24 Mar, 2008, Darwin wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Ugh.
24 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Why should anybody without a trademark have any more claim to something than anybody else from a legal perspective? What exactly would you consider an appropriate policy?
24 Mar, 2008, drrck wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Mabus said:
While general statements of the virtues of "capitolism" may seem like a fine rallying cry, unregulated capitolism is not practiced in the civilized world for a number of reasons. Monopolies, goods needed to sustain life, medications, chemicals, weapons and intellectual property are just some areas that already have regulations defining legal and illegal use.


It has nothing to do with trying to unregulate capitalism as a whole. Certain regulations are needed; no economic style has ever worked out in a pure form. It's when you get down to regulating things that are not needed and only desired (such as domain names) that problems arise. Questions such as "when does it end?" and "at what point is it going too far?" start popping up that are much harder to answer if you don't draw the line between necessity and desire, and instead try and draw it arbitrarily somewhere between desire a little and desire a lot.

Samson said:
So you approve of the wholesale fraud and thievery inherent in the act of squatting a domain?


It's neither fraud nor thievery, and I made it pretty apparent that I didn't agree with it in any case.

Samson said:
Along with the counterfeiting and fraud that goes along with registering alternate suffixes because someone either forgot or didn't know they should? So that situations like I've run into myself in the past where the .com version of a .org domain went instead to porn dealers? I'm not sure how the intent can possibly be justified. Someone is trying to rake in money by offering counterfeit goods. Last I checked in most countries this is a crime with physical goods. I see no reason it shouldn't be the same for commerce on the web.


This is not counterfeiting. It's deceitful, I agree, but definitely not counterfeiting. It's also not a crime anywhere with respect to physical goods. This can be evidenced by going down to your local Wal-Mart and picking up a six-pack of "Mountain Thunder", which not only makes a not-so-subtle attempt at playing off of Mountain Dew's name, but also contains an almost identical product (as opposed to your example, where the product is completely different).

Samson said:
The Act that Mabus cited didn't go far enough. All it does is protect companies who have trademarked names. Unless I missed something normal folk like me who have no trademarks have no remedy. This should be fixed.


I don't know much about the Act, but I can tell you from a purely theoretical standpoint that there are huge inherent problems with any regulation on trademarked domains, including who gets the domain in case of dual trademarks in different countries, how long domains remain "their property", what happens in cases where an owner has multiple domains already pointing to the same content (i.e. cocacola.com, cocacolaclassic.com, coke.com, etc.), the extent of protection (i.e. Starcraft 3 isn't a viable product, but should Blizzard have the rights to starcraft3.com when/if it ever is?), etc.
24 Mar, 2008, Hades_Kane wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
If you get the .com, which is the most commonly used suffix, then I don't see the issue with leaving the .net, .org, .biz, etc. to the squatters.

Having been in a position where I couldn't get my .com, I used .net and tried to beat the squatters to the .com when it came available to no avail, and I can sympathize with that.

If your .com, .org, and .net are all available, and you opt for the .net but don't get the .com, then someone else nabs it and you lose traffic, that's really only the fault of the person who opted for the less commonly used suffix. Likewise, if you let your domain expire without renewing it, and someone else nabs it, I don't see where a person can really complain and want action to be taken. You let it go, knowingly or not, and when you let it go, it's there for the taking.

Sure, it's annoying, and I'd prefer that didn't happen myself, having had similar things happen to me. But in the end, it was my mistake, and I think most people who go about registering domains know enough about how it works to understand that if you don't get all of the suffixes, someone else will, and if you let your domain lapse, you've pretty much lost it.

In an ideal world, everyone with a domain would be using it for the purpose it should be used for.

I sympathize with you, but there are ways to keep things like this from happening.
24 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
In an ideal world, everyone with a domain would be using it for the purpose it should be used for.

Yes, but in this ideal world, who decides what domain names should be used for? That is why it is so hard to establish policy on these issues…
25 Mar, 2008, Conner wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
Hades_Kane said:
In an ideal world, everyone with a domain would be using it for the purpose it should be used for.

