At 12:12 PM 7/24/99 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 11:38:28AM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote:
>> you have any right in it. If you pay someone to take pictures of your wedding but
>fail to
>> do it under a carefully worded contract, you are only entitled under US law to get
>copies
>> of the photos. You have no right to reproduce them or distribute them publicly.
>The
>> copyright ownership in the photos belongs to the photographer because that is the
>person
>> who "created" the work.
>>
>> > If they *didn't* own it and it belonged to the Internet community - the
>> > only other viable candidate, then the USG can step out right now. :-)
>>
>> That's exactly what I'm saying.
>
>Fine -- the contact database belongs to the Internet community.
>Presuming you can define "Internet community", how do you propose
>that the Internet community regain control of it? The only entity in
>a position to do anything for us is...the USG.
That would be the set of all COM name holders. If you only own a .LY
domain, you don't get a voice in .COM. If you don't own a domain you
also don't have a voice. You can buy a domain or you can buy a share
of NSI and have a voice, but without some skin in the game, the
unbounded class is unmanagable and undefined.
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
