digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Snowe Bill Threatens Domain Name Registrants

internetcommerce.org — This proposed bill denies due process of law for any domain name disputes giving large corporations even more power over the little guys.

Who dugg this?

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

7 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Barman, on 03/01/2008, -0/+5A must read
  • albertlau, on 07/11/2009, -0/+4I support ICA! Everyone should be aware of that hidden behind this bill.
  • fddigg4, on 03/01/2008, -0/+4EVERY PERSON THAT OWNS A DOMAIN NAME should be aware of this legislation.
  • bhartzer, on 03/03/2008, -0/+3you're right, everyone who owns a domain should be aware of it. Trademark owners should continue to own domains that include trademarks. But I'm not sure about this part...a court could triple the statutory damages award, up to a maximum of $6 million, if it found that the defendant had willfully and knowingly violated the Act or if the unlawful activity included the use of a domain name in violation of the anti-dilution provisions of the Trademark Act.
  • mwzd, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2This is drastic, another ploy by Big Business to try and undercut the people who make up the Internet - you and me. Basically they are trying to push through trademark provisions for business and brand names under the guise of the anti-phishing bill. While we all are against phishing - would you like to use your generic dotcom domain to some company who started using the same name even a decade after you got that name. Be afraid, be very afraid.
  • Mode80, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1The ICA makes some very good arguments against this bill. CNET has also written an article with even more compelling arguments against it -- namely, that phishing is already illegal, so nothing useful is added to existing law by this bill, only cleverly disguised ammunition for the over-reaching trademark holders of the world.

    http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9879859-38.html
  • Pooptooth, on 03/06/2008, -0/+0The title of the proposed bill really amounts to a “no criminal activity” sign in jail. Phishers aren’t going to respond to this law by dutifully filling out an ID card. That’s just laughable and naive.
    But to even get to that point turns a blind eye to how ignorant the authors were concerning the legitimate and lucrative commerce of domains, or does it? Was the real intention of The Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008 (S. 2661) to help large corporations with bottomless pockets and packs of lawyers attack and kill small businesses and individual website owners?
    If this bill passes, it will seriously effect millions of legitimate websites, businesses and families. If you have a website that is successful and uses a generic term that others have trademarked in conjunction with other terms, you are at risk from this egregious law.

    http://pooptooth.mobi/why-the-anti-phishing-consum ...

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.