The first article that really struck me was the Keith Urban lawsuit article. For the country singer to think he has any right over a public domain is absolutely ridiculous! The owner of the domain has just as much right to keithurban.com as the country singer does because the owner is not using the sight in association with the country singer. Nowhere on the site does the owner claim to be the country singer nor does he advertise any type of merchandise involving the singer. I do understand that many people would be confused by this website because the owner does not say he is NOT the country singer but why should he have to? He is not profitting from having this domain name, and I'm sure if he happens to get fan letters he explains that he is not the country singer (well I can only assume that he would do that). I also feel that if you're big enough of a fan of Keith Urban the country singer you would know that he doesn't do oil paintings. Another point I'd like to bring up is when a music singer has an official website he or she has their music on the site plus he or she advertising what shows they are going to be on and concert dates plus any other important things they think their fans would be interested in. For instance, I happen to be a pretty big fan of Christina Aguilera and when I first went to her site, I knew it was her official site because it had her music and tour dates and merchandise advertised right on the front page, plus there was the fan club link. If i were to go to a website that didn't have all that stuff I would know it wasn't the official site of the singer or celebrity I was looking for. I think Keith Urban the owner of the domain should not have to give up this site because he signed up for it and has done nothing illegal with it.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)