Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act 161
The House will probably vote next week on HR3028, the
Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act.
The intention is to prevent "bad faith" squatting on trademarked domain names; penalties go up to $100,000. This would definitely put an end to domain-name speculation. Isn't
ICANN
supposed to be deciding these issues?
ICANN? I hope not! (Score:3)
While there is certainly a lot of problems with the US Congress, at least they are elected, unlikely the incompetent, power hungry bozos that run ICANN. Esther Dyson? You're killing me. To say nothing of the possible illegality of their working with the White House to lobby for more funds. I'd much rather have a democratic body running things than some nameless, faceless bureaucratic cabal.
I guess I don't get it (Score:2)
Domain names (until now) have been a perfect example of hands-off capitalism (I hate trying to spell French words).
The only slightly annoying thing happening is that squatters can register a whole slew of names at once without paying. Easy fix for that: payment required at registration time.
---
Just what the doctor ordered (Score:1)
Where can I find a list of (U.S.) trademarks? (Score:3)
Can anyone point me to an online list of US trademarks so I can check if various domains are trademarked or not?
Thanks, GoodPint.
Not so bad (Score:1)
in this the bill not that bad.
You have to have intentions of bad faith. meaning
you can have any available domain name as long as you don't try to make money off the trademarked company. i.e John Mcdonald could have McDonald.com
but if he uses it to sell a product people may think come from the McDonald corp. he could be sued.
At least thats how I read it.
Re:ICANN? I hope not! (Score:2)
Notice in the text of the bill that the courts are supposed to pay consideration to domain name holders whose own name matcheds the name, and those who have already been doing business using the domain name at the time of the claim.
Eurosquatters! (Score:1)
How about squatter's rights? (Score:1)
I've got a lack of faith already... (Score:4)
If they can't avoid cliches like that, what faith can I have that they'll be any better off in the "business end" of the bill?
The "first arrived first served" was better... (Score:1)
Squatting was bad but the only thing the system lacked was some limitation on quantity and maybe some objective faith checking would also be appropriate.
Now companies with registered trademarks will go over the little guy that use his nickname years ago to do an original thing. It's not the little guy's fault if the companies lacked vision in the past but it's not the little guy that did the lobbying to get that thing going.
Not online yet (Score:2)
Canadian trademarks can be searched over the web at: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca
For other countries, I have no information. A web search might reveal more options.
As a European, yes, you can have your domain seized. Network Solutions is bound by US law, as per their agreement with the NSF.
yadda yadda yadda (Score:2)
-----------snip to legalities--------------
This Paragraph sets forth the type of disputes for which you are required to submit to a mandatory
administrative proceeding. These proceedings will be conducted before one of the administrative dispute resolution service providers listed at (each, a "Provider").
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.
So what exactly determines bad faith? Does this mean if I thought up the name personaljunk.com and registered it, it can be yanked if I didn't have the money to trademark it, and then some corporate bigwig went ahead and decided: "Golly gee Wally, I want that domain since I have money and personaljunk sounds like a moneymaker." hypothetical situation obviously
Who is going to determine this? Certainly not congress. They have enough issues chasing script kiddies defacing senate.org. Who's going to monitor corporate bullies? ICANN? What happens if/when ICANN runs out of money? The domain registrars? The ones who don't collaborate on issues such as NSI?
In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are
present.
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 a pattern of such conduct has been established on your part; 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.
Very general rules which once again brings me to this issue who will monitor corporate bullies... eg: clue.com
And I thought Al Gore invented it... (Score:4)
So Congress came up with the Internet in the 1930s? Why didn't they tell anyone about it?
Re:Not so bad (Score:1)
Still, My guess is that anybody acting in good faith will quickly put up a disclaimer and link if they're contacted, and precedent will normally make that a reliable test of good faith. Personally, I'd do it without being asked.
Well... (Score:2)
Little known fact, it was origionally going to be "Computor Logistics In Trouble Or Regulating Information Systems"...
Sick of DNS... (Score:2)
The centralized, legalized, buerocratized, and generally screwed DNS system is the biggest problem with the Web at the moment. It is unbelievable that we have to put up with this stupidity, in what should be the most flexible and changeable of mediums.
DNS is great for email, at least when the address has to exchanged in meatspace, but other then for billboards, its doing nothing but strangling the web.
If you read Tim BL's original report for CERN on the Web, he notes that the real reason for creating it was to get away from inefficient centralized keyword systems. Well, here we are, ten years later, and the web has become a keyword based system, albeit with a rather odd syntax (www.keyword.com).
Domain napping is obviously not a good thing, and I don't think there is anyone here who isn't pissed off a the companies that buy up hundreds of domains to try to auction them off later: but having vague intention (goodwill or badwill) based laws enacted to govern over the web is so much worse.
As I see it there are two good options:
a) The unlimited, non-exclusive TLD (Top Level Doamain) system. This has been proposed on Slashdot before, and would mean allowing anybody to register a new TLD, but for nobody to own one. So microsoft could create
This would work for solving the immediate problem, but is still a centralized system, with all the problems of that (Micro~ suing anyone registering a microsoft.* domain for example). Which is why I advocate:
b) Toss DNS out altogether. OK, this won't happen, but as the transfer of addresses in meatspace becomes more rare, I think it makes sense. If you want to find a large webpage, services like Google work fine, and for everything else there is the good old link. The ultimate decentralized namespace has already been invented: its name is Hypertext.
-
Re:bad faith (Score:2)
Bad Faith. The opposite of "good faith", generally implying or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties, but by some interested or sinister motive. The term "bad faith" is not simply bad judgement or negligence, but rather it implies the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity....
It continues with court cases and such detailing legal rulings on the meaning of bad faith.
--Mark
(Working at a Legal Publisher has it's advantages sometimes!)
Re:And I thought Al Gore invented it... (Score:3)
Then a later bill amended the original Act (not the US Code) with the term internet. By amending the original Act and not the US Code, the term "Internet" has the meaning as given in a 1934 Law..
