As an alumni and one time adjunct I am quite interested in this concept and depressed at Ladner.
My days there were once under Pierre Salinger in Paris and during the fall of the Berlin Wall in Mexico, DF. So of course we were not then concerned with a name similar to Bin Laden, perhaps that is who should have complained here.
American University has a huge legacy of spreading free speech throughout the world. The whole context of the need is based as a countermeasure to Americanization and corruption of free speech via copywrites and trandemarks. We espouse intellectual freedom as opposed to pervasive intellectual property rights. It is where throughout the world we teach what we do not always practice. For this President to complain about such a site is to epitomize irony and satyre.
This is clear proof that the capitalists are leading free speech around by a ring through the nose.
OTOH. It is really quite cool to see the president in full regalia and righteousness defending his own good name and honor. The sad point as Mr. Williams points out, is that in a proper venue with proper allegations and reasonably competent council, Mr. Ladner would have won his day. Not sad for free speech but sad that a leader of such a great university could do no better and could not find alumni with better training and expertise.
But of course we are all pleased at the outcome. Free speech flourishes, any press is good press and academia has shown a civilized solution to an emotional problem. I am well pleased that the University stayed out of the matter.
Of course I also recommend the website for anyone interested in issues of Internet Governance and interfacing with firmly established regimes.
Sincerely,
Eric Dierker
Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Declan and all,
Well it yet again seems that ICANN's misguided dispute policy has
shown that again patents on proper names claiming to be "Famous"
as in this complaint which was not proven or substantiated, shows
that over aggrandizement of the Complainant , one Benjamin Ladner,
American University president show's fully how such a policy
represents an unnecessary invasion of freedom of _expression_ and
also a loss of right by the Complainant's reputation.
It may be that the complainant should have sought redress via
other legal means such as slander, unless the information of the
web page in question did not meet the legal standard well enough
to seriously consider such a remedy...
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Interesting new UDRP decision
> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:35:21 -0400
> From: Pau!
l Levy
> To:
>
> The recent decision by the National Arbitration Forum panel rejecting a
> claim by American University President Benjamin Ladner against the
> students who maintain the website www.benladner.com is worth noting.
> The decision is reported at
> http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/305190.htm
>
> The decision relies heavily on recent decisions by three federal
> appellate courts allowing the use of trademarks in domain names for
> gripe sites, or "that criticism sites may constitute noncommercial use
> of the domain name in issue even where the domain name itself does not
> communicate criticism," citing See TMI Inc. v. Maxwell, 368 F.3d 433
> (5th Cir. 2004); Lucas Nursery & Landscaping v. Grosse, 359 F.2d 806
> (6th Cir. 2004); and Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Co., 378 F.3d
> 1002 (9th Cir. 2004). In a footnote, the!
panel
state that a Fourth
> Circuit decision, PETA v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001), might
> seem to be to the contrary but might also be distinguished because the
> defendant there was deliberately trying to extort a payment; a
> majority agreed, however, that PETA was simply inconsistent with "the
> current trend in U.S. law on this point."
>
> The decision agrees that the website represents an exercise of free
> speech rights, and is non-commercial, even though it sells banner
> advertising and solicit donations, because the respondent asserted that
> he does not realize any revenues personally, but rather uses any revenue
> to improve the website. It will be interesting to see if this point
> gains judicial acceptance.
>
> The decision also rejects Ladner's claim to have trademark rights in
> his name, because no products are associated with it. This point is
> valid so fa!
r as the
UDRP goes, but would not prevail if a cybersquatting
> claim were filed under the ACPA. However, there are so many other
> problems with the case that it is hard to see Ladner taking it to
> court.
>
> Paul Alan Levy
> Public Citizen Litigation Group
> 1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
> Washington, D.C. 20009
> (202) 588-1000
> http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Politech mailing list
> Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied !
by
P:
i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827