Slashdot Mirror
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.
For now on, I'm only using IP addresses.
...That this is declared cybersquating, but when someone grabbed our robotics team website there wasn't a thing done about it. We really need to clean this stuff up.
Reminds me of the problems 2600 was having with ford. Ford didn't like them linking to thier site so they sued them. 2600 then found out that ford was sueing a bunch of people for stupid reasons, such as Jaguarenthusiastsclub.com, which is an animal site. You can read about it HERE. The case recently got droped BTW.
"Now tell me again that free speech guarantees should not be part of the incorporation charter of ICANN."
Blatant sarcasm mode on:
Free speech guarantees should not be part of the incorporation charter of ICANN.
BSM off.
You expect professional behaviour from ICANN?
You know what ICANN stands for don't you?
Idiots Controlling A Nationwide Network.
.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Forget the twinkie defense or any other legal silliness, now we have the case of Molson Canada v. %2d%2d! I might cybersquat domain names just to get a court case named Big Company vs L33t Hax0r!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Oh bother.
[I] "registered this name because I am Canadian and want to develop a Canadian business directory"
It's a good thing this guy didn't capitalize the "am" in "I am Canadian". For "I Am Canadian" is a trademark owned by Molson, and this poor chap would be sued for even using that sentence as a defence!
It seems that microsoft.org is owned by a very large company (Microsoft) and isn't even being used. Could they be holding out to sell it to the highest bidder? Or, is this just another example of Cybersquatting?
Disclaimer: Duh! this never happened, CowyboyNeil never said that, you beleived me? What a shmuck!
Little Brother, watching the watchers
Out of curiosity, what is the process involved in appealing these disputes? I see that some have taken ICANN to court, but doesn't ICANN have international authority in assigning these names? If I was a citizen of, oh, say Egypt, how much authority would Egyptian courts have over ICANN? Ultimately, what legal recourse does one really have when getting an unfavorable ruling from this body?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
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.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
What we need is to dump ICANN. However, it isn't feasable to do this in one fell swoop, at least not yet.
.tm domain for trademarked names, to which trademark disputes would be confined (ie. anyone can register mtv.com, but only the owner of the MTV trademark can register mtv.tm).
So, instead, we need DNS resolution in our libraries (glibc, etc.) and our internet applications (browsers, ftp & ssh clients, etc.) that include the concept of multiple root authorities, with easilly settable defaults.
Need to go to ICANN's unix.org? Fine, click a pulldown tab in your Mozilla 2.0 browser and select ICANN, or better yet, type http://icann//unix.org/ . Otherwise, stick with http://freenic//unix.org/ or (if opennic ever decides to dump ICANN peering) http://opennic//unix.org/
Obviously, old nomenclature would remain in place, using the system default for root authority (presumably Opennic and not ICANN).
It is only this approach, that will default to freedom but allow those of us who need to access ICANN-managed sites (most of the web today) to cross the line at will, that will enable us to free ourselves from ICANN's grip while still being able to make sensible use of the web.
Whether the alternative becomes Opennic, or some new entity ('freenic' anyone?) it needs to be constructed with a solid, equitable constitution that preserves freedom of speech above everything else, and does not favor large corporate or government interests over the rights of individuals, with an open, public, and fair judicial process for resolving name disputes. Ideally it would also include a
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The complainant argues that the domain name is indistinguishable from their trademark. Respondent asserts that the trademark has become diluted to a generic, and is therefore not enforcable. According to the ruling:
Basically WIPO is saying that you can not defend a domain name by asserting that a trademark has become a generic. If you wish to challenge a trademark, you must do it in the jurisdiction where the trademark originates. As long as the trademark is considered valid in its original jurisdiction, it is accepted as valid in WIPO proceedings.
Nope, no sig
I thought I'd take a look at unix.org to see what their take on the decision would be.
I was a might suprised to find it blocked by the wonderful corporate content filter.
Checking the URL checker I got the following response:
URL Checker
Thank you for your submission. Below please find a listing of the category (ies) in which your submitted URL appears. For a detailed description of each category, visit our filtering categories section.
The Site: www.unix.org
is categorized by N2H2 as:
Pornography
Should you still wish to inquire about the URL in question after checking with your System Administrator, please submit your request to N2H2's Review Editors for further analysis.
Yes, it's sad that the name of my (and ~30 million other Canadians') great country has been made synonymous with what is in essence bottled piss. Imagine if Coors Lite was called "American Beer", and "I Am American" was trumpeted as a commercial slogan in commercials for an inferior product!
Freedom: "I won't!"