(US Congress does that all the time, it makes it a bitch to cross reference things sometimes.. Instead of amending the code, they amend the original enacting legislation, which automatically amends the code!)
--Mark
Re:yadda yadda yadda (Score:1)
Dunno how it works in the US but where I come from it's courts who decide on the application of a law once its been passed. And no, X couldn't trademark a name that was already registered as a domain with the intention of stealing it because the owners of the domain would not be acting in bad faith, nor would they have registered a domain name which conflicted with a trademark that existed at the time they registered it which the act specifically requires.
Actually, it looks like a surprisingly well drafted piece of legislation, considering it concerns the Internet. I'm not sure there's a precedent for this :)
What about the little guy ?? (Score:1)
Re:The "first arrived first served" was better... (Score:3)
If you're already running unrelated services that are relatively innocent, you're fine. If you've got a business selling dragon miniatures at "dragon.com", then it's harder for TSR, er, WoTC, to come after you simply because they own the trademark -- as a *magazine* name.
If you're, say, running a hard-core porn site called "reddhat.com", featuring group sex clips which bizzarely happen to include a red felt hat in every frame, then RHAT is probably going to be able to nail you big-time for it. The same might happen if Nader went nuts, registered 'pinto.com', and used it to show footage of cars whose gas tanks explode because they've been conveniently rigged with small charges ala _Dateline:NBC-style_ (IIRC, it was them that did this, but my memory could be lying and it might have been ABC's _Prime Time Live_...).
Re:Where can I find a list of (U.S.) trademarks? (Score:1)
But then again, i'm not a lawyer nor do I read congressional bills for a living...
Re:Sick of DNS... : think before you speak (Score:1)
I know that if I want to go to the kodak site ( just an example ) I can type "www.kodak.com" and get there.
using your suggestion, I would either
a: have to go to a search site first ( by the way, how do I get there without a name )
or
b: have some cryptic xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx number memorized.
or
c: have already been there and bookmarked it ( again, how would I get there in the first place )
for the internet to be of any use at all to anyone other than complete geeks, it must be "meatspace" friendly.
come up with a friendlier solution than DNS and you might have a chance.
Re:Not online yet (Score:3)
There are also 70 trademark libraries around the U.S. Here's a list: http://www.uspto.gov/web/of fices/ac/ido/ptdl/index.html [uspto.gov].
You'll miss out on the ambiance of Crystal City's concrete canyons, but then maybe that's a benefit.
Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act (Score:4)
if you have a provincially registered comapany, you can get a geographic domain name in your province. ie: yourdomain.mb.ca
if you have a federally incorporated company, you can get a
since it costs a few hundred bucks (minimum) to crete a corporation in canada, it is (almost) impossible to get away with all of this
oh yeh. if you meet the requirements for a
pretty simple way of dealing with the issue before it becomes a problem no?
I'm not certain on this next point, but I seem to recall that you cannot infringe on existing trademarks when you register your domain name. can anyone confirm/deny this?
gunderwo@hotmail.com
Internet Real Estate (Score:5)
However, in the case of DNS entries, it actually *does* work as property (value=demand/supply, supply=some fixed amount, value!=0). The funniest part of this is that people suddenly don't *want* to treat it as property!
The whole concept of "squatting" as somehow Bad is very silly. If I "squat" on some land next to a city, someone that wants to build a business on that land must purchase it, even if I just let it sit there "unused" (although waiting for its value to rise is a perfectly legitimate use). This makes perfect sense and is seen as a very reputable trade.
However, in the case of DNS entries, which seems to me to be exactly the same, people don't like this anymore.
The problem isn't with people "squatting" on DNS entries, the problem is that people seem to think that they "own" the name. The idea of owning a name, owning a bit of information, is silly. It's completely fictional and requires extreme duct-tape to make sort of functional. For a long while we could sorta do it because duplication was kinda expensive and not many people wanted to do it so the makeshift legality wasn't too heinous. But those days are over. It never made sense to treat information as property, and now it doesn't even work a little bit.
As long as we have this fictional and totally unnecessary concept of Intellectual Property, there will always be cases like this. People will claim ownership over the technique of storing credit card information on their servers for "1 click" service, for the transfer of music files over the internet, for using the XOR function to blit and remove images to the screen. As long as IP exists, we'll be battered with one after another absurdity.
Intellectual Property was a bad idea to begin with, and it's only getting worse.
virtual property (Score:1)
Re:What about the little guy ?? (Score:2)
* The law has no business giving "little guys" arbitrary preferences that supercede such things like trademark law and the idea of fair use.
Re:Potential Trademark Problems... (Score:2)
The US itself has been bitten by trademarks and local names already overseas; if memory serves, 'Budweiser', for instance, cannot be marketed as 'Bud' in... Czechoslovakia, because of a small (comparatively...) brewery there that's already using that name. It's going to be interesting to see whether such issues can be resolved w/o necessarily ruling case-by-case.
United States is a Corporate Lobbyocracy (Score:1)
What a waste... (Score:2)
Re:Sick of DNS... (Score:1)
I'm not.
Could you give me a rational explanation that is based on something other than "well, it's just Bad" or "I'm jealous that I didn't think of it first"? Likewise "it infringes upon Trademark" assumes that trademarks apply to DNS (and also assumes that Trademarks have a rational basis), and if you belive this, please also explain why I shouldn't be able to start a burger shop on "McDonald's" street, which is essentially exactly the same scenario.
Re:bad faith -- by definition (Score:1)
Given that definition, bad faith domain name "squatting" would have to intentionally defraud someone - presumably the company claiming rights to the name; or be intended to mislead someone - presumably the customers of said company.
Domain name registration is an honest capitalistic venture in that a private citizen can forsee an existing or (even better) soon-to-be-created entity's desire to use the Internet to conduct business and/or advertise. If that company is so blind to the Internet's potential for commerce that they have not already registered the domain, they deserve to pay the person who forsaw that potential.
Unless the registrant claims to be the entity which owns the servicemark or trademark, how could they be guilty of misleading someone?
I hope this doesn't pass, because the legitimate business of domain anticipation will be lost.
