
UN wants to stop "cybersquatting" 99
Pugget
writes "The UN announced a plan
to stop the buying up of domain names buy people unrelated to the name. "
Basically they say they're gonna create a list of trademarks
that can't be registered. I'm more concerned about the
'misleadingly similiar' clause. That'll make parodies
a lot trickier.
i don't like this. (Score:1)
first off, why is the UN doing this? what right do they have to do this? what is up with this? and since the UN is doing it and not NSI, does this mean it would apply to other countries (.uk,
anyway this won't stop "squatting". I don't call registering "windows2000.com" squatting. i call registering hundreds of domains at once, using none of them, and trying to sell them to other people "squatting".
the only point of this is to prevent the usage of trademarks, and make things more difficult for people who for some reason might want to be using trademarks. But since there's already a system of laws set up to deal with this (especially dealing with selling people their own trademarks), what's the point? It just limits the freedom of information further.
i fear it.
--anonymous lazy person
what's my password again?
Re:Stupidity ?? (Score:1)
Presumably "yahhoo.com" would be out. Does this mean "yayoo.com", "yahho.com", "yaaho.com", (ad infinitum) are also out? What about "yahoo.sg"? What if "yahoo" is a word in Xybekistani, and someone tries to register "yahoo.xy"? What about "yahhoo.xy"? One can see how this might remove a lot of names from possible usage...
And how about this part: "The contract would also bar selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name to the owner of the trade or service mark". Apparently we're not even allowed to sell things that belong to us to people who really want them. The UN sucks.
And you could be responsible for legal bills (Score:1)
What they don't seem to understand (Or maybe they do) is that they really don't have that much authority over the net. Due to the way the net was built, anyone can go off and do his own thing, all that's necessary is the time and the resources. Once the DNS crack side effects get bad enough, I expect that people will start up their own competing services. If those take off, there's not a hell of a lot the UN can do.
Why not a simple technical solution? (Score:1)
www.mega-corp.trademark
I like it. :-)
example of a squatter? (Score:1)
I've read about several people who register domain names for the purpose of denying others the use of the name. An example of this are the guys that registered names based on the 'Trench Coat Mafia' after the shootings in Colorado. I think the same thing was done with the KKK and other groups. Would this law cover things like this?
Interesting (Score:1)
WIPO != UN (Score:2)
I normally wouldn't quite bother pointing this out, but reading the messages talking about this being yet another attempt at subverting American democracy and freedom of speech by an evil global force made me do it. Face it, folks, the WIPO is the US/EU, not Malaysia, China or Russia.
AC
Stop Cybersquatters and Domain Hoarders (Score:2)
Otherwise, the Cybersquatters, Domain Hoarders (as well as Spammers and Pornographers) are totally taking advantage of this network in ways which are hindering the rest of us. It's time the rest of us fought back. We do that through a thing called "our elected Government".
No one should have to pay a fee to someone who is squatting on a regular word for a potential domain name. (not using it for a legit purpose).
NSI should not allow domain names to go live until they are PAID FOR. These squatters are running scripts that re-register whole lists of names every 90 days. They essentially own the names without ever paying a cent.
As for those who do shell out the $70, they rarely have them available for sale for less than $2500. Perhaps we should use ticket scalping laws as a precedent to curb this.
Re:Too stupid... (Score:2)
Uh, what is going on here? This can't mean that if I already own a trademarked domain name I am barred from transferring it to the trademark owner and am instead forced to enter arbitration.
What if I own one of the trademarks on the list? How would I go about acquiring from its owner a domain name that includes my trademarked name?
This is boggling.
Re:i don't like this. (Score:1)
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:1)
They got Congress to extend the length of time a copyright is valid (retroactively, to boot). It's now life of the author plus 95 years in the case of copyright held by a corporation.
Re:Stupidity ?? (Score:1)
Re:No Jurisdiction (Score:1)
What's the real intent? (Score:1)
"Under the proposed rules, ICANN would establish a list of protected "famous or well-known marks" that would not be available for registration to the average Internet user."
I mean, is this really meant to stop squatters? I don't think so. Remember, this would also screw many websites that we've championned here in the past.
