Having recently been through the federal court system process to protect my
copyright and trademark rights against a very large online provider, who was
infringing on my rights (as part of a pattern and practice of doing so to
other
small content providers). Therefore my opinions are tempered by real
practical
experience -- in fact, the last 19 months of my life have been spent on
protecting my rights.
I believe there needs to be a dispute resolution forum, which is inexpensive
enough for small content providers to protect themselves and go through a
neutral, 3rd party process, when their rights are in jeopardy. Whether
ICANN
is the proper authority or not, I really don't know -- but yes, I would be
happy
to participate in some meaningful dialogue about the practical ramifications
of
any decision-making body, ICANN or others.
>From the perspective of the small, independent intellectual property
creator,
you would never vote to leave dispute resolution to the courts if you'd ever
been through litigation in US Federal Court. (It's complex rules governing
discovery, etc., coupled with the Court's lack of understanding of the
online
world, the status of case law in the U.S. (which is NOT settled, let alone
the
rest of the world) and the new copyright legislation in the US, which is
supposed to comply with the rest of the world are among the major hurdles --
on
top of dealing with a big company who can afford to pay it's big law firm
attorneys very well to delay, obstruct and avoid until you're exhausted,
broke
and fighting with your beleagured attorneys, who just want to settle and get
enough money to cover the time they've invested -- and that's before the
depositions begin!)
[There are two wonderful articles about the subject every small owner should
read: ]
San Francisco Chronicle published an article by Reynolds Holding,
"Discovery, It Turns Out, Is the Better Part of Judgments" which covered
the
Purcell's difficulties in their litigation against AOL for copyright
infringement of their forum, Pictures of the World. Holding wrote, "...it's
not
only offensive, it's dangerous. Because it suggests you can win in our
legal
system by refusing to play, hoping your opponent will tire, run out of money
and
just go away."
>
Brenda Sandburg, in her article in American Lawyer Media (9/29/98) also
wrote
about this case, quoting Judge Larson asserted that "AOL has indulged itself
in
treating discovery as a game, rather than a means to progress toward a fair
trial. By requesting an extension of time to respond to discovery and then
servicing not one single response, but only blanket objections, AOL violated
both the spirit and the letter of the rules governing discovery."
Worst of all? Once the Purcell's settled the case (the evening before
trial),
they were barred from discussing the terms of the settlement by the
confidentiality order.
Hope this helps to clarify some of the issues, dangers and pitfalls I see --
it's only going to get worse and more difficult for the small if we don't do
something collectively
Beth.