Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government News

IFPI Domain Dispute Likely to Go To Court 90

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the big-shock-here dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IFPI Domain Dispute Likely to Go To Court

Comments Filter:
  • by tietokone-olmi (26595) on Sunday October 21, 2007 @09:08AM (#21062445)
    They're putting it to good use, right? Besides, claims of squatting would sound rather strange considering ifpi.com had lapsed in March already, and they're only twitching now that it's become a mite embarrassing.

    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".
    • by Fozzyuw (950608) on Sunday October 21, 2007 @09:34AM (#21062557)

      They're putting it to good use, right?

      It's not about "good use", it's about copyright and "bad faith" [icann.org].

      a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that

      (i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

      (ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

      (iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

      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.

      b. Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

      (i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

      (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

      (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

      (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

      • by julesh (229690) on Sunday October 21, 2007 @10:08AM (#21062701)

        However, IANAL, and but they can probably convince some judge of part (iii) and (iv) below.
        [...]
        (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or


        The IFPI is not a business. Pirate Bay is not its competitor. This clearly doesn't apply.

        (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.


        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.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by julesh (229690)
          Also, TPB doesn't gain commercially from any visitors it attracts to the site. It's (likely to be) a political campaigning site. There are free speech arguments to be made here.
        • by Frosty Piss (770223) on Sunday October 21, 2007 @01:18PM (#21064127)

          The IFPI is not a business. Pirate Bay is not its competitor. This clearly doesn't apply.
          Oh come on! The IFPI is an outfit whose sole purpose is to protect intellectual property interests of their masters. Pirate Bay is an "anti-IP" organization, clearly there is a connection. Pirate Bay didn't just buy some random domain for no particular reason.

          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.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Dare nMc (468959)

            competition? (IV) says "...intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain..."

            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

          • by julesh (229690)
            And who said they have to be businesses in competition? (IV) says "...intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain...".

            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.
          • Last time I checked, Pirate Bay ran scads of ads, which they don't give away for free.

            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)

        by RealGrouchy (943109)

        In this case, it'd probably have to resort the part (iii), which usually is about one competitor registering another competitor's site.
        It's not a matter of choosing one part. It clearly states that subsections i, ii, AND iii must be met to make a cybersquatting claim.

        - RG>
      • by astrotek (132325)
        Couldn't it be said that thepiratebay.org is being used in bad faith with respect to copyright too?

        (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

        (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site o

      • by DarkOx (621550)

        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

        • This is how domains would work if there weren't any bad people in the world. Suppose I start a web site and I get a lot of traffic. A LOT of traffic and it's because I provide a well known and well liked service. When domain registration time comes around, I'm going to depend a LOT on getting that domain name again, so I'll bid very high for it. Now some asshole or a competitor wants to hurt me so they bid high, but not as high as I would actually bid. I have to pay a huge amount simply because someone is m
        • by KDR_11k (778916)
          This would be way too abusable for disrupting other businesses. Imagine e.g. Microsoft hijacking all Linux-related domains or Fox News hijacking Slashdot. An individual will have a hard time raising enough money to outbid a huge corporation intent on stealing his domain. Noone would use that DNS because it would be worthless to the user since the domain names are unlikely to be related to the content.
        • There is nothing wrong with Coca-Cola buying Pepsi.com and redirecting it. Its a market...

          No, that's not a market. A market is competition. Using domain names in the manner you describe is combative, not competive.

          You link to RMS's "Right to Read"; you ought to read this [southernct.edu]:

          Constructive competition is enough competition to motivate people to great efforts. A number of people are competing to be the first to have visited all the countries on Earth; some even spend fortunes trying to do this. But they do

      • by asamad (658115)
        Wasn't there some sort of political group setup around piratebay, link it to that
      • Did you see two "AND"s after a(i) and a(ii). This means that to prevail the complainant needs to show ALL THREE facts - i.e. that the domain name is confusingly similar the the complainant's valid marks AND the respondent has no legitimate interest in the name AND the name is being used in bad faith.

        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
  • by RaigetheFury (1000827) on Sunday October 21, 2007 @09:10AM (#21062457)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting [wikipedia.org]

    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.
    • by Gossi (731861)
      And unless the law changes... Pirate Bay wins.

