curry claims).
In other words, MTV was aware of mtv.com, they condoned and actively
cooperated with Curry's activities. MTV may even implicitly have
recognised him as the rightful owner of the name mtv.com (I doubt that
the people he spoke to at MTV passed everything they told/wrote him
through their legal department). This is pure speculation, and requires
access to the written documents.
Also note that MTV and Curry had a bit of a fall-out. MTV's actions may
be construed as legal harrasment. Again, depends on what the facts are
and what a good lawyer makes of the case. US seems to be the country of
unlimited possibilities in this respect.
Now, to me it seems that it must be possible to make a good case for
Curry on the basis of these (presumed) facts, but then, I am not a
lawyer and have no idea of what peculiar US court rulings apply (don't
you hate a justice system based on precedents?).
My prediction: MTV and Curry both make an estimate of lawsuit costs and
come to a nice agreement. MTV will get mtv.com, MTV.com mTV.com,
music.tele.vision.com etc. and Curry will get some bits of paper
representing bits of paper depicting dead people.
Another note: if two companies in different countries have the same name
(eg. two daughter enterprises which have become indepent of the mother
enterprise), which then has the right to the domain name?
Herbert.
Malinda McCall
I was checking usenet-addresses for "McCall" out of boredom with
help from MIT.edu.
One of the domain names happened to be mccall.com.
Well, I was curious! I was also kind of hoping to get an account
for the novelty value if nothing else.
My ideas as to the ownership of mccall.com:
1] McCall's magazine
2] McCall's Pattern company
3] Individual named McCall
4] Another company called "McCall" something.
So I wrote a nice gentleman named Terry Poot and he enlightened me
that #2 was the correct answer. He also must have heard about the
brouhaha over "mtv.com" because he assumed I wanted "mccall.com" as
my personal address. I do not.
What I learned: There is a mccall.com out there and at least one
nice person has an account there.
What else I learned: I need to be more clear if I find another
mccall.com (or similar), since they may also think I'm steamed over
the domain name. (Why?)
Then I went and took a nap. Too much information too fast.
Steve Patlan
In article <n9146070.769892141@animal>,
Jacob C Kesinger <n914...@animal.cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
>csho...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Chuck Shotton) writes:
>
>>Imagine the precedent this would set if it was allowed. Vanity license
>>plates, your phone number, your last name (McDonald, etc.) could all become
>>fair game for any big corporation that decides it wants to use some name
>>space that you already have a legitimate claim to. MTV, Inc. is WAY out of
>>line in this case. We can only hope this case is heard by a judge with a
>>brain and some small understanding of the technologies involved.
>
>I beleive Hutchinson Something or Other tried this a few
>years ago in Canada (I read it in that bastion of Canadian
>journalism, the Vancouver Province). They sued 20something smaller
>companies that had the word 'Hutchinson' in their names, supposedly
>because they felt it would confuse the public or some other
>such excuse.
I'm neither a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, so I'm not *about* to post
this to a group chartered by same. I'm also not about to delve into
graphical trademarks, color schemes, "look-and-feeel", etc. (Although an
interesting case in this vein, concerning a local==Houston restaurant
chain, was recently ruled on by the Supreme Court. Details available on
request.)
Anyway, MTV has the prior, legitimate claim (to their own name) in this
case. The point to consider in this situation is whether the use of the
same or even *similar* business or product name 'will create a confusion
in the mind of the consumer'. It does not matter whether or not the
confusion is deliberate, created to make the customer think they are
getting something they aren't - guarantee of quality, service, support,
nationwide network, whatever. mtv.com's status as a music-related venture
is a big strike against Mr Curry. Name ownership is a hotly-contested
issue. The guidelines are kind of fuzzy (to me), and usually decided in
court. Some examples: 1) Apple had to license the name 'Macintosh' from
'McIntosh'. (Because people might associate the Mac with expensive stereo
equipment that looks like it was designed in the 60's? Duh!) 2) 'PC' is
owned by IBM. 3) Jefferson Airplane-Jefferson Starship-Starship. 'nuff
said. 4) While tooling up its producton line, Toyota almost had to drop
the name 'Lexus' because of similarity to MDC's 'Lexis' info service. I'm
so confused! 5) You can copyright a song's lyrics, but not its title.
Hence, in theory you could release 3 minutes of cats in heat as 'Stairway
to Heaven'. In practice you would get the pants sued off of you. 6) I
work at the Johnson Space Center, and am surrounded by businesses like
"NASA Travel", "NASA Lube", "NASA Motel", etc. There is *no* confusion in
the mind of the customer. 7) Columbia School of Broadcasting, not
affiliated with Columbia U or CBS.
I would appreciate non-flammable commentary on 1), 2) and 5), since I
might have some details wrong. You can't believe everything you read,
especially if it was written by Dvorak's ilk [1].
Speaking of technology and judges, Collier's(correct name?)
recently-issued patent on the basics of CD-ROM technology would have
forced everybody else to pay them $$$$$. After a storm of protest, the US
Patent Office took the unprecedented action of reviewing the
issue/validity of the patent. Yea!
Steve Patlan
tex...@io.com
Steve Patlan
mathew <mat...@mantis.co.uk> wrote:
>It is common practice to register company names which big companies
>are likely to want, and then sell them at a profit.
>
>For example, one might go to Russia and register "IBM Russia" as a company
>name, and then sell the rights to the name to IBM when they start an
>operation in Russia.
>
>There are in fact people who make a living this way. I can imagine it
>might end up similar with domain names.
>
This happened to Blue Bell ice cream as they were navigating the
labarynthian adminstrative channels for entering the almost impervious
Japanese market (read "Rising Sun", it's a real eye-opener). Some
unscrupulous operator had already registered the name *and* Blue Bell's
graphic logo.
Steve "The little creamery in Brenham" Patlan
tex...@io.com
Malinda McCall
files written by Adam Curry on the subject. Note that I have no
files written by MTV on the subject because they have no grasp of
the Internet at this time (supposedly).
[IMAGE] ADAM CURRY QUITS MTV
==========================================================================
May 11 25 1994
_EMail sent to me regarding my resignation is here._
==========================================================================
Read about MTV's lawsuit against me here
==========================================================================
_April 25 1994_
I made a very important decision today, as I was driving to the MTV studios in
New York to tape the Top 20 Countdown, I thought about how the world around me
has been changing so rapidly, and how I have been an integral part of a lot of
that with mtv.com on the net.
The net is surpassing all traditional media, with it's ever increasing global
audience, the power is unlimited, and it's in the hands of the people, finally!
I felt totally wrong being part of such a revolution, if I may call it that, by
at the same time, still clinging on to an icon of the 80's...a video channel
that really hasn't had much of the "M" in it's name lately. And I found myself
intro-ing Beavis and Butthead, and other "comedy" shows.
So I taped almost all of the Top 20 countdown, and announced that I was
quitting right before the #1 video. I'm going to devote most, if not all of my
time now to the net, and my site on it, and to the expansion of this new
frontier.
In the past 6 and a half years that I worked at MTV, I grew into a "family" of
production peple, who I will miss dearly, but at the same time I am making
literally hundreds of new aquaintances daily in cyber-space.
For prosterity's sake, my final show airs Friday (April 22) at 8pm and again on
Saturday at 10am.
You're going to see alot of major improvements to mtv.com (including the name)
in the next couple of weeks, and all suggestions are very welcome, this is your
place on the net too.
Keep The Vibe Alive.
Adam Curry ad...@mtv.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
I-Quit!, Adam Curry
[IMAGE] MTV CENSORS CURRY
==========================================================================
April 24 1994
By now many of you reading this know that on April 21st 1994 I resigned from
MTV. I'm trying to keep the "Mud-Slinging factor" as low as possible, but
couldn't let this one slip by:
MTV, for whatever reason, decided to edit out my resignation from the show I
did it on, The Top 20 Video Countdown. There really wasn't that much to it,
nothing negative, quite the opposite in fact.
So bear this in mind, if MTV is willing to censor someone who has worked for
and with them for over six years, what are they doing to everybody else?
Keep The Vibe Alive!
Adam Curry ad...@mtv.com
MTV Censors, Adam Curry
[IMAGE] I AM NOT ALONE!
==========================================================================
Last update: April 25 1994
_My resignation from MTV has brought an onslaught of letters, here is just a
sampling of them, chosen at random, uncensored :)_
=============================================================
o Just want to congratulate you on quitting from that pitiful
network of corporate pigs! I'm glad to see someone who shares my
opinion of that piece of shit network. MTV is no longer a network
of change, but a network of public appeasement. No controversy,
nothing. All they seem to care about is keeping out of trouble.
Lame... Certainly not the way to lead a generation into the 21st
century. You got the right idea man! Keep up the good work! And
one thing I've learned from my work in the growing US demo scene
(well, I'll have to explain that to you in another message) is
DON'T LET THE LAMERS GET YOU DOWN! Kick some ass... Good luck! [-]
Daredevil/Renaissance [-] dare...@dorsai.dorsai.org
=============================================================
o Congrats on leaving MTV. MTV has become totally lame. The net will
give you an opportunity to do what you want to do, not what a
bunch of sneaker and soft-drink manufacturers want you to do.
=============================================================
o Adam - I just found the WWW link to mtv.com. I'm impressed, keep
it up. As for leaving MTV, I'm glad to see you're moving beyond
that.
RPRPRP
=============================================================
o Hi Adam!
I read on mtv.com that you where quitting MTV. I don't have access
to MTV anymore but I use to, I'm sad that you are leaving! But I'm
glad that you won't quit writing on mtv.com! Will mtv.com change
it's name now? If so I would like to know so I won't miss
anything! I have written to you before but I haven't recieved
anything back. I was wondering what happened to the letters
Nirvana fans wrote in to you. I wrote but I can't find anything
about it! Please Adam, can't you make a new update on Cobain's
suicide with more letters? Thanks!
Ps! I really like what you are doing, thanks! Ds!
=============================================================
o Adam, Great choice you made!!! You're absolutely right about the
net being much better than traditional media. If you miss the
production staff at MTV, just try if you can talk some of them
into the internet-thing. I'm sure they are modern people too. Only
one thing about the name: please make sure to announce it early on
mtv.com, and keep mtv.com as a synonym for some time, or else a
lot of people who happen to be on holiday, or whatever, will have
a lot of trouble locating the new site. Keep up the good work,
greetings,
Marco van den Boogaard, Student at the Nijmegen University, The
Netherlands.
