The UN doesn't have to send the blue helmets. You'd be firing on your own Sheriff's Department . . . and I think you know where that would lead.
Posted on 07/25/2007 8:30:15 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
Woo-hoo! "The Simpsons Movie" has won its name back on the Internet.
A UN agency has ruled that ownership of the domain name thesimpsonsmovie.com must be handed to News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox, which owns the rights to the film and the popular TV series.
Twentieth Century Fox complained to the World Intellectual Property Organization over the use of the film's name in the Internet address of a site registered by Keith Malley of New York.
Fox lawyers claimed Malley was using the address to divert Internet users to a website that included sexually explicit depictions of several characters from "The Simpsons" and, later, to his "Keith and the Girl" website. He was demanding a $50,000 fee from Twentieth Century Fox for the domain name, according to the July 22 ruling of the WIPO arbitration panel.
It found that Malley "has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name" and ordered its immediate return.
In an interview, Malley said that Fox lawyers never contacted him and that he learned about the case after the deadline had passed. He said his contact information was available on his website and through his lawyer, although he hadn't updated the official registration records for the domain name, which he bought in 1999.
"I found it bullying," Malley said, adding that he would speak with his lawyer about challenging the decision. Malley could appeal by filing a lawsuit in a court.
The arbitration system, which was set up in 1999, allows those who think they have the right to a domain to gain control of it without having to fight a costly legal battle or pay large sums of money. Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman and Madonna are among the Hollywood stars who have previously won rulings against so-called "cybersquatters."
"The animated television series 'The Simpsons' debuted in 1989, and has become one of the longest-running network series in television history," the ruling said, noting that Friday's release of the film has generated huge public interest on the Internet.
WIPO said Malley's "aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from and exploit" Twentieth Century Fox's trademark to promote and sell his own products and merchandise.
Malley, 33, who produces an Internet radio show, said he obtained the domain name with intentions of creating a parody of "The Simpsons." He said the amount Fox offered for the domain name, $300, wouldn't cover time spent developing ideas for the site; he would not elaborate on those ideas.
So how is that any different than my question? Let me (again) repeat: what are the policy reasons behind preventing two parties (20th Century Fox & Keith Malley) from agreeing (by signing the domain name registration) that an independent panel of arbitrators (World Intellectual Property Organization) should decide their disputes?
Repeating: I am opposed to submitting to the U.N. any rights over U.S. citizens
“On what legal grounds would it “hold up?” I’m afraid that, at best, you are uninformed on this subject.”
If you care to read the rest of the thread, you’ll note that my question went unanswered. Fortune favors the brave.
Well, what a convincing argument!
Upon reading your posts, I’m reminded of a remark by Jonathan Swift, who said that it is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
With this in mind, I now realize that I’ve been wasting my time with you.
“So the answer to your question is simple: you take your U.S. judgment to a Belarus court and then Belarus enforces it.”
I think you meant to send that to rudeboy1, as that was his question. The answer you provided is what he was hoping to hear from someone, but not from me, not a chance.
If I were Belarus, I’d tell the US to stuff it if they showed up wanting to enforce a US court order. Ahhhh, but they signed treaties and are “bound” by them one would suspect. Belarus, with our help no less has signed all sorts of treaties and do a great job of screwing Putin over every chance they get in the oil/energy trade sector. Good for them I say.
The fact that you answered that the way you did is actually very good for most people to read. It’s a perfect example of what the US and so very many other countries have done, which is to turn its own Soverignty into a Liability, rather than capitalizing on it as an asset. More people do indeed need to be aware that signing the treaties we’ve signed has done a hell of lot more to put us at risk than they have to strengthen us as a nation IMO.
Thanks again for your comments.
Globalism is not a reasonable desire for one to have for one’s country, unless one is a globalist.
Loss of sovereignty is not a reasonable desire to have for one’s country, unless one is a one-worlder/globalist.
Try to reason that.
As am I, thank goodness!
Globalists “don’t get it” though. It’s “beyond their basic comprehension” level.
Let’s play fair. Your question was answered by at least a couple of people.
We covered that yesterday. It’s those that don’t understand the UN or the suicidal treaties we’ve signed that are most impressionable. Can’t save those that support the UN generally speaking. It’s good to see why they think the way they do. On occasion they’re right about things...but unfortunately, it’s the “being right” that is precisely what most patriots are against.
I meant to send it to you. You replied and said it wasn't enforcible. It is.
More people do indeed need to be aware that signing the treaties we’ve signed has done a hell of lot more to put us at risk than they have to strengthen us as a nation IMO.
Yeah, it's really horrible when people can be assured that they can enforce their rights globally. I sure know that sometimes, I wish that scofflaws could flee one jurisdiction and evade responsbility for their actions so that I could pay higher prices for my goods and services.
Rule of Law? Consistent and assured enforcement? Pish--if only we could have higher transaction costs! Now THAT is where it's at.
That wasn’t a slam against you. It was pointing out the silliness of the posters that think they’re going to interpret the law the way they want, and then take out the UN troops that they think will show up at their door. Sorry if you mistook it for a slam on you.
Patriots do not condone or support the reduction or removal of American sovereignty and authority over U.S. citizens and properties to an entity which is not American.
And Hitler passed laws. That doesn’t make them right.
Wrong and/or immoral laws being passed didn’t reduce the possibility that people were forcibly removed from their homes, after forcibly being required to wear badges, even though people at the time scoffed at the idea, as well.
“Yeah, it’s really horrible when people can be assured that they can enforce their rights globally.”
You support the globalist’s principles. I do not. I’m not looking to change your opinions. Opposing views are good for others to learn from.
Different question. Ok.
How the hell did Hitler come into this? It’s an intellectual property case about cybersquatting.
The UN doesn't have to send the blue helmets. You'd be firing on your own Sheriff's Department . . . and I think you know where that would lead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.