I miss yoooooooooou!!!! :(

I think you should give it to them as long as they're not dickheads... Like, it's not about "what they have to offer", ya know?  I work for the Howard Stern channels at Sirius and as soon as we lauched on Sirius, people went out and tried to register every domain name you could think of that they thought we'd want.  It's just kind of lame, ya know?  I'm not saying YOU'RE being lame, but as long as they're being cool, I think you should let them have it.

Is it a coincidence that you have the name "Pearl Jam"? Or is it named because of them?  I think I know the answer.  They are  Pearl Jam.  Give them the name.

I don't know any of you people, and don't really care about any of you either. I happened to stumble upon this because I was floored by seeing that Pearl Jam advertisement in the Music area. So, I looked to see if this was the page they were using. Combined with the quality of their new single, it makes me wonder if they've just given up. I'm hoping the rest of the album isn't cheap, easy garbage about Presidents.

To you, "Mike," I say you're wrong. They are not Pearl Jam. They are Ten Club. Ten Club has no more right to a MySpace name than any other person in the world. If dude here registered Pearl Jam before anyone else had the presence of mind to do so, then he wins. Not even Pearl Jam have any more right to the site name than anyone else. That's not how the internet works. If it was, then big names and huge companies could just claim millions of domains that only mildly have to do with their products and titles. Your take on the situation is very naive and unfair.

Where were Ten Club when this dude made this site? They were unaware that MySpace existed until it became ridiculously popular, now they want to swoop in and scoop up the name? Fuck them. He should definitely ask them what they have to offer -- CDs, membership to the club, tickets to a show, something.

It's also not lame that people PURCHASED domain names that were related to the Howard Stern show. As you said, they had MANY. That means, if the internet worked your way, you would have automatic rights to MANY sites that only mildly relate to the show. That's unreasonable bullshit. The internet isn't television, it's a world wide market. Those people were faster on the draw than you and your team. You shouldn't be calling people lame, but rather asking yourself in what ways you could better perform your duties so it doesn't happen again. That is how business works.

George

Mr. Logan also called my on my misuse of the word "copywrite" and what i actually wanted was "copyright." So, I'd consider that a major point boost for the side of the jerkfaces.

Next time, Gadget. Next time.

I was wrong about one thing. . .

About a year ago, music.myspace.com/pearljam was being run by what appeared to be Ten Club, as far as I know. The text was representitive of that fact. Now it seems as though that fellow has gone ahead and claimed that as well.

While I think it's weak that he has both, I still am fully aware that it's not against the law. It may be in violation of some MySpace regulation, but that's not going to change the situation.

Your understanding of the ACPA is still very innacurate, despite your schooling in the "music industry."

The law protects copywrites and registered trademarks. It does not enable corporations to come along and snatch up every website that has anything to do with their products or services. The ACPA actually also protects private citizens from that being possible.

The law is also largely useless when dealing with international copywrite violations.

It gives people the right to purchase domains. In some cases, a provider can move to have a domain be removed from service, but no law makes that necessary, nor does a law prevent the name from immediately being purchased by another person not associated with the company or product. If that happens, and the person is not within the country that has the laws, then ther eisn't anything anyone can do about it unless the provider decides to take moral action.

Unfortunately, that's only about 45% true. I'm assuming you put that together off the top of your head and a back issue of TIME magazine.

What you're talking about and what I am talking about are not the same things. You cannot, as a celebrity, claim a domain name trough anticybersquatting laws unless the website being hosted by the domain is violating some copywrite laws. This rule is more often over turned by courts than it is enforced. The only real law that exists in this country -- The United States -- is that antisquatting law. But, that law only applies to corperations. If someone claims a Domain called "Pepsi" after Pepsi has been a company for twenty years, the law doesn't apply. Also, the law mainly exists to stop people from extorting the companies for the domain name. In other words, you cannot charge the company more than the domain, by itself, is worth. You can, however, charge the company the price you paid for the domain. When taken to court the UDRP is often overturned, so I wouldn't be worried about it. The ACPA is limited to -- provable -- wrongful or "bad faith" intent that has to do with direct copywrite or personal name use, so it doesn’t apply to any of the examples I gave. That means that if you have a domain name, trademark or not, that you are freely using and has nothing to with the trademark, then the action that can be taken against you is limited. It does give the company the right to PURCHASE the used domain from a user, but not to swoop in and steal. You, sir, are wrong.

He is using the name and he is not profiting or slandering the product in the name at all. He is also not representing the product. The name simply exists. That's not against the law, and under the law, Ten Club nor Pearl jam has any right to come in and steal it away without compensation.

Now, as far as the Howard Stern thing goes, Howard Stern is a registered trademark. HowardStern.com is not hijacked by anyone. It's owned by the trademark owning company. Any other domain would only vaguely represent the product. That is not protected, in favour of the accuser, by the law. So, those people who did invest in all of those domain names didn't break any laws and could not be made to take any action whatsoever. In that case, even if they asked for a ridiculous price for the domain name, they aren't breaking the law. If I made a website called TCActor.com or CruiseActor.com, Tom Cruise could not come and demand that I turn the domain over to him or his estate. And, even if he asked me to give him the domain name, since it doesn't break any laws, I would have the right to ask any price I saw fit for my investment. In the case of our Pearl Jam situation, Myspace is a free service. The different venues by which Ten Club can reach the public on this service are numerous and diverse. In fact, Ten Club already runs the music.myspace.com/pearljam site. That is their allotted venue. If they tried to move on that, that would be illegal. Also, if the Howard Stern people tried to bring action against the people with vague referenced domain names, they are also breaking the law can be fined HUGE amounts of money. They have no right to the secondary websites. Not by law, not by right, and not by moral. This Pearl Jam guy is well within his rights and any law to ask for compensation for the MySpace website, chief.

Thanks, though. Debate on any issue is crucial to the development of ideas.

George.

I can't believe how overly serious people are getting about this. 

:: sigh ::

Everyone just needs to relax!