|
|
| |
| |
From what I have read, all the plaintiff has succeeded in doing is
informing the court of who the contact of record is for the domain name,
not the name of the author of the intellectual property contained on the
site. It is amazing the ignorance plaintiff exhibits on the very basics
of world wide web transactions and IP issues.
Anonymous lease or use of a registered domain name:
The contact of record for a domain name receives an anonymous email,
within which is a web address, URL or IP address to which someone wants
a domain name pointed. The domain owner or contact of record then
redirects said domain (usually via a registrar's domain name manager
software) to the particular resource site contained in the email.
There is no mandatory process required for any domain owner or contact
of record to ask, demand, expect, or require verifiable personal
identification before redirecting a domain to any site or resource on
the world wide web. Redirecting a domain does not make a domain name
owner or contact of record a publisher or the author of the content in
the site the domain name points to. This is well established in
intellectual property cases (only the author can claim IP rights to
original work), and I would hope the remaining defendants make full use
of IP case law in any move to trial on the case.
Claims by the plaintiff to have extensive knowledge of legal issues, by
virtue of having been employed in a legal profession, give rise to
questions of whether plaintiff knowingly made false claims the domain
owner is the author of any site content based solely on domain name
ownership. If plaintiff had ever been employed as claimed, plaintiff
should know full well domain name ownership does not equate to content
authorship, and does not constitute any claims to rights over creative
works done by the site author. Apparently, either the plaintiff was not
duely qualified for the legal positions alleged to have been employed
in, or plaintiff is purposefully misrepresenting the law pertaining to
creative rights and IP ownership over site content versus domain name
ownership.
HS
Ray Gordon wrote:
There is evidence that he would know who published it, or should have
known.
A domain owner has full control over their domain. No explanation was
given as to how this allegedly "unknown user" got a hold of the domain.
I offered evidence in support of my claim that shifts the burden of proof.
|
| |
| |
From what I have read, all the plaintiff has succeeded in doing is
informing the court of who the contact of record is for the domain name,
not the name of the author of the intellectual property contained on the
site. It is amazing the ignorance plaintiff exhibits on the very basics
of world wide web transactions and IP issues.
Anonymous lease or use of a registered domain name:
The contact of record for a domain name receives an anonymous email,
Which means that the use of the property was still sanctioned by the domain
owner, who has not explained *anything* relating to who is using the domain.
By the way, you also just inadvertently explained why the site came down and
why it's staying down.
|
| |
| |
From what I have read, all the plaintiff has succeeded in doing is
informing the court of who the contact of record is for the domain name,
not the name of the author of the intellectual property contained on the
site. It is amazing the ignorance plaintiff exhibits on the very basics
of world wide web transactions and IP issues.
Anonymous lease or use of a registered domain name:
The contact of record for a domain name receives an anonymous email,
Which means that the use of the property was still sanctioned by the
domain owner, who has not explained *anything* relating to who is using
the domain.
By the way, you also just inadvertently explained why the site came down
and why it's staying down.
But it still doesn't explain why the publisher of said site wasn't notified.
I suspect, if Gordon's claims are true, the upstream provider has some
serious explaining to do.
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in
news:yuFbd.2363$9f1.1254@trndny05:
From what I have read, all the plaintiff has succeeded in doing is
informing the court of who the contact of record is for the domain
name, not the name of the author of the intellectual property
contained on the site. It is amazing the ignorance plaintiff exhibits
on the very basics of world wide web transactions and IP issues.
Anonymous lease or use of a registered domain name:
The contact of record for a domain name receives an anonymous email,
Which means that the use of the property was still sanctioned by the
domain owner, who has not explained *anything* relating to who is
using the domain.
By the way, you also just inadvertently explained why the site came
down and why it's staying down.
I doubt that.
Why do I doubt that?
--
KTO
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
|
| |
| |
By the way, you also just inadvertently explained why the site came down
and why it's staying down.
But it still doesn't explain why the publisher of said site wasn't
notified.