Look more like several corporations decided bullying Joe Public out of his domain name wasn't working as well as they had hoped. So they lobby the UN and ICANN to "pre-reserve" their domain names.
Re:Too little... (Score:1)
Teademark should be an issue ONLY within .com (Score:2)
What business does microsoft have mucking around with microsoft.org? Companies should only have power in
The answer is simple: Pay before you register (Score:3)
many a good idea for a web site and jumped into
whois to check the domain name and lo' and behold
some "Domains For Sale" jack off is squatting on
it!!
...this is because anyone can squat on a domain
name for 6 months and not pay for it. When the 6
months is up, they let it go, then register it
again under another name. They can squat on
hundreds of names and their cost is almost
nothing. They hold the names hostage until some
poor dumbass coughs up thousands of dollars for
it!
Solution:
Make registrants pay the two year fee *before*
the domain is registered rather than giving
them a 6 month free ride.
True, some slimes will still find it worth their
while to squat on hot names and trademarks but
the larger issue these scumbags who hold half
of the dictionary of common words hostage would
quickly find another scam business to get into.
Re:Major Flaws in the WIPO Domain Name Proposal (Score:1)
Major Flaws in the WIPO Domain Name Proposal (Score:4)
In short, Froomkin says the plan is seriously flawed, and constitutes a radical subversion of existing legal checks and balances:
Froomkin gives a link to his detailed (50-page) analysis. I think this proposal needs to be sunk!
Property/domain names for resale: No difference. (Score:1)
umm...ok. (Score:1)
Of course I am wrong. :)
Re:Sovereignty ?? (Score:1)
You are fully entitled to set up your own domain name server and register whatever name you like on it. If pople point to it, that's the name you have, and what the UN thinks becomes moot.
But, if you work through a name server that is run by a government that has signed up to an international treaty, that name server is bound by that treaty. By choosing to work through it, you are effectively agreeing to those terms. That's YOUR choice.
(If you -really- wanted, you could set up a DNS on your Linux box and register an already-existing name. There's nothing to stop you. Mind you, unless your Linux box is in international waters, on a remote islansd, or in a country that hasn't signed up to the copyright treaties, you are likely to get nice letter asking you to visit the local magistrate, if you do. But, there is STILL nothing to stop you.)
Re: e-mail (Score:1)
Telling the US President that the people run the country will be about as effective against the UN as swatting a fly in outer Mongolia. It's not relevent to them. It never has been and never will be. That's the problem in living on a world with more than one country - the others can choose to ignore you, and survive.
Re:And the irony of it is... (Score:2)
There's nothing to stop you from running your own name server and putting whatever name you like there. So long as other name servers point to it, it'll be just as recognised as anything placed on one of the major name servers. The UN can say what it likes, but if you have your own DNS, they have very little power on what you put on it.
(If you wanted to be really sure, just have it in international waters, on a remote island or in a country which has not signed any of the copyright treaties.)
It never ceases to amaze me that these kinds of arguments occur. Freedom is a two-edged sword. Whatever freedoms you have, everyone else has, too. And that includes those everyone's that are in companies, governments and international bodies.
If you've the freedom to decide what goes on your computer, so do they. If you've the freedom to decide what goes through your computer, so do they. The internet IS international and the same basic freedoms that apply to you apply to every other user, including admins for top-level domain name servers.
If you don't like what they're doing, you've the same freedoms they have. Run your own servers. You have NO more authority to tell them how to use the Internet than they have over you.
Re:Let the rest of the world bow down and worship (Score:1)
I feel perfectly justified in pointing to Malaysia or Sinagapore to assert my points. The Anwar Ibrahim trial has shown the the current government of Malaysia does not have any tolerance for a free press.
Singapore's government has a relationship with the press that is widely considered to be to the detriment of "free speech." I know, I know -- it's a corrupt Western value.
Re:The rest of the world and parodies (Score:2)
But that is not to say that Intellectual Property laws are a hallmark of all that is good in government. I'm sure Malaysia and Singapore have used their laws on the subject to harrass and intimidate journalists.
Unnecessary and pointless (Score:1)
So the net benefit of this proposal is what, exactly?