=============================================================
o Recently, I sent Gary a cover letter and my resume for the job
opening that was offered through the internet at mtv.com. I don't
want to bother you with that, so I'll make this short. My applause
to you for quitting Mtv and recognizing the true importance of the
internet! The step that you have just taken will prove to be quite
fruitfull. As the net grows and more people are linked to it, we
will see wonders never before imagined. Your devotion to the net
will make you a key player in this new social arena. The evolution
of cyber-space will be as liberating to society in the near future
as the printing press was during the middle ages. Keep up the good
work, and NEVER look back!
Respectfully,
Eric Bucher (buc...@rpi.edu)
=============================================================
o *dear* adam, i must congratulate you on finally choosing to quit
mtv and move on to greener pastures. i have long been thinking
that mtv was going the way of the dodo, and am glad that i'm not
the only one. good luck to you in gopher space. i think that it is
a really cool idea and one that should be taken far. sincerely,
maureen flood ((aka. mo)) **********It may be that those who dream
most, do most.********************* -?Robert Cody?
=============================================================
o Welcome to the net, Adam! I hope you find excitement and growth
here. (I've always found it a pretty staid place full of papers on
multitasking and so forth.)
---------------------------
------------------------------------------- Andy Oram O'Reilly &
Associates, Inc. an...@ora.com 90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA
02140-3244 (617) 499-7479 USA fax:(617) 661-1116
------------------------------------------------
----------------------
=============================================================
o I'm really sorry to hear about your exit from MTV. But I gotta say
that I agree with your concern about the music missing from the M
in MTV. I have no problem with Beavis and Butthead. But, I'd
rather be checking out the latest in music not comedy when I
switch to MTV.
Anyway, I wish you the best in your future endeavours.
-Lewis
=============================================================
o YOU QUIT???
Are you still gonna do the Top 30 Hitlist??
Matt .. WXBA
Hey, since you got more time now, are you sure you dont wanna be a
guest on my show??? Matt...
=============================================================
o It makes me feel a little better about the world when I see people
such as yourself taking a bit of a stand against the garbage that
media has become, especially MTV. THe only respectable thing that
I've seen done there in a long time was the coverage of Kurt
Cobain's death.
-DAVE!!!
cain...@student.msu.edu
=============================================================
o Hello Adam, I only recently have started nosing around the
internet, but one of the first things I noticed and really enjoyed
was MTV.com. I read you notive on quiting and feel that is a very
commendable thing to do. I am impressed by what you have done on
the internet and look foreward to seeing what you do now that it
will be one of your main projects. I think a name change might be
a good idea. I've told my friends abo mtv.com and they hear MTV
and automatically think "corporate". I tell them that you actually
run the board and there are no money grubing execs involved, but
other people might not realize this. Keep up the good work, Erick
Clark,
=============================================================
o That's the trick, they taste sweet, but too many of them puts you
out like a light! ;)
=============================================================
o Adam,
I read on mtv.com that you are leaving MTV to devote your time and
energy to mtv.com. I just wanted to say that I, for one, really
appreciate the mtv server (it is right up my alley) as much as I
shun MTV itself... don't get me wrong, I like music videos, and
even veejays to a certain extent, but there's too much "hip"
advertising and bullshit like lip-synching contests or beach
parties and the like. In fact, despite the praise MTV has earned
for its coverage of Kurt's death, I heard about it initially and
received all of my subsequent information about it from the net,
and especially from mtv.com. You are absolutely correct when you
characterize the net as the most diverse and widely expanding
multimedia forum availible to the public. I hope that mtv.com will
play at least as great a role in this forum as MTV did in its own.
I come bearing criticism as well as praise, however. I "spoke"
with you about a month ago and we discussed mtv.com's great
potential (in its necessarily interactive nature) to transcend the
sort of corporate yoke that has been applied to MTV from the day
of its conception. This is not to say mtv.com should be rigorously
anti-establishment, nor should it endeavor in vain to project an
inauthentic "underground" veneer .... it is a pioneer in the
interactive realm of cyberspace, and that alone should be enough.
Unlike your average MTV viewer, the mtv.com explorer can design an
experience for him/her self, reading the sleaze, checking out new
tunes that seem interesting, doing whatever else is offered in the
near future. Anyway, I will cease babbling and hit you with the
criticism, your "UNSIGNED BANDS...LOOK HERE" link - it sucks. We
had also spoken earlier about a site for unsigned bands to post a
song, a bio, and thereby get some WORLDWIDE exposure (limited in
quantity, perhaps, but widely accessible). But Adam, Adam, I think
it is a bit too much to expect a band to pay $400 to post a song
and a bio on MTV.com for a year. I mean, I am barely scraping by
with my band... especially for something like this, which will
probably stir up a little grass roots interest, but won't provide
any cash return. That's just my .02 ... I think you're making a
good decision in leaving MTV, and I hope mtv.com prospers.
-S-
F =============================================================
o Succes!!!! ;-)
Hans Kramer (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam)
=============================================================
o Mr. Curry --
(Between you and me)
Just read I-quit.html after seeing the GNN announcement. Wow. I'm
impressed that you stayed with MTV so long, actually. I guess you
had hopes. But I think you're now where you belong.
I'm excited about the Web as well -- what an explosion of artists
(like a single person: http://www.willamette.edu/~jpatters/)! I
find myself trying to pull my division onto the edge, but they
just don't seem to get it, no matter how many brown bag
presentations I do. The future's arrival is always a strict litmus
test.
Good luck in your endevours -- you've got an e-contact out in
Portland now.
-- Eric Richards
=============================================================
o All I can say is good luck on your attempt to search the net and
improve your part of it! If I ever have the chance, I want to do
the same thing you are doing: set up my own site for others to use
and enjoy. However, unless I suddenly become independently wealthy
through the lottery, it will take me a while to meet that dream
(just a student right now). My real goal is to eventually
(years/decades from now) get a system like nyx.cs.du.edu set up in
mid-east WI (where I live) so that more people will have free
access to the net.
The only improvement i can currently think of for the www server
is to make the links have an "owner", so that people can directly
send a comment to the person who is running the link (like you)
without having to try to find their email address in a link
somewhere and sending them email outside of their WWW browser.
Thanks again for keeping the site up for everyone to use! -- Jeff
Bassuener |I| It reminds me of the way people in |I| the computer
industry use the word jef...@camelot.bradley.edu |I| "user," which
to them means "idiot." jbas...@nyx.cs.du.edu |I| - Dave Barry's
Greatest Hits
=============================================================
o Just read your "post" on rec.arts.tv.. say it ain't so that you
are quitting MtV? We here on the net aren't worth it :) I mean I
don't have cable but when I do see MtV you and a few others seemed
to have kept it running. I don't think I have seen a video on
there in over a year. so I really don't know what all they are
playing?
So what really made you decide to quit MtV? and are you still
gonna keep the mtv.com (www) at least? what is MTV's thought on
you keeping the name even when you aren't affiliated with them any
more?
Hope to hear from ya soon.
Chuck "Just another string of binary over the lines" Evans
From jlro...@uncc.edu Fri Apr 22 18:46:13 1994 Re
=============================================================
o I'm sure it must have been a tough decision to quit. You're right
in saying that MTV and the internet have little to do with each
other. One is very close to a democracy (depending upon your
sysadmin's policies), while the other has gained the reputation as
the largest commercializing demon in America: the corporate giant
behind "alternative". Out here, there is no single ruling body.
So, I wish you luck in your new found life. Your presence here is
one of the things that brings the net closer to the common user.
It is a good introduction the fact that one does not have to be a
geek to use the internet. Let's make this the much heralded
information highway. The vehicle should be able to pass
information in both ways, upstream and downstream. The television
is too limited for democratic use, much to the dismay of cable
companies that wish to feed us 500 chanels of staggered
pay-per-view. They (probably incl. MTV) do not like the
decentralization of power / information. Not good for sponsors,
you know?
So, Congrats on the decision. The WWW server looks great ('cept
for the three cyber-sleaze pointers to the same file).
James Robinson
=============================================================
o First, I'd like to say that I think it is great that you'll be
devoting more time to making mtv.com all that it can be. I'm sure
you'll be missed, at mtv, but you have to make the choices that
are best and all of that... I can't wait to see what kind of stuff
you'll come up with.
I was wondering: do you know how one could get ahold of e-mail
adresses of celebrities (spec. musicians) who use the net? Is
there a list, or a system for searching if you don't have a clue
where to begin looking? There are a few people I have in mind, but
I specifically want to find out if I can send messages to a guy
named Cecil Adams. He writes a news paper column called 'The
Straight Dope' which is hilarious. It's in book form (two books,
actually) and if you've never heard of it or read it, I HIGHLY
recommend it. Anyway, people write him questions (interesting
and/or bizarre) and he answers them. I have a couple I'd like to
ask, and e-mail would be such a convenient way to do it. Anyway, I
would really appreciate any direction you could give me, even if
only to point me to someone else. I know you must be busy right
about now.
thanks, and good luck!!!
brad
=============================================================
o Wow, the times are a-changin'. Well, I am glad that you are making
a change that is making you happy. I must say that reading that
piece of mail in my mailbox moved me. I feel like I grew up
watching you, through high school and college. But, I felt glad
that you are leaving, because I really don't watch the channel
much any more, as it has seemed to evolve into something in which
my interests do not lie. Way too commercial, ya know?
Well, goodbye for now, good luck and best wishes! As I am moving
into the world of PR, maybe our paths will cross someday.
The times are definitely a-changin'.
Gretchen Haffermehl
=============================================================
o Adam, I am so happy to hear of your decision! You have been the
one high point left of "MTV", but I've found the channel in
general difficult to enjoy over the past few years.
Good luck in your new ventures!
Robyn Pullar Tucson, Arizona
=============================================================
o Congratulations on outlasting most of your contemporaries at Mtv.
Something that can't be said for many. You still doing your radio
show, or did you quit that as well (if so I better inform my
higher ups at WUVA 8-) )?
I hope everything works out in the future....
