Slashdot Mirror
IFPI Domain Dispute Likely to Go To Court
fgaliegue writes "Ars Technica has a follow-up on the ifpi.com domain takeover by The Pirate Bay. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, ifpi.org, is quite unhappy that the .com is now a link to the (still not live) International Federation of Pirates Interests. The ifpi.com domain has been free as soon as March of this year, according to WebArchive. Nevertheless, the "real" IFPI wants to take it to the WIPO under the accusation of cybersquatting."
They're putting it to good use, right? Besides, claims of squatting would sound rather strange considering ifpi.com had lapsed in March already, and they're only twitching now that it's become a mite embarrassing.
Still, one shouldn't underestimate the potential for corruption in organizations like the WIPO. Especially since they have their hands in the large and varied jar of "intellectual property".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting
First, the premise behind Cybersquatting is to obtain money or some other form of compensation. The Pirate Bay has no intention and no desire to obtain any compensation from them. While the site being made may be satirical or "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah" in focus... it's still not cybersquatting.
Looks like someone forgot to pay for the domain, the name lapsed and somebody picked it up then gave it to Pirate Bay. And unless the law changes... Pirate Bay wins.
I don't understand why International Facilities and Property Information Ltd. would be suing The Pirate Bay.
"International Federation of Pirates Interests should not be confused with {The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry}[ifpi.org]."
+1 Agree -1 Disagree
Despite the looks of the headlines hre, TPB IS using the site. Heck, they've got more content on their page than I do on mine. It's not a lot more than a "comig soon..." page but we see that all the time for businesses that are just getting their cyberpresense off the ground. I suppose every reasonable person already has concluded that the IFPI (org) doesn't have a leg to stand on but I am enjoying the opportunity to laugh at (A) the org's ineptitude of allowing this to happen in the first place, and (B) for an organization that so enjoys perverting the law to their benefit finding themselves clearly positioned on the other end of the gun.
If TPB requested a legal fund to defend themselves on this issue, I'd be tossing them some coin right now. Give 'em hell.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I applaud Pirate Bay their sense of irony and their sense of humor!
Now if we could just get a photograph of Mickey Mouse smoking a dube.
Ed
taking over and using IFPI like this is a pretty low-life kind of thing to do.
No one has "taken over" the site. It was for sale. Someone bought it, and gave it to the Pirate Bay. If they want the site so badly, perhaps they can offer to BUY IT from Pirate Bay, no?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Well, I disagree. An outfit whose sole purpose is to protect intellectual property interests should have been more competent in the IT department, and protected their own domain a little better. They screwed up. Let them take their lumps, just like anyone else that forgets to fork over a few bucks to their registrar.
... keep in mind that they have just as much of an agenda as the IFPI and their ilk. Raising awareness of these rather important issues is one of the things that The Pirate Bay likes to do, and this is one hell of a way to do it.
So, if you're trying to imply that The Pirate Bay hacked into their site and took it over that's just wrong. They got hold of a lapsed domain name and apparently they're using it. The fact that they torqued off the IFPI (not a pleasant bunch to begin with) is just too bad. Furthermore, it's exactly the sort of thing that The Pirate Bay would do
Besides, I think it's hysterical. And I wouldn't be too sure of the WIPO business either.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The Pirate Bay and others like it are fighting a battle where the clashing ideologies are essentially based on who has a right to make how much money. The *AA believe they have the right to profit the most from music and have the system of law to back them up. The opposing group believes that this system of law squelches art and freedom and may well eventually destroy the ability of the artist to have music, movies or other art distributed in a fair manner to the masses.
Since there is a body of law in question, the issue is not so simple as just two groups arguing, the one without the legal backing must by definition break the laws in order to do what they feel is ethically right. It is immoral and unethical to follow a bad law, and they believe the laws concerning copyright are bad ones.
Radiohead and allofmp3.com make convincing arguments that the current system does in fact depress creative and free expression. The issue doesn't affect me directly since I don't purchase and don't download and rarely listen to music and don't watch movies other than the ones on broadcast TV. Still, I watch closely since flouted laws tend to get changed after a lot of squabbling, and maybe someday there will be sufficient art out there that some of it will appeal to me.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
the 'pirates' would have gotten .org and the phonographic guys would have gotten the .com domain.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Relevant quote:
Pirate Bay should just say IFPI stands for the International Federation of the Pornographic Industry
No cybersquatting here! ;-)
Seriously though, why should anyone be allowed to run to court and file charges of cybersquatting after letting their domain lapse renewal for so many months? There should be a 60-day statute of limitations on these. No one should own an inherent RIGHT to their domain name after letting it lapse. Otherwise you're opening the door for companies and organizations to come back years after the fact and say, "Thank you, I'll take my domain back now."
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
I also find civil disobedience highly selfish, because you're refusing to play by society's rules to your benefit and often to the detriment of others. Civil disobedience may seem like a righteous cause, but it's rather infuriating to be on the other side of. For example, I once expressed my opinions on driving on Slashdot, about how I drive on or below the speed limit (on it if people want me to go fast), and how I don't mind which lane I'm in when I do it. IIRC, I received two death threats, and a few people trying to convince me that not only is it immoral, but somehow illegal. My example wasn't civil disobedience so much as civil obedience, and Slashdotters did not like it.Not as far as I can tell. They just seem to be running a music business independent of the RIAA. They don't seem to be making any arguments, let alone convincing ones. The business who's making the arguments is the PirateBay, who constantly claims it's for free expression, which just gets on my nerves. They champion extremist libertarianism, where despite all the evidence and reasoning in favour of copyrights, they maintain will somehow be good for art. They come off sounding as extreme as Sony does when its representatives claim that ripping a CD is stealing. I'm all for them arguing, but they are going ahead and undermining copyrights, and they've managed to do so from a legally defensible position. They know what they're helping to do, they know what most of their users are doing, and that it's illegal in most countries (including their own), but they also know that they're legal. I think it's a tragedy.
