US House of Reps. Bans "Cybersquatting" 143
sredding writes "The House has voted to ban "cybersquatting", the pre-empting of Internet domain names with the aim of selling those names to companies or people with trademark associations to them. " Sounds nice right? Well, there maybe some downsides to the bill. The Clinton Administration, however, opposes the bill, saying courts are the best place to settle disputes.
Take a look at what the acm has to say about this (Score:2)
The big fear seems to revolve around the $100k penalty - even if no damages are found to occur. That sort of threat could force a small business to simply give up - rather than face costly legal battles and possible large fines.
The ICANN policy which submits disagreements to arbitration (paid for by the complainant) seems a lot more likely to be fair to smaller organizations.
Cybersquatting law: as I see it... (Score:4)
Anyway, with the regular caveat that "I am not a lawyer (IANAL)... I think I am with the majority on the idea that "cybersquatting" is bad, however, I don't think that there is really an effective legal remedy to the problem. Here's why:
- Because the courts have generally held that parody is a protected form of free speech, some or all of this law may in fact be unconstitutional.
- Leaving it to the courts doesn't necessarily work either, because often, the side with the most legal $ wins.
- Calling a domain name "intellectual property" is deceptive as well, because in reality, a domain name is just an "advertising cover" for an IP address.
- This leaves the gray area of trademark infringement as the only valid area of law that I can think of which covers the problem.
The only thing that I can think of that might work is for the domain registrars to include a provision in their registration documents for binding arbitration in the event of a contested domain name. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this would mostly take the issue out of the courts, and seems like it would be a useful remedy for the majority of the "cybersquatting" problems which might come up in the future. (I don't know how this would apply to previously registered domains, unless it was made a requirement upon renewel of the registration)Comments anyone?
Re:Bad thing (Score:1)
//rdj
Re:Not for the reasons you're thinking (Score:1)
At first I was hoping for something that would deal with all thies people doing nothing more than snagging up domains for resale.
Mind you most of the good names are in use but the few left overs are being held captive and thats not fair to new busnesses.
But this won't do anything about that.
This law is really redundent anyway. It dosn't do anything not allready covered by IP law.
Not quite (Score:1)
Example:
Story where the good guys hunt down a super powered cybernetic killer [not a very creative plot BTW]
name: CyberDeath.com, PsycCom.com, DigitialDeath.com
Busness: Sells CDs with PD, Freeware and Shareware on them [I think we all know a few of those]
InfoMania, Futerama[ok so thats a TV show], ZenDisk, OpenCD
Just add
On the other hand a patent usually takes a great deal of effort to develup... at least thats the idea.
Example: New microprocesor design
How ever some patent reform is in order to get rid of "genertic" patents..
Example: Ability to save credit card numbers on webserver..
Compression technology that gets widely used for years before the patent holder says anything..
[How long can a patent go unenforced before it becomes invalid?]
And my all time favoret.... patent on a COLOR!!
Barbie Pink...
Should you really be able to do that?
Enough rambling from me
Forcing to trademark? (Score:1)
I figured that since I am using the name in a commerical application on the web now then I should be protected but maybe not.
Malice95
Re:Squatting and me...my story. (Score:1)
Right... and we expect that law enforcement will know the difference.
I wouldn't bet on it.
The law is ambiquous enough that lawyers will fight either way knowing that most people will sell their precious domain name if enough cash is waved in front of them.
In the end, the losers will be those that lack the capital to fight it.
cheers
sand
cheers,
Re:Read the articles, please. (Score:2)
In short, this bill puts a huge weapon in the hands of big corporations to intimidate the little guys and force them to give up their domain names.
Would the guy who successfully won the battle over "clue.com" have done so if the stakes were so high?
Re:Take a look at what the acm has to say about th (Score:1)
http://www.acm.org/usacm/trademark.html [acm.org]
Thanks for the excellent reference.
Judicial vs. Legislative (Score:1)
2 suggestions (Score:5)
2. Create a FLOOD of easily available 3 letter extensions (.biz,
Far too socialist for my tastes (Score:2)
Thank you, but this legislation is far too socialist for my taste. I don't like cybersquatting, so I won't endorse it. But this legislation is ridiculous - "You cannot register a domain name that could be confused w/ someone else's? Physical addresses are confusing, but they're allowed to look similar. No, this is bad news in the long run, because its just more restrictions on the net. This is bad medicine.
I don't think this legislation is even necessary. It's kinda like spam, people really just need to become a policy like "I never purchase anything advertised in unsolicited mail". I know I wouldn't get a domain name from anyone but Internic. So, if you come out with Pooky, and someone's registered Pooky.com, then you go out and get PookyWorld.com or something like that - don't offer to buy Pooky.com. Take pixel.com [pixel.com] as a great example. Prime real estate - not used for anything. Cybersquatter? Not in my book: squatting is when you don't pay for something - you're just there.
I probably sound like a squatter myself by now, but I'm not. Squatting is bad, but its better than banning it. (And I've seen the documented
"Kill the head and the body dies." - Hunter S. Thompson
Re:Coffee? Where's my coffee?? (Score:1)
"Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
Trademark-domain association (Score:2)
On the one hand, I can't stand cybersquatters, who do abolutely nothing with the domain, but just wait for a catch [ebay.com]. How many times have you been to a website that says "still under contruction" or "this domain has been parked"? It is also painful to see time/money wasted in courts to straighten out these people.
But, on the other hand, laws like these only make the situation more precarious. Trademark holders are certainly going to abuse the power, bringing more innocent people to their knees [internetnews.com]. Has "slashdot" been trademarked? If not, what prevents an organization from registering the trademark (even much later), and then bringing charges against Rob Malda? I know the Cyberpiracy Act is supposed to be aimed at cybersquatters, but I fear the power is going to be abused anyway. The Act is not going to reduce litigation by drawing clear lines. It is going to reduce litigation by letting Big Companies intimidate weaker ones.
