Any single law, fair in some instances, will be unfair in other instances. The principle of Precedence is used to make a legal decision consistently fair or unfair over time.
The Blogger Help "law": This blog has been abandoned and I want its address, which controls the reissuing of "abandoned" URLs, is not fair - to those who want a URL, that appears abandoned, issued to them. Yet, it is uniformly unfair to everybody.
The Blogger "law" about the permanence of URLs simply says
Blogger accounts and Blog*Spot addresses do not expire. Therefore, we can't take away somebody's blog address to give to you.This law says nothing about activity - a blog updated once in 5 years is equally as valid as one updated daily for 5 years.
If a blog was setup 5 years ago, and never updated, it is still valid, in the eyes of the law. This may be unfair to other people, who would like to use that URL, and have a more dynamic blog. But, it is uniformly unfair to everybody.
To do any better, Blogger would require a system of laws, considering factors such as
- Frequency of blog updates.
- Time elapsed since last blog update.
- Individual, and average, relevance of blog updates to content in general.
- Quality of blog updates.
- Relative need of use of that URL, by the current owner and by the prospective new owner.
- Relevance of URL to current affairs.
- I'm sure that you can think of still more relevant factors.
Would you want to have to defend yourself, and your right to retain your URL, against any newcomer who desired your URL? Maybe against two newcomers, who simultaneously desired your URL? Knowing that the more popular URLs will always have more prospective new owners (You're not the only one who wants to take over that URL!)?
Instead of subjecting themselves, and all bloggers, to a system of undefinable complexity, Blogger simply made one law.
Blogger accounts and Blog*Spot addresses do not expire. Therefore, we can't take away somebody's blog address to give to you.That's the law, and it's equally fair or unfair to everybody.
This policy, at least, limits the active unfairness to the limited few, who can't think of a URL except the ones that are taken, causing them to protest the unfairness.
Were Blogger to setup a courts system, and judge the permanence of any URL when one of the latter decided to demand that Blogger take away someone else's blog address to give to them, the unfairness would be much more widely spread.
- Many worthy and anxious bloggers would have to spend more time waiting, as the Blogger judges were busy judging a URL permanence case, for their blogs to be unlocked, custom domain to be reset, or another Blogger wildfire to be diagnosed.
- Many folks with popular URLs would have to, repeatedly, defend their right to continue to publish to their URL.
- Maybe even, sometime later, the person who successfully took away someone else's URL would have to defend his right to continue publishing to that URL.