Good luck and godspeed....and thank god you may never have to do
an introduction for Eric Nies again 8-)
-- |Jeff Hawkins- Trombonist, Virginia Pep Band "We're not the
ones who suck" |"Remember son, in sports it's not whether you win
or lose, it's how drunk | you get"-Homer Simpson "They don't look
like |All Hail Dr. Teeth & the Electric Mayhem- Presbyterians to
me"
=============================================================
o Hi, I just saw the news on the www page about your resignation
from mtv. Another of what I sort of think of as the 'old-guard'
gone. Still, mtv _doesn't_ seem as fun to me as when I was going
to college, as you say with beavis and butt-head :(, I taped one
of those for a friend in new zealand, his reaction was 'people
_watch_ this stuff??' and what I have been noticing since last
winter as the sort of insidious erosion of the saturday night
head-bangers ball, from 1 hour countdown, 2 hour show to 2hour
show, 1/2 hour enter the pit, to 2 hour show, sometimes preempted
by beavis and butthead. sigh sigh sigh. Good luck!! gsarff
@wicat.com gary sarff
=============================================================
o From: Anthony Adam
Just read your statement on the 'net--good for you! My friends and
I have been complaining for years about the lowering quality of
programming on MTV, what with eternal re-runs of B&B, the lack of
variety (how many times can anyone watch the sameAerosmith video
in one day?) in music, and the growing number of non -music
features (House of Style? C'mon!). My students and I here at the
university have become addicted to the daily Sleaze reports, and I
for one would appreciate more international coverage. Why is it
that we only hear about the rest of the world if it meets up with
Paul Simon, Sting, or Michael Jackson? The Kronos Quartet is much
more aware of world music than MTV International. Anyway, keep up
the good work!
=============================================================
o Adam, What a suprise to find a note from a famous VJ on the
Netnews. It compelled me enough to respond. I feel exactly the way
you do about the evolution of MTV. I think the powers that be that
run the empire need to re-examine what MTV stands for. Due to the
gross changes the station has gone through in the past year, I
never EVER tune in anymore expect for 120 minutes and Alternitive
Nation (when I can find it). MTV has gone from a slick hip channel
to an embarrassing one. Beavis and Butthead is just one example. I
don't mind stand comedy, but doesn't MTV have a sister station
called Comedy Central for that purpose. You don't see music videos
and concerts on that channel. But the worst shows by FAR has to be
those moronic game shows. Lip Service I believe one is called and
now that new one, Trashed? Or is it Thrashed?? All should be
trashed. I applaud you for your stand and moving on. You were gone
for awhile, what provoked you to return? Anyway best of luck and
in the meantime, I'll just pray for a music channel that plays
just that! ......... Rob Clark * * Robert
=============================================================
o Hey Adam, Congrats on leaving MTV, as much as I love videos, I
hate commercials, I despise Red Johnny and the Round Guy, and I
miss all of the great music that they used to play. It will be
exciting to watch the net unfold, you've done a lot of great stuff
and managed to keep it free. Thanx ever so much. Erynn B.
=============================================================
o I congratulate you on your decision. I'm not really an anti-MTV
kinda guy (currently a no TV kinda guy, actually), but I'm always
impressed when people are able to make large scale decisions such
as yours. It's truly wonderful when choices can be made based on
feelings, morals, and beliefs rather than solely on money.
I'm not going to babble. I just wanted to tell you that I respect
your strength to make such an intelligent decision. If only the
whole world could think that way...
- Bill
=============================================================
o Adam.......... Way to go! I'm not suggesting we all throw down our
arms and join the revolution however, I applaud your decision to
throw away life as you know it and head for something new and
exciting. I've done it more than once and have a great deal of
respect for others who choose to do likewise and better their
lives.
What you got is what you chose. To get what you want.........
choose it!
Good luck!
Roger Portland, OR
=============================================================
o So I guess congratulations are in order... Sounds like you're
right on track.
=============================================================
o Dear Adam, I understand and back your decision to quit MTV. I will
miss seeing you and I want you to know that I have enjoyed your
time on the air since you've been there. Will you be doing NY
radio or are you leaving commercial media altogether? I'll keep it
short. Thanks for the enthusiasm and thanks for starting up the
mtv gopher.
Sincerely, Jon D. Crow
=============================================================
o Hi Adam,
Sorry to hear from you leaving MTV! But since you're going at work
in Cyberspace it'll mean another person contributing to the fun of
travelling around.
Thanks for the clips and have lots of fun!
Succes Robert.
=============================================================
o Adam,
I just wanted to write a little note to say GOOD LUCK and
congratulations on your decision to leave MTV. I think that you're
right on the mark by saying that the cyberspace world is here to
stay and that it will grow. I read your "sleaze" section every
day, and being up here in Canada, I really find out a lot of dirt
on my favorite artists, without leaving my desk. This thing is
great. Besides, I can now tell great stories at parties, (well
actually, I sort of new how to do that before) but now, they're
really good, full of juicy details, as well as the prerequisite
"oratory embellishment"! HA! HA!
Anyways, I look forward to reading the new site, and finding out
about everything down south, even though New York isn't that far
from Montreal. I really hope you'll keep the sleaze section, as
well as the quote of the day. Will the new site be anounced at the
present site? Will Ken still contribute occasionally? I'll get
looking at the site for more news, or you can send me a space buzz
at my address.
Good Luck,
Goher Ahmad ahm...@ERE.UMontreal.CA
=============================================================
o Good for you. Finally, some of the people who WORK there are
thinking some of the same stuff I've been thinking about MTV for a
long time. There's too much absolute SHIT (The Real World, Beavis
and Butt-head, The Grind, I'm sure there's more that I can't think
of), and not enough of what there's supposed to be: MUSIC. MUSIC
VIDEOS. (OK, so the Grind is music...I guess...I just hate that
Eric guy sooooo much...) I'm sorry to see you (and John Norris? I
heard they didn't renew his contract...) go, because it probably
means I'll be seeing more of Kennedy (OK, sometimes she's funny,
but it's the same thing with Pauly Shore. Enough is ENOUGH). But
I'm glad you realize that MTV is really going to hell, and you got
off the boat before the hole got too big. Good luck, I'm sure I'll
see you here and there on the net. Later.
-Tyler
The opinions expressed in the above article reflects blatant bias
on the part of the author, and should not be taken seriously. So
deal with it.
=============================================================
o Hey Adam! You finally got some sense! MTV is going down hill fast,
and I'm glad that you're not going with them. Hey, any station
that would hire Kennedy doesn;t deserve you.... Good luck!
Robyn Hansen hans...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
=============================================================
o Hey Adam,
My name is Jeff Unger, I am a UNIX System and Networking
Administrator for the Scientific Research Laboratories at Ford
Motor Company -- I ve actually got a couple of minutes to spare
and cruise the web through my Mosaic server, which is a rarity !!
I just stumbled onto your server and thought it was pretty cool.
Iam in my late Twenties, so I geuss you could say I grew up with
you guys on MTV. I am a computer junkie, but even more so, a music
junkie. My dad tought me how to play drums when I was Six years
old, and Ive been Jammin ever since !!
I noticed that you quit MTV -- I am sure you'll miss all your
buddies, but I wish you the best of Luck with this Web Server
endeavor. I also agree with you on the fact that MTV is more
marketing then music. I have to admit I was never completely into
MTV -- I used to watch programs like 120 minutes, Liquid
Television, etc ... but most of the stuff is/was too Mainstream or
Rap oriented. I ve always been into more of an underground scene.
Love to see more Bob Marley on MTV !! Know what I mean.
CYBER POWER !! ALL INFORMATION SHOULD BE FREE
=============================================================
_______________________________________________________________________________
I-am-not-alone, Adam Curry
[IMAGE] MTV SUES CURRY
==========================================================================
Last update: May 10 1994
_New Jersey, May 10 1994_
I had planned to keep the following quiet until more information was available,
but since several journalists have already caught wind of it, I decided to get
it out into the open so my side of the story is heard as well.
The domain I maintain and operate on the Internet, mtv.com was founded
approximately one year ago. At that time I registered mtv.com with the
InterNIC, purely because it was a cool address to have, and it was available.
What a great "vanity plate"!
The site quickly became a frequently accessed "hangout" on the net, with an
average of 35000 accesses daily from Mosaic clients alone. During the start up
months I had many conversations with executives at MTV Networks about my
endeavours, which btw, were all financed out of my own pocket, and vps from MTV
Programming as well as Viacom New Media were aware of what I was doing on the
internet, and although they stated "MTV has no interest in the internet" they
gave me their blessing and supported my efforts.
This was enforced when I set up several email accounts on mtv.com for use in
MTV's on-air programming. Ever sionce the summer of '93, pop...@mtv.com was
used for trivia quiz questions, that were then aired on MTV's "Most Wanted" a
program I hosted at the time. Solicitations were made on the air, and the
address was shown on the screen. For MTV's annual Valentines video dedications,
viewers were offered the choice of calling in their dedications, or sending
them via email to el...@mtv.com.
I never charged MTV Networks for this service, I purely saw it as a cool
feature to introduce to MTV's programming, spreading the "gospel", so to speak.
Then I started to get a lot of press about mtv.com, and some people started to
wake up at 1515 Broadway (MTV's HQ in New York City). And I was served with a
"Cease and desist" on the use of mtv.com. MTV's attourneys claimed that there
could be "confusion" for users of the internet, when connecting to *anything*
that had the letters mtv in the adress, and then receiving music and
entertainment information. I was obviously hurt by this move, but did see what
point they were driving at, an asked if we could settle this matter amicably.
The situation cooled down for a couple of months, but when I resigned on-air
from my job as a VJ, which MTV chose not to air btw, things started to get
ugly.
Long story short, MTV Networks has filed a lawsuit against me, for copyright
infringement of their "trademark", that being their "MTV" call letters, as well
as having information onlie that was MTVN "property". In this case they are
refferring to several press releases I put up on mtv.com, such a an
announcement about Beavis and Butthead's "experience" cd release. Understand
that MTVN sent me these releases over their own internal computer network for
this very purpose! Again, I was only doing this to promote the channel, not for
my own personal gain..after all...mtv.com is free access for all, no charge.
Throughout all of this I have offered to maintain the site specifically for
mtv, but again they said "we're not interested". Ofcourse I have no problem
whatsoever removing all refrences to MTV Networks and it's projects from
mtv.com, no that I don't work there anymore gives me even more reason to want
to do this, but the kicker is they are moving for an injunction to make me stop
using the internet address mtv.com!
