 | | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) In this case, "lego" is indeed the host name, but it's _also_ part of the domain name: It's part of the 3rd-level domain name. The popular media has been propagating the misperception that "domain name" equals "second level domain name," but (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) Whoops, I meant that it was propagating the misperception that "domain name" equals "second-level domain name, followed by a dot, followed by first-level domain name" -- i.e., plonk.com or blarg.net or snoot.org. "We put the dot in .com!" (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) It could be. But it could also be a host name. I appeal to the FOLDOC: <URL:(URL) "domain" is most commonly used to refer to a group of computers whose hostnames share a common suffix, the domain name. The last component of this is the (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
In lugnet.publish, Matthew Miller writes: <snipped debate about technicalities of internet addresses> (...) You're (the plural you) picking nits. If you re-read the specific entry in the fairplay document(1) it clearly states: "The LEGO Trademark (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) Sure, an "Internet Address" consists of a number. So that's pretty meaningless. Or, if you want to interpret more broadly, than maybe they mean URL. Uh-oh then: <URL:(URL) or <URL:(URL) or even <URL:(URL) are against the rules. I don't think (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) Maybe what they mean is simply 'lego' appearing anywhere between the initial '(URL) and the first standalone '/', i.e. (URL) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) Techinically. But I think it's safe to say that TLG was not aiming their fair play document at internet design experts. They were aiming it at laymen. I suspect (but can't prove) that if you ask the average joe in the street what at internet (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) And, to beat the proverbial deceased large solid-hoofed herbivorous mammal a bit more, they _do_ say that what they're concerned with is confusion over just who owns/sponsors the site. It only takes an elementary understanding of the system to (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) Really? That's pretty sad. (...) I assume that Blacktron is a trademark of TLG. (It's definitely "their" word, in any case.) So yeah, assuming that lego.blacktron.org belongs to TLG makes sense. But (and I mean this in all the best way) if you (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) That possibility, or that I >think< that? ;-) (...) When I read a URL that conists primarily of words, I instinctively try to read it as a sentence instead of as placeholders for a string of numbers. <shrug> That's the language I grew up with. (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) The possibility of course! (...) Well, the site content is an entirely different issue. I'm entirely understanding of the need for obvious "This is not an official Lego site" disclaimers. But anyway, it's not a matter of translating to (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) Look. I think people are basically good and smart and all that. (1) But I think you're presuming a bit much about Joe Unwashed and his knowledge of the nuances of domain names. Joe Unwashed has about a 50% chance(2) of thinking lego.gerf.org (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) Gerf, pronounced with a hard "G", is un-related. I will not contact them to ask their permission for this domain as I don't want to know their answer. Their rules about "internet addresses" are vague (is www.gerf.org/~lego not allowed? How (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) Good move. (...) Really? Do you provide your own hosting or do you pay someone else for it? Do you provide your own pipe if you own the machine? I'd say if TLG wanted to cut you off they could find someone willing to agree with them, but (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) Well.....I don't pay for the pipe, but me and Jerry own gerf.org to the last screw. I'm not sure what would happen if they tried. With the way things are going, I suspect that I could find a lawyer in Silicon Valley.... Ciao! (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) The problem is that this really is a new medium. The people who wrote the Fair Play statement don't seem to understand it completely, but what they do say actually is pretty reasonable. Although I've got issues with connecting DNS and (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) It's an interesting point. Network Solutions gets involved in trademark disputes over second level domains, but I've never heard of them caring about what goes on under that -- it's not, so to speak, their domain. And if you're providing your (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
Disclaimer on the following - I am not a lawyer... (...) Note that trademarks usually are limited to the market domain (both region covered by the market, and the product set) of the trademark. Thus, using LEGO in association with construction toys (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) IANAL and I don't know about precedent of other third-level domains other than the legowww.homepages.com incident in 1995-1996. Here's a bit more info... David Koblas, who ran the legowww.homepages.com site from 1995 to 1996, posted a copy of (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) Actually, I think that the goods/services class system is an extremely good reason for not allowing trademarks to have anything to do with domain (or host) names. Since there's no way from looking at a domain/host name to tell what content -- (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) As a consumer, I really appreciate that when I form a host name out of a company name, 9 times out of 10, I get that companies web site. Imagine if instead, 9 times out of 10 you got a competitor's site? What if lego.com pointed to a porno (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) I realize that it's convenient, but it's just not realistic. (See my earlier comments. Or e-mail me if you want to hear me rant more.) The DNS is NOT meant to be a directory service. For many reasons, it doesn't work well as one. As for the (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) To a certain extent, it doesn't really matter how it was meant to be used, but how it does get used. Lego sets aren't >meant< to be used by adults. Does that mean we should all stop using them? <grin> James (URL) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
|
(...) Sure, but I hope that what _actually works well_ does matter. And DNS-as-directory doesn't. (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