What is the solution? The simplest thing (and IMHO the best) is to dissociate trademarks from domain names. You say, "Hey, that isn't fair! Apple Inc. should have every right to hold apple.com. It shouldn't be arbitrary!". I say, I don't know about you, but, what I do is this: if I want to find a company/product on the web, I type in a few keywords into a search engine, and then follow links from there. I couldn't care less what URL hosted the website. If I find the site interesting and worth returning to, I bookmark the site. More often than not, I never have to remember the URL or have to type it into a browser. If this is how most people work, then whether or not Apple Inc. holds apple.com is moot. Isn't this how we behave with telephone numbers anyway? I don't bother remembering telephone numbers most of the time. I just check the yellow pages as necessary. All that matters is the search engine/directory.
Sreeram.
Re:Clinton's views... (Score:1)
It seems to me that what should be protected is the actual phrase that is a trademark/copywrite. Sound alikes shouldn't be protected.
Given how much the US government and justice system seem to understand IT (read: less than that idiot who used his/her CD-ROM as a cup holder) I think it is a good idea to allow these type of cases to be decided in the courts. Maybe then some of these people will begin to educate themselves at least a little bit about the computer industry. As it is, they seem to be listening to every person that shows up claiming to know something about IT. How can the government make decisions about the Internet(or the IT industry in general) when it doesn't even understand the bare basics? Like which is the browser and which is the operating system or what a cookie is. If this stuff keeps turning up in courts they may actully begin to absorb some of the information. I'm not saying that all of the politicians and legal types are uninformed, but most seem to be.
I think people who work in the US government and the justice system could benefit by a short course in the basics of IT. After that, they can go to the experts. They'll still get left in the dust by people who understand these technologies, but some of the truly silly ideas they have about IT might evaporate. (Al Gore invented the Internet!?)
Talveren
Clueful Polititians... (Score:3)
umm, what does that have to do with protecting consumers? Comsumer confidence?, WTF! If they were "a legitimate e-commerce company", they'd already own their domain. That's all this is, a way for government to protect slow-moving behemoth corporations that didn't realize that the Internet was a big deal. My guess would be that Rogan and Boucher met with a number of businessmen in their states who compained about somebody taking their god-given right to a domain name, regardless if someone else might have a use for it, after they (like the former CEO of my company) said "the Internet is a fad". There is no need for this type of legislation. We already have copyright/trademark law. Why make more laws? (oh, yeah, they are "lawmakers", harrumph)
Not for the reasons you're thinking (Score:2)
Everyone seems worried about how this will stop people registering similar-looking names... that's not the problem.
The problem is those enterprising guys who get in fast with a useful domain, run a legitimate site off it, and then attract the attention of The Big Guy(tm). Big Guy hits Little Guy with a lawsuit. It doesn't matter whether or not the lawsuit has a hope of winning, or whether the claim is legitimate. Little Guy invariably doesn't have the resources to defend himself, and so must give up the domain by default.
Now I know nothing about the American legal system, and the CNN article doesn't give me much insight. But the way I read it, if the bill makes it a criminal offense, then it's up to the US equivalent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to follow up. This would mean that the decision to prosecute lies with an essentially neutral third party - who is much more likely to decide that an individual is making real use of a domain and is not interested in selling - rather than the lawyers of Big Guy who will happily take the risk of losing on the basis that they probably won't have to fight the case at all.
If, on the other hand, it's a civil matter, then this is just one more weapon for the Big Guy on top of trademark infringement, and a completely redundant one at that. Oh well.
Dave
--
Bad thing (Score:2)
What downsides? (Score:2)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
www.slashdot.gov (Score:4)
Let's say you love white horses. Off you go with www.whitehorse.org. Is that too close to whitehouse.gov?
What I'm saying is, it's downright silly to do this, because it's unenforceable. You'll always stumble upon examples of domain names that closely resemble an official one, but only as a coincidence. That means it's a law that'll have to be debated over and over again before the media.
Secondly, what about fair use? Isn't it fair use to do a parody site? If it is, then what about a parody site with a parody domain name to go with it?
The truth of the matter is, the Government feels that people are going to the wrong domain names because they can't tell a Government site from a normal site. So what? The same happens if you dial a Government phone number and end up dialing Luigi's pizza by mistake. Should they ban phone numbers closely resembling Government numbers, too?
Third, why is the Government allowed to protect the integrity of their websites, whereas the user cannot? What says that the US Government can have precedence when it comes to choosing a DNS entry?
Imagine, for instance, that the Government launches a site called 'www.slashdot.gov'. Can they then, were that bill passed, claim that Slashdot.org is using an illegal DNS entry? Why can't it be the opposite?
Let's hope this law is shot down before it becomes a reality. Not that I worry too much: it's gonna be unenforceable anyway.
"Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
Internationalism? (Score:3)
Say Joe Schmoe from Finland has a 'great' idea, registers someproduct.com, and pisses off company X, cause they have a trademark with 'someproduct'?
Whos gonna handle this? The US? Does the US have jurisdicton in other countries like that? Does this bill only 'work' if both parties reside in the States?
-----
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed...
Hrmm... (Score:1)
Does anyone know how often the Clinton administration has before takend an "allow the courts to decide" stance?
--
Max V.
CNN, americans, .. (Score:1)
Aaaaaargh. They come before ".us", don't they?
> the Clinton administration opposes the legislation, arguing that the best place to resolve domain-name disputes is in the courtroom.
Like how are they arguing? I see no links, no discussion... I don't think taking everything to court is a particularly productive way of settling every little dispute under the sun, although it might be considerably better than domain-names being bought-out for ever-escalating sums. Can't they just agree to let some friendly InterNIC-derivative have absolute control over what domains an organization is allowed?
Looks like pretty lousy "reporting" (CNN? I thought they were going up in the world?) and some bad ideas..
Re:www.slashdot.gov (Score:1)
Read the articles, please. (Score:3)
Augh.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
frustrating (Score:3)
On the other hand, isn't the
Re:Internationalism? (Score:1)
Every day I see a little more of what's going on outside these United States, and I have to wonder how the US can claim to have so much jurisdiction in the internet, which is a truly world owned medium.
If everybody goes through NSI, then I can understand how the US can at least claim some right, even if that claim is unenforceable.