This is ofcourse totally unacceptable, I registered the domain name, and I
don't plan on giving it up. Sure MTV and their parent company Viacom have a
vast legal team, but david also nailed goliath, so I have faith. In the long
run, everyone knows that the only *true* winners will be the lawyers.
There are many different viewpoints on this situation, but I feel that the use
of mtv in an addressing scheme can't be seen as an infringement of
intellectulal propert laws, and a search of the InterNIC database shows at
least 15 domain names registered with mtv in the address. Irony is that I
incorporated a company called ON RAMP, Inc (tm) and onramp.com was already
registered to someone else, but I'm not suing them :)
It appears to me that MTV has their mind set on the address mtv.com, maybe not
for now, but posibly for future use, and I feel extremely used, in that I built
up quite an audience for that address, and they are basically saying "thank you
very much, you may go".
A pre-motion hearing is scheduled for this thursday morning at 11am, wit the
honourable Judge McKenna presiding, in an attemp to get an injunction to make
me stop using the address mtv.com. I will update the situation as it unfolds.
Adam Curry, ad...@mtv.com
==========================================================================
_______________________________________________________________________________
MTV Sues Curry, Adam Curry
[IMAGE] MTV LAWSUIT UPDATE
==========================================================================
_May 23 1994_
Once again time for a quick update on the lawsuit that MTV Networks filed
against me. It appears that we indeed have narrowed down the entire suit to
just one area. The address mtv.com, no matter the manner it is used, they are
willing to fight me for posession of it.
A couple of interesting sidenotes: within the next week we will be changing to
a new site, complete with a new name. mtv.com will remain a forwarding address
to get to our new site, this way no one will be left out. This doesn't mean I
throwing in the towel or anything, seeing as mtv.com will always be a "live"
site on the net. What I will put on it is not known right now, but its mine to
do with as I please.
So why continue to fight you might ask? Well, the mtv.com address is registered
to me, and if MTV thinks they can bully me or bury me in legal papers to get
it, then they are dead wrong. And the net HAS to know what the outcome of a
case like this will be, otherwise the courts will fill up immediately with
lawuits over "ownership" of domain names!
Some other interesting news, MTV is striking a deal with America OnLine to do
lollapalooza concert info and an usigned bands contest this summer...sound
familar?
New court dates are being set, I'll keep the updates coming ofcourse.
Again, than you all so much for the FLOOD of email coming in, I can't respond
to you all, but I am saving all email addresses to send updates to.
Keep The Vibe Alive,
Adam Curry
==========================================================================
_______________________________________________________________________________
MTV Lawsuit Update, Adam Curry
bill nelson
: >>
: >> An internet domain name is not a trademark.
: But "MTV" is a trademark.
:
: And an internet domain name that uses a trademark in a way that creates
: confusion is in violation of the Lanham Act.
So, someone is going to confuse an internet domain name with a television
show? Not likely. Maybe they should just follow Apple's example, and agree
to not broadcast music videos over their system.
: >>Check out what constitutes an
: >> enforcable trademark before you spout opinion. MTV has no legal claim on
: >> mtv.com.
:
: So I can start a television network called "MTV Com"? I don't think so.
That is a red herring. No one is proposing that a tv network or show be
named MTV.com.
: >Moreover, suppose that
: >they have a desire to be on the Internet today.... They
: >have as much claim to mtv.com as MTV does. Adam Curry
: >got it first.
:
: (1) Adam Curry got it first, while employed by MTV.
Now, this puts a different slant on things. I agree that this
makes the point debatable. If I had set up a domain server, since
I have no interest in MTV, then they would not have any cause for
action.
Bill
Helge Moulding
: [...] 5) You can copyright a song's lyrics, but not its title.
: to Heaven'. In practice you would get the pants sued off of you.
Mostly because of the justifiable confusion it would
cause in the consumer's mind.
--
Helge "Instead, you have to call it Felix Mendelsohn's
Fifth Symphony" Moulding
(Just another guy with a weird name)
Lee Rudolph
with a weird name .sigs:
> Helge "Instead, you have to call it Felix Mendelsohn's
> Fifth Symphony" Moulding
I was told we didn't have to discuss non-pseudo non-Jews in this group.
Lee "will not quarter political jeans for Levites" Rudolph
Luke David Welling
>Steve Patlan explains,
>: [...] 5) You can copyright a song's lyrics, but not its title.
>: Hence, in theory you could release 3 minutes of cats in heat as 'Stairway
>: to Heaven'. In practice you would get the pants sued off of you.
>Mostly because of the justifiable confusion it would
>cause in the consumer's mind.
Ahhhh,
It would only fool non-believers.
Real fans would know full well that Stairway goes for 7min55sec.
ObUL (T)
L. Z's Stairway to Heaven, arguably the most popular song of recent times,
never charted. The decision was made not to release it on single.
--
Luke Welling Melbourne, Australia
s92...@yallara.cs.rmit.oz.au
"Remember, society is to blame" - Andrew Denton
Kim Scheinberg
>h...@unislc.slc.unisys.com (Helge Moulding) writes:
>
>>Steve Patlan explains,
>>: [...] 5) You can copyright a song's lyrics, but not its title.
>>: Hence, in theory you could release 3 minutes of cats in heat as 'Stairway
>>: to Heaven'. In practice you would get the pants sued off of you.
In practice? Really? Except, Neil Sedaka wrote 'Stairway to Heaven'
kim "and I wouldn't want to see him without pants" scheinberg
--
Kim Scheinberg I was not interested in hearing his history because he
ik...@panix.com clearly enjoyed telling it too much. - J.S. B'ach
Brian Behlendorf
Chuck Shotton <csho...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994May25....@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) wrote:
>
>> a soft-drink called "Coca-Cola."
>
>enforcable trademark before you spout opinion. MTV has no legal claim on
In every way, a company that does business on the internet conducts itself
through its domain name. The domain name serves as an interface to their
catalogue, to contacting people within the organization... it's in every
way as vital to commercial recognition as a trademarked logo is. It's
*how*people*recognize*you*. If that's not coverable by trademark law, I
don't know what is.
Beyond that, as has been pointed out earlier, Adam's use for the letters
m, t, and v were never anything other than to represent Music Television,
Inc. If it had been for a completely different company, perhaps he
would have had a stronger case.
Brian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"They that can give up essential liberty to # br...@wired.com
obtain a little temporary safety deserve # bbe...@sfraves.stanford.edu
neither liberty nor safety" - Ben Franklin # http://www.wired.com/
Paul Chamberlain
>In every way, a company that does business on the internet
>conducts itself through its domain name.
Just like a phone number huh? You think they'll sue me if I start
offering music information at 1-800-CALL-MTV? What if it's not
music information? (Adam has said that Viacom no longer cares
whether he is doing music oriented stuff or not.) Don't you think
whoever gets that phone number has a right to use it (as long as
they don't say "We are the Music Television Network" or whatever
their real trademark is)? Keep in mind, Adam has very clearly
disclaimed a relationship with The MTV for quite some time.
Although I think "intent to mislead" should play a part in this,
I don't think Adam Curry even cares about USING the address. His
goal is to prove that they don't have a God-given right to mtv.com
anymore than they would to 1-800-CALL-MTV.
Adam, why don't you setup an area on your web server that is a
support group for Male TransVestites? A legitimate (and humorous
in some people's views) non-music reason to continue using "mtv",
although "com" is stretching it.
Hmm, y'know, this probably isn't very interesting to comp.infosystems.www.
--
Paul Chamberlain | <I do NOT speak for IBM!> | UNIX: t...@austin.ibm.com
IBM AWS, I/O Dev | 512/838-3759, IBM T/L 678 | IBM-VNET: TIF AT AUSTIN
Adam Curry
: Just like a phone number huh? You think they'll sue me if I start
: offering music information at 1-800-CALL-MTV? What if it's not
: music information? (Adam has said that Viacom no longer cares
: whether he is doing music oriented stuff or not.) Don't you think
: whoever gets that phone number has a right to use it (as long as
: they don't say "We are the Music Television Network" or whatever
: their real trademark is)? Keep in mind, Adam has very clearly
: disclaimed a relationship with The MTV for quite some time.
: Although I think "intent to mislead" should play a part in this,
: I don't think Adam Curry even cares about USING the address. His
: goal is to prove that they don't have a God-given right to mtv.com
: anymore than they would to 1-800-CALL-MTV.
Eureka, finally someone who understands!
: Hmm, y'know, this probably isn't very interesting to comp.infosystems.www.
Eureka again! :)
Adam
Ted Frank
>Paul Chamberlain (t...@austin.ibm.com) wrote:
>: Although I think "intent to mislead" should play a part in this,
>: I don't think Adam Curry even cares about USING the address. His
>: goal is to prove that they don't have a God-given right to mtv.com
>: anymore than they would to 1-800-CALL-MTV.
>
>Eureka, finally someone who understands!
They don't have a God-given right. They have a trademark right. Adam
Curry seems not to understand this, given his continual insistence
on phrasing this as a free speech issue when far more intrusive
trademark protections involving situations without a tenth as much
likelihood of confusion (remember the thread on "Olympic"?) have been
held Constitutional. An out-and-out infringement, where the name
"mtv.com" was intentionally chosen for its associations with the
MTV cable network, doesn't even come close. That Curry has discarded
his original tactic of claiming that MTV is reneging on the permission
they ostensibly gave him in lieu of this transparently bogus legal
argument makes this seem more and more like a publicity stunt.
The spectacle of a $1 million/year-"VJ" claiming to be David against
Goliath can be shown for what it's worth if someone a bit more ambitious
at prankstership than I were to start passing themselves off as "Adam
Curry" of CurryCo offering computer-based music information services all
the while railing and rebelling against corporate MTV.
--
ted frank "Nothing in this analysis turns on the nutritional value
the law skool of a Monterey Ranch Chicken Sandwich."
the u of c - 61 U.Chi.L.Rev. 650 n.45 (1994)
kibo#=0.5 Asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi--and I vote!
DaveHatunen
Paul Chamberlain <t...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>Brian Behlendorf <br...@tired.wired.com> wrote:
>>In every way, a company that does business on the internet
>>conducts itself through its domain name.
>
>Just like a phone number huh? You think they'll sue me if I start
>offering music information at 1-800-CALL-MTV?
Yes.
> What if it's not
>music information?
Probably.
> (Adam has said that Viacom no longer cares
>whether he is doing music oriented stuff or not.) Don't you think
>whoever gets that phone number has a right to use it (as long as
>they don't say "We are the Music Television Network" or whatever
>their real trademark is)?