Far as I know, they were.
|
| |
| |
By the way, you also just inadvertently explained why the site came down
and why it's staying down.
But it still doesn't explain why the publisher of said site wasn't
notified.
Far as I know, they were.
Gordon snipped the rest of my post. I said, "I suspect, if Gordon's claims
are true, the upstream provider has some serious explaining to do." I wonder
why it was snipped?
|
| |
| |
ay Gordon wrote:
I conclude that they are responsible for what goes on on their own domain,
but if they name a separate publisher, then I sue the publisher. In the
absence of the name of a publisher, I sue the domain owner. Standard.
It is not standard when the issue is one concerning content and who
authored it, said person being the individual retaining intellectual
property rights to the content. Domain name issues are separate issues
from content issues. A record label does not necessarily own the
creative and legal rights to intellectual work by musical artists
released on the company label.
Plaintiff evidently has no legal experience in intellectual property
matters, although plaintiff seeks to make use of an intellectual
property claim in the current case, while seeking to avoid issues of all
other intellectual property in the case, including those of the site
author. In seeking to slay an adversary for a particular offense, one
should take care not to commit a similar or even worse offense while
doing so. On close inspection, plaintiff has committed numerous
egregious errors, which will eventually prove to overshadow any the
remaining defendants have allegedly committed.
However there are Domains, such as GoDaddy, that allow you to rent domain
names that are actually registered to them.
In that case GoDaddy would know who the owner of the domain was.
Again, in the case of a recording label, no company would know each and
every studio musician at work, at any given moment, on musical content
by each group or artist on the company label. As stated earlier, there
is no legal requirement, whatsoever, for domain name contacts to know
who operates websites a domain name points to, or who authors the
content on the site. It is common practice for domain names to point to
sites where domain name contacts have no idea who authors the content.
Unless plaintiff can support a legitimate trademark or servicemark
complaint against the domain name itself, which I'm sure plaintiff
should be aware is impossible in the current case, the involvement of
the domain name contact with the case ends at the issue of domain
contact name of record.
As stated previously, domain name issues are separate issues from
intellectual property issues concerning content. A qualified legal
professional should know such a basic legal matter dealing with the
world wide web.
He doesn't post to this group,
We wouldn't know one way or the other, now would we?
He still would have to explain how someone is using his domain without
telling him. If he's not the publisher, he can point me in the direction of
the publisher. I have offered more evidence that he is the publisher than
he has offered that he is not.
Even if said website in some way damaged plaintiff's reputation, which
remains to be decided after all evidence concerning said reputation is
considered by the court, all plaintiff has succeeded in doing is
presenting a fact not in question, namely the identity of the person
listed as the contact on a domain name. A domain name stores no content
and is not a website, it is a pointer only.
If plaintiff has truly been employed in such legal professions as has
been claimed, plaintiff should know, even if he were to be able to prove
the domain name contact owned and operated the actual computer server
the website resided on, even that itself does not qualify as
verification or evidence the individual authored the intellectual
property (content) hosted on the site. Given plaintiff's self-serving
use of that intellectual property, presumably without written permission
from the author, it would benefit plaintiff if said domain name contact
were not the author of the content plaintiff has apparently made
unauthorized duplication and use of.
It is interesting, plaintiff's continued reference to a California
ruling from Grace vs. eBay, even though he refutes other rulings
contrary to the ruling he personally favors, such as:
John Doe v. Franco Productions, et al.
2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8845 (N.D. Ill., June 21, 2000)
Court holds that those engaging in web site hosting activities are
immunized by the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. 230(c) from
liability arising out of their involvement, via those activities, in the
dissemination or publication of information originating from third
parties. Section 230(c)(1) provides that "no provider or user of an
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or
speaker of any information provided by another information content
provider." The court held that those who provide web hosting services
are service providers within the meaning of the CDA, and hence entitled
to the immunity it provides. Said the court: "by offering web hosting
services which enable someone to create a web page, [defendants] are not
magically rendered the creators of those web pages. See 47 U.S.C.
