I maybe shouldn't reply to this, but I'm afraid some of those here who are less versed in these matters may take some of what you're saying as fact. No offense, but this whole thing reads as if you just took an Internet 101 course and now think you're an expert.
"Someone is wrong on the internet!"
I'm not sure what you think you're saying here. The internet is many things. It is business, yes, but it also book clubs, and books for that matter. It is an exchange of information and that information can take virtually any form. I don't know where your jaded point of view comes from on this subject, but you are misinformed.
A domain name is little more than a sign. It points to a location. That's all. Again, I don't know what point you're trying to make. Briv sold the archboston.org sign to Edward. No one is disputing the Edward now owns the domain and do with it what he wishes.
Did Geocities run every website hosted under the geocities.com domain? Of course not. We can get into a semantic argument about the meaning of the word "run," but that's not going to move this discussion forward.
Why would this be the case? Yes, the new domain and site will be registered in someone's name. Some people are more trustworthy than others. What briv did here is not ordinary.
Emphasis mine. To state that terms claiming a "permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content" and the right change the terms at any time without notice are "user vs owner tilted" seems to show a bias that makes me question why you suddenly decided to start posting here. These terms would be consumer hostile for a business and are frankly absurd for a community. They would likely not even hold up in court.
Again, the web is many things. It hosts millions of copyrighted works from books to music to film to you name it. Yes, these things can all be illegally copied, but the question we're asking here is if Edward and Chart communications should have the legal right to use the works of archBoston's posters. If Edward is advertising for some development and decides to use Beeline's photos, should he be allowed to do so without further consent or compensation? The terms of his other sites would allow this. In my opinion that in not tolerable.
Say what now? Please don't try to tell people what I think. I've never stated anything remotely to this effect. It doesn't even make sense.
Olders can learn new things, Wonk, but a statement like this makes it seem like you're unwilling.
"Someone is wrong on the internet!"
I'm not sure what you think you're saying here. The internet is many things. It is business, yes, but it also book clubs, and books for that matter. It is an exchange of information and that information can take virtually any form. I don't know where your jaded point of view comes from on this subject, but you are misinformed.
A domain name is little more than a sign. It points to a location. That's all. Again, I don't know what point you're trying to make. Briv sold the archboston.org sign to Edward. No one is disputing the Edward now owns the domain and do with it what he wishes.
Did Geocities run every website hosted under the geocities.com domain? Of course not. We can get into a semantic argument about the meaning of the word "run," but that's not going to move this discussion forward.
Why would this be the case? Yes, the new domain and site will be registered in someone's name. Some people are more trustworthy than others. What briv did here is not ordinary.
Emphasis mine. To state that terms claiming a "permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content" and the right change the terms at any time without notice are "user vs owner tilted" seems to show a bias that makes me question why you suddenly decided to start posting here. These terms would be consumer hostile for a business and are frankly absurd for a community. They would likely not even hold up in court.
Again, the web is many things. It hosts millions of copyrighted works from books to music to film to you name it. Yes, these things can all be illegally copied, but the question we're asking here is if Edward and Chart communications should have the legal right to use the works of archBoston's posters. If Edward is advertising for some development and decides to use Beeline's photos, should he be allowed to do so without further consent or compensation? The terms of his other sites would allow this. In my opinion that in not tolerable.
Say what now? Please don't try to tell people what I think. I've never stated anything remotely to this effect. It doesn't even make sense.
Olders can learn new things, Wonk, but a statement like this makes it seem like you're unwilling.