-- Kickin it in Irene
It's just an address (Score:1)
The fact that Microsoft's headquarters are on Microsoft Way doesn't make it illegal for there to be a Microsoft Drive in Redmond (although the 911 people may not like it), nor does it make it illegal for a concern named The Software Company to have their offices on Microsoft Drive. It's easy to see how mail could be incorrectly delivered in this situation, but Microsoft does not, as far as I know, have a right to make The Software Company move. Nor could it have forced a neighborhood to change the name of its street from Microsoft Way so that Microsoft could use it.
As with snail mail addresses, no one should expect to have an easily remembered Internet address. A case in point: I had to look up Microsoft's address before I could use it in the example above. Before the Internet, people used Rolodexes and the like because they could not know all the street addresses and phone numbers they had reason to need; there is no reason they should expect to avoid the electronic equivalents, e-mail address books and browser bookmarks.
Make people pay up front to register domain names and there's no way they'll be able to squat on all the pleasant sounding ones. And a pleasant sounding domain name is the most anyone should expect to get. If you're good enough for people to want to do business with you, they'll find a way to remember your address.
I'm going to write my Congressdroids and tell them that I, at least, want them to give this one -- and all those like it -- a big thumbs down.
Re:If you had a trademark, you'd have lost it (Score:1)
They do. A trademark has to be used in trade, and you can't just sit on it.
...phil
Defining terms: (Score:1)
II. Should it be illegal? While were at it, should porn be illegal? It's bad for socity, contributes to the `moral decay' of America and clogs up a lot of bandwidth. However, it would be a violation of freedom of speech, and therfore shouldn't be illegal. Something might be bad and shouldn't be illegal.
III. Actually, when you think about it, isn't cybersquatting kinda like buying a peice of land and hoping to sell it for more? That's not illegal (and I don't know many who think it should be).
IV. While I may sound like a pro-cybersquatter, I'm not, I don't like them or what they do, I just believe in equal rights for all. Just beacuse the `vast majority' of America think's it's bad, shouldn't make it illegal.
V. However, I do think that if a company has a trademark and somebody get's their domain before they do, well, then they have the right to have that domian, al long as they have a registered trademark before the squatter buys the domain.
In conclution, I think it's wrong, yet not worthy to be illegal. I think a lot of slashdot (and the public at large) opposed government involvement in things, unless it will benefit them. We shouldn't think about what's good for us, but what is right. What would Thomas Jefferson (IMHO the greatest of the founding fathers) do?
That's my $(2^4*3+1/7%3*2/100)
Re:Eurosquatters! (Score:1)
If a US court had jurisdiction over the registrar (NSI, for example), it could order the transfer of the name.
more shift-4 on the dot com (Score:1)
Sure, we then get away from the idea of equality -- the
Squatters in general... (Score:4)
How many domain named are owned by somebody, even seemingly dumb ones, with absolutely no intent of them being used? Just start typing in random words as domain names into whois. Now take those and see who actually has a server at the other end with nslookup and/or ping. It's a little ridiculous. I recently did a bout of checking out possible domain names, and the numbers of domains like this astounded me.
There should be a clause in the NIC agreement:
Use it or lose it. 3 months to get *something* at that domain name (besides a 'coming soon' page from your registrar) or you lose it and your cash.
I don't care if it's a web site, a mail server, what have you. *Something* that operates in a useful capacity. (not just a 'ping server' either.)
As far as non-US companies/people registering in the
You can't go to the phone company and say 'I want to buy all the phone numbers from xxx-0012 through xxx-0102', can you? Well I suppose you could, but would they let you? Not unless you pay for the lines to go with it.
Re:What about the little guy ?? (Score:1)
Frankly, that sounds pretty fishy to me, and it's hard to have sympathy for you. Another domain name? Maybe I'm just stupid and unimaginative, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any reason anyone would need more than one. Increase traffic? Domain names are to make it easier for people who are looking for you to find you, not to make it easier to for people to accidently find you.
People like you are the problem with DNS. It was never intended to be exploited in that manner.
---
Re:Internet Real Estate (Score:1)
The question is can you be a liberterian and be opposed to cybersquatting. I say no. Squatting is a perfectly legit business venture.
Your physical property analogy is a bit flawed (Score:3)
All unused acres of land belong to the government, which sells that land at a fixed rate of $50 an acre. Company X owns 1 acre someplace, where their new corporate headquarters exists. An adjacent Acre Y lies between Company X and the nearest highway. There is a sign marked "Company X" on Acre Y. Squatter Z comes along and buys Acre Y between Company X's headquarters and the nearest highway at $50, before Company X had a chance to. Company X has little choice but to buy Acre Y from Squatter Z in order to efficiently reach the highway, and to keep people from being confused as they exit the highway seeing the sign marked "Company X" on the adjacent Acre Y. Squatter Z charges an obscenely high rate.
Do you think this is particularly fair? If Acre Y had been priced for what it was worth (what Company X had been willing to pay), or had been auctioned off, Squatter Z wouldn't have had a chance. Real estate today goes by market value. You cannot buy a piece of land and sell it next week for a 10000% profit.
If a domain name has little value when it is purchased, "speculating" is perfectly fine. Generic names like "business.com" and "shopping.com" I have no problem with people buying and trying to sell. When somebody takes the name of a KNOWN trademark, they are taking ADVANTAGE of the system by purchasing it for a value much less than what the domain is actually worth and re-selling it at that higher rate. It reeks of unethical business practice.
Re:I guess I don't get it (Score:1)
Sorry, I don't have any URL for that, just a disgustingly spammish message from NetSol.
A little analysis (Score:1)
As for non-Americans--it would only apply if you were squatting on an address and doing the regestration in the US. If you were to do an offshore non-com/org/net TLD, you'd be Kool and the Gang. This isn't just for this particular law--you are bound to conform with laws in the place you do business in either direction, one of the perils of international business.
Not that this is a legal interpretation--anyone looking for such here should look to get their head checked.
