New Bill in US Senate Threatens Domain Registrants!

I've blogged about this... don't know how much effect it will have, but if you all bookmark it and comment, it might help -

http://www.mwzd.com/2008/03/06/the-great-american-snowe-job/

We need to stop this in its tracks

Signed the petition, emailed my list, blogged about it.

Everyone needs to see this and get involved now.

If this passes as is, everyone stands to lose.

.jd. said:

Are the registrar's aware of this?

Click to expand...

If they aren't yet, they will be.

The bill isn't totally bad given the real-world problems of phishing. But some of
the provisions being included there can otherwise cause unwanted issues for a
variety of interests such as yours, mine and everyone else's.

I pm'd RJ asking if he was going to send out an email to NamePros members regarding this bill...

If you don't fully understand this issue, I urge you to read a few of the following posts/articles (from cnet, ComputerWorld, CircleID, etc):

• BILL PROPOSED TO TAKE AWAY YOUR DOMAINS
• Direct Navigation take on the Domain Stealing Bill
• Digg This! Don’t Let Them Take Your Domain Names!
• Senate Anti-Phishing Bill (or Reverse Cybersquatting in Disguise)
• Snowe Bill Threatens Domain Name Registrants
• Senate antiphishing bill outlaws...what's already illegal
• Proposed Senate bill takes on phishing, irks Internet trade group
• ICA Responds to the Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008
• The Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008
• Enom takes away “Cuba” domain names: What it Means to You in light of the Snowe Bill
• Letters you will be receiving if you the Snowe Bill Passes

What can you do?

1. Donate to the ICA (better yet join). They are the only association that fights specifically for the rights of domain owners. They are currently working hard to fight this bill but they need your support!
2. Sign the online petition at SnoweBill.com (Over 600 people have signed in the past few hours)
3. Raise awareness by informing others of this issue.

Most importantly, take action now before it's too late.

Petition signed. I do hope RJ decides to send out an email to his list. This is one of those times that a list can prove to be powerful. Only 622 petition signers as of this posting. We need 2,000.

This thread should have been entitled...

"New Law to Steal Your Domains Away from You!"

or

"US Senator Stealing Domains!!!"

...or something to that effect. Short and shocking. It would get this thread more views and therefore more petition signings. Effective marking is very important for threads like these and for important matters such as this.


But thanks for posting it though. Rep given

Signed.

I just noticed this thread. Here's a recent post I made regarding this topic:

If you don't fully understand this issue, I urge you to read a few of the following posts/articles (from cnet, ComputerWorld, CircleID, etc):

• BILL PROPOSED TO TAKE AWAY YOUR DOMAINS
• Direct Navigation take on the Domain Stealing Bill
• Digg This! Don’t Let Them Take Your Domain Names!
• Senate Anti-Phishing Bill (or Reverse Cybersquatting in Disguise)
• Snowe Bill Threatens Domain Name Registrants
• Senate antiphishing bill outlaws...what's already illegal
• Proposed Senate bill takes on phishing, irks Internet trade group
• ICA Responds to the Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008
• The Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008
• Enom takes away “Cuba” domain names: What it Means to You in light of the Snowe Bill
• Letters you will be receiving if you the Snowe Bill Passes

What can you do?

1. Donate to the ICA (better yet join). They are the only association that fights specifically for the rights of domain owners. They are currently working hard to fight this bill but they need your support!
2. Sign the online petition at SnoweBill.com (Over 600 people have signed in the past few hours)
3. Raise awareness by informing others of this issue.

Most importantly, take action now before it's too late.

Signed. Put at my newst Blog's post. Cmon my fellow domainers... don't let this robbery happen.

I've signed and left a message as to why this could destroy the livelihoods of many hard working individuals and small businesses by handing over their hard earned assets to the big TM companies.

If you haven't signed yet, do it now.

Signed.

The good Senator has deigned to blog about this -

http://blog.thehill.com/2008/02/29/protect-internet-consumers-from-fraud-and-theft-sen-olympia-snowe

It also facilitates the restoration of trust and consumer confidence that has been eroded by the prevalence of deceptive emails and websites, which has, in part, mired the Internet from achieving its full potential.

Click to expand...

It's full potential of getting hijacked by her backers, the big money crowd over at cadna.org, seems more palatable to the lady.

signed.. BUMP

Nice, the last hour approx. 60 new signatures... Keep signing domainers!! Pass the word!

mwzd said:

Those sites with real content and even a tm on the name would not stop a large corporate from coming after the name via a civil suit.

You really think thats a good idea? Whats the percentage of your domain portfolio that is developed? I have just entered the domain world last year, but have been a developer for 10 years and have developed sites since then. Even those sites are not safe under this bill, is that what you're rooting for?

Click to expand...

25% of my portfolio is developed. 25% is short CCC's and the rest are generic or brandables under development.