Final report. (Score:3)
Since there is a lot of speculation on what the report is all about, why not look at the real thing?
See http://wipo2.wipo.int/process/e ng/final_report.html [wipo.int]
Re:do away with .com (Score:1)
One of the great things on the net, I thought, was the erasure of borders. OTOH, the UN is the last entity I'd want to see functioning as a government; it's structured poorly for it, and has the intelligence of a wet paper bag full of hammers. InterNIC (or whatever they're calling themsevles now) is no better. Why is it impossible to set up a distributed naming registration system, tehn impliment it on some flag day, and to hell with all of them.
'Governing body? We don't need no steenking governing body!'
Too little... (Score:1)
Makes sense to me (Score:1)
(OK, OK... so Disney should have the $$$ to buy up most of the names that contain the word "disney", but they can't get ALL the combinations, and there are a lot more companies that don't have as much cash to throw around.)
Stupidity ?? (Score:2)
Now, calm down, take a deep breath and try to engage one or two brain cells before you shoot off at the mouth. This is a Trademark issue. It has nothing to do with the content of your silly little Web page. You can still make fun of Company X, or say nasty things about them, you just can't use their Tradmark as your domain name!
Re:Please don't overheat (Score:1)
proposition has no legal enforcing value by itself... it is a proposition. "
A proposition made by an entity that has a
standing army. When an army makes a gentle
suggestion, it generally expects to get its
way.
Re:Please don't overheat (Score:1)
"security council" force, does it? I mean, they
don't have to go out and recruit soldiers and
setup infrastructure in order to operate in a
military capacity. QED
Re:Forget parodies; what about enforcement? (Score:1)
Watch CNN a little more. NATO is bombing. Not the UN.
OH NO! The UN strikes again (Score:3)
*disclaimer! this is parody. If you don't like it, bite me (or moderate me)
Re:Forget parodies; what about enforcement? (Score:1)
I suppose if it were the UN, they'd just sit around in blue helmets and watch the domain squatters keep squatting.
WIPO's poor track record (Score:2)
the proposal that forbids reverse engineering or
circumvention of security in software.
They hid that particular piece in a very big proposal about copyright protection that was almost unanimously accepted by the European Union, (whose politicians wouldn't know a harddrive from a frisbee).
And wasn't in that same proposal the insane notion that caching was a breach of copyright and therefore illegal?
Unfortunately, yes, these dinosaurs are for real.
--Zarn
Re:New sites (Score:1)
Re:Please don't overheat (Score:1)
Are you suggesting that the UN has a standing army? Where?
Please don't overheat (Score:3)
What we've got here is an international agency; mainly led by the US, EU, Japan, proposing a plan pertaining to domain names. Such a proposition has no legal enforcing value by itself... it is a proposition.
Furthermore, it does not propose the creation of any international body to oversee anything. So it would be as the current agreements on intellectual property, trademarks, and similar things.
If you don't agree with this, don't go potty mouth about the UN. You should rather ask yourself whether those you elected to the US congress are able to understand the issues involved, because it is them who will vote any enforceable statute on the topic.
U.N. has no right to such matters (Score:1)
Re:Stupidity ?? (Score:1)
I can even register a trademark that someone else has registered.
It is called a TRADEmark because it relates to a trade. If I start a company that makes soft red hats, I can call it "RedHat Soft Wear" and trademark that - precisely because it is a separate trade, and therefore unrelated. I can trademark macdonalds if I set up a deep sea mining company called "macdonalds deep sea mining corporation" - precisely because it is a separate trade. I can set up a journalism and parody site with "Microsoft" in it's name - precisely because it's a different trade.
The rest of the world and parodies (Score:3)
Would you put it at about the same percentage of countries that have a free press and a constitutionally or legally enshrined free speech protections? Or do you think there's some kind of UN High Committee for Increasing Freedom of Speech and Parody And Satire, co-chaired by China and Myanmar, with Afghanistan and Nigeria as contributers?
Considering that in most countries criticizing big business it tantamount to criticizing whatever jackbooted thugs happen to be in charge of the junta that week (since it's usually the leadership's relatives that get the mining/planatation/slave labor concessions anyway), it's hardly surprising that the UN members would want to restrict anything that might enable criticism.
Remember, in lots of these places a mimmeograph machine is considered a threat to the government. God only knows what kind of fears wide-open communications means to those people.
fearless protectors of IP (Score:1)
we now return you to the previously scheduled "peacekeeping" mission.
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:1)
For more information and links (from a law professor opposed to the extension), follow this link [asu.edu].
Why this is a very good thing (Score:1)
I welcome this development.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
Re:What is special about top level DNS? (Score:1)
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:1)
They got Congress to extend copyright for existing holders so that MM is still covered. The law is currently being challanged in the courts. Stay tuned.
A 3 ?!? (Score:1)
Re:why the fuck was this moderated? (Score:1)
Can't wait... (Score:1)
Hear Hear! (Score:1)
Of course, the same
though according to the
Unfortunately, it costs C$300 to federally register a company in Canada to get a
No way to win this one: ya pays yer money and takes yer chances
Pope
Those quotes refer to the OLD draft... (Score:5)
Here's the key part:
The World Intellectual Property Organization's Final Report on "The Management of Internet Names And Addresses: Intellectual Property Issues" [wipo.int] is in all but one major respect a substantial improvement on the Interim Report.
A. Michael Froomkin [mailto]
U. Miami School of Law,POB 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124,USA
Sovereignty ?? (Score:2)
What used to be the land of the free and the home of the brave is rapidly becoming neither... and efforts like this aren't helping.
Those who would give up a little freedom for a little security will soon have neither. -- Poor Richard, more or less.
Everything is gone anyway (Score:1)
my $.02
U.N. still trying to snoop where it doesnt belong (Score:1)
Don't they have some third-world countries to abuse these days ?
I just wish that sometime they'd stay out of our business. They didnt want to take care of it before, but now that it's become mainstream, they feel like they have to regulate all over it. The U.N. has no place here. What are we going to see next ? U.N. regulating communication charges ?
sigh.
Sun Tzu must have been running Linux...
- Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him. (Sun Tzu, The art of war)
Re:Property/domain names for resale: No difference (Score:1)
This means they can register any number of domains at practicaly ZERO cost...
No Jurisdiction (Score:1)
Ahh, a world which stops at Mexico and Canada (Score:1)
Wouldn't it be nice if the internet referred to the "International Net"? I'm not even sure the US has the majority of the world's traffic anymore - or its margin has been cut down severely.
Let the rest of the world bow down and worship you (Score:1)
So much freedom in the US. So little elsewhere. Explain to me again why I can't legally download SecureCRT from the States?
New sites (Score:1)
Wrong idea! (Score:1)
Life is not fair, use your time and resources for things that are halfway important. If they want to bust cybersquatters, make them put something constructive up, not "This is mine, pay me the equivalent of a small country to have it"...
Re:What's the real intent? (Score:2)
I too had to take a long hard look at this sentence. I don't like the phrase "average Internet user" at all, and such a proposal would only serve to create more of a rift between the corporate entities intent on turning this communications medium into Glorified Television and the "average user" who just wants to be able to communicate freely and get their ideas across.
"Register what?! I'm sorry, you're not a company, you can't do that on the Internet."
Of course, from what I've gathered, the "average" Internet user only wants to see stock quotes 'n tits nowadays, so they're safe from all this. But I don't want to feel like a prole in this medium. Not when the devices are in place to allow me to make what I want of it.
Grah.
Re:Bad (Score:1)
Who the h3ll do they think they are?
Forget parodies; what about enforcement? (Score:2)
-G.
What is special about top level DNS? (Score:1)
As I understand it a top level DNS is nothing special other than its size and it's listed
in the standard dns setup everyone uses.
Is there something to prevent an alternative. It would answere what requests it could and pass the rest on to the traditional top level. Of course the names could not be the same but a few new
It looks to me like the NSI is a hollow monopoly that only exists because we think it should.
Agreed... (Score:1)
delusions of gradeur who can't get their OWN affairs in order deciding
to poke their noses in other people's business...
They should just keep their 'contributions' to themselves until AFTER
the UN achieves global peace (which ain't gonna happen until long
after they've learned to stop squabbling amongst
themselves.)
