Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cybersquatter Ordered To Give Up iTunes.co.uk

Posted by Zonk on from the good-try-though dept.

DigitumDei writes "Originally reported on Slashdot last year when Apple accused Benjamin Cohen of being a cybersquatter, the UK Internet registry has now ordered Cohen to give up the domain to Apple. Nominet ruled that Cohen had made an "abusive registration," and that he "is using the domain name in a way which has confused people or businesses into believing that the domain name is registered to, operated or authorized by, or otherwise connected with the complainant."

2 of 53 comments (clear)

  1. What's the big deal? by Tim_F · · Score: 0, Troll

    I had no problem telling the differencd between iTunes and this site.

    First Psot.

  2. Re:Looks pretty junk to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    If it's not cybersquatting, then it is, at the very least, trading on the reputation of another organisation.

    So, why is that bad? He's trying to persuade the public of an alternative opinion: to choose to mentally link his product with positive notions in the same way they ealier choose to mentally link Apple's iTunes with positive mental associations. It's entirely up to the individual members of the public whether or not they choose to make the association. Last I heard, persusion towards an alternative viewpoint was covered under freedom of expression.

    If you don't understand my point yet, just consider what it means to "trade upon a reputation". Let's start with the word "reputation". Reputation is no more and no less than public opinion: and the opinion of the public is, by definition, it's own.

    Clearly, a company cannot have rights to a public opinion: since it does not own the minds of the public, nor have it have the legal right to control what people think or believe.

    So, if the public chooses to grant a positive reputation to some individual, why should that individual be condemned? The public ultimately holds the power, and hence, the responsiblity for how it grants reputation: not the individual who benefits from it. And note, the public doesn't have to be fair. They have the legal right to believe whatever they want, be it cargo cult science, blind religion, or the finest of well reasoned argument. The notion that the indivdual presents doesn't have to be agreeable to anyone other than the public to grant him the right to that positive reputation.

    It's therefore a total miscarriage of justice to make any attempt to assign punishment or reward in the courts on the basis of attempts to sway public opinion, because the public has the right to make it's own decisions. The court does not have the right to tell it's citizens what they should or should not believe.

    Furthermore, basic principles of free expression state that if it's legal for someone to present an idea, logo, or slogan in a positive light, then it's equally legal for someone else to present the same idea, logo, or slogan in a negative context. If it's fair to suggest a mental association between a symbol and your product, then it's equally fair to suggest an alternative association between that symbol and a different product. Ultimately, it's up to the the public to determine what's popular and what isn't. Only they can assign or withhold reputation.
    --
    AC