[Mods: I've had too many of my posts modded down today by people who don't like discussions to contain opposing viewpoints. Please just leave me alone if you don't agree. Thanks in advance]
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I wanted to add that your views on civil disobedience, particularly the selfish nature of them, are skewed. Most people who cry "civil disobedience!" aren't enacting true civil disobedience. It's not just about breaking the law that you feel is unjust. It's about dealing with the consequences, and using the attention you get from those consequences to fuel your cause and get people on your side.
If I pirate a movie, that's not civil disobedience. If I pirate a movie, get caught, refuse to pay the fine, go to court, refuse to pay out THERE, and get thrown in jail, that's civil disobedience. Folding the second you're offered a settlement so that you can get on with your life is just getting caught and trying to get out of trouble.
True civil disobedience is a huge gambit. You're risking your future and your freedom for a cause you believe in. I daresay that no one who promotes copyright-infringement disobedience really cares that much about copyright reform--they just use that to justify their actions. They champion extremist libertarianism, where despite all the evidence and reasoning in favour of copyrights, they maintain will somehow be good for art. They come off sounding as extreme as Sony does when its representatives claim that ripping a CD is stealing. There isn't a lot of evidence and reasoning in favour of copyrights now. We live in a very prosperous age where few people have to work 16 hours/day in order to survive. In an age like this, where there is a lot of leisure time, art can flourish without the protection that copyright offers. We also have easy access to tools which can be used to make high-quality art and an unlimited distribution mechanism, both of which used to be very hard to do. Without this, copyright makes sense, because it's really quite hard to make and promote your product. But with computers and the Internet, anyone with an idea can basically create their work and promote it. Remember, promotion of the arts is the reason for copyright, not so that one can earn money off of their creativity. Being able to earn money was the original way that the arts were expected to be promoted, since writing a book or creating a painting would take a long time, and people just couldn't afford to create while working in the fields all day. Times have changed, but instead of copyright laws lessening (which they should given the times in which we are living), copyright is becoming more strict. It is wrong, based upon the entire basis for copyright.
My understanding of "squatting" is, "Squatting is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied [name]space or ... [domain] that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use."
And "cybersquatting" is, "The act of registering a domain name in bad faith, with the sole intent to sell that domain name to its rightful owner."
So, if Pirate Bay buys a domain that was unoccupied, and they plan to use it, then they DO NOT fall into either category...
Maybe someone should point this out before it goes to court...
--E--
Sancho: You have some valid points. It isn't that democracy itself is bad, but rather that the people who have the most control of the government, and the laws created by the government, are not for the most part in the control of the people supposedly represented. If you educate 10,000 people about the issue, then get their opinions, I'd be shocked to hear that most of them think the current system of content distribution is fair. If the will of the people, as determined by an educated majority were to actually be followed by the legislative branch and enforced, then The Pirate Bay would have to change their name.
It is by this definition that I call the the body of law bad from TPB's perspective. I'm don't think I have the education to make that call myself. The problem with law and government is that there isn't really much of a good way to do it. I can certainly see problems with our form of government (I do live in the US) but I've really not been able to determine how to fix it. Personally, I'm not willing to pay the penalties so I'm not willing to break the law to make a point. I'm also not willing to give my own money to those I believe are abusing their position, so I do without. I can live with that. I simply don't desire the content at the lower price and higher risk enough to break the law. I'm not making much of a difference, but it is a small one and isn't motivated by selfishness. I choose in this instance first to vote with my wallet. Second though, I'll vote with a ballot, as much as I can given other matters of conscience. I have been fairly consistent in voting for a primary of the two parties here, but if one came out and espoused a desire to see the system changed, providing they weren't otherwise too horribly objectionable, I'd vote for that party. No parties have come out with that position though, because they cannot, they either alienate their financial supporters or they alienate the voters. It's lose/lose for them, so I'm not holding my breath that my ballot will affect this issue any time soon.
TheVelvetFlamebait: That segues nicely into the question of whether allowing people to use your service to break the law in their own country is immoral. If you believe your laws are moral and the laws of another country are immoral, then how is it wrong to assist people in other countries if they choose to break their own laws? I think this is what TPB is actually doing. The real problem is that a huge number of the citizens of the US are willing to break the laws. If they weren't, then there would be no profit for TPB. If you're ticked off because it affects you negatively, well, that's where you get the opportunity to get your country's laws changed to stop allowing TPB to be able to do business with the US. If there is no jurisdiction to directly affect them, then censorship (blocking their IPs) would be sufficient alternative. I think China has done a good bit of research on how to control their citizens' Internet use, so it's not even uncharted territory.
Of course the obvious rebuttal to that is to more rigidly enforce the existing laws, track down the criminals and make them pay. If a significant enough portion of the population of any governed people starts breaking a law though, it is probably time to reconsider that law. Until I thought this through for this very post, I was still a fence sitter, but now I believe the laws are immoral and need to be changed and I do not believe it will happen in the reasonable future due to the reasons that Sancho clearly defined. Essentially I've decided that this is not an issue that is caused by some people doing something they know is wrong, but by a huge number of people who are willing to take significant risks (and I don't know how stupid you'd have to be to not realize that pirating content is a significant risk) because they feel the system is wrong. I don't know if your average pirate would be able to express it clearly without prompting, but starting asking those who do download, "Do you pirate the music because the record c
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
I think IFPI has a good chance of winning this court battle.
Adapt, adopt, or get out of the way!