No.
> Keep in mind, Adam has very clearly
>disclaimed a relationship with The MTV for quite some time.
Doesn't matter. Besides, he would never have chosen those letters if he
hadnt' been connected with MYV in the first place.
>Although I think "intent to mislead" should play a part in this,
>I don't think Adam Curry even cares about USING the address. His
>goal is to prove that they don't have a God-given right to mtv.com
>anymore than they would to 1-800-CALL-MTV.
No one said "God-given". We're talking the law. You're pissing upwind.
Check out what happened to a burger joint called McDharma Burger in
Santa Cruz California.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California: *
* where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *
*******************************************************
DaveHatunen
>Paul Chamberlain (t...@austin.ibm.com) wrote:
[...]
>: Although I think "intent to mislead" should play a part in this,
>: I don't think Adam Curry even cares about USING the address. His
>: goal is to prove that they don't have a God-given right to mtv.com
>: anymore than they would to 1-800-CALL-MTV.
>
>Eureka, finally someone who understands!
>
>
>: Hmm, y'know, this probably isn't very interesting to comp.infosystems.www.
>
>Eureka again! :)
A lot of us "understand". But all the understanding in teh world won't
change the legal consequences.
There are 17,576 possible permutations of the 26 letters used three at
a time. I'm almost certain you didn't choose "mtv" by random chance,
and neither will any court of law. Especially given your employment by
a company known world-wide as "MTV". And that means you will lose, when
push comes to shove.
Nadav Har'El
DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <Cqn7z...@austin.ibm.com>,
>Paul Chamberlain <t...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>>Brian Behlendorf <br...@tired.wired.com> wrote:
>>>In every way, a company that does business on the internet
>>>conducts itself through its domain name.
>>
>>Just like a phone number huh? You think they'll sue me if I start
>>offering music information at 1-800-CALL-MTV?
>
>Yes.
This is not a proper comparison: 1-800-CALL-MTV might by chance coincide
with 1-800-TERRIER (just an example - obviously this is not the same number).
Also, do you suggest that all numbers with MTV in them will be illegal?
evel ABMTVCD ? Note that that number is easy to remember (ABCD and a known
name MTV is easy to remember), but it is reduculous to say that it will be
an illegal number. Also, which company will veto the number 1-800-MTV-SONY ?
By the way, I think that the 'com' domain computers SHOULD be given accoring
to trademarks - i.e. a company may have a domain name which can be named
for and only for a registered trademark. This will stop people fighting
over names - since only one company (in the US) can have the same trademark.
I'd really hate sending important mail to sun.com (for example), only to
find later that sun stands for 'Stand-Up-Now Inc.', a company which does
not really exists.
After all, .com IS only for commercial companies. Someone who really wants
to be called mtv can always register a computer mtv.nj.us, mtv.uiuc.edu, or
whatever.
P.S.
don't get this wrong: I like adam curry's site. The only thing I
don't understand is why does he want it to be called mtv.com??
--
Nadav Har'El | ###### ######## # | <-- Sorry if
Email: n...@math.technion.ac.il | # # # | you can't
Department of Mathematics, Technion | # # # | read Hebrew.
Israel Institute of Technology | ######## # ###### | Nadav. ;)
Herbert Ruessink
Hoi Adam,
In <2seb45$m...@panix.com> cur...@panix.com (Adam Curry) writes:
>Paul Chamberlain (t...@austin.ibm.com) wrote:
>: Although I think "intent to mislead" should play a part in this,
>: I don't think Adam Curry even cares about USING the address. His
>: goal is to prove that they don't have a God-given right to mtv.com
>: anymore than they would to 1-800-CALL-MTV.
>Eureka, finally someone who understands!
I think this a real hornet's nest, and we'll not see the end of it for a
long time. I admire your idealism (let's not talk about Countdown,
though), and it doesn't even matter to me whether you're right or not.
You are standing up for a personal belief and that's good. I can't
fathom MTV's motives, but I have a good guess though: a trademark can be
lost if the owner fails to object to the use of closely similar marks by
others. If they don't take action against something that might possibly
be an infringement, then they stand to lose a lot. This explains their
"cease and desist", followed by a lawsuit when you refused. From their
point of view their actions were dictated by circumstance, at no point
did they have a choice (in the opinion of some legal executive, that
is).
But I also think MTV went about the whole thing in a stupid manner.
There are more ways than one to settle such matters. Before slapping
you with the "cease and desist" they could have told you what their
situation was and how they intend to solve it. That could have given
you the possibility to graciously accept a financial compensation. But
no, bring in the heavies (Did you have a guard standing by as you
cleared out your desk at the office? I'm always amazed when I see that
in US TV and movies).
As everyone is giving advice left, right and center I thought I'd also
dip in my oar. Don't be angry with a prehistoric corporate predator.
It's aggressiveness doesn't come from malice, but from a lack of oxygen
during birth. Go for a settlement. They'll pay anyway, whether to you
or to their legal advisers. If they pay you, even if it's peanuts, they
acknowledge your (partial) right to mtv.com. The beast has no morals,
and its pride cannot be hurt. If they can avoid a lengthy, expensive
lawsuit by paying you, they will. Make sure that even though you
presumably will not be allowed to disclose the amount involved, that you
can disclose that there was an arrangement and that you got money from
them. And that you take that as a backdown from their part.
You could also fight, there are interesting circumstances: they did not
object at first, which may construed as permission. They submitted
material for distribution through mtv.com, which may be construed as
support and acknowledgement. But if you fight you raise the stakes.
MTV will never back down, they cannot. It's not just mtv.com, but their
entire company that is at stake (as far as they are concerned). You
might win an initial lawsuit, but be prepaed to sell "any rights you may
have to mtv.com" to MTV immediately after that. They'll sue you till
either you or they run out of money.
And I'm not even talking about the hassle, stress and aggravation.
It'll make you suffer more than any one else involved. Again, I admire
ideals, and if they were acting out of malice, I'd say pull out the
stops, they are spoiling for a fight, and they can have it. I think
it's important to realise that this is not a personal matter for MTV.
My advice is, settle. Talk to your legal advisors, write a letter
offering to transfer "any rights you have or may have to the use of
mtv.com" to MTV for some ridiculous amount of money. They do a very low
counter offer, you double (or triple) that and you just sold them
something, which means they accept that it was yours in the first place.
I wish you the best,
Herbert.
Mike Meyer
> Paul Chamberlain (t...@austin.ibm.com) wrote:
> : I don't think Adam Curry even cares about USING the address. His
> : goal is to prove that they don't have a God-given right to mtv.com
> : anymore than they would to 1-800-CALL-MTV.
>
> Eureka, finally someone who understands!
Bad example. USL (I think they owned the trademark at the time)
managed to get a 1-800-xxx-UNIX number changed on the grounds that
they owned the UNIX trademark. I don't know if the loser could tried
to use 1-800-xxx-8649 instead of changing it.
<mike
Dan Newcombe
Does Music Television Inc. have a trademark on mtv ?
I know they have one on their logo, but do they have one on mtv (the three
letters?)
A defense for Adam:
He could claim that since his site was music related that it could be in no
way related to the cable channel, since we all know that they really don't
have anything to do with music anymore :)
-Dan, who is facing a lawsuit for having a file called mtv.txt availiable for
ftp. Kill the lawyers.
--
Dan Newcombe newc...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu
Clayton State College Morrow, Georgia
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"And the man in the mirror has sad eyes." -Marillion
Brad Templeton
A) Does MTV have a trademark on the mark MTV when it comes to broadcasting
and music information? I don't see how anybody can deny this. When
you hear MTV do you deny that people think of the cable channel?
B) Is there a possibility that members of the public will confuse
mtv.com with the services of the owner of the mark? Absolutely, in fact
there is nothing more cut and dried because when he was working for MTV
the whole purpose of calling it mtv.com was to associate it with the
owner of the mark! All the disclaimers in the world won't work on
somebody before they get to them. You can't simply make "IBM" computers
and plaster "This is not International Business Machines" all over your
ads and labels, it doesn't work.
C) Even if there is no confusion, does the use of the mark capitalize on
the fame and good name of the owner? Once again, yes. Even before
people see the disclaimers, they are likely to say, "Ah yes, MTV, I have
heard of them." MTV has the exclusive right to take advantage of that
hard-won fame to promote their activities.
It doesn't really matter that you can come up with examples where the
above things would not be true, ie. "What if it were 'Memory Technology
Vendors'? Could MTV (the broadcaster) sue them for using mtv.com?" No,
they probably couldn't. This is not relevant.
What is relevant is this case, and in this case there is confusion and
there is capitalization on a well known trade mark. I'm amazed at the
debate, from what I know of trademark law it's hard to find a more clear
case than this.
The only avenue I could see for Curry is if he could demonstrate that MTV
had abandoned the mark. But that's a tough one, since they look to have
protected it. They're only guilty, in some cases, of allowing the improper
use of MTV as a noun. (Nouns are not trademarks, only adjectives are.)
For example, "I want my MTV" is improper use of the mark, since MTV is used
as a noun. However, they could even claim that they own the mark "M"
applied as a brand of "TV". And yes, you can trademark a single letter,
but when you do you have to be DAMN sure you are using it as an adjective.
--
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp.
The net's #1 electronic newspaper (circulation 60,000) -- in...@clarinet.com
DaveHatunen
Nadav Har'El <n...@leeor.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>In article <hatunenC...@netcom.com>,
>DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <Cqn7z...@austin.ibm.com>,
>>Paul Chamberlain <t...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>Brian Behlendorf <br...@tired.wired.com> wrote:
>>>>In every way, a company that does business on the internet
>>>>conducts itself through its domain name.
>>>
>>>Just like a phone number huh? You think they'll sue me if I start
>>>offering music information at 1-800-CALL-MTV?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>This is not a proper comparison: 1-800-CALL-MTV might by chance coincide
>with 1-800-TERRIER (just an example - obviously this is not the same number).
>Also, do you suggest that all numbers with MTV in them will be illegal?
>evel ABMTVCD ? Note that that number is easy to remember (ABCD and a known
>name MTV is easy to remember), but it is reduculous to say that it will be
>an illegal number. Also, which company will veto the number 1-800-MTV-SONY ?