Re:Squatters in general... (Score:1)
>want to buy all the phone numbers from xxx-0012
>through xxx-0102', can you? Well I suppose you
>could, but would they let you? Not unless you
>pay for the lines to go with it.
Interesting point. I thought that part of the deal with domain names was that you did have to have the name point somewhere. Presumably that would cost money, and that cost would make it harder to hoard the names.
Jonathan
Re:Sick of DNS... : think before you speak (Score:1)
And since when is this the goal? What good has the soliciting of stupidity on the Internet done us anyways?
-
Re:Internet Real Estate (Score:1)
Totally Unnecessary? Though I agree with your opinion that squatting is a reasonable form of investment, I have to disagree with that. If people weren't able to own and sell information (be it in the form of a book, CD, software application, etc.) then there would be a lot less information produced. Some people, of course, would still write books, play music, or slam out code, all out of the goodness of their hearts, but most of us would be too busy looking for a job that paid money, so we could afford to eat.
The fact of the matter is that people have a right to profit from their ideas. And there are only to ways to do that. Intellectual Property is one of them. The only other one is have the government subsidize all production of information. I think it should be pretty clear that that wouldn't work at all.
So, really, all we're left with is the choice between a free market, or no market at all.
Doesn't that make it ex post facto? (Score:1)
It seems that this should be construed as a form of ex post facto law.
Or am I missing something?
Re:virtual property (Score:2)
If you're really talking about buying some "crap plot of land" you're talking about a name that isn't already someone's registered trademark. If my understanding is correct and you register a name before it's a registered trademark you are entitled to keep the name...
Re:Sick of DNS... (Score:2)
It's nice to have all the links to my site remain functional even though I just changed ISPs. DNS propogates pretty slowly, but it's a racecar compared to search engines, and people updating their pages.
Since IP addresses are set up in a way to facilitate routing, they can't remain constant for a given computer that may move around, change ISPs or subnets. Thus it is NECESSARY that another layer of abstraction be added over that. It could be another set of arbitrary numbers, but that would raise similar conflicts (people hack other's ICQ passwords to control "good" numbered UINs), and would just be more difficult to remember.
Interestingly enough, what you propose is basically where we are at with the telephone system. Telephone addresses are long strings of numbers, which contain some ammount of routing information (eg, area code). If you move you may have to change phone numbers. You can look it up in a search engine (the phone book or call directory assistance) but if the change is recent enough the database will not be current, and you lose, unless the old address still points to new information ("bo boo bee, the number you have dialed has changed to 209.207.224.40"). Sure the phone system doesn't have hypertext, but neither do a lot of other applications of TCP/IP.
You mean a virtual lack.com of eFaith (Score:2)
-----------------------------------------
Modify .us policy and use country code exclusively (Score:4)
Unfortunately the
What if an additional subdomain under
Unfortunately, this doesn't cover the possibility of "dual" trademarks. AFAIK, some construction company can be named "Microsoft Construction, Inc.", for example, and might be just as entitled to that microsoft.tm.us domain. At this point I suppose it's possible to stick with the "first come, first served" policy and force subsequent registrants to modify the name slightly (e.g. microsoft-construction.tm.us).
Just some ideas..
Re:more shift-4 on the dot com (Score:1)
Anyway, while
That's my $(2^4*3+1/7%3*2/100)
Re:Your physical property analogy is a bit flawed (Score:1)
Just a thought.
DNS name is not for Trademarks (Score:1)
Again: the endusers (99% of people surfing the net with your standard trusty web-browser), should NOT have access to the "location" field (for netscape, called "address" on IE), and instead should have a site-name field to enter stuff into. Then this data can go to a central trademark repository which acts as sort of a "yellow pages", maps to either their site's DNS or IP address, and zips the user to that site. Another layer of name-resolution, if you will. The actual http:// address should only be accesible to power users (who can configure that field to appear by going into the preferences dialog and checking a box).
This would eliminate the issues of squatting, TLD duplicity, and censoring (doodie.com). Such a repository could then be protected in the same way trade names have been for centuries without all these sticky issues.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
who said anything about preferences? (Score:1)
As I read it, Ralman was simply complaining that his company, which presumably has a domain name of a legitimate nature (ie they're not squatters and don't believe they are infringing on the trademark), is being harassed by a major corporation that has a trademark similar to the domain in question. Said big company threatens a lawsuit in an attempt to coerce small company into giving up the domain name, regardless of whether the small company has the right to the name under the law. Being a small company, chances are they can't afford huge legal bills; big companies know that and use the threat of a lawsuit to force the "little guy" to give up profitable domain name(s). It *is* OK for everyone to pursue their own interests, but this "I can spend more money on lawsuits than you" coercion is *not* OK.
We don't have enough information to claim that the small company (or for that matter, the big company) is "on poor ethical ground". Registering multiple domains is no big deal, people do it all the time. If you sell Product X and Product Y, it's reasonable to expect you might register ProductX.com, ProductY.com, companyname.com, yadda yadda yadda. It's quite possible that the small and big companies in question have the same company name, and there maybe is where the dispute is coming about. If that's the case, then provided the companies are in different industries, then the big company's trademark may not entitle them to the domain.
Why don't we see trademark squatting? (Score:1)
What about giving owners three months to prove use, and then making them post a $1000 escrow until they can prove use?
While I agree with the anti-regulatory sentiments of many, I can't stand the squatters. They're nothing but parasites and serve no useful purpose.
Re:Modify .us policy and use country code exclusiv (Score:2)
Re:Squatters in general... (Score:1)
There should be a clause in the NIC agreement:
Use it or lose it. 3 months to get *something* at that domain name (besides a 'coming soon' page from your registrar) or you lose it and your cash.
Hmm, maybe they could start with Transmeta!
--
QDMerge [rmci.net] 0.4 just released!
I guess you don't get--the meaning of capitalism (Score:1)
The salient issue (Score:1)
When congress disagrees with the way the courts interpret a law it is their duty to enact new legislation that makes the intent of the laws clearer to the courts.
This is our system in action, no more and no less.
