New Bill in US Senate Threatens Domain Registrants! - Page 3

GreenGambler · 03-06-2008, 08:54 AM

SIGNED!!!

Even if you own only one domain name you NEED TO SIGN this NOW!

Thank You All,
GG

Red Rock · 03-06-2008, 09:16 AM

Tristanperry,

I just posted my comment on the senator's blog!
Thank you for that suggestion, and the link!

Red Rock!

advaita · 03-06-2008, 09:27 AM

I left a comment too

nicedomains · 03-06-2008, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by enlytend

In another forum I compared this bill to the UIGEA - which was passed because it was tied to Homeland Security legislation. Who would vote against "Homeland Security"?
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/industry-news/441421-new-bill-us-senate-threatens-domain.html

The Snowe bill opens up some very dangerous loopholes which could change the domain business as we know it, and is trying to pass itself off as "Anti Phishing" legislation. Who would vote against "Anti Phishing"?

Anybody experiencing a little deja vu? Don't let it happen again!

(There are already plenty of laws against phishing, oh by the way... )

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

Originally Posted by rockefeller

Some people were interested in a banner for their sites for the petition. Here is the code:

<div id="peSiteTargetDiv567909683"><a href="http://www.thepetitionsite.com/" style="display: block; width: 252px; text-align: center; font-size: 8pt; font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">Petition powered by ThePetitionSite.com</a></div>
<script src="http://www.thepetitionsite.com/js/widget.js?petitionID=567909683"></script>

Thanks Rockefeller!

nicedomains · 03-06-2008, 11:34 AM

Over 1,000 signatures already.. We need LOTS more though

npcomplete · 03-06-2008, 12:18 PM

Signed with the following comment:

"We need to send a strong message to other members of congress that any vote for the bill will be matched by active campaigns to remove that member from congress."

Even more important than contacting the moron sponsors of the bill: Contact YOUR OWN representatives and senators and let them know that your vote for them will depend on how they vote for the bill.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=441421

Here is the contact info:

Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

House:
https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

It is important to contact your senators and congressman before any vote takes place. While this is currently a senate bill, be sure to write your congressmen too... these people need to feel the pressure from all sides before any voting.

Marc

poker_bears · 03-06-2008, 12:19 PM

Signed

*verbster* · 03-06-2008, 12:28 PM

Beyond the literal claims of authorship and public backing of this bill by some senators (who may or may not even understand it), who is actually lobbying for this bill to pass? Who convinced members of the senate that this bill would be a good idea...and why? Bills like this rarely spring forth without some fairly substantial back-office politics, usually having to do with money. It would be nice to know what individual or group is truly responsible for this idea, and if they stand to benefit from it.

labrocca · 03-06-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

"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.

And Ebay would still have to prove Filterbay it's confusingly similar. The burden to prove their case is still there.

Quote:

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.

Again...it would be wise for domainers to finally become legitimate TM holders and established their own rights. Why assume I won't have ads? One point in obtaining TM is commercial usage. If anything I would be certain to add advertisers.

Quote:

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"

If the bill passes I would careful survey my portfolio...probably remove a few from parking, create a logo, add some ads and get some site running to establish my rights. I build 3-5 sites a month..I would just have to step it up a bit. I would probably let some obvious stuff drop too. No big deal. I lose a little income to ensure I am legit and legal. The stuff I would let drop is risky domains anyways. I am sure that's the same for many domainers. They fear their cybersquatting gray area days are numbered...and they are right too.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=441421

I am probably one of the few domainers here that considers himself more of a webmaster than anything else. Too many here aren't developers. They park their portfolio's and try to get people to buy their domains. It's not honorable. It's not what the internet was created for. It's an abuse of the system. This bill could end that. Sorry domainers..yer screwed. Eventually you might have to write some html.

NameCharger · 03-06-2008, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by labrocca

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.

If this heinous bill becomes law, imagine the response Big Business with deeper pockets than you will have when the red carpet is rolled out for them to go after your brands, placing interpretation into the hands of the court of whether or not certain letter/word patterns contained in your TMs may be confusingly similar and misleading people.

labrocca · 03-06-2008, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by NameCharger

If this heinous bill becomes law, imagine the response Big Business with deeper pockets than you will have when the red carpet is rolled out for them to go after your brands, placing interpretation into the hands of the court of whether or not certain letter/word patterns contained in your TMs may be confusingly similar and misleading people.