First, illegal is a bad word. It makes it sound like the cops will bust
down your door in the name of MTV. It may or may not be a civil
infringement, only the court case will decide for sure. Second, it
doesn't matter if you use 1-800-225-5689 (which is 1-800-CALL-MTV),
because then you have not infringed. It's the advertising of
1-800-CALL-MTV that infringes. And there's no point in it if you're not
going to advertise it. MTV can't make you lose the number; they can
make you drop the ad.
>By the way, I think that the 'com' domain computers SHOULD be given accoring
>to trademarks - i.e. a company may have a domain name which can be named
>for and only for a registered trademark. This will stop people fighting
>over names - since only one company (in the US) can have the same trademark.
>I'd really hate sending important mail to sun.com (for example), only to
>find later that sun stands for 'Stand-Up-Now Inc.', a company which does
>not really exists.
What is Stand-Up-Now really does exist? Who gets the domain name?
FRom a practical standpoint, I don't think the idea is workable. Fro
one thing, NIC would have to have a bigger staff. Bad idea, that.
>After all, .com IS only for commercial companies. Someone who really wants
>to be called mtv can always register a computer mtv.nj.us, mtv.uiuc.edu, or
>whatever.
--
Peter Berger
>>>
>>>Just like a phone number huh? You think they'll sue me if I start
>>>offering music information at 1-800-CALL-MTV?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>This is not a proper comparison: 1-800-CALL-MTV might by chance coincide
>with 1-800-TERRIER (just an example - obviously this is not the same number).
>Also, do you suggest that all numbers with MTV in them will be illegal?
The key question in trademark law is "Will the public be confused as to the
identity of the merchant/seller/etc." Adam's domain name does not "just
happen" to be mtv.com; he chose that name. In the case of the 800 phone
number: if you advertised as "1-800-225-5688", you would not be liable
because there is no reasonable possibility of confusion. But if your ads
said, "Call 1-800-CALL-MTV!", a reasonable person would probably think that
this is a service of MTV, and would thus be wrong/confused.
Now, I'm sure Adam's a nice guy, and I hate corporate bullying too. But
the first thing *I* thought when I saw "mtv.com" was "Oh, MTV opened up a
gopher? Cool!"
>name MTV is easy to remember), but it is reduculous to say that it will be
>an illegal number. Also, which company will veto the number 1-800-MTV-SONY ?
MTV doesn't and didn't have a "veto" over mtv.com. If the way Adam is
using it, however, infringes on their trademark, they may have a cause of
action against him. You lays your money down, and takes your chances.
>By the way, I think that the 'com' domain computers SHOULD be given accoring
>to trademarks - i.e. a company may have a domain name which can be named
>for and only for a registered trademark. This will stop people fighting
>over names - since only one company (in the US) can have the same trademark.
It would also screw over the thousands of US companies that only register
their trademarks with their states, and not Federally.
This posting is not and should not be construed to be legal advice of any
kind.
--
........................................................................
Peter G. Berger, Esq.
Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh
Internet: pet...@telerama.lm.com Phone: 412/481-3505 Fax: 412/481-8568
Mike Meyer
> ** On 31 May 1994 13:49:52 -0400, Peter Berger <pet...@lm.net> said:
>
> Nadav Har'El <n...@leeor.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>
> Nadav> given accoring to trademarks
>
> Peter> It would also screw over the thousands of US companies that
> Peter> only register their trademarks with their states, and not
> Peter> Federally.
>
> Not as much as it would screw over a company that DOES register with
> the federal trademark office, and then finds out that some state
> registered company already has the domain. Seems to me, if you want
> the domain name, (which will be used nationally, not just on the state
> level) you should file with the feds.
Domain names are used internationally, not just nationally.
This suggestion is incredibly silly. My company doesn't have to have a
registered trademark to pay taxes; my company doesn't have to have a
registered trademark to have employees; my company doesn't have to
have a registered trademark to bill people; my company doesn't have to
have a registered trademark to get billed by people. Why should I have
to have a registered trademark just to get electronic mail via the
internet?
You might as well require that companies use their tickertape symbol
as their domain name; possibly with a stock market symbol thrown in
in case of collisions. Except that excludes all privately held
companies from being in the .com domain.
Now, the feds *do* require me to have to have a tax number to do most
of the things I named. Requiring people to use their federal tax
numbers as domain names make more sense than requiring them to use a
registered trademark. Requiring that the domain name I use be
derivable from the business name I put down on the government
paperwork makes more sense - except that I am not required to use that
name when doing business.
Also, no matter which way you do it, you're going to screw over the
thousands of companies that *already* have .com domains, but don't have
registered trademarks, or have registered trademarks that are
product names intead of company names, or have tickertape symbols that
are unrecognizable to their customer base, or ...
<mike
Ted Rathkopf
Nadav Har'El <n...@leeor.technion.ac.il> wrote:
Nadav> By the way, I think that the 'com' domain computers SHOULD be
Nadav> given accoring to trademarks - i.e. a company may have a
Nadav> domain name which can be named for and only for a registered
Nadav> trademark. This will stop people fighting over names - since
Nadav> only one company (in the US) can have the same trademark.
Peter> It would also screw over the thousands of US companies that
Peter> only register their trademarks with their states, and not
Peter> Federally.
Not as much as it would screw over a company that DOES register with
the federal trademark office, and then finds out that some state
registered company already has the domain. Seems to me, if you want
the domain name, (which will be used nationally, not just on the state
level) you should file with the feds.
--
Ted Rathkopf -- rath...@cc.gatech.edu
This is very big news. It's important to know.
And that's why I'm bothering telling you so. -- Dr. Seuss
Sean Casey
shorter names are desirable because they're still mostly typed in by
hand. And trademark law applies to fuzzy matches. So if you assume
that trademark law covers internet addresses, then we're in for a
horrible time as the namespace gets used up.
Wired magazine (wired.com) got Women's Wire (wire.net) to change its
name because it was too "close" to Wired's trademark. They're not
even in the same domain! Will they throw lawyers at anyone who wants
to found weird.com?
Now that the lawyers are rubbing their hands together, is the only
recourse to give your company a 60 character name?
I don't think trademark law should apply to the internet namespace.
It's much too small and cramped for antisocial companies with deep
pockets to be constantly forcing everyone to change their name because
it sounds remotely like theirs.
And apparently, according to the advice of Wired's lawyers, it doesn't
even matter if you're in the same domain. Hell, they'll probably be
going after you even if you're in the UUCP domain.
Well hallelujah.
Sean
--
``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the commitment to
getting from here to there. But they are conditions for sailing -- not
something to be gotten rid of, but something to be danced with.''
Dan Newcombe
>Wired magazine (wired.com) got Women's Wire (wire.net) to change its
>name because it was too "close" to Wired's trademark. They're not
>even in the same domain! Will they throw lawyers at anyone who wants
>to found weird.com?
Gee...I guess I won't be naming my kid Wired for fear of a lawsuit now.
Yet more proof of why we should get rid of the lawyers.
Dan Newcombe
>for being in .com - i.e. being a COMpany called MTV (or MTV being a registered
>trademark nickname for it. Even though there might be a Mosaic-TeleVision
>company too, it couldn't also be known as MTV since that would certainly
>be a trademark infringement).
But is there a company named MTV? I know there is a Music Television, Inc.
which is owned by Viacom.
Frank Peters
>In article <draperk-01...@sam-b6.neosoft.com>,
>Draper Kauffman <dra...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>>Can't anybody in the US remember that the Internet is an _international_
>>network? None of the parochial arguments or proposals trotted out in this
>>discussion make any sense in a global context.
>>...
>
>As far as I know, .com is only for companies in the us (or international
>companies which started in the us, e.g. intel)!
This is incorrect. The .com (and .edu and other similar top level domains)
are not restricted to any country. Any company anywhere in the world can
request and obtain a .com domain.
> other countries have their
>own subdomain inside their country domain.
This is true. Most companies in countries other than the US have chosen
(or been forced by their local network connectivity providers) to register
within their respective companies national domain.
But its important to make the distinction. Companies in Israel are
registered within the .il domain because they have chosen to be, not
because they don't belong or are not allowed in the international .com
domain.
The US has its own .us domain just like other countries. We have simply,
for historical reasons, registered most of our companies in the international
domain rather than our national one.
> The same goes for educational
>sites (us got .edu, other countries use .edu.xy or similar). Of course
>this is very us-centric
Not at all. The fact that you chose to register in the .il domain is
Israel-centric and the .edu and .com domains are international. Its
the rest of you who are being nationalistic, not the US (in this
particular instance).
Of course, the real reason for the situation as it exists is that sites
outside of the US (back when the US was most of the internet) wanted
local control of name service and name delegation issues rather than
being dependent on servers that were (for historical, not nationalistic
reasons) located in the US.
The international .com domain is too flat (too many names at the second
level) and should probably be phased out. I guess we'll do that by
migrating eventually to names in the .us domain. So far that isn't
happening though.
Anyway, the point of all of this is that .com is not a US domain and an
Israeli (or what have you) company known by the initials MTV could
certainly register in it if they chose to do so.
--
Frank Peters - UNIX Systems Programmer - Mississippi State University
Internet: f...@CC.MsState.Edu - Phone: (601)325-7030 - FAX: (601)325-8921
Jack Campin
> Wired magazine (wired.com) got Women's Wire (wire.net) to change its
> name because it was too "close" to Wired's trademark. They're not
> even in the same domain!
I just emailed them to check this. It's true (though the present sysadmin
says he wasn't there when it happened). I thought only McDonalds pulled
that sort of crap.
What is Women's Wire, and what's its address now?
--
-- Jack Campin -- Room 1.36, Department of Computing & Electrical Engineering,
Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS
TEL: 031 449 5111 ext 4195 HOME: 031 556 5272 FAX: 031 451 3431
INTERNET: ja...@cee.hw.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL BANG!net: via mcsun & uknet
Harry Teasley III
: But is there a company named MTV? I know there is a Music Television, Inc.
: which is owned by Viacom.
One can trademark one's nicknames as well. A beverage product cannot
come out called "Coke" even though the company is Coca Cola. You should
see all the advertising nicknames Harley Davidson has trademarked. The
list in their catalogues goes on forever.
