Copyright Maximalists Come Out Against New TLDs Because It Creates 'More Space' For Infringement
from the the-internet-is-like-a-box,-see... dept
There are all sorts of reasonable points of disagreement over ICANN's plan to add generic top level domains (.whatever rather than just .com, .net, etc...). Of course, we've argued that the whole idea of TLDs is obsolete anyway, and rather than ICANN's convoluted process of selling each new generic TLD, it should just open things up, so that rather than saying people can register "whatever.com," they should be able to just register "whatever." Trademark owners have also complained about the generic TLD efforts, in large part because they've seen what happens when ICANN created absolutely useless TLDs like .jobs, that made many companies feel they need to go out and pay to register their name.jobs (leading to sophomorically snicker-worthy sites like http://rim.jobs, which appears to no longer be functioning, though it did for a while).However, one complaint that simply hasn't made much sense are complaints from copyright holders over generic TLDs. We've seen the RIAA complain that it might lead to more infringement, which appeared to be based on a misunderstanding of how the internet works (shocking) rather than on any legitimate complaint. Of course, Copycense points us to the news that "The Copyright Alliance" (a sort of propaganda/lobbying organization for extreme copyright maximalists) has now come out against generic TLDs as well for the delightfully ridiculous reason that it means "more Internet space would be available to rogue website operators."
Apparently, the internet isn't a series of "tubes," but it's a box with limited space, and this will expand it. Or something.
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: copyright, infringement, tlds
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sandra
Hey Fox, your term does have other meanings. You don't own the word.
Other than that, her site is really bad for rhetoric. It just hurts that she can't really say anything other than "Piracy is bad" with no actual data to back her up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sandra
btw, does www.fox.cn exist yet? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rogue website operators
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rogue website operators
Yeah, they've been pursuing that Gambit like a bunch of rabid Wolverines. I've fished with Nightcrawlers that had more sense, and those are mere Beasts....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rogue website operators
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Rogue website operators
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rogue website operators
That'd be (mag)neet-oh. I'll send you a map of my location. Just remember, Professor X marks the spot....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rogue website operators
This is becoming too Colossus for you and me, DH. But it seems you're getting Squirrelly. If anything your body will have to be found in a Deadpool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rogue website operators
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rogue website operators
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Rogue website operators
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rogue website operators
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rogue website operators
They did call them "rogue" operators. A common mistake (on the internet, at least) is to write "rouge" instead. I was mocking the people who write about "rouge" websites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Rogue website operators
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rogue website operators
> operators - that label seems to be going around
> a lot lately.
Even more funny when you realize that "rouge" is a color-- pinkish-red. They apparently mean "rogue", but I get a chuckle out of the people complaining that there are too many pink web sites out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rogue website operators
Yes something must be done to stop those websites from giving people rosy red cheekbones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, that explains the "xxx"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After R'ing TFA
The allusions to copyright as well as trademark is bizarre. Are they suggesting TPB would be more successful if it had thepiratebay.movies as its domain? That's preposterous on its face.
Finally there's the vague quote about domain registration proxies, which states among other things "there are certainly legitimate reasons for using proxy services" but goes on to mention "experience and data demonstrate that such registrations are particularly attractive to spammers, copyright thieves, fraudsters and other wrongdoers." What does this mean? There are millions of legitimate sites registered through domain proxies. Because something is attractive to "spammers, copyright thieves, fraudsters and other wrongdoers" does not make the thing itself a problem. Regardless, they suggest no course of action, so one can only interpret this as ludditical hand wringing.
Further how this relates to gTLDs is not specified, and it seems to be just grasping at straws.
The importance of domains are overstated. Copyright and trademark infringement abound currently, and this article fails to demonstrate at all how gTLDs will make the situation any worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: After R'ing TFA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: After R'ing TFA
Infringement is driven by demand, not domain availability.
"Let's setup a torrent site! We can call it wickedtorrents.com!"
"Blech, it's taken."
"That sucks, we should just go and buy dvd's instead."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: After R'ing TFA
The question comes up what is the use of a TLD these days, to locate something? It is an organizing method, that allows someone to narrow their search and evaluate what sort of entity a website represents. There are two ways I can think of to, explicitly, use a TLD for searching:
1). enter a name (partial URL) in the address bar and let the browser fill in the rest with a default (usually HTTP and .com).
2). Narrow a search on a search engine by specifying a particular TLD or sub-domain.
There is undoubtedly an implicit use of TLDs by search engines for ranking but I don't know what they do.
I don't like the idea of allowing generic TLDs because you lose the ability to evaluate the website as being within a category. I also don't want to be forced to search for Sarah Palin within "fox.com" as well as ".fox". Redundancy does not make searches easier here, because one instance of a name may be different than another. Maybe that is what the Copyright Alliance is paranoid about. They feel that trademark owners have to control all instances of their trademark names within the domain name space. That doesn't make sense, in part, because trademarks are already limited to being within a certain category or categories that must be spelled out as part of the registration process. In general, I don't see a larger namespace as a problem because I, personally, don't want to have to search multiple categories of TLDs to find something. The default is usually ".com", and that is fine with me. If I am trying to find the whitehouse where the US president lives, I won't pay attention to or search on whitehouse.com, whitehouse.jobs, whitehouse.travel, or whitehouse.xxx. I know to look for whitehouse.gov. I, nor anyone else should care what is at ".whitehouse".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: After R'ing TFA
FTFY .... "experience and data demonstrate that money is particularly attractive to spammers, copyright thieves, fraudsters and other wrongdoers."
Obviously we need to eliminate Money and the spammers, copyright thieves, fraudsters, and other wrongdoers would have no motive to do anything..... Sometimes these things are so simple and the politicians just aren't willing to accept the easy solution. Obviously they should all be pushing laws to eliminate currency exchange in any form as it is the root of all evils....
Where's that foil, I need another layer on my beanie....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These folks need counselling for obsessive behavior.
And electricity, the very engine of infringement.
And content producers. The more they produce, the more infringement will happen.
Also air, sunlight, gravity, atoms and molecules. Possibly germs as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: These folks need counselling for obsessive behavior.
Who can we get to sue God? I'm pretty sure the RIAA would have a go....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: These folks need counselling for obsessive behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In similar news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You left off the end of the sentence: "First, more Internet space would be available to rogue website operators for new abusive registrations." Adding gTLDs would do this, so I don't see how the claim is so ridiculous.
Apparently, the internet isn't a series of "tubes," but it's a box with limited space, and this will expand it. Or something.
The limited number of gTLDs does create a "box with limited space" in one sense. Adding more gTLDs makes the box bigger.
I'm not saying I agree with them and that these new gTLDs need to be stopped. But at the same time, I don't think their claims are ridiculous on their face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Networking 101: "Internet space" is limited by the number of IP addresses NOT the number of DNS names (which is already infinite for all practical purposes).
If they want to start a campaign of lobbying against IPv6 using this argument it might actually be logically consistent though no less dumb - not that they'll get very far with that either....
So no, it's yet another "EVERYTHING IS INFRINGEMENT IF IT MIGHT CHANGE HOW WE DO THINGS" argument from people who either don't, or choose not to, understand the technology and is logical in no way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In other news, the MAFIAA starts buying up all unallocated IP addresses - based on the "no more IP addresses, no more torrent sites" idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Adding a new folder (directory) on my 1 terabyte hard drive does not mean it now holds more than 1 terabyte.
All a domain name is, whether a top level one or not, is a organizational container and a pointer to a resource. They are called URLs - Uniform Resource Locators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The issue here is domain names. Imagine if popularsite.com has been having problems with squatters abusing similar domains like popularsite.net and popularsite.org. Now with 200 more domain names comes potentially 200 times as many problems with cybersquatters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is what we were discussing, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try to keep up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's no such thing as "more infinity".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While I agree with them that it's true, I don't necessarily agree that it's a good enough reason to not have new gTLDs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So adding new TLD's does not create new trademark problems. Owners of trademarks will either stumble across trademark infringements, or they will have to actively search them out. Nothing changes with more TLD's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For example, if you have to stretch to get thewebsitethatisreallyamazon.com, it's going to be less effective than amazon.com or .amazon at convincing people you're affiliated with Amazon.
I think it's funny the extent to which people are willing to take any position that is contrary to pro-trademark folks, but saying new TLDs doesn't create more trademark problems is a stretch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, there is. Georg Cantor proved in the late 19th Century that there are infinite sets that are larger than other infinite sets. It drove him, literally, insane.