Other domain names in arbitration:
music.com - RIAA says they have the rights to this, since they "own music"
switch.com - Apple claims they deserve it because of their oh-so-clever ad campaign. But Cisco says it belongs to them, because they make switches, and can afford the most lawyers.
fordreallysucks.com - Now Chevy is claiming rights to this one, as it is a fundamental part of their corporate philosophy.
bendoverandtakeit.com - Microsoft is pursuing this one, using an argument similar to Chevy's.
"I am a cipher, a cipher, wrapped in an enigma, smothered in secret sauce" -Jimmy James
I almost took this poor dude's side, until I read an absolutely preposterous remark.
Being Canadian isn't just about drinking beer...
As long as I can remember, being a Canadian has been about drinking beer. Good beer, too. Canadian beer. Besides, Canadian.biz is kind of like saying Cuba.biz. Nobody really cares.
Is that a real poncho? I mean, is that a Mexican poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
The word "Canadian" is, unquestionably, generic. "Canadian" is a word whose usage is far, far more broad than the context of beer. A Google.com search for "canadian -beer" yields almost 4 million results!
Yeah, and "stupid -bush" turns up about the same number. That doesn't mean the words don't have a deep and meaningful connection.
----------
I am an expert in electricity. My father held the chair of applied electricity at the state prision.
A lot of (heavily tech impaired) users have trouble understanding that there are TLD's besides ".com"
/dev/null \;
Yes.
It is absurd for us to hold ourselves to the least common denominator. A degree of literacy is required to make use of the internet and the web. Claiming otherwise, or even claiming that pandering to illiteracy would be a good thing, is akin to arguing for the replacement of text in all the books in all our libraries with color pictures because the "reading-impaired" can't understand all those big words.
The sooner we divest ourselves of these sorts of idiotic fallacies and begin educating people so that they can make sensible use of technology, the sooner people will begin to have a positive, useful computing experience (rather than the constant frustration most people are confronted with today).
Note that this doesn't mean everyone needs to understand what
find / -type f -exec grep blah {}
means, nor does it mean that so-called "user friendly" interfaces are a bad thing (when properly implimented to facilitate knowledge and understanding, not obscure it) but basic concepts such as IP addresses, domain names, registrars, root authorities, filesystems, network connections, system memory, system storage, are something anyone wishing to use a computer should be required and expected to understand.
A modern computer connected to the internet has a lot more in common with a library than it does a toaster, and it is time we started treating it as such.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Did anyone bother to even check the wayback machine before jumping to conclusions? (You see it's a game, where you jump to conclusions, nevermind)
Link
Apparently they had some cheesy links up, and nothing up since 1998.
Guess what, they WERE squatters./B>
Go see the archive for yourself. If that isn't a squatted domain, I don't know what is.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Next, Molson will be going after people using a red maple leaf on their flags - clearly an infringement upon their brand...
I mean, as a Canadian, aren't you just a bit offended that a word so closely tied to your identity has been usurped by a corporation for its own gains?
One of their slogans seems to be I am Canadian. (Forgive me for being unfamiliar with their marketing - we don't drink much Molson here...)
Can you legally even say that aloud anymore without infringing upon their trademarks?
Not being Canadian, I won't try to tell you how you should feel, but I'm just a bit curious.
(Maybe it's such a good beer that Canadians don't mind - I honestly don't know...)
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
-- My Weblog.
As a proud Canadian (in the original, true, and untrademarked sense) I find Molson's exclusive claim to the word "Canadian" especially ironic when they don't even seem to own the rights to canadian.com or canadian.ca.
Of course, the fact that the apparent technical error (Hex garbage like %2%2 showing up in the registrar's file) played such an important part of this case makes the decision extend beyond IP ownership issues by holding registrants liable for mistakes by their registrars while also raising concern about ICANN's lack of technical competence. Molson deliberately played up this angle to the "judge" by doing a business name search for %2%2 and proposing that since any such business (obviously) doesn't exist, the original owner must be a cybersquatter - even though the registrar seems to admit to the mistake with their database.
I will be actively protesting this decision by drinking my share of some real (although sadly, no longer Canadian owned) Canadian beer along with some pints from our many fine Canadian microbreweries.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
"Foster's. Australian for Piss."
Ok - time to clear this one up right now. Nobody in Australia - and I mean nobody - drinks Fosters. I can't even recall the last time I saw if available for sale in a liquor store, or on tap in a pub.
Oh, sure, we have some very ordinary mass produced, mass marketed beers (Caslemaine XXXX, Swan Gold, Emu Export, and others). We also have some really good mass market beers (Redback would be a personal favourite; even Victoria Bitter isn't that bad). However, calling Fosters an Australian beer is so far from the truth it defies description. It's not brewed here, and it's not sold here - so how exactly is it Australian?
Russ %-)
... and never, ever play leapfrog with a unicorn.