Latest UDRP Stupidity: Unix.org, Canadian.biz 414
The Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure, an expedited process for allowing corporations to steal domain names, continues to be abused as arbitrators stretch the definitions of "cyber-squatting" to any length in order to find for the corporate complainants. Lunenburg writes "Unix.Org, a site that was apparently used for noncommercial discussion of Unix(tm) operating systems, has been ruled a "cybersquatter" by a WIPO panel and given to the X/Open group. In spite of not actually matching any cybersquatting criteria, a WIPO panelist felt that by providing links to commercial sites, Unix.ORG was acting in "bad faith" and thus should be given over to the Open group." And WEFUNK writes "Exploiting an obvious technical error to help build their case, Molson Inc. has been awarded the seemingly generic canadian.biz domain from the original owner who "registered this name because I am Canadian and want to develop a Canadian business directory" and is now appealing to the courts." John Gilmore has a bit of commentary.
Let's boycott DNS (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let's boycott DNS (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let's boycott DNS (Score:2)
Re:Let's boycott DNS (Score:2)
Turns out, if I advertise my site with my domain, and let it lapse, upon disconnection, nobody can get to me. However, if I do all my advertising by ip address (which never changes as long as I keep the same ISP), even though some people won't remember the ip addy, google is remarkably useful in finding the link as long as they know the title of the page, which is pretty simple to remember if you've ever been to the site.
Yes, I realize its still bad practice, and eventually I'll get a domain again, but nobody has had any problems accessing my site with just the ip address, and for now, I see no hurry to jump back on the domain bandwagon again.
-Restil
Re:Let's boycott DNS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let's boycott DNS (Score:3, Insightful)
It makes me sick..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Me too (Score:2)
That's what the difference is, of course.
Corporate dictation - better than
Honestly... (Score:2, Insightful)
So you really shouldn't be sick that something that isn't cybersquating is declared so, and that something that is cybersquating is not declared so. The term "cybersquatting" is irrelevant to the matter at hand, since it is nothing more than window dressing to the real matter -- who is declared to be economically more important. That's what should make you sick.
Re:It makes me sick..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Either you never owned this name, or you owned it and let it lapse long enough to become available again. It doesn't really matter though, at the bottom of the page it states that the name is for sale. Have you contacted them to see how much they want for it? Can't be much since a Google for "moerobotics" returns that site and exactly one other hit.
If you actually have a legitamate claim to the name you will have no problem yanking it away from those squatters based on the fact that tehy are obviously trying to sell it. Have you tried filing a dispute yet?
BTW only the
Re:It makes me sick..... (Score:2)
related 2600 story (Score:3, Informative)
Re:related 2600 story (Score:2)
Here's one for you: say I register a business called Racist Joke of the Day, and I forward all calls to your house. Does your reputation suffer the first time somebody calls and you answer? You bet it does -- you are likely forever to be, in cetain circles, the guy who ran that sick racist joke phone line. It's the sort of thing Donald Segretti would have done if he'd thought of it.
That said, Ford should have called and asked 2600 to stop. I believe them when they say that they would have done so if asked. Putting lawyers in the water was heavy-handed at best.
from politechbot: (Score:3, Funny)
Blatant sarcasm mode on:
Free speech guarantees should not be part of the incorporation charter of ICANN.
BSM off.
You expect professional behaviour from ICANN?
You know what ICANN stands for don't you?
Idiots Controlling A Nationwide Network.
.
Re:from politechbot: (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be
Idiots Controlling All National Networks?
Re:from politechbot: (Score:2)
UDRP squatted (Score:2, Funny)
http://www.udrp.info - complete with an automatic homepage-changer, and Gator!
Buy it today!
Ah, the old %2d%2d legal loophole! (Score:3, Interesting)
Breaking more IP laws! (Score:5, Funny)
It's a good thing this guy didn't capitalize the "am" in "I am Canadian". For "I Am Canadian" is a trademark owned by Molson, and this poor chap would be sued for even using that sentence as a defence!
Re: "I Am Canadian" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: "I Am Canadian" (Score:2)
Sad, but fair.
Re: "I Am Canadian" (Score:2)
At least you're not alone.
