Blog "get out my namespace"

The whole topic of name ownership, to me is unbelievable. Especially when your real name is different from your "stage name", like Bill Wyman. I think that it is ridiculous to serve somebody a "cease and desist" order to a guy whose real name is Bill Wyman. That is outrageous.

The cybersquatter from Alberta, Canada, Jeff Burgar has some interesting claims. He officially owns peoples names, for website usage, but some of the domain names do not have sites yet. I think that part is wrong, but registering BruceSpringsteen.com for a Bruce Springsteen fan club should be fine. which, he managed to hold on to that name but has lost other case to contain names.

I understand if you have a copyrighted name, like Coca-Cola or McDonalds. These are trademarked names and should not be used by anyone but the company. If your name just happens to be Ronald McDonald, I think it should be fine to use it for a website. If someone uses cocacola.com or Nike.com, then they should lose the court battle.

In my opinion, no one has the right to sue some one over a "real" name. If there was another Josh Lemieux in the world, that had Joshlemieux.com, there is nothing i would do. He has the right to that name, just like I do. If I had the domain name, and the other Josh Lemieux was famous, IF it was that much of a big deal to him, we could reach a financial agreement. I think it is truly ridiculous to sue someone over a name. If you could do that, I am sure David Bowie would have sued Davy Jones from the Monkees for making a joke out of David Bowie's real name, David Jones.

People is this world , just want everything, or expect everything. Famous people get away with so much crap, that it can be intimidating for the little guy to stand up to them. The courts have to decide what is right and wrong in this area, and not flip-flop and change their minds. Famous People and corporations think they are above the law. Even Jeff Burgar thinks so, he registered many famous domain names but has done anything with them. I think that is wrong and should be stopped.

Blog Entry #3--DRM

The whole DRM topic is very confusing to me. What is right and what is wrong. I think region coding is wrong. If i buy a dvd in europe, i want to play it in my dvd player in america. How is this fair or even legal? If I buy a dvd and i want to put it on to a vhs tape like the lady in the article, so my kids dont destroy the dvd, what is wrong with that? I understand why artists complain about copyrighting and everything. The labels screw the artists in paying anyways, but that is my opinion. The major corporations are the ones that control everything and are the "MAN". The "MAN" always try to hold people down.

DRM is bad for everyone, not just business, consumers as well. It is pretty much setting a high price. The whole Lexmark situation in the article is ridiculous. Another company makes a product that imitates theirs but at a lower price, as a retail veteran, it is called competition. Every major conglomerate wants to corner every market. Competition is good for business and consumers. If you product is better then your competitions, it will be bought, even if it is a little more expensive, but if your product is better and is at an astronomical price, the other product will be sufficient.

The codes will be broken and every code will be placed on a website, somehere. Everyone in america will get arrested from breaking codes.

Every product with DRM will be expensive and people will find other ways around. We always do. We, the consumers are not made of money and eventually we will stop buying certain products.

DRM is BAD