Yes, but in this ideal world, who decides what domain names should be used for? That is why it is so hard to establish policy on these issues…


Hmm, didn't ICANN make that decision back when they started 'governing' domain registrations?

I was always given the impression in the past by those who should have known at the time that:
  • .com was for commercial sites
  • .org was for non-profit organizations
  • .net was for networks
  • .edu was for educational organizations
  • .gov was restricted to government related sites
  • leaving the country codes for everything else (within the given country…)


  • On the other hand, they have also added some new ones in recent years (and are currently talking about adding some more new ones as well) that, in some cases, are a little less "clear" but nearly equally predetermined for intended usage.
    25 Mar, 2008, Guest wrote in the 27th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Darwin, consider this a warning. Post another profane image like that and you'll be sidelined for a week. This isn't the place for it. It would have been better to just not reply if you had nothing but flamebait to post.

    Hades, there's a pretty large difference between losing the .com when you bought the .net and deliberately letting a domain lapse and then whining about it later. Nobody here is advocating protecting it from expiring and being eaten by someone else. That would be a bit like complaining that you got sick from eating expired food. But having some jackass come along and use a domain people associate wth you to steal traffic and potential sales from you is an entirely different matter.

    drrck, you might find that if you dig into things like "Mountain Thunder" vs "Mountain Dew" that there will be some sort of arrangement between the vendor and the retailer to sell the product under a different name. It's a bit unusual but when I worked retail we had situations like that come up every now and then. It's mostly just confusing for the consumer in the end. The problem I'm getting at is that cybersquatters amount to a counterfeiting ring. Along the lines of the good people of China who duplicate Windows and get Microsoft in a tizzy. Though it sounds to me like you'd be ok with that given your position on squatting.
    25 Mar, 2008, Guest wrote in the 28th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Conner,

    The big ones are and always will be .com/.net/.org. Hardly anyone I know bothers with the lesser names like .biz or .info except outright spammers. The purposes you listed were once enforced but are treated as guidelines now. Probably because ICANN was too chicken shit to regulate it properly and let it get out of control. As if they have the authority to do anything about it anyway.
    25 Mar, 2008, Conner wrote in the 29th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Samson said:
    The big ones are and always will be .com/.net/.org. Hardly anyone I know bothers with the lesser names like .biz or .info except outright spammers. The purposes you listed were once enforced but are treated as guidelines now. Probably because ICANN was too chicken shit to regulate it properly and let it get out of control. As if they have the authority to do anything about it anyway.

    Understood, I was just answering David's question really, where he asked:
    DavidHaley said:
    who decides what domain names should be used for?
    The answer is that it was already decided years ago, it's just not enforced anymore, though I rather distinctly recall that it used to be enforced back in the early to mid 90s…
    25 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 30th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Why don't you answer the question of what policies you would actually like to see enforced? You make this sound so simple, but it's not. Take ICANN for instance. How is it supposed to handle international trademarks? How do you decide which trademark wins?

    EDIT: and the policy years ago is clearly irrelevant now…

    Samson said:
    drrck, you might find that if you dig into things like "Mountain Thunder" vs "Mountain Dew" that there will be some sort of arrangement between the vendor and the retailer to sell the product under a different name.

    Perhaps. But the US also makes it easy to make imitation products without the original vendor's approval, unlike other countries.
    25 Mar, 2008, Conner wrote in the 31st comment:
    Votes: 0
    DavidHaley said:
    Why don't you answer the question of what policies you would actually like to see enforced? You make this sound so simple, but it's not. Take ICANN for instance. How is it supposed to handle international trademarks? How do you decide which trademark wins?

    EDIT: and the policy years ago is clearly irrelevant now…


    Interestingly enough, once again, I don't have to answer "which policies you would actually like to see enforced" because I hadn't raised that issue and wasn't addressing it.

    As I see it, it is that simple.

    Actually, ICANN has information about that listed on their site already, thus it's again not my problem and far outside of the scope of anything I'm involved in.

    On the contrary, policy years ago still serves perfectly well to answer the question that you'd asked, even if that answer isn't one you wanted to hear.
    25 Mar, 2008, drrck wrote in the 32nd comment:
    Votes: 0
    Samson said:
    drrck, you might find that if you dig into things like "Mountain Thunder" vs "Mountain Dew" that there will be some sort of arrangement between the vendor and the retailer to sell the product under a different name. It's a bit unusual but when I worked retail we had situations like that come up every now and then. It's mostly just confusing for the consumer in the end. The problem I'm getting at is that cybersquatters amount to a counterfeiting ring. Along the lines of the good people of China who duplicate Windows and get Microsoft in a tizzy. Though it sounds to me like you'd be ok with that given your position on squatting.


    It's not counterfeiting no matter how you want to look at it. Counterfeiting implies imitation of the product, not just the name. Sure, if you somehow got the rights to cocacola.com and used it to market your new cola called "Coka Cola", that could be construed as counterfeiting; however, this is not the case here.

    Who decides what suffixes go with your trademark? Or are you under the impression that Coke has the rights to all possible cocacola.xxx domains?
    25 Mar, 2008, Guest wrote in the 33rd comment:
    Votes: 0
    Quote
    Who decides what suffixes go with your trademark?


    The company with the biggest lawyers always decides this, or have you been living under a rock all your life? :)

    If you want to find out if I'm right or not, then go ahead. In March of 2009 when cocacola.org expires, register it and put up a porn site and see how fast they come after you claiming trademark infringement. You won't last long, I can assure you of that. So then why should it be any different for, oh, I dunno, mudbytes.net to expect that the .com and .org variants shouldn't be used as counterfeits to try and swindle us out of traffic and instead line some cybersquatter's pockets with money? There are countless examples that are far more egregious than ours out there btw, before the example police jump me and complain about the domain name I used in my argument.
    25 Mar, 2008, drrck wrote in the 34th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Samson said:
    If you want to find out if I'm right or not, then go ahead. In March of 2009 when cocacola.org expires, register it and put up a porn site and see how fast they come after you claiming trademark infringement. You won't last long, I can assure you of that. So then why should it be any different for, oh, I dunno, mudbytes.net to expect that the .com and .org variants shouldn't be used as counterfeits to try and swindle us out of traffic and instead line some cybersquatter's pockets with money? There are countless examples that are far more egregious than ours out there btw, before the example police jump me and complain about the domain name I used in my argument.


    The point of squatting isn't to "last long", nor is it to have content on said domain (so I don't know why you brought up the porn site idea). The point is the same as getting companies to settle suits out of court - to get quick, easy money because of the expense and time needed for a legal battle. Whether or not the courts will find in your favor is usually largely irrelevant, since very few cases progress past "pay them or find a new name". And while I couldn't disagree more from a moral standpoint, I personally find it legally acceptable for this to be allowed for reasons that are way beyond the scope of this conversation.
    25 Mar, 2008, Asylumius wrote in the 35th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Samson's point is still probably valid. Coca-cola could probably get it's domain back without giving the squatter a dime. It's cheaper to buy it back, but they still could.

    Here at MudBytes on the other hand, I doubt we'd fare as well.
    25 Mar, 2008, Guest wrote in the 36th comment:
    Votes: 0
    drrck said:
    The point of squatting isn't to "last long", nor is it to have content on said domain (so I don't know why you brought up the porn site idea).


    I brought it up because it's something that's actually happened to me. So the point of squatting in that case *WAS* to put content on the site. Content that had zero to do with the original subject matter. Content that could have resulted in a hell of a lot of complaints in my direction had the domain they stole actually been part of an actively used site. Fortunately they stole it long after I realized Registerfly had ganked it from me and had already registered a set of new ones.