I often wonder how long it will be before the internet or some other global factor causes the genesis of some official world government that will hold jurisdiction over multi-national issues like this. I know that's one of the ideas behind the UN, but they don't have the scope for something like this.
Politics will probably get quite interesting in the next couple of decades as more and more issues become global in scope. Zurich Orbital could be a reality in our lifetimes.
I think I'm gonna get some practice communicating views to my congressman now so I'm better prepared to help steer the directions things go.
Empty Domain Names (Score:1)
In another case, all the town names in England (even my village name!) have been registered by one company, that intends to put up the same structured website for each town detailing the shops, etc, in that town. Now this rankles me (although legally I have no right), because how can they, on the other side of England, possibly know what is best for our village? What's more, they intend to sell 150 of the names to cover their costs. At least they are trying to do something useful with the names though, and its a project to watch.
Has anybody actually *read* the thing? (Score:2)
None of the scenarios anyone has presented look (to my untrained eye, at any rate) like they're covered:
Read the bill. The last time this came up, a number of people noted that it was actually well written.
Re:Squatting and me...my story. (Score:2)
I think people have read the article. (Score:1)
There is no need for this law. It's excessive. Current law completely protects copyright holders' rights to their intellectual property.
This is just pompous laziness by Big Government's corporate appeasement sector.
How does one know if "hastalavista.com" has been registered in bad faith?
The law is unnecessary.
This happened with 1-800 numbers, too (Score:2)
Not exactly the same case, but an interesting thing to compare cybersquatting to.
Francis Hwang
That's what disturbs me (Score:2)
The name? airwindows.com [airwindows.com].
You tell me a certain entity isn't going to consider everything with those latter seven letters their property... I'm depending on (1) apathy, and (2) my right to sit on the name as it is MY trademark dammit, and I registered the domain over a year ago and have been using the name in business since 1994.
There's no way I can possibly take anything to court, so if I do get trouble my only option is to make publicity. I just hope that is never, ever necessary.
Re:The bill will only aid the squatters (Score:1)
That won't happen unless the squatter is incredibly stupid. What you're saying is that they would have to result to fraud to add value to the domain name. It's one thing to create a shell company (which often happens for perfectly legitimate reasons), but to claim it is an operating company that generates value is a whole other story. If it went to court, any business valuation analyst [appraisers.org] could easily determine that the company has no value, therefore blowing away any imaginary value placed upon the domain name.
Weren't Domain names supposed to be "invisible"? (Score:2)
You know, putting two and two together, I wonder if all this legal crap of late regarding the web is due to the bitterness that e-commerce has on not sucking up the web before.
Re:Judicial vs. Legislative (Score:1)
Remember from history class the 'checks and balances'? That's where their power comes from.
We already have trademark laws protecting names. One or two court cases (if there havent already been) will probably decide the case. (which may or may not be good).
Like was stated earlier. The Clinton administration is the trial lawyer's favorite. I hate to agree with Clinton on this one, but he may be right.
Re:Internationalism? (Score:1)
Re:I think people have read the article. (Score:2)
Losing it (Score:1)
Corporate greed is about to spoil the party, folks. Unless we can create a very visible division in the internet between the commercial and non-commercial, we will be forced to deal with more issues like this in the future.
There is a double-sided coin here..... (Score:1)
Go to www.networksolutions.com and get miffed.
I cannot get anything normal anymore, somebody bought it up.
I gotta pay some jerk for the name now, more than the 70 bucks for two years.
Or, I can find some stupid, long drawn out URL.
Well, you can say that this is free enterprise in action. And we should all have a right to this.
BS
The little guy gets hurt as usual.
No sense crying.... Boo hoo.
Death of Capitalism? (Score:1)
"Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" -Dennis Miller
hmm, whatif??? (Score:1)
H. R. 3028 (Score:2)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:1:./
This is the "Introduced in the House" version. The "Reported in the House" version is also available.
Re:hmm, whatif??? (Score:2)
I think that the law prevents you from trademarking something that is aready in use, much like the case with the idiot who tried to trademark Linux.
Still, you are in better shape if you go the official route. There are trademark web sites that you can use to search for existing trademarks, and get information on how to register your own trademerk.
Re:2 suggestions (Score:1)
Did I say chicken.sex? I mean normal.sex, honest.
Re:Clinton's views... (Score:3)
I hate to clue you in like this, but the fact is that 90+% of elected officials in the US are lawyers. It is not unique to the Clintons. Putting lawyers in charge of making the laws is like giving Doctors the power to make diseases. Republican or Democrat, there is no difference in this regard.
Huey Long gave a wonderful speech in the 30's where he describe the difference between the two political parties as two mule skinners working to skin the mule. One starts at the head and works down, the other starts at the feet and works up.
As a former and very insightful boss of mine once noted, the legal profession of the US has become an industry in it's own right. It is self-sustaining and self-perpetuating all on it's own. There is nothing that you or I can do to combat this without radically changing our society.
howardjp, you moron! (Score:2)
From the linked article: "The Senate in August approved a similar bill..."
I think that it's safe for Hemos to assume that the vast majority of
The House cannot "ban" anything.
Au contrair. Spending measures must originate in the House. The House thus has the explicit power to ban specific instances government spending or taxation by not passing the bills that would make it possible. In practice, this is a moot point...
Double_reamed (Score:1)
P
Pope
How about "use it or loose it" (Score:1)
Maybe we should have a regulation that states that "if the domain name is NOT attached to an actual server after 270 days that it goes back into the pool". (the 270 was just made up out of my head). Kind of like DHCP and leases. This way you can't just squat on a domain for a long time or you will loose it. Maybe even get a refund (with a small penalty taken out).
Just a thought, what do you think?
Steven Rostedt
Reasonably permanent places to read bill online (Score:2)
A text file of HR 3028 can be found at ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/cp106/hr4 12.txt [loc.gov]
Why not have people file for domain names? (Score:1)
With that being said, why don't they 'file' for domain names? If I want to build a deck on my house, I have to go to City Hall and get a building permit...why should the internet be different? If you really want a domain name, the apply for it stating your intent. After you apply for the domain name, a pannel/council(hopefully constructed by region) weighs the application purely based on the application and the rules. Does a fanboy really need 'www.jenniferlovhewitt.com' or should it go toward a person with that name? They could also enforce rules that "buffer" around domain names. Anyone who has been to www.gamefaq.com instead of www.gamefaqs.com(or vice versa
If any part of the Internet needs democracy, it would be this topic. I have no problem with someone who has a clearly stated purpose for having a domain name but if there is no real good reason for an individual to have the domain name, why give it to them? "Just because" isn't good enough.
