340335
story
Comments: 90 +- Your Rights Online: IFPI Domain Dispute Likely to Go To Court on Sunday October 21 2007, @08:03AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicdoj.gif); width:50px; height:79px;
court
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgovt.gif); width:57px; height:80px;
government
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicnews.gif); width:60px; height:66px;
news
fgaliegue writes "Ars Technica has a follow-up on the ifpi.com domain takeover by The Pirate Bay. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, ifpi.org, is quite unhappy that the .com is now a link to the (still not live) International Federation of Pirates Interests. The ifpi.com domain has been free as soon as March of this year, according to WebArchive. Nevertheless, the "real" IFPI wants to take it to the WIPO under the accusation of cybersquatting."
Related Stories
Life exists for no known purpose.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Not actually squatting (Score:3, Interesting)
Still, one shouldn't underestimate the potential for corruption in organizations like the WIPO. Especially since they have their hands in the large and varied jar of "intellectual property".
Re:Not actually squatting (Score:4, Informative)
It's not about "good use", it's about copyright and "bad faith" [icann.org].
In this case, it'd probably have to resort the part (iii), which usually is about one competitor registering another competitor's site. IE. Coca-Cola registering Pepsi.com and redirecting it to Coke.com. However, IANAL, and but they can probably convince some judge of part (iii) and (iv) below.
Parent
Re:Not actually squatting (Score:5, Interesting)
The IFPI is not a business. Pirate Bay is not its competitor. This clearly doesn't apply.
This is harder. However, the IFPI.com site has a prominent link to IFPI.org along with a disclaimer pointing out that they are not affiliated. Such disclaimers and links have, I believe, been successful in the past at protecting against claims under this term.
I think TPB have a fairly good case to keep the domain.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Look again, at the bottom of the page. It is small, but it is there.
Re:Not actually squatting (Score:4, Insightful)
And who said they have to be businesses in competition? (IV) says "...intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain...". Last time I checked, Pirate Bay ran scads of ads, which they don't give away for free. If you're honest you understand clearly that Pirate Bay bought the domain because of its connection to IFPI.org, and a reasonable person assumes that such a connection exists and would drive traffic.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
you left out the important part:
"by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark"
of course almost all domain names would qualify as attempting to gain traffic with their domain name choice, thats the point. pirate bay likely has no interest in those attempting to contact the ifpi.org, they do whoever want to get all the publicity possible out of the website name.
this would easily be shown simply with t
Re: (Score:2)
Clause (iii) ("you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor") said this. And that was the clause the sentence you quoted from me was rebutting.
Clause (iv), which you're quoting from there, is rebutted in an entirely separate statement.
Please address your comments to what I actually said, not a strawman version of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Just about every site on the Internet today runs ads to generate revenue (that hopefully covers expenses) regardless of what their other primary goals may be. It seems reasonable to suppose that the stipulation in article IV was intended to apply to sites which are primarily used for commercial gain (i.e. an online store with shopping cart and payment processing as the primary focus of the site OR primarily promoting a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
- RG>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Coca-Cola registering Pepsi.com and redirecting it to Coke.com.
That is EXACTLY whats wrong with ICANN, and why we should band together and set up our own FAIR DNS. FairDNS should sell domain names for whatever they think is a reasonable price and a reasonable time period with the right to renew. When ever someone requests to register a name it should be place up for auction and adverties on a central page some place for 30 days, it should be silent IE you can't see what the current bid is, highest bidder wins and pays $0.01 over the second highest offer. That should
Re: (Score:2)
The complainant has a good case for a(i) and a(iii) but I don't see how they can succeed on a(ii) - that the respondent has no legitimate interest in the name.
If you think these requirements are a bit harsh on
This is not Cybersquatting (Score:5, Interesting)
First, the premise behind Cybersquatting is to obtain money or some other form of compensation. The Pirate Bay has no intention and no desire to obtain any compensation from them. While the site being made may be satirical or "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah" in focus... it's still not cybersquatting.
Looks like someone forgot to pay for the domain, the name lapsed and somebody picked it up then gave it to Pirate Bay. And unless the law changes... Pirate Bay wins.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, there's no law against domain cyber squatting anyway. There are, however, processes to recover .com domains -- it's happened many times before in cases like this. It's entirely likely TPB will loose the domain.
