Big Pharma Given Control Of New .pharmacy Domain; Only Available To 'Legitimate' Online Pharmacies
from the guess-who-they-will-be dept
Just over a year ago, Techdirt reported on big pharma's application to run a new .pharmacy domain, and later on an attempt by Canadian pharmacies to prevent that happening. They failed, apparently (found via Intellectual Property Watch):
As the registry operator of the new .pharmacy domain, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), under a contract with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), will soon provide a means for identifying safe online pharmacies and resources. Under the Association’s Registry Agreement, executed with ICANN on June 19, 2014, the new .pharmacy generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) will be available only to legitimate online pharmacies and related entities located in the United States or other countries. The Registry Agreement also includes a number of safeguards intended to protect consumers around the world.
The question is: what will "only available to legitimate online pharmacies" and "intended to protect consumers" mean in practice? The concern is that these are euphemisms for big pharma shutting out those competitors offering lower-cost products, particular foreign pharmacies, and manufacturers of generics. That fear is not assuaged by the following comment from the NABP in its response to such concerns (pdf)
the .PHARMACY TLD will provide a powerful tool to educate consumers, distinguish legitimate Internet pharmacies from the thousands of rogue Internet drug outlets, and reinforce the value of purchasing medications only from trusted online sources.
Big pharma is clearly as keen as the copyright industries to "educate" consumers about what they ought to be doing. The danger here is that such "education" will include not trusting perfectly safe pharmacies outside the US (in Canada, for example), and not using much cheaper generics. Since NABP now controls this entire domain it will have a free hand to block any outfit that does not subscribe to those views, and thus to attempt to delegitimize them in the eyes of the consumer.
This is something new. Hitherto, there has been no danger of this kind of discrimination against particular classes of Internet users, since registry operators were focused on maximizing profits by getting as many domains issued as possible. That won't be the case for .pharmacy, where the aim is to police the online pharmacy world, and to protect the generous profits of big pharma -- not make a few dollars selling a domain or two. Assuming that happens, we can probably expect other industries to follow suit in creating and controlling new domains, and for the Internet to become less free and neutral.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
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: .pharmacy, big pharma, domains, generic drugs, online pharmacies, pharmacies, tlds
Companies: icann
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sure will educate them, which is why they'll go to another website to buy the drugs they can afford.
Dibs on "deathto".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Doesn't matter, people will quickly learn that .pharmacy only leads to prices they're not willing to pay, and it will fade into obscurity. People aren't QUITE as stupid as NABP thinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Quite a few of them are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, that's not really the point. Even if these people are 99.9% likely to be throwing money away, the fact is that if it does work, corruption and protectionism is built in from the beginning. That's worth talking about, even if the reality ends up being that we laugh at the charred remains of a failed market in 5 years.
"people don't type in BigDrugCompanyName.pharmacy. People open Google.com"
Indeed. But, as we've seen a little too often recently, some companies don't mind getting the courts to force Google to change their search results. What happens if the pharmaceutical companies successfully lobby for a law that says that Google cannot return results from anything other than a .pharmacy TLD, under the assumption that anything else must be fake? I wish that was far-fetched, but from recent evidence it does seem like a real danger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAPB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just wait. There will soon be attempts to pass laws that say search engines can only list "legitimate" pharmacies -- as defined as those with .pharmacy domains. And that FedEx and UPS can only deliver from such pharmacies...
Just look at the history of "legitscripts" and attempts to stop Google from linking to Canadian pharmacies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But can they restrict businesses to using only certain domains? That seems like it would be a nightmare of a definition to write.
Businesses already have to register multiple domains now to increase visibility. (.com, .org, .info, .biz, and possibly country names, etc)
Maybe a backward country could require use of certain domains, but can they make the rest of the world comply? Can they make ICANN comply?
It gets interesting as people with delusions of power want to assert more and more control over everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Industry group control of TLD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your economic system is totally screwed up if it's cheaper to buy a product from a reseller that bought it from the original source rather than from the original source. Especially when you take the cost of shipping into account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How will that work when people search for a drug name, rather than pharmacies?
Will Big Pharma try to get Google to send all searches for a list of drug names to its own sites, which would hide any reports of side effects from users of such drugs; a side effect that would not upset Big Pharma in the least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah. Before the internet, Americans were buying drugs from Canadian pharmacies. It's called the black market -- and if purchasing drugs over the internet becomes impossible, the old system will return.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Black Market
Today, I can send a copy of my prescription from a doctor in the US to a Canadian pharmacy and legally get a prescription filled. In that scenario, nobody has broken a single law.
Tomorrow, I may be able to find someone to illegally fill that same prescription. For many people, these are not the same things.
It's not "Nah". It's "ok, if you want to do this illegally, there is a way to do it". If "Nah" means I can still get my legally prescribed drugs illegally, well, I guess that will always be the case.
FWIW, I'm completely in agreement with your argument. There is a price that will settle somewhere between the ridiculous amounts being charged in the US, and the "friction free" CDN prices of today that will reward smugglers. My take on it is that this is not what we (collectively) want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Black Market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Black Market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Black Market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've got an idea!