Re: "I Am Canadian" (Score:3, Informative)
Ok - time to clear this one up right now. Nobody in Australia - and I mean nobody - drinks Fosters. I can't even recall the last time I saw if available for sale in a liquor store, or on tap in a pub.
Oh, sure, we have some very ordinary mass produced, mass marketed beers (Caslemaine XXXX, Swan Gold, Emu Export, and others). We also have some really good mass market beers (Redback would be a personal favourite; even Victoria Bitter isn't that bad). However, calling Fosters an Australian beer is so far from the truth it defies description. It's not brewed here, and it's not sold here - so how exactly is it Australian?
Russ %-)
You're in good company (Score:2)
I don't need to imagine it. I've lived overseas a number of times, and we Americans have the emberressment of "Budweiser, King of Beers" being promoted (successfully) in such places as the UK, Germany, and elsewhere as (a) the quitisential American beer (despite our numerous excellent brews (especially our Micro-brews), this is the bottled urin most of the world associates with American beer.
What makes it even more emberrassing is that the label closely resembles the 'true' Budweiser of Czech fame, Budweiser Budvar, which in contrast to the American pisswater variety is one of the finest Pilsners on the planet. Only Corporate American arrogance could ever lead to such a situation, where a nasty, cheap knockoff of arguably one of the world's finest pilsners has the audacity to call itself the King of Beers and even try to displace that which it mimics so poorly in that product's native markets.
Kind of sheds an interesting light on the psychology of the Corporate Moghuls fleecing our economy and driving into the ground these days (cf Enron, Xerox, Worldcom, and a whole bunch more coming soon to a courtroom near you).
Re:You're in good company (Score:2)
Of course, it is pretty nasty. There are so many amazingly good American beers, it sucks that we're associated with the watery stuff that gets exported.
Another CyberSquatter (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another CyberSquatter (Score:2)
In one of my responses to the "What We Need" thread, I briefly outlined a name dispute resolution standard that would, in fact, consider Microsoft.org to be cybersquatting (unless it resolves to a real machine in some protocol, like ftp.microsoft.org, or http://microsoft.org/, etc).
Since we're dealing with profoundly corrupt corporate shills in ICANN (including controlling intersts by the MPAA and RIAA
Slashdot Vigilantes (Score:4, Funny)
Disclaimer: Duh! this never happened, CowyboyNeil never said that, you beleived me? What a shmuck!
Jurisdiction? (Score:3, Interesting)
not so crazy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if many of you remember the cybersquatting "name rush," so let me provide some background. Basically, when the web started exploding, there was a small but significant minority that would purchase tons of domain names of major corporations, betting that just a few would bring in a bunch of money when the trademarked domain name was sold back to its rightful owner.
Needless to say, these greedy bastards were ruining it for the rest of us. A few bright spots (Guy Kawasaki's holding mcdonalds.com hostage in exchange for donations to public schools) didn't make up for what was largely the profitting of a few at the expense at anyone else.
The rules put into effect against cybersquatting were necessary to save the web from anarchy and plutocracy. And if those rules were to disappear, or cease to be enforced, then we would be plunged back into that corporate-sponsored hell. These rulings seem terrible to us now, but if we want to save the 'Net, we need to be firm in our application of the rules. Those found in violation need to be held responsible for their actions, or we will find ourselves back in the web of 1996.
Re:not so crazy? (Score:2)
As opposed to the corportate-sponsored hell we're in now?!
Anarchy is fine for domain names. Domain names should be first come first serve, with the option to sell for what the market will bear.
Re:not so crazy? (Score:5, Insightful)
The rules put into effect against cybersquatting were necessary to save the web from anarchy and plutocracy
[continuing story, alternative ending]
But that was then, few years ago. Since then the idea of profitable cyber-squatting has been proven to be Urban Legend (see earlier Slashdot story about people not renewing squatted dns domains), and the famous Search engine [google.com] has pretty much proven to nay-sayers that the idea of using DNS-domains for blind searches is not a nature of law. [that is, although your first guess, "www.company.com" may succeed, if not, use Google and you'll find the company]. Plus the idea that fools just flock to "www.american.com", making that domain name valuable is incredibly naive. Ever heard of portals? (which, themselves, are not all that valuable either, but I digress)
Btw, I don't think I'm the only one who's curious if it would be all that bad if we found ourselves back in the web of 1996?