230(c)(1). As such, plaintiffs' new characterization of [defendants] as
web hosts neither prevents these defendants from being deemed service
providers protected by immunity under the CDA nor makes them content
providers unprotected by the CDA's immunity."
Ellen L. Batzel v. Ton Cremers, et al.
No. 01-56380 (Ninth Circuit, June 24, 2003)
"In this defamation suit, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that
the operator of a listserv and website is a user of interactive computer
services entitled to the protections of the Communications Decency Act
("CDA") against liability arising out of his publication of information
provided by another information provider."
"Under Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA, "no provider or user of an
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or
speaker of any information provided by another information content
provider."
"To qualify for the protection of the CDA, the defendant must be a
provider or user of "an interactive computer service." The statute
defines an "interactive computer service" as: any information service,
system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer
access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a
service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems
operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
Disagreeing with the District Court, the Ninth Circuit held that
Cremers, in his capacity as an operator of a listserv and website, was a
"user of an interactive computer service" who qualified for the
protections of the CDA. Said the Court: There is, however, no need here
to decide whether a listserv or website itself fits the broad statutory
definition of "interactive computer service," because the language of
230(c)(1) confers immunity not just on "providers" of such services, but
also on "users" of such services. 230(c)(1). There is no dispute that
the Network uses interactive computer services to distribute its on-line
m
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
The owner controls use of the domain. That is not in question.
That is indeed in question. Plaintiff has consistently confused the term
"domain" with a website and it's associated content. Is that confusion
intentional? Is it an attempt to mislead the court and misrepresent the
facts to bolster a false complaint against a defendant? What will happen
when that misrepresention is brought to the attention of the court, or
has the court already sufficient knowledge on the subject to see through
an obvious attempt to mislead?
Plaintiff has consistently refused to acknowledge the reality of the
difference between what he is referring to as a domain, which is a
website and associated content, and a domain NAME, which is nothing but
an alphanumerical ASCII string of characters of up to 67 digits
(previously, before recent changes, domain names were limited to 26
digits) in length.
Websites, can exist without the benefit of any domain name at all by
virtue of the underlying mechanism of I.P. addressing (connection to the
actual physical network of the hosting company's "domain" is not the
same). There is no legal requirement, anywhere, that states a website
cannot exist and be publicly accessed without a domain name. Domain
names do not take a person directly to a website. They must be
translated into a numerical address of the domain server that hosts the
site content. Similarly, there is no legal requirement, anywhere, that
states a domain name must be pointed to an I.P. address or a website
after it is purchased and registered.
The entire argument plaitiff has put before the court is that a website
is synonymous with a domain name. The only possibility for any benefit
to come of such an attempted misrepresentation to the court would be if
the presiding judge knows nothing about the relationship between domain
names and websites, and accepts plaintiff's false respresentation that
the two are one and the same. I challenge plaintiff or anyone to produce
verifiable evidence from any reputable source that a domain name and a
website are the same thing.
In searching Yahoo for the term "domain name is not a website", the
search returns 176 responses. The link is
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22domain+name+is+not+a+website%22&csz=&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=&toggle=1
In a broader search, for registrars who have broken the explanation into
separate sentences, the search for "domain name" and "not your website"
returns 14,500 reponses. The link to that search is
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%2B%22domain+name%22+%2B%22not+your+website%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt
Domain names can be pointed anywhere, and most often, the only "domain"
that applies to the website where content is stored is the individual
server name on the network of the business hosting the site, such as
"cromwell326.mit.edu", the cromwell326 being the individual server name
and "mit.edu" being the domain name on the university network.
Given plaitiff's continual references to his legal expertise and
knowledge, a reasonable person might conclude the misrepresentation
being made, that a website and a domain name are one and the same, is an
intentional attempt to purposesly mislead the court. Of course, it
wouldn't be the first time such attempts have been made in court
proceedings, and one can always feign ignorance if the court takes issue
with the insult such a blatant attempt constitutes.