Harry "No one else wants to call a bike a Hog, though" Teasley
Nadav Har'El
>rath...@cc.gatech.edu (Ted Rathkopf) wrote:
>
>> ** On 31 May 1994 13:49:52 -0400, Peter Berger <pet...@lm.net> said:
>>
>> Nadav Har'El <n...@leeor.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>>
>> Nadav> By the way, I think that the 'com' domain computers SHOULD be
>> Nadav> given accoring to trademarks - i.e. a company may have a
>> Nadav> domain name which can be named for and only for a registered
>> Nadav> trademark. This will stop people fighting over names - since
>> Nadav> only one company (in the US) can have the same trademark.
>>
>> Peter> It would also screw over the thousands of US companies that
>> Peter> only register their trademarks with their states, and not
>> Peter> Federally.
>>
>> Not as much as it would screw over a company that DOES register with
>> the federal trademark office, and then finds out that some state
>> registered company already has the domain. Seems to me, if you want
>> the domain name, (which will be used nationally, not just on the state
>> level) you should file with the feds.
>
>network? None of the parochial arguments or proposals trotted out in this
>discussion make any sense in a global context.
>...
As far as I know, .com is only for companies in the us (or international
companies which started in the us, e.g. intel)! other countries have their
own subdomain inside their country domain. The same goes for educational
sites (us got .edu, other countries use .edu.xy or similar). Of course
this is very us-centric - but face it, the internet was started there,
and not in any other country you mention.
Of course, other countries should control their own com domain, and perhaps
administer it differently then the us .com domain, perhaps according to
that country's trademarks, or by some other standard it chooses.
This is the whole organization of the internet: every domain controls the
names of the subdomains in it - it's up to who administers the domain to
make intelegent decisions. So if I run a computer mtv.technion.ac.il I
think MTV has no right to object, if the technion decides it is ok. However
the name mtv.com, logically, should have been given in the first place by
whoever manages .com only to a person or persons which follow the criteria
for being in .com - i.e. being a COMpany called MTV (or MTV being a registered
trademark nickname for it. Even though there might be a Mosaic-TeleVision
company too, it couldn't also be known as MTV since that would certainly
be a trademark infringement).
--
Paul S. Wain
: This is incorrect. The .com (and .edu and other similar top level domains)
: are not restricted to any country. Any company anywhere in the world can
: request and obtain a .com domain.
Which of course leads to the intersting case...
Consider the Australian Brocasting Corp (Company?) and American
Brocasting Company. Both are international. Supose, then, that both the
international ABC's wanted a .com name, then obviously only one could
have it. The one that got there first.
Both are TV companies, both would have TV related information on their
servers, BUT ONLY ONE COULD BECOME abc.com.
If ABC (US) got there 1st could ABC (Aust) sue them in Australia? Or if
ABC (Aust) got there before ABC (US) and registered it in Australias
could they be sued in the US?
I think not somehow. It really needs to be a 1st come 1st served system
to work internationally. I just somehow think that the lawyers in the US
wont quite see it that way.
Paul
(still thinking that someone is being pedantic over all this but the
issue is probably still relevant...)
--
.-------------------------------------------------------------------------.
|_______Paul_S._Wain,_(X.500_Project_Engineer_and_WWW/HTTP_chappie),______|
| Computer Centre, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middx., UB8 3PH, ENGLAND. |
|___VOICE:_+44_895_274000_extn_2391_______EMAIL: Paul...@brunel.ac.uk __|
| http://http2.brunel.ac.uk:8080/paul/ |
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
David Lesher
>Consider the Australian Brocasting Corp (Company?) and American
>Brocasting Company.
>Both are TV companies, both would have TV related information on their
>servers, BUT ONLY ONE COULD BECOME abc.com.
Nope. The one with the good beer would be moc.bca.......
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close)....kibo# 777............pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead..............vr....................20915-1433
HALLAM-BAKER Phillip
|>If ABC (US) got there 1st could ABC (Aust) sue them in Australia? Or if
|>ABC (Aust) got there before ABC (US) and registered it in Australias
|>could they be sued in the US?
|>
|>I think not somehow. It really needs to be a 1st come 1st served system
|>to work internationally. I just somehow think that the lawyers in the US
Simple:
abc.com.usa
abc.co.au
The usa namespace does exist (it might be US). It dosen't get used much
because many people in that country are unaware of the existence of
other countries.
On the other hand CNN and MTV both come in strong on my Satelite TV. If any
companies have a right to an unqualified .com name they do.
In the UK companies must get special permission to register names with
International in the title. This is to stop them from giving themselves
agrandisments. I think the same should apply to .com on the internet.
Unless a company has offices in more than two nations or does more than
$1million overseas trade I don't think they should have an unqualified
name.
--
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
Not Speaking for anyone else.
Brad Templeton
>> Wired magazine (wired.com) got Women's Wire (wire.net) to change its
>> name because it was too "close" to Wired's trademark. They're not
>> even in the same domain!
This sounds stupid until you say these names aloud instead of writing
them down.
"wired.com" sounds almost identical to "wire.com" and "wire.net" sounds
very much like "wired.net" which one could easily think refers to Wired
Magazine.
That's the test of trademark law -- is the public likely to confuse
the names. If people hear "wire-dot-net" and might think "Is that Wired
magazine's net?" then you have a trademark problem.
YuNoHoo
: >c...@pilot.njin.net (Sean Casey) writes:
: >> Wired magazine (wired.com) got Women's Wire (wire.net) to change its
: >> name because it was too "close" to Wired's trademark. They're not
: >> even in the same domain!
:
: This sounds stupid until you say these names aloud instead of writing
: them down.
:
: "wired.com" sounds almost identical to "wire.com" and "wire.net" sounds
: very much like "wired.net" which one could easily think refers to Wired
: Magazine.
:
: That's the test of trademark law -- is the public likely to confuse
: the names. If people hear "wire-dot-net" and might think "Is that Wired
: magazine's net?" then you have a trademark problem.
Reminds me that IBM didn't register "Big Blue" as trademark in Norway.
However, it does sound strange that it's possible to register "wire"
and "wired" as trademarks. Wrt the "wired.com" and "wire.net" I'm utterly
confused - this could only happen in the US. I'd better hurry to get my
Moose TV node registered (mtv.com.no) at once.
---
YuNoHoo "next thing Wired will go after the World Wired Web"
Clay Shirky
>This sounds stupid until you say these names aloud instead of writing
>them down.
Ya know, even then it sounds kinda stupid. If you say them really
really fast over and over, it sounds even stupider.
>"wired.com" sounds almost identical to "wire.com" and "wire.net" sounds
>very much like "wired.net" which one could easily think refers to Wired
>Magazine.
Why would you say a net address out loud?
>That's the test of trademark law -- is the public likely to confuse
>the names.
I think that we're going to need to arrest Maddie, Helge and Ny then,
if having names which confuse the public is a crime.
Clay "and if trademark is covered by the Berne convention,
we can finally nab Serdar Argic" Shirky
--
Clay Shirky
Frank Peters
>Frank Peters (f...@CC.MsState.Edu) wrote:
>: This is incorrect. The .com (and .edu and other similar top level domains)
>: are not restricted to any country. Any company anywhere in the world can
>: request and obtain a .com domain.
>
>Brocasting Company. Both are international. Supose, then, that both the
>international ABC's wanted a .com name, then obviously only one could
>have it. The one that got there first.
Sure. Both have equal claim to the name. If the Australian ABC gets
there first then the US ABC has no grounds for complaint.
Note, however, that this is not at all similar to the Curry-MTV case.
Curry is (at least in the US) famously associated with MTV and was
employed by them when he got the name mtv.com. He has no reason
besides his association with MTV for choosing this name. And he stored
music information there. You can't create a hypothetical case without
all of these factors and expect it to be particularly relevant to the
issues.
>I think not somehow. It really needs to be a 1st come 1st served system
>to work internationally. I just somehow think that the lawyers in the US
>wont quite see it that way.
In general I agree. The problem is when a degree of association exists
which is likely to cause confusion in the minds of the public.
HALLAM-BAKER Phillip
|>Why would you say a net address out loud?
Because I have a voice activated computer.
Dan Newcombe
>Note, however, that this is not at all similar to the Curry-MTV case.
>Curry is (at least in the US) famously associated with MTV and was
>employed by them when he got the name mtv.com. He has no reason
>besides his association with MTV for choosing this name. And he stored
Oh...so other sites, such as...hmmm...well let's make some up here.
Let's say I came up with a site named Barlo.Net for no reason other than it
sounded cool.
Then along comes some company (Barlo and Son's Inc.) who feel because they
have more association with the name than I do they should get it.
Yes, Adam did have music stuff on his site, which is more than you can say for
MTV (Beavis & Butthead, The Real World, etc...)
Dan Newcombe
>|>Why would you say a net address out loud?
>Because I have a voice activated computer.
All the voice activation I've seen, if I said wired.com or wire.net out loud,
I'd probably still get connected to
ftp.cica.indiana.edu
Frank Peters
>In article <2t2e7i$a...@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu> f...@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes:
>
>>Note, however, that this is not at all similar to the Curry-MTV case.
>>Curry is (at least in the US) famously associated with MTV and was
>>besides his association with MTV for choosing this name. And he stored
>
>Oh...so other sites, such as...hmmm...well let's make some up here.
If you make up an example try to make it as similar as possible to the
real case. Otherwise you risk making it irrelevant.
>Let's say I came up with a site named Barlo.Net for no reason other than it
>sounded cool.
Did you read the sentence underlined above? Do you understand it? Does
a company named Barlo exist now? Do you work for them now? Are you
famous to thousands, perhaps millions of viewers as an employee of this
company named Barlo? Do you provide information on this barlo.net
server associated with the function of the Barlo company? All of this
things are true of the relationship between Adam Curry, Mtv and
mtv.com. Curry did *NOT* choose mtv.com "for no reason other than it
sounded cool". He chose it specifically because of his association
with Mtv.
Your example has no bearing whatsoever on this case.
Maddie!
>
>>That's the test of trademark law -- is the public likely to confuse
>>the names.
>
> I think that we're going to need to arrest Maddie, Helge and Ny then,
> if having names which confuse the public is a crime.
>
Well, I don't know where Helge and Ny are from, but y'all
are going to have to find a lot of hand-cuffs to arrest
nearly everyone in South Louisiana for having confusing names!
Maddie "But Officer, how can you book me if you can't
spell my name?" Boudreaux
DaveHatunen
Dan Newcombe <newc...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu> wrote:
>Oh...so other sites, such as...hmmm...well let's make some up here.
