My guess is that a lot of small operators won't be able to comply, and that a lot of traffic will move offshore if this is really implemented. This law could take us back to the good old days, when almost Aussie web traffic went across the Pacific. As an Australian resident I wouldent even consider hosting my website within Australia its just to expensive.
This is just another reason for my sites to remain in the United States.
Im a customer of bigpond I use open office and I dont care that they have done this I didnt even know you could download openoffice without incurring bandwith charge.
This is a non issue why has this article even been posted?
You can certainly tell when someone is squatting on a domain as opposed to having content that has anything to do with the name. The pages full of links on some web sites which looks exactly like the other 850,000 web sites these guys own should be the first tip. To me, that's not "using" the domain name.
How is it not using the domain? They are making money from advertisments a legitimate bussiness.
Secondly how does the use or non-use of a http Service determine if the domain is "Used" there are many other uses for domains besides webpages.
I can see the point your making but were do you draw the line? to me cybersquatting is not something that can be defined its just what other people think im sure we all have domains we like that are taken and probably think we have better uses for our desired names than the current registrant.
So, make it worth their time to continue clogging up the internet? Sadly, as long as pretend-to-do-no-evil giant Google keeps encouraging and rewarding these shady practices, us regular guys are utterly powerless. It would take a tremendous concerted effort to outvote Google with our pitiful dollars.
Even so, I'd try everything I could before resorting to paying the leeches. It's just too distasteful for words.
can someone please explain to me what is wrong with domain parking?
I have 16 domains If I can make a few dollars of something I own its my right to do so. It happens that I have a personal distaste for ads but if I want to fill an otherwise blank or non-existant page with ads who are you to tell me what I can and cant do with my domain?
I think you missed the point. They obviously have no use for the domain name www.akikosmithbakery.com (not her real name or business) and so they were clearly squatting on it. There is indeed a law against cybersquatting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting) and while IANAL, in principle this is the kind of thing it should prevent.
Even from a non-legalistic point of view: everybody has occasionally made a mistake and not paid a bill on time. Whether it's due to an emergency situation, carelessness, or whatever doesn't really matter; a small mistake shouldn't invalidate all of the time and effort you put into your site, your brand, etc. These bottom-feeders who want to profit from this mistake are doing nothing of value, just messing up the system. i'm happy to see them lose.
So in this case, justice was done and the dickheads lost.
p.s. look at me me me me first, i'm entitled to everything! oops, did i just say that out loud? Try not paying your rent or morgage for over a year and see what happens!
Trademarks are pointless they are only valid in the jurisdiction you register them in.
I personally belive trademark should have no place with top-level domain names.
In australia.com.au and.net.au domains require a trademark inorder to register them, considering.com is an international domain I fail to see why U.S. law should play any part of the system. Maybe you pro trademark people should ask the.us registry operator if they can impliment U.S trademarks into the United States domain space (.us)
If Microsoft fail to renew microsoft.com I can register it for myself just as they can do the same to me we are all playing by the same rules so Pay your registation ontime and dont go crying to lawers for something thats your own fault.
I Dont put adverts on my site because I dont want them on my site I like the fact that my users dont have to see ads when they visit.
So the customer pays for their connection/bandwith the website owner pays for their server/bandwith and the isp makes money of the site owners content without consent.
Is this legal? sounds like a grey area to me.
What if my users/customers pay me for premium access that has "No ads" what then do I look like to the user when ads are displayed after I tell them ads wont be displayed?
he said that some cell sites actually do that intentionally in a disaster situation to increase bandwidth for emergency calls. Not sure if that's what happened or if they just lost power to some critical call routing facility, though.
In Australia calls to 000 (Our Emergency Number) take priority and on a busy cell other users can be disconnected to allow emergency call through.
Now wait a minute. I can sit along the street and with some antennas, you wouldn't even be able to see me from your building. In that case wired is safer. When you look at all the pros and cons verses security, and weed out what would effect both types of network, Wired beats wireless hands down. I'm surprised I haven't see anyone mention DoS attacks yet if you wanted to just mess a network up their are wifi jammers readily avalible for consumer purchase and with more surveillance cameras using wifi I can see an upcoming security problem in the future.
Yeah, except for those pesky "inline" ads (like slashdot's "Services" menu in the lower left) I haven't seen a single ad since I subscribed to ABP. Not to mention peerguardian blocking HTTP traffic from half the internet.. Can't imagine anything could be more effective. Really? Because my broken NAT router is more effective.
Slashdot Mirror
This is nothing new I know a few places that use services like this.
why not patent the wheel while their at it.