Create an .XXX domain for adult material. That way only legitimate adult material can use that domain.
Create a .spam domain for spammers. That way only legitimate spammers can use that domain.
Create a .scam domain for scammers. That way only legitimate scammers cna use that domain.
Create a .crook domain for crooks. That way only legitimate crooks can use that domain.
With more and more top level domains, a business will want to list itself under more than one domain to increase visibility. For example, how many domains would Prenda or Righthaven need to register?
Of course, domain registrars will be thrilled with having more and more top level domains to increase registration business.
But seriously, a business now probably wants to try to get .com, .org, .biz, .info, and a country .com domain if applicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've got an idea!
Its called .gov
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like how copyright and imaginary property are now considered real things.
Like how you can patent anything by adding "... on a computer" or "... on a smartphone".
Like how DMCA is now considered reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would say that .pharm or similar would have been enough.
I also think that to some extent it will be successful if they can sell the public on these domains being a a stamp of legitimacy, then they have some hope. Otherwise, they will again be fighting against the tide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now, do you have any comments on the points raised in the article, rather than something only tangentially related to them? How about the point made by Mike in the thread (inadvertently repeated by myself) that this could be the first step in forcing sites like Google to only direct people to those pre-screened sites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yep, but that's only half the point, if that. The fact that it's almost 99% certain that nobody will type the domains directly doesn't mean there's not a problem with the way this is being run.
"Plus, it's not like the pharmacies are going to give up their .com domain names."
Of course they're not. That's not even a factor in the discussion here.
"This is at best a waste of time and DNS storage space, at worst a deliberate money grab."
Agreed with the cash grab. Very few of these things have been successful and they've not replaced the old way of doing things in any of those cases. It's probably just going to benefit ICANN's bottom line.
But, combine this with the way things like the "right to be forgotten" and previous attacks on Google have happened, plus the fact that a lot of people use Google without looking at the URL they're being directed to, and it's a problem. Once a gTLD has been established for an industry, it's possible that they can be forced only to send searches for a subject to that gTLD. Particularly in an industry that requires some kind of licencing to operate.
The problem isn't that people looking for meds might suddenly start typing meds.pharmacy rather than meds.com. It's that collusion and disproportionate control could send traffic to sites controlled by the major companies and act as a backdoor methods to locking out legitimate competition.
Now, I'll agree that this is a worst case scenario that requires a lot more to happen before we'll start seeing the effects. But, it's certainly worth talking about the potential ramifications in the meantime. It's certainly worth keeping an eye on it, even if it's unlikely that people will consciously decide to go to a site ending in .pharmacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The logical fallacy of even creating the .pharmacy TLD hadn't been covered until Whatever pointed it out. That I could adequately explain and would have if it hadn't already been pointed out. The only reason I responded at all is because you pulled out the "there-are-children-starving-in-Fuckistan" argument.
Just because there are bigger problems further up doesn't mean we can't point out the problems at the root.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go on. I literally have no idea what you mean by this. Please explain for the people here too mature to use words like "fuckistan".
"Just because there are bigger problems further up doesn't mean we can't point out the problems at the root."
There are no problems at the root.
ICANN have made a decision to sell gTLDs to virtually anyone who goes through the process, and there have been many articles here pointing out what a silly cash grab most of it is. They have been written for years while this process has been going on, and don't really need to be repeated.
What does, however need to be pointed out are the implications of the decision to give an industry that's already been shown to be hostile to an open internet full control over something that - *if* successful (however big that "if" actually is) - can be used to lock out legitimate competition.
Whatever, as is his wont, opted to ignore those implications while smugly pronouncing something else. It's a true statement, but concentrating on that at the exclusion of all else is misleading. He's not technically wrong, but it's a tactic I'm tiring of seeing in every thread where he can't outright lie or take a sentence out of context to attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you have successfully diagnosed yourself here. Take two non-aspirin pain relievers and call us in the morning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you post here if you can't take criticism and lie, distort and cheat on every comment you make? Other than those where you're whining about people calling you out on it, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's what I want to know. Does he just get a kick out of arguing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about:
.legitimate-high-quality-pharmacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Agreed. Of course, they also have to overcome the fact that the pharmaceutical industry has a pretty bad public image problem to begin with. I don't think them stamping "legitimate" on things carries much weight with most people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's useful to be informed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's useful to be informed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torture and Definitions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Torture and Definitions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think what I'll do...
And I'll sell iffy-quality, cut-rate gardening implements from India, packaged in brown paper.
...not that I know anything about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*pssst* heh white hat hackers...
*shhhh* don't tell the grownups we're doing that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This will work as well as outlawing free book shipping in Europe
I highly doubt the seniors who care very much about issues surrounding prescriptions are going to let legislators pass laws about where they can and cannot order their drugs. But even if big pharma does get their way...
If I were a foreign pharmacy shipping to the US, I would use a series of generic return addresses, swapping them out every month or 2. Welcome to whack-a-mole, the meat-space version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Helpful for authencity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]