Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

Domain Names to Suck More 180

Posted by michael from the golf-ball-through-a-garden-hose dept.
A submitter writes: "MSNBC is running this article about a free speech lawyer who will be doling out sites with the word 'suck' in it for free. He and others are afraid that too many of these gripe sites have been taken away from their owners and given to the target companies and is willing to fight in court for these people." We posted about the VivendiUniversalSucks decision earlier.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Domain Names to Suck More More

Domain Names to Suck More

Comments Filter:

  • What we want is a real test case (Score:5, Funny)

    by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 22, 2002 @10:21AM (#2881923) Homepage Journal
    I suggest we set up a website to promote a lawsuit where the guidelines are more ambiguous. I recommend registering "www.hoovervacuumcleanersDONTsuck.com"
  • I could not find any links that resulted in getting a free .comsucks. domain !
    • http://freespeechcenter.org/portfolio/com.html

      It is a _third level domain_ that you get.

      They've registered almost all common non-national [TLD]sucks.[TLD] second level domain names, and therefore can hand out third level ones of whatever variety you want.

      So you could create names like MSN.NETsucks.info if you like. (case of course being irrelevant).

      Hope that's clear now.
      THL.

  • Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NiftyNews ( 537829 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2002 @10:23AM (#2881936) Homepage
    That's all well and good for free speech, but these stories always make me wish I had a piece of the Domain Name sales pie. The # of people that actually visit these X-sucks.com sites is slim to nil. Feel free to spend the money, I guess.

  • At least get it right (Score:4, Informative)

    by DannyGene ( 31846 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2002 @10:23AM (#2881939) Homepage
    The summary should specify that the domains are "company.comsucks.net", not "companysucks.com" as the summary implies.
  • I doubt that this will affect in any way domains that have been legally bought. So.... I think its a good idea, although it seems to be a waste of time. Why can't people that lost their domain names just fight their own battles? Or perhaps this is because the lawyer wants a percentage of the profits from winning legal battles?
    • > Why can't people that lost their domain
      > names just fight their own battles?

      Ok, let me get this straight. Because I can't
      afford to match legal dollars with GM, it means
      that I don't have the right to free speach?

      I'm sure the lawyer here is trying to make
      a name in this arena, but I have no problem
      with that - it's a win-win sitution. The people
      who have lost their right to protest with
      domains now can do so with sub-domains.
    • >Why can't people that lost their domain names just fight their own battles?

      United we stand, divided we fall?

      -Kevin
    • > Why can't people that lost their domain names just fight their own battles?

      Like, why can't people who got beat up just beat the other guy up? Duh .. I think the idea is, there is a reason they lost in the first place, and that would be lack of support, lack of ammunition, lack of fighting supplies ($$s and lawyers in today-speak.) Companies have been notorious for threatening legal action against small domain owners who have no choice but to fold, given the enormous financial risk that legal defence imposes.

      You remind me of those rabid free-market capitalists who keep asking, "So those people in countries with no money and food .. why can't they just build some shit and make money for food?" You know, sometimes you're so focused on the next meal (or not losing your life's savings in the case of the domainname holders) that you couldn't concentrate on the bigger plan (being the champion, the hero, the company killer with respect to the domain holders) even if you wanted to.
      • Sometimes it is the lack of money and lawyers. Sometimes lawyers don't see the advantage of it, ie. no money in it for them. Sometimes, people are just too scared to fight. Or, they think you can't win against a large corporation.

  • Would this be like an ObGyn passing out condoms with holes in them?

    BlackGriffen

  • New TLD (Score:5, Funny)

    by bdoliver ( 221092 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2002 @10:26AM (#2881955) Homepage
    I think we just need to formalize it, there is a definate need for the TLD ".sucks"
    • There is, if you use one of the alternative DNS roots!

      However, if you use one of the roots that doesn't have .sucks them you can go through the cooperative .glue TLD which the alternative roots agreed would to use as a gateway. Funny, I'd have thought it was more of sniffs.glue rather than sucks.glue!

      THL.
      (yes, I know that's not how .glue works, but once I had the idea of sucks + glue I couldn't drop the idea. OK, I'll shut up now!)