What we need (Score:4, Interesting)
So, instead, we need DNS resolution in our libraries (glibc, etc.) and our internet applications (browsers, ftp & ssh clients, etc.) that include the concept of multiple root authorities, with easilly settable defaults.
Need to go to ICANN's unix.org? Fine, click a pulldown tab in your Mozilla 2.0 browser and select ICANN, or better yet, type http://icann//unix.org/ . Otherwise, stick with http://freenic//unix.org/ or (if opennic ever decides to dump ICANN peering) http://opennic//unix.org/
Obviously, old nomenclature would remain in place, using the system default for root authority (presumably Opennic and not ICANN).
It is only this approach, that will default to freedom but allow those of us who need to access ICANN-managed sites (most of the web today) to cross the line at will, that will enable us to free ourselves from ICANN's grip while still being able to make sensible use of the web.
Whether the alternative becomes Opennic, or some new entity ('freenic' anyone?) it needs to be constructed with a solid, equitable constitution that preserves freedom of speech above everything else, and does not favor large corporate or government interests over the rights of individuals, with an open, public, and fair judicial process for resolving name disputes. Ideally it would also include a
Re:What we need (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What we need (Score:2)
Re:What we need (Score:2)
A lot of (heavily tech impaired) users have trouble understanding that there are TLD's besides ".com" [whitehouse.com], and you want them to have to specify yet another domain on top of that? Why not just force them to memorize the IP addresses of their favorite sites while you're at it... Having multiple "xxxx.org" sites would only be more confusing, not less. Besides, improvements in search engine technology (ie. Google) have made control of xxxx.net/org/com somewhat less important, which is not to say that you could run unix.org from a Geoshitties site or anything...
In a word, YES (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes.
It is absurd for us to hold ourselves to the least common denominator. A degree of literacy is required to make use of the internet and the web. Claiming otherwise, or even claiming that pandering to illiteracy would be a good thing, is akin to arguing for the replacement of text in all the books in all our libraries with color pictures because the "reading-impaired" can't understand all those big words.
The sooner we divest ourselves of these sorts of idiotic fallacies and begin educating people so that they can make sensible use of technology, the sooner people will begin to have a positive, useful computing experience (rather than the constant frustration most people are confronted with today).
Note that this doesn't mean everyone needs to understand what
find / -type f -exec grep blah {}
means, nor does it mean that so-called "user friendly" interfaces are a bad thing (when properly implimented to facilitate knowledge and understanding, not obscure it) but basic concepts such as IP addresses, domain names, registrars, root authorities, filesystems, network connections, system memory, system storage, are something anyone wishing to use a computer should be required and expected to understand.
A modern computer connected to the internet has a lot more in common with a library than it does a toaster, and it is time we started treating it as such.
Re:What we need (Score:2)
How do these people manage to use a telephone? Telephone numbering is hierachical, as are postal addresses.
Re:What we need (Score:2, Interesting)
Therefore MegaSoft can be used by both a company selling rather limp plastic and also a company selling computer software. Not only that but you could have a company in France called MegaSoft selling computer software and a totally different company in Japan also called MegaSoft selling computer software. There are exceptions, under UK law, for example you couldn't register Pepsi if you are a carpet salesman because Pepsi is already, in the eyes of the public, associated with a specific product.
I guess that a solution would be to have a
Microsoft would have microsoft.*.tm because they are pretty much globally known, where * is any country code.
boots.uk.tm because, as far as i know, everyone in the uk will associate boots with the chemist company but i don't think they have much of a global presence.
and so on.
Any other solutions?
Re:What we need (Score:3, Interesting)
So who do you give (or rather, sell) mtv.tm to? The MTV from the US, the MTV from Italy, or the MTV from Brazil? A generic homepage with a link to each and every such trademark registered, along with a small description of the company (location, market)? Actually, that's an idea. But then how do you order the links? More money gets you on top?
Maybe you remember a few years back, altavista.com wasn't the correct link for the search engine of the same name. The company operating altavista.com had a link on the top saying "The AltaVista search engine can be found here". After that they must have sold the domain, because altavista.com was the correct link for a couple years.
Re:What we need (Score:2)
The solution is relativley trivial.
You have a trademark on textiles, in Illinois, for SweatShopSweats, but no national (or international) trademark? Fine, you get:
sweatshopsweats.textile.il.us.tm
That is the only domain name you are legally entitled to have. Any other domain names you get, such as sweatshopsweats.com, etc. are yours if you get 'em first, but you have no legal right to the name. Ditto with, say 'sweatshopsweats.tm'
You agree to this, in your contract, when you register your domain name with 'somefreenic' TLD authority.
Let the
Trademark disputes should be completely removed from every non-.tm domain space, period, for the very reasons you cite (among others).
Re:What we need (Score:2)
sweatshopsweats.textile.full.postal.address.her
In some jurisdictions perhaps (and this would be an area where states might want to be responsible for their own state.us.tm, and other countries for their country.tm domains), but when I registered a trademark in Illinois it was for a particular area of business in the entire state. Hence:
trademark.area-of-business.state.country.tm is sufficient to uniquely identify my trademark.
Had I registered a national trademark, then
trademark.area-of-business.us.tm would have been enough.
Re:What we need (Score:2)
The MTV in Turkmenistan [www.nic.tm], obviously.
Re:What we need (Score:2)
Most users never understand what the parts of a URL mean anyway, so a little more garbage at the beginning of one won't even be noticed. But how do you allocate the names for the authorities? If you have lots of naming authorities, then you need to allow those names to be allocated. So OpenNIC and OpenNick and ONic don't get into arguments. And so that one company isn't allowed to just claim every name that has nic or NIC or Nic or
Also, I would propose a resolution process where if the URL isn't found in the specified nameing authority, a sequence of secondary authorities would be checked.
Question: What is the maximum number of naming authorities that the proposed protocol would allow? Are we talking about 50, about 50,000, or about 50,000,000? The design would need to be different.
(Yes, I know that the specs aren't that defined yet. But I feel the question needs to be asked before the design gets well underway.)
What if you don't speak English? (Score:2)
You realize ".tm" would only be meaningful to people who use the English word "Trademark" don't you? If we're really trying for a valid, international solution, it won't depend on abbreviations of English legal terms.
(Yes, English is [currently] the defacto language of the internet. One argument at a time, please.)
Language smangwidge (Score:2)
Unless you would like to push for Esperanto as the Official Language of the Internet (I would support you in this argument, even though it would mean I'd have to learn Esperanto from scratch), I think you are going to have to concede, and live with the fact, that English is the defacto language of the internet, and that for the domain system to work at all we have to accept that, to some degree.
Thus,
However, it isn't as simple as that, because, with more than one root authority to choose from, China could, for example, have
As long as Trademark nonsense is reserved for
Re:What we need (Score:4, Insightful)
Aside from the fact that this would fundamentally break nearly every application that already does DNS through the definitive/de facto root servers (and has for the past 25+ years), I still can't see this working.
Think of this: your long distance carrier is MCI [(333)333-3333]. You want to call your brother, who happens to be on Sprint [(444)444-4444]. Imagine having to call the MIC->Sprint Gateway, before calling him? Or having to dial the "Sprint Prefix" (//freenic). If you forget to do that, you'd get MCI's (444)444-4444 instead of Sprint's (444)444-4444 (which is what you REALLY want).
Not to mention, a third root system catching on, and having to purchase many instances of the same domains within many roots.
OR a resolution system for the various prefixes (how would your machine figure out which root servers to use for the various prefixes?)
These analogies aren't perfect, of course, but I can see how multi-roots would get very annoying and cause even MORE problems.
S
The unix.org case makes a good point (Score:3, Insightful)
The complainant argues that the domain name is indistinguishable from their trademark. Respondent asserts that the trademark has become diluted to a generic, and is therefore not enforcable. According to the ruling:
Basically WIPO is saying that you can not defend a domain name by asserting that a trademark has become a generic. If you wish to challenge a trademark, you must do it in the jurisdiction where the trademark originates. As long as the trademark is considered valid in its original jurisdiction, it is accepted as valid in WIPO proceedings.
Re:The unix.org case makes a good point (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The unix.org case makes a good point (Score:2, Interesting)
Entirely - so much for corporate sponsorship of charities and such. Guess its open season now.
There should be a very, very simple way to decide on cybersquatting: if the page you get when going to the URL is "This domain is taken, contact us if you'd like to purchase it", then its cybersquatting. If its anything else (e.g. someone's actually *using* it for something already) then first-come, first-serve should rule.
I recently purchased a domain for a client (Gourmet Pantry [gourmetpantry.net]) of my company with a ".net" extension, even though the client was just a company that we were setting up an e-commerce site for. However, they couldn't get their company's name with .com, because it was being squatted upon and the site you get when you go to it says that at a MINIMUM, getting the domain will cost $600!! That's ridiculous. There's no need for that kind of crap on the 'Net.
I could see a few exceptions to "first-come, first serve" - at least at the inception of the Internet. e.g. McDonald's Corp. should get mcdonalds.com, regardless of who's using it - their brand is internationally recognized (and this can be measured). At this point in the 'Net's life, however, first-come, first-serve should be fine since no company will come up with a "new" name that is magically nationally or internationally recognized. Even if an existing multi-national company creates a new product, most product marketing specialists know to look for a URL as soon as a list of potential product names is proposed, so that the microsite can launch under an appropriate URL.
Unix.org = Pr0n? (Score:5, Funny)
I was a might suprised to find it blocked by the wonderful corporate content filter.
Checking the URL checker [n2h2.com] I got the following response:
URL Checker
Thank you for your submission. Below please find a listing of the category (ies) in which your submitted URL appears. For a detailed description of each category, visit our filtering categories section.
The Site: www.unix.org
is categorized by N2H2 as:
Pornography
Should you still wish to inquire about the URL in question after checking with your System Administrator, please submit your request to N2H2's Review Editors for further analysis.
Well its obviously porn! (Score:2)
Dang it.. what more can we say? so many #'s in a row.. its obviously Porn or a message from Bin Laden to his followers!
obviously a microsoft based filter (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
music.com - RIAA says they have the rights to this, since they "own music"
switch.com - Apple claims they deserve it because of their oh-so-clever ad campaign. But Cisco says it belongs to them, because they make switches, and can afford the most lawyers.
fordreallysucks.com - Now Chevy is claiming rights to this one, as it is a fundamental part of their corporate philosophy.
bendoverandtakeit.com - Microsoft is pursuing this one, using an argument similar to Chevy's.
Beer? (Score:3, Funny)
Being Canadian isn't just about drinking beer...
As long as I can remember, being a Canadian has been about drinking beer. Good beer, too. Canadian beer. Besides, Canadian.biz is kind of like saying Cuba.biz. Nobody really cares.
Google campaign anyone? (Score:2)
Corrupt [wipo.int]
Google as a measuring tool (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, and "stupid -bush" turns up about the same number. That doesn't mean the words don't have a deep and meaningful connection.
Re:Google as a measuring tool (Score:2)
Re:Google as a measuring tool (Score:2)
it's not too late to strike back (Score:2)
As a side, several years ago when NSI was pounding the company that I worked for in the butt hard core because they had a problem in their root servers, I proceeded to register fucknsi.org while on hold with them. Their tech support didn't believe that I could have a domain when I said my email contact was everyone.should@fucknsi.org.
Of course, you're probably just wasting your $10.
Lest we forget (Score:2)
The comment from John Gilmore is (in conclusion) "Now tell me again that free speech guarantees should not be part of the incorporation charter of ICANN."
Hard to argue against that. Until, that is, you remember that John's definition of freedom of speech extends to running an open mail relay [slashdot.org] that he knows is being used by spammers. The tacitly admitted reason is that securing it might inconvenience his friends (to the extend that they'd have to remember a password), but the touted reason is that it's a freedom of speech issue. Sure, whatever.
John Gilmore doesn't necessarily represent my ideas about what constitutes freedom of speech, and you really have to consider everything he says on a case by case basis to decide if it's an informed insight, or just blind kneejerk rhetoric. I believe he's right in this case, but let's be careful about just quoting him as though he's the authority on everything related to net issues.
Uh (Score:3, Informative)
Link [archive.org]
Apparently they had some cheesy links up, and nothing up since 1998.
Guess what, they WERE squatters./B>
Go see the archive for yourself. If that isn't a squatted domain, I don't know what is.
Re:Uh (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again I also helped contribute to something very evil as I had a link to an online survey which paid me. The results of that survey helped form one of the evil internet marketing companies.
Latest Open Group stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
That's real fucking smart of them, though it's typical of a this called standards group that acts more like the Unix Cartel than an "Open" group.
I Agree that they own the Unix trademark, but it would have been a lot smarter move to grant a license to unix.org to use the trademark instead of taking the domain.
Keep it up Open Group. You already destroyed the value of CDE and Motif with licensing terms that caused KDE and Gnome to be developed. I guess you won't be happy until you wipe out any value left in the Unix trademark.
Bad faith (Score:2)
Read the decision closely and search for the word "faith." Read and understand why the panelist decided the website was registered in bad faith. He said the website included links to "commercial" sites like sendmail.org (!) and thus was registered in bad faith! Amazing.
canadian.com? (Score:2)
Damn Right! (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah...It's way more broad. It also includes Hockey.
Check out the complaint. (Score:2)
1) We trademarked the name canadian. - that's valid although how they got away with it is another question.
2) We are a really big company - they give all sorts of stats on how big they are. Great! Not really relevant though.
3) The registrant isn't real - apparently the registrant name showed up as "%2d%2d" and that is obviously not a real person. They did however do a search for %2d%2d and found no such person. Dr. Black told the panel that the registrar told him they would fix that.
Based on these overwhelming points, ICANN agreed to give the domain to Molson. Makes perfect sense. Doesn't it?
Use an 8 character IPv6 address and fuck DNS (Score:2)
It was a stop-gap, first effort and like James Brooks said, "Plan to throw the first one away, you will anyway."
It was based on cognitive structures that have proved unable of scaling. All the hacks since (DynIP, spoofing, Spam, DDoS etc.) have all been based on weaknesses in the disambiguation mechanism.
Your address might also become your personal form of address (on your personal/business card, ssn, access to encryption keys, business records [fuck Pasport,] medical records,) as opposed to a physical location and redundant and often dangerously inaccurate databases.
Ridiculous rules . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's why.
Since complainants select the arbitrator with whom they file their complaint, arbitration companies assemble panels that are wildly and notoriously pro-complainant. Any arbitration company not sporting a massivly pro-plaintiff win rate gets passed over (and makes less money in arb fees) than an arb co that does.
Doh! So the company that provides the least fair and responsible results, so long as they are pro-petitioner, will do better than the other companies. There IS SIMPLY NO ECONOMIC INCENTIVE to provide balanced and fair adjudication.
Re:Canadian.biz (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Canadian.biz (Score:2, Informative)
Kinda leaves a bad taste in the mouth...
Re:Canadian.biz (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Canadian.biz (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, the fact that the apparent technical error (Hex garbage like %2%2 showing up in the registrar's file) played such an important part of this case makes the decision extend beyond IP ownership issues by holding registrants liable for mistakes by their registrars while also raising concern about ICANN's lack of technical competence. Molson deliberately played up this angle to the "judge" by doing a business name search for %2%2 and proposing that since any such business (obviously) doesn't exist, the original owner must be a cybersquatter - even though the registrar seems to admit to the mistake with their database.
I will be actively protesting this decision by drinking my share of some real (although sadly, no longer Canadian owned) Canadian [labatt.com] beer [beer.com] along with some pints from our many fine Canadian [beer-lover.com] microbreweries [realbeer.com].
Re:Canadian.biz (Score:2, Informative)
As a Canadian, I will tell you this: Molson, Inc likes to portray itself as THE REPRESENTATIVE of all things "canadian". Most suckers go gladly along with this, proudly wearing their corporate logo that claims "I am Canadian", and spouting that idiotic "Rant" commercial from a few years back (Guess where the actor, "Joe Canadian" is now? You guessed it...south of the border, working in the States. What was that about being Canadian again?) The primary market for Molsons is the brain-dead 20-something university "students" (so you can see why they've been so successful).
Nevermind that Molsons is the McDonald's of Canadian beer--terrible pisswater. They're also the Microsoft of Canadian beer, as they go around signing "exclusive" deals with bars and pubs--which is why you can only get Molson swill on tap at most canadian bars (look for the usual line up: Molson Canadian, Algonquin honeybrown, Coors Lite....if you see that, they've signed "the deal").
Does anyone know if--irony of ironies--Molsons has non-Canadian owners, like Labatt's?
Re:Canadian.biz (Score:2)
BTW, it's not like that kind of exclusive licensing is that uncommon. Look at most restaurants... Pepsi or Coke products?
Re:Canadian.biz (Score:2)
Now I don't even drink beer but I have to say that I loved that "I am Canadian" theme ad, especially the "Anthem" one which showed many historical Canadian setups interwoven with the song.
A question for you: Have you heard Bud Lite's advertisement response to the I am Canadian theme? They (at least last summer) had these incredibly corny "Brewed In Ontario" radio ads that are 100X 'worse' than the Molson ones (if you think the Molson ones are bad, that is.) They are so bad and 'machiso-oriented' that they make Don Cherry (of Hockey Night In Canada) look feminime.
Re:Canadian.biz (Score:2, Funny)
True. Perhaps they'd have more of a claim on the beer.shit domain. Of course they'd have to fight Anheuser-Busch for that one.
Re:Canadian.biz (Score:2)
Re:Canadian.biz (Score:2, Insightful)
They have rights to the word "Canadian" as it pertains to beer..... nothing else.
I am not Canadian(TM), I am CANADIAN.
However, Molson beer is Canadian(TM)
Re:Canadian.biz (Score:2)
And I do agree about the Microbrewries. Upper Canada Dark is far superior (as is Rickards Red, Old Micks Red etc)..
Re:Canadian.biz (Score:2)
Re:so they steal but you guys don't? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:so they steal but you guys don't? (Score:5, Insightful)
You, sir, are making a common mistake. There is a clear difference between stealing someone's domain name (there is only one Unix.org) and 'stealing' someone's song for your own listening purposes, which does not diminish its value unless you would have otherwise paid for it.
See, taking the domain name away from someone destroys the value to you, as you no longer have it. But copying a song may actually raise the value of the song, and thus the artist, by increasing exposure. This can be true even for mainstream, payola-based artists.
Pay attention, son.
Morsels for the Troll (Score:2, Insightful)
Nonsense. When someone violates copyright they are not stealing anything. Neither the original creator, nor those who comply with the creator's copyrights, nor those others who do not, are being deprived of anything. Hence, by the very defintion of the word 'stealing,' no theft is taking place. This is why the law clearly differentiates between theft and copyright violation, and a remedial understanding of this should be required before idiots like yourself start banging away on their keyboards.
As to domanin names, the original holder of the domain name is most definitely being deprived of that name, i.e. the name is being taken away from them.
Does this make it theft? Arguably so, since this is being done in an extralegal fashion (not via a court of law). It is arguable that it isn't, since virtually every registrar has a clause in the contract you sign basically saying "you're paying for this, but we can deprive you of it anytime we like, for any reason we like, and you agree to this." However, it remains to be seen whether or not such contract clauses are in fact enforcable (in any other industry they would clearly not be enforcable). If it turns out that this notion of 'we can deprive you of the service you've paid for anytime we like' is in fact an illegal stipulation, then that portion of the contract is void, and depriving a party of the domain name for which they paid would in fact arguably be "theft" of a sort. Certainly more so than most of the things people around here like to label "theft."
Either way, it is in no way analogous to copyright violation, bandwidth misuse, or any number of other things which are constantly, and erroneously, being called theft around here.
Slashdot hypocrisy 101.
Idiocy 101, more like it.
