Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship

How Many Domains Does Your School Own? 255

ADrexelStudent asks: "A debate has been brought up in recent months at my school, Drexel University, on the issue of whether the school should be allowed to own over 300 domain names. One domain, drexel.com, has been purchased from the students that owned the site, which was being used as a student forum. Another site, drexel.org, is under contest from the school against it's owner, a student. The university claims they didn't know the owner was a student and hence filed a lawsuit claiming trademark violation. Problem is the school doesn't own the trademark, a furniture company with no relation to Drexel does. Out of all the 300+ domains, only one outside the .edu TLD is being used, drexel.com, prompting the argument that this is an attempt by the university to silence student opinion on the Internet. My question for slashdot is how many schools out there purchase domains with no intent to use them, should student tuition be used in this manner, and what is your opinion of this practice?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Many Domains Does Your School Own?

Comments Filter:
  • by Matt2000 ( 29624 ) on Saturday September 29, 2001 @11:33AM (#2367977) Homepage

    Whether or not they posess the trademark, a school will not be able to silence student's opinions by regaining control of drexel.org or whatever. There are simply too many places to put up a webserver and I have a feeling that the domain name matters less than the number of students contributing to the server.

    I guess the question is, why isn't this drexel company stepping in and sorting everyone out?
  • by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Saturday September 29, 2001 @12:11PM (#2368108)
    Well.. I agree..
    But the way to do multiple websites is to use www.science.drexel.edu, www.staff.drexel.edu, etc...
    ~username is fine for individual users pages on a given server perhaps...

    DNS issupposed to be heirarchial.. the problem is it's also a be-all-end-all lookup service for the WWW now.
    You want ford? YOu don't look up 'ford motor company' in an index and go to the site, you go to 'ford.com'.. that's the problem.
  • by Cap'n Crax ( 313292 ) on Saturday September 29, 2001 @12:20PM (#2368128) Homepage
    I meant using the tilde for students, etc... What you said is exactly what my university does for departments. Try this search, it will show the way things SHOULD be done:

    Google search site: eku.edu [google.com]

  • by Kagato ( 116051 ) on Saturday September 29, 2001 @12:23PM (#2368134)
    Higher education doesn't run just off tuition. Most larger universities take in millions of dollars a year from the State and Federal Gov't. Some in the form of grants. Others straight up dollars into the budget.

    As a tax payer I want to know how MY MONEY is being spent. If a tax payer funded organization is wasting thousands of dollars on leagal and domain fees, then I'm pissed. The tax payers of the state entrusted money to see that standard of education was met. And as it stands I can't even fathom a good reason to waste that much money.

    Then again, I think the entire higher education system is worse at wasting money then the federal gov't.
  • by phaze3000 ( 204500 ) on Saturday September 29, 2001 @12:31PM (#2368157) Homepage
    How presumptuous to think you have any say in how your tuition is spent. You don't wonder aloud what McDonald's does with your cash after you buy a Happy Meal, do you? And if you don't like it, you don't give them the money.

    Wait, first you argue we have no right to know how the money we spend with a company is used, then you argue that if we don't like the way the money is used we shouldn't spend it there. The two views are incompatible.

    There are places I won't spend my money because of the way it may be used (Domino's Pizza [holysmoke.org] for example). The discussion of how companies use our money is one of the few powers captilism gives the masses; vote with your feet and you can make the company think again. If this were to be disallowed, then there would be nothing to keep corporations in check.

  • by LinuxParanoid ( 64467 ) on Saturday September 29, 2001 @01:01PM (#2368251) Homepage Journal
    that was a while ago. this is "news"?
  • by EisPick ( 29965 ) on Saturday September 29, 2001 @02:36PM (#2368506)
    I don't know if you meant this as a hypothetical or not, but it does happen.

    Here's another example: I discouraged a former employer from snapping up every possible related domain name. We had the .com version of our brand name, and that's where people were going to look for us, so I argued that grabbing the .net and .org versions was unnecessary.

    Well a few years later, we found that a British neo-Nazi group had acquired the .org version we passed up. Guess who looked like an idiot?
  • by Metallic Mongoose ( 147944 ) on Saturday September 29, 2001 @03:47PM (#2368654)
    WhereI'm coming from: I spent the last 5 years (first as a student, then in IT and the Dean of Students Office) at a college that had a not very disimilar situation regarding a student run site that used{collegename}.com as its address; I am now in a Dean of Students Office at a college that has yet to be deviled with such a problem.

    Should Drexel have 300+ domain names?
    ...well, given the way everyone else on the net treats domain names, it isn't surprising that they do. On the other hand, it does seem both silly and wasteful.

    It does make a lot of sense for colleges to purchase their {collegename}.com site (if it is unowned), maintaining it as either a mirror of their .edu site, or something seperate. The reason for this is simple--most people don't know how to browse the web, and just stil .com at the end of whatever they're looking for. ...if they're looking for a college site, and instead come up with porn, or--even worse--something hateful using the school's name, then the school is going to have to waste incriddible amounts of time/energy/money explaining that it isn't their site, and trying to make amends with andry people.
    It doesn't matter that legally it isn't the College's responsibility--the College will lose the preception battle on this one, *particularly* if the offending site is about the college.

    The answer is simple--buy the bloody site.
    I don't feel that this resitricts the expression of students or anyone else; it's still easy to put up a site called {collegename}student.com or {collegename}sucks.com or whatever...

    And I wouldn't worry about tuition dollars being used to make the purchase. ...tuition is rarely a money-maker for colleges; infact, at the (small, liberal arts) colleges I'm familar with, tuition doesn't even always cover the actual cost of a student being at the college. This is why colleges spend so much energy in raising money from alums and outside doners--it's the only way to keep things running. ...it's also the way to fund purchasing a .com site; just find some alums/trustees/donors who are on board, and have them donate a sum expressively for that purpose.

    ...Of course, any College that hasn't trademarked their name is also asking for a whole world of hurt.

  • by jim.robinson ( 135817 ) on Saturday September 29, 2001 @03:55PM (#2368676) Homepage
    If people do not believe they are getting an education at Drexel which is commensurate to the very high tuition, why do they continue to attend? With that amount of money being spent, and the quote that financial aid is poor, I imagine students should be able to afford a different school.

    Censorship is always a touchy issue, but a private school is in fact allowed to practice it. The first amendment is protecting us from the government imposing censorship. A private company is still able to warn employees: either you stop saying that or you will be fired. A school is still able to tell students that they can't print something in a school funded paper.

    An example: Chelsea Clinton attended Stanford from 1997 to 2001. I hear that Stanford takes a strict view on enforcing privacy for its students, and in this case they apparently enforced a ban on stories about Chelsea. Well, a student columnist was fired [mercurycenter.com] for writing a story about the ban the University had put in place. Doesn't sound very fair does it? But it's within their rights.

    You can always bring pressure on the school, and I assume such has happened in the past. But I don't agree with arguments that a school should not be allowed to buy up domain names in an attempt to keep the most obvious avenues of criticism closed.

    Jim Robinson

  • by phillymjs ( 234426 ) <slashdot@stanTWAINgo.org minus author> on Saturday September 29, 2001 @07:33PM (#2369174) Homepage Journal
    I went there from '91 to '93, and hated it. The curriculum was SHIT. I was a Comp Sci major, forced to take more physics and chemistry than MacGyver did. I dropped out-- walked out of a class one afternoon in July of 1993 (For those who didn't know, Drexel is a co-op school, so you get to sit in a hot-ass lecture hall in the summer while your friends are down the shore) and never went back-- and got a job in the real world. Ten years later, none of the shit they said I had to learn to get a degree in CompSci has EVER come up. Imagine that.

    To keep this post somewhat on topic-- I think it's a real dick move on Drexel's part trying to sit on all those domains just so nobody else can use them for anything.

    ~Philly

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Working...