JK
Re:Sick of DNS... : think before you speak (Score:1)
First of all, "the spec" would have to change, and all browsers would have to be modified. The browser automatically sends your request to the search site (default one built in, user configurable - but this really ought to be a central, legally answerable entitiy, like a trademark registry).
Second of all, DNS doesn't necessarily have to go away. The browser can be modified to let power users configure it so they can look up any site by DNS, if that's what they want, instead of keyword.
Sites like TeleBung.com don't need to exist at all. TeleBung Corporation can register their trademark, which automatically gives them rights to the "TeleBung" keyword, which is a lot easier to legally defend than Telebung.com, telebung.net, telebung.org, or telebungsux.com etc. ad infinutum ad nauseum. Telebung Corp. may opt to not even HAVE a DNS name, and map the TeleBung keyword straight to an IP address instead. Either way it solves all the problems of the current round-peg/square-hole situation.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Re:Your physical property analogy is a bit flawed (Score:1)
If X put the sign on Y without owning it, that was their mistake. They took a big risk by investing in Y (by putting their sign upon it and having their customers reliant upon Y having their sign) without owning it.
Squatter Z comes along and buys Acre Y between Company X's headquarters and the nearest highway at $50, before Company X had a chance to.
If they had a chance to put a sign on it and make their business reliant upon it, why didn't they have the chance to buy it before Z came along? This rebuttal seems a bit unrealistic.
A clarifing follow-up..... (Score:1)
Re:Internet Real Estate (Score:1)
I agree that people like to be rewarded for their effort. I think that there are other methods of reward that make sense and don't require extreme counter-intuitive and fictional concepts of property to get them done. Information in and of itself is worthless: something with infinite supply has no demand, and hence, no value. However, the *creation* of information is valuable, because creation takes time and time is not limitless (well, in terms of a fraction of a lifespan). So, if those that product information charged up front for their effort, they wouldn't need to rely upon some completely arbitrary idea that somehow they own what they invent.
If people really *owned* ideas, should Newton be paid royalties for every time a plane flies, a car moves, and an apple falls? No, that's crazy. He didn't invent the concepts of gravity, he just discovered them.
Likewise, should Shakespeare be paid for every time someone used the theme of two lovers from different tribes? No, he didn't invent that idea, he simply discovered it and publicized it.
Finally, should somebody be paid for every time someone reads a book? No, they didn't invent those words, they merely discovered that arranging them in a certain fashion happens to produce a story.
People don't invent ideas. They discover them.
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/ issue4_6/kelsey/ [firstmonday.dk]
Re:Squatters in general... (Score:1)
Just because I get a couple of phone lines and want to pay for a few hundred (or even thousand) numbers to go along with that doesn't mean I should be able to eat up that number space. Maybe I need those numbers for a service (pagers), or maybe I am just greedy.
domain name rights vs. property rights? (Score:1)
The rules that apply to physical property don't have to apply here; domain space that isn't being used isn't the same as unused land unless we can't figure out some more intelligent way to make use of the thought space that the internet represents.
Admittedly, this is a optomistic view of how the net could be. Now that control of the net is moving to the courts it is probably doomed anyway; property rights have a lot of intellectual inertia in this culture.
That having been said, I am not neccesarily opposed to ownership of domains for the purpose of selling them, althought it would be nice if folks that had domains for this purpose could hold onto them in an undeveloped state (pointing to a coming soon page or whatever) for a limited amount of time. There is nothing worse than seeing a good domain name that you have a cool idea for sit around waiting for a $10,000 check.
Here's a question.. (Score:2)
It's been in the works for a couple of years, but we recently decided to rewrite it (previously neither the code nor the interface were very usable by people other than us) and open up the source under the GPL or something similar. (This should be at a releasable state before the year is out)
Although it's not really necessary, it would be EXTREMELY nice to have the domain jao.org as the homepage for the project.
Since it's a 3 letter domain, of course someone's squatting on it. Even if I had an extra $5k (what they're asking) that I couldn't think of anything better to do with, I wouldn't want to give it to a domain squatter, on principle.
My impression of the current situation is that I have two choices - pay up, or get a different address. Are there any other options? Will registering this name as a trademark make any difference, given that there are no hosts in the jao.org domain?
Re:Internet Real Estate (Score:3)
But should DNS be outside of trademark law? Many companies have invested good money giving "meaning" to their trademarks, whether or not you like them, and they did it on the basis of a legal/regulatory promise that they owned the names, whether or not you suddenly want to ignore that either. Both as a merchant or as a consumer, it is quite reasonable to hope that trademark law should apply to domains. Let me give more examples of how ignoring the history of trademarks would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You call Intellectual Property "fictional". I think you mean "abstract", right? it's not a fiction that you pay fines for violating the law surrounding IP, but the property in question is an abstraction and certainly it's legitimate to consider whether it's a good idea or not, or a "moral" one, for that matter (who, after all, has the right to say I can't use whatever words I want). I'll dive in right here:
You say, the "whole concept of squatting as somehow Bad is very silly." It's not at all! Am I being inconsistent? One minute I think names are property, the next minute I don't? To understand the consistency, you've got to understand some trademark basics. There is nobody out there except a few anarchists and nihilists who don't believe in the principles behind trademark law, and this includes you. When you buy a Coke, you want, as a purely practical matter, some assurance that you are getting a Coke and not a can of 7up. When you come to slashdot.org, you want to come to slashdot. If you are slashdot, yes, you feel even more strongly that when people type slashdot that they should get slashdot.
Responding to this need on the part of buyers and sellers, governments all over the world have authorized merchants to "own" their names. But the law is actually tempered to respond to many of the objections that people are raising in this forum. For example, you can't get a trademark for nothing (read: squatting). You can only trademark a good or service that you are actually offering for trade under that name. (The application asks on what date did you start selling, and asks for a copy of the label. And, BTW, you lose the trademark if you stop using it. Really.) So, right here we can see that domain squatting is breaking a trademark rule, and it's a good rule. [Now, before you hit reply, I'm not saying that domains are trademarks; I am advocating that they should be.] Like so many posters are noticing, we give up some freedom when we allow ownership of names; At least let's minimize that by not giving up freedom for nothing.