Tomorrow ebay can come after your filterbay just because of the 'bay' in it and you are liable for 6 million dollars in damages. You think the signatories to the petition like Sahar Sarid, Dan Warner and Adam Dicker are not able to see the big picture?

Click to expand...

No...it doesn't say Ebay can come after me for FilterBay. It doesn't change existing TM laws only creates wider penalties for them. And guys like Dicker are scared of anything that attacks their bread and butter (parking).

This bill is mostly for phishing and deceptive practices to gain personal information. It's not an attack on domainers. Read it before you sign whatever petition people are telling you is evil.

Essentially if this bill passes I would probably be more likely to go after someone that is using my Trademarks (for which I have many) than the other way around.

I signed. Don't judge the "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act" by it innocuous-sounding name! This bill far more than an "anti-phishing" act. It endangers the Internet identity (their domain) of any business or organization and threatens the investment, livelihood of legitimate, generic domain name owners/developers! It has the potential to destory creativity, creation of content, innovation, and free speech on the Internet!

Every Internet user should be concerned, it is not just about the domainers!

The main problem with this bill is that it seems to be written by people with no understanding of the net and trademark law. The problem with these bills is to the uninformed, they probably sound like a good idea. Especially to a guy who thinks that the internet is just a series of tubes.

Can you imagine how many places named Acorn there are in the country? Imagine if 20 of those are dry cleaners. And there is a domain AcornCleaners.com. Are they then going to start all claiming the domain under this act? Who decides under the provisions of ANY business in ANY location who has the rights to the name?

Under her system, there is no name that can be registered as long as some business somewhere is using that name or a part of that name. You couldn't even have AppleSauce.com, a recipe site that has ads, since Apple is in the name and thus would make it unlawful to have it because it contains a TM word.

The law could be easily clarified to apply to what content the domain name points to. If it's a site that is posing as another site's business, for whatever reason, phishing or otherwise, then it would be a valid law, but just to say any word that belongs to any business or person is ridiculous.

There is one other hope. Even if this law gets far enough to be passed, there is still the hope that the judicial will find it too vague and send it back. After all, how are you going to enforce that with so many like named companies. The law is also clearly against the TM law (and perhaps the Electronic Privacy Act) as well unless the 31 pages says something more than what is listed here.

By the way, is there a place to read the whole 31 pages of the bill beyond just the synopsis?

labrocca said:

25% of my portfolio is developed. 25% is short CCC's and the rest are generic or brandables under development.

Click to expand...

I guess then you're safe. But "person's bona fide noncommercial use of the domain name or fair use of a mark in a website accessible under the domain name", so i assume you won't have ads.

labrocca said:

No...it doesn't say Ebay can come after me for FilterBay. It doesn't change existing TM laws only creates wider penalties for them.

Click to expand...

"such domain name is or contains the identical name or brand name of, or is confusingly similar to the name or brand name of a government office, nonprofit organization, business, or other entity" - all it takes is one business or entity.

labrocca said:

This bill is mostly for phishing and deceptive practices to gain personal information. It's not an attack on domainers.

Click to expand...

Mostly is not good enough -
http://www.thedomains.com/2008/03/0...t-it-means-to-you-in-light-of-the-snowe-bill/

labrocca said:

Essentially if this bill passes I would probably be more likely to go after someone that is using my Trademarks (for which I have many) than the other way around.

Click to expand...

I guess you must satisfy this for ALL your domains - tm is only valid for wipo/udrp - "extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person"

Also -
1. Don't ever even offer to sell a domain -
"person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the brand name or trademark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services"

2. Even if you don't now, if you ever did...
"or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct" Did i miss the statue of limitations on this somewhere in the bill?

3. Note, the onus of clearing the complaint is with the domain owner, the complainant isn't even the primary on this and of course the Transport department is a good judge of this -
"In any case in which the attorney general of a State, or an official or agency of a State, has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of that State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by any person who violates this Act, the attorney general, official, or agency of the State, as parens patriae, may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the State in a district court of the United States of appropriate jurisdiction to--

(A) enjoin further violation of this Act by that person;

(B) enforce compliance with this Act; or

(C) obtain civil penalties or damages on behalf of the residents of the State.

I don't know maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but I'd rather be safe than sorry and what anyone else tells me is less important that what it reads to me.

edjackiel said:

I signed. Don't judge the "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act" by it innocuous-sounding name! This bill far more than an "anti-phishing" act. It endangers the Internet identity (their domain) of any business or organization and threatens the investment, livelihood of legitimate, generic domain name owners/developers! It has the potential to desroy creativity, creation of content, innovation, and free speech on the Internet!

Every Internet user should be concerned, it is not just about the domainers!

Click to expand...

Very well stated!! Another example of how the gov't uses one situation as a scare tactic to pull the shades over Americas and the rest of the worlds eyes while the hidden agenda benefits the people/corporations with the most !

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/SnoweStevensAntiPhishing.pdf

That's the whole thing.