At 05:13 PM 2/25/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> As one of the lawyers who participated in the representation of MTV in that
>> case, I would say that that particular genie was let out of the bottle the
>> day Adam Curry registered mtv.com in his own name and began promoting a
>> music website under the name mtv.com (and not adam-curry.com).
>
>What he doesn't tell you is that Adam Curry did this while working as a DJ for
>MTV and with MTV's knowledge. MTV didn't give a damn until Adam Curry had
>created some value and visibility to the site and the Internet craze began to
>take shape. AFTER they discovered value that they hadn't created, then,
>suddenly, the character string was their property. And they had more money and
>were bigger, and there are always people like Schwimmer around who will do
>their bidding if the price is right, so they got the name.
>
au contraire. The name MTV already had great value. Following your scenario,
Adam Curry tried to profit personally from a name that belonged to someone
else. The fact that he chose to do it on the internet rather than by other
means
has no bearing: a ripoff is a ripoff. And if he did it while working for
MTV, well,
just as in any other area, you create something out of property belonging
to your
employer, whatever you created belongs to that employer, especially if you
did it on the the employer's time.
Bill Lovell