Other aspects of trademark law do not map cleanly onto domain names. which is partly why DNS is considered so broken. For example, trademark law is tempered by a whole bunch of "reasonableness" sorts of clauses based on the likelihood of confusion on the part of the consumer: geography and product category are used to maximize the number of people who can share a name, minimizing the restriction on freedom. This is why there is a trademarked Johnson outboard motor, and a floorwax, and dozens of smaller "Johnson" companies. That sort of distinction is problematic in the DNS system, (and especially moreso in the ".COM" system), but it is not necessarily solved by increasing the number of TopLevelDomains, or by deeply qualifying the hierarchy because some trademarks are trademarks in all categories. "Sony" makes lots of different sorts of products, and if you hate 'em, don't buy em, but at least you know who they are.
There's lots more to say about trademarks, but I'll let other people talk now.
Re:Squatters in general... (Score:1)
Would that apply to Transmeta? hmmm
Re:Your physical property analogy is a bit flawed (Score:1)
I stated as much.
The point I was trying to make was that property is not available at fixed rates, regardless of its strategic value at the time. Domains are offered on a first-come, first-served basis with no regards to actual value. This is where the analogy fails. I was simply trying to twist it around to where it made more sense.
Re:Modify .us policy and use country code exclusiv (Score:2)
Plus, since two-letter state abbreviations are already given priority under the
Re:Your physical property analogy is a bit flawed (Score:1)
Ahh, I think I see what you mean. You're saying that because land property doesn't have a fixed price, it's incomparable to DNS entries. If this is the case, I'd still disagree.
First, land did have a fixed price from the start, and only after people bought up all the land did it start to operate based upon the supply/demand model. We're in the first phase now for the DNS entries -- people are buying up all the land at a cheap fixed price. Once all the land is bought, it will operate according to supply/demand. So, it still appears to me to be a valid analogy.
But it appears that you disagree with this -- what am I missing?
Bad Idea (Score:1)
Imaging if I ran the web site, www.microsoft.sucks.fat.pps.com.
If MS got a sympathetic judge then could shut me down AND have my financially ruined through this. This can't be allowed to happen.
LK
Re:Where can I find a list of (U.S.) trademarks? (Score:1)
Re:Here's a question.. (Score:2)
Yes, it will make a difference, but perhaps not enough to help you. Plus, registration virtually requires a lawyer and that can cost thousands on it's own. However, you can do it without a lawyer and you can do it without registering... but remember, it might not be worth it.
Do some research and find the rules for trademarks before you embark on this. I'd tell them to you but I don't remember them all. Here's what I do remember which should get you started:
You must establish that nobody else is using the name in your business. The law requires that you do a really good job of this. That includes looking in all of the phonebooks in all of the places where you will sell. It includes looking in all of the newspapers. Impractical? There are companies you can pay to do it. Money is not the concern of the PTO or the courts. OK, if you want to risk it, just search the internet. Look in the online phonebooks too. Remember, if you miss anybody, it's your problem.
OK? Nobody using the name? You now must begin to use the name, and you must use it for the purposes of legitimate trade. This is what establishes that it is a trademark (got it? trade + mark = trademark... somethings do make sense :) You need to "legitimize" this as trade by doing stuff like printing labels, having somebody pay you, shipping it across state lines to trigger Federal law, etc. The more legitimate and independently verifiable paper you create (receipts, shipping slips, phone book entries, newspaper ads, cancelled checks), the better. Make sure Alexa gets ahold of your website.
It can also be a good idea to sell ancillary merchandise. Making and selling "Jao" coffee cups, T-shirts and action figures gives you the right to the name in more industries than just software.
OK, now, you have established your claim on the name. You don't even need to officially "register" it: Registering it will give you some more rights, but once you start using it, the only person who can stop you from using it is someone who used it before you, or someone who can convince a jury that yours is confusing with theirs.
How does this help you get the domain name? Only indirectly: you can send an email to the domain squatter and point out that you own the name and nobody else will be able to use it (not for coffee cups, not for T-shirts, not for action figures, etc.)
One more note. Don't be cynical about this or you will lose your rights (or actually, you will not have the rights): you must legitimately be offering the good or service (including the action figures) for trade under the trademark, and you must keep offering it. The law is, FWIW, not tolerant of squatters in meatspace.
Hope this helps. I am not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV.
New domain? (Score:1)
How ironic (Score:1)
On the contrary, REAL "hands-off" capitalism is just the opposite of the above. The situation now is that the state favors business (by registering and defending things like trademarks and patents). The current domain naming situation removes this unnatural strictures and gives the property to the quickest applicant.
This is exactly the reason I don't object to anti-trust laws: they just restore (some of) the unbalance of power that already exists in our capitalist system. Monopolies would be far less likely to exist if it weren't for the trademark and patent offices.
---
Oh, and don't forget the (TM) (Score:2)
You should put the little TM next to Jao(tm) every time you use it. And, if you do actually register it, you'll need to use the little R-in-circle. The point of this is basically that you need to treat your name like a trademark (hence all the receipts above) and you need to further prove that you treat it like a trademark by telling the world that you consider it to be one, and you need to tell anyone else who comes along and uses it or anything similar that they may not.
The law requires that you make the effort to prove that you really do consider this name to be yours and that you closely identify it with your business, and that your customers do to.
[note: guess I need a disclaimer here? Jao(tm) is a trademark of Jao Software.]
Re:bad faith vs little guy (Score:1)
This has been tried already ... (Score:1)
IIRC, this was tried maybe a year ago, it was a browser plug-in that allowed you to type specific keywords and take you to the site that matched those keywords closest. It wasn't really a search engine, more like a commercial replacement for DNS. They charged the site owners to register the keywords with them, and since it was a private company, they had full control over who got which name.
In essence it comes down to whoever had the most $$ would win the dispute, which does no better since it redirects the control from who thought the name up first to who has more money (which, mho, is worse than the current situation).