It doesn't surprise me that WIPO is involved though...
Oh, good idea! (Score:3)
Oh, but wait. That list they're putting together probably isn't going to have the name of MY company on it, will it? It's going to have Coca-Cola, Pepsi, KFC, and all the other huge multinationals, plus whichever companies are most favored in the various nations sponsoring this initiative.
But, hey, those big, favored companies need protection from the little guy, by golly! McDonalds and Microsoft are in real danger from the little guys. Let's expend more resources on helping them out.
Gosh, I love how things always work out in the best interests of the most vulnerable of the world's constituencies.
-Joe
that's NATO, not UN (Score:1)
Constitutional ammendments do take precedence (Score:2)
Hmm, ok but,.. (Score:1)
Who's going to stop useless, bloated beaurocracies
from interfering in things THEY are totally
unrelated to...
*cough*
...dave
Re:Please don't overheat (Score:1)
Anyone who has actually dealt with NSI on a domain name dispute (particularly in their earlier, more ugly days) knows that trademark law has little to do with whether a domain name is placed on hold. You CAN'T HAVE a domain name unless you agree to the terms and provisions of NSI's dispute resolution policy (including indemnification of NSI, by the way), and NSI can do with it as they will, your only recourse being set forth in contract under the policy.
The WIPO domain name registrars will likely sign on to the policy as a condition of being able to dole out the names, and will enforce the policy upon its registrants. That's as close to law as it needs to be.
See Professor Froomkin's remarks for examples of how this can hurt you.
Don't stick your head in the sand . . . (Score:4)
The difference here is that these rules are being promulgated by people accountable to no constituency except, of course, the special interests that sponsored their international activism. (This translates about 95% to large multinationals seeking to end-run enforceability limitations of the U.S. trademark laws.)
Understanding that it is highly likely that WIPO policies can become domain name dispute resolution policies; and that these policies, if applied, can effectively create quasi-judicial rights in gross for these well-heeled interests that they could not obtain otherwise (often for which the loser probably has no meaningful legal recourse in the courts of any nation) something must be done.
A few brave souls have been active in fighting the good fight, and have been desperate to get someone, anyone, to get interested enough to chime in and comment. Michael Froomkin at the University of Miami has been one of the leaders. He writes about the details at:
http://www.law.tm/ [www.law.tm]
I would advise anyone with an interest to get "active." Whatever your thoughts about the propriety of international government, the non-governmental nature of the internet makes it quite vulnerable to this kind of de-facto policy-making, which policy-making can in time become effective as though it were the law.
Re:Why this is a very good thing (Score:1)
Seriously, though, what would you do if this proposal were made law and somebody else who owns the name Dart Review gets to you before you get to the www.dartmouthreview.com guy?
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:1)
:-)
I think trademark protection is going a bit too far. LM give you an example. I subscribe to a model horse list and a woman made a sculpture of a new type of breed (a type, not a breed, remember)called a Gypsy Vanner Horse. Turns out the guy who came up with the type trademarked the name Gypsy Vanner Horse. He went after the sculptor, who is quite beloved in the MHE community. In the end, the trademark only applied to LIVING horses, and not resin sculptures. But you know, let's not get our panties in a bunch sort of thing...
It's the same with Barbie. They even trademarked a colour, Barbie Pink. What if you named your kid Barbie, are you infringing on a trademark? (or a dog say, or a horse...there is a horse called Malibu Barbie)
Heaven help the writer who uses Rollerblading [TM] instead of inline skating (Rollerblade says it has TM's on the words blading, rollerblade, etc, weird stuff) or Velcro [TM] instead of hook and loop fastner.
While I can understand how these companies don't want their trademarks become a common usage like xerox, it's inevitable...hee hee, my dad's word for any cartoon was Mickey Mouse...even when we were watching The Flintstones
Sigh, this is going to ramble, but actually Disney was in a bit of trouble a year or so ago when the copyright or whatever on Mickey Mouse expired and he would suddenly be in the public domain, and anyone could make profits on him. I forget how they solved the issue, but what a frightening thought, that your popular culture doesn't even belong to you.
Pointless... (Score:1)
Global government here already?! (Score:2)