Re:Coffee? Where's my coffee?? (Score:1)
the articles either.
The other day there was a thread where one of
the first comments was entirely redundant, it
pointed at a URL that was already pointed at
in the article. The comment got moderated up
to 5 for being "Informative", when it deserved
to be slapped down as "Redundant".
Re:Read the articles, please. (Score:2)
The legislation does NOT merely ban registering a domain name for the sole perpose of reselling it to the trademark owner. It bans registering a domain name if the owner has a "bad faith intent to profit from that trademark"
That is exactly what Hasbro was accusing clue.com of doing.
Hasbro accused Clue Computing of deliberately using their web site to trade on and dilute the value of their "Clue" game trademark.
From the lawsuit:
14. CCI's commercial use of the Internet domain name "clue.com" in connection with its Internet site has caused and will continue to cause dilution of the distinctive quality of the CLUE mark.
Obviously they weren't. They weren't providing an online "Clue" game, which is the purpose that Hasbro was trying to steal the name for. They were providing a web site for their computer consulting business.
That didn't stop them from being sued, and it didn't stop Hasbro from falsely accusing them of trying to profit on the "Clue" board game trademark.
Based on your comment, I don't think that you have any understanding of how dangerous and misguided this legislation is.
Were this case to be tried under this new legislation, the owner of clue.com would be in serious jeopardy.
If Hasbro were suing under this new legislation, in order to secure a conviction, and a $100,000 fine, Hasbro would merely have to convince the court that clue.com was somehow, in any aspect whatsoever, acting in "bad faith", and also convince the court that the web site diluted the value of the trademark.
Fortunately, the court made the correct decision. However, had the court made an incorrect decision, clue.com would have been assigned to Hasbro. That would have been bad, but under this new law, clue.com would have been assigned to Hasbro, and Clue Computing would have been likely forced into bankruptcy with a fine from $1,000 to $100,000.
One of the other trademarks Hasbro registered was "battleship.com". Let's say that you were a military warship buff, and long ago registered "battleship.com" as a site to display your collected pictures and information about warships. Along comes Hasbro in 1999, and brings a lawsuit against you. Are you going to fight it on general principles? How about if the fine is $100,000.00.
- John
Thomas: Legislative Information on the Internet (Score:1)
I'm going to look to see if anyone else has done it, and if not, I will post the text of HR 3028 in another post.
Thomas is flawed (Score:1)
Re:Bad thing (Score:1)
Re:Internationalism? (Score:1)
Even in the US, trademark law protects only against similar names *that are likely to cause confusion* in (potential) customers minds. Generally this means in similar businesses and in similar geographic areas. As in the clue.com case, there can often be multiple entities with a reasonable claim to (protection of) a domain name. Remember when Apple computer was sued by Apple Corps (the Beatles record company)? The resolution, IIRC, was that Apple agreed to not start selling music.
I agree with the posters who indicate that the *selling* of the names is the "problem" and the only thing that should reasonably be prohibited. But there should be an escape for business liquidations and such.
Or maybe the mass registration of names by one entity should be prohibited? (I bet large corps. wouldn't like that!)
Re:Cybersquatting law: as I see it... (Score:2)
>.Because the courts have generally held that parody is a protected form of free speech, some or all of this law may in fact be unconstitutional.
If the domain in question is a 'parody' that is in use, and the owner doesn't try to sell it, I can't see how this law could make any difference. (I haven't seen it either, but it would have to be pretty far out of whack to be about squating but have this kind of reach). If the registrant buys 'linuxblows.com' and then calls Linus and offers to sell it to keep it from becoming a live parody site, that would be different. I know that's a pretty black/white example, but my assumption is that's what this is about.
>Leaving it to the courts doesn't necessarily work either, because often, the side with the most legal $ wins.
Again, this really isn't about disputed domain rights, is it? If I happen to register a domain that some big company thinks is too close to their own, but I'm really using it (clue.com) for something else, this law doesn't seem to apply. If I register clue.com and sit on it and hasbro happens to find out about it and tried to make me give it up under the squatting law, then is the burden on me to show that I don't intend to sell it but use it for my own purposes somehow?
Re:Cybersquatting law: LOOK HERE (Score:3)
First go to Thomas. [loc.gov] At the top there is a search for specific bills. You are looking today for either S. 1255 [the Senate version] or H.R. 3028. I found those numbers by going into the Congressional Record, selecting the most recent issue (i.e. yesterday when the deed was done), selecting the Daily Digest hyperlink, zipping down to the House of Representatives, and finding the bill entitled "Preventing the Misappropriation of Marks". Right there is all the information I needed: which bills and what action was taken. In fact, there are hyperlinks to the text of the bills right there. But I was interested in what the representatives actually said about them, so I chose the hyperlink where it says Pages. This led me to the official transcript of the action on the floor. That in itself was very interesting. Those pages also contained the text of the two bills as read by the Clerk.
Again I would like to urge all /.ers to learn how to use this free resource to keep an eye on the Congress. The initiative for Thomas was spearheaded by Newt Gingrich; in my eyes, that almost makes up for his cockamamie Contract On America.
Re:Coffee? Where's my coffee?? (Score:1)
I think the moderators just felt sorry for you and thought you needed that extra bit of karma.
Which begs the question, did you just become to the first user to pass 200?
... and now I will be moderated down for offtopic.
-
Local Laws to apply to an Internation Entity. (Score:2)
Gambling on the inetrnet is also illegal. Look at how well THAT'S worked..
"Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act" (Score:1)
"cyberpiracy" in the title.
Please no.
Text of the Law (Score:1)
H.R.3028 Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act (Reported in the House)
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.
(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act'.
(b) REFERENCES TO THE TRADEMARK ACT OF 1946- Any reference in this Act to the Trademark Act of 1946 shall be a reference to the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trade-marks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.).
SEC. 2. CYBERPIRACY PREVENTION.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1125) is amended by inserting at the end the following:
(d)(1)(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a trademark or service mark if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person--
(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that trademark or service mark; and
(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that--
(I) in the case of a trademark or service mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to such mark;
(II) in the case of a famous trademark or service mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is dilutive of such mark; or
(III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18, United States Code, or section 220506 of title 36, United States Code.
In determining whether there is a bad-faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--
(i) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;
(ii) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;
(iii) the person's prior lawful use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
(iv) the person's lawful noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;
(v) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;
(vi) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
(vii) the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name or the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information;
(viii) the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous trademarks or service marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of such persons;
(ix) the person's history of offering to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign domain names incorporating marks of others to the mark owners or any third party for consideration without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain names in the bona fide offering of any goods and services;
(x) the person's history of providing material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of other domain names which incorporate marks, or the person's history of using aliases in the registration of domain names which incorporate marks of others; and
(xi) the extent to which the trademark or service mark incorporated in the person's domain name registration is distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of section 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1125).
(C) In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name under this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark.
(D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A)(ii) only if that person is the domain name registrant or that registrant's authorized licensee.
(E) As used in this paragraph, the term `traffics in' refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.
(2)(A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial district in which suit may be brought against the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name if--
(i) the domain name violates any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or subsection (a) or (c) of this section, or is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18, United States Code, or section 220506 of title 36, United States Code; and
(ii) the court finds that--
(I) the owner has demonstrated due diligence and was not able to find or was not able to serve a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1); or
(II) personal jurisdiction cannot be established over any person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1).
(B) The remedies in an in rem action under this paragraph shall be limited to a court order for the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark.
(C) The in rem action established under this paragraph and any remedy available under such action shall be in addition to any other civil action or remedy otherwise applicable.
(3) The civil action established under paragraph (1) and any remedy available under such action shall be in addition to any other civil action or remedy otherwise applicable.
SEC. 3. DAMAGES AND REMEDIES.
(a) REMEDIES IN CASES OF DOMAIN NAME PIRACY-
(1)INJUNCTIONS- Section 34(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1116(a)) is amended in the first sentence by striking '(a) or (c)' and inserting `(a), (c), or (d)'.
(2) DAMAGES- Section 35(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1117(a)) is amended in the first sentence by inserting `, (c), or (d)' after `section 43(a)'.
(b) STATUTORY DAMAGES- Section 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1117) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(d) In a case involving a violation of section 43(d)(1), the plaintiff may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered by the trial court, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages in the amount of not less than $1,000 and not more than $100,000 per domain name, as the court considers just. The court may remit statutory damages in any case in which the court finds that an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that use of the domain name by the infringer was a fair or otherwise lawful use.
SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.
Section 32(2) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1114) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking `under section 43(a)' and inserting `under section 43(a) or (d)'; and
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E) and inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
`(D)(i) A domain name registrar, a domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority that takes any action described under clause (ii) affecting a domain name shall not be liable for monetary relief to any person for such action, regardless of whether the domain name is finally determined to infringe or dilute the mark.
(ii) An action referred to under clause (i) is any action of refusing to register, removing from registration, transferring, temporarily disabling, or permanently canceling a domain name--
(I) in compliance with a court order under section 43(d); or
`(II) in the implementation of a reasonable policy by such registrar, registry, or authority prohibiting the registration of a domain name that is identical to, confusingly similar to, or dilutive of another's mark registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or of a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18, United States Code, or section 220506 of title 36, United States Code.
(iii) A domain name registrar, a domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority shall not be liable for damages under this section for the registration or maintenance of a domain name for another absent a showing of bad faith intent to profit from such registration or maintenance of the domain name.
`(iv) If a registrar, registry, or other registration authority takes an action described under clause (ii) based on a knowing and material misrepresentation by any other person that a domain name is identical to, confusingly similar to, or dilutive of a mark registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18, United States Code, or section 220506 of title 36, United States Code, the person making the knowing and material misrepresentation shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorney's fees, incurred by the domain name registrant as a result of such action. The court may also grant injunctive relief to the domain name registrant, including the reactivation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the domain name registrant.
(v) A domain name registrant whose domain name has been suspended, disabled, or transferred under a policy described under clause (ii)(II) may, upon notice to the mark owner, file a civil action to establish that the registration or use of the domain name by such registrant is not unlawful under this Act. The court may grant injunctive relief to the domain name registrant, including the reactivation of the domain name or transfer of the domain name to the domain name registrant.
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
Section 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1127) is amended by inserting after the undesignated paragraph defining the term `counterfeit' the following:
The term `domain name' means any alphanumeric designation which is registered with or assigned by any domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority as part of an electronic address on the Internet.
The term `Internet' has the meaning given that term in section 230(f)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)(1)).
SEC. 6. SAVINGS CLAUSE.Nothing in this Act shall affect any defense available to a defendant under the Trademark Act of 1946 (including any defense under section 43(c)(4) of such Act or relating to fair use) or a person's right of free speech or expression under the first amendment of the United States Constitution.
SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Sections 2 through 6 of this Act shall apply to all domain names registered before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act, except that damages under subsection (a) or (d) of section 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1117), as amended by section 3 of this Act, shall not be available with respect to the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name that occurs before the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 8. ADJUSTMENT OF CERTAIN TRADEMARK AND PATENT FEES.
(a) TRADEMARK FEES- Notwithstanding the second sentence of section 31(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1113(a)), the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks is authorized in fiscal year 2000 to adjust trademark fees without regard to fluctuations in the Consumer Price Index during the preceding 12 months.
(b) PATENT FEES-
(1) ORIGINAL FILING FEE- Section 41(a)(1)(A) of title 35, United States Code, relating to the fee for filing an original patent application, is amended by striking `$760' and inserting `$690'.
(2)REISSUE FEE- Section 41(a)(4)(A) of title 35, United States Code, relating to the fee for filing for a reissue of a patent, is amended by striking `$760' and inserting `$690'.
(3) NATIONAL FEE FOR CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONS- Section 41(a)(10) of title 35, United States Code, relating to the national fee for certain international applications, is amended by striking `$760' and inserting `$690'.
(4) MAINTENANCE FEES- Section 41(b)(1) of title 35, United States Code, relating to certain maintenance fees, is amended by striking `$940' and inserting `$830'.
(c)EFFECTIVE DATE- Subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. The amendments made by subsection (b) shall take effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Off-topic? You bet (Score:1)
Like I need any... I think they just think everything I post is revelant. (It's not. I can post off-topic subjects, or the occasional accidental flamebait. Wish I didn't have to point that out.)
Yeah, I think so! Goes to show how much of a life I have. :)
Disclaimer: See my note on my user page. It's not that I don't like receiving karma for good posts, quite the opposite. It tells me what I'm doing right, and it shows a positive response to what I post, which is encouraging and a great motivation to keep posting as intelligently as I can manage. I just don't think high karma means the next post I make will be intelligent. Each comment I make should be judged individually.
"Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
Re:There is a double-sided coin here..... (Score:1)
I did see that.
I am not looking for my name on slashdot
for use as a domain name.
Although this does sound like a good idea.
If I get the domain name www.typingsux.com,
do you think I can sell it to one of the
Voice recognition software companies someday?
Oh no, then I'd be a Cybersquatter
Legalize cyber-homesteading too (Score:1)
Wouldn't that be fun?
Re:Bad thing (Score:1)
The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network
Solutions for information purposes... By submitting
this query, you agree to abide by this policy.
Registrant:
decatel communications (DOLEX-DOM)
domain name for sale 1875 century park
east 2501
los angeles, CA 90067
US
Domain Name: DOLEX.COM
Administrative Contact:
z, ben (BZ1134) ben@DECATEL.COM
818 905-4000 (FAX) 888 413-4933
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Support, Technical (MC4774) contact@AHNET.NET
310-354-2626 (FAX) 310-354-1592
Billing Contact:
z, ben (BZ1134) ben@DECATEL.COM
818 905-4000 (FAX) 888 413-4933
Record last updated on 12-Jun-1999.
Record created on 12-Jun-1999.
Database last updated on 26-Oct-1999 17:54:51 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NSAH1.AHNET.NET 207.213.224.16
NS3.PBI.NET 206.13.28.165
What about patent-sqatting? (Score:1)
Re:frustrating (Score:1)
But what about when... (Score:1)
-- Moondog
dillon_rinker, you dumbass! (Score:1)
If the Senate and House both approve a measure, it still does not become law.
I think that it's safe for Hemos to assume that the vast majority of
That is not a safe assumption. The average Slashdot poster does not seem to have a clue how democracy, capitalism, or the United States government works. For proof of this, refer to any posting on patents, copyrights, or federal law.
Au contrair. Spending measures must originate in the House. The House thus has the explicit power to ban specific instances government spending or taxation by not passing the bills that would make it possible. In practice, this is a moot point...
Not true! The House is the only body which may initiate a a bill of taxation (Art I, Sec 7). However, appropriations bills may originate in either the Senate or the House. So in practice it is a moot point and in reality blatently false.
In theory, the Senate and the House together have the power to prevent a previous action enacted by Congress and signed by the Executive by refusing to approprate funding for it.
dillon_rinker, you dumbass! (Score:1)
If the Senate and House both approve a measure, it still does not become law.
I think that it's safe for Hemos to assume that the vast majority of
That is not a safe assumption. The average Slashdot poster does not seem to have a clue how democracy, capitalism, or the United States government works. For proof of this, refer to any posting on patents, copyrights, or federal law.
Au contrair. Spending measures must originate in the House. The House thus has the explicit power to ban specific instances government spending or taxation by not passing the bills that would make it possible. In practice, this is a moot point...
Not true! The House is the only body which may initiate a a bill of taxation (Art I, Sec 7). However, appropriations bills may originate in either the Senate or the House. So in practice it is a moot point and in reality blatently false. In theory, the Senate and the House together have the power to prevent a previous action enacted by Congress and signed by the Executive by refusing to approprate funding for it. This is done fairly often. However, they may not make anything illegal.
Glad someone has some sense... (Score:1)
~m
It's mine!! No, it's mine! (Score:2)
This cracked me up and made me think of what would happen if cities were allowed to sue because another city had taken its name.
PORTLAND, MA- "Here in Portland, Maine we are suffering because Portland, Oregon gets much more attention than we do... but WE HAD THE NAME FIRST!"
PORTLAND, OR- "But we made the name popular! Sure, you had the name first... but what were you DOING with it?"
Talk about cry babies.
~m
down with the US (Score:1)
As I see it, Party 1 registers a domain name. Some time later, Party 2 decides it wants that domain. So Party 1 offers to sell it for a certain price. Party 2 can pay or not, the price can be negotiated, and so forth. At no point is anyone involved except those two parties. Neither can force the other to do anything against their will. It is the very definition of a fair business transaction.
Now the government decides that they should make the above illegal. That is, whenever Party 2 decides they want the domain name in question, the government will go and steal it for them. The idea of only prosecuting those with an "intent" to squat is absurd; intent is indefinite at best, and in no free market in history (including the US, in most cases) is "purchase with intent to sell at a profit" a crime. As in any business, the seller takes the risk when she initially registers the domain name, hoping someone will be willing to pay for it in the future. The current environment happens to place some of these names in high demand, but that is not a permanent state. In any case, it takes a certain amount of business sense to find domains that will be desired.
Cybersquatting is no different from buying World Series tickets and sticking them on ebay (I have a friend who just made 3200% profit doing that). It's not dishonest, it's smart.
Another warning flag: Clinton is opposed to the legislation, in part (according to the Wired story) because it might encourage other nations to pass similar bills. Huh? If we don't want anyone else to have the law, what in the world do we want it for?
Six of one, half dozen of another (Score:1)
On the one hand, I prefer not just waiting to see how the courts will respond to the matter. The outcomes aren't really accountable and are largely unpredictable. A legislative solution could produce clear guidelines. If we don't like the guidelines, at least we can vote the bums out of office.
On the other hand, I think a legislative bandaid on our sometimes wacky intellectual property and trademark laws is not really going to help. It might even hurt since the people voting for these bills probably don't understand the full implications of the legislation.
Oh, yeah.....not first post.
non-competing markets (Score:2)
Re:Bad thing (Score:2)
While I would love to see the practice of cybersquatting stopped, I think this blunt instrument is the wrong solution.
How about attacking cybersquatting where it lives; in the resale? If the law didn't ban anything except selling a "similar" name to a trademark holder, it would introduce far fewer hazards. While this might solve the cybersquatting problem, I don't expect it would get support from the big trademark holders.
Of course, this doesn't address the concern of someone registering a trademarked name and simply getting extra hits from people trying to reach the trademark holder.
anyone remember ATI.com? (Score:1)
I'm just waiting to start my own internet company so that I can finally get tariq.com from the guy who currently owns it :)
Re:Hrmm... (Score:1)
--
I agree (Score:1)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Problems (Score:2)
-cpd
Hemos, you moron! (Score:3)
What's wrong with cybersquatting? (Score:2)
Let's see. Internet by now is part of the "real world". The real world mostly plays by the rules called capitalism. In particular, this means that valuable things (assets) should be freely bought and sold with their value being determined by the marketplace.
Now, Internet names are, by now, certainly assets -- they have value and it is possible to buy and sell them. Given that, I don't see anything wrong with people or companies accumulating these assets and then selling them to the highest bidder. After all, that's the way market works.
There is already quite sufficient protection for the copyrighted items and trademarks. This new law applies the doctrine of "use it or lose it" to domain names and I don't see any economic necessity for it. What this law does is give another heavy blunt weapon to large entities (mostly corporations) with which to beat over the head smaller entities (mostly individuals and small organizations). Lawyers should be happy.
People dislike cybersquatting because it would be unacceptable behavior in academic/research setting, and because there is perception of unfairness: these guys paid $70 for the domain name and want to sell it for $10,000! Unfair!
The first objection is no longer valid -- Internet, to repeat myself, now firmly belongs to the "real world" where a lot of stuff that would be ethically unacceptable in a university is legal and happens all the time. As to the second point -- life is unfair, deal with it. Do you think the Saudis deserved in any way those huge pools of oil underneath their sands? Besides, those cybersquatters demonstrated quickness of thinking and action, plus entrepreneurial instincts -- what's wrong with this?
I think two kinds of groups complain about cybersquatting. The first one is people who pine for the good old days when the Internet was basically a research network, unknown and not accessible to the unwashed masses, and domain names could be had for asking. The second one is large corporations which want to take what they want and if they happened to step on somebody in the meantime, so what. I am fairly sure who pushed for this law to be adopted.
Kaa
Maybe the French have it right (Score:3)
In short, there are certain manditory subdomains in
Anyone registring directly under
The rules are really fairly straight forward (although much longer than the
I know, a lot of
Unfortunately, nothing will change so long as
Internet Rent Control - Never gonna happen!! (Score:3)
Waa! Waa! somebody was quicker and smarter than me and stole my god-given right to own $MY_COMPANY_NAME.com .
Waa! Waa! I want to live in Beverly Hills, but I can't afford it. Please, Mr. Government... make them lower the rent in Beverly Hills... I have a RIGHT to live there
Waa! Waa! Somebody beat me to San Francisco and found all of the gold that I was supposed to find. Please, Mr. Government, make them share the gold they found.
Waa! Waa! The DeBeers family owns all of the diamonds in the world, and keeps the prices artificially high. Please, Mr Government, take at least half of the diamonds away from the DeBeers family so that I can buy lots of cheap diamonds.
Waa! Waa! The US Land Grant Act gave all of the good Silicon Valley land away FOR FREE many years ago, and I didn't get any. Please, Mr Government, take away the land from the Big companies in the silicon valley and re-apportion it, and give some to me.
Waa! Waa! All of the 3 character domain combinations are already registered and I didn't get $MY_INITIALS.[com,org,net] . How can I continue living?
Waa! Waa! BBC wanted bbc.com really bad, so they paid a million dollars for it, and now they're happy
How much do you think I'd have to pay BBC to get BBC.com from them?
Are you starting to get the picture?
Re:2 suggestions (Score:1)
My conern is if that it's illegal to buy up a domain and just stick on the web server "for sale" or "under construction" wouldn't that be denying free speech?
Mind you, I was considering buying a domain name for one of my car-related web pages, only to find EVERY single decent variation on it has been taken. I wouldn't mind a spitfire.rec though(or something similiar that's non-buisness related)
Re:Off-topic? You bet (Score:1)
by Karma?
What downsides? - More corporate pandering (Score:2)
Hopefully, if this thing becomes law, the courts won't interpret it to mean "you can no longer register trademarked words, even if you have no malicious intent
This WILL happen if it gets passed, and seems to be another step towards degrading fair usage for parodies, etc. Also, even as it stands now, even if you do register a trademarked name with no malicious intent, it's likely that you will be relieved of that via the courts, though it does depend on alot of stuff.
It really seems to me that this is merely yet another example of the gov't pandering to corporate interests. Unfortunately it seems like this law actually solves nothing that existing law does not, and Clinton is probably right in saying that the issue is best resolved in the courts (though that idea was probably 'suggested' by the law lobby)
I find domain squatting to be a gross abuse of the system, similar to buying large tracts of land and sitting on them, hoping the area becomes a popular place for development, though there are alot of differences. The extremely low cost of entry is one. I really don't see being able to completely remove the practice. Eventually it will become very costly to maintain all those domains they register, i'm sure a couple decent sized companies will still manage to make money off of it though, i think it's called 'the price of doing business'. Personally it sickens me, but then again, doing business is really unpleasant.
Alrighty... (Score:1)
First, Telefragged registers massassi.net, just to spite somebody who wants to move their site on to greener pastures.
And then, out from under my nose, somebody grabs solarwind.com. Now we have to use something obscure.
I think that banning this sort of behavior is a good thing. Well, at least to the people who aren't doing it.