????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=441421
Ooo...you make it sound so scary and ominous. It's not. There are laws now that allow "big business" to come after your domains. WIPO is EXTREMELY easy to game for them. What's the real difference here?

Imagine if the UDRP didn't exist and it was written into the books today...I betcha there would be a petition against it and doom scenarios to accompany that as well.

nicedomains · 03-06-2008, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by labrocca

.... I am sure that's the same for many domainers. They fear their cybersquatting gray area days are numbered...and they are right too.

I am probably one of the few domainers here that considers himself more of a webmaster than anything else. Too many here aren't developers. They park their portfolio's and try to get people to buy their domains. It's not honorable. It's not what the internet was created for. It's an abuse of the system. This bill could end that. Sorry domainers..yer screwed. Eventually you might have to write some html.

Hardly anyone on this forum condones cybersquatting.. You think by not parking your names and putting a logo on a webpage will protect you and your domains from large corporations squashing you like a bug and taking your online assets? Who are you to define what the internet was created for BTW...?

NameCharger · 03-06-2008, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by labrocca

Ooo...you make it sound so scary and ominous. It's not. There are laws now that allow "big business" to come after your domains. WIPO is EXTREMELY easy to game for them. What's the real difference here?
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=441421

Imagine if the UDRP didn't exist and it was written into the books today...I betcha there would be a petition against it and doom scenarios to accompany that as well.

WIPO & UDRP do exist, so why then the need for this bill?

labrocca · 03-06-2008, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by NameCharger

WIPO & UDRP do exist, so why then the need for this bill?

Read my statement again.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=441421

Imagine if...

And we need this bill to penalize those using domains to phish. It's a serious problem. The small part about TM violation in domains might be reworded or removed entirely but it's not over-the-top language imho.

Pommy - The DN Doc · 03-06-2008, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by labrocca

Ooo...you make it sound so scary and ominous. It's not. There are laws now that allow "big business" to come after your domains. WIPO is EXTREMELY easy to game for them. What's the real difference here?
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=441421

Imagine if the UDRP didn't exist and it was written into the books today...I betcha there would be a petition against it and doom scenarios to accompany that as well.

Well, in a few years time, we may look at a domain name like bank.com and wonder how foolish the owner was ever to have regged it, if this bill is passed - just as we might now wonder the same thing about people who reg BuyCokeCola.com now. Culture changes quickly as will the value of domain portfolios.

BTW what are the chances of it passing? Is it on mainstream news much over in the US?

Tomoshius · 03-06-2008, 01:44 PM

Signed.

Bump!

domainerd1 · 03-06-2008, 01:47 PM

Signed. This is not the first time Ms. Snowe has put her name on lousy legislation. She is a RINO, pure and simple.

GreenGambler · 03-06-2008, 05:22 PM

Up to 1,168 signatures. Come on guys, SIGN THIS petition.

EbookLover · 03-06-2008, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by edjackiel

I signed. Don't judge the "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act" by it innocuous-sounding name!

Yup. And that the way it always is. They intentionally name them to sound benevolent, like the "Fainess Doctrine". But it's all BS. You have to read the whole thing in order to get the truth, and even then a lot of the time you have to read it many times in order to "get it".

BTW, 1,174 petitions signed. Only 826 more to go to reach the goal. But really, we actually need more that to reach the goal because many of the people signing the petition are from foreign countries and they do not count since this is a matter of US law.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=441421

I still have not gotten anything from RJ on this issue. I really wich he would send out a notice of this matter to all forum members like the other domain forum did. This is one of the best things about having a list.

Jackie · 03-06-2008, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by EbookLover

BTW, 1,174 petitions signed. Only 826 more to go to reach the goal. But really, we actually need more that to reach the goal because many of the people signing the petition are from foreign countries and they do not count since this is a matter of US law.

Because the gTLD (.com, .net, and others) registries, ex. Verisign, are located in the US, it not only applies to US domain owners but domain owners around the world! I've had thoughts that domain registries shouldn't be run by private companies who are under a certain country's jurisdiction because domain extensions are a GLOBAL ASSET. This is what happens. They should be run by a country-neutral, international body.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=441421

EDIT!
As well, trademarks can only apply to a specific product/service/industry so it doesn't mean a name containing a phrase similar to a trademark cannot be used legitimately. A trademark can also only be valid when the usage is not the generic meaning of the term, correct? I'm not a lawyer (Little disclaimer

: I am not providing any legal advice) but this is what I have heard on here.

EbookLover · 03-06-2008, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by edjackiel

Because the gTLD (.com, .net, and others) registries, ex. Verisign, are located in the US, it not only applies to US domain owners but domain owners around the world! I've had thoughts that domain registries shouldn't be run by private companies who are under a certain country's jurisdiction because domain extensions are a GLOBAL ASSET. This is what happens. They should be run by a country-neutral, international body.

I completely understand that, however, this is an Act being pushed by a US senator in the USA. Therefore, any petition brought forth to undermine such an act will only be valid if it has enough USA-based signatures. They will throw out the non-US signatures.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=441421

I'm pretty sure that's the way it is. I could be wrong, but it would not make sense otherwise.

Also, I see a fair amount of "anonymous" signers in that petition. I am afraid that won't do. If this petition is to get anything done at all, it really needs to see some action from USA-based signers who are not afraid to put their real name on it.

Jackie · 03-06-2008, 08:24 PM

I've always had a strong belief that the people that will be governed and affected by a law should have a voice about it. Americans will have the most influence about this bill because the votes are in their hands but every little bit of support helps, from an American or not.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=441421

As I was stating above, trademarks can only apply to a specific product/service/industry so it doesn't mean a name containing a phrase similar to a trademark cannot be used legitimately and that a trademark can also only be valid when the usage is not the generic meaning of the term, correct?

For example, if somebody owned Apple.tld, they wouldn't automatically be running afoul of Apple's (the makers of the iPod) trademark. The scope of Apple's trademark is around computers and other sorts of electronics. Using the domain for a produce store to sell apples would be a perfectly legitimate use of the name.
So...Apple (the company) shouldn't be allowed to take away the domain unless they can prove that the owner is using the domain in bad faith, for example, misrepresenting or using the domain to sell related products/ads and compete against them. If the owner of the Apple.tld has not used the domain and is just letting sit idle, that alone is not a reason for Apple to be able to take away the domain.

EbookLover · 03-06-2008, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by edjackiel

Americans will have the most influence about this bill because the votes are in their hands but every little bit of support helps, from an American or not.

I'm not disagreeing with that, idealistically speaking that is.

However, legally speaking, all non-US signers to the petition will most likely be invalid since this is a USA-based law we are petitioning against. I'm not saying that it doe snot affect everyone worldwide, I'm saying that it is US-based law. Someone in India has no say in whether or goes through or not, even though it affects him as well. Sorry to say, but it's true.

It does no good right now to think with your heart and wish things were the way you or I want them to be. Now is the time to think with your head instead of your heart and work toward the goal within the confines of the rules and "the way it is" because do to otherwise will ensure failure in this specific case.

planoali · 03-06-2008, 11:33 PM

JB7 at dnf posted Senator Snow's blog:

http://blog.thehill.com/2008/02/29/p...olympia-snowe/

Leave a comment if you can and make sure you do it in a respectful manner since you don't want the domain industry to look foolish.

RJ · 03-06-2008, 11:38 PM

Anyone who opposes the new legislation can also help by blogging about the issue and writing letters to their congressmen.

Bob Connor has provided the following text that anyone is welcome to use without attribution---

1) [short, simple response] This Bill should be rewritten to focus only on the reduction of phishing. Provisions that allow governments or large businesses to take away websites from individuals or small businesses, without the due process of current trademark law and domain resolution procedures, should be removed.

2) At first glance, the "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008" seems to be about reducing phishing. However, while parts of the proposed bill deal with phishing, other parts reveal a hidden agenda that is indeed "phishy." Provisions in the Bill would let governments and big businesses to take away websites from individuals and small businesses, including the threat of criminal penalties. How? Any website that mentions the name of any government entity (city? state? you name it) or business name or product for which the respective government or business thinks this might be "confusing" is at risk. Are you a real estate agent with a website called "San Francisco Realty"? You are at risk. Are you a plumber with a website called "Cleveland Plumbing"? You are at risk. Just about every website run by an individual or small business could not only be taken away by the government or big business, but the individual or small business could face devastating criminal penalties and fines. Everyone should support targeted efforts to reduce phishing and online fraud. However, this Bill hides much more than that. As currently written, this Bill is a Trojan horse and should not be supported. Based on this hidden agenda in the ""Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008", it might be more accurately titled the "Government and Big Business Can Take Websites Away from Individuals and Small Business Act of 2008". It should be cleaned up to focus just on true phishing.

3) If you are going to take away people's rights or property, you better not let them know until it is too late. If you are going to take away people's rights or property, then it is best to hide your intent under the banner of a fight against something so bad that no one dare oppose the fight. For example, suppose that you operate a nationwide furniture store chain and want to eliminate local competition from independent operators. You could ask your Senator to sponsor the "Wipe Out The Little Guy Act of 2008" but it is unlikely that your Senator or the public would give you much support. A much better strategy would be to hide your intent to wipe out your competition inside a bit of legislation that appears to fight a battle that everyone would support. For example, how about the "Furniture Consumer Protection Act of 2008" in which you tout the benefits of protecting consumers against deceptive furniture sales practices and price gouging etc. Then in the middle of the Bill you hide a provision that would allow you to press charges against anyone who tries to sell the same types of furniture that you do -- effectively putting out of business the pesky independent stores across the country that compete with you. If you read the "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008" carefully, you will see that this is exactly what it will do. It will let government and big business take away websites (the virtual equivalent of store fronts) from individuals and small businesses -- without the due process protections that exist in the current domain name resolution protection and even the current trademark law. It is a brazen grab by the big to take over what belongs to the small. Everyone should support efforts to reduce phishing and online fraud. No one should support the anti-competitive power grab hidden in this Bill as currently worded.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=441421

4) possible strategy to get people to think about the implications of this Bill -- by example -- Here's one idea. Pick around 10 government entities (cities? agencies? branches?) or 10 brand names or 10 business names. Then go to DomainTools or something similar or Google search and find the top 10? 20? 100? sites with overlapping terms. For example, suppose the government entity is the "House" or the "Senate" or the city is "New York" or "Maine" -- find "House Cleaning" or "New York Cheesecake" or who knows what. Then make a list of these sites. Either publish them and say -- "Hey, look. All of these sites could be take away. With criminal penalties to boot." Or, draft respectful and well written letters (not e-mail, avoid spam) to the owners of these businesses… describe the Bill and how it threatens them. Give them the names of their respective legislators and ask them to write. Do the same for blogs. How about Newspapers? How many newspapers have the city name in them and are not trademarked? This is all about the Big (big government, big business) taking away from the Small (individuals, small business). Maybe we should also contact the small business administration? Anyway -- the strategy here is to begin circulating lists of websites that could be criminalized and taken away. Get people thinking. Make it real. Drive it home.

5) We all work hard to protect our computers, websites, and businesses from online viruses, trojan horses, and other attacks. However, during the last couple weeks a new internet-based attack has been launched against which even the most advanced security programs will not be able to protect you or your small business. This attack will enable governments or big businesses to take away your website if the government or big business thinks that your website includes too many references to city names, product names, company names, or some variation on them. For example -- do you sell "New York Cheesecake" on your website as part of a small business? The City or State of New York could take that away, claiming that it confuses people who might think that cheesecake has something to do with city or state government. Sound impossible? It's not. Check out the fine print of the deceptively labeled "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008." If you read the fine print, you will see that this Bill goes far beyond protecting consumers from phishing and actually gives governments and big businesses carte blanche to take away websites from individuals and small businesses -- without the due process that currently exists in domain name resolution procedures or current trademark law. Ironic. Phishing is all about using deception to steal something from someone. Phishing is about using something that sounds official to rip someone off. Unless this Bill is changed, it may turn out to be phishing on a grand scale. Computer security software will not protect you from this phishy Bill. The only way to protect your website and small business identity is to contact your Senator to ask that the wording in the Bill be changed to focus on preventing phishing, not expanding it.

6) What is "phishing"? Basically, "phishing" is using deception, usually under the guise of a respected business or other organization, to rip someone off. For example, someone who "phishes" might send out e-mails that look like they come from a respected bank to try to get people to give up their credit card information so that the "phiser" can steal using this credit card information. Everyone should support targeted measures that will reduce "phishing". However, it is ironic that the Bill known as the "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008" is, itself, deceptive and can be used to rip people off. How you may ask? Although the title of the Bill and some of the early portions of the Bill focus on ways to reduce phishing, buried in the Bill are vague provisions that would allow governments and big businesses to take away, and even criminalize, websites operated by individuals and small businesses than mention city names, business names, and product names. How ironic that the "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008", as currently written, is itself an exercise in phishing. You know how it is with phishing emails. They sound official. They sound harmless. But when you click, you are at risk. In a sad bit of irony, the same is true of the "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008" It sounds official. It sounds harmless. However, if it is passed as currently written, then individuals and small businesses will discover too late its hidden, harmful payload. Write to your legislators today. Ask to have the wording changed on this Bill so that it truly targets phishers, not innocent individuals and small businesses.

