> When a data base comes about as a byproduct of providing another
> service such as domain name registration, however, that data base
> is simply a necessary result of the service already being performed
> ... (I might add that this whole data base issue has much further
> and far-reaching echoes: many in the scientific research field have
> decried the possiblity of being cut off from scientific data they
> need for their research, and for which copyright protection has
> also been proposed.)
...
> if one cannot be held legally responsible for any content in a data
> base, how can one claim a copyright in it? You would claim the
> whole pile while absolving yourself for liability for its bits and
> pieces?
Isnt this the heart of the IP paradox? A service is performed; there
are no new IP rights. A database 'comes about' as the result of
service performed, and there are no new IP rights. *Somebody
else* wants to use that db, and IP rights burst forth.
Specifically, a registry is necessary for DN service, and a registrar
builds the db. *Only when registration is opened to competition, are
there IP rights to the first registrar.
It seems therefore that either every monopoly is a 'natural' one -- or
the IP concept exactly expresses the 'both ways' idea: 'upstream'
liability (to the registrant, where the data came from) is nil, but to
anybody 'downstream' there's a magical wall of copyright.
Logically, its bullshit. Unfortunately, the obvious rectification -- that
rights stay forever with the source -- has embarrasing
consequences (like giving America back to the First Nations). One
concludes that registrants *voluntarily surrender (some) rights to a
registrar in order that the db can be maintained *for their
convenience. A further implication is that those rights are (some)
payment to a registrar to perform this service.
But where does that conclusion give a registrar 'downstream' IP
rights against another registrar? Where does it give one registrar
any priority over another at all - for instance, when a registrant
wishes to move hys data from one to the other? On the contrary, it
opens registration to negotiation, which has two obvious
implications. First, if you think your data are worth more than
someone else's (e.g. a 'famous name' or a 'killer phrase'), then
wouldnt you want to sweeten the pot with some further
consideration to keep them from being parlayed elsewhere?
Second, isnt this negotiability exactly why there might be more
than one registrar? (Why do you think so many folks want to get
into the registrar act? Why do you think ICANN is in place, if not to
*limit the number and prevent the market from collapsing?)
With all the smoke that is being blown about in our name, isnt it
high time existing or potential domain name holders asserted our
*fundamental right to decide? The question is, do we really want
'competition' among registrars -- that is, to leave ourselves forever
open to extortion? Or do we prefer to hold absolutely all names on
a par, with the same fixed rate for everyone, on condition that
'whois' type information is not to be parlayed as IP *ever*? Noting
that USBank recently sold its entire customer database (including
account balances and date of last activity) for $4m, I dont believe
we can have it both ways much longer.
kerry