Just as specific references were furnished above, plaintiff should be as
able to provide cites or references to substantiate his claims that a
website and a domain name are synonymous.
Many people "rent out" space on their websites to other
people - such as your ISP renting to you and allowing you to use a
subdomain "cybersheet.com" as a portion of their owned site.
Yet if someone asked the the ISP who was publishing the site, they'd know.
There is no requirement for any ISP or host to know who the owner or
author of creative works on a website is. Plaintiff should back such
claims with cites or references. If not, the validity of his arguments
can be questioned, just as any claims he makes on facts he neither
comprehends or agrees with should be.
You still have to prove, to a reasonable man standard, that what you
allege is true. Based on the possibilities that I have raised, you
have not done that yet.
He has not refuted my claim, which I have supported.
Any claims put forth alleging the domain name contact of record authored
any site content were answered and disputed. Explanation has been made
on the issue, and no verifiable proof has been forthcoming to refute the
statements by the domain name contact, only the previously mentioned
misrepresentation that a website and a domain name are one and the same.
Have fun in court with this!
Let me ask again by the way:
If what this person is arguing is true, could not every domain owner simply
escape liability by claiming that their websites were published by anonymous
third parties, even if they can't explain anything else? All any site sued
for libel would have to do is tell the court that they don't know who the
publisher of their own domain is.
It's standard practice on the net to list an administrative contact when the
domain owner is not the site publisher. This domain owner did not list
anyone.
Again, the misrepresentation that a website and a domain name are one
and the same.
At the very least, he can explain, in painstaking detail, how exactly he set
up the domain so that it could be used without his knowledge. Note also
that even if he's not the publisher, my copyright claims are still legit
since he didn't list a DMCA agent with the library of Congress (neither did
his webhost, but his upstream provider did, and that's why they got the
notice).
A domain name is not "setup" to store content. That is the website,
which holds the creative property of its author, not the domain name.
This is a redundant argument, and after learning (via chewonthis.org)
that plaintiff has had extensive interaction with at least one domain
name registrar in ths case, is an argument plaintiff should know is
false.
The plain truth is that anyone, anywhere, at any time, can purchase
and/or register a domain name and point it to any site on the internet
they choose, including that of the plaintiff. As has been said, anyone
could register a demeaning or insulting domain name, or several for that
matter, and point any or all to plaintiff's website. Does that convey
any intellectual property rights to the domain name contact over the
content of the plaintiff's website? Would plaintiff be required to
inform the domain name contact of any changes to his website content, or
seek approval before making any such changes? Of course not. Could
plaintiff litigate based on a domain name being pointed to the content
on his website without his permission? Yes, but as Mr. Robinson so aptly
stated, he would lose the argument, just as he will lose this argument.
HS
|
| |
| |
Howard Stanton wrote:
Ray Gordon wrote:
Websites, can exist without the benefit of any domain name at all by
virtue of the underlying mechanism of I.P. addressing (connection to the
actual physical network of the hosting company's "domain" is not the
same).
Some phishing scams run through the Web would use I.P. addresses because
they didn't use a domain name to run their fake bank websites to steal
username and password combinations or credit card numbers, because the
domain name would be shut down quickly but an I.P. address can last longer.
There is no legal requirement, anywhere, that states a website
cannot exist and be publicly accessed without a domain name. Domain
names do not take a person directly to a website. They must be
translated into a numerical address of the domain server that hosts the
site content. Similarly, there is no legal requirement, anywhere, that
states a domain name must be pointed to an I.P. address or a website
after it is purchased and registered.
Verizon has registered some 700 domain names, most of which simply to
hoard them and prevent others from registering them, names like
"verizonsucks.com". It is a common practice for companies to register
their name plus the word "sucks" in order to prevent someone from
creating a site critical to them. The domain name will never be used,
it is simply registered to keep someone else from doing so.
|
| |
| |
|