I can see how this may not fit your concept exactly, but it was pretty close, and a basically unstable business model (considering I've heard nothing about them for quite some time). Perhaps someone who remembers the service more clearly can clue us in, be interesting to pop over to their site and see whats going on (IE: see if they've thrown in the towel yet, or what their business plan du jour is).
A different system that is more fair to all would be appreciated, and I would be among the first to support it. As soon as someone contemplates one, let me know.
Re:It's just an address (Score:1)
You may be wrong on the first point, but if you're not, then you are correct on the second point.
Why not? The capability exists. It has been working fine for many years.
There is, therefore, no reason for people to expect to avoid doing the electronic equivalent.
Netscape and Internet Explorer are making our minds soft. Just present us with the HTML and allow us to render it ourselves mentally. We get a lot more control over how it looks that way.
Hell, don't even just present us with the HTML. Let us manipulate raw bits on the computer so we can open sockets ourselves, form all of our TCP/IP packets ourselves (even PPP or Ethernet ones too!!!), decipher the output, and then get our jollies that way.
There's a reason old people wear lots of polyester--when they were growing up, everything they wore needed to be ironed. They got sick of this, so when polyester came around and didn't need ironing, they clutched onto it and haven't let go since.
Re:Internet Real Estate (Score:1)
I'm merely saying that people are inconsistant with the concept of ownership of information, and people like the idea of owning a song, but don't like the idea of owning a DNS entry.
That's assuming that DNS is already part of trademark law, which I don't believe is resolved yet. My current take is that people are in the process of determining whether or not DNS entries are equivelant to product/company names, and what I'm saying is that they're not -- they're merely addresses. Big companies like to push their trademark wherever they can because it gives them ammunition in the courtroom, and they're pushing really hard right now because it's still uncertain. I'm simply pushing back.
Many companies have invested good money giving "meaning" to their trademarks...
While I think that Trademarks are a bad idea all around, I'm not advocating the complete elimination of them right now (although I may later). I'm simply against infecting a new system (DNS) with the Trademark affliction. Trademarks can and will exist just fine even if it's determined that DNS entries are merely street names.
I think you mean "abstract", right?
Hmm.. I think both technically work, but I prefer the implied connotation of "fictional". Abstract implies that it's a correct interpretation viewed from a different perspective, whereas Fictional implies that it's merely one interpretation and it is quite likely out of touch with reality. I'm not saying that the laws are fictional, I'm saying that intellectual property isn't a Real thing -- it has no quantitative, objective and scientific measurement, and hence I say it's fictional. But, this may be merely a semantics issue.
There is nobody out there except a few anarchists and nihilists who don't believe in the principles behind trademark law, and this includes you.
"Never say Never." I do, in fact, disagree with Trademark law, and would prefer that Coke didn't own and couldn't legally control the name Coke. I would prefer that anybody could can and label something as coke (note this doesn't mean that they'd be free from FDA regulation). Companies would still make and can coke, and they'd compete based on the quality of their instantiation of the global concept of what "Coke" tastes like, and all would be dandy. Coke would still be made, and it may not taste the same everywhere, but I'd learn which machine gives me the coke that I like the best and theoretically, due to the competition, quality would go up and prices would come down. In addition, perhaps society would develop in such a fashion that "Tommy Hilfiger", "Coke", "Nike" and other major brand names wouldn't take up such an extreme amount of social energy.
Trademarks are the healthiest form of IP, but I'm not convinced that we couldn't do without it and be better off. Companies like to make money, and one way of doing that is selling products, and selling products requires trust from the consumer, and there are other ways to get trust from the consumer aside from a brand name. Business worked for literally thousands of years without trademark, and we managed to make it here.
Like so many posters are noticing, we give up some freedom when we allow ownership of names; At least let's minimize that by not giving up freedom for nothing.
I agree that at times this is useful. I just don't think that now is one of those times.
Re:How ironic--you don't know the half of it (Score:1)
You don't really believe that--you say so. You think that those who are first-in-time to register a domain name should have a property right in it that a big corporation with a trademark should pay for if it wants to use it, as opposed, say, to sending somebody over to kill you if you don't. First-in-time is just another property rule, and one that often works well with unclaimed resources. It happens to be the rule that we apply to trademarks in the rest of the world. There's just a different criterion on what it means to be first--"use in commerce" instead of "register with a government sponsored monopoly."
Being the first to put "Coke" on a bottle gives me the right to put "Coke" on a can, or a building, or a t-shirt, and to prevent you from doing so even if it occurs to you first. Why shouldn't it also give me the right to put it on a domain name, and prevent you from doing so? Why are domain names so different that the first-in-time clock should start running again for them?
hmmm (Score:2)
Do unto others what has been done to you
Which quickly leads to death and
Do under others as you would have them do you.a.k.a. the "Golden Rule"
I like cybersquatting, but I think that sometimes it crosses the line. Most of the cases I've seen so far have been pretty fair, IMHO. It's easy to raise a ruckus nowaways. Most of the good ones are taken. Of course the new addition of
try freshmeat.net [freshmeat.net]
Should be interesting...
Things have changed (Score:1)
I do not see why corporate types are unwillingly to use the very sufficient, existing trademark laws to protect their intellectual property. Why do they have to introduce police state type legislation?
property analogy is a bit flawed (Score:2)
*cough*Indians*cough*
Eventually, the people will buy up all the domain names.
hmmm...lets see 40?(chars)^26 = 4.503599627370496e+41 (calc)
* $35/year = $1.5762598695796736e+43/year. I don't think the species can make all the payments...
(+-1 Nitpick)
Re:DNS name is not for Trademarks (Score:2)
Doesn't bullshit like this go against the one of the most-celebrated "features" of the Internet (i.e., a vehicle for empowerment)?
"Yes, there is a thing called DNS that lets you go from www.yahoo.com to the Yahoo! website, but you are not allowed to use it! NO DNS FOR YOU!"
