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.

13 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. Let's boycott DNS by JeanMarieLepen · · Score: 5, Funny

    For now on, I'm only using IP addresses.

  2. Breaking more IP laws! by adubey · · Score: 5, Funny

    [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!

  3. Slashdot Vigilantes by Little+Brother · · Score: 4, Funny
    (AP)Today Slashdot Icon CowboyNeil, issued a warning to worldwide corperations. "If you use the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure to steal somebody's domain name, me and my posse [the slashdot community] will DoS your website." The announcement was made after the example setting cannadian.biz and Unix.org rustlers were "slashdotted" out of existance. When asked if he was taking the wild-west theme of "Cowboy" a bit far, Neil answered "yessiree partner!"

    Disclaimer: Duh! this never happened, CowyboyNeil never said that, you beleived me? What a shmuck!

    --

    Little Brother, watching the watchers

  4. not so crazy? by tps12 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
    1. Re:not so crazy? by Doomdark · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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?

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
  5. What we need by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What we need is to dump ICANN. However, it isn't feasable to do this in one fell swoop, at least not yet.

    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 .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).

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:What we need by TheTomcat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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/

      Aside from the fact that this would fundamentally break nearly every application that already does DNS through the definitive/de facto root servers (and has for the past 25+ years), I still can't see this working.

      Think of this: your long distance carrier is MCI [(333)333-3333]. You want to call your brother, who happens to be on Sprint [(444)444-4444]. Imagine having to call the MIC->Sprint Gateway, before calling him? Or having to dial the "Sprint Prefix" (//freenic). If you forget to do that, you'd get MCI's (444)444-4444 instead of Sprint's (444)444-4444 (which is what you REALLY want).

      Not to mention, a third root system catching on, and having to purchase many instances of the same domains within many roots.

      OR a resolution system for the various prefixes (how would your machine figure out which root servers to use for the various prefixes?)

      These analogies aren't perfect, of course, but I can see how multi-roots would get very annoying and cause even MORE problems.

      S

  6. Re:so they steal but you guys don't? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Unix.org = Pr0n? by saintm · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  8. Re: "I Am Canadian" by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!"
  9. In other news... by Grape+Shasta · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  10. Google as a measuring tool by Ezubaric · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  11. Re:Canadian.biz by WEFUNK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!