The fallacy here is that any trademark is contained within a particular set (category of usage) and should not be concerned that they cannot control all the instances of their trademark in the whole universe. TLDs are categories. A trademark owner should only be concerned about the TLD appropriate to their trademark category. gTLDs are a homogenized mess, and owners cannot control the names in this mess. I would argue they shouldn't even be concerned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Further, what will the supposed "category" be for these personalized TLDs?
What is the "category" for .Microsoft, other than stuff related to Microsoft?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The generic TLDs have no fixed category, and that emphasizes my point. Trademark law cannot guarantee a company has exclusive right to any particular name. Because of that, I am not going to search for something assuming that .microsoft pertains to the company Bill Gates co-founded, and nobody else should either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, no, under US law and the law of many other jurisictions, you can't sell underwear under the MICROSOFT brand.
Aside from that, your logic does not make any common sense to me. Even assuming it were legally permissible for a company to use MICROSOFT in some capacity, how does that negate the likelihood that people will associate the .MICROSOFT TLD with Microsoft Corporation?
Just because something is *possible* doesn't mean it is likely, or that people shouldn't expect the opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine a carton of one dozen eggs. You can apply a six letter name to each egg to mark it. Now if I allow you to mark eggs with a twenty character name does not increase the size of the box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing something?
So unless I'm wrong about that the argument:
is a steaming pile or horse manure.
If someone uses the same name in another TLD, if they are in the same business as you or trying to pass themselves off as you it's infringement, if they're doing something different it's not infringement no matter how much you might dislike what they are doing.... right?
Or am i guilty of using logic and sense applying to a "But! But..... INFRINGEMENT!!" argument?
In a slightly oblique point I was under the impression that the number of possible infringing sites was more likely to be limited by failing to move to IPv6 than adding to the already infinite-for-practical-purposes number of DNS names possible. When do we see the Copyright Alliance lobbying to prevent THAT is what I want to know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing something?
It is very common for people to register identical trademarks (or slight misspellings) in an attempt to misdirect consumers, engage in phishing operations, etc. For example, maybe you get an email from Joe@morgansstanleybank.com asking for your password or something.
So, the worry is that expanding the realm of available TLDs simply creates a new opportunity for deliberate infringers to snap up a famous trademark variation to use for nefarious purposes, and a new cost/obligation for trademark owners to register their mark variations with that TLD before they get misused (e.g., www.youracount.morgansstanley).
Now, the twist here is that the new gTLDs cost a lot of money to register/operate, so I'm not sure if you're going to get the same type of cybersquatters and other deliberate infringers you get with most TLDs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missing something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Missing something?
I know from experience trademark-based mechanisms are often the best/fastest solution to combat such blatant misuses.
Assuming that user's will be able to tell something if "phishy" seems like a much, much worse solution.
Regardless, that has nothing to do with whether expanded TLD availability will create greater opportunity for such misuses. It will.
Maybe the bad guys won't take such opportunities due to higher costs, and maybe it wouldn't be a good enough reason to stop expansion (of course, I haven't yet heard a really good reason for expansion).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing something?
That first kind of nefarious activity is fraud and is covered under other laws so using trademark law is not necessary. For websites, like banks, that really need to be secure, there are technical solutions; use of HTTPS along with digital certificates and use of graphical site identifiers before supplying a password. This is really a more serious crime than just trademark infringement, so why use trademark infringement laws to fight it? Otherwise, you can be reduced to arguing over trivialities about how little a difference there can be in spelling a word before it represents trademark infringement. This is what I meant by saying relying on trademark law is a bad solution.
I am not arguing that trademark law should be abolished. However, it does have a particular problem on the internet. Trademark law allows two, or more, instances of the same name if the products or services are not in the same category, or categories, as specified during registration. On the internet, you don't necessarily know until you arrive at the website what that URL represents. So who has priority on a domain name? Trademark law is not a sufficient solution to solve this problem. In this context, arguing over spelling differences seems especially trivial. Add in the amount of time wasted over things like Godzilla versus bagzilla (Sears) and Godzilla versus Davezilla (who didn't even sell anything) and the whole issue starts to become absurd.
