Slashdot Mirror
Corinthians.com Taken Away, Given To Soccer Team
TomCollins writes "I just read on Declan McCullagh's
politech
mailing list that J D Sallen, the current owner of
corinthians.com,
has
lost the domain
to the Brazilian soccer team Corinthians in a ruling by Roberto Bianchi of WIPO. Sallen had been using the domain to display scripture from the book of Corinthians long before hearing about the soccer team of the same name."
Considering that the team's actual TM is Corintho, and that the person in question had the domain first and that Corintho is NOTHING like Corinthians (NOTICE THE SPELLING!) that he should have kept the domain. Regardless of his religious affiliation or what he was doing with the site, and regardless of how YOU feel about it the fact still stands that the domain was shifted inappropriately.
- 1-corinthians.com
- 2-corinthians.com
Or what ever happened to that ".god" TLD idea?Erm, so what's your point? If you'll read what you posted VERY CAREFULLY, you'll realize that that's a "last modified" date, NOT a "created on" date. He could have updated his page on June 26th. That doesnt mean thats when it was created.
.ORG. Then again, go tell that to Disney (who has DISNEY.ORG), or Warner Bros. (who own WB.ORG). I'd say both of those are rather commercially oriented sites.
.COM, .NET, or .ORG. Check for yourself. If I want to register GO-TO-CHURCH-ITS-GOOD-FOR-YOU.ORG and sell automobiles from it, I have every right to do so. The owner of Corinthains.com isnt at fault here. Sure, perhaps he could have chosen a .org (which someone in another thread mentioned was taken by a Yacht Club) to make things "cleaner", but certainly his decision with a .com isn't wrong in any sort of way.
Perhaps an English lesson is in order.
Secondly, this whole issue is so flamboyantly stupid that it makes me want to cry. Yes, technically, Corinthians.com should have been registered under a
Secondly, there aren't any said provisions on who can and who can't register a
Thirdly, Who is this judge to say that the content on Corinthians.com wasnt of any importance? Chrsitianity is a MAJOR world religion. This guy has every right to post scripture on his web page. This guy has every right to encase the entire book of I Corinthians inside a tag if he wants to, and put it up on Corinthians.com for the world to see. Just because the judge thinks that the web page (only a PORTION of what a domain name helps provide) isnt significant is certainly no basis on making him fork it over.
Lastly, The Brasilian "Football" team in question can go run and take a flying leap off of the tallest building in Brasil for all it matters for even bringing up this issue. They dont own any sort of trademark on the name, in Brasil, in the United States, within the United Nations, on Mars, in their Auntie's bathroom, or any other place to speak of. They have no right to take this guy to court because they want his domain name. Whoever heard their complaint at first should have laughed in their face and hung up the phone!
The stupidity of those making the decisions here is mind-boggling, proving only my personal theory that the universe will always create a better idiot.
You have forgotten that now INTERNIC (Network Solutions) owns all domains and simply "leases" them to the public (as stated in their new registration policy). Because of this, they simply revoked the guys lease and issued it to someone else. Not too hard to understand, but I hate what has happened.
fcfs == First come first served. With the following rules:
.com, .org, or .net TLD, you are prohibited to own any domain names in the .fcfs TLD.
.fcfs, you own it until you explicitly release it, you stop paying for it, or you violate rule 1.
.fcfs domain, you'll be shot.
1. If you own a domain name in the
2. When you register a domain name with
3. If you try to use a court of law to take over someone's
It doesn't matter what kind of content, if any, is on a page at all. A totally neutral judge wouldn't content on a page as part of an argument. Domain names are just for naming computers on networks. This is why domain parking is and should be legal (it sucks I have to use this word when describing a global network) even though I don't support it.
Right...it should be more up to date because the Bible has changed recently?
*Sigh*
AC
This guy is just a squatter, plain and simple. He grabs domains that make use of other people's names and makes money off of them. He uses the fact that he wouldn't stand up to real companies like Dow Jones to illustrate that he's a good guy. Puhleease. The only reason corinthians.com has any content on it at all is so he can get you guys to rally behind him without any of the facts.
Don't believe me? Check out his other NIC handle (with the token aol account even)
It's too bad it wasn't a real judge in a trademark infringement case that could have awarded damages also.
Very good points. You seem to have missed the boat on one simple issue though. When the domain name was registered it doesn't matter what content the owner post at his site. You are not legally bound to post commercial info or anything of any nature at ones .com site. If that's the case then the "Internic" needs to formally alert people of this BEFORE they register a domain name.
Another point is simply that he paid his 70 (or whatever the going rate is right now) to purchase the domain. There are no RULES saying he has to use it. He can do whatever he wants with it because he paid his money to register it. He wasn't stopped. No one questioned him. There was nothing but a transaction made for property.
The Judge is a bloody idiot for not seeing this. This is a clear cut case to me and if I was the owner I'd go to my death fighting this in court. The simple matter of fact is that he owned. Someone else came along and said we want it because its the name of our Soccer Team and we are more important than you. The Judge like the bloody babbling foolish idiot he is said, "Take it, you want it to make money". (How does a soccer team make money from a web page btw? - There's gotta be a model right?) The guy who legitamately purchased is now out of whatever he bought. Simple analogy for me is. You just bought a flatbed truck (not because you use it for towing or hualing anything you just bought it to sit in your driveway) Some guy rolls around and says "HEY~!!" I have a construction company and I want your truck. You obviously laugh at the fool and slam the door. You appear in court where the Judge orders you to hand over your keys. End of analogy.
If this becomes standard and no one raises goddamn hell about it. We are in serious trouble.
-anon
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Yes, we need new TLD's faster than ICANN seems to be moving. Yes, Us should use .us and the soccer team should've been content with their .br domain.
.us, .cx, .uk, etc. So it's a .com. It could be whatever else was the defacto business domain, as it's a business. But it's going to be one thing, just one name, country neutral.
Enter realistic life. I'm working on a website for a company. The company is non-us based, but if all goes well it will attract business from all over the world. I'm not going to register the name in
Do we need DNS changed? yes. Should country codes matter much? No. Do I know what it will change into? Nope, I'm just along for the ride.
bash: ispell: command not found
This sig left intentionally blank.
Didn't you read the e-mail?
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
B) The soccer team is a national thing and probably should use their own country's TLD. Biblical quotations are global in scope and are more suited to using a gTLD (although admittedly
C) The soccer team doesn't even have a trademark on the name Corinthians; their name is Corinthiao, which is apparently pronounced the same in Portuguese, but not spelled the same - and domain names are spelled, not spoken aloud (generally).
D) The way trademark law works, I could sell a trivia game called "Guess?" but I couldn't sell bluejeans called "Guess?". Why should domain names be any different? If he had corinthiansoccer.com or corinthianfutbol.com or corinthiaofutbol.com or something, it might be a different situation.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I've often wondered why the US got extra domains besides .us. And I've often answered that question with "we came up with it in the first place." Ok, score one for democracy. That, however, is where it all went to hell.
.gov.us seems reasonable.
If it weren't for the special US TLDs (com, net, org) we'd have microsoft.wa.us and no one would think twice about it. If you didn't happen to know the URL, your ISP's home page (isp.state.us) would have links to portals where you could search.
The solution is not more classifying domains. Rather, the solution is less domains... precisely 3 less... com, net, org. I'm at a loss as to what to do about edu, mil, and gov. I guess we should get rid of those too.
Looking far into the future, I see a net without domains. I see myself hitting my isp's portal (or perhaps a portal the isp contracted its users out to) that could find things for me, including other portals. I see email addresses that are more like phone numbers and email programs that handle the name-to-number conversion. I see the end of spam, as it becomes impossible to send an untraceable message. (Privacy buffs, think caller-id vs caller-id-block vs "this number does not accept calls marked private...", you'll be free to send anonymously but you should expect it to be bounced instantly without my ever seeing it.)
I find it hard to believe that the net really needs domain names. The postal and telephone systems accommodate more "nodes" than the net without needing to name each "node" after its owner.
Er... scratch that... I just remembered a particular company in Redmond whose address is... One Microsoft Way
--Threed-Looking out for Numero Uno since 1976!
Same reason Commercial companies use .net and .org names.
Too bad this isn't really followed anymore
"anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
So the constitution wins any conflicts between itself and treaties, where treaties differ.
It does not say: "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State or anything in Treaties to the contrary notwithstanding."
So should you. The constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND in the USA. Not even the executive and the legislative branches of gov't combined have the power to alter it.
Did 75% of the states also approve the WIPO treaty?
No.
Then where the constitution and WIPO conflict, the constitution always wins. always. Always. ALWAYS. That what SUPREME in "supreme law of the land" means.
Now I suppose you're gonna say how does the constitution apply to domain names? Well, here's the answer... the 10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
WIPO is neither the "States" nor "the People". Thus WIPO has zero legal power in the USA to enforce anything and its rulings are not at all binding on US citizens or residents.
I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.
They did have the trademark before I registered my domains, but I hadn't heard of them.
What's funny about this is their laywers are telling me if I have cybermacfubar.com, I would be fine, but since the domain matches the word exactly, I'm screwed. But that brings up an interesting point - I don't just have cybermac - I have cybermac.com! (and .net, which I had first because some company nabbed the .com the day before I checked).
I did some calling around, it looks like I'll have to pay $200 an hour to fight having to pay $3,000 and lose my domains.
They claim unless I had my own trademark of the word cybermac, like they do, I just flat out lose and have to give mine up.
They want $3,000 for their legal fees and my two domains, otherwise they're suing for $30,000+ in damages, plus legal fees.
Anyone know any cheap lawyers in Minnesota?
So the quotes from the bible were tarnishing the reputation/diluting the trademark of the soccer team? Would that imply that they're a bunch of evil bastards? =)
You know what really pisses me off? There's all this talk about top level domains, and you give several examples of possible ones, except, they're all in English!. Not everyone on this planet speaks English, and the current TLD naming system is pretty language generic (.com, .net, .org) since they use abbreviations that can easily be transferred between both Germanic and Romance languages. How about thinking a little bit less egocentrically and more geocentric.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
When the domain name was registered it doesn't matter what content the owner post at his site. You are not legally bound to post commercial info or anything of any nature at ones .com site. If that's the case then the "Internic" needs to formally alert people of this BEFORE they register a domain name.
.com for things that were not commercial, .org for things that were not non-profit, and .net for things that were not networks. Apparently, though, they want money more than they want to keep the domain names "pure" -- I believe it is Network Solutions who has something on their site to the effect of, "You can register any domain no matter who you are or what you do!" ::shrug:: I guess I thought keeping the TLD's in line with what they stood for isn't a priority any longer (was it ever?).
Actually, I never thought any of the official domain registrars encouraged using
... So if anything BAD happens it's the fault of a mere mortal, yet when anything GOOD happens
it is all thanks to (God || Allah)? God obviously isn't omnipotent enough to do bad things too, I guess?
I bet the the same people that say that also say that the only place to find
God is in a church/synagoge/whatever and NOWHERE else!!! (unless against a moderate fee...:-)
I consider myself a christian even though I may not act that way.
It's been years since I've been to church and ages since I last prayed.
I believe that God is everywhere and there's not more of God in church than anywhere else.
But one thing I do NOT do, is putting words into God's mouth, unlike most preachers in the world.
And I'm not a hypocrit about religion. One of the things that really bother me
are priests who drive big expensive cars and eat 5 course meals every day
and urge people to donate money... all in the name of God of course.
Anyway enough rant for one night..
Why don't the american football players lose the padding and helmets and pick up rugger instead? :-)
Now THAT is a men's game.
I'll give 'soccer' one thing though, at least it IS FOOTball, where you use you feet to HANDLE the ball
as well as running...
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
Religious stuff non commercial? What world are you living in? Check out how much stuff the Mormons own sometime. Organized religion is nothing more than a business, supported by weak minded folk in search of a crutch.
Casca
Most of the people with power only have a vague idea of what the web is, and have never even heard of telnet. You can seek either knowledge or power, but you don't have time for both.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Guessing the domain of a sports team can be quite an adventure. pirates.com? pittsburghpirates.com? Try pirateball.com.
:-)
I think the leagues should get involved, and allow each team to have a subdomain of the league's domain, in the form team.league.com. Thus, the unintuitive pirateball.com becomes pirates.majorleaguebaseball.com. Want to see the Vancouver Grizzlies?* grizzlies.nba.com. Want to prevent namespace collisions with sacred texts? corinthians.insert Brazilian league here.com.
*: Seek professional help, or make the drive to Seattle to see the Sonics.
Every day we're standing in a wind tunnel/Facing down the future coming fast - Rush
This sig intentionally left blank.
Yeah that's the most annoying part. It looks like 90% of the legal challenges WRT domaine names involve only legitimate use (etoy vs. etoys) while the real bastards, the domain squatters carry on their business.
Now I'm really glad ICANN has finally decided to open up new GTLD, and I'd love to see how the greatdomains.com kind of people looke like when it becomes a reality.
So what about that company who registered 12000 combinations of common Family Name to sell them back at a higher price ... hey they were there first ...
It's interesting to note that "slashdot dot org", when pronounced with a mouthfull of pebbles and with a bad cold, sounds pretty much like "microsoftsux" in the same conditions.
The panel therefore concludes that CdrTaco bend over and take it up the ass.
Normally, I wouldn't want the church to get involve in the Net politics, but this time, I think we should get them (Protestians, Catholics and Orthodoxes) involved since the Book Of Corinthian was published WAY BEFORE any soccer club in Brazil decided to trademark the name "Corinthian".
If someone, like a rich soccer club, wants to step on the toe of an individual, they may well do it. But if they are faced by a whole group of powerful churches, they may have to think again what they want to do.
Of course, that's only my opinion.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
The WIPO is one of the common sorts of international organization; therefore: no real democratic representation, no due process, no appeal.
DNA just wants to be free...
You mean like China? Not exactly my first choice for personal freedoms, even if they have become capitalist and relatively democratic now.
The bigger the empire, the more difficult revolution is, as well. They have a LOT more military and police resources.
Most modern revolutions against larger empires have only managed with external help (including the American Revolution), and they only extended to part of the empire. When there is no external help (e.g. the entire government is global), you're fucked.
...and you're living in a dream world if you think any government has to play by any rules. If you study history, you'll find that all governments eventually reach a point where the only option is revolution, unless the civilization collapses or is conquered first.
I think you also don't seem to realize how much harder it's become to actually hide anywhere in the past 50 years.
Even if it were easier to hide, I don't want to have to become an outlaw for the sake of freedom in the first place.
DNA just wants to be free...
I'd like you to think very, very carefully about what it's being replaced with. I don't think a single monolithic totalitarian state (as far removed as possible from local interests, even) is such a good thing. Many of these international institutions are very far removed from any sort of direct democratic process.
(Where was the slot for e.g. "UN Representative" on your last ballot? [you do vote, right?])
I think that at best we're exchanging one load of crap for another, and possibly a worse load of crap at that.
DNA just wants to be free...
>> The reason religious organizations are not taxed is because of 1st ammendment issues
Correction. Religious organizations are not taxed *in spite of* First Amendment issues. As it stands, the U.S. govt is in the business of deciding what is or isn't a religion and then extending special privileges to those organizations it deems to be a religion.
Of course! We should all have the same corrupt government!
Seriously, given that some laws are bad, and some people will not act in my interest, diversity in governments is superior to monolithic international anything.
My homegrown American evil politicians are bad enough, but a set of international laws made up by people like Tony Blair, Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot, and the Red Army? No thanks, comrade. The UN Declaration of Human Rights gives me the 'right' to two weeks paid vacation a year, but not the right to self defense or a jury of my peers. Yuck.
-- Jeff Paulsen
This is a lot worse than the etoy vs. etoys issue. It is so wrong for so many reasons:
.com as opposed to .net/.org/.edu/.mil/.br/.gov/.co.uk/.sg/.cx/.no/.i nt (hello WIPO). I fail to see any distinction there.
:) (not that he should be forced to or anything).
a) "This is my domain name. There are many others like it but this one is mine." Assigning "Corinthians.com" to a soccer team over a site with religious content is just fucking stupid. By a show of hands, how many people think of a Brazilian Soccer team when I say "Corinthians" and how many people think about the Bible. It doesn't take a Catholic to realize that the Bible has been around for quite a while and it has been in the "public domain" so to speak for a good number of centuries.
b) For some reason, Brazilians get priority on a domain name with a TLD designation that has, historically, been based in the USA. There are lots of TLD's out there, I don't see any reason why the Brazilian Corinthiano's or whatever the hell they call themselves have priority on
c) if they're upset about the ugly background colour at corinthians.com, I'm sure he could be convinced to change it
yeah, I probably sound like an idiot after spouting off all that. Oh well. If you would like to share some insight, I have a thick skin, so feel free to debunk and tear down everything I said
-- Faré @ TUNES.org
-- Faré @ TUNES.org
Reflection & Cybernet
Foreign to what? The .com domain is international and does not belong to the USA any more or less that it belongs to Brazil.
The fact that the .us domainis not used for anything meaningful does not make the .net, .org and .com domains any more american.
Hey, wait a minute! I wasn't born yesterday! ;-)
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
The further government is removed from the individual, the less that individual's concerns are shared by this government.
A neighborhood watch program cares intimately about the individuals.
A city government must respond and listen to the concerns of neighborhoods.
A state government listens to the concerns of cities, which may or may not intersect with the concerns of neighborhoods.
National government concerns itself with business, and the concerns of states, as well as international business and policy which most assuredly have little or nothing to do with my day to day needs.
International government concerns itself with little other than international business and matters of international commerce.
People who want international government are willing to wear a yoke from which they have no escape and be goverened by people who have no reason to look after their best interests.
Foolish and stupid.
"No good deed goes unpunished"
corinthians.religion
corinthians.sports
Of course, then what would have happened if there is a football team named Corinthians? Or if the Baptists and the Methodists wanted the same domain?
corinthians.baptists.religion
corinthians.soccer.sports
Then you might have a slight problem... What if baptists in the United Kingdom and baptists in America wanted to use Corinthians? And what if the same were true for the soccer team?
corinthians.baptists.religion.uk
corinthians.soccer.sports.br
Oh no! Now we forgot, what if there is a professional league and a grade-school league? Egads, and what about two baptist organizations wanting Corinthians in the same state and city?
corinthians.menudopublicschool.k-12.amateur.soccer .sports.brt eo.ca.us.baptists.religion
corinthians.three-square-church.firststreet.sanma
Wow! I guess more TLD's and implementation of third, fourth and umpteenth level domains really does solve the problem! And it's so simple!
---
seumas.com
Why don't they use the brazlian TLD or is that not enough. I am not saying other countries can not use the domain .com, .org or .net. But if this man was using this domain for a real purpose then fight for the domain fight for it hard get the ACLU. What anger me the most is the reason that was given for the domain repossesion. If this true then he has all right to own the domain.
logan
logan
logan
logan
This discussion is all moot. Do you really think in 10 years, we'll all still be typing www.something.com? All this will continue until technology makes it moot, and I can finally sit down on my couch and in my best scottish accent, say "Computer: find me that cranky brazilian soccer team named after some bible verse I don't remember". I will then promptly be rewarded with entirely too much information about a meaningless subject (the true purpose of the web), and an offer to purchase books about them, directly from each individual author. Unless of course, Microsoft is still around, in which case my computer will execute a small child in Brazil, and start making me coffee.
Actually, it will (still) provide you with a list of 50,000 hits, all of them porn except for two, about half-way through, linking to identical archived newsgroup articles extolling the virtues of llama farming (for meat and wool) as a hot job for the New Economy.
--G
This is nutty. 4a(iii) specifically requires that "your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith."
I'm having a hard time seeing how they proved that the owner was using it in bad faith, particularly when 4b(i)-(iv) enumerate the faces of bad faith. None of which seem to apply here.
See that "Preview" button?
>since Paul wrote the books.
Letters, actually. To the church(es) in Corinth.
See that "Preview" button?
Corinth is in Greece, at the top of the Peleponnesus. (Ever hear the expression "loose as a Corinthian's arsehole?") Greece is completely separate country from Turkey, with its own language, culture and everything. In fact, they've been out from under the thumb of Ottoman domination for more than a hundred years! So show a little respect.
AFAIK, the person who lost the domain was clarely trying to hide it's squatting using just 1000 words from the bible.
There's no content, nothing but little pieces from the bible. REALLY SMALL PIECES!
So I can understand the ruling BUT!
What if I use my domain for email purposes?
What if all my communications depend on a address/domain and I just don't use http???
Is http more important than any other service??
I Dunno...
The internet is so httpized that starts to loose control...
And you can get anything in this world with a couple of good lawyers...
Or even a Tolkien fan site about Aragorn and his kin.
Heh, try that with the last name Ford. I don't think there's a chance in hell that I'll ever have a domain in my name under any of the tld's.
--
Having worldwide domain names isn't justified for such cases.
--
Here's my mirror
--
Here's my mirror
Alright, this is as good a place for me to post my little rant as any.
.com, .org, or .net, lets all remember that Slashdot.**org** is as commercial a site as any. Plus, they have registered slashdot.com. How about Linux.com, a sight devoted to being completely non-commercial. .net?
:)
As much as Slashdotters bitch (well deservedly) about TLDs and how pointless they've become, with no one caring if its a
Freshmeat seems to be a commercial site as well, yet they use
Anyway, before we bitch too much about all the companies hogging and abusing TLDs, check the URL to which you post.
Erik
I think you missed his point (or something). Here is the Book of Revelation License (BRL):
Revelation 22
18. I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
19. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Oh foo!
:-)
:-)
I'll have to call my lawyer shortly. Anyone recommend a good one for this area of Religious Law?
Or has this license been made irrelevant because this is no longer the original Greek? The translaters have already fallen foul? Maybe my lawyers could take this argument and the fact that I clearly labelled the quotation as a subsection of the complete book, and didn't masquerade it as the complete book.
Help me?
Does anyone really want to live in a city for eternity? Or am I just in denial, now?!
An alternative, democratic heiarchy is OpenNIC, which you can find at www.unrated.net/projects/opendns/ or (once you've set yourself up to use the alternative root domains) www.opennic.
.com, .net, .org, .etc. and relegates the ICANN administered domains to .com.icann, .net.icann, etc.
While this still doesn't help with injustices like this, it is a start. Personally, I would prefer a system which simply hijacks
That would put those power hungry f*cks in their place.
Whatever form a more distributed and democratic domain name service takes, it is past time for the netizens of the world to take it out of the hands of the beaurocrats.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
First of all, the Brazilian soccer team doesn't even have "Corinthians" trademarked at all. It's merely an English translation of their trademark, "Corinthiao."
The word Corinthians has been in general use for almost 1950 years, since Paul wrote the books. Also, Corinth is still a city in Turkey.
What authority does a WIPO judge have? I'm not too familiar with international IP treaties. Does the registrar have to comply with this?
Ah, sinto o cheiro de um são-paulino frustrado aqui ;-)
--
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Quanta hipocrisia, seu André...
--
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
You're either claiming that defenders (which are not "titans", but simply overweight or full of steroid) are able to sprint like Carl Lewis (unlikely); or that liners are 300 pounds (even more unlikely);
Second: if you're so keen on calling it football, why do you make such a fuss of real football not using the hands (opposing thumbs (which apes also have, BTW) yada-yada)?
American football would be a lot more manly if those titans clashed at each other while wearing a plain jersey like in rugby or Aussie football, not using that heavily padded body armour.
--
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
I am not that French grammar nazi, but I can attest on his behalf that your spelling still sucks too!
--
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
An all-pro NFL lineman on either side of the ball these days is usually over 275 pounds and fast as hell. (Every year, there are a few more guys that enter the league with 300 pounds of ropey, horse-like muscle.)
Fair enough, I'm not that enthusiastic about a game where the main attraction is male physique. To each his own, I guess. Just remember to give steroids credit where credit is due, and make sure there are no kids in the room while you're watching your ball game...
2.2. The pads and head-to-head crashes actually make it a much more brutal game than rugby. Rugby players do not have nearly as many serious injuries as American Football players. One player from the Detroit Lions is still barely able to walk from a collision with a teammate two years ago. (He is lucky to be alive).
There are many cases of players dying in the pitch during rugby and football (soccer) games. I was once ina rugby match where a guy (very large guy, for that matter) went senseless to hospital with a gaping brow. Nothing serious, for sure, but it could have been.
3.3. You will notice that rugby players have not had a lot of success at American football. The Euro-NFL tends to rely a lot on American players. This will probably change a little as more Europeans learn how to play the game, but obviously it is not as easy as they would have guessed.
Rugby lesson of the day: in Rugby everybody attacks and everybody defends. Thus, rugby players cannot be as portly (to put it bluntly) as American football defenders. Also, your contention that American football well eventually catch in Europe as Europeans learn the game is a little bit preposterous. Have you considered that people (as often happens) don't care about it? If anything, I think footbal (pronounced soccer) will eventually gain ground in the US, as it has in Japan and China. Its already starting to happen with younger generations.
The comment about soccer not requiring opposable thumbs was just a friendly joke, but it is pretty much true. On those few occations when the ball is picked up it is usually with two hands, so thumbs are optional for the entire team. :)
Yeah, I got that. Although many players need it to grab their opponent by the jersey and stop him :-) Just the same, tennis also can be played without opposing thumbs if you tie the rackets to the player's hands. And don't forget: apes also have opposing thumbs, that's why you find so many of them on Super Bowl playoffs.
--
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
keep in mind this isn't american law. this is brazil where futbol, encourages everything. In jamaica when the team made it to the world cup they had a national holiday. I think it's a case of favoritism
How is it squatting if he wasn't planning to sell it to this team? It's only squatting if you're planning to sell it to the real trademark holder for a profit, which doesn't seem to have been the case.
Content isn't really an issue either; I can buy a piece of land in the city but not develop it, and that's completely legal. It would help if the original owner of the site had a trademark, but since the soccer team didn't have a trademark either I think that issue is irrelevant.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
So why have TLDs at all? Why not eliminate the TLDs completely and just make the second-level domain the top level domain? That's really what you're proposing.
As long as TLDs don't have meaning, why have them?
ICANN or whoever has the power should increase the charges for domain name ownership such that ownership of more than 5 domains begins to cost you whatever you paid for your last domain times 2. This would make camping, hoarding, or otherwise hogging domain names very expensive. Even very rich corporations might think twice before shelling out million$ for a domain name they don't even *use*. Domain name speculators would essentially be out of business as the short-term gain from investing ~$600 million in 30 domain names. Private individuals wouldn't be too put out as there's little need that I can see for one person controlling or owning more than 5 domain names.
The "penalty" factor for these charges could go to ICANN, IETF or some other internet open standards group to use for R&D to help improve upon the internet as a whole.
Sure, like any other "system" (taxes, marriage, etc) there are people totally willing to cheat at it. ICANN should make the penalty for cheating at this one the IMMEDIATE suspension of and ultimately foreiture of ALL domains. Sure, there will be sleazeballs willing to cheat, but do you really think that major corporations, who are one of the major hoarders of domains, would risk losing their legit domains just to secretly own a thousand and one variants on their product names?
The fallacy that the solution is "more TLDs" is simply foolish. If a major corporation controls 1,000 domain names just to control them, who are you kidding that adding TLDs fixes this? That's only another $35k, and these clowns spend more than that on booze and hookers in a month without even the accounting department blinking an eye.
Until you start really making domain ownership a serious expense, all the new TLDs aren't worth a damn.
No slam at you, spazmoid (I hate the decision, too), but the only "of course" here is the fact that we are moving into a genuinely new realm, and there are going to be some dislocations, as we sort things out.
In the past, you could have two identical brand names (for example) in nearby town, state, or even adjacent aisles of the grocery store (would you even notice if there was an 'Encore' brand dog food, and an 'Encore' line of TV dinners [feel free to provide you own punch lines.
In the past, boundaries were much more effective at compartmentlizing business, and the primary role of the trademark was associative -- i.e. it relied on the associational mechanisms of the brain more than the actual literal words.
On the web, we rely on literals, and any hierarchy of naming will fall short of the flexibility of the old system (any system that had more flexibility than ordinary human associative thinking would be useless because humans wouldn't be able to master it) We do not live hierarchically, we do not do business hierarchically (i.e. category-busting businesses and products will always emerge), and we do not want to be ruled by a hierarchy.
Meanwhile, the fact that there is *one web* is both a strength and a weakness. It's strengths are well known, and many of its weaknesses lie in the fact that it will require us to change our thinking. This is often a necessary price for new capabilities, but it's always a drawback from the user's view, in the short term (and we're *all* users, when it comes to the web, whether third grader or multinational)
I don't much care for this decision, and I sure wouldn't enjoy debating whether the Corinthian Sailing Club (corinthian.org) is more 'worthy' of that second level domain than the guy who lost corinthian.com.
In the future, we will see new ways of doing things, and one that I expect will become more common will be "index pages" that list, for example, many 'corinthians' and link their websites. We've had examples of this for years:
until recently http://www.apc.com let you choose between the former American Power Corporation, a well-known UPS maker, or the former Alabama Power Corporation (an electric utility and management company)
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
What do you do with companies who aren't "one-country-based"?
What?
No. The Vikings could always just pick another domain name. A few ideas: minnesota-vikings.com, vikings.com.mn.us, etc. If I were a Vikings fan, I would feel very embarrassed to learn that "my team" arrogantly cheated someone else out of a domain name that they had been using for years.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Actually, it does, and that is one possible solution. Cooperation. Let them share corinthians.com and either split it into subdomains, or just differentiate by hostnames. The soccer team could have asked to have soccer.corinthians.com point to their machine, for example.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I have one domain that has had the same three pages on the website for years. That domain is used for mail and DNS and other services. I recieve purchase offers all the time, and they invariably say "since you're not using it". Everyone seems to forget that the web is not the internet; the web is a part of the internet.
Does this mean that if I register kinkajous.com and use it only for ftp and gopher that the Professional Curling Association's Toronto Kinkajous can take it away because I'm not using it? That's ludicrous.
For a good primer on Domain Name Disputes, try here. Literally, thousands of pages have been written on this subject. Fifty of them, by me.
Unfortunately, it looks like WIPO is within it's treaty rights. I'm as much in favor of strong IP as the next guy, but WIPO is an adjudicative body pursuant to treaties, which is independant of yet binding on signatory governments. No, I don't like it one bit, personally. Especially since their dispute policy is basically "You tell us the facts, and we'll tell you where to stick them."
First they came for corinthians.com, and I didn't say anything because I don't read scripture. Then they came for Water.com and I didn't say anything because it's not my domain. Now they're coming for Swerdloff.com, and ummm, who the hell but me would want that?
If I remember right the
i.e. non-profits need to be on the
schools on
miltary on
and ISP's on
If I remember right that was how it was setup
prior to this explosion, at the death of arpanet.
Kinda neat to see a court holding up this.
I think what happened was the judge called
some domain reg company in as an expert
witness, and that is what they said.
Non-profits go on
Kinda why the opensource community is there.
My two cents
-------------------------------------
The best thing todo with an unbreakable toy is to break other toys with it.
-------------------------------------
"What do you do with the mad that you feel when you feel so mad you could bite?" - Mister Rogers
This would not be happening if people would just realize they don't need to use ICANN, NSI, etc. There are a number of ways to NOT use them. One of them is to use a different root zone. Once you have a root zone, you can make it point to your own .COM zone, which can have whatever domains you want, plus have a wildcard default to go to some other server (NSI?) for what isn't there.
Every DNS server that uses ICANN/NSI servers is a vote for their continued abuse of identity vs. trademark.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I'd think Slashdot would probably still be outraged.
It's a local sports team going for an international domain.. DotCom...
There is the additional gaul of it being an AMERICAN locality going after the domain (It's come up before in the chatter.. it's got a reason but people don't like it)
In this case it's still local and not an American locality (no "But the Internet started in the united states" excuse).
I don't have a problem with suing for domains when there is a clear trademark violation...
But... when the trademark has a commen meaning then it should be up for grabs...
Who gets www.hello.com first? Hello Technologys? Hello Electronics? Hello Public Relations? Or the 13 year old girl who got the domain first...
Just becouse there is a trademark dosn't mean you automaticly have a right to the domain.
www.cokeacola.com yes... unique...
www.coke.com NO... generic
www.IBM.com yes unique
www.Igqlibmszk.com no unique but not "IBM" just a bunch of random letters that contain IBM randomly.
www.wenndys.com No girls name
www.barbie.com no girls name
www.satan.com no... thow it would be fitting.. "Satanic computing sues the CBN for Satan.com"
www.tv.com no.... generic...
www.sim.com generic
I could go on and on but you get the idea.
But today the standard is....
Got a TM? Ok you got the domain....
I don't actually exist.
Is Sports default commertal?
.com was also for personal domains...
Is Religion default not commertal?
BTW when the domain reg was still a government agentcy and the TLD were policed (to some extent)
This was someones personal domain... maybe not commertal but not a non-proffit organisation (DotOrg)
Anyway the top level isn't policed anymore...
Anyway... the team needs to prove they own the rights to the domain and that right is greater than the current holder.
In my view they fail both tests...
This is a local team and should have a local domain not DotCom...
I don't actually exist.
>There are those of us who are religious for very good reasons
.Com....
*Rant mode*
Not Christian != Not religious....
Thats where A LOT of antiChristan sentiment comes from... the whole notion that ONLY Christans are religious.
There are quite a few other religions out there AND quite a few "casual" Christians.
*Rant mode off*
It's kinda unfair to lump all Christians into one block...
Christianity has a deep philosophical base and a wide range of folowers...
From them deeply spiritual to the casual...
The problem stems from the Jihad types often called fundies or xitans...
Others often repeate what comes from that camp not thinking twice about how valid it might be.
Such as making Religous = Christan...
Agnostics and Pagans are pritty good about bashing Christans and most are pritty religous...
Lastly... Before the domain registry went commertal... DotCom was for Commertal and private use.... religion is a very personal thing don't you agree? Very
I don't actually exist.
Ok a soccer team (international football) wants a .com TLD and finds someone else has it quoting a line from the Bible....
.com TLD space.....
Oh wait... the team spells it's name DIFFRENTLY...
It's a local team...
So if this is valid.....
ComTech... we are suing the whole
and Sun Microsystems
I don't actually exist.
It would be nice is the USA followed Australia's lead in simply using top level style extensions with .au on the end, or in the case of the USA .us. I mean why should the USA have exclusive right to .gov or .mil. shouldn't these be allocated to the appropraite countries so you would have australia.gov, usa.gov, europe.gov, etc. Of course until domain control get handed off to some sort of international organisation that actually works, I reckon this will never see the day of light.
/. have enough clout to actually get the .us domain organised in a usable way - who do we have to complain to.
;-)
Does the readership of
Bad English intentional, I can't be bothered to check my text
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
US citizen's are supposed to take .com/net/org addresses.
Make that 'were supposed to'. Times are changing and the USA should realize that as the Internet evolves, so should the way the USA presents itself on the medium - its called international politics.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
sarcasm=on
Who are you or that stinking WIPO arbitrator to decide the appropriate venue for God's words?!
sarcasm=off
Seriously, I don't understand why would anybody outside Latin America ever expect to find a team webpage at corinthians.com. Or why would anybody outside USA/Canada be aware of rangers.com as a website of NYRangers?
Ya know WHY? Becuase Americans have the most presence and spend hundreds of millions on the UN and NATO in the first place. Damn aussies. and canadians. :) hehe. :P
It was the politicians, not the people, who took away the worlds rights.
Good night and god bless.
-=chiphead
-=-=-=-
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The site name was registered on June 7th, 2000... So the question...is this really a valid domain or a case where some guy put up a site with a total of 5 pages on it!!! Corinthians.com does not even resolve to the www site...and he's being hosted by a company. http://www.vermontel.net/~rhs/ is the real address for the damned site!!! This kind of stuff makes me pissed!!! This guy shouldn't even have a domain name, this domain should not be granted to either one of them... Just my $.02 worth
If the original Corinthians.com is just a bible thingo, shouldn't it be corinthinans.org? The dot-com is for commercial use, AFAIK.
.com .org .net, and they're for international use. Why can't the European Union create its own regulartory organ, as well as the Asia/Pacific region? The Net doesn't belong to the USA only.
Now, why don't American sites use their ".us" country code, huh? All that ".com" mania doesn't bring any good in the long run, I'm tellin' you...
We *really* need new TLDs soon!
Just a question now: why is ICANN only accountable to American courts and laws? After all, they're only supposed to be managing
.max
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
I stand corrected. You're absolutely right. There's no need to make a new tld, just a com.us sld.
Just remember that co.us is Colorado!
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
A big part of the problem is that the country with the most internet usage, the United States, doesn't have a country domain that works like others do. Arguments about registering in your own country are fine in theory, but while you can get corinthian.com.br or corinthian.co.uk or corinthian.co.ca, you can't get corinthian.com.us. You'd have to all the way down to the city level and get corinthian.desmoines.ia.us, which negates the brandbuilding value for companies that operate nationwide.
.us domain followed a geographic model. Now that that doesn't hold true and international companies and individuals are eschewing their local country domains for a TLD, companies and individuals in the US are at a disadvantage.
.usa TLD to try to get it right?
com, net, edu and the like used to imply US, so that the
How about a
It's not an ideal solution, but it's a step.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
Next thing you know, they'll be taking away second.peter.com and giving it to a cosmetic surgeon.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Seems to me that the whole term Cyber Squatting is a little silly.
First - If I pay for it, then it's mine. If cybersquating is a problem, then perhaps NSI should go through all the TM's out there and just give the names to everyone that owns the TM. Otherwise, Fuck Off. If I have to pay for and I get there first, then blow-me.com.
Second - Why is it that a company's rights come before the individual? How is it that my right to 'free speech' & 'free expresion' suddenly go away because some co., inc. decided to say something. If I say, "Coke sucks ass." does that give Coke the right to sue me or challenge my use of the word "Coke" in my speech? No. But if I build a website called "cokesucksass.com", then I'm infringing on the TM "Coke"? I still don't think so. Even if I get the domain name, "coke.com" just so I can express how much I dislike coke, then Coca-Cola is shit out of luck in my book.
As far as I'm concerned, if the soccer team wasn't fast enough to get it, screw them. If Dow Jones, Microsoft, Etoys, or anyone else didn't register it, then it's up for grabs!
As for reality, I think it sucks. We should be changing the whole broken mess, instead of saying, "well that's not cybersquating, but the other one is." and OK'ing the revocation of our rights. I'm tired of seeing my rights as an individual get trampled on in favor of the rights of a non-entity corporation.
-Josh
The last modified dates doesn't prove much. It is very likely that he, like other small web site owners, periodically edits the files on his own computer at work or home, and then uploads them all at once to the server.
However, it is interesting that a quick check of the google, hotbot, yahoo, and altavista search engines does not seem to turn up any matches for "corinthians.com" that actually point to www.corinthians.com.
That might indicate that the web site just got put up in the last little while, since the search engines haven't found it yet.
Nonetheless, even if the web site just went up in the last month... if the current owner isn't actually squatting with intent to resell the site to the highest bidder, but really wants to use it, and he got it before the soccer club, he should be allowed to keep it.
I mean... I hope nobody comes for my web site. I want to keep it, even though I don't have much there now. What if some company demands I hand it over? That would suck. I already use it quite a bit for email.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
i don't get it. there seems to be a case presented here that "christians" have used the name for centuries, and the soccer team has for only meere years. somehow that makes it ok for this one guy to own it. he has no claim on the name. the bible may, but no one "owns" that. if you are impling a copyright to the name in the bible, i fail to see how this one guy became the owner of the copyright.
Can someone post a link to or explain the current domain name resolution policy in plain English? I had a quick perusal of this at ICANN but there was too much legalese :)
TIA
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
I can understand why the letter would be addressed to friends and countrymen. But why would he address it to Romans? He makes specific mention of them so I take it he does not consider them to be friends or countrymen and I don't understand how or why Romans would be any more/less interested in this matter than the rest of us.
.com supposed to be used for commercial sites? If so, that would seem to be a valid reason to reassign him to a more appropriate domain.
And isn't
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Yeah, but with GM, you buy 1 car every 10 years, with MS you buy 10 products each year (at least, if they have their way.) Equals out in the end...
Registrant:
Corinthian Sailing Association (CORINTHIANS6-DOM)
P.O. Box 24206
New Orleans, LA 70184 US
Domain Name: CORINTHIANS.ORG
At the time he registered the .com, the .org was still available. However, if both were still available, wouldn't you take the .com too?
Why does Sallens' desire to publish a part of the bible on the .com domain necessitate that he publish all of them? That is like saying to the owner of poker.com that he needs to register cribbage.com, solitare.com, euchure.com, hearts.com, etc since their all part of Hoyles' books on card games.
The fact that he had no content on the site is largely irrelevant as well. Sallens purchased the right to use the domain name, and likely he was using the domain for e-mail. Regardless, I don't recall ever seeing a "You must populate the web site address" clause in the NSI paperwork.
-sk
Incidentally, can you name the two countries who are the only ones not to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of a Child?
I can. Somalia. And the United States.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
For the same reason the USA has a voice in the UN, although they haven't paid their dues in a VERY long time?
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Alright, this has gone WAY to far...
They already have http://www.corinthians.com.br/ in BRAZIL now they also want it under the infamous dotcom? Damn, why don't they go all the f**kin way and register under ALL the other TLD in ALL the other countries?
Sorry for the rant but I get p***ed off whenever brazilian companies register dotcoms "just to be cool"... Well they can just "tomar no cÃ"!
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
I don't agree. The whole POINT of the internet is that geography doesn't matter. I'm not saying that geographical TLD's shouldn't exist, but to say that everybody should segregate themselves based on their country doesn't make sense to me.
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?
Still not dead.
Amazingly enough, the slashdot.net domain has not yet been acquired. Watch this space.
Things would be so much easier if people did pay attention to what they need, but for every corperation, it seems, there will be some manager that will give the order to "snatch up all those names, 'cause they're really ours".
What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?
Still not dead.
I didn't know that the WIPO had the right to enforce things like this. How can someone own a valid trademark a book of the bible?
I wonder if it wouldn't have been a good idea to have TLDs for all the international trademark classes, but I guess its a little late for that.
Other then that, are WIPO edicts legaly enforcable? I would think it would be up to the laws of the contry with the Registrar. But if the guy's had the domain for years he probably registered it with NetSol, and they'll bend over backwards for anyone....
(btw, shouldn't these guys get a *.br or *.co.br domain, or whatever brazill's contry code is?)
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
(2) Fuck your int'l court and I'm keeping my domain name.
Unfortunetly, its not up to you, its up to your registrar. Probably NetSol, and they'll bend over backwards for anyone with an email address.
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
and indeed, wipo.org exists...
Btw, has anyone ever heard of anyone with a *.int? They are supposed to exists.
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
It depends on what you consider ideology, how strong it must be. but it has to be their. If anything the belief that there can be no 'pure' moral truth must itself be one.
I'm not sure if you can really call atheism a religion, but there are certanly people who act like it is...
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
How is Atheism propritary? Everyone is free to be an Atheist, and no one can ever take it away, it isn't cotrolled by any authority, unlike most kinds of Chritianity.
The bible is more like public domain. You can take it propritary, and lots of people have...
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Did you vote for your WIPO representative? I didn't, and thats the problem. I wouldn't have a problem with a global democracy, But that isn't what we have now.
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I think your thinking of Seira Leone, but the don't have a government at the moment...
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
NetSol is the supreme authority here, assuming that the guy registered with them and never chaged it (a pretty fair bet). NetSol Is bound by US laws, but there is no US law that says that you don't need to do what WIPO asks of you. Netsol will comply with WIPO without puting up a fight.
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
No. And I'm a flaming atheist.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
General Motors is the richest company, leading Wall Mart by about $23 billion (US).
Nope. That's REVENUE, not VALUE. Of course GM generates more revenue then MS does. The average GM car costs, what, $25k? The average MS product is what $250? But, the key question is which is more profitable? The answer is MS by a large margin. MS passed GM about a year & a half ago or so as the most valuable corporation in the world. Six months or so ago, Cisco passed MS, but MS is back in the lead per the article you cited. As far as market valuation, GM is only #46.
Yeah, but with GM, you buy 1 car every 10 years, with MS you buy 10 products each year (at least, if they have their way.) Equals out in the end...
Not at all. My point was that MS has a far larger profit margin on a product by product basis. Your comment actually reinforces my statement, rather then contradicts it.
Interesting Idea.
Instead of a sickout, how about a united schedualed server outage (those running Windows need not schdual it).
Sysadmins across the world can pick a particular day and we bring down as many DNS servers as we can in protest to this sort of action.
Might actually get people to notice the issue at least, since if enough people get involved then at the very least it should slow down the internet.
Next thing we have to do is figure out a way to have an e-picket(tm pending).
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
> Won't be so great for the US, since it already has one
;-)
Yeah, but see, it might actually get one that works
"I don't like that law! Therefore, it must be unconstitutional. Good ol' red blooded American logic"
- You accuse WIPO of being unfair, but please then explain this case where a company with a trademark lost against an individual who only used his domain name for e-mail and ftp.
Was he using it to confuse the public between his site and the 'rightful owner' or was he just using it for FTP and e-mail? As long as there is no actual trademark dilution (i.e. deliberate consumer confusion) then it should be first-come first-served. If there is trademark dilution, then the domain should go to the trademark holder. The problem with DNS is that the namespace is way too small. Individuals should have some protection from large companies that take domain names simply because they have more money and can sue the person out of existence._______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Commodore 64 Democoder
FC Closer
By that logic nothing will ever change.
Nothing should change. Network Solutions made it clear long ago, when they had the monopoly on registrations, that they weren't making distinctions between .com, .org, and .net. You can be sure that if someone did manage to register microsoft.org or ibm.org, they would have to hand those domains over pretty quickly. This is because there ceased to be a distinction on the registrar's side a long time ago. People who registered .com because it's the popular TLD or .org or .net because they couldn't get their first choice shouldn't be penalized because someone is pining for the old days when somebody cared. How much does the public care? Not a whit. I worked for an ISP, and about 50% of the time when I was setting up a new customer I had to argue with them to convince them that their email address would end in ".net", not ".net.com".
It doesn't even occur to most people that there are TLDs apart from ".com". It's like losing a trademark - if the public begins to perceive it as a generic term instead of a reference to something more specific, the trademark is lost. Well, ".com" is now the generic TLD, because the registrar never felt the need to tell anyone different.
Naked.
They didn't deserve it. The book of Corinthians is not a world-wide commercial entity, therefore it's not a .com - for another thing, it actually has some *worth* to its content ;)
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Actually, you speaketh out of your ass. The power to declare something unconstitutional rests not with the legislative or the executive, but the judicial branch. Legality does not imply constitutionality.
You elided the bit including federal law, which by your reasoning is therefore set equal to both the Constitution and treaties. Since the Constitution undeniably takes precedence over federal law, how can you assert that treaties, which are referred to in the same manner as federal law, take precedence over the Constitution?
Jeff
Hey, I thought that new Harry Potter book just came out last week?
(You laugh, but remember how many people said some sappy movie about a sinking ship would never top Star Wars.)
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
I don't know if many of you realize this, but whenever some one signs up for a domain name with network solutions, apparently they agree to settle all disputes via arbitration with the WIPO.
Take a look at the list that someone else mentioned, and you see that nearly all of the disputes were settled by transfer of the domain name.
Some are very obvious domain squatters, but some of them are honest, non-trademark-infringing domains. Yet another reason not to use NetSol
This isn't eminent domain. Incidentally, they can't take whitehouse.com, the supreme court decided all titles and names associated with the federal government belonged to the public domain, ie Federal United MegaGloboCorp-type names are free for people to use as long as they don't impersonate an officer of Federal United MegaGloboGovernment... I mean the US.
The real issue is whether their copyright/trademark can take a word out of the public domain, and consequently deprive him of his first-come privilege to the domain name. It will never hold up in court, though I suspect he won't fight it. Too expensive. He may as well just get a domain for Deuteronomy.com or find a new hobby for all it'll cost him, unless some rich-ass church wants to sponsor his freedom of religion or some BS...
-jpowers
-jpowers
He doesn't speak for any Christians (If you ask Kierkegaard there aren't any anyway). The word "Corinthians" has been around long enough that it's in the public domain (unless Congress just extended the time period after death from 80 years to 2000+). Even in its current form and spelling it's 400-500 years old (not allowed to be translated into English until the Protestant Reformation), at which point it should be first come, first served. So JD Sallen gets it.
Besides, if you hand that stuff to the religions you'll have the jews suing the catholics for incorporating their copyrighted works into the Old Testament, and the Orphics suing the christians for stealing the trademarked concept of the martyr, and the Egyptians suing everyone for copying Akhnaten's trade secret - monotheism.
Atheism, on the other hand, continues to be open source.
-jpowers
-jpowers
...on corinthians.com?
"I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you?" Now therefore there is a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another . . . Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud your brethren. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not decieved; neither . . . idolaters . . . nor theives, nor covetous . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Very pointed, I say...
The .GOV domain is for registration of US governmental entities on the federal level only.
From http://www.nic.gov/REFERENCE/rfc2146.txt
No, it was Al Gore, an American (and probably the next president).
sup
This is getting way out of hand. First I had to worry about using a name that was being used or planned to be used by someone in my general area, then I had to worry about the multi-national conglomerates coming and taking my name regardless if I've had it for thousands of years, now I have to worry about sports teams from OTHER COUNTRIES coming and taking away my .com or .net name. WTF?!
.xx country domain to use while we here in the good 'ol US can't register one without an act of God, especially for personal use. I mean how fair is it that the only TLDs we in America have to choose from are also the most popular globally?
.com domain name for personal use is to use their SSN. How pretty would http://www.231-22-5874.com look. (BTW, I just made that SSN up, don't go steal their identity since I dunno who it is.)
.hum TLD for humans who aren't companies, sports teams, or parts of the government but still want to have a website without it being ripped from underneath them after what could have been months or YEARS of building up the name.
I've also always wondered why other countries give their companies and citizens the
I guess the only way someone can get a unique
I guess ICANN needs to setup a
What a heaping steaming pile of crap this whole thing is becoming and once again it's the little guy who's getting the shit covered end of the stick.
You mean the .us domain? Or are you suffering from the delusion that .com is an american and not an international domain?
.com domains registered were in fact in the US. That would lead anyone to believe that .com is in fact an American TLD. Hell I remember a time when .com, .net, and .org actually MEANT something and InterNIC required proof that you fit the standard to use .com, .net, or .org. *sigh*, the good old days.
.com was not meant to be a US specific domain name, why isn't there a .com.us like there is for *many* of other countries using their country code after the .com?
... I, as a US citizen have no claim on a .br domain since that would take away from the domains set aside for Brazilian companies and citizens ... since we only have .com, .net, and .org to choose from, how fair is it that now we're not only competing with ourselves, but everyone else on the planet even though they have their own, exclusive country coded domain to use?
If memory serves, the Internet did in fact originate in the US and until VERY recently (relatively speaking), 99% of all
If
I guess my point is
How is freshmeat.net not appropriate?
.com. It's not a .org. .net fits best.
It's a search engine, specialized for finding software.
It's not a
The UN Declaration of Human Rights gives me the 'right' to two weeks paid vacation a year, but not the right to self defense or a jury of my peers.
:->
Like the US Constitution does?
Unless you are a Branch Davidian, that is, then the US government can use tanks to attack your compound when you try to defend yourself and then use an obviously biased judge to limit the defense you can use in court before he (not a jury) finds for the (*surprise*) US Government.
Oh you are talking about "in theory"!
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Ah, so you think we should all switch over to grey book email addresses?
I had read about this dispute, but I was pretty sure nothing was going to come out of it. There goes my faith in domain dispute resolutions...
The really ridiculous part is, the Brazilian Corinthians have this name because they patterned themselves after the Corinthians, a UK team. I remember when they played against each other a few years ago... Shouldn't the domain name go then to Corinthians UK, since they owned the trademark before?
(All this makes me really ashamed of being a Corinthians supporter since childhood... Don't think I'll be paying attention to soccer anytime soon)
You forget that even in the real world a state government can force a person to give up land to build a highway, or a city can condemn a (perfectly fine) building to take the land and build a parking garage. However, the governments are supposed to buy the property from the owner at a "fair market price," even if the owner does not want to sell. (IANAL, by the way, but my dad is in real estate.)
"No prints can come from fingers / If machines become our hands." -- Jack Johnson
a better way of cos might be: pets.dogs.food.encore lazyyppl.food.encore or sport.football.corinthians sport.sailing.corinthians a dig down list. . . microsoft.software.fuckups is way easier that www.microsoft.com/office/update/security/
~ppppppppö
Bianchi writes: "Apparently, aside from its biblical posting following their acquiring
notice of the dispute . . . Respondents have no made any other use of the domain name."
Anyone have background on this site, or is it a case where the site was completely unused before this dispute occured?
If the original owner had something up there or was actively using the domain to recieve email then this is yet again big money squashing the little guy.
However if there was no content or use of the domain prior to the dispute I hold little sympathy for the original owner.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
How many times do you expect a non-commercial site to given a dot-org name from a commercial entity (or a small ISP given a dot-net)? If you answered more than zero *bzzzt* you are wrong.
TLD's should have been enforced from the beginning but with the greedy NSI monopoly and their 'registering dotcom? register dotnet and dotorg too!' promotions we are going to have to deal with a system where it doesn't work that way.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
Now if .com/.net registration required a registered business name *cough* like in Australia *cough* this problem would never have occured.
_______________________ I am the eggman, wooo! _______________________
My choice would be to have the tld on the basis of the language used in the site: eg, slashdot.eng & so on
Presumably, it would be co.us, just like co.uk and all the others. Not sure why co and not com, though. Anyone?
Looks like a fella named Joshua Quittner was the culprit.
Ender
Nothing to see here
"CORINTHIAO in Portuguese is pronounced as Corinthian in English. In fact, unless the English word itself is used, phonetics (because of the nasal pronunciation) and correct spelling require that the word Corianthiao is used in Portuguese. Thus, when comparing Corinthians with Corianthiao, the Panel concludes that the domain name at issue is phonetically nearly identical to the Complainants trademark CORINTHIAO."
I knew I hated phonics "
[SARCASM]Great... we really needed a precedent set for taking a way a properly used domain name because it is phonetically similar to the name of foreign entity...[/SARCASM]
Are the judges and lawmakers of this world *THAT* fucked up in the head?!?!?! Seriously? Some of the things they come up with continue to defy explaination. There *MUST* be some alien conspiracy causing people to make decisions like this, probably to make it easier to take us over when the main fleet gets here in a few decades.
In all seriousness though, I hope that this is overturned somehow...And while I realize that a: not everyone is religous ,and b: In some countries [ie Brazil] soccer *IS* a religion, does it make sense to anyone that the World Intellectual Property Organization is basically saying that the word "Corinthians" is better well known as a soccer team than as a religious text. Ha!
In doing some reasearch, I found a site with various domain name disputes. One dispute [that has been decided] jumped out at me. It seems that a fellow in Germany registered 'scientologie.org' and of course you-know-which-quasi-religious-entity had a hissy fit. In this case, even though that 'religious' entity had a trade mark on SCIENTOLOGIE, the judge dismissed the case...
It'd be nice if they were at least consistent, no?
Ender
PS. having looked further into it, there were [to me] good reasons for letting the guy keep the domain.
Nothing to see here
You guys can't spell. Try aladdin.com (which does indeed go to aladdin enterprises)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The United States Constitution, Article II, section 2, paragraph 2 reads as follows:
i tution/con005.pdf
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Looks pretty clear to me. Also clear is that the Constitution places no limits on what a treaty can dictate, which essentially allows treaties to superceed the Constitution. I really don't think this was the intention of the founders.
Here is some commentary found on the senate web site:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/const
''In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, con-sequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract--when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the Court.'' 265 To the same effect, but more accurate, is Justice Miller's language for the Court a half century later, in the Head Money Cases: ''A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations. It depends for the enforce-ment of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the govern-ments which are parties of it. . . . But a treaty may also contain provisions which confer certain rights upon the citizens or subjects of one of the nations residing in the territorial limits of the other, which partake of the nature of municipal law, and which are capa-ble of enforcement as between private parties in the courts of the country.'' 266
263 Cf. Art. I, 5, cl. 1; see also Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 276, 283-284 (1919).
264 For instance, see S. CRANDALL, TREATIES, THEIR MAKING AND ENFORCEMENT (Washington: 2d ed. 1916), 53; CRS Study, op. cit., n. 264, 109-120.
265 Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. (27 U.S.) 253, 314 (1829). See THE FEDERALIST, No. 75 (J. Cooke ed., 1961), 504-505.
266 112 U.S. 580, 598 (1884). For treaty provisions operative as ''law of the land''
(self-executing), see S. CRANDALL, op. cit., n. 264, 36-42, 49-62, 151, 153-163, 179, 238-239, 286, 321, 338, 345-346. For treaty provisions of an ''executory'' character, see id., 162-163, 232, 236, 238, 493, 497, 532, 570, 589. See also CRS Study, op. cit., n. 262, 41-68; RESTATEMENT, FOREIGN RELATIONS, op. cit., n. 262, 111-115.
The patent office announced today that the term "Corinthians" had been patented by the Corinthians soccer team as their exhaustive searching had revealed the term to be a new and innovative one. The patent office dismissed claims that the term "Corinthians" was bloody obvious. Residents of Corinth were not available for comment as they are meeting with the residents of Champaigne and Burgundy to discuss trademarking their town name, they have previously cited a reference in an ancient theological journal as prior art.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
If this is the way everyone is going to squable over DNS entries, I say we turn off the DNS and let everyone go to their rooms and think about what they have done wrong for a while. We can turn around this Internet right now and go home, do you want that?
He's touching me!
Am not!
Didn't someone start registering .god as a TLD? Granted it wouldn't be terribly PC to have religion using it, but I think in this case it would have been appropriate (if ICANN chose to recognize it).
What ever happened to that guy? I got romp.god. =)
Right is wrong when left is right.
Microsoft is barely the running at number 84, and Cisco is right out, ranking 146.
Of course, if you include national governments in the list of "organizations" then even GM doesn't stand a chance.
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
Just wondering... this is a pretty absurd theft. Since the registry is American, does the "former" domain holder have the right to sue the registry or Brazilian team for that matter? That would put the case before an American jury. Or is WIPO somehow above American civil law? (anybody can sue anybody for anything here, no?)
Google -dot- What?
Maybe I'm misinformed, but I thought Mcdonalds.com was purchased by a university student who then traded it with McDonalds for a T1 to his school or something. (Am I completely wrong?)
There's a couple of things that I don't like about this:
1. Would you want anyone to be able to find out where you live from your webpage?
2. If you were to run a strictly Internet business, why would you have to corolate that back to meatspace? The fact that you're located in X location (which isn't Silicon Valley or whatever) might hurt your ability to do sales.
This just goes to show the need for new TLDs. Enough of them to please everyone, even if it dilutes the ease of searching the namespace.
Oh, get off it, the guy was squatting. He just threw up a few biblical passages, without any real content.
And besides that, he should have been at corinthians.org.
Cheers,
Rick Kirkland
to develop the site that were taken out of limbo when the notice
received.
Is there any actual evidence that the guy was domain squatting in
the normal sense of the word (ie. keeping a domain name for purely
speculative purposes)?
It would be sufficient that trademarks couldn't be enforced under such a TLD.
No, but it's more important...
The article was kind of one-sided. The claim that the guy was
squatting was due to the fact at the time that the complaint was made,
no use was being made of the domain name. Whaile I think it is a bad
decisions, I think that the article should be taken with a pinch of
salt.
I do not know what everybody is talking about:
http://www.corinthians.com/
Still goes to the web page with all the bible quotes.
So what does taken away mean? What authority does the WIPO have in these matters and who gave it to them? Did the US sign a treaty granting the WIPO powers of mandatory arbitration to US companies? This guy is registered in the US with NSI.
Is there any actual evidence that the guy was domain squatting in the normal sense of the word (ie. keeping a domain name for purely speculative purposes)?
Who cares. Squatting cannot be illegal - NSI now squats on every domain ever registered and allowed to expire, don't they?
"I will gladly pay you today, sir, and eat up
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.
So treaties and the Constitution are both "the supreme law of the land."
--
Someone you trust is one of us.
Well I think everyone is forgetting that the guy was using a .com in a non-commercial way and thus, in my opinion, should have lost the use of the domain by a company wanting to do business using their name. Makes sense to me. On another note, soccer is a religion to me so I think the domain will be equally blessed. :)
The Biblical book of Corinthians was also known as the "Letter to the Church at Corinth".
Corinthians was the name given to those who lived at the City of Corinth, which had undoubtably been around a long time before the Apostle Paul founded the Church there, and sent them his letters.
What if the someone who lived in Corinth today wanted to promote the City? Would they have more of a right to the corinthians.com domain name than some soccer team from Brazil?
_______________________________________
Is that an African or European swallow?
*Soapbox out*
/. readers that are so vehemently anti-Christian. Just because you don't believe, doesn't meant you have to bash. There are those of us who are religious for very good reasons, and those ideas and beliefs fit perfectly in a modern world of technology and information. Like I said, just becuase you don't believe, you don't have to flame those of us who do.
.com for personal use. If a person wants Corinthians.com then they should get Corinthians.com. And the saddest thing, if it was some special interest domain like a minority site or native American domain, the government would be falling all over itself to protect this "hate" lawsuit. This is pathetic. I wish I had money to fight on behalf of this guy.
Just becuase you don't believe in a certain religion, doesn't give you license to bash Christianity or any other religion. I think it's sad and despicable that there seems to be a fair proportion of
*Soapbox put away*
If you check the regs on domain names, there's nothing that says any person can't register a
Some people take their .sig way too seriously
Well I agree with you about mail also being "serious netting"
;)
but one thing is sure, this domain isn't used for email, do a
dig mx corinthians.com
;; ANSWER SECTION:
corinthians.com. 4w2d IN MX 5 loomis.vermontel.net.
Thats right - no backup mailserver = not really a domain used for mail.
Of course somebody _could_ have 12.000 users without backup mx, but show me one
I mean hey, why not... There are tons of religions, and I bet some of them take up perfectly good .com domains. Let's set up a .god domain and shift them all over there. Of course, for that matter there could be a .fan domain that would make more sense for this Corinthians soccer team...
Er, those last two links seem the same...
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
If you want to find the official web site for the Corinthians soccer team check the link out. (Unfortunately, bable fish is bombing out right now with this page.) What is really interesting, contrary to the posting, is that the name "Corinthians" is used by the team itself. They are also using currently corinthians.com.br
An important point that should be made, is that if somebody in the US were using the URL of www.dodgers.com, there wouldn't be any doubt what would be at that site. In the case of the Corinthians soccer team, it is one of the big sports franchises in Brazil, and for somebody living there they clearly understand why there is a dispute.
The traditional use of .com for businesses has long been ignored. Face it folks, just because something "should be for business" doesn't mean it is. While we're at it, let's change www.sunfreeware.com to www.sunfreeware.org, because I want to setup a company selling Sun freeware on CD and not make it available for download. Therefore the domain is mine?
NO.
Also note that the team DOES NOT OWN any relevant trademarks!
The religion issue also should not matter, though it weighs in favor of the current owner. The domain name is MORE RELEVANT to the current subject than the new subject. This also does not matter, but weighs in favor of the current owner.
The fact is, this is just a trampling of rights. The deciding judge for this case should be kicked out of WIPO. He is showing himself to be easily influenced by corporate interests. He is not setting a good judicious example for anyone, anywhere.
I hope this does enter the US court system.
The Vikings already have a cool site:
dennygreensucks.com
*evil grin*
-Vel
P.S. Sorry if you don't find it humorous, I guess you have to be a Minnesotan.
in the article, according to the original owner of corinthians.com, corinthians the football team doesn't even own the trademark to corithians, not even in brazil.
ridiculous.
There are physical neighborhood communities that exist outside of government. Anything from a local mom get together group to the local chamber of commerce could all usefully use geographically based heirarchies
DB
It's been said before, but it bears saying again.
.com.us. They "developed" arpa net under the arm of DARPA. They have earned it.
A country does gain something for coming up with things first.
The metric system is "System Internationale" -- a French name, because the French came up with it.
Stamps from England do not bear a country name anywhere on them. This is because the English invented postage.
The US does not need to force people into
(PS: I'm Canadian, so don't think I'm boosting my own country)
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
We don't have to change ANYTHING to comply with anyone. Why the fuck do you think other countries should have a say in OUR local law? Please look up the word soverign in the dictionary, b/c last time i checked we were a soverign nation in which the highest law in the land is the Constitution.
The site for thier us customers uses the standard us one, the site for italy (for example) would use .it, etc etc.
Essentially, domain names and trademarks should both be viewed as property. Now let's consider what each side had. A domain name corinthians.com, vs. a trademark that should never have been granted trademark status because of it's status for centuries as the title of a couple of chapters in the most widely published book in human history. I think you can see whose side I'm on in this case.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Good points, but even though the internet removes boundaries, and limits (at least geographically) the human mind still craves them. Am I dealing with sony of japan, sony of america, sony of germany, ect.
www.mp3.com/Undocumented
www.mp3.com/Undocumented
You give them a domain in EACH country they do business. With more domains under the geographical (like .shop,.film ect), strictly enforced, we would not have this petty little problems.
www.mp3.com/Undocumented
www.mp3.com/Undocumented
Countries should be forced to use their geographical TLD, including the US. But instead we have no one enforcing TLD usage, domain squabbling, and stupid judgements.
Ain't that nice.
I hate the internet.
www.mp3.com/Undocumented
www.mp3.com/Undocumented
Since they found NO reference to soccer in Corinthians (KJV, Bible) or in the rest of the bible, the not only ordered corinthians.com to hand over the doamin, but the books of the Corinthians in every new bible printed must at least display a (c) Corinthians Soccer, brazil, at the bottom of each page, and an appendix chapter in the book with the previous years team standings.
Seems the bible was a copyright violation too.
www.mp3.com/Undocumented
www.mp3.com/Undocumented
It's interesting to check out the URLs of some other Brazilian teams:
www.flamengo.com, although in Portuguese, says it isn't related to the Flamengo team. And they don't seem to have been sued off the net yet.
www.palmeiras.com is simply a link to the www.palmeiras.com.br site.
www.saopaulo.com seems to have nothing to do with the São Paulo team - gee, a chance for another good lawsuit!
www.fluminense.com seems to be taken by the same dudes who took saopaulo.com. Wow, two lawsuits for the price of one!
www.guarani.com shows that there really IS some domain squatting going on with these Brazilian football team names - and no it's not the American Christians who are responsible!
www.botafogo.com is another "unofficial" page - room for another good lawsuit there!
Thunderbear Software Creations, with their www.atletico.com site have a message saying that this URL is not for sale. Still, I think they're gonna need a real good lawyer to keep their URL...
Vasco Data Security (www.vasco.com) should hire a good lawyer, 'coz the Rio based Vasco football could take their URL off them Real Soon Now.
IMHO these Brazilian teams should stick to their .BR domain and not try to take out the top level domain names.
Paul
StriderQabbala,
First off, normally I'd e-mail something like this but I didn't see your address.
Anyway.
You say you're not religious, you're a Christain. I've heard that one before but I've never really understood the distinction. Could you explain?
This if not a flame. I've just always wondered.
If you want to can e-mail me or post.
- Apple Computer......proudly going out of business for over twenty years.
I'm dreading the day I get that "cease and desist" order that tells me since I don't have a website there, I've been found "guilty" of "domain squatting" and they've given my domain to some megacorp with enough money to buy lawyers.
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
People seem to have completely forgotten that there's more to the Internet than the Web.
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
Anyways, one of the rfc's I read somewhere proposed a .nom TLD for personal homepages.. it would be nice to see countries that have strict business and org policies implement something like this.
The .nom is for nomenclature.
> I've also always wondered why other countries .xx country
.us domain? Or are you suffering from the delusion that .com is an american and not an international domain? If you want to be more precise, there are also .<stateabbreviation>.us. Why not use those?
.sex domains will start putting six pages of frequently used keywords in the dictionary, and we're back where we started. :P
> give their companies and citizens the
> domain to use while we here in the good 'ol US
> can't register one without an act of God,
> especially for personal use. I mean how fair is it
> that the only TLDs we in America have to choose
> from are also the most popular globally?
You mean the
Because then you won't be found.
That's the usual problem with DNS. It's not built to scale. People want to have an easily memorable DNS name, but there simply aren't enough to go around. Someone wrote that NSI thinks of domain names as telephone numbers, and in the end, that will probably be just what they will be. You will need a dictionary to look them up. What we need then
is a good, easily accessible dictionary. Something like DNS, except you search by keywords...
then the
/L
Corinth is and has been a town in Greece for more than 2,500 years. People who live there are known as Corinthians
An ancient rival to Athens, it manufactured many classic vases. Its rivalry with Athens directly precipitated the P eloponessian Wars. Subsequently, in 146 B.C., Rome completely destroyed Corinth.
Nevertheless the city rebounded in time for St. Paul to write to Christians living there.
It is completely ridiculous that - if priority over such a widely used name is granted to anybody - that it should be given to some Brazilian soccer team and not to the city of Corinth itself.
What this case really comes down to is that the judge doesn't believe that using corinthians.com for this purpose is a legitimate use of the domain name. Probably corinthians.org and .net were already taken, or have at least since been taken. There's no reason that if I wanted to put up a single web page with a single line that states who I am (which could well be the case with this man's scripture verse, many Chrisitans feel that a single verse really defines who they are, like many artists feel that a single poem define who they are), that I shouldn't be allowed to do so.
.com domain name he shouldn't have used it, they're in brazil, they have their own TLD, which he cannot even register under should he choose, and this is the appropriate domain for them to register under.
The judge ruled against him (note that this is 7 for 7 domains he's transfered to the complainant) based on the fact that he doesn't believe a single Bible verse to be signifigant content, and so Corinthians team should get it, even though it's actually spelled CORINTHIAO, but pronounced like Corinthians. Based upon that fact alone, this man has greater right to the domain name. If I were to register Macrosoft.com or Winblows.com, would I be violating Microsoft's domain name? No, not unless I was trying to trick those people who might have misspelled it in their address bar. Too, you can't use the argument that since it's a
Finally, if a norwegian guy had Vikings.com, then he has the right to it, even if he only has one single line of Viking verse there. He has a legitimate use for it, and as such, it does not matter WHAT he uses it for as long as he's not defaming the Minnesota Vikings, or attempting to intrude on their business.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Raise your hand if the first time you went to Slashdot you typed in www.slash.org
------
James Hromadka
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
The Vikings could always just pick another domain name.
Like "VikingsFootball.com".
Even if we don't have all those ".sport", and ".bible" type addresses, it's pretty painless to add another common word to your domain. You can still have the coveted ".com" ending, but also a unique domain name that describes your company.
- Isaac =)
(What's funny in this Vikings case is that "vikings.com" goes to the team, and "vikingsfootball.com" goes to a mn tv station...)
The trend has been for domains to be treated as trademarks. I.e. cocacola.com, if not owned by Coca-Cola, is a trademark violation.
However, traditional trademark law allows for multiple companies to have the same or similar names, with the stipulation that the two cannot exist in the same market. I couldn't market a Coca-cola soda, but I could market a Coca-cola ice cream if I felt like it.
The problem is that the DNS system currently does not allow for multiple sites from the same domain. In fact, it was never meant to.
Therefore, domains (in their current form) cannot be used effectively as trademarks in the traditional sense.
In order to accomodate trademarks, the DNS system would need to be overhauled so that the DNS entry is given based on classification of the server.
Take, for example, Amazon the book seller and Amazon the BDSM store. The first might be:
www.retailers.periodicals.amazon.com
The second might be:
www.retailers.adult.amazon.com
An alternate solution would be rather simple: for a given .com domain, the root page (i.e. http://www.amazon.com/) would be a mini-directory of all companies named amazon, which would exist as subdirectories from the root based on category. So our two examples above would be:
www.amazon.com/books
www.amazon.com/adult
As it stands right now, though, the DNS system is inherently incompatible with trademark law, and applying trademark law to it is futile at this point.
Nathan
something needs to be done about stuff like this, the corporations/teams/etc... claim that they are being "damaged" by people owning domain names that are similar to their name, and then end up with the domain, which is total bs...
Nope, not one bit. Who cares about sports anyway? I sure don't. This is just one further example why ICANN needs to get its head out of its butt and fix the TLD problem. Brazil has .br and that's what the team should be using. US citizens should be able to use .com.us, .net.us, etc, but that's not allowed. The gTLD's were intended for US use, plain and simple. (I don't like it, but that's the way it is.)
Now you're just being facetious.
What are you on, man? There are no rules about how I have to use my domain name. I could register deepfriedfroglegs.org and make it a fan site for Britney Spears if I wanted to.
ICANN really needs to do something, soon. We've all seen this storm coming for at least 3 years now. There needs to be standaridized TLD's with meaning, and they need to be enforced. Domain squatters should be shot (ok, maybe not literally), and companies should not be able to buy their trademark across multiple TLD's. IMO all TLD's should be ccTLD's — no more gTLD's. The current 5 gTLD's and any new ones ICANN creates should become standard 2LD's under the ccTLD's. Then let each country set their own rules on how they can be used. All current domains would then be given 3 months to convert to the new naming convention.
I have ideas for new TLD's (which should be changed to 2LD's under ccTLD's as I just said) ICANN should create, too, but this is getting long enough already.
Constitutionally Correct
Mildly amusing, if mildly off-topic, is The Fiver's story about Edu's aborted transfer from Corinthians to Arsenal (English "soccer" team). When he arrived in the UK he was turned away because he had a forged passport, which is surprising enough for a player with international prospects, so Arsenal tried to get their 6 million quid (about 4 million dollars) back only to be told by Corinthians to swivel, metaphorically.
Of course, this is only mildly amusing if you're remotely interested in English football but are not an Arsenal fan.
What we need to do is make sure that commercial organizations get the .coms and non-profit ones get the .orgs.
And when that happens, I'll meet you all over at slashdot.com
That's right! Slashdot's a sham! Impostors!
hoser: Slashdot reader since 1987.
IANA (RESERVED-7)
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-3607
US
Netname: RESERVED-7
Netblock: 65.0.0.0 - 95.255.255.255
Coordinator:
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA-ARIN) iana@IANA.ORG
(310) 823-9358
Fax- (310) 823-8649
Record last updated on 22-Nov-1999.
Database last updated on 21-Jul-2000 06:57:57 EDT.
No - they are, quite correctly, wipo.org - using the correct TLD in the international sense. What gets me are all these companies that go for all forms of their brand, even though the DNS is designed to require them not to. Not everyone is a multinational company - certainly the WIPO is not, and neither are the Corinthians. They should probably have full rights on corinthians-fc.co.br (or whatever letters would identify them as a football club over there).
As I was reading this, all I could think of was Network Solutions in house decision that they are the owner of the domain names that are registered through them. And how this decision could end up being used as justification for them to transfer ownership of names where it would be profitable for them to do so.
.com, business sites on .org, and companies snatching up every version of their names possible. Its a mess. And decisions like this are only going to cloud the issues further.
In addition, if the original naming conventions had been enforced, there would be SOME justification for the decision. But they never have been. There are personal sites on
I wonder how long it will take for this system to collapse - and a from-scratch naming convention restarted with proper third level domains, and without a US-centric system, which is how it should have been from day one.
(just my two ramdom, overtired cents)
Check out Magic Firesheep!
We need a not-com as a solution to all those pesky dot-com's!
Right ..... hmmm you know it seems to me that you are as bad as the people that took them away from it. So Christian's don't get rights just like everyone else? You are as narrow minded as you claim we are!
Maybe God didn't want that person to have the domain name, that's up to God, and I hope the person who did own it realizes that losing a domain is not really that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things (even though its a huge injustice) and doesn't go and blame God for it.
As for you why don't I amuse you a bit more and pray that God will forgive you for making such a stupid comment
Never knock on Death's door:
The Anti-Blog
I wouldn't say that he was squatting in the least, he was using the domain for a purpose that made sense. Should a religion be able to sue because the soccer (futbol) team used thier trademark? This was a case of the anti-squatting laws being used not for what they intended.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
How can someone registering a domainname of a dictionary word -- a Biblical word for that matter infringe on some soccer team? I certainly hope the original (and proper) owner keeps his domainname!!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
so what?! just cause the guy isnt using it for anything useful it should be taken away? So someoneelse can put something useful (profitable) there? That is rediculous. I have a car that i have not driven in a month, should it now be up for grabs? some homeless guy could get much better use out of it than me so he should be given the ownership? I dont understand the logic behind this.I currently own 2 URLs that i dont do anything important with, shoulkd they immediately be turned back over to some gverning body who can give them to Disney Corp or other BigCompany that has a branch of their business with a similar name. I know i am ranting but that is because i am mad about this. I would be SCREAMING if this had happened to me. I am going to go use the punchng bag here in a minute just to release a bit....
-- Hail Eris
Try going to http://www.networksolutions.com and type in an address to find out if it's taken. Now look below and you will find: The name(s) below are available. Select the ones you want and click Continue. There are no restrictions on using .com, .net, or .org -- anyone can register them. Whether or not there used to be a restriction, there now seems not to be.
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
The company that makes Ghostscript, Aladdin Enterprises, has a very informative homepage on all the other "Aladdin" companies on the web. Aside from the makers of Stuffit Expamder for Macintosh, there is an Aladdin Knowledge Systems that makes software security products, Aladdin Industries that makes Thermos (tm) bottles, the Aladdin Casino in Las Vegas, and an Alladin company in Queensland, Australia that no one seems to know what they do.
NO CARRIER
Yes ... it's always possible to sue. If my Internet policy class at Cornell taught me anything, it's that you can always sue someone. Now, granted, you may not win your case, and it may not even go to trial, but you can ALWAYS sue.
With that points in mind, please note that I DO NOT agree with this suit or its result. The team already have a national domain. However, bear in mind that the team just signed a BIG deal with an american group, Hicks Muse. This company has all the rights to explore the image of the team worldwide. This must come from them, not from the Brazilian team.
In this perspective, this is just your plain domain litigation... The team may be Brazilian, but surely the lawyers get they pay in dollars...
--
This space left intentionally blank.
What about a small startup company (started with funds from one person's pocket, no VC's or investors) which cannot afford to get a trademark YET? I know people who have registered a domain name, and have even gone to the County Clerks office to fill out a certificate of Assumed Name (Doing Business As) form, but have not registered their trademark yet because it's too expensive. Should they have to give up their domain, even though they're a registered company?
Of course the people of Corinth are engaged in commercial activity - They make "fine Corinthian leather."
If they don't win a championship in the next couple of years the rumors will start:
"They are cursed for taking the Bible off the internet and will never win again!"
this is an unpopular view hes promoting but far from a troll. Just because we don't agree with him doesn't mean he shouldn't be heard. If anything seeing the other side helps us refine our own views and arguments in support of our views.
I see your point... It still is more appropriate as a .org. Perhaps if the .org/.net/.com/.gov/.mil structure was actually followed correctly, people might just understand it. As for the rest of my comment, the TLD structure is irrelevant to it.
Bullshit. Who has had a claim to the name Corinthians longer? Christians, who have used it for at least 1500 or so years, or this soccer team?
A case _could_ be made for both having an equal claim, at the most. In a case where two parties have an equal claim to a domain name, whoever registered it first assuming they did not resort to illegal practices to impede the others registration or speed theirs, gets it. Period.
Religion is totally irrelevant in this case. Its a matter of two groups, one with several centuries of use of a term, one with a few decades at best, both wanting it for a domain name. Gee guess whos the obvious winner?
This is wrong. I'm all for freedom of religion, and seperation of church and state and all that stuff.. But this is dumb.
Lets say I go out and register for my family www.worroll.com. And then a company(that probably had rights to the name worroll for less time than my family has been in the USA) decides I'm infringing on their trademark? Who wins?
This is the same thing... A Christian person has as much right to use www.corinthians.com as anyone else, probably moreso due to the age of the context they were using it in. Did this soccer team get the rights to use the name before or after the Christians did? If they did, good call by the judge. Whats that you say? The bible is verifiably older than soccer? Oh well who cares theres more money in soccer. This makes me sick. It makes me scared to use my own name to register a domain. I know theres a magazine named George. I've seen the name Worroll used for a business at least once before, can't remember the business or even business type though... Does this mean that I can't use a name that I have every right to that has been traced back prior to 1900, and is certain to go farther back? This is ludicrous. Shoot the judge. Better yet, someone come up with a legitimate claim to his family name and register it.
moderators be merciful please... frankly I think it's time we took a stand against this crap. If they threatened to sue me I would send them a reply saying that if they cared about the physical well being of their process server, they would not send him my way with a lawsuit, because I will make it a point to reply to the plaintiff with a note attached to the process server's arm which will arrive in a rose box.
And I will deliver it personally.
I don't care if the cops come after me. I'd be sending a message that you don't intimidate me, or anyone else over such bogus lawsuits.
If you are too squeamish for the violent revolt approach, which 99.99% of us are, then it would be very wise to consider this, Fubar: Minnesota may have an anti-SLAPP statute. That's SLAPP as in Strategic Lawsuit Against Political Participation. Many states have laws against this. File a SLAPP lawsuit against the company and let the state's leg breakers have a go at it.
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
A jewish person ('hebe' is the derogitive, not 'hebie') has no choice regarding his ethnicity. A fundamentalist does have a choice on wether to think for himself regarding the verity of the bible (that's what protestantism is all about). If a person choses to be ignorant, I have no problem insulting them.
"That doesn't mean I need to put up with you being rude to them."
No it doesn't. Neither do Nazis have to put up with me insulting them... but I will,they can ignore me to their hearts content.
"...as well as Paul's writings on the importance of tollerance."
Yea, I've got two... pull the other one. Tollerant my rosy red ass.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
My guess, however, would be that he's a fundie. Fundamentalists seem to hold Paul of Tarsus (author of Corinthians) in higher esteem than Jesus of Nazereth. As the old saw goes: Catholicism represents the victory of Peter's theology over Paul's; Protestantism the victory of Paul's theology over Peter's; and Fundamentalism the victory of Paul's theology over Jesus'.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
The courts should not be involved in domain name disputes between two equally-valid uses of the domain. While the site displaying verses of the bible doesn't /really/ belong in .com space, neither does a soccer team, and no-one really cares that .com is commercial anymore. The two parties should have settled either with each other, or with a mutually-appointed mediator.
And to those of you who recall that domain names in fact name a machine, not a product or a company, you're absolutely right. But that distinction is lost on non-technical people, and seeing as the internet is now a truly public domain, is useless anyways.
BoneShintai.
Hehehe... Cool music...
Is buzz2 out yet?
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
No one has a "claim" to the name Corinthians. There should have been no case in the beginning, since the guy had a legitimate purpose for the name.
I really hope this gets appealed.
Are we watching the demise of the free internet?
What are WE going to do about it?!?!
-
I disagree, whole-heartedly!
.COM should be served on a first-come, "do-with-as-you-will" basis. The entire idea of the "free-enterprise" system the .COM domain is based on, requires this. Trademark infringement law has no business in a worldwide community as no two contries handle trademarks the same way, and there is absolutely no way that every entity has a distinctly different name. Who gets tyler.com, Jon Tyler the individual, Tyler,TX the city, or Tyler Corp the business? Don't say Tyler Corp, because we all know the COM, NET, and ORG domains have been deemed "miscellaneous". Therefore, no true resolution can be given without some entity's "rights" being trampled.
It shouldn't matter whether an entity (person or corporation) uses a domain name solely for email, ftp or whatever. Domain names, especially
Personally, I agree that there are too many TLDs now. I agree with the use of country codes, with each country controlling the structure of it's domain system, or some OTHER system than the current corrupt policies.
I gave up thinking of a cool sig
Secondly, let us assume for a moment that for some reason there is a legal precedent for a phonetic equivalent being trademark violation (now we have to say "Tee Em" after stating the name of a major corporation). The nasal fricative at the end of "Corinthiao" is MOST CERTAINLY NOT the same as an "N".
The nasal sound at the end of "Corinthiao" is a velar nasal. An "N" is an alveolar nasal. This may not sound like a big difference. It is the same as the difference between calling a boy a "Little tyke" ("T" is an alveolar stop) and calling him a "Little kike" ("K" is a velar stop).
---------
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
There have been many posts here, saying "If they'd been granted a .org, where they're supposed to go, and not a .com, where commercial entries are supposed to go..."...But they weren't! AND, the InterNIC didn't even attempt to segregate, ever, except for .edu and .gov (.mil is handled by someone else, AFAIK).
So please, get over what "should have" been done, because it wasn't done. Would it be better, YES, it would be a LOT better if Microsoft.com was Micro$haft Shitty Software Corp, and Microsoft.org was a non-profit organization, and Microsoft.net was for the Micro$haft *cough* Network, and the InterNIC enforced it, but they don't, they didn't, so now we have to live with it.
If living with it means that ANY complaint, no matter how obviously asinine and wrong, gets the judicial nod, I feel very sorry for all of us, because if it happens to him, what's to stop it from happening to YOU, or ME?
This is my
This is my
--An Oldie, but a Goodie!
An urban legend in the making, it seems. A check of the URL reveals nothing that looks like Disney, nor Aladin Systems.
By "intelectual property rights", the veri first principle that the WIPO supports, the a domain name should stay with its original registrant until a different deal is made. You won't be seeing a Chorinthians Pizza opening retaurants in California if there's already a local place with the same name. Why should it be different for domain names?
-- Juanco
usdomreg@isi.edu
That would be a start...
Yep. Do it.
If you can find a registrar which will protect you from such idiots then I'm sure a lot of us will join you.
Try: www.domainnamebuyersguide.com
As a last ditch effort - talk to the printed MEDIA. Make a lot of noise. When it's David vs Goliath, most people side with David. And most companies don't want to be known as big bullies - it gets them in trouble eventually.
Offer to prominently link to their website from yours as well. I mean what's the big deal - someone goes to your page, then goes "OOPS" then clicks on the link, and voila.
In fact I think they should pay you for mental anguish, inconvenience etc etc.
Cheerio,
Link.
You'll notice there's a cached copy.
.br domain.
:).
Click on it.
And so what if people don't have a public website. It may be for other purposes - ftp, email, https.
Now, if the guy takes the site and misrepresents it as the Brazilian football team, then there is cause for action. But as of now, I don't think they should take the domain from him.
A way to settle it would be for him to provide a link to the Brazilian team's website under the
That's what url/html links are for, use them. Sheesh.
So if I've got a basic website some idiot Judge can take it away from me? I don't think that is justice, even if it was the IIS default page
Cheerio,
Link.
>I'm sure if a commercial Brazillian soccer team tried to steal corinthians.org, they would have had a harder time, and rightly so.
Especially since Corinthians.org seems to be taken by the Corinthian Sailing Association of Lake Pontchartrain New Orleans, LA....?
That's great, except that these are issues that the Constitution specifically delegated to the Federal Government. The Federal Government is specifically set to be in charge of:
The internet certainly counts as interstate and international commerce by any rational view of what those terms mean. That gives the Federal Government the power to regulate it. If the Government wants to designate authority for resolving domain name disputes to an international body like the WIPO, that is its decision to make.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Face it, the only way people are not going to fight over web addresses are if we go to pure IP addresses (and then, the porn companies will still probably all fight over the 69.69.69.69, etc. addresses).
kwsNI
Thanks, I already knew it was reserved. It was a joke. The point is, no matter what type of convention we have, people are going to fight over who gets what address.
kwsNI
Want to prevent namespace collisions with sacred texts? corinthians.insert Brazilian league here.com.
They already have www.corithians.com.br. That should be enough. I hate companies that think that because they're really late getting into the domain name game, they can sue people or other companies that have beaten them to their name. I don't agree with cybersquatting (sitting on a domain just to sell it for a higher price), but anyone using a domain for something related to that domain name should be protected from these frivilous lawsuites.
kwsNI
I checked the WHOIS database and it would seem that he still has ownership. Hopefully he can get an injunction against the transfer. Regardless of who the domain registrars listen to usually, if they're based in the U.S., they'll listen to a U.S. court. If not, they'll be in much more trouble than the WIPO could ever give them.
I hope he wins this. Just because we need reform doesn't mean we need yet another martyr.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
OK, no USians rants, BUT, football (rugby) fans do not kill each other, thats football (soccer). My main problem with calling football (US) football, is that it only involves hitting the ball with the foot about 10 times in the entire game, but then again handball is already used, so what ya gona do?
Since there are no restrictions on using .com/.org/.net, I don't think the Bible-is-not-a-business argument should really fly, although I guess it did. It looks like corinthians.org is already taken by a yacht club, so the Christian can't really grab that one. Maybe the Christian and the Rich Boat Owners could swap real quick--Rich Yacht owners should have as much right to it as a "football" team.
Well, maybe not....boating isn't a sport.
of course, when you did become a lawyer, that desire would probably vanish, and you'd start adding to the mess instead.
________
1 ICANN called to be an apostle of Jon Postel through the will of The Internet, and Slashdot our brother,
2 Unto the church of The Internet which is at Corinthians.com, to them that are hosted in Jon Postel, called to be webmasters, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jon Postel our Founder, both their's and our's:
3 Bandwith be unto you, and low latency, from The Internet our Network, and from the Founder Jon Postel.
4 I thank The Internet always on your behalf, for the bandwith of The Internet which is given you by Jon Postel;
5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
6 Even as the testimony of Postel was confirmed in you:
7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Founder Jon Postel:
8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be well connected in the day of our Founder Jon Postel.
9 The Internet is connected, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Programmer Jon Postel our Founder.
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Founder Jon Postel, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Slashdot, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of ICANN; and I of WIPO; and I of NSI; and I of Postel.
13 Is Postel divided? was ICANN slashdotted for you? or were ye logged on in the name of WIPO?
14 I thank The Internet that I logged on none of you, but r00t and Signal 11;
15 Lest any should say that I had logged on in mine own nick.
16 And I logged on also the household of Kiro5hin: besides, I know not whether I logged on any other.
17 For Postel sent me not to log on, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the DNS of Postel should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the DNS is to them that squat on domains as HTML; but unto us which are hosted it is the power of The Internet.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the troll of this website? hath not The Internet made unreachable the wisdom of this website?
21 For after that in the wisdom of The Internet the website by wisdom knew not The Internet, it pleased The Internet by the HTML of preaching to save them that code.
22 For the Users require a URL, and the Geeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Postel slashdotted, unto the Users an unreachable network, and unto the Geeks HTML;
24 But unto them which are called, both Users and Geeks, Postel the power of The Internet, and the wisdom of The Internet.
25 Because the HTML of The Internet is wiser than men; and the weakness of The Internet is stronger than men.
Here endeth the Lesson.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
How is this a corporate republic? This wasn't in the US, it was a Brazilian judge.
I think this just demonstrates why several international treaties should be recycled for use as French Fry containers at the Paris McDonald's. Anybody else notice this:
So:
They don't have a trademark.
A domain registrar has to worry about foreign language pronounciations. Maybe we should see if a different country has a word for Coca Cola or Nike and then start a soccer club... so we can use the businesses' dot com name.
Religion, of course, should be designated .ORG instead of .COM, so I will put my hat with the FOOTBALL club.
:))
Unless you are a Christian, then it should be corinthians.GOV... (esp. when Bush gets elected...you Americans are gonna screw yourself
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Mayhaps, you should have a read at
1 Cor Chap 13?
:)
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Neither of these qualify as cybersquatting. If I were to grab etoy.com or some other $trademark.com and waited to see if the folks owning the $trademark name wanted to talk dollars, THAT would be cybersquatting. In both of these cases the original user had created a site and weren't looking to sell.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
.com == commercial, I think religious establishments may have a rather large number of back taxes to pay if they think they have a right to live outside .org
Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
Who is for starting a petition to get this judge disbarred?
If the land is desired by another person/company, that entity has the option of purchasing the land from the owner at an agreed price. This seems like a very reasonable thing to do. The government should not, and can not decide whose purposes for the land are more appropriate.
Why doesn't the team purchase the domain name from the individual who owns it now instead of taking him to court about it. I'm sure if the man is not interested in developing or using his domain name he would be more than willing to strike up a deal that they could both agree on.
However, this idea would require the soccer team (and all those on their side of the debate) to allow the owner to maintain ownership of the land for any reasons he sees fit, including religous reasons. Perhaps corinthians.com is a sort of holy ground for him and he does not want to see it turn into a soccer shrine. This too seems reasonable as it would with real land.
-DCookie
My SIG is a SG-552 Commando
Sure, why not, I agree with you.
But according to the US Government, they're classified as a non-profit group, and are thus exempt from any kind of taxes. So if they want to keep their non-profit status, they have to keep an arms-length away from anything blatantly commercial. That was my point.
Exactly!!!
.org domain anyways???" Seeing as commercial sites can take away *.com domains from noncommercial sites, shouldn't noncommercial groups have the right to take away *.org names from profit-making ventures?
When I first found Slashdot, I had a look around, and wondered to myself "Why the hell do these guys have a
Perhaps someone from should use slashcode to make a noncommercial slashdot site, and then sue Slashdot for their slashdot.org domain, because Slashdot is now a commercial entity? Sounds weird, but is not that what this lawsuit has made as precedent?
A very interesting can of worms stuck to the side of a slippery slope!
"How come God rewarded Abraham and Lot with earthly riches but Jesus said that wealth is a one-way ticket to hell?-Genesis 24:34-35; Job 42:10-12; Matthew 19:24"
Taken without permission from Ken's Guide to the Bible. Damn good book. Stupid Xtians.
Nobody knows whether to classify it as a humor book, a religious book, or anti-religions book, or whatever. It is definately enlightening, and makes you think twice about the Bible. Here's what I found on the inside.
Ken's Guide to the Bible
by Ken Smith, B.A.
First Edition 1995
published by Blast Books Inc.
P.O. Box 5111, Cooper Station
New York, NY 10276-0051
ISBN 0-922233-17-9
Glad to help out.
What does does a .com domain have to do with scripture? I thought religious stuff was generally non-commercial, and thats why religions get a tax-free status. A commercial entity has more right to a .com site than a non-commercial entity... I'm sure if a commercial Brazillian soccer team tried to steal corinthians.org, they would have had a harder time, and rightly so.
Just my view...
Wait a minute -- so if I wanted the domain Gilgamesh, and I'm of Babylonian decent, noone can take it away from me, by your argument? After all, it's a really damn old religion. Far older than Christianity ...
Bullshit.
Sounds like an appropriate quote to me!
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
The apostle Paul comes back and want's a web site, could he claim prior rights..... After all he wrote the book WAY....... before the soccer club had the name..... BTW is just me or is that a really lame name for a sports team? Whats next? The new Houston NFL francise will be the Houston Acts,,,, or the Houston Mathew-Mark-Luke-John.......
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
FYI, the official web page of the football team is at http://www.corinthians.com.br/
What I see as being the issue is more of property rights... I can't imagine Sallen registering the domain in the hopes of making some cash by selling it to the world famous Corinthians soccer team (this is the first time that I've even heard of them). And it's not like he's got banners and notices plastered all over his site announcing the availability of the domain for sale or auction.
The other thing that I found irritating was a quote from Bianchi:
If there were some sort of wholesale persecution ofAnyways, just my 2 cents.
- moo
Ha! There is no book of Corinthians! That'd be I Corinthians or II Corinthians.
--
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
I'm not so sure if that's true. Take a look at the dates on the 5 pages--yeah, just 5. Real benefit to the community, huh?--that make up the site:
Location: http://www.corinthians.com/
Last Modified: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:59:50 PM GMT
Location: http://www.corinthians.com/2chapter1.htm
Last Modified: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:59:46 PM GMT
Location: http://www.corinthians.com/2chapter2.htm
Last Modified: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:59:46 PM GMT
Location: http://www.corinthians.com/2chapter5.htm
Last Modified: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:59:47 PM GMT
Location: http://www.corinthians.com/2chapter6.htm
Last Modified: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:59:48 PM GMT
--
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
For starters, not very many of us Americans are familiar with soccer, so the Brazilian team Corinthians has little or no impact on us. But what if it were the Minnesota Vikings wanted to register vikings.com and found it was held by a Scandanavian man who wasn't doing anything with it? Would our viewpoint soften a little?
And if Sallen really wanted to display scriptures on his site, why not register corinthians.org instead? Was he similarly planning on registering .com domain names for the 65 other books of the Bible? Or was it just the Corinthian epistles that held such endearing value for him. (BTW, was that I Corinthians or II Corinthians?!) Sorry, JD: matthew.com, mark.com, luke.com and john.com are already taken.
Thirdly, there's this quote from the WIPO arbitrator, Roberto Bianchi:
Apparently, aside from its biblical posting following their acquiring notice of the dispute... Respondents have no made any other use of the domain name.
Now IMO this is a serious charge. If Sallen put up content on the site after being informed of the domain dispute, this is tantamount to deleting evidence after being informed that it's been subpoenad. It remains to be seen whether the above is true or not. In his post, Sallen doesn't dispute the charge.
It also remains to be seen which TLD's ICANN will adopt this week. This certainly would alleviate the way-too-broad .com problem that has everyone fighting for it. Perhaps a .team is in the cards.
--
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
Also, in case you did not notice, my jibes at soccer (and England) were entirely sarcastic. I might as well point that out pre-emptively before some humorless drone barks at me for being so jingoistic about steering wheels.
How about if we humourlessly lecture you instead for umpteen paragraphs, throw in a few jingoist remarks anyway, and then say "it's OK I was being entirely sarcastic" afterwards?
Well, I don't get this...If the original domain owner purchased that domain name first, and is using it for a just cause (not hijacking a domain), he/she shouldn't have to give it up! It's stupid! Why should I have to give up a domain if I'm not hijacking it. Domains should be registered on a first come first serve basis, not a first come second sue basis.
As much as I hate to play the devil's advocate here.
.org to begin with?
.com is for commerce, .org for non-profit, which site fits where?
The soccer team has commercial interest right? I assume they are selling something related to the team on their site I can't read whatever language is on the www.corinthian.com.br site. Now, even though the dotcom name has been twisted to mean the internet, it's still supposed to be for commercial sites. Shouldn't the bible page have been a
Note, I'm pissed that they ruled in this fashion, but really
I seemed to remember that Disney pulled something similar on Aladin Systems a while back. They apparently wrested the aladin.com domain name from Aladin Systems on the basis that someone typing in aladin.com would be expecting to see their version of a classic public domain character.
What's really scary is that according to this judge, you can. After all, what's so important about a bunch of geeks discussing their new Mac cubes?
The team doesn't even have to be called Slashdot, just find a word in a language in which the pronunciation is similar. Trademark it, go to WIPO HQ in Geneva(?), and then fend off the ensuing army of militant nerds. Of which I will be a member. Nobody takes away my /., dammit!!!!.
--
Dyolf Knip
Here is a link to a FAQ at the WIPO http://arbiter.wipo.int/information/faq/index.html It looks like they try and handle things by mediation. They also do arbitration, but both parties have to agree to the arbitration. I can't find anywhere on there site that says they have actual enforment power? It looks like the bible guy and soccer team choose to use the WIPO because it was cheaper than going to court.
http://www.windmeadow.com/
Hello, my name is señor Tilverd. I have registered my family name as trademark in Spain, so it is protected.
Now, I find someone has made a website called www.dilbert.com ! I am outraged !
Everybody knows that the Spanish speaking people pronounce the v as a b (and vice-versa) and the t as a d when followed by an i and that an unvoiced d at the end of a word is pronounced as a weak t...
Ergo, the word dilbert is phonetically identical to the pronunciation of my family name and my registered trademark.
So, I am giving a yankee judge a pig pak of tollars to award me the domain dilbert.com, as is it rightfully mine!!!
Total attendance in England alone for league games during the season is over 500,000. This doesn't take into account Scotland, or non-league games.
This discussion is all moot. Do you really think in 10 years, we'll all still be typing www.something.com? All this will continue until technology makes it moot, and I can finally sit down on my couch and in my best scottish accent, say "Computer: find me that cranky brazilian soccer team named after some bible verse I don't remember". I will then promptly be rewarded with entirely too much information about a meaningless subject (the true purpose of the web), and an offer to purchase books about them, directly from each individual author. Unless of course, Microsoft is still around, in which case my computer will execute a small child in Brazil, and start making me coffee.
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
i agree. what the hell is wrong with these people? ...and for a soccer team? wtf?
dammit. why can.t we all just get along
I know alternative DNS hierarchies have been proposed for awhile but what about something slightly different. The RBL has beeneffective in combating open mail relays why not something similar to combat inappropriate legal action to steal domain names.
Someone could run a list/dns server listing only those names which have unfairly been taken (such as this one presumably) and pointing them at there rightful owners. Then others could opt in to explicity check this domain hierarchy before the official one.
We are not powerless we can punish the companies who do shit like this.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land.
Yeah, tell it to the Indians.
I don't think anyone should be able to take a domain name as generic as Corinthians.com away from the original owner, as long as they are using it and not cybersquatting.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Slashdot comes from the USA, where football is a game that involves 300 pound titans able to run like olypic sprinters, who put on kevlar helmets and smash into each other while playing a game that is similar to rugby (except there is nothing like the group-hug war known as the "scrum", and the fans don't frequently kill one another).
Soccer, known as football in coutries where the steering wheel is on the wrong side, is a completely different game, where opposable thumbs are redundant, little guys run up and down a field kicking a ball for about an hour, and goals are scored about once every two games.
I know it's not considered very "geeky" to like American football, but as a spectator event I really enjoy all the tactics involved. Every time a play ends, the game stops while each team plans their next move. Brute strength and ignorace is usefull on the offensive line, but the winning team is often the one that managed to out-think their opponent.
(Also, Cris Carter of the Minnesota Vikings single-handedly turned me into a fan. I cared for the game until the first time I saw him make a one-handed catch that was over 7 feet out of bounds, keeping both toes on the ground inside the line while hovering horizontally a few inches above the ground... knowing that he was about to get slammed in the ribs by his defender. Jordan, Pele, and Ali were all great, but when I discovered how frequently such nearly-inhuman feats are performed in the game of football, my Sunday afternoons were booked.)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Also, in case you did not notice, my jibes at soccer (and England) were entirely sarcastic. I might as well point that out pre-emptively before some humorless drone barks at me for being so jingoistic about steering wheels. I really don't have the stomach for another "you typical USians" lecture today.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
You Europeans are so sure that we are all a bunch of clueless nationalists, that you immediately assume that I'm serious when I make silly comments like refering to a rugby scrum as a "group hug".
Try to learn to lighten up a little, people.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Their red wines are almost as good as the ones from California and Australia (at 3 times the price.)
Also, the South of France is the only place in the world that produces good oboe reeds.
Oh yea, and Voltaire was French, so they ain't all bad.
That's about all the non-sucky French stuff I can think of, off the top of my head...
Here is the smiley, for the humor impaired. :)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
2. The pads and head-to-head crashes actually make it a much more brutal game than rugby. Rugby players do not have nearly as many serious injuries as American Football players. One player from the Detroit Lions is still barely able to walk from a collision with a teammate two years ago. (He is lucky to be alive).
3. You will notice that rugby players have not had a lot of success at American football. The Euro-NFL tends to rely a lot on American players. This will probably change a little as more Europeans learn how to play the game, but obviously it is not as easy as they would have guessed.
The comment about soccer not requiring opposable thumbs was just a friendly joke, but it is pretty much true. On those few occations when the ball is picked up it is usually with two hands, so thumbs are optional for the entire team. :)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
(One huge exception is women's soccer, which we all love. Mia Hamm is a superstar over here, occationally doing Gatorade commercials with Michael Jordan.)
American football, on the other hand, has started to catch on in some parts of Europe. Some of the games get broadcast over here, and it looks like the stadiums in places like Scotland and Rhine are drawing pretty big crowds.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
In the article, i got that they are making the argument that by posting scripture (as defined as portions of writing that hold speical significance to the reader) the current owner is not showing legitimate interest in the site name. How can that be? To me the two seem to be one and the same.
I can understand how people feel that posting Christian verses is not "legitimate" to them, but to many other people it might have held special significance.
--
Bad spellers of the world, untie!
I'm taking catholicchurch.com and jewishrabbis.com. Anyone want to grab hindugods.com?
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Seems obvious why. Evil Multinational Ltd can buy off a cybersquatter with ease, but an Actual Legitimate User may not capitulate, so they must use... more persuasive means.
"Cry Havoc! And Release the Lawyers of War"-Dead Lesbian Witches! Think about it!
Galilee, 4:59 PM CIT --
Paul was called to be an apostle through the will of G-d, but Sosthenes our brother
had hitherto registered the name Paul in the
Roman registry of Licensed Apostles.
At the church of God which is at Corinth, there was great legal battle with much quoting of scripture, wherein Sosthenses was given the right to use "Paul" for purposes of religious marketing and branding. In a separate petition, Pilate's Goat Meat in Galilee was granted rights to the phrase "Jesus Christ." Their claim rested on the fact that they had registered the phrase several hours before "Jesus Christ" was listed on the birth certificate of the well-known Phrophet from the same region. Mr. Pilate, a shepard at the time, successfully proved that he had uttered the phrase when he witnessed the birth of a two-headed sheep on December 25th, 1 B.C.E.
As a result, in an official press statement the Son of God declared today that he has decided to name his new religion "The-Prophet-Formerly-Known-As-Jesus-Christ and-His-Apostle-Sosthenes -ity," in the hope that this name will allow him to avoid the costs of further legal representation. Stay tuned for follow-up reports.
Don't flame me - I'm just the messenger.
Anyway, the logic is quite interesting: They want it to be a phone # in that they can give and take away. However, I don't think telephone numbers are trademarks, so given that same reasoning, they would have no reason to take them away.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Here's that article I guess I'm my own karma whore...
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
"[I]t is well established that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988).
Umm...
This sounds like a pretty good idea at first -- we humans do so love to categorize things -- but I wonder what the law-enforcement potential is. Granted, the whois record supposedly contains the name/address of the registrant so theoretically the legal jurisdiction information is easily obtained, but if every website was required to include a geographical extension as part of its name, how long do you think it would be before laws were passed declaring a list of Prerequisite Criteria for Obtaining Legal Webspace Under the [insert counry/state] TLD - just like the Appropriate Use Contract or Terms of Service that ISPs impose on their clients? Then more laws would set up an FCC-type enforcer that would combine in itself the roles of Registrar and Police.
I admit I don't know a lot about 'net infrastructure, but it seems like this would essentially CREATE "cyberjurisdictions" that could then be subsumed by the State, along with technology to search the site for possible illegal content -- maybe a specialized Echelon/Carnivore system that would automagically snoop through data to/from www.anything.somethingelse.USA.
I don't know how technically feasible this would be, but if an ignorant semi-nerd like me can think of it surely a real nerd could figure out a way to implement it. Anybody wanna explain why this can/can't be done?
the problem with teens is they're looking for certainties.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
J D Sallen has posted how he feels about the ruling by quoting I Cor. 5:6 & 6:17.
Not truely scripture in-context but it gets the point accross.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Who and what is this judge precendent over? I was unsure of whether this was a judge in the US or a corporate judge. In any case, this judge seems to be a BS spouting lackey of corporatism (just another example of the internet becoming .commercialized). In any case, I may hate theism, but I must quote Voltaire here, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it unto my death" ... especially if you registered the domain in good faith and have a valid use of it. Why must stupidity prevail? oh yeah, capitalist government. In this case, since corporations are so favored, can a person create a company named after the domain name they buy, and simply use that as the company's site, like jasonswebcam incorporated. It might also be effective if you sue and have the domain transferred from yourself to the company, in case someone else wants to take the domain name away later. Oh look, the judges already gave us this domain name, they ruled that it was ours. not yours. nyah nyah.
Disclaimer:The "Human" attached to this account is unresponsible for anything unless it wants responsibility.
Is WIPO using a modem to serve their website or something? Jeez that's slow
"despite the fact that they don't even have a Trademark for 'CORINTHIANS' (in Brazil or anywhere else), " This is bad news for all of us. Now anyone who USES a name in any part of the world (registered or not) and who makes enough money to be influential, can come knocking on your door for the URL. I don't like this at all.
Fair enough. But why does JD Sallen get to speak for all Christians? What if the Catholic Church, which has been using "Corinthians" much longer than JD Sallen, wanted to take it away from Sallen?
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
IMHO, the fairest solution to all these domain name disputes is to eliminate domain names altogether and stick with IP numbers.
(Imagine that wavy fade to daydream here...)
"... or check out our website at 206.144.183.14"
"Which search engine did you use? 102.64.119.4, 218.95.166.19 or other?"
-----------
----------
Something cleverI TOLD YOU SO! WIPO are blinking power mad.
Next year they are going to bring in more draconian laws.
From then, not just trademarks will be prey to them.
There is a solution to this mess. Have a
www.WIPO.org.uk is nothing to do with WIPO.org
Were as, you talk such common sense. Perhaps you can answer this:
How can ANYBODY have sole world rights to a generic word like ZERO?
Even WIPO could not justify taking that name. Which is why they are going to expand their own powers.
They are POWER MAD.
A trademark is granted by a *specific* COUNTRY for JUST one type of *specific* goods or one type of *specific* service.
Thousands may share the same trademark. I give the example of Domino on my protest site WIPO.org.uk
The obvious answer is to supply a restricted TLD, say
Trademarks need the classification and country to stop consumers being confused.
So, with the tag of
Sorry, it should be WIPO.org.uk
Well it is 2:30 AM.
Paul Mockapetris, creator of the Domain Name System (DNS), was asked by The Standard:
Q. What do you wish you had invented?
A. A directory system for the Internet that wouldn't be controlled by the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats.
Visit my protest site WIPO.org.uk - nothing to do with the power mad WIPO.org.
Did anyone ask them? If not, the WIPO is smoking crack.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
If I start my business here in the USA...Corinthians! Building Pillars since Ancient times. Does that mean I get full rights to the corinthians.com? Hhmm maybe I should start it.
The corinthians web site really does suck. There's practically nothing there. The tough thing with these disputes is determining whether the owner is really trying to do something legit or is just putting token material online for squatting purposes. In this case, since he (supposedly) hadn't heard of the soccer team when he put the site up, he should (in spite of the suckiness of his site) have the right to keep it.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
First off, he had the domain first. There are lots of domains to go around. In fact they should have been squabbling over .org if you want to be entirely pedantic over the whole thing. Anyway, I feel there ought to be a list set up just like MAPS RBL that includes the following criteria-
-Has brought suit over a domain name rather than seek another domain name.
-Has brought suit over the right to link.
-Has been shown to repeatedly use the threat of legal action to coerce those in a weaker position, when there is no reasonable chance the smaller group has a chance of withstanding the costs of a court battle.
-Add your own here.
This list would be replicated and appended to concerned web citizen's web pages, along with reasons why they are named there. We should encourage anyone and everyone to refrain from doing business with those organizations, relaying their mail, block their pages on the router level and provide snail-mail+phone contact information so that other concerned web citizens may let them know how they feel.
Just my opinion.
Fist Prost
"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."
-Jaron Lanier
>> Atheism, on the other hand, continues to be open source.
No, its proprietary. The Bible is GPL, read Revelations.
Fear the government that fears your guns. Fear the government that fears your computers. Remove them from my email.
Since Corinthians Futebol Clube is a non-profit organization, it should theoretically get corinthians.org and corinthians.org.br.
But, as I mentioned in another post, most Brazilians try .com and .com.br first (and many give up if the first try). So, it is understandable that they went to court for dotcom. What isn't understandable is how they won it.
And all that could be solved with a single line: "Procurando o time de futebol? Clique aqui."
this case reminds me of etoy vs etoys.com. etoy existed far longer than etoys.com, but etoys still sued etoy for taking etoy.com. Society is really screwed up. -- "One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
Who was the governing body that originally granted corinthians.com a *.com TLD? There is NO commercial purpose for this site, and thus should have only been granted a *.org TLD.
However, once the mistake was made, the powers-that-be should have allowed the owner to maintain his ownership - it's not his fault the controlling bodies have their heads up their butts!
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
Trademarks of words should not be viable trademarks, yet trademarks of words within a context should be. For example only one conglomerate should be allowed to hold the trademark for the use of the word Corinthian in the field of professional sports in Brazil. It would be ludicrous and unjust to say that any conglomerate controlled the usage of the word in all medias. IANAL, but wish that someone who was would do something about this!
.. this mean that i can start my own fotball team called slashdot and then demand slashdot.org? *thinks*
Personally, I would take this one as far as I could. This is a blantant example of popularity, and commercialism being used to effect outright theft.
Monkey lover...
Oh, you mean football!
Or maybe they just decided that the followers are more passionate and more numerous:)
By applying precedent to any other case, this would not have happened. Trademark infringement requires confusion by the public as a result of an infringing mark. Generally, this requires the use of the supposed infringing mark in the same market as a plaintiff mark. Here, a court should compare Corinthians.com, the use of a mark on a product displaying scripture from the book of Corinthians, with Corinthian, the use of a mark for a soccer team to determine market confusion. Confusion? No freaking way (this is not a legal opinion in any way. I don't know shit). Consistently, the U.S. and world legal systems view the Internet as such a "new thing" that it requires special treatment and the formation of new legal precendent. This is a dangerous course, in my opinion, because as these ill decisions are formalized, precedent is then created so that future cases will rely upon them to form decisions. It is unfortunate that 99.99% of the legal system is ignorant of technology. 2quam4
I guess they decided soccor has been around since before the bible? That's news to me!!
Kate
_________________________ Visit me at http://pornforcomputers.com
Zero International Holding GmbH & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft v. Beyonet Services and Stephen Urich
As opposed to the book of Corinthians in the Quaran? This has nothing to do with religious bias. This soccer team and a book of the Bible are totally non-related and well established. Whoever gets there first has the rights. This is a bad call because the content relates specifically with the domain title. So kiss my butt if you think that making a legally fair decision is biased because religion is concerned.
yep, the souix and the black hills treaty
in particular.......
It just kills me that the government RATIFIED a treaty giving the souix the black hills "forever"
in the 1800's
fast forward to the 1980's the souix take the US
to the supreme court. Court says "YEP that sure is a valid treaty all right!!!"
And then they have the GAUL to say "BUT instead of forcing the governement to honor it, they just have to pay you money!!!!"
How can a treaty be valid, clearly stating this is your land, and not be upheld??????? This says to me we are not a land of law at all, but a land
of money and influence veiled with a veneer of democracy.......
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
I have never looked up the info till today and I was shocked to find that the WIPO is a government authority in these matters. They should be located at wipo.gov and not wipo.org. But who do we report *this* to?
I'm not an educated person on registration matters, but it would make sense to me that the Corinthians soccer team should have went to the appropriate business contacts, the registration provider, DNS provider, and such, and if they said they wouldn't change the information, they would then stop there and not goto a governmental organization.
What is it with people always skipping the business and going to the government first? Don't they know they are only encouraging government to get involved in situations like this? Do they even care? Apparently not.
Despite that, the recent PETA problem and this one are really starting to shake things up. The government is coming people, and it will totally revolutionize the way the Internet works. It is inevitable and there is no way to stop it, so enjoy while you can.
I myself run a website, sort of a Slashdot parody, and I am grateful that I haven't been asked to relinquish it. My purpose isn't to slam Slashdot, but just be funny in a dissimilar way than Slashdot. Because they haven't tried to do anything to my holding of the domain, I respect them.
Do you think the guy involved will respect the Corinthian's soccer team from now on?
If Brazil really wants to steal a cool sounding dot com, how come they didn't go after Amazon.com?
I mean, who really has a better right to it -- the country that has encompassed the huge river and rainforest for decades, or a bookstore?
Trademark, shmademark. Revoke that sucker.
I can spell. I just can't type.
When my browser opened and I saw this article I almost died laughing. I used to work for the ISP that hosts corinthians.com. I am the person who entered the domain into the system :-) and had to talk to MR. Sallen. Very strange individual. Just FYI
The Brazilian Corinthians has interest on it as Microsoft has. Why Microsoft has microsoft.com.br? Why AOL fights in the Brazilian justice against a little local ISP why it uses the domain aol.com.br? Why the Brazilian registar blocked the domain yahoo.com for the true owner years before Yahoo arrives in Brazil? Justice is for all!
Man, oh man ... this corinthians.com thing does have me worried. I own/leased atletico.com, I am the person who registered the domain many moons ago and have been working on-and-off on an online version of my shareware soccer manager game, Football Fanatic. Actually there would be a ton of teams that would be after my domain. BUT ... I'm not about to give up on my domain name for a project that I've been working on for the last two years. If I need a lawyer, that's fine. I have some money and I definately would make some waves in the media. I have no intentions to give up atletico.com, especially when I have been working towards something big. I cannot believe that a Brazilian entity was able to claim a .COM domain name from someone else. Luis de Barros
POKE 53281,1 POKE 53280,0