My suggestion to TPB folk is to use the domain to seriously shit on the IFPI in the mean time. IFPI know full well that's on all their old letter heads, business cards etc - embarrass the fuck out of them whilst you can.
Re:This is not Cybersquatting (Score:5, Funny)
Have you considered applying for a
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
They appear to have a reasonable, though perhaps not ironclad shot at winning the dispute. If they use the site to attack another organization with the same initials, they will almost certainly lose.
The "real" IFPI? (Score:2, Funny)
From IFPI.com (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I wonder if they should add "No member of International Federation of Pirates Interests' management is a registered sex offender" to that.
You know.
Just in case.
it's in use (Score:5, Insightful)
If TPB requested a legal fund to defend themselves on this issue, I'd be tossing them some coin right now. Give 'em hell.
I love it when the magic works... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now if we could just get a photograph of Mickey Mouse smoking a dube.
Ed
Re:I love it when the magic works... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly like the recording industry, or at least its litigative section. The rest of it does a valuable job, hedging the risk and lowering the barrier of entry into a music career. The PirateBay, however, is just a leech cannibalising the entire organisation, starting with the useful parts and working its way onto the noxious parts.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
mickey.JPG [0catch.com]
It has graphics and 'coming soon' (Score:2)
If it was the default hosting page, perhaps.. But even then so what? They got it legally. If you wanted it instead and missed out, thats your tough luck.
in a perfect world (Score:4, Insightful)
Just rename the org... (Score:4, Funny)
Pirate Bay should just say IFPI stands for the International Federation of the Pornographic Industry
No cybersquatting here! ;-)
Seriously though, why should anyone be allowed to run to court and file charges of cybersquatting after letting their domain lapse renewal for so many months? There should be a 60-day statute of limitations on these. No one should own an inherent RIGHT to their domain name after letting it lapse. Otherwise you're opening the door for companies and organizations to come back years after the fact and say, "Thank you, I'll take my domain back now."
47 comments and nobody read the article ... (Score:2)
Well, 47 comments, and nobody is quoting from the article because there is no link to it - just to ars' front page.
For the linky-impaired: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071018-battle-brewing-between-pirate-bay-recording-industry-over-ifpi-domain-coup.html [arstechnica.com]
Just in case anyone wants to go against tradition and actually RTFA.
Cyber Squatting? (Score:2, Insightful)
And "cybersquatting" is, "The act of registering a domain name in bad faith, with the sole intent to sell that domain name to its rightful owner."
So, if Pirate Bay buys a domain that was unoccupied, and they plan to use it, then they DO NOT fall into either category...
Maybe someone should point this out befo
Easy winner? (Score:2, Funny)
I think IFPI has a good chance of winning this court battle.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
WIPO fix the results (Score:2)
Given WIPO and ICANN's definition of "bad faith" - which says that the domain cannot be used to cause confusion with the "Complainant's mark" - there's a decent chance of The Pirate Bay eventually losing control of the domain. But if Pirate Bay can fight back and prove somehow that it has no commercial interests or intent to confuse visitors with the "real" IFPI site, it might have a chance at succeeding.
"We have not done anything illegal or even immoral," Sunde told Ars. "I can't see why we shouldn't be able to keep the domain name. We're not going to bash IFPI on it, we're going to host our own IFPI on it," he said.
Given that UN WIPO clearly are a bunch of crooks that made the corrupt UDRP rules so that their customers can overreach trademarks - even though there is absolutely no infringement against them - then the Phonographic Industry have the odds stacked in their favour.
There is no other occassion wereby you can have legal proceeding taken against you - when have committed no wrong-doing or tort against the complainant.
