Latest UDRP Stupidity: Unix.org, Canadian.biz

The Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure, an expedited process for allowing corporations to steal domain names, continues to be abused as arbitrators stretch the definitions of "cyber-squatting" to any length in order to find for the corporate complainants. Lunenburg writes "Unix.Org, a site that was apparently used for noncommercial discussion of Unix(tm) operating systems, has been ruled a "cybersquatter" by a WIPO panel and given to the X/Open group. In spite of not actually matching any cybersquatting criteria, a WIPO panelist felt that by providing links to commercial sites, Unix.ORG was acting in "bad faith" and thus should be given over to the Open group." And WEFUNK writes "Exploiting an obvious technical error to help build their case, Molson Inc. has been awarded the seemingly generic canadian.biz domain from the original owner who "registered this name because I am Canadian and want to develop a Canadian business directory" and is now appealing to the courts." John Gilmore has a bit of commentary.

Comments

not so crazy?

[tps12]

Well, I was all set to rant and rave about how evil the WIPO and ICANN['t] and everyone else is. But after reading all of the links above (be honest: did you?), I have to say I'm reconsidering my stance.

I don't know if many of you remember the cybersquatting "name rush," so let me provide some background. Basically, when the web started exploding, there was a small but significant minority that would purchase tons of domain names of major corporations, betting that just a few would bring in a bunch of money when the trademarked domain name was sold back to its rightful owner.

Needless to say, these greedy bastards were ruining it for the rest of us. A few bright spots (Guy Kawasaki's holding mcdonalds.com hostage in exchange for donations to public schools) didn't make up for what was largely the profitting of a few at the expense at anyone else.

The rules put into effect against cybersquatting were necessary to save the web from anarchy and plutocracy. And if those rules were to disappear, or cease to be enforced, then we would be plunged back into that corporate-sponsored hell. These rulings seem terrible to us now, but if we want to save the 'Net, we need to be firm in our application of the rules. Those found in violation need to be held responsible for their actions, or we will find ourselves back in the web of 1996.

Re:not so crazy?

[Doomdark]

Small but significant minority that would purchase tons of domain names of major corporations, betting that...

The rules put into effect against cybersquatting were necessary to save the web from anarchy and plutocracy

[continuing story, alternative ending]
But that was then, few years ago. Since then the idea of profitable cyber-squatting has been proven to be Urban Legend (see earlier Slashdot story about people not renewing squatted dns domains), and the famous Search engine has pretty much proven to nay-sayers that the idea of using DNS-domains for blind searches is not a nature of law. [that is, although your first guess, "www.company.com" may succeed, if not, use Google and you'll find the company]. Plus the idea that fools just flock to "www.american.com", making that domain name valuable is incredibly naive. Ever heard of portals? (which, themselves, are not all that valuable either, but I digress)

Btw, I don't think I'm the only one who's curious if it would be all that bad if we found ourselves back in the web of 1996?

Re:so they steal but you guys don't?

[drinkypoo]

The Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure, an expedited process for allowing corporations to steal domain names,..

Michael, you guys are so two-faced, it's unbelievable. You people will go on and on about you guys aren't stealing music and other IP, but go apeshit when the evil, nasty corporations are stealing domain names (another form of IP).

You, sir, are making a common mistake. There is a clear difference between stealing someone's domain name (there is only one Unix.org) and 'stealing' someone's song for your own listening purposes, which does not diminish its value unless you would have otherwise paid for it.

See, taking the domain name away from someone destroys the value to you, as you no longer have it. But copying a song may actually raise the value of the song, and thus the artist, by increasing exposure. This can be true even for mainstream, payola-based artists.

Pay attention, son.