August 30, 2002

Patting Self on Back

I sprung for a Radio license today. Yay.
Posted by system at 01:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


I was at the local Blockbuster tonight and came across a title in the new releases section that I hadn't heard of before. "Dahmer".

"Interesting", I thought to myself. "Don't remember this one being released in the theatre." Which quickly took me back to thoughts of the first time I thought this - anyone remember "Supergirl"? (which incidentally had a theatrical release of about 3 days). Anyways, given the rather, shall we say, "interesting" subject matter, I added it to the other two movies I'd picked (got to love three day rentals) and was on my merry way.

Getting home, I mentally prepped myself for the 2 hours that lay ahead of me. Made sure I'd finished eating before sitting down, sat through the "Making Of" featurette with my wife to make sure that she was fully on board for the spectacle and then eventually hit "Play".

I must say that the movie wasn't nearly as interesting as it could have been. The entire two hours was spent detailing the pathetic life that Dahmer led. We start off the movie knowing that he's a grisly serial killer, get dragged through a bunch of flashbacks that support our initial knowledge and then end the movie knowing that he will always be a serial killer. Nor do we actually get to the real dark roots of his twisted tree, the details that most fascinated the gruesome curiosity of the world in 1991. The director avoided most of the less savory facts of Dahmer's life; the necrophilia, the cannabilism, the limbs, heads & genitalia stored throughout Dahmer's apartment...

What the Jacobson did do quite well though is draw a very direct, and disturbing line between the darker side of human nature and a pathetic creature that could quite literally be the person standing behind you right now. Perhaps the most compelling aspect of the film is that he manages to pull  this off without the sensationalism that would have actually got this flick a decent run at the local theatre. Knowing however that the actual story was much more intriguing than what this cinematic veneer was portraying, I could never quite get to the heart of what I think that the director was trying to portray. Dahmer himself noted at trial that "It's hard for me to believe that a human being could have done what I've done, but I know that I did it." - this is what I wanted to see, this is what I had hoped the director was going to show me.

If you have a slightly twisted or adventurous taste in films, this one might interest you. 5.9 in my books. Kept my interest, made me think, probably won't rent it again, would possibly rewatch on cable - if I had cable ;)

(1 being the most amazing B movies ever made, 10 being the film that you've watched 35 times already and will 35 more, 5 being your average Hollywood blockbuster.)

Posted by system at 01:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NewNet NonNews and Welcome to Virginia, dotcom owners

The community seems to have missed the real news of the day in the "Big Precedent" department. NAF permitting tomfoolery by making a ruling on a 4th level domain (or a second level if you believe the spin) isn't "groundbreaking" in any way shape or form. In fact it is a seeming non-event that proves nothing other than the now-fact that people that pay good money to register a domain name in a TLD that doesn't resolve in most homes on my block (and yours) are now willing to toss good money into dispute arbitration proceedings. I'd love to read the filings. "The Registrant has infringed on my fake trademark by registering a fake name. We request that the panelist find a way to resolve this dispute quickly because goodness knows the name isn't resolving any time soon."

The real news of the day came from a real court regarding an issue with a real TLD.

The short version is that a Virginia Court has held that domain names are indeed property and can be subject to in rem actions.

The long version, while likely much more interesting, is beyond my sleep deprived capability to comprehend at this point. I did read the article however and would highly recommend that you do the same. Me retelling the story any further won't do it justice, but here are a few choice quotes. Needless to say that this really changes things in the dotCOMmonwealth.

"So where exactly does a domain name live? If you're a purist, you'll say that it doesn't 'live' anywhere ... If you are a United States District Judge, presented with a .com domain name, you'll say that a domain name is a piece of property with a geographical existence - in the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA. Why? Because that is where the registry for .com domain names is to be found.

The court decisions affirming this principle were Porsche Cars v and others, and Harrods Limited v Sixty Internet Domain Names. You may be wondering how it is that the Plaintiffs appear to be suing domain names rather than people or companies. In an odd twist, strange at least to most non-lawyers, US law says that a domain name is a piece of property that can be sued in its own right. This is called an in rem action (Latin for 'against the thing' as opposed to in personam or 'against the person'). The consequence of this peculiar state of affairs is that all of those registrants who have a .com domain name but live outside Virginia are viewed as absentee owners of property situated there. If you injure someone by virtue of that property (we're talking trademark disputes here) then Virginia's courts will take the case."


Posted by system at 12:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack