Verizon Threatens 2600 Over Domain Name

commodoresloat writes "You've probably already heard this, but Verizon (That's Bell Atlantic + GTE) has threatened 2600 to make them give up the domain name 'verizonreallysucks.com' (apparently, Verizon already owns 'verizonsucks.com'). It seems like a blatant attempt to squash criticism while pretending to protect trademarks from 'cybersquatters.' " The thing is, since there are now about four different tools where a company can take away a domain name from someone else, the odds are that they'll be able to do it.

Comments

Damn, it's *hard*...

[Jim Tyre]

...to even find a good parody name, these days.

Already taken:

VERIZON-BLOWS.ORG
VERIZON-BLOWS.NET
VERIZON-BLOWS.COM
VERIZON-BITES.ORG
VERIZON-BITES.NET
VERIZON-BITES.COM
VERIZONBLOWS.ORG
VERIZONBLOWS.NET
VERIZONBLOWS.COM
VERIZONBITES.ORG
VERIZONBITES.NET
VERIZONBITES.COM
VERIZON-WIRELESS-SUCKS.ORG
VERIZON-WIRELESS-SUCKS.NET
VERIZON-WIRELESS-SUCKS.COM
VERIZON-WIRELESS-BLOWS.ORG
VERIZON-WIRELESS-BLOWS.NET
VERIZON-WIRELESS-BLOWS.COM
VERIZON-WIRELESS-BITES.ORG
VERIZON-WIRELESS-BITES.NET
VERIZON-WIRELESS-BITES.COM
VERIZON-STINKS.ORG
VERIZON-STINKS.NET
VERIZON-STINKS.COM
VERIZON-SHITS.ORG
VERIZON-SHITS.NET
VERIZON-SHITS.COM

2600/Emmanuel Goldstein ~ Hustler/Larry Flint

[CFN]

Emmanuel Goldstein has morphed from a small publisher of a {h|cr}acking mag, low audience radio guy, into one of the preeminent defenders of individuals' liberties in the internet era.

On multiple fronts, he is defending our right to freedom of speech, and protecting us from giant behemoth corporations who want to restrict what we say, and even what we think.

It is easy to see the parallel with Larry Flint, who began simply as a publisher of a porno mag, and became a very important of champion of civil liberties.

More and more (we read it on /. every day) companies are trying to control the net, and, by extension, the future of both news and entertainment. By getting laws passes which make it illegal to look at someone else's software, or link to another site, or even express a thought (Verizon probably does suck!) their power is growing enormously.

We should applaud Emmanuel, and follow his example. If individuals do not stand up for our right to watch moves, listen to music, or criticize a company, we will lose those rights, and we will have no defense against the McDonalds-Nike-AOL-TimeWarner-Microsoft-General Electric conglomerates, the 'Big Brother' of the future.

Re:2600/Emmanuel Goldstein ~ Hustler/Larry Flint

[Seth Finkelstein]

Until this is tested in court, there is no prescedent for whether or not foosucks.com is an infringement upon foo.com.

Actually, there is court guidance:

In Bally a California court held that defendant Faber, who had created a website named Bally Sucks, which he created "in a simmering rage after a Bally club in California didn't upgrade his membership as promised," violated neither federal trademark infringement nor trademark dilution statutes because the site was merely a parody designed to voice consumer complaints and not commercially competitive with Bally in any way. The site was so clearly anti-Bally that it could not be construed as the company's handiwork. In Bally, the court noted that Faber "does not use Bally in his domain name" and that "even if Faber did use the mark as part of a larger domain name, such as 'ballysucks.com', this would not necessarily be a violation as a matter of law" because "no reasonably prudent Internet user would believe that 'Ballysucks.com' is the official Bally site or is sponsored by Bally. Finally, the court also cited congressional intent to exempt parody and other non-commercial imitation from the Act.

http://www.thelenreid.com/articles/article/art_49_ idx.htm

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer

- the Boston Lunatic

Re:2600/Emmanuel Goldstein ~ Hustler/Larry Flint

[coyote-san]

The issue is about limiting free speech - you're not allowed to pretend to be someone else by using their name.

Let me make sure I understand your position: you are claiming, with a straight face, that reasonable people will think "verizonreallysucks" is an official site sponsored by Verizon?

ROTFL!

NOBODY is arguing that critics have an absolute right to, oh, "verison.com". Since "Verizon" is a made-up word, a lot of people could reasonably confuse verison and verizon. (However, also remember that the other limited resource - toll-free numbers - accepts the use of misspellings to grab customers. E.g., 1-800-OPERATOR vs. 1-800-OPERATER.)

However, once there's no risk of confusion all of these rights vanish like your last date. No company, with the possible exception of infant pacifiers, will use (company-name)-SUCKS or anything remotely like it to sell their product. The *only* reason for grabbing these domains is to stiffle criticism, and as others have pointed out there is no practical limit to the number of such domain names.

It's easy to say that critics should simply sell the name (at cost) and register a new one, but it will destroy any ability to effectively communicate your message if you're forced to change domain names on a weekly basis. This is barely different from the widely condemned SLAPP suits - and IMHO both acts should bring about the severest sanctions against the attorneys.

Isn't Verizon guilty of squatting?

[FreeUser]

Isn't Verizon guilty of the same squating they falsely accuse others of? If Verizon can use the anti-squating rules to unjustly seize insulting names from others, can't you or I use the same rules to seize VERIZON-STINKS.COM from Verizon?

Seems to me a class action lawsuit is here in the making -- get twenty satarists together and go after 'em!