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2002 @11:21AM (#2882329)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • And in 100ms, there will be porn sites registered as mywife.sucks, mytwolesbiangirlfriendsandI.sucks.

        The problem here is by making a distinction between .sucks and .com or you don't get people getting the same information on the same searches. There may be a stigmatism from the information being on the .sucks tld, it is someone who is just complaining. Then you will have the issue of domain battles for barbie.sucks, because people will fight over who thinks barbie sucks more.

    • a definate need for the TLD ".sucks"

      What good would it do? ICANN would give trademark holders first dibbs at registration and then every sucky company would own its own .sucks domain. Sounds more like a ploy to keep the registrars plump.
    • You're right, of course, but that's too many chars, IMHO. Let's just make it .sux for the sake of simplicity.
  • primus knew what they were doing when they made thier home page primussuscks.com [primussuscks.com] right from the begining.

  • Full disclosure (Score:5, Funny)

    by Score0, Overrated ( 550447 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2002 @10:26AM (#2881962) Homepage
    I think it only fair that the existence of this site [slashdotsucks.com] is disclosed while discussing this story.

  • Why doesn't the sucks.com owner do this? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2002 @10:27AM (#2881966) Homepage Journal
    The sucks.com owner could lease out second level domains under his domain and make a tidy little chunk of change for himself. This would, at the very least, make it much more difficult to have domain names siezed and transferred to them, since they'd have to take the trademark dispute to court rather than some completely unaccountable international IP committee.

  • No need to complain (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Evanrude ( 21624 ) <(david) (at) (fattyco.org)> on Tuesday January 22, 2002 @10:27AM (#2881969) Homepage Journal
    Why complain about having a *sucs.com site named after you. Use it as a tool to fix your problems? Or just be flattered that someone took the time to develop a website dedicated to telling the world how much your company sucks. Isn't the irony there pretty thick already?

    • Re:No need to complain (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sodium Attack ( 194559 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2002 @11:45AM (#2882507)
      The type of people who tend to register *sucks.com sites are generally not those who are interested in providing constructive criticism to a company in the hopes of improving it. No, they're the type who will be upset with that company no matter how much they've done to improve. (Otherwise, there could come a point where they'd have to say, "Yeah, X sucked three years ago, but they've improved a lot and don't suck anymore. We're shutting our site down." Who could see that happening?)

      Don't get me wrong; I'm all in favor of allowing *sucks.com sites. But I don't pretend that they're any more objective than the company site itself.

      • The type of people who tend to register *sucks.com sites are generally not those who are interested in providing constructive criticism to a company in the hopes of improving it.

        So what? Do I only get freedom to criticize a corp if it's constructive?

  • I don't necessarily agree with the so and so sucks.com mentality, but it is a freedom of expression issue. Just because I hate everything the KKK stands for, doesn't mean I won't defend their right to assemble, etc. This is, IMO, similar. Hopefully this is a small step for the online community towards a more democratic society.
    • Really you think the KKK shou have the right to assemble? I think sometimes Free Speech goes to far. Its like writing child porn stories... Should this be considered free speech? Did you know Chapters has banned Mein Kampf in their stores.

      I think free speech can go both ways. Some people use it to much and some people restrict it to much.
      • "Really you think the KKK shou have the right to assemble?" Actually yes I do, for otherwise, a lot of people would have died in vain protecting this right they so often abuse. For the record, I ABHOR everything the KK stands for. I personally would be glad if they never existed. But, just because I disagree with their views, doesn't mean they don't have the right to do what they wish. (within the laws of course)
      • Yeah, let's drive the klan into the underground and no one will know what devious things they're up to. Al-KKKaida anyone? Speech must be kept free and open if only to "keep you friends close and your enemies closer."
    • God, what was the point of that post? Watch me cut and paste comments posted a million time before on slashdot.
      • Rant time: Cut and paste? I think not my friend. I served in the Marine Corps for 5 years. I have been all over the world, and have seen what kind of conditions other people live in. You have no idea how good you have it. People like ME have defended that right since this country was founded. Hundreds of thousands have died for this right. If you disagree with it, fine, but don't try to slam me for something you don't have a fucking clue about. Damn, now you got me all pissed off...
        • So? My father was a Marine guard at the American embasy in Moscow during late 60's; back when it was a big fucking deal (i.e. Cuban Missle Crisis). Does that make you better or worse? Who actually gives a shit.