7) [headlines I'd love to see]...

"Critics say anti-phishing Bill would let governments and big businesses take over websites they do not like"

"Anti-phishing bill contains Trojan horse to take over websites say critics"

"Anti-phishing bill has hidden agenda against small businesses"

"Bill with anti-phishing label goes behond phishing to hurt small businesses"

"Anti-phishing Bill contains phishy language"

"Supposed anti-phishing Bill would let government and big business take websites from individuals and small businesses"

"Anti-phishing Bill is itself phishy -- say critics"

"Bill would allow governments and big businesses to take websites away from individuals and small businesses with current due process protection"

"Anti-phishing Bill goes beyond phishing"

"Critics say Anti-phishing Bill contains Trojan horse provisions to take away individual and small business websites"

8 ) [analogy piece]

Imagine this. You and your family have lived in Smallville for three generations. Your grandfather opened "Smallville Hardware" in 1917. This small business has been operated by your family ever since. One day a police car pulls up in front of your hardware store. The cops come out and put you in cuffs, informing you that your store is illegal. Your crime? The name of your store includes the word "Smallville." The city council just passed a Bill called the "Anti-Consumer-Confusion Act of 2008." According to the provisions of this Bill, some consumers may think that your store is an official part of city government. Criminal charges are made as well as fines of $2 million dollars.

Image this. You are a physician who specializes in diagnosing and treating sleep disorders. You founded the "Sleep Clinic" and have operated it since 1990. One day a police car pulls up in front of your sleep clinic. The cops come out and put you in cuffs, informing you that your clinic is illegal. Your crime? The name of your clinic includes the word "Sleep." The Senate just passed a Bill called the "Anti-Consumer-Confusion Act of 2008." It turns out that a business has a trademark on the word "Sleep" (there actually is a trademark on the word "Sleep" -- it is Serial Number #78476446) and the owners of this trademark think that your clinic infringes on their trademark. According to the provisions of the Bill, they are pressing criminal charges and fining you $3 million dollars.

It is impossible to imagine that citizens would tolerate legislation that would allow incidents such as these two in the real world. People would not stand for legislation which would allow governments or trademark holders to take over the property of individuals or small businesses in such a manner. However, a Bill was recently introduced in the Senate with hidden provisions that could allow property grabs such as these in the increasingly-important world of the internet.

Buried inside the harmless-sounding "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008" is language that would allow governments and big businesses to take away the websites of individuals and small businesses without the due process protection that is embodied in current trademark law and domain resolution procedures. All that the government or big business needs to assert is that the individual or small business website uses words that could be confusing. The Bill includes criminal penalties and massive fines. Targeted measures to reduce phishing deserve our support. The Trojan horse language hidden in this bill that would allow governments and big businesses to take away property from individuals and small business should be removed.

03-06-2008, 08:54 AM	#51 (permalink)
GreenGambler Visit -- NameManor.com Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Missouri--USA Posts: 3,494 Follow @ArtlicoiusArt	SIGNED!!! Even if you own only one domain name you NEED TO SIGN this NOW! Thank You All, GG __________________ Mewv.com is Currently for Sale on Ebay! Original Abstract Art Abstract Artwork For Sale

03-06-2008, 09:27 AM	#53 (permalink)
advaita Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,518	I left a comment too __________________ Best Selling Ebooks * Stocks and Shares * Radley Bags * Chronographs * Cameras Under $300 * How to Trade Stocks Online * Netbooksfor Kids * Geiger Counter Kits * Machetes

03-06-2008, 11:34 AM	#55 (permalink)
nicedomains NamePros Expert Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,254 Follow @NameTalent	Over 1,000 signatures already.. We need LOTS more though __________________ NameTalent.com Generate QR Codes

03-06-2008, 12:18 PM	#56 (permalink)
npcomplete NamePros Regular Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 976	Signed with the following comment: "We need to send a strong message to other members of congress that any vote for the bill will be matched by active campaigns to remove that member from congress." Even more important than contacting the moron sponsors of the bill: Contact YOUR OWN representatives and senators and let them know that your vote for them will depend on how they vote for the bill. ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=441421 Here is the contact info: Senate: http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm House: https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml It is important to contact your senators and congressman before any vote takes place. While this is currently a senate bill, be sure to write your congressmen too... these people need to feel the pressure from all sides before any voting. Marc __________________ . (Just another mathematician obsessed with proving P != NP -- that is a math joke for job security) Smile! In a few short years you will realize that these are the good old days!

03-06-2008, 12:28 PM	#58 (permalink)
verbster Yup. It's cold. Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 2,737	Beyond the literal claims of authorship and public backing of this bill by some senators (who may or may not even understand it), who is actually lobbying for this bill to pass? Who convinced members of the senate that this bill would be a good idea...and why? Bills like this rarely spring forth without some fairly substantial back-office politics, usually having to do with money. It would be nice to know what individual or group is truly responsible for this idea, and if they stand to benefit from it. __________________ A good domain name is worth more than money. I've got domains up the Wazoo...wanna buy some?

03-06-2008, 09:16 AM	#52 (permalink)
Red Rock Account Suspended Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Chicago Posts: 999	Tristanperry, I just posted my comment on the senator's blog! Thank you for that suggestion, and the link! Red Rock!

03-06-2008, 12:19 PM	#57 (permalink)
poker_bears NamePros Regular Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Beach Posts: 284	Signed

03-06-2008, 01:44 PM	#66 (permalink)
Tomoshius NamePros Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 25	Signed. Bump!

03-06-2008, 01:47 PM	#67 (permalink)
domainerd1 NamePros Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 52	Signed. This is not the first time Ms. Snowe has put her name on lousy legislation. She is a RINO, pure and simple.

03-06-2008, 05:22 PM	#68 (permalink)
GreenGambler Visit -- NameManor.com Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Missouri--USA Posts: 3,494 Follow @ArtlicoiusArt	Up to 1,168 signatures. Come on guys, SIGN THIS petition. __________________ Mewv.com is Currently for Sale on Ebay! Original Abstract Art Abstract Artwork For Sale

03-06-2008, 08:24 PM	#72 (permalink)
Jackie Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,575	I've always had a strong belief that the people that will be governed and affected by a law should have a voice about it. Americans will have the most influence about this bill because the votes are in their hands but every little bit of support helps, from an American or not. ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=441421 As I was stating above, trademarks can only apply to a specific product/service/industry so it doesn't mean a name containing a phrase similar to a trademark cannot be used legitimately and that a trademark can also only be valid when the usage is not the generic meaning of the term, correct? For example, if somebody owned Apple.tld, they wouldn't automatically be running afoul of Apple's (the makers of the iPod) trademark. The scope of Apple's trademark is around computers and other sorts of electronics. Using the domain for a produce store to sell apples would be a perfectly legitimate use of the name. So...Apple (the company) shouldn't be allowed to take away the domain unless they can prove that the owner is using the domain in bad faith, for example, misrepresenting or using the domain to sell related products/ads and compete against them. If the owner of the Apple.tld has not used the domain and is just letting sit idle, that alone is not a reason for Apple to be able to take away the domain. __________________ Mobile Phones & Tablets @ MobilePhonesTablets.com The COMPANION for Android, iOS, WP7, BB QNX, and WebOS Users Buy Real Estate Properties Residential & Commercial Real Estate

03-06-2008, 11:33 PM	#74 (permalink)
planoali NamePros Regular Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 963	JB7 at dnf posted Senator Snow's blog: http://blog.thehill.com/2008/02/29/p...olympia-snowe/ Leave a comment if you can and make sure you do it in a respectful manner since you don't want the domain industry to look foolish. __________________ HONO.com, QABE.com, QATU.com, PAOE.com, TSNO.com, GRMF.com, HVHH.com, KKFK.com, LDTN.com, LOHB.com, DFBP.com, GNAB.com ..... and many more. PM me if interested in HIGH quality llll.com's. ROWdotnet

03-06-2008, 11:38 PM	#75 (permalink)
RJ NamePros Webmaster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,930 Follow @DomainBuyer	Anyone who opposes the new legislation can also help by blogging about the issue and writing letters to their congressmen. Bob Connor has provided the following text that anyone is welcome to use without attribution--- 1) [short, simple response] This Bill should be rewritten to focus only on the reduction of phishing. Provisions that allow governments or large businesses to take away websites from individuals or small businesses, without the due process of current trademark law and domain resolution procedures, should be removed. 2) At first glance, the "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008" seems to be about reducing phishing. However, while parts of the proposed bill deal with phishing, other parts reveal a hidden agenda that is indeed "phishy." Provisions in the Bill would let governments and big businesses to take away websites from individuals and small businesses, including the threat of criminal penalties. How? Any website that mentions the name of any government entity (city? state? you name it) or business name or product for which the respective government or business thinks this might be "confusing" is at risk. Are you a real estate agent with a website called "San Francisco Realty"? You are at risk. Are you a plumber with a website called "Cleveland Plumbing"? You are at risk. Just about every website run by an individual or small business could not only be taken away by the government or big business, but the individual or small business could face devastating criminal penalties and fines. Everyone should support targeted efforts to reduce phishing and online fraud. However, this Bill hides much more than that. As currently written, this Bill is a Trojan horse and should not be supported. Based on this hidden agenda in the ""Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008", it might be more accurately titled the "Government and Big Business Can Take Websites Away from Individuals and Small Business Act of 2008". It should be cleaned up to focus just on true phishing. 3) If you are going to take away people's rights or property, you better not let them know until it is too late. If you are going to take away people's rights or property, then it is best to hide your intent under the banner of a fight against something so bad that no one dare oppose the fight. For example, suppose that you operate a nationwide furniture store chain and want to eliminate local competition from independent operators. You could ask your Senator to sponsor the "Wipe Out The Little Guy Act of 2008" but it is unlikely that your Senator or the public would give you much support. A much better strategy would be to hide your intent to wipe out your competition inside a bit of legislation that appears to fight a battle that everyone would support. For example, how about the "Furniture Consumer Protection Act of 2008" in which you tout the benefits of protecting consumers against deceptive furniture sales practices and price gouging etc. Then in the middle of the Bill you hide a provision that would allow you to press charges against anyone who tries to sell the same types of furniture that you do -- effectively putting out of business the pesky independent stores across the country that compete with you. If you read the "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008" carefully, you will see that this is exactly what it will do. It will let government and big business take away websites (the virtual equivalent of store fronts) from individuals and small businesses -- without the due process protections that exist in the current domain name resolution protection and even the current trademark law. It is a brazen grab by the big to take over what belongs to the small. Everyone should support efforts to reduce phishing and online fraud. No one should support the anti-competitive power grab hidden in this Bill as currently worded. ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=441421 4) possible strategy to get people to think about the implications of this Bill -- by example -- Here's one idea. Pick around 10 government entities (cities? agencies? branches?) or 10 brand names or 10 business names. Then go to DomainTools or something similar or Google search and find the top 10? 20? 100? sites with overlapping terms. For example, suppose the government entity is the "House" or the "Senate" or the city is "New York" or "Maine" -- find "House Cleaning" or "New York Cheesecake" or who knows what. Then make a list of these sites. Either publish them and say -- "Hey, look. All of these sites could be take away. With criminal penalties to boot." Or, draft respectful and well written letters (not e-mail, avoid spam) to the owners of these businesses… describe the Bill and how it threatens them. Give them the names of their respective legislators and ask them to write. Do the same for blogs. How about Newspapers? How many newspapers have the city name in them and are not trademarked? This is all about the Big (big government, big business) taking away from the Small (individuals, small business). Maybe we should also contact the small business administration? Anyway -- the strategy here is to begin circulating lists of websites that could be criminalized and taken away. Get people thinking. Make it real. Drive it home. 5) We all work hard to protect our computers, websites, and businesses from online viruses, trojan horses, and other attacks. However, during the last couple weeks a new internet-based attack has been launched against which even the most advanced security programs will not be able to protect you or your small business. This attack will enable governments or big businesses to take away your website if the government or big business thinks that your website includes too many references to city names, product names, company names, or some variation on them. For example -- do you sell "New York Cheesecake" on your website as part of a small business? The City or State of New York could take that away, claiming that it confuses people who might think that cheesecake has something to do with city or state government. Sound impossible? It's not. Check out the fine print of the deceptively labeled "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008." If you read the fine print, you will see that this Bill goes far beyond protecting consumers from phishing and actually gives governments and big businesses carte blanche to take away websites from individuals and small businesses -- without the due process that currently exists in domain name resolution procedures or current trademark law. Ironic. Phishing is all about using deception to steal something from someone. Phishing is about using something that sounds official to rip someone off. Unless this Bill is changed, it may turn out to be phishing on a grand scale. Computer security software will not protect you from this phishy Bill. The only way to protect your website and small business identity is to contact your Senator to ask that the wording in the Bill be changed to focus on preventing phishing, not expanding it. 6) What is "phishing"? Basically, "phishing" is using deception, usually under the guise of a respected business or other organization, to rip someone off. For example, someone who "phishes" might send out e-mails that look like they come from a respected bank to try to get people to give up their credit card information so that the "phiser" can steal using this credit card information. Everyone should support targeted measures that will reduce "phishing". However, it is ironic that the Bill known as the "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008" is, itself, deceptive and can be used to rip people off. How you may ask? Although the title of the Bill and some of the early portions of the Bill focus on ways to reduce phishing, buried in the Bill are vague provisions that would allow governments and big businesses to take away, and even criminalize, websites operated by individuals and small businesses than mention city names, business names, and product names. How ironic that the "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008", as currently written, is itself an exercise in phishing. You know how it is with phishing emails. They sound official. They sound harmless. But when you click, you are at risk. In a sad bit of irony, the same is true of the "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008" It sounds official. It sounds harmless. However, if it is passed as currently written, then individuals and small businesses will discover too late its hidden, harmful payload. Write to your legislators today. Ask to have the wording changed on this Bill so that it truly targets phishers, not innocent individuals and small businesses. 7) [headlines I'd love to see]... "Critics say anti-phishing Bill would let governments and big businesses take over websites they do not like" "Anti-phishing bill contains Trojan horse to take over websites say critics" "Anti-phishing bill has hidden agenda against small businesses" "Bill with anti-phishing label goes behond phishing to hurt small businesses" "Anti-phishing Bill contains phishy language" "Supposed anti-phishing Bill would let government and big business take websites from individuals and small businesses" "Anti-phishing Bill is itself phishy -- say critics" "Bill would allow governments and big businesses to take websites away from individuals and small businesses with current due process protection" "Anti-phishing Bill goes beyond phishing" "Critics say Anti-phishing Bill contains Trojan horse provisions to take away individual and small business websites" 8 ) [analogy piece] Imagine this. You and your family have lived in Smallville for three generations. Your grandfather opened "Smallville Hardware" in 1917. This small business has been operated by your family ever since. One day a police car pulls up in front of your hardware store. The cops come out and put you in cuffs, informing you that your store is illegal. Your crime? The name of your store includes the word "Smallville." The city council just passed a Bill called the "Anti-Consumer-Confusion Act of 2008." According to the provisions of this Bill, some consumers may think that your store is an official part of city government. Criminal charges are made as well as fines of $2 million dollars. Image this. You are a physician who specializes in diagnosing and treating sleep disorders. You founded the "Sleep Clinic" and have operated it since 1990. One day a police car pulls up in front of your sleep clinic. The cops come out and put you in cuffs, informing you that your clinic is illegal. Your crime? The name of your clinic includes the word "Sleep." The Senate just passed a Bill called the "Anti-Consumer-Confusion Act of 2008." It turns out that a business has a trademark on the word "Sleep" (there actually is a trademark on the word "Sleep" -- it is Serial Number #78476446) and the owners of this trademark think that your clinic infringes on their trademark. According to the provisions of the Bill, they are pressing criminal charges and fining you $3 million dollars. It is impossible to imagine that citizens would tolerate legislation that would allow incidents such as these two in the real world. People would not stand for legislation which would allow governments or trademark holders to take over the property of individuals or small businesses in such a manner. However, a Bill was recently introduced in the Senate with hidden provisions that could allow property grabs such as these in the increasingly-important world of the internet. Buried inside the harmless-sounding "Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008" is language that would allow governments and big businesses to take away the websites of individuals and small businesses without the due process protection that is embodied in current trademark law and domain resolution procedures. All that the government or big business needs to assert is that the individual or small business website uses words that could be confusing. The Bill includes criminal penalties and massive fines. Targeted measures to reduce phishing deserve our support. The Trojan horse language hidden in this bill that would allow governments and big businesses to take away property from individuals and small business should be removed.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)