[At-Large] 9th Circuit Court ruling on ICANN Contract.
derek at aa419.org
Sun Dec 19 21:18:08 UTC 2010
On 2010/12/19 22:36, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2010, at 15:07, Derek Smythe wrote:
>> And how would you do that under the UDRP, Avri?
>> I can see Mattel trying it, but not you.
> Exactly. If enough of us complain to Mattel (is that who makes it) they will do something.
Reality shows that this does not always work like that. Common sense
would dictate that a responsible brand owner would be up in arms at
the abuse of his mark, however it does not always happen this way. All
to often they only concentrate on domains and websites that affect
them directly, not the public.
>> Even then Mattel would have
>> to prove bad faith usage of the name. However consider that "doll" may
>> mean many things. "Barbie" may be the claimed host master. In fact
>> Barbie is a common form of Barabara, which was indeed the orgins of
>> the Barbie in Barbie Doll.
> Good point. Well since we perhaps all do recognize Barbie as a generic these days - Caribou Barbie anyone? Perhaps the example is not all that valid to start with.
For the UDRP, it was a good example. But what about
scourtofjustice.com? Here the UDRP does not apply, though the domain
is not registered by the claimed registrant and used for a courier scam?
>> As for fraud statutes, that may be a bit more difficult. Which
>> country's statutes? What if the website is hosted in a country that
>> has no respect for copyright issues, likewise the registrar? Yet we
>> are seeing this every day and very deliberately so.
> Well that is the sort of thing that government should be working on instead of spending their time chasing after Internet governance that is beyond their ken - standardizing their anti-fraud statutes. and then Interpol, instead of persecuting freedom of information advocates can spend their efforts finding and arresting fraudulent web site operators wherever they may reside. Law enforcement is not supposed to be easy, and it is time that those who are responsible for it, do the hard work and use the wealth of laws they already have on the books instead of trying to find easy ways out using the internet in ways the destroy it.
Despite what you may say, many dedicated and competent law enforcement
officials are working hard and working overtime to protect the average
internet user. However time is a limited resource and finances (tax
payers' money) are constrained. A five minute crime may take five
years to it's conclusion in a court. In those 5 years are hours and
hours of time spent on investigation and prosecution by many people.
The cost associated with just one such case can be frightening.
In essence law enforcement simply do not have the resources to
investigate each and every crime, despite clear fraud. Consider:
domain: $10 (includes registrant protection)
Instant fake shopfront total: $15
Losses = loss of each of a number of victims (mostly unreported),
mostly reported not really investigated.
Prosecution: 2 to 5 yrs of LE resources
At the end of the day, LE costs are paid for by tax payers. So do you
spend of hundreds of thousands of dollars investigating a twenty
thousand dollars loss? No, LE uses stats to track the worst of the
worst and concentrate on that. That is also why we hear phrases such
as "Loss under (amount), loss above (amount)" and investigations tend
to lean towards the higher amounts.
Yes, some government officials do abuse their powers, there is no
denying that. However that normally makes headlines, a petty criminal
that used a $10 domain to defraud people out of $20,000 not, or rather
It is interesting that law enforcement are relying more and more on
public groups/companies/etc to assist. This is a reflection of the
workload these people are faced with.
Now another fact: Most registrars know this.
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large