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 21, 2007 @09:36AM (#21062573)
        It's entirely likely TPB will loose the domain.
        Have you considered applying for a /. editor position?
      • by norton_I (64015)
        That will pretty much guarantee that they lose, though, by ICANN rules.

        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.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I don't understand why International Facilities and Property Information Ltd. [int-fpi.com] would be suing The Pirate Bay.
  • From IFPI.com (Score:2, Informative)

    by Devv (992734)
    "International Federation of Pirates Interests should not be confused with {The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry}[ifpi.org]."
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "International Federation of Pirates Interests should not be confused with {The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry}[ifpi.org]."

      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)

    by v1 (525388) on Sunday October 21, 2007 @09:23AM (#21062509) Homepage Journal
    Despite the looks of the headlines hre, TPB IS using the site. Heck, they've got more content on their page than I do on mine. It's not a lot more than a "comig soon..." page but we see that all the time for businesses that are just getting their cyberpresense off the ground. I suppose every reasonable person already has concluded that the IFPI (org) doesn't have a leg to stand on but I am enjoying the opportunity to laugh at (A) the org's ineptitude of allowing this to happen in the first place, and (B) for an organization that so enjoys perverting the law to their benefit finding themselves clearly positioned on the other end of the gun.

    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 applaud Pirate Bay their sense of irony and their sense of humor!

    Now if we could just get a photograph of Mickey Mouse smoking a dube.

    Ed
  • The WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) is a specialized agency of the United Nations. It is dedicated to developing a balanced and accessible international intellectual property (IP) system, which rewards creativity, stimulates innovation and contributes to economic development while safeguarding the public interest.

    The IFPI is know to be a RIAA like conglomerate of the music industry. So why stealing artist's revenue streams and suing the public for ejoying music has to do with a organization namely built to promove creativity and innovation while safeguarding the public interest?

    This question has some answer but the main reason behind it is to make you think.

  • I dont see how that qualifies as "cyber squatting".

    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.
  • From IFPI: [ifpi.com]

    IFPI is a non-profit organisation dedicated to the survival and future of freedom of information and the creative expression of people.
    And that has what exactly to do with piracy? Last time I checked, piracy did not help the creative expression of people, rather just gave them yet another reason to give up on music and concentrate on keeping a stable job.
    • by darthflo (1095225)
      Right. I lost the link to this huge list of RIAA/IFPI-backed artists who lost their entire income due to piracy and are now forced to live in two-room apartments downtown. You surely got it somewhere, right?
    • How many creative careers do you think start with people experimenting with stuff they could not afford or be otherwise unable to get thanks to piracy?

      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.
      • How many creative careers do you think start with people experimenting with stuff they could not afford or be otherwise unable to get thanks to piracy?

        Probably not many. Certainly not nearly enough to offset everyone who decided that modern musicianship is too risky as a career. It's also not just the people, but the labels too. They're going to be less inclined to risk capital on potential artists, especially the risky ones.

        Bad material is more likely to get substantial/critical damage from it.

        I agree with

        • Probably not many. Certainly not nearly enough to offset everyone who decided that modern musicianship is too risky as a career. It's also not just the people, but the labels too. They're going to be less inclined to risk capital on potential artists, especially the risky ones.

          Maybe not many for the music industry but I had a broader scope in mind... like computer science and engineering. How many of today's top senior programmers and engineers used pirate copies of expensive software during college/univers

          • Maybe not many for the music industry but I had a broader scope in mind... like computer science and engineering. How many of today's top senior programmers and engineers used pirate copies of expensive software during college/university years? This figure is very likely closer to 100% than 0%.

            The tools that these programmers/engineers were created under copyright. Those tools, since they weren't distributed free, probably wouldn't have been created, or at least not created in the same time-frame, or as com

            • The tools that these programmers/engineers were created under copyright. Those tools, since they weren't distributed free, probably wouldn't have been created, or at least not created in the same time-frame, or as completely as they were, if it weren't for copyright. It's the cannibalistic nature of art and the nature of piracy. It competes with (and eventually destroys) the very thing it relies upon. Allowing piracy results in a very short term free-for-all, after which point there's no fresh art to build

              • I personally view pirating business/development tools for private use as free publicity and training

