Subject:
|
Re: Lego at Gerf.Org
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:18:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
521 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.publish, Matthew Miller writes:
> James Brown <galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote:
> > It then goes on to mention domain names specifically, but an internet address
> > consists of more than just a domain name.
> 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:http://www.lugnet.com/legoland/>
> or
> <URL:http://www.lugnet.com/?q=lego>
> or even
> <URL:http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?q=lego>
> are against the rules. I don't think they mean that -- not only is it too
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 address is, he'll say "blah.blah.threeletterextension" He may add
an http:/ to the front of that, but I doubt it.
So, IMNSHO, the fair play document is saying 'don't use our trademarks in the
name of your web site.'
> As I said before, the point is that they're concerned that domain names
> which contain "lego" will confuse people. Okay, that's fair. But people
> shouldn't be confused if the host name or another part of the URL contains
> those letters. I think the dot-com people Todd was going on about have
> pretty clearly fixed in people's minds that "____.com" is the important
> part, showing what company or whatever is involved. So I don't think that
> there should be a problem with confusion, at least amoung reasonable people.
Yes, but people aren't reasonable. :) And I suspect that if you went out and
asked 10 random people what company owned "lego.gerf.org", most of them would
tell you "Lego".
> Seriously, we all seem to be people with a basic understanding of things.
> There was just a thread on this the other day. When we see new second-level
> domains springing up containing "lego", we get interested.
> If legocollectorsedition.com suddenly appeared, we'd all get excited about
> what TLG must be up to. By contrast, when lego.gerf.org appears, people
> worry that gerf.org might be getting some legal attention -- but no one was
> confused and mistook them for anything official.
No one was confused because a person came and said "look at my site", not
because the name is intuitively 'non-Lego brand'.
And I don't know about the rest of you, but if I saw lego.castles.org, or
lego.blacktron.org, I would sure as heck think it was an official site. Using
a nonsense word like gerf does make that more remote, but TLG does the oddest
things. What if they came out with Gerftron?
My point is that merely the fact that this conversation is happening means
that there may be some confusion.
It's also noteworthy to point out that I don't actually care - I'm just
playing devil's advocate on this topic.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
37 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