          I wasn't arguing that free speach is something to be defended. Now if you actually look at my post you'll see that it's your parotting of the hundred posts previous to yours that parotted the hundred posts before them of the exact same phrases, that I dislike; you can think for yourself and say something original can't you (at least jumble up the words or something).

          Note: Yes, my father was really an embasy guard (I am being truthful), of course he said that he did it because after doing a couple of years there you got to pretty much pick which embassy you wanted to go. He met my Swiss mother there who was a nanny for some diplomats, and well the rest is how you say history. So I have a very firm grasp as to defending this country, and have a very large fucking clue about it.
          • "Now if you actually look at my post you'll see that it's your parotting of the hundred posts previous to yours that parotted the hundred posts before them of the exact same phrases, that I dislike; you can think for yourself and say something original can't you (at least jumble up the words or something). "

            Ok, if you think I am just parroting crap, that's your opinion and you are absolutely entitled to it. However, if we are to be productive and think before we respond as you request, then rather than slam me for what I had to say, wouldn't it be better to ignore it and post something enlightening?

            I can concede you have a point in that it is harped up a bit here. I was not trying to beat a dead horse, merely making a statement.

            Fair enough?
  • Maybe they should just give their sucks list to Australia who can add it to their BLACK LIST. It seems like everyone is getting into the list industry.
  • Before I paid to set up RiverMillSucks.com [rivermillsucks.com]
    *sigh*
    ya gotta love a bunch of college kids bitching about their landlord. That's really the essence of life.

    Or mine, anyway...
  • VivendiUniversalReallyReallyReallySucks.com

    or

    VivendiUniversalSucksButt.com

    or, to show you're not looking for money...

    seineeWerAsreenignElasrevinUidneviV.org

    (pardon the silliness. this post composed umop apisdn)

  • obviously (Score:2, Redundant)

    by jjeffries ( 17675 )
    We need a .sucks top-level domain. To save time the
    registrar could send the owner the date of his/her trademark infringement suit as soon as the first payment was made!
  • There are two important things we need for domain names.

    1) We must be able to put any fucking thing we want, regardless if it's a companies name or not.

    2) Top level domains should be anything you want. As in .foo, .jkfajsk, .fuck.you, .whatever

  • Ooh ooh, I want this one! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Uttles ( 324447 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [selttu]> on Tuesday January 22, 2002 @10:35AM (#2882020) Homepage Journal
    http://slashdot.orgsuck.com [slashdot.org]

    That's a mouthful!
  • how bout OpenNIC and/or New.net work on creating a .sucks TLD :-)
  • How happy would freespeechcenter.org be if I registered freespeechcentersucks.org?

  • usuck.com (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dimer0 ( 461593 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2002 @10:38AM (#2882038)
    I tried to do the something similiar last year. I set up a subdomain redirection site so you could assign microsoft.usuck.com to wherever you wanted, etc. (Actually, that site pointed HERE - and I didn't do it). I had over 70,000 domains being redirected.

    After the spam community started using my domain service for their own good, Verio threatened to pull the plug, so I stopped that service. What a pity.

    It was so fun, though. Getting emails from parents saying their kids were going to drop out of school because people had set up redirections from (example) johnsmith.usuck.com that ended up redirecting to gay porn sites.

  • doesn't address the real problem (Score:3)

    by nzhavok ( 254960 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2002 @10:39AM (#2882048) Homepage
    This is sort of a good thing in that you can (at least in the future) get your VivendiUniversal.comsucks.com address for free (?) but it doesn't address the underlying issue that these "suck" domains shouldn't have been taken away in the first place. So kudos Ed Harvilla for the idea but it's a workaround for the problem not a solution to it.

    Personally if I were to create a parody site in the future I'm going to learn from Jay Sallen's mistake and NOT create a sucks domain. Think: VivendiUniversalBlowsGoats.com how's the WIPO going to award that to them? Actually, perhaps I shouldn't have asked that question...
    • Obviously once he wins a few cases there will be precedent that should stop suck domains from being taken away. This isn't a workaround at all, unless you have a time machine and can travel back to the 90s and repair the damage there.
      • not neccesarily, remember there are many places that businesses can go for a hearing of the dispute, WIPO (heard in Switzerland) is a popular one for them because it makes decisions along the lines of: it's possible that a company would like sucks in its domain name, ergo vivendi universal has some claim to the *sucks domain; The owner said he might consider selling the domain, ergo he has given up his right to free speech.

        Precedents are only going to work in aa system which is prepared to enforce them. Given the previous outcomes and rediculous arguments made for them I can imagine the court side-stepping the precedent for equally stupid resons, with no recourse for the accused.

    • Think: VivendiUniversalBlowsGoats.com how's the WIPO going to award that to them?

      Better yet: VivendiUniversalBlowsGoatse.cx [vivendiuni...sgoatse.cx] and redirect it to Goatse.cx [goatse.cx] (don't click it; it's gay porn).

    • I'd rather see VivendiUniversalBlowsWIPO.com go into a dispute. Now who's passing off what?
  • How about:

    http://jennajameson.sucks.com

    Or:

    http://mylast_girlfriend_name.sucks.com

    That would be welcome.
  • is still available!
  • Oddly there's an obvious choice [comsucks.net] not yet taken...

  • you know, if the people who have *sucks.com sites named after them too it as advice as to how to make thier company and products better, then they would just put those sites out of existance and then they would have nothing left to bitch about.

    (how is that for a run on sentance?)
  • He's not going to defend the owner of microsoftsucks.com, but he will give you microsoft.comsucks.net for free. Which he will defend since he owns the comsucks.net domain. He would be a brave sole to defend all the "sucks" sites out there for free...

    Question though, the article states that "Harvilla promises to fight the owner's case in court. '...and we have the resources to fight a case, where (siteowners) don't...' but I didn't see where it said he would do that for free... I assume (like everyone else here) that he would since he is the true owner of the name but where's he getting the $$$ to do this? Wouldn't he be to preoccupied making the cash with other cases to devote productive free time to this cause?

  • If you don't like the DMCA and want to make a 'suck' site from it, you should go grab:
    DMCARules.com

    Then make it a suck site. That way, instead of just making a suck site that hardly anyone will go to, you make a site where the trolls are your friends!
  • LawyersSuck.com

  • How about... (Score:2, Funny)

    by ppetru ( 24677 )
    freespechcentersucks.org?

    :)
  • What effect does buying

    bizsucks.biz

    have on anything whatsoever? Retard e-business types will still buy .info,.biz,.com,.museum,.org,.net,etc... for their business anyways.

    I think while the dude has good intentions he is just wasting time and effort.

    If you really want to protest form a new sort of DNS system and make it popular. Then when people stop using closed DNS systems where registration is monopolized you won't have to be a dork and buy

    bizsucks.com
    bizsucks.net
    bizsucks.org
    ...etc...

    Tom
  • These domain names are fun, but nothing beats and original like WebPagesThatSuck.com [webpagesthatsuck.com] ...

    or a better yet .... nothing says suck like grabbing your nemises domain name before they did original owner of PETA.Com ... here are some examples via WPTS : Domain Names [webpagesthatsuck.com]
  • Can someone explain to me how:

    1. Assinite corporations can force a US citizen, who, for example, lives in NY to defend his right to the domain-name site www.fordsucks.com in Switzerland, or some other foreign country, or even some other state? If I live in NY, and have all of my resources in NY, how can they force me to appear before a court in another state/country? And if all my resources are here, and the server hosting my site is here, what coersive force do they have?

    2. How a WIPO court, or any court outside of NY state (aside from a US Federal Court) has jurisdiction over a NY-state citizen?

    • Re:Question (Score:2, Interesting)

      by TheConfusedOne ( 442158 )
      First, you're attempting to apply logic to the situation. Never a good idea when legal matters are involved. Second, you should probably read all the fine print when you sign up for a domain name. Hell, read the fine print on that toaster you bought.

      There's lots of language in these things about the applicable laws, regulations, and the right to choose venues (where any trial might take place). If you recall the UCITA had some particularly odious language about venue choice and gave all the power to the vendors.

      Finally, *THE INTERNET ISN'T A LOCATION*. While you may live in NY, where is the server that's hosting your site? Maybe it's in your basement, or a local ISP, but maybe it's somewhere else in the US or the World. Second, where are the resources used to find and access your site? The distributed nature of the Internet laughs at national borders (though nations are trying to erect borders).

      The WIPO and ICANN are organizations created by international treaties. Mainly they exist to exert US laws on the rest of the world, so we shouldn't complain (if we're "greedy blood-sucking RIAA-spawn corporations") about the rules they impose on us.

      So, remember when you sign up for that domain name, read the fine print.
  • How about a domain name incorporating everything that really really sucks:

    http://www.riaa-mpaa-bsa-wipo-wto-ms-apple-govt-fu cking-sucks.org

    Any suggested additions?
  • I have been communicating with US and UK Government (and lawyers) about these problems for some time now.

    The authorities know the solution - restricted TLD for trademarks.

    ICANN President Stuart Lynn and Chairman Vint Cerf made admission about restricted top-level domains to Reuters [cnet.com].

    "More people I talk to think it's the more likely direction," said Llyn.

    I wonder why UN WIPO or US DOC did not tell them - (not).

    WIPO took these domains, saying they were "confusingly similar" to the company's actual name.

    This is just SPIN and PROPAGANDA - they know the solution.

    Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Zeta or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over.

    MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country.

    For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone.

    The authorities allow this conflict to continue, for reasons stated on my site and in comments to WIPO [wipo.int].

    Domains could be made unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be.

    The solution was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, himself a UN WIPO panellist judge.

    Please visit WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] to see it.

    Nothing to do with the United Nations Organization - WIPO.org ;-)
    • By attacking these sites, Big Business wish to muffle criticism.

      They also wish to have sole control of these WORDS - have PRIORITY over others using the same words as them.

      Like I say - MOST share the same words with others.

      e.g. Why should Dell Computers have priority over others using the word Dell?

      This one from the year 1943 - filing Date October 27, 1958 - don't they have precedence?

      Word Mark DELL - US Serial Number 72061365

      Goods and Services IC 016. US 038. G & S: PAPERBACK BOOKS AND PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS. FIRST USE: 19430500. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19430500

      Lawyers are making a loads of money from Big Business clients attacking these sucks sites.

      These are reasons why they both do not want a solution to this problem - they are CORRUPT.

      The moderator of my previous post was being disingenuous - the contents was on topic - so is either moron, lawyer or in Big Business.

      Free Speech is a right - not a privilege. Americans - check out the First Amendment: they abridge what words you can use.
  • .tob
    .eor
    .not
    .tob
    .eth
    .ati
    .sth
    .equ
    .est
    .ion
  • >the Panel has found that non-English speaking Internet users would be
    >likely to attach no significance to the appended word 'sucks' and would
    >therefore regard the disputed domain name as conveying an association with
    >the Complainant

    So then vivendiuniversalCHUPA.co.(mx|ar|es....) would be okay??
  • I actually own a sucks.com. I recently registered www.subwaysucks.com for my brother and I. I am a former employee(One week) and he has worked there for 4 years. We are going to blow open the Jared conspiracy and others. We have no real problems with subway we are just doing it in fun and mean no harm to them. I still eat there every day.
  • The Bush campaign registered every derogatory domain name they could think of, to keep people from having websites that would post negative info about him. I'm sure other politicians have done or will do the same, it is a race to get them before someone else does. I wonder why they even bother - if someone thinks they suck, and wanna have a site to say so, why not just let them. Isn't that what freedom of speech is mainly about? Being able to express our pleasure/displeasure the government?
    • I wonder why they even bother - if someone thinks they suck, and wanna have a site to say so, why not just let them.

      Well, at least the politicians aren't suing the owners of parody sites (they KNOW as public figures they can't win). I really don't mind them taking all the *sucks domains they can think of - Just because your free to buy a domain and say whatever crap you wan't about me doesn't mean I'm not free to try and take all the "good" domains for myself.

      Actually, it would be interesting to see them actually USE those domains to do a little self-parody. After all they all have (or are forced to have) a good attitude towards their parodies on SNL & the Tonight show. It might be an effective method of 'guerilla' campaigning. Steal the thunder of your opponents by making the jokes about yourself first (and obviously a little more gently.) They lose traffic to their sites and you get to shape even the "negative" spin on your campaign.

      • Actually, I disagree with that. Would it be OK for a company to buy up all the words in the English language so that you couldn't complain about them? How can it be OK for them to buy up all the derogatory domain names, then? Granted, you can still criticise them with a different domain name, but having a -sucks.com address does heighten your visibility.

        The problem is that people just aren't used to criticism of any variety, not realizing that criticism blocked just becomes that much more virulent.

        • Re:these also pose a problem to politicians (Score:5, Insightful)

          by overunderunderdone ( 521462 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2002 @02:43PM (#2883553)
          Would it be OK for a company to buy up all the words in the English language so that you couldn't complain about them?

          If I understand your meaning - and I apologise if I'm missunderstanding - this is just a silly fantasy hypothetical situation. A company can't buy words and then forbid you from using it to criticise them.

          How can it be OK for them to buy up all the derogatory domain names, then?

          Because unlike words domain names are a commodity that CAN be bought and sold. Turn the question on it's head - how can it be OK for someone (the government?) to STOP the company from buying the domain names it wants? Aren't the individuals who own the company afforded the same freedoms of speech and property that their detractors are?

          Granted, you can still criticise them with a different domain name, but having a -sucks.com address does heighten your visibility.

          This is actually a pet peeve of mine. The confusion over freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of speech which you can use to criticize the company. You do not however have a RIGHT to a soapbox! You have every right to buy, rent or borrow a soapbox from whoever might be selling. But you do not have a right to compel them to sell or to speak on your behalf. You do not have a right to air time on TV or Radio, in print, or to any particular web domain you don't already own. The government choosing to deny your NEA grant, the paper refusing to print your editorial, the *sucks.com domain the company you hate already bought - none of these scenarios is an abridgement of your freedoms of speech or property!!

          Besides even this is an unrealistic hypothetical. Any creativity at all will suggest domains the company never would have thought of. Apple could buy Applesucks.com (they didn't but they could have) but they would most likely have missed crapple.com. If someone want their own domain as a soapbox but can't think of ONE the company didn't think of... well, if that's the case they're probably better off with a geoshanties [yahoo.com] site anyway.
          • If I understand your meaning - and I apologise if I'm missunderstanding - this is just a silly fantasy hypothetical situation. A company can't buy words and then forbid you from using it to criticise them.

            That was exactly my meaning, and while it is silly, I'm drawing a parallel with the domain name situation through a bit of hyperbole. To me, I don't see the two situations as being that dissimilar.

            Because unlike words domain names are a commodity that CAN be bought and sold. Turn the question on it's head - how can it be OK for someone (the government?) to STOP the company from buying the domain names it wants? Aren't the individuals who own the company afforded the same freedoms of speech and property that their detractors are?

            It's true that there are a limited amount of domain names, and thus we seem to need the buying and selling in order to distribute these scarce goods. But I will also point out that there is an equivalently limited set of English words (even if both sets are infinite, the cardinality is the same), and so you really could say that those words are a commodity and should be bought and sold, or at least paid for, prior to use. We don't, of course, because that would hinder communictation. And that's the reason that I'm opposed to people buying up all of the -sucks sites to prevent criticism on them.

