1999 seems like a long time ago but in essence it is not. We all know about the technological advances made in that span.
Quote:
|
The "direct control and monitoring" rule established by Hard Rock and Fonovisa likewise fails to reach the instant situation. The district court correctly recognized that NSI's rote translation service does not entail the kind of direct control and monitoring required to justify an extension of the "supplies a product" requirement. See 985 F.Supp. at 962 ("While the landlord of a flea market might reasonably be expected to monitor the merchandise sold on his premises, NSI cannot reasonably be expected to monitor the Internet."). Such a stretch would reach well beyond the contemplation of Inwood Lab. and its progeny. |
Not sure that would be the case today. As mentioned earlier, one such ccTLD was able to provide immediate results and monitoring.
Perhaps it should be done differently. I used the example of Seclists.org earlier. What made this unique was a site (myspace) complaining to the registrar (GoDaddy) of inappropriate material. Even though the site was not hosted on GoDaddy, GoDaddy pulled the domain name.
Now here you have two working together, voluntarily. But this is how it can and should perhaps be handled.
Granted, these guys regging the 95 domain names are dumb, dumber, and dumberer. But I would think with all its clout and weight, MS could and would want some changes if it is brand protection they are after.
Then again, do they sue the manufactures of CD and DVD duplication machines for pirating software? Cyber law is still perhaps relatively in its infancy but I would imagine is evolving and changing on an almost daily basis. It is difficult to take laws applicable to tangible goods and apply them to intangibles.
Linear Mode