Re:Morsels for the Troll (Score:2)
Apart from money, that is.
Your argument only works if the price of the thing stolen is so high that a single sale would cover the cost of making it and if that sale had already occured. Pretty stupid argument.
Copyright violation is theft and if you have a problem with that you could always try making your own music/software/books/movies/TV shows/artworks/plays/photographs/magazines etc.
TWW
Wrong on Every Point, Yet Again (Score:2)
Once again, you demonstrate why a modicum of education on intellectual property would be very useful before people begin banging away on their keyboards when discussing, or in your case, trolling, this particular subject.
Lost potential sales does not, and never has, equaled theft, either in law, or in common use of speech (outside of rhetoric deliberately employed by copyright and intellectual property cartels, which hardly counts as it is intended to change the language to their political advantage).
Your argument requires that deprivation of potential sales would equal theft (which in fact would make every act of competition equal to "theft."). A pretty stupid argument.
Oh, and by the way, I do make my own literature, art, and movies available, freely, under a GPL-like license, so unlike trolls like yourself I actually do put my money where my mouth is.
Thank you for playing.
Re:so they steal but you guys don't? (Score:2, Insightful)
domain names are not "intellectual property". they are much more akin to "actual property". a domain name has much more in common with a walking stick than a patent.
that being said, your brain probably has more in common with a walking stick
go back to community college english 101. read some books. learn some ideas, such as: hate to be so harsh, but did you even think through your argument? or just click submit? if you and i each have a domain name, and we exchange them, we each still have a domain name. that is not IP, that is actual physical property.
Agreed (Score:2)
It's like asking a World Com executive to head up your taskforce on corporate malfeasance, or a Texas oil baron to lead the EPA. At this point, I think we should ask John Ashcroft to take over for YRO, just to finish casting the section as a total joke.
And their logo? (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, as a Canadian, aren't you just a bit offended that a word so closely tied to your identity has been usurped by a corporation for its own gains?
One of their slogans seems to be I am Canadian [www.iam.ca]. (Forgive me for being unfamiliar with their marketing - we don't drink much Molson here...)
Can you legally even say that aloud anymore without infringing upon their trademarks?
Not being Canadian, I won't try to tell you how you should feel, but I'm just a bit curious.
(Maybe it's such a good beer that Canadians don't mind - I honestly don't know...)
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
ICANN's .biz is supposed to be this perverse. (Score:2)
But back to what happened with Unix.org ... that's an outrage.
Re:My two Canadian cents... (Score:2)
Buick likely has Century trademarked on their car, but that does not prevent Century from being used elsewhere.
Having the Sale of the Century! generally shouldn't infringe, nor should Century 21 Realty.
Nissan.com is having this same fight (and somewhat winning)
Re:My two Canadian cents... (Score:2)
Maybe he was going to make the Canadian Business Directory, and hadn't registered the trademark yet.
Re:My two Canadian cents... (Score:2)
Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, EV1, Holden, Hummer, Oldsmobile, Open, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn, Vauxhall. As well the former 'Geo' which is now operated by Chevy anyway.
Re:My two Canadian cents... (Score:2)
They also have joint-venture sort of deals going on with: Fiat, Fuji/Subaru, Isuzu, and Suzuki.
Re:My two Canadian cents... (Score:2)
Re:Government challenge? (Score:2, Interesting)
(In Europe, "Beer of Kings" is actually the centuries-old slogan of Budjovick Budvar N.P [budweiser.cz], the Czech brewery that Anheuser-Busch stole the name from in 1876. Budvar didn't officially give AB permission until 1911, meaning Anheuser-Busch built its empire on trademark infringement. It's a small irony, but a painful one.)
Re:Ignore them? (Score:2)
So the winner can easily get a judgement from the court.
Re:What we REALLY need (Score:2)
Re:Molson, Molson, Molson (Score:2)
They (Molson) will never get 'genuine' bad publicity over this because the primary drinkers of the beer are those who are stupid enough to drink it. Such people couldn't care less about 'domain name dispute protocols' or other such crap. Unless it would have prevented their favourite hockey player from being traded away or something, then this will not reach 99.99% of Molson's core market.