>Let's say I came up with a site named Barlo.Net for no reason other than it
>sounded cool.
>
>Then along comes some company (Barlo and Son's Inc.) who feel because they
>have more association with the name than I do they should get it.
And, even though you had prior claim, Barlo will decide it really,
really wants the name. They will have their expensive lawyer send you a
temporary restraining order with a court date for a hearing on a
permanent injunction. And they will have all their high price lawyers
let you know it is going to cost you a great deal of money to defend
your domain name, win or lose. And you will piss and moan about how it
just ain't fair, because, in truth, it really ain't fair, but you will
be giving up the domain name just the same.
Just ask some guy named Charlie MacDonald who used to have a hamburger
joint in Podunk.
David DeLaney
>cl...@panix.com (Clay Shirky) writes:
>|>Why would you say a net address out loud?
>
>Because I have a voice activated computer.
Interesting; can people with such devices be sued for slander on the basis
of UseNet postings, I wonder?
Dave "Yes, I did not mean libel" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney: d...@utkux.utcc.utk.edu; "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. Disclaimer: IMHO; VRbeableFUTPLEX
http://enigma.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ for net.legends FAQ+miniFAQs; ftp: cathouse.org
YuNoHoo
: Paul "S." Wain <Paul...@brunel.ac.uk> says:
: >
: >Consider the Australian Brocasting Corp (Company?) and American
: >Brocasting Company. Both are international. Supose, then, that both the
: >international ABC's wanted a .com name, then obviously only one could
: >have it. The one that got there first.
:
: Sure. Both have equal claim to the name. If the Australian ABC gets
: there first then the US ABC has no grounds for complaint.
would probably end up in some .com.au domain. Dunno how the ABCs would
like both abc.com _and_ abc.com.au to be on the net, but who's able to
stop them?
---
YuNoHoo "I'll go for 'just.say.no' as my domain"
tom_huber
>Paul "S." Wain <Paul...@brunel.ac.uk> says:
>>: This is incorrect. The .com (and .edu and other similar top level domains)
>>: are not restricted to any country. Any company anywhere in the world can
>>: request and obtain a .com domain.
>>
>>Brocasting Company. Both are international. Supose, then, that both the
>>international ABC's wanted a .com name, then obviously only one could
>>have it. The one that got there first.
>
>Sure. Both have equal claim to the name. If the Australian ABC gets
>there first then the US ABC has no grounds for complaint.
>
>Curry is (at least in the US) famously associated with MTV and was
>all of these factors and expect it to be particularly relevant to the
>issues.
>
>>I think not somehow. It really needs to be a 1st come 1st served system
>>to work internationally. I just somehow think that the lawyers in the US
>>wont quite see it that way.
>
>In general I agree. The problem is when a degree of association exists
>which is likely to cause confusion in the minds of the public.
Frank Peters
>f...@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes:
>: Paul "S." Wain <Paul...@brunel.ac.uk> says:
>: >
>: >Consider the Australian Brocasting Corp (Company?) and American
>: >Brocasting Company. Both are international. Supose, then, that both the
>: >international ABC's wanted a .com name, then obviously only one could
>: >have it. The one that got there first.
>:
>: Sure. Both have equal claim to the name. If the Australian ABC gets
>: there first then the US ABC has no grounds for complaint.
>
>However, an Australian node shouldn't get a plain .com address, but
>would probably end up in some .com.au domain.
Yeah, but there's no reason that they couldn't get a .com address if
they want one. The .com domain is not limited to any particular
country. Australian ABC would have as much right to the name as US
ABC.
David Lesher
>|>Why would you say a net address out loud?
>Because I have a voice activated computer.
Open the pod bay doors please, HAL.......
HALLAM-BAKER Phillip
|>hal...@alws.cern.ch (HALLAM-BAKER Phillip) writes:
|>
|>>|>Why would you say a net address out loud?
|>
|>>Because I have a voice activated computer.
|>
|>Open the pod bay doors please, HAL.......
OK I admit it, you got me, I am a voice activated computer.
--
Phillip M. HAL-lam-Baker
DaveHatunen
HALLAM-BAKER Phillip <hal...@alws.cern.ch> wrote:
>
>In article <wb8fozCr...@netcom.com>, wb8...@netcom.com (David Lesher) writes:
>
>|>hal...@alws.cern.ch (HALLAM-BAKER Phillip) writes:
>|>
>|>>|>Why would you say a net address out loud?
>|>
>|>>Because I have a voice activated computer.
>|>
>|>Open the pod bay doors please, HAL.......
>
>OK I admit it, you got me, I am a voice activated computer.
Well...
When you come right down to it, aren't we all?
Dave "Daisy, Da-i-s-y, g-i-v-e m-e y--o--u--r a---n---s---w..." Hatunen
Malcolm Purvis
However, an Australian node shouldn't get a plain .com address, but
would probably end up in some .com.au domain. Dunno how the ABCs would
like both abc.com _and_ abc.com.au to be on the net, but who's able to
stop them?
The Australian ABC (or at least bits of it) is already on the net as
abc.gov.au, being a government authority and all, so this paticular problem is
rather academic.
--
Malcolm Purvis (malc...@hydra.maths.unsw.edu.au)
School of Mathematics, UNSW, Sydney, Australia.
t.h...@mi04.zds.com
>Dan Newcombe <newc...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu> says:
>>In article <2t2e7i$a...@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu> f...@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes:
>>
>>>Curry is (at least in the US) famously associated with MTV and was
>>>besides his association with MTV for choosing this name. And he stored
>>
>things are true of the relationship between Adam Curry, Mtv and
>mtv.com. Curry did *NOT* choose mtv.com "for no reason other than it
>sounded cool". He chose it specifically because of his association
>with Mtv.
Which brings up the whole issue why Mr. Curry is in the wrong. He obtained the
as an employee, not as an individual, and further acted as an employee by
posting music-related material under that name. As an employee, he forfeited
the rights to that account when he left MTV.
If all MTV is claiming, though, that Mr. Curry is illegally using their name
because of trademark infringement, then they may not have a case. The letters,
by and of themselves are not trademarked (to my knowledge) by MTV. However, there
is an MTV trademark (A big M with TV written across its face), and this same mark
also bears the mark (R), indicating that it is a registered trademark.
Does anyone know if their claim goes beyond trademark infringement, or includes
ownership of the account, due to Mr. Curry acting on their behalf (whether he
was authorized or not does not matter in this case - they are laying claim to
the account name)?
HALLAM-BAKER Phillip
|>Does anyone know if their claim goes beyond trademark infringement, or includes
|>ownership of the account, due to Mr. Curry acting on their behalf (whether he
|>was authorized or not does not matter in this case - they are laying claim to
|>the account name)?
Claims made in court need not bear any resemblance at all to reality.
Standard practice in Patent applications is to make a series of claims,
starting with claiming patent rights to everything and finaly claiming
the 3.5 mm spridget bolt pin degunger.
Don't expect to hear anything from MTV on this one. Broadcasting details
of lawsuits on the internet is the sort of thing the paranoids and
narcissitic personality disorder types do.
By the way my patent lawyer filed a claim for a `mechanism for replacement
of biological organisms through pair wise hetrogeneous combination.' So if
anyone is considering indulging in this activity in the near future remember
its going to cost you a buck a f^h^h time.
--
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
Paul Chamberlain
>If ABC (US) got there 1st could ABC (Aust) sue them in Australia? Or if
>ABC (Aust) got there before ABC (US) and registered it in Australias
>could they be sued in the US?
Repeat this 10 times:
Anybody can sue anybody, anytime they want, for anything at all.
The trick is, only a court can say who's right and most suits
don't get that far. The sue-ee pays whether he is right or not.
Is this a messed up system, or what?
--
Paul Chamberlain | <I do NOT speak for IBM!> | UNIX: t...@austin.ibm.com
IBM AWS, I/O Dev | 512/838-3759, IBM T/L 678 | IBM-VNET: TIF AT AUSTIN
V-X
like there was an article in the Constitution about domain addresses. No one
has a "right" to a specific address, do they?
As I understand them, the facts are these: Curry is, and always has run this
site out of his home, on his own time. He registered the name "mtv.com," and
nobody cared until he quit. So what right do they have to complain now?
For that matter, what does Curry care? He doesn't like MTV, he quit his
job--why does he want his site to be named after MTV? The only reason he
could possibly be doing this is to be a pain in the butt.
What a stupid lawsuit, all around.
Mike Meyer
> I'm a little confused here--everybody keeps throwing around the word "right"
> like there was an article in the Constitution about domain addresses. No one
> has a "right" to a specific address, do they?
If teleport.com isn't in the US, you might not realize that we've
debased the term "right" to include anything we think we should have,
no matter what logic, law or common sense dictate.
> As I understand them, the facts are these: Curry is, and always has run this
> site out of his home, on his own time. He registered the name "mtv.com," and
> nobody cared until he quit. So what right do they have to complain now?
I believe he was asked to stop using mtv.com shortly before he quit.
The lawsuit happened after he quit.
> For that matter, what does Curry care? He doesn't like MTV, he quit his
> job--why does he want his site to be named after MTV? The only reason he
> could possibly be doing this is to be a pain in the butt.
If you read what he says, because MTV is acting like they have a
"right" to the domain name, and he doesn't want that precedent to be
set. He's publicly offered to _sell_ them the domain name, and
publicly stated that the he hasn't given the domain name to someone
else is because he wants to make sure it'd stay in the hands of
someone who would fight this lawsuit.
<mike
do...@umiacs.umd.edu
information about this MTV vs. ADAM CURRY ?
D.C.,
pwpa...@news.delphi.com
I think they resent it because he's doing it just to be a burr under
their saddle. As along as he doesn't use it for commercial purposes, it
shouldn't be illegal.
This isn't as bad as all of the [tm], [r], and [sm] going on overall.
Nearly every catchphrase has at least one of the three previous marks
invovled...
Lee Rudolph
>If teleport.com isn't in the US, you might not realize that we've
>debased the term "right" to include anything we think we should have,
>no matter what logic, law or common sense dictate.
As they say in some country without a constitution, Dieu et Mon Droit.
I wonder if this thread could be moved out of alt.folklore.urban now?
(It seems that this Curry has nothing to do with Special Sauce,
which would certainly be within a.f.u's purview.)
Lee "logic, law, and common sense are on my side" Rudolph