View Single Post
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2006, 02:36 PM
steveglobal steveglobal is offline
WebProWorld New Member
 

Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 22
steveglobal RepRank 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EFEaglehouse
Restricting domain names is a restraint of trade and is a poor method of control. If there is ever a successful trial that relies on this inane law, it won't be long before all businesses are pigeonholed into specific domain name formats. The law is overly broad. A site named "body.com" could be applied to any number of industries, not just porn, and is not in itself deceptive. This law gives the puritanical, political nutcases a means to file more frivolous lawsuits, as if we don't have enough of those already.
I think you are looking at it backwards. Having a site called "body.com" that points to health products will not be affected by this law (IMO). However, having a site called "luckycharms.com" that points to photos of Irish genitalia is what this law is designed to prevent.

Also, I would have a hard time believing that this law has been written just so that an enforcement body can go around hunting down people to throw in jail, simply because they put up a vacation photo of their girlfriend in a bikini on their blog site called "ilovecandy.com". Rather, it is a tool for them to use so that when they find someone doing something shady, they have the means to prosecute and punish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EFEaglehouse
Don't blame websites for taking advantage of users' inability to use a keyboard; that's putting blame in the wrong place.
Blame in the wrong place? It's exactly the right place. You aren't going to throw users in jail because they are stupid (although some would argue that you should). The Web site is the one being deceptive. There are thousands of laws that deal with this principle - full disclosure on sales of houses and vehicles, truth in advertising, advertised pricing guarantees, warranty obligation, etc. Laws in these areas are all designed to protect the consumer from deceptive practice, especially if it is beyond their control ("Caveat Emptor" notwithstanding - I'm talking about when the user has already done due diligence and cannot reasonably discover the nature of a deception).

I think you've gone a bit too far into the deep end of the cynicism pool.
Reply With Quote