Don't be a fooled by the propaganda; this is no 'boundary dispute' - the ifpi.com domai
Taking over? (Score:2)
Re:Pretty Cheesy (Score:4, Informative)
No one has "taken over" the site. It was for sale. Someone bought it, and gave it to the Pirate Bay. If they want the site so badly, perhaps they can offer to BUY IT from Pirate Bay, no?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Correct, this would not be a good idea. See Mike Rowe Soft [wikipedia.org]
Relevant quote:
Re:Pretty Cheesy (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if you're trying to imply that The Pirate Bay hacked into their site and took it over that's just wrong. They got hold of a lapsed domain name and apparently they're using it. The fact that they torqued off the IFPI (not a pleasant bunch to begin with) is just too bad. Furthermore, it's exactly the sort of thing that The Pirate Bay would do
Besides, I think it's hysterical. And I wouldn't be too sure of the WIPO business either.
Parent
Good cheese (Score:2)
Ironically, I will now remember ifpi.com easily, and never would have remembered anything to with pirate bay before. For me, this puts the link in my brain to reflect FSMs association of global warming with lack of pirates.
Now if they loose it, I will probably remember this article and be able to find the article and from there find the site, but isn't that sort of what good domain names are designed to help simplify?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Piracy might hurt creativity in some ways but also helps it in others. Bad material is more likely to get substantial/critical damage from it.
Re:Cut the BS PirateBay! (Score:4, Insightful)
The Pirate Bay and others like it are fighting a battle where the clashing ideologies are essentially based on who has a right to make how much money. The *AA believe they have the right to profit the most from music and have the system of law to back them up. The opposing group believes that this system of law squelches art and freedom and may well eventually destroy the ability of the artist to have music, movies or other art distributed in a fair manner to the masses.
Since there is a body of law in question, the issue is not so simple as just two groups arguing, the one without the legal backing must by definition break the laws in order to do what they feel is ethically right. It is immoral and unethical to follow a bad law, and they believe the laws concerning copyright are bad ones.
Radiohead and allofmp3.com make convincing arguments that the current system does in fact depress creative and free expression. The issue doesn't affect me directly since I don't purchase and don't download and rarely listen to music and don't watch movies other than the ones on broadcast TV. Still, I watch closely since flouted laws tend to get changed after a lot of squabbling, and maybe someday there will be sufficient art out there that some of it will appeal to me.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed so far. There has been certain
Re: (Score:2)
No, I disagree. I believe that civil disobedience is highly immoral most of the time. This is a democracy,
You lost me there. The country I live in isn't a democracy.
you do have a voice, you can change the laws.
Ok, how could I do that?
All you need to do is convince people that this is a problem that needs fixing, and no matter how much lobbying goes on, a politician simply isn't going to get work unless they address the issue.
Look, in America, you usually get a choice between two candidates for any given office. The primaries are pretty much a joke (although this year, there may be some interesting battles since the religious right may back a completely different presidential candidate from the GOP.) In senate and house races, you sometimes don't even get a choice on the candidate, but when you do, redistricting pretty much guarantees that o
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, it may not work for you. Consider yourself excused! :)
However, if you were in a democracy, you take more responsibility with your freedoms. It's not enough to give up on the whole thing and take matters into your own hands. Citizens of democracy aren't just handed
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wanted to add that your views on civil disobedience, particularly the selfish nature of them, are skewed. Most people who cry "civil disobedience!" aren't enacting true civil disobedience. It's not just about breaking the law that you feel is unjust. It's about dealing with the consequences, and using the attention you get from those consequences to fuel your cause and get people on your side.
If I pirate a movie, that's not civil disobed
Who's arguing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sancho: You have some valid points. It isn't that democracy itself is bad, but rather that the people who have the most control of the government, and the laws created by the government, are not for the most part in the control of the people supposedly represented. If you educate 10,000 people about the issue, then get their opinions, I'd be shocked to hear that most of them think the current system of content distribution is fair. If the will of the people, as determined by an educated majority were to act
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, I take it all back. Thanks for enlightening me.
Re: (Score:2)
Number one, people with short hours are part of a demographic, and often demographics are known to have certain tastes. If we limit music creation to just them, that's another skew on the music-creation spectrum.
Music is an interesting example, because it's fabricated and altered so much by the industry already. Lots of music sounds identical, these days. The labels take an artist who has a bit of talent and they transform them into something that's proven (by years of focus groups and seeing what sells) to make money from the masses. If an artist is lucky and gets big enough, they might be able to branch out and get more creative control. Otherwise, you're going to get lots of rehashed stuff from popular labe