Prize help..

[HOWARD]

And I've never been to Sweden. Wow! I'm getting an international reputation.

But seriously, John Berryhill is correct. I have a client who wanted to give things away on the Web, but found it to be very difficult if there were ANY strings attached or if there was any subjectivity in choosing a winner.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Now, in a thread in the legal forum, we have someone who is screaming bloody murder about how the operators of dnforum are engaging in some heinous illegality by not policing what people choose to buy and sell.
+++++++++

That's just lawyer double-speak, AKA bull$417!

The rules already do police what people can and can't do on the board, with an obvious (purposeful?) exemption for trading famous/ registered/ distinctive trademarks.

You have people engaged in blatant --I MEAN BLATANT-- cybersquatting on the board, such as by offering to sell domains like MICRASOFT.COM and DISNY.COM, with no policies to disallow it.

See, one particular Philadelphia lawyer wrote that no policy, ie., turning a blind eye to a known problem, would result in less liability than a decent policy.

Beware the sycophant who dares not tell the King he has no clothes, but rushes a shootout with a cowboy. Beware law school sophistry that will get you knifed in a legal street fight.

Remember the old Napster: it resulted in an avalanche of lawsuits and went belly up --before being sold for a song.

[jberryhill]

"if there was any subjectivity in choosing a winner."

Legal considerations can be secondary in those circumstances. I nearly had my eyes gouged out by a runner-up in a talent contest in which I was only one person on a panel of five judges. There was no entry fee, and the "prize" was extremely insubstantial - but the resume-building, and quite talented, young woman who felt she deserved to win didn't get far along in her post-contest diatribe before she began threatening to call a lawyer.

And, Hal, if you will recall, I personally raised the issue of copyright license with the operators of this forum in connection with the manner and presentation of my posts here. For whatever reason, based on no advice from me, they have chosen to disagree with your opinion. Opinions are like that.

For example, I am sure that there are those who would be of the opinion that "About.com" is a distinctive registered trademark, and who would doubt that someone named "A Buoy" registered the domain name abouy.com for any other reason that misdirecting typos of that registered trademark. Attempting to draw lines in the sand only results in defining that which is close to the line. Put another way, the phenomenon is known as "defining deviance upward".

[DotLeader]

:clown:

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
Now, in a thread in the legal forum, we have someone who is screaming bloody murder about how the operators of dnforum are engaging in some heinous illegality by not policing what people choose to buy and sell.
+++++++++

That's just lawyer double-speak, AKA bull$417!

The rules already do police what people can and can't do on the board, with an obvious (purposeful?) exemption for trading famous/ registered/ distinctive trademarks.

You have people engaged in blatant --I MEAN BLATANT-- cybersquatting on the board, such as by offering to sell domains like MICRASOFT.COM and DISNY.COM, with no policies to disallow it.

See, one particular Philadelphia lawyer wrote that no policy, ie., turning a blind eye to a known problem, would result in less liability than a decent policy.

Beware the sycophant who dares not tell the King he has no clothes, but rushes a shootout with a cowboy. Beware law school sophistry that will get you knifed in a legal street fight.

Remember the old Napster: it resulted in an avalanche of lawsuits and went belly up --before being sold for a song.