WIPO Wants Service Providers To Act As Trademark Spies And Police

from the third-party-liability dept

Fri, Mar 25th 2011 9:36am — Mike Masnick

What is it with intellectual property holders? The government already grants them an unfair, innovation-limiting monopoly that extends way beyond reason... and then they still expect others to go to ridiculous levels to prop up their own business models. The latest is that trademark holders are pushing for new third party liability rules in treaties via WIPO. Specifically, the apparent proposal would mean that third party service providers wouldn't just need to take down things on request, but would also have to proactively monitor and hand identifying info over to trademark holders without a court order. The sense of entitlement here is astounding.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: secondary liability, trademark, wipo

14 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 8:37am

Yeah,...No
This is a massive lawsuit waiting to happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 9:47am

Re: Yeah,...No
Is it any wonder that lawyers write our laws?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 9:51am

Neat!
Can we legislate that everyone else has to do my job as well?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2011 @ 9:57am

The sense of entitlement here is astounding.

Yeah those people who abuse trademarks will stop at nothing. For once Mike, we agree.

Say, where is the privacy policy page for this site again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2011 @ 10:00am

Re:
Maybe Mike uses the Global Internet Privacy Policy:

Enter at your own risk
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2011 @ 10:05am

Re: Re:
Or maybe the Insight Community privacy policy applies:

https://www.insightcommunity.com/privacy.php
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 10:08am

Becoming confused
With all the laws on patents, copyrights, and trademarks, it's getting quite difficult to keep all of them intact.

We might as well have one protection law regarding all three intents.

We should call this new law a moral law and have it as follows:

If you can feel it, touch it, see it, smell it, or hear it, you can apply to protect it. This protection lasts for as long as you have it in your possession.

However, if someone else is allowed those senses, your protections lasts as far as you can hold on to your protection. You can not take away any one else's senses nor protections. You can't confuse your own work with those of someone else.

I think it'd be a lot simpler this way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2011 @ 10:12am

Re: Re: Re:
Sadly, that is for another website, so no, it isn't a policy that applies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2011 @ 10:44am

Re: Becoming confused
but them pirates are steeling mah bits!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 10:57am

Re:
Yeah those people who abuse trademarks will stop at nothing. For once Mike, we agree.

I am curious as to your side of the argument as to why other companies should have to pay to police IP that isn't theirs?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed C., 25 Mar 2011 @ 5:44pm

I give up...
You know what...I give up. Just make it so that any idgit that wants this shit enforced can hand a list of their IP to ISPs and have them sort it out. That's right, copyright, patent, trademark...whatever! Just make it a free-for-all IP clusterfuck! Never mind the fact IP holders like Viacom--who repeated sent DMCA takedowns for works that they posted themselves--can't even tell what's infringing or not, or that there's no way for ISPs to reliably determine the legality of every use of IP on the net. The solution to nailing every instance of infringement is simple--just block every copy, fragment, or even mention of the IP on the list. That way, no one will be able to see it on the net at all! Once the internet embargo in firmly in place, almost no one will even know, or care, that the IP exist. I'm sure the IP holders will stop complaining about piracy then! I doubt that they'll complain about much of anything else either; without any business, they'll just slip away into oblivion.

You know what, they're right, we'll be so much better off with absolute enforcement. All those who want it can have it...and then we'll never have to worry about them again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 26 Mar 2011 @ 3:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tough luck. Off you go, then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2011 @ 8:42am

"The sense of entitlement here is astounding."

Not half as astounding as the sense of entitlement that td fanbois have where they expect to get everything for free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 26 Mar 2011 @ 11:42am

WIPO and Trademarks
Wow! Someone didn't read the proposed treaty.
This treaty deals with attempting to use the name of a State in a TM to confuse and deceive the consumer about the origin of the product, and is EXCELLENT!
Someone owes WIPO an apology - but I won't hold my breath waiting for it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]