    The point being, squatting isn't always just about stealing a domain from someone and sticking one of those stupid "what you need, when you need it" pages that we see so often. Sometimes it is in fact about deliberately hijacking it to steer people toward something they otherwise would not have gone to go visit, that has nothing to do with the original product. So yes, if someone were to gank cocacola.org from the Coca-Cola Company, they'd get it back pretty fast and likely drive the squatter out of business in the process. But if somehow mudbytes.net got lost and someone launched a porn site using the domain, we'd probably be screwed due to the high cost of filing a dispute. To say nothing of what would happen if the squatter simply refused to comply with an ICANN "order" to cease.
    25 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 37th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Coca-Cola has a registered trademark in the USA and several other countries as well. Unless MudBytes does as well (which it might, but I do not think so given that it is not indicated), it is absolutely sensible that Coca-Cola has a legal claim to their name whereas MudBytes does not. And this has nothing to do with MudBytes in particular, but with its trademark status. Things get even more complicated when you start dealing with international trademarks (which is why the move to an international body is all but inevitable if things are going to keep working in the long term).

    The fact that it costs a fair bit to file a dispute is certainly unfortunate but to be fair, that is the case with nearly any legal situation. As for ICANN's power to enforce, well, that is yet another reason why it should be an organization with a clear mandate, and the only way for that to happen on the international level is, well, for it to be an international organization. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason why somebody from country X should follow the ruling of a US institution.

    As to drrck's question about who decides which names get which suffixes, while your answer is correct in practice it is not addressing the real question which is the normative one. Who should get to decide who gets what? That is why I keep asking you the policy question: clearly you are very unhappy with the current policy, but you have yet to say what the policy actually should be in concrete terms.
    26 Mar, 2008, drrck wrote in the 38th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Samson said:
    I brought it up because it's something that's actually happened to me. So the point of squatting in that case *WAS* to put content on the site. Content that had zero to do with the original subject matter. Content that could have resulted in a hell of a lot of complaints in my direction had the domain they stole actually been part of an actively used site. Fortunately they stole it long after I realized Registerfly had ganked it from me and had already registered a set of new ones.


    That's not squatting. Squatting is buying a domain with the sole intention of reselling it for profit. If they're just using "your" domain to redirect traffic as some kind of crooked advertisement scheme, that sucks for you, but it's a lot better than what they could do.
    26 Mar, 2008, drrck wrote in the 39th comment:
    Votes: 0
    DavidHaley said:
    Coca-Cola has a registered trademark in the USA and several other countries as well. Unless MudBytes does as well (which it might, but I do not think so given that it is not indicated), it is absolutely sensible that Coca-Cola has a legal claim to their name whereas MudBytes does not. And this has nothing to do with MudBytes in particular, but with its trademark status. Things get even more complicated when you start dealing with international trademarks (which is why the move to an international body is all but inevitable if things are going to keep working in the long term).


    International trademark status is one reason why protecting domains is a bad idea in my opinion. Who gets the rights to cocacola.co.uk - the U.S. company Coca-Cola, or the U.K. company Coca-Cola (not that there is one in reality - this is just an example)? Should it be the first to trademark the name? The company that's based in the country that owns the suffix? Whoever registers it first? What if neither company is based in the country that owns the suffix? What if both companies are based in the country that owns the suffix and they both have similar trademarked names? What if the suffix is top-level?
    26 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 40th comment:
    Votes: 0
    drrck said:
    International trademark status is one reason why protecting domains is a bad idea in my opinion.

    Agreed, although it depends on who does it and how it's set up. For country-coded domains, the problem could simplified because you can let that country decide its own rules, e.g. a UK trademark trumps all when it comes to UK domains. So if (somehow) Coca-Cola forgot to register their trademark in the UK, and somebody came along and registered it, Coca-Cola would lose the trademark and then subsequently the domain. This solution is far from perfect, but things cannot be simplified in this manner for the country-neutral domains (.com, .net, etc.) because it is unclear which country has jurisdiction over them.
    20.0/47