Why I typosquatted and why it should be legal

[Ms Domainer]

*

You just won't believe this editorial by Alf Temme, the notorious Microsoft typosquatter. Not only does he defend his actions, but Seattle Pi has given him a huge platform on which to make his case:

I had an idea to start a Web-address consulting firm called Domain Name Consolidation Service, advising large corporations what kinds of URLs they should register. I thought it would behoove companies to avoid expensive and time-consuming efforts years later to obtain domain names from others who, by then, would likely have registered those domains in faraway countries, where they would be difficult to obtain.

It seemed a very practical idea to save all these large corporations a lot of money and grief later.

Read the rest here:

Guest post: Why I typosquatted and why it should be legal​

His arguments and rationalizations are breathtaking.

*

 

[Blake]

I have to say that this guy was crazy In my honest opinion. I mean honestly what did he think would happen? Well I guess you live and learn and this should be an article all newbies read when they register Tm'd names!

Thanks for sharing....and wow the implications ....and as domaining said: This guy owns Sauna.com......wowsers!

 

[enlytend]

Crazy or a pathological liar or a little of both. His rationalizations boggle the mind

A little more bad press for the domaining industry ...

 

[Kate]

Well some people never learn. More bad rep for us at the end of the day...

 

[exsedo]

The way I understand the law, is that the act of registering a Tm typo domain is not in itself illegal.

Having said that, I can't think of any useage at all which is legal.

Redirecting traffic = illegal
Offering for sale = illegal
Parking = illegal
Trading for goods or services = illegal

How he ever expected anyone other than fellow cybersquatters to sympathise with his feeble excuses is beyond me :lol:

This guy is not only a cybersquatter but also an extortionist.

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

The sad part: he still doesn't get it, and it doesn't look as though he will ever get it.

He tries to hide behind freedom of speech issues, not getting that freedom of speech is never absolute.

*

 

[El Bandolero]

With all due respect this guy is a moron. Even from the start we should all have a decent understand of what a trademark/domain trademark is, yet hundred's probably even more register trademark domains on a daily basis thinking there going to get rich etc.

Some of them play innocent examples: the apple guy who got sued and lost his domains then made a youtube video for us to boycott Apple. Now this guy plays innocent as well claiming he thought he was doing them good but come on all let's not play stupid he was just one of the others who thought they could get rich. I'm sure Microsoft knows about there domains that are out there, but why reg them and pay the fee for years knowing that even if someone regs them they can take the domain from them. I don't feel sorry for this guy maybe I'm being a bit mean but I don't think one should feel sorry when you really feel this person should know better.

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

I'm not sad for the typosquatter; I'm sad for this industry, which already has a bad rap.

People like him just stirs things up even more, especially among those who don't understand this industry at all.

*

 

[DomainMOD]

Typosquatting is just like if you were to buy some property next to Disneyland. Put a hotel on it, and you should not be able to get sued for "property squatting."

Ummm, yeah, you're wrong.

For someone who started a domain consulting firm you would think he'd know enough to realize that this isn't even close to a legitimate comparison. Unless he named his hotel "Dinseyland", at which point he'd be screwed.

And nevermind starting a domain consulting firm, anyone with some common sense and logic should be able to figure this one out. Neither of which this guy has, apparently.

 

[DU]

I'll go against the grain and say that the laws are Draconian and totally over the top. This is why they have UDRP.

I don't really see what the big deal with registering typos are. My feeling is that there is no deception in this. NOW if you were to copy the typesetting, layout, and try and DECEIVE the people visiting the site that's certainly different.

I just don't see the harm in someone going to hotmali.com and not getting to hotmail... I mean geez... you just have to RETYPE hotmail.. how fricking hard is that?

There's a big difference between accidental traffic and phishing imho.

The problem that I see is that there are FOUR issues.

The first is that there are legitimate trademark, copyright issues to be solved.

The second is that the current laws are like using tanks to shoot fish in a barrel .... (and the masses are the fish not the tank operators)

The third is that the UDRP is a stop gap that has the best of intentions but fails all counts of being a true judicial system.

The fourth is that people are so willing to give up their rights and actually try and understand the REAL issues.

No lawsuit should be about using anyone as an example.. and that's is what the ACPA allows. RIAA has found out that it doesn't work for your public image. Laws should be fair and equally applicable - else it's not a law, its a method of establishing a multi tier legal system.

The guy in the article was a little naive but I'd suggest just about everyone reading it is too. Yes. I include myself.

 

[exsedo]

I'll go against the grain and say that the laws are Draconian and totally over the top. This is why they have UDRP.

I don't really see what the big deal with registering typos are. My feeling is that there is no deception in this. NOW if you were to copy the typesetting, layout, and try and DECEIVE the people visiting the site that's certainly different.

I just don't see the harm in someone going to hotmali.com and not getting to hotmail... I mean geez... you just have to RETYPE hotmail.. how fricking hard is that?

There's a big difference between accidental traffic and phishing imho.

The problem that I see is that there are FOUR issues.

The first is that there are legitimate trademark, copyright issues to be solved.

The second is that the current laws are like using tanks to shoot fish in a barrel .... (and the masses are the fish not the tank operators)

The third is that the UDRP is a stop gap that has the best of intentions but fails all counts of being a true judicial system.

The fourth is that people are so willing to give up their rights and actually try and understand the REAL issues.

No lawsuit should be about using anyone as an example.. and that's is what the ACPA allows. RIAA has found out that it doesn't work for your public image. Laws should be fair and equally applicable - else it's not a law, its a method of establishing a multi tier legal system.

The guy in the article was a little naive but I'd suggest just about everyone reading it is too. Yes. I include myself.

There can be no other use for a Tm Typo domain other than to take what is not rightfully yours. Its not about being naive, its also about integrity.

 

[DU]

There can be no other use for a Tm Typo domain other than to take what is not rightfully yours. Its not about being naive, its also about integrity.

What are you taking? You're not taking anything.

Let's shut down the ENTIRE .CO TLD then ? No.

If a .COM exists... then the .CO is infringing. Surely.

The mistake to be made is to accept all laws as if they have been framed and formed with a clarity of thought and with true consideration of the issues.

The ACPA is clearly not this.

 

[Archangel]

.co wasn't made specifically for typo traffic (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Anyway, this sounds more like a discussion than industry news so I moved the thread accordingly

What are you taking? You're not taking anything.

Let's shut down the ENTIRE .CO TLD then ? No.

If a .COM exists... then the .CO is infringing. Surely.

The mistake to be made is to accept all laws as if they have been framed and formed with a clarity of thought and with true consideration of the issues.

The ACPA is clearly not this.

 

[XDuncan]

My own typosquatting has been very profitable.

First with John McCain who purchased JohnMcCain.net from me and Google who also made a purchase.

 

[exsedo]

Well I would say that you are taking internet traffic which is then converted to revenue.

Put yourself on the other side of the fence and see if you think the same way.

You spend a few years of your life building your business and website, through the good times and the bad, until you end up with a decent income. Then along comes Joe typosquatter and registers typos of your website. Suddenly you don't have a liveable income anymore.

Take it to a higher level of business, and there are peoples' jobs at risk. Even if it wasn't illegal (which it is), it would be morally wrong to leech off someone elses hard work.

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------

My own typosquatting has been very profitable.

First with John McCain who purchased JohnMcCain.net from me and Google who also made a purchase.

Firstly, there are thousands of John McCains and secondly it is not a typo.

I can't comment on the google one because we don't know the domain name.

 

[DU]

.co wasn't made specifically for typo traffic (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

No - but I don't think it's by any means a stretch to say that any domain registered on a .CO that has a corresponding .COM COULD using the ACPA be part of a lawsuit by the holder of the .COM if that .com as doing legitimate business.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that this wasn't a consideration when deciding on whether to go for the 2 or 3 character country code. Hmmm... .CO or .COL ... hmm which is likely to produce less confusion ...

Not sure about the jurisdiction on this - the ASPA being US law etc... but then lets file a UDRP case.... because well that's based on sound legal principles... isn't it?!

The whole domaining industry is dirty from the TOP down. The domainers are just at the bottom of a pile. Why have a law against registering Trademarks in .COM? The Department of Commerce is in charge... it's all done back asswards.

It's like arresting people for smoking pot versus those producing it... oh wait...

---------- Post added at 02:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------

You spend a few years of your life building your business and website, through the good times and the bad, until you end up with a decent income. Then along comes Joe typosquatter and registers typos of your website. Suddenly you don't have a liveable income anymore.

If I have a business on say:

IHaveABusinessSellingComputers.com

And I sell computers.
And I make decent money.

I presumably have a decent brand, a decent site, some decent feedback, some decent comments, a few linkbacks, traffic, reputation.

I fail to see how me registering

IHasABusinessSellingComputers.com

Would put you out of business.

Give me any examples where a Typosquatter STOLE traffic versus CATCHING some error traffic that caused REAL HARM to the original business and that act DID NOT include copying look/feel.

Now look at people who have to face potential lawsuits involving SCARY amount of punishment who CANNOT AFFORD legal counsel based on some ill considered concepts permanently placed into law. Trademark law and cybersquatting laws are almost impossible to handle properly outside of a GLOBAL commitment... where is this?


I'm NOT saying I advocate STEALING TRADEMARKS.
I'm NOT sayint I advocate STEALING CONTENT.

(BTW I estimate 90% of all minisites to use stolen images/text)

What I am saying is that the law is invalidly framed and that domainers in this "do goody clean up our act sheep following mentality" have given up way to much in the name of poor laws put in place by big business lobbying. The laws are a joke, they are a sham. Where's the REVERSE Domain jacking laws ?

Domainers are always going to have a bad reputation. End of Discussion. Shouting "But I'm not one of those TM scumbaggers" doesn't change that. It's the sheep mentality to defend a terrible law.

 

[lincolndsp]

very well said ^^

 

[exsedo]

No - but I don't think it's by any means a stretch to say that any domain registered on a .CO that has a corresponding .COM COULD using the ACPA be part of a lawsuit by the holder of the .COM if that .com as doing legitimate business.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that this wasn't a consideration when deciding on whether to go for the 2 or 3 character country code. Hmmm... .CO or .COL ... hmm which is likely to produce less confusion ...

Not sure about the jurisdiction on this - the ASPA being US law etc... but then lets file a UDRP case.... because well that's based on sound legal principles... isn't it?!

The whole domaining industry is dirty from the TOP down. The domainers are just at the bottom of a pile. Why have a law against registering Trademarks in .COM? The Department of Commerce is in charge... it's all done back asswards.

It's like arresting people for smoking pot versus those producing it... oh wait...

---------- Post added at 02:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------



If I have a business on say:

IHaveABusinessSellingComputers.com

And I sell computers.
And I make decent money.

I presumably have a decent brand, a decent site, some decent feedback, some decent comments, a few linkbacks, traffic, reputation.

I fail to see how me registering

IHasABusinessSellingComputers.com

Would put you out of business.

Give me any examples where a Typosquatter STOLE traffic versus CATCHING some error traffic that caused REAL HARM to the original business and that act DID NOT include copying look/feel.

Now look at people who have to face potential lawsuits involving SCARY amount of punishment who CANNOT AFFORD legal counsel based on some ill considered concepts permanently placed into law. Trademark law and cybersquatting laws are almost impossible to handle properly outside of a GLOBAL commitment... where is this?


I'm NOT saying I advocate STEALING TRADEMARKS.
I'm NOT sayint I advocate STEALING CONTENT.

(BTW I estimate 90% of all minisites to use stolen images/text)

What I am saying is that the law is invalidly framed and that domainers in this "do goody clean up our act sheep following mentality" have given up way to much in the name of poor laws put in place by big business lobbying. The laws are a joke, they are a sham. Where's the REVERSE Domain jacking laws ?

Domainers are always going to have a bad reputation. End of Discussion. Shouting "But I'm not one of those TM scumbaggers" doesn't change that. It's the sheep mentality to defend a terrible law.

Because instead of you selling your computers, the person stealing your traffic is selling his computers.

If you research the subject, there is a vast amount of money being stolen by cybersquatters. It has been said that 80% of the revenue from domain parking is derived from cybersquatting domain names.

People who don't break laws have nothing to fear from potential lawsuits.

It is the same UDRP process that rules on reverse domain hi-jacking.

Domainers will have a bad reputation for as long as people cannot distinguish them from cybersquatters. They are two different things.
Domainers operate within the law, cybersquatters operate outside the law.

Laws are made for the good of the community, just because someone disagrees with a law, it does not mean that they should break that law.
Society would disintegrate if everyone broke the law, that is why the majority abide by the law, and the criminals are a minority.

 

[footodors]

The guy had a good idea that could have worked. He should have changed his presentation, naybe including an instant transfer of typo domains as a show of good faith.

I do agree with his opinion that they'll go for a pound of cure before they consider san ounce of prevention.

 

[DU]

People who don't break laws have nothing to fear from potential lawsuits.

Are you serious? Having personally been involved in a law suit for which we had done NOTHING wrong (community related) essentially as a form of blackmail (regarding the covenants of a deed restriction and the right to build)... and having the insurance have to pay over $1 million in legal fees..... and the community paying at least another $500,000 I can tell you this is NOT true.

A developer wanted to build. We said they couldn't according to the master declaration and community planning documents. He sued. He lost THREE times. He used 4 SHELL companies to file separate lawsuits and delay proceedings.

It cost overall about $2 million in total for a judge to rule in OUR favor.
Our board members were also named in $10 million defamation suits.

If we didn't hire a law firm the insurance would have dropped us.

SO.... if you really believe this I can only assume you are not in the U.S.A. or naive to the extreme.

Large companies, heavy handed individuals can through just the THREAT of a lawsuit scare many people into the wrong legal decision.

If I own Fell.com and I sell PC's under the name Fell Computers. Is that cheating Dell out of money? And should they be able to get my domain? What if they filed a lawsuit? Should I pay for a defense attorney ? Should I go to Texas which is likely where the lawsuit is filed? What if I was in India? China? What if my name was Fell? What if my name was Nissan? McDonald? or say I was called Prince and registered Prince.com?

The ACPA is one of the WORST laws ever put into place. The UDRP is an ineffectual and arbitrary system. That's what I am saying.

The US common law trademark doesn't work on a global stage. The normal trademark laws fail horrendously on gTLDs.

If you research the subject, there is a vast amount of money being stolen by cybersquatters. It has been said that 80% of the revenue from domain parking is derived from cybersquatting domain names.

Sources?

But then lets ban domain parking tools as they are the vehicle through which the supposed crimes are being performed.

The global management of TMs don't exist. The ICANN/UDRP is arbitrary and in some cases illegal. They don't understand 1st amendment rights imho.

Domainers will have a bad reputation for as long as people cannot distinguish them from cybersquatters.

A cybersquatter is defined differently by different people. Essentially someone holding a domain for the purpose of selling it for more than its inherent worth.
If I want a domain but someone else will only sell it to me for more? Then they are a cybersquatter and I hate you ergo Domainers WILL ALWAYS have a bad reputation. Period. End of Discussion. No amount of self righteous indignation over the MORE OBVIOUS crimes will help.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION COMPLETELY. At a base level I agree completely. However, the entire legal basis for this position is flawed.

Laws are made for the good of the community, just because someone disagrees with a law, it does not mean that they should break that law.
Society would disintegrate if everyone broke the law, that is why the majority abide by the law, and the criminals are a minority.

The question is whether there is an appropriate method of defining what constitutes a true criminal and a true crime - and whether the punishment fits. I say the ACPA is horrendous. I say the UDRP is not much better.

Doesn't mean that I have registered NFL.tv or IBM.xxx

Post your portfolio. I guarantee I can find one TM questionable domain.