 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Janice Overbeck
Date: 2003-11-20 19:59
Has anyone heard about International Musical Supplier's co-owner Mark Thompson re-directing competitor's web-sites to his one? Someone told me there was an article in one of the music trade rags in reference to this, but I can't find it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2003-11-20 20:00
Jancie - I think you're skating on thin ice here ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-11-20 20:43
Janice,
Could you now enlighten us with what you found in the magazine? If there is no substance to the rumor I need to delete the thread.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Janice Overbeck
Date: 2003-11-20 21:02
Sure, it seems that Mr. Thompson bought the rights to "quinlanandfabish.com" and another retailers domain name, I believe American Music. When you typed in these names, you were directed to the IMS website. The articles appeared in the two issues of the Music Trades magazine, August/September issues, with a story and a rebuttaal from IMS. I'm not trying to defame anyone here and am sorry if I pee'd anyone off. I work in the music business and was shocked to hear this was going on. I have the utmost respect for Ms. Argiris and was looking to see what anyone else could tell me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msroboto
Date: 2003-11-21 03:11
so did you put quinlanandfabish.com into your browser and see where you went. I did and I went to a site that looked like it was Quinlan and Fanish to me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Karel
Date: 2003-11-21 12:34
Janice, don't you think that the outlay of money "to purchase the rights" to a web sight includes its goodwill and the right to redirect potential customers? I fail to see anything shocking here. Although msroboto seems to have been able to reach the website OK. What is the problem in your eyes?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Janice Overbeck
Date: 2003-11-21 13:13
It does now, but all summer long it went to IMS. If you read the articles you will see this. The rights to that name are owned by Mark Thompson.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William Hughes ★2017
Date: 2003-11-21 16:16
Some retailers have found maintaining an independent on-line presence economically challenging. Guitar Center, Inc., for instance, merged with Musician's Friend, Inc. in 1999 and now redirects on-line purchasers to musiciansfriend.com. Musician's Friend, in turn, has formed an alliance with giaridelli.com and has added a link to that site. The business world, particularly as it relates to the use of the internet, is very fluid right now. You will see more of this for the forseeable future as retailers try to sort this out. Change is not bad or good, but it is inevitable.
Post Edited (2003-11-21 17:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2003-11-21 20:02
The process of web "squatting", ie holding a Domain name that resembles the business name of another company was made illegal a few years back in Australia to stop this sort of "sharp" practice. When the WWW first started to become popular, some people purchased domain names resembling the trading names of large companies and then sold them back to the companies for huge profits. I am surprised that the USA has not legislated to stop this practice.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-11-21 20:23
Mark Pinner wrote:
> I am surprised that the USA has not legislated to
> stop this practice.
Squatting is generally not permitted. Buying domain names is. There's a distinction and difference. The ownership of domain names and determiniation of squatting is done by the court system - things are never as cut & dried as you might imagine (see http://www.nissan.com for an example where two entities had perfectly valid rights to a domain name ...). If you decide to buy a domain name that contains a trademark, you'll most probably have to give it up.
By the way, the administration and rules regarding domain names is not an "American" thing. It's run by ICANN - they set the rules for .com and .net (and a few more, but not .org anymore), not any country.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2003-11-21 20:36
Obviously the USA has some legislation in this regard, as has Australia, so individual countries do have some control. I realise that domain names are administered by ICANN but when the buying and selling goes on within a particular country the laws of that country apply, as with anything else. I did not make any inference, or statement, that the rules regarding domain names were an "American" thing but I make an assumption, confirmed somewhat by the above post, that within US borders, US legislation applies or should apply. I really hope that John Gibson's comment is tongue in cheek.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob A
Date: 2003-11-21 20:43
I Think Willie Shakespear said some place, "First, kill all the Lawyers."
Bob A
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-11-21 20:47
Mark Pinner wrote:
> I really hope that John Gibson's comment is tongue in cheek.
Not as much as you'd think. Business is business.
Recently Verisign set up their top-level resolver to make any mistyped domain name point to their system and ask you if youn wanted to buy it. It was user pressure alone that caused them to cease & desist. They hadn't broken any laws (that anyone could find) but they broke their trust.
I and others are now avoiding anything at all to do with Verisign when technically feasible. It'll take a long time for them to be considered a good "netizen" again.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2003-11-21 20:59
Business may be business but without customers there is no business. Verisign and their "sharp" practices seem to have alienated a couple of customers at least. Peeing people off is not good business.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jim lande
Date: 2003-11-25 02:14
Same thing happens with phone numbers. AT&T acquired and advertised the 800 number "800 OPERATOR" (Obviously the final 'r' was not necessary.) MCI then acquired the number "800 OPERATER" and got plenty of business from people like me. (Yes, I had to look up operator before deciding which carrier had which number. Spelling R not Us.)
Another example: used to be that local phone companies owned most of the payphones. In Texas, when you dialed the local operator to place a long distance call, the operator would offer to switch you whichever long distance company you preferred. If you said "I don't know" or "Doesn't matter", you got switched to very high priced companies that had trademarked those 'names'.
And there was the poor duck farmer who acquired the number "800-BUY-DUCK." But that is a different story.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