            I agree that it would be difficult to prevent companies from buying such sites, because I don't want to take that freedom away. I don't have a 100% brilliant idea to solve this at the moment. Here's one thought: trademark law considers the market when arbitrating trademark disputes, so that two entities can use the same mark if they are found to be in reasonably different markets so that there is no consumer confusion. In a similar manner, it should be possible to judge -sucks site registrations and say "is it reasonable to say that the registering entity really believes that so-and-so sucks?" In essence this would be building an entitlement for criticism into the system, just like trademark law builds an entitlement for mark recognition into the law. A disinterested third party would be able to determine "of course George W. Bush doesn't have a legitimate interest in bushsucks.com, since it would be self-derogatory and since he hasn't put anything up on the site". And then the site could be handed over to a plaintiff with presumably more critical things to say.

            This would be a big step, from allowing criticism to encouraging it, and I throw it out here as more of a thought experiment than anything. I think our society could do with more encouragement to be critical, but I'm not sure what Constitutional grounds that would stand on.

            This is actually a pet peeve of mine. The confusion over freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of speech which you can use to criticize the company. You do not however have a RIGHT to a soapbox! You have every right to buy, rent or borrow a soapbox from whoever might be selling. But you do not have a right to compel them to sell or to speak on your behalf. You do not have a right to air time on TV or Radio, in print, or to any particular web domain you don't already own. The government choosing to deny your NEA grant, the paper refusing to print your editorial, the *sucks.com domain the company you hate already bought - none of these scenarios is an abridgement of your freedoms of speech or property!!

            It's true that you could criticise from a different site; you don't have to have the -sucks domain to be effective. And you don't have a right to criticise for free. But I think it is also incumbent on the entities worthy of criticism in our society to not unfairly preclude such criticism by buying up all of the soapboxes in the city, so to speak. By effectively monopolizing domain names which might be critical of them, those entities are overstepping the bounds of freedom of speech IMHO.

            I agree that it's not the end of the world and that this won't silence criticism very effectively. But it offends my sense of "fair play", so to speak, for an entity to buy up a scarce resource for the sole purpose of preventing the use of that resource by another who has an arguably more legitimate claim to it.

            Besides even this is an unrealistic hypothetical. Any creativity at all will suggest domains the company never would have thought of. Apple could buy Applesucks.com (they didn't but they could have) but they would most likely have missed crapple.com. If someone want their own domain as a soapbox but can't think of ONE the company didn't think of... well, if that's the case they're probably better off with a geoshanties site anyway.

            Happily granted - protest will never be quieted by just buying up domain names.

    • The Bush campaign registered every derogatory domain name they could think of

      In an ironic twist, Hillary did not register hillary2000.com, which ended up in the hands of a group of people who were strongly against her candidacy.

      The funny part was that people from Hillary's campaign would post messages on the hillary2000.com site saying things like:

      • Its illegal for you to use this site!
      • We're going to sue you!

      So much for free speech!

  • Perhaps we need a top level domain .suck whose only requirement is that the company involved is NOT allowed the name. Would be fun to have a protected space for commentary and would inherently undermine the confusion argument if it was well nown that .suck domains are commentary on the parent name by outsiders.
  • I thought Comsucks was for Comcast's new "high speed" cable modem service.
  • if i visit that msnbc site linked in the topic
    (http://www.msnbc.com/news/691648.asp)
    it instantly redirects me to

    http://msid.msn.com/mps_id_sharing/redirect.asp? ww w.msnbc.com/news/create_p1.asp?URL=www.msnbc.com/n ews/691648.asp

    seems like they suck too with their user tracking domain poisoning too
  • If you registered it presumably the MPAA would (sooner or later) womp out the lawyers and claim the domain for themselves, of course at some point the RIAA would also notice it...

    Nature abhors a paradox

    We can but dream
  • Will Ed Harvilla give me the site EdHarvillaSucks.com for free?

    -
    • I will draw your attention to my posting below [slashdot.org], with reference to the following quote from your link:

      "Presumably these Nazi Moderators think it's more important to burn a user's existing karma, to silence that individual for the future, than to use the moderation system for what it's meant for : identifying "good" and "bad" posts (Notice how nearly all oppressive governments in the past and present do the same thing : marking individuals as bad and untrustworthy because they have conflicting opinions, instead of engaging in a public discussion about these opinions)"

Slashdot Top Deals

"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." -- Vince Lombardi, football coach

Close