I thought another one of the Big Things about the Internet is that it was relatively de-centralized with the exception of things that are necessary (IANA doling out IP Addresses) and things that started as sundries but are now de facto necessary (Domain Name Registrars). Ever notice that DNS as a whole goes down extremely infrequently? That's because it's decentralized. There isn't only one big point of failure. There are lots of smaller ones.
No, I won't. It's totally unnecessary and has no technical merit.
People who deal with self-proclaimed computer "experts" on a daily basis will tell you that this will do very little good. If access to the location thing is so bad, why make it available with just a checkbox?
"See that porche? You're not good enough at driving cars to drive it--unless, of course, you think you are, in which case the keys are in the ignition. Have a nice day!"
There exists a minority of Slashdot readers that abuse the posting system. 99% of Slashdot readers should NOT have access to posting their own opinions. They should be merely given the option to type in a one-word response and submit that to a centralized opinion-generating computer. The opinions generated by this computer will then be placed on Slashdot. A second layer of opinion making, if you will.
Only power-users should have access to posting their own opinions--they can go into their preferences and check a checkbox.
Re:Squatters in general... (Score:1)
Because we all know that the only thing domain names get used for are webpages. What difference does it make what you're using it for, what if it's just a lame irc vanity domain? What business is it of yours or anyone elses?
Oh, I have an idea, we'll let that reliable company NSI decide if we have a "valid reason" for having the domain. Does that mean I have to give them access to my server so they can dig through it to find out if I'm *really* using it?
More Hypocrisy from the Hill (Score:1)
Great. So, because a few big corporations go whining to Capitol Hill, domain squatting gets put on the fast track. I'm not at all a fan of domain squatting, but it's been -- what? -- three years now, and how many pieces of anti-spam legislation have made it out of committee, let alone a Congressional vote?
I think it's pretty clear where our "representative's" priorities lie. "Custom Legislation, at Reasonable Prices."
Schwab
Re:I guess I don't get it (Score:1)
The DNS system was created so there would be an easy way to reference IP addresses (among other things). The system was set up so that if you need a domain, you can have one.
These people who are registering domains just so that those who have a real planned use for them have to pay are abusing the system.
I've always believed that it was wrong to allow registrations of domains using false information.
.com's shouldn't ahve been given to non-commercial entities.
Re:Sick of DNS... (Score:1)
What would be better is a lock-down on the generic TLD's.
Stick to the country domains. Let countries do what they want with them.
And find a different way to 'browse the web' than using domain names directly. Some sort of directory services.
DNS wasn't intended to be used in the fashion it is now.
Henry George Was Close (Score:1)
Re:Potential Trademark Problems... (Score:1)
Re:virtual property (Score:1)
As well, AC, you don't know the half of it (Score:1)
There's no need for this extra legislation.
Again, there is NO NEED FOR THIS EXTRA LEGISLATION!!!!
It only makes it easier for a large corporation (such as Microsoft) to fuck a little guy for having a good idea first, but not having the legal manpower (read: $) to back it up.
See Microsoft and Windows2000.com [wired.com]. Registered in 1996, this domain (well in advance) preceded M$ decision to let its OS assembly line slip in production once again so that it had to rename its OS to Windows2000. Does microsoft own the trademark windows? Maybe. Actually, not really since it is f*cking generic. I'm sitting next to three (3) windows right now, and M$ didn't have thing to do with them. I look outside and I see people.
Windows were a concept first introduced to the computer world at large by Apple computers (and they were called just that, windows), first with Lisa & then with the Macintosh Operating System (now called MacOS). Apple borrowed this idea from previous work, but the previous work was non-commercial. M$ stole the work from Apple for the simple reason that Apple made a product with this work, licensed use of this work to M$ for use in writing programs for Macintoshes, and then M$ turned around and bit Apple in the *ss by coming out with its own OS based on the concepts that it had learned within the legally-binding relationship of a non-disclosure (and thus non-use except as specified) by Apple.
Well, I'm way the f*ck off topic, but the current trademark laws are sufficient, and there is no need to give police power to corporate America. They're got enough power as it is.
Microsof t pays congress to cut the Department of Justice's budget [washingtonpost.com]
"Where do you want to go tomorrow?" How about to court? [wired.com]
MSoft Throws Up Hands over 'Palm' -- Sort of [wired.com]
Micro$oft f*cks GoldTouch Technologies [goldtouch.com]
As far as customer goodwill, does Microsoft have any?
Who types in URLs???? (Score:1)
The whole cybersquating (am I the only person who hates any word starting with cyber that's used by the media) debate is a complete non-issue. Your average web session involves about .001% typing in URLs and 99.999% clicking links and bookmarks. What the difference between www.brucewillis.com and www.bruce.willis.com is beyond me. I can keep coming up with alternatives all night www.bwillis.com, www.actor.bruce.willis.com. At $100 bucks a pop I doubt any of your *cough* cybersquaters will be able to keep their little game going long.
But lawyers need something to do and people now believe www.brucewillis.com should belong to the actor or *maybe* some other guy named Bruce Willis and www.bruce.willis.com might as well be a porn site. One of those domains is magical because it has none of those dashes or extra periods us nobodys use!
So what happens when Bruce Willis does get his way? Will Willis engineering have to fire anyone named Bruce so he doesn't create a machine named bruce.willis.com or make bruce@willis.com? Court order to change your username anyone?
If you really wanted to get to the Bruce Willis site, make your flipper type in a decent search engine and be done with it. I don't see why the online community should let anyone with enough cash demand their name/trademark between the magical www. and the holy .com. Its now become a yuppie trophy to get these domains and the law will follow the money.
Solution? Quit paying them a million dollars a pop and they will slowly disappear. Then we can do the same to the paparazzi and make Bruce really happy.
Re:A clarifing follow-up..... (Score:2)
Hrrrrrrm. Particularly given the timing...
Most browsers that 'guess' will choose
Perhaps you should keep your logs for records; given that you've got
Re:Doesn't that make it ex post facto? (Score:1)
--Mark
Re:Your physical property analogy is a bit flawed (Score:2)
now we have added more extentions, just like we are going to add more domains like