I would argue that adding specific TLD like .travel have the potential to help clear up trademark fights over the same word being used for different things. You can separate them with more TLD categories. I do have reservations about this apart from trademark issues. On the other hand, gTLDs will not help, because a generic TLD is not stuck in any sort of category. The trademark argument again either sort of expansion is that these companies will have to repeat their fights for each new TLD. This doesn't make sense because the law cannot resolve all conflicts anyway and users simply don't search using top level domains explicitly. They generally rely on .com or whatever Google returns for a keyword search. Adding more TLDs won't make any difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing something?
There are many reasons trademark law makes sense as a tool in such scenarios. Confusing use of a trademark falls at the heart of trademark law, whether or not there may be other legal torts or crimes that fit the bill as well. Private parties can bring enforcement actions under trademark law, whereas they cannot bring criminal prosecutions. There is a higher burden of proof for showing a crime is being committed. A civil fraud cause of action requires (in many jurisdictions) showing that the plaintiff was decieved, and the trademark owner is not the party being deceived. I could probably list many more reasons.
I am at a loss as to why you think trademark law *shouldn't* be used in such situations, except maybe you just don't like trademark law in general.
The fact that it might be possible (although it is much harder) to use non-trademark legal theories to take legal action agaisnt such fraudsters is not a reason in itself to make trademark theories unavailable, is it?
Also, while I encourage the use of non-legal (not to be confused with illegal) means to avoid such fraud, your suggestion of using https missed the point, I think. Putting the burden on lay customers to make sure they are always at the right site that uses "https" in the URL is not a successful strategy alone.
Pointing out a few examples of questionable cases does not make the application of trademark law to domain names "absurd" in general, nor does the fact that "the law cannot resolve all concepts."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The entire purpose of new TLDs...
We have come a long way from the one-entity one-domain rule that was the de facto way things were done Once Upon A Time, when it was recognized that it's quite impossible to 'own' a domain; one merely is permitted to use it by the mutual consent of everyone else on the 'net, as it's a resource that belongs to everyone and noone. Now we've reached the point where spammers routinely register domains 10,000 at a time, burning through the namespace and rendering those permanently unusable by anyone.
("permanently"? Of course. Once a domain has been owned by a known abuser, it can, should, and will be permanently blacklisted. Such entries should never be removed because -- thanks to ICANN -- there's no way to know what the alleged new owner isn't really the same abuser.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop making things that can possibly be infringed, then no more problem!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Letters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've hit on something Mike.
Well if you think about it, it is like a box. Internet addresses, bandwidth, and domain names are all finite (well, maybe not domains, but you get the picture), but they are also reusable. Like a room, or a box, you can only fit so much in there at any specific time. In order to allow more to use that "space" you either need to get the current occupants to use it less or make it bigger. If "space" is extremely scarce, it can be held in exclusivity and it helps keep out the riff-raff. If you make room for everyone, then the richest companies on the internet will eventually be outnumbered.
That is completely devastating to their desire to put down every site on the web that makes it possible to transmit protected works. Do you think the hydra is intimidating now? Imagine there being one hundred or one thousand times more sites than there are now? It would make their current strategy even more impotent against their perceived enemies. They don't want the internet to get bigger, it just makes their effort to keep their works in false scarcity even more improbable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other things TLDs do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Totally Lame Ducks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright and anything goes
The number of TLDs is not the problem. Rather, the problem rests with a minority of determined users.
By its nature, the Law always finds itself one or two steps behind innovation (ie: no 50 MPH speed limit or drink drive enforcement team necessary when riding your brand new chariot through the Roman Forum in 44 BC). Ultimately IP law will catch up and make resolution of the issues a much simpler and cheaper process.
In any event and with regard to Techdirt's points on open TLDs, sites like Dashworlds.com already provide an unlimited range of free domains and TLDs in the format "sports-com", "rock-music" and "high-heels" (and even using Facebook Emoticons to register addresses such as "♫♫-♫♫"and "❤❤-❤❤") that's totally outside the realm and control of ICANN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop ICANN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dont Understand
It is true that in order to protect a trade mark a small part of fortune always ends up in grave to protect it and every time a new TLD is hatched some more money slips out. But if you watch out closely, this small money is a hell lot of fortune to the Internet Organization. The initial 50 days clear out generates billions of buck world wide for a single TLD.
I dont think that "." dot "nerd" domain will bring out a y diference. If your contect is good enough you are sure to win the race, be it be .com, .net or .org. Sometime the .info magic is also undeniable !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]