~Dan
My guess is that a lot of small operators won't be able to comply, and that a lot of traffic will move offshore if this is really implemented. This law could take us back to the good old days, when almost Aussie web traffic went across the Pacific. As an Australian resident I wouldent even consider hosting my website within Australia its just to expensive.
This is just another reason for my sites to remain in the United States.
~Dan
Analog cell phones mayb the U.S should consider moving into the 21st century sometime.
~Dan
Im a customer of bigpond I use open office and I dont care that they have done this I didnt even know you could download openoffice without incurring bandwith charge.
This is a non issue why has this article even been posted?
~Dan
I understand how frustrating it is I was annoyed that I couldent get my family name in .com
Fortunatly I got a few decent alternatives.
You can certainly tell when someone is squatting on a domain as opposed to having content that has anything to do with the name. The pages full of links on some web sites which looks exactly like the other 850,000 web sites these guys own should be the first tip. To me, that's not "using" the domain name.
How is it not using the domain? They are making money from advertisments a legitimate bussiness.Secondly how does the use or non-use of a http Service determine if the domain is "Used" there are many other uses for domains besides webpages.
I can see the point your making but were do you draw the line? to me cybersquatting is not something that can be defined its just what other people think im sure we all have domains we like that are taken and probably think we have better uses for our desired names than the current registrant.
~Dan
How can you tell if someone is using a domain?
~Dan
Even so, I'd try everything I could before resorting to paying the leeches. It's just too distasteful for words.
can someone please explain to me what is wrong with domain parking?
I have 16 domains If I can make a few dollars of something I own its my right to do so.
It happens that I have a personal distaste for ads but if I want to fill an otherwise blank or non-existant page with ads who are you to tell me what I can and cant do with my domain?
~Dan
Even from a non-legalistic point of view: everybody has occasionally made a mistake and not paid a bill on time. Whether it's due to an emergency situation, carelessness, or whatever doesn't really matter; a small mistake shouldn't invalidate all of the time and effort you put into your site, your brand, etc. These bottom-feeders who want to profit from this mistake are doing nothing of value, just messing up the system. i'm happy to see them lose.
So in this case, justice was done and the dickheads lost.
p.s. look at me me me me first, i'm entitled to everything! oops, did i just say that out loud? Try not paying your rent or morgage for over a year and see what happens!
Trademarks are pointless they are only valid in the jurisdiction you register them in.
I personally belive trademark should have no place with top-level domain names.
In australia
Maybe you pro trademark people should ask the
If Microsoft fail to renew microsoft.com I can register it for myself just as they can do the same to me we are all playing by the same rules so Pay your registation ontime and dont go crying to lawers for something thats your own fault.
~Dan
I Dont put adverts on my site because I dont want them on my site I like the fact that my users dont have to see ads when they visit.
So the customer pays for their connection/bandwith the website owner pays for their server/bandwith and the isp makes money of the site owners content without consent.
Is this legal? sounds like a grey area to me.
What if my users/customers pay me for premium access that has "No ads" what then do I look like to the user when ads are displayed after I tell them ads wont be displayed?
Isnt this deframation?
~Dan
he said that some cell sites actually do that intentionally in a disaster situation to increase bandwidth for emergency calls. Not sure if that's what happened or if they just lost power to some critical call routing facility, though.
In Australia calls to 000 (Our Emergency Number) take priority and on a busy cell other users can be disconnected to allow emergency call through.I couldent disagree more.
~Dan
Communication between machines is not communication with their owners.
The permission you need is from the subscriber who signs the monthly checks to Verizon.
Did you seek permission from the owners of slashdot before connecting?Or was it just communication between machines?
~Dan
I thought only AOL did that!
The only NAT I have is in my house and i have total controll over what it does and dosent do.
Id like to see a Denial of Service attack.
Shouldent they sue the radio station who distribute it for anyone in range to receive.
Often the so called "illegal" copy is better than the purchased copy that is especially true for music.
I wouldn't watch what I cant download so that blows the theft argument out the window
~Dan
"Say, you have the option to pay $300 for a software suite up front, or $5/month for as long as you use it."
How about $0 upfront for OpenOffice?
~Dan
If they want the RAM just give it to them its not like there will be anything on it.
No they don't there is nothing wrong with the Russian laws the U.S should fix theirs! ~Dan
The Revolution has started!
Or a VPN,
if the Government cant run applications on Linux Whats the chance of them recognizing a VPN?
~Dan
Because my broken NAT router is more effective.