Slashdot Mirror
Schools Buy .xxx Domains In Trademark Panic
bs0d3 writes "Schools nationwide, including The University of Missouri and Washington University, are snapping up .xxx domain names to avoid people making porn sites with their names in the url. The new .xxx domain will be launched later this year, and before that, everyone with a trademark will have the opportunity to reserve names during what's called a "sunrise period". Someone is promoting the possible horrors of what could happen as a way to sell these domains, which cost up to $200 dollars per domain per year. Even though these schools may already be protected from defamation and trademark infringement, they still feel compelled to buy these names."
protecting companies and institutions in the US from having to fork over more than a nominal amount (let's say $10/yr) to reserve a domain based on their own name, provided that they never back it with content.
What if ICANN doesn't play ball? Well, the legislation should then direct US-based ISP's to block all .xxx traffic.
We-el, unless the school also buy up girlsof.xxx ...
Slash dot.xxx is still available for all your nerdish needs.
It isn't ICANN that is the driver behind this craze, it is the US schizophrenia that is driving this thing. What you see is the happy marriage of "Brand is EVERYTHING" with "Save the Children" and "Sex is dirty".
To see all the domain names Penn State is going to have to buy.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
I hope my school buys up some names. We would have a legitimate concern for cocks.xxx
Go Gamecocks!
If you don't defend a trademark, you lose it - even if you're not aware of it being used by someone else. So, I don't agree that it's the school's problem, the problem is the entire trademark system.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What we really need is a free (or extremely cheap) option to block domains from being registered if there is a valid trademark. Of course, this would eliminate the profit motive of introducing new TLDs, so it would stop happening.
This is something that needs legislation to solve.
Would this take into account the possibility of two or more businesses having the same name, but operating in totally different fields? If not, then a movie studio calling itself Acme Entertainment could then just register acme-entertainment.com and then prevent an arcade machines distributer also called Acme Entertainment from ever having a hope of taking acme-entertainment.(whatever other tld would be acceptable). They are in effectively different fields of business, so neither are infringing on the other's trademark.
This space unintentionally left blank.
Trademarks are used to identify products or services. If you don't own a product or a service that deals in porn, you don't need to defend it.
...than the lawyers later. Even if the schools' names are protected by trademark and/or defamation law it's likely to cost considerably more than $200 to find infringing domains and get them revoked.
Besides, when the school gets hard up for money they can rent their .xxx domain out for pron.
Or they could just give it to their cheerleaders...
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Yes. Since .com, .net and .org started being free-for-all domains rather than being used for their intended purpose, the system of multiple generic top-level domains has been a scam which inconveniences everyone to benefit the registrars.
The solution to protecting a trademark is to register domains in every possible TLD. This message brought to you by GoD*ddy.
If you don't defend a trademark, you lose it - even if you're not aware of it being used by someone else.
I'm still interested to know how you defend your trademark when you're not aware of it being used?
When do we get the sexy version of Slashdot?
Why do you think Taco left?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Only if you're doing it right ;)
Why don't you consider one of the following:
[ ] mypsu.xxx
...
...
...
[ ] sexypsu.xxx
[ ] girlsofpsu.xxx
[ ] sexinpsu.xxx
[ ] gaypsu.xxx
[ ] psushowers.xxx
Come on, it is almost 2012, everyone should have understood a long time ago that people don't search for content based on the domain name.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Or maybe these colleges just want to use that business plan themselves. It would be kind of like having a football team. If you're a horny teenager which school are you gonna pick the one with hot chicks fucking or the one with a bunch of dudes playing catch with each other. These Universities probably just want to do some quality control.
This is 100% correct.
The US suffers from a HUGE conflict of idealism and it is precisely the items you speak. I would have said "sex sells" rather than "brand is everything" but the core of marketing is correct. Business and sales rule the U.S. The problem is business and sales interests are often in direct conflict with moral idealism nearly all of us profess to maintain. Personally, I have identified those conflicts and reject all business that conflict with my own moral ideals. As a result, the companies I reject include Sony and Disney. I reject Sony for reasons that should be clear and obvious to all. I reject Disney because they are selling sex to very young children in a way I cannot agree with.
I suppose that last sentence seems a bit odd. But I will say this: I think it's normal and healthy for kids to be curious about sex and everything else in the world. They experience life in their bodies just as we did when we were children. It is definitely not productive to tell every child he is evil because he is curious about sex, sexuality and his sexual instincts. So I say explain them to children and teach them honestly and do not punish them for being human children. But what Disney does adds so much more confusion to the mix that it is even more difficult for children to be themselves and to be well adjusted as they grow and develop. Worse, they create the same sort of self-hating and self-destructive idealism in children that we have seen in women across the globe. (Of course you know I speak of the modelling and fashion industry creating unhealthy ideals for women to pursue and fail to achieve resulting in self-loathing and even self-destructive behavior.) So when a child doesn't look, dress and act like the Disney kids, they are ugly in their own eyes.
I'm seriously glad I don't have any girl children as they are the most targeted victims of Disney's behavior and it would be very challenging to mitigate the damage Disney does directly or indirectly to society.
And you know? People still somehow see whatever Disney does as being "pure and clean" and rated G. It's amazing to me because people were initially up in arms when young girls were being made up to look like little sluts but no one says anything when Disney does it. Just amazing.
I don't agree with "Save the Children." I think I would rather say "Leave the Children ALONE!" This would include leaving them out of marketing crap.
Having actually attended an ivy league university......www.yalesluts.xxx and the like is, much to many undergrad's chagrin, deceptive advertising.