                Well that's great for you then. Unfortunately it isn't for me or you to decide what piracy is to a copyright holder. Sometimes the system doesn't work. It usually works best (in terms of percentage of revenue gained/lost) for the big players, like Microsoft, as you said. However, most others don't have the market saturation required to make all this free publicity work. For people to actually buy their stuff,

                • A good example of a person who hasn't done well out of piracy is Martin Korth, and his Gameboy Advance emulator and debugger, NO$GBA. It's a fantastic bit of software, written entirely in x86 assembly. It comes in a Windows and DOS version, and the DOS version runs on his 66Mhz processor. He says it's the result of 9 years (full time) of programming and tweaking. The kick in the tail is he charges up to US$1750 for a single commercial license! He harbours a bitter resentment towards people who pirate his so

                  • (how many hobbyists could afford to pay $1750 for it?)

                    He has a hobbyist version for US$20, with cut down features and an agreement not to use it for commercial purposes. It's still very useful (I use it), it just doesn't work so well with large-scale projects. Yet people still want the most costly versions, so they pirate it and spread it around the web. Just one of these executables ending up in the hands of a less scrupulous company can result in the loss of up to a potential $5000 for him.

                    People who only

    • by ancientt (569920) <ancientt@yahoo.com> on Sunday October 21, 2007 @10:59AM (#21063021) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        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.

        Agreed so far. There has been certain

        • by Sancho (17056)

          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

          • 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?

            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)

          by Sancho (17056)
          Guess I hit 'submit' too quickly--how's that for a political joke?

          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)

            by ancientt (569920)

            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

            • by Sancho (17056)
              Interesting points. I don't have much to add, but it's definitely given me more food for thought.
          • 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.

            In that case, I take it all back. Thanks for enlightening me.

            There isn't a lot of evidence and reasoning in favour

            • by Sancho (17056)

              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

              • I mostly agree with you, but there are two things I want to point out:

                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. Otherw

                • by Sancho (17056)

                  Music from labels don't just sound the same. There are a wide variety of styles and genres. Some are developed more than others, but that's based on popularity more than anything, which is good. I would much prefer music production to be skewed on popularity than anything else. The labels only reflect what people want.

                  I know that there are different genres, but within each genre, you've got music that almost sounds identical. You rarely get artists on labels who are able to push the envelope and put out something really fresh or new. That said, you're right--if it sells, it must be something that the people are willing to buy. I just don't think that it significantly promotes the arts to rehash the same music and lyrics over and over.

                  That said, I also know that there's a huge market for non-popular music. I'm no mus

                  • I know that there are different genres, but within each genre, you've got music that almost sounds identical.

                    Hmm. I haven't explored each genre that the big labels have delved into, into their dark, unknown depths. Suffice to say, the big labels produce a LOT of music, and I doubt from a statistical perspective that all of it sounds the same. The more popular stuff perhaps, but all? It doesn't seem likely. Alternatively, perhaps they realise they can't compete with the indie labels on alternative music? Per

  • in a perfect world (Score:4, Insightful)

    by someone1234 (830754) on Sunday October 21, 2007 @11:20AM (#21063149)
    the 'pirates' would have gotten .org and the phonographic guys would have gotten the .com domain.
  • by penguin_dance (536599) on Sunday October 21, 2007 @11:50AM (#21063385)

    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."

    • by poetmatt (793785)
      that was so golden I had to check the site again to see if I misread it.

      Meanwhile, piratebay should win this one, there's nothing wrong other than a stupid media company yet again.
  • by n6kuy (172098)
    I read the summary too fast. I thought IFPI.ORG was pointed to a pornographic site...
  • 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)

    by Efialtis (777851)
    My understanding of "squatting" is, "Squatting is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied [name]space or ... [domain] that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use."
    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
  • by mrogers (85392)
    I very much doubt the World Internet Piracy Organization will give them the ruling they're hoping for.
  • I think IFPI has a good chance of winning this court battle.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Which IFPI?
  • 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

  • Just for the record, having let several domains go in the past couple years. I have some experience in this. The registrars sent me a variety of emails and even one left a message on my cell. to inform me I had less than "insert" number of days left till the domain expired. It's not like they didn't have enough notification. They let it expire, it's their loss. Also as noted above several times, the domain is being put to use and not for sale. Protect your Pirate Rights | http://www.ifpi.com/ [ifpi.com]

Some people carve careers, others chisel them.

Working...