I agree, people should have the right to steal, lie, and cheat on the internet with no consequence.
rcpalace Wrote:Long story short. If this passes, anyone can legally take registered domains that aren't trade marked and legally become the owner(s) of the domain(s). This is a crime!
Are you sure that's what it's saying? From what I read it sounds like companies with trademarks can "steal" a domain if that domain name too closely infringes on THEIR trademark. I don't think that means that anyone can steal a domain that isn't trademarked. Like another person said, it costs hundreds of dollars to get a trademark. Not too many people, other than the big businesses, can afford that...or will do it.
For instance Windows would be able to take any domains like windows.com or window.com. It is still pretty ridiculous though, since if they didn't have the smarts to get those first, they don't deserve them. I guess they're doing it to stop companies that make those bogus emails or phishing attempts to steal your info...like geting the website rnyspace.com and phishing myspace.com. That SHOULD be illegal!
Just read the bill and you'll understand what you're saying isn't true. The article says if you have legitamate reason for the domain (I.E., not just throwing ads on it or pretending it's another website) they cannot "steal" it. Microsoft cannot "steal" window.com unless it is used for phishing, spamming, or otherwise to profit or benefit from Microsoft's windows.com.
If you register a domain prior to the domain name being trademarked you are also safe from having it "stolen" from you as you did not register it in an attempt to benefit from the trademarked property.
This is the USA. People are forgetting that the US don't own the internet and also there's laws and a act which conflicts with this planned law. It's pointless for the US trying to pretend they own the internet and again get more in debt. They already need to give money to Japan
. It just won't work.
Just to clear things up. The quote I posted in the first post was quoted from DNForum.com. I didn't type it up; they also had a link to the bill which wasn't official at the time. Now that a link to the official Bill is available, it clears things up a bit.
This bill is meant for the US, this has no impact on any other country except those who's agreements and treaties require them to acknowledge US law. The US isn't trying to police the internet, atleast not with this bill. This bill is to protect US companies and citizens, our government has no weight on international law, especially when it comes to the internet, no matter how hard they try.
Well, I don't have any knowledge about the bill except what was posted here. If what was said here is true I would have sogned the petition, and I did. Now what was posted after I signed is appearing, I would not sign. This just gets annoying, when not every fact is relayed. Whoever posted this on the other forum should have gotten their facts straight IMO.
I agree, from the wording it sounds more like a spammer/phisher, who is the only person this bill will hurt, probably started this whole chain/petition. I didn't even read the whole bill, I just skimmed over the parts pertaining to domain names and found the answers I needed before deciding not to sign the petition.
ahero4heor Wrote:Well, I don't have any knowledge about the bill except what was posted here. If what was said here is true I would have sogned the petition, and I did. Now what was posted after I signed is appearing, I would not sign. This just gets annoying, when not every fact is relayed. Whoever posted this on the other forum should have gotten their facts straight IMO.
KuJoe Wrote:I agree, from the wording it sounds more like a spammer/phisher, who is the only person this bill will hurt, probably started this whole chain/petition. I didn't even read the whole bill, I just skimmed over the parts pertaining to domain names and found the answers I needed before deciding not to sign the petition.
I revised my first post.