This is probably a worst-case scenerio; at least with most cybersquatters you can buy your domain back.
Re:Internationalism? (Score:1)
I suspect that the other registrars have equivalent language.
Cybersquatting (Score:1)
First, as other posters have astutely pointed out, there are many reasons why one might ask for a domain name that is very close to another known domain name. It would be impossible for a law to fully account for the possible reasons for gaining a domain name, and so the determination of whether something is cybersquatting instead of mere coincidence would have to be left to the courts.
Also, there is the international aspect. For example, what if an Australian decides to get www.yahoo.au? (I don't know if this is taken) IANAL, but obviously, this would not be governed by US law. On the other hand, it might be handled by the courts, according to international treaties/laws/etc.
Finally, how do you determine what is too close. This differs from my first reason in that it does not deal with the motive, only the effect. At what point would a domain name be too close? If I chose www.¥ah00.com would that be too close? What about www.¥ah00chie.com? www.¥/\|-|()().com? Sure, I'm getting kind of silly here, and these are all quite obvious (and impossible, in one case), but the point is, it's easy to spoof a name in clever ways. I don't believe that the law could account for all possibilities here. Which means it would again come back to the courts to decide what is too close.
It seems that, in any case, it must come back down to the courts to decide what is cybersquatting and what is not. The creation of a law regarding this is both improper and futile. Of course, this is just my two bits, you're welcome to yours.
One final thought: I don't think this should be governed by US laws at all. I feel the best way to resolve this issue (and others) is to create an international body, made up of equal (yes, equal)membership from all internet-using countries. This body would pass laws and maintain a court system which all of these countries (by treaty or whatever) would uphold.
Why the EFF is against this: (Score:1)
With the stated goal of preventing trademark infringement and dilution
in the Internet domain name space, the misguided "Trademark
Cyberpiracy Prevention Act" the would make domain name holders legally
liable in civil actions brought by trademark holders sharing the same
name or one that is "confusingly similar."
This bill undermines fair use and First Amendment freedoms in granting
all trademark holders new rights greatly in excess of those already
granted by existing trademark law. TCPA's provisions would enable
bad-acting trademark holders to sue satirists and critics into
silence.
The legislation is an assault on anonymous speech; it effectively
forces domain name holders to give up their privacy or have an
increased likelihood of liability (and for no real reason, since there
isn't any connection between anonymous use of the Internet and
trademark violations).
The bill will have a chilling effect on free expression because it
effectively encourages registrars to reject the registration of any
domain name that they believe has a remote possibility of being
infringing.
The TCPA bill also sets up a system whereby US-based companies would
be able to take away domain names - without notice - from foreign
companies and individuals who can't afford to travel to the US to
defend themselves (assuming they even know about the action against
them at all.)
Attacked domain name holders would have to file their own lawsuits to
prove their innocence, and do not even have affirmative defenses to
assert when sued, only factors for optional court consideration.
Domain name holders must not be treated guilty until proven innocent.
Months' worth of international cooperation could be undermined in the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), working
to come to a balanced consensus on intellectual property, domain names
and individual rights. Congress should not be second-guessing the
Commerce Dept. (which is overseeing transition to the new
administration of the Domain Naming System), nor suddenly wading into
a highly contentious area of global technology policy.
The bill will only aid the squatters (Score:2)
Somehow, I think this bill will help the squatters. Before, they could only sell names based on the perceived value of just the name. Everyone knows they were just squatting on it, waiting for it to hatch.
Now, they will buy these names, make some hooey company or something to make the domain seem legit to skirt this law. When time comes to sell it, they can claim it has more value, because there are already current vested business interests from all the chrome added to the domain.
Pointless (Score:3)
But IANAL, so someone else may be able to point out that the above is a bunch of bull.
Wacky (Score:2)
that use a trademarked word in the title, so websites like ihatemicrosoft.com could face legal action.
I guess free speech only matters to those who can afford it.
About time (Score:2)
But regardless of that, I think they are not going far enough. How about people who buy up sites, in the hope they can make a profit later, even if it is not related to specific company name?
Ever been to www.arj.com [arj.com] recently? I mean we have enough junk on the net as it is. Also names that have been bought, but no (web)sites are ever set up for them.
I just think the internet is cluttering up much to fast (think usenet and spam) and it would be good to have some type off weed-out mechanism for domain names. Maybe restructure the whole thing, make it geographically sound, only giving companies _1_ domain name, giving people a free url like myname.people.us and such. 'Cause the longer you wait with such things, the harder it gets to change (640Kb is enough for everybody!)
-- Ren
Squatting and me...my story. (Score:3)
In my case, some person approached me for my domain (which I was using) to purchase it. I declined on the first try. He repeatedly emails me a couple more times, phones my house(! I guess since I have my resume online, he thinks he has a right to call me and annoy -- luckily I wasn't home), and I keep declining over email. I try to give him alternatives, but he sites other sales (download.com, etc) instead. Finally he says "final offer" and I am finally relieved that this guy is going to leave me alone.
Does this mean I'm not a "squatter" since I didn't sell and I have no intention whatsoever to sell ever?
Of course, if someone offered me $1,000,000 for it, would that make me a squatter since I would sell it?
I hate this bloody term ["squatting"]. The House of Reps should do something more productive like get re-do the out-of-whack welfare system in the US and stay the hell away from my computer.
-m
a good solution to cybersquatting (Score:3)
first, scrap
the whole idea of a global domain pool is stupid, esp. when it coexists with a wide selection of TLDs.
what would be so wrong with com.us or net.us for us-only companies, instead of
now, if companies were allowed to register only in their respective heirarchy, wouldn't most problems be solved?
also, the attempt to divide domains into 4 or 5 major types is also rather silly. why not have lots of domain types?
there are so many reasons why one would want to register a domain, making the current division unsuitable.
this is also already being attempted: see the GTLD project [gtld.com] and iDNS [idns.org] for such attempts.
the more domains available, the less options there are for squatting, and the more fair the sharing becomes.
--------------------------------------------
this message is quad-rot13 encrypted for your privacy.
Yes. (Score:2)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad