Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

UN agency gives 20th Century Fox web address to 'The Simpsons Movie'
Yahoo! Canada ^ | Jul 25, 2007

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; abuseofpower; doh; freespeech; internationallaw; internet; internetporn; mmmmdonuts; pornography; pr0n; sovereignty; thesimpsons; thirdsector; un
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540 ... 581-583 next last
To: 1rudeboy

ICANN is a UN subsidiary so it is not under the juridiction of the US constitution, nor the federal government. WIPO constitutes internationalist usurpation of US constitutional authority and the individual’s right to representative government. Anyone can buy a domain name with legal tender as long as no one else owns it.

You should knock off now.


501 posted on 08/23/2007 8:46:18 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer (I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

I see you’re having trouble with Article VI again.


502 posted on 08/23/2007 8:49:53 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
ICANN is a UN subsidiary so it is not under the jurisdiction of the US constitution, nor the federal government.

You are arguing otherwise, and defending Fox pedophilia. LOL You're having trouble, period! I suggest you get help.

503 posted on 08/23/2007 9:16:28 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer (I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
ICANN? Or WIPO? That's what makes our exchanges so amusing, hedgetrimmer. The way you tangle yourself in knots.
504 posted on 08/23/2007 9:21:39 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
It found that Malley "has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name"

Aside from the fact that he legally bought it.

505 posted on 08/23/2007 9:22:54 AM PDT by Sloth (You being wrong & me being closed-minded are not mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sloth; Publius Valerius; ReignOfError; squatterssuck
I found some interesting information at the WIPO website:

The number of cybersquatting disputes filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 2006 increased by 25% as compared to 2005. In a related development, the evolution of the domain name registration system is causing growing concern for trademark owners, in particular some of the effects of the use of computer software to automatically register expired domain names and their 'parking' on pay-per-click portal sites, the option to register names free-of-charge for a five-day 'tasting' period, the proliferation of new registrars, and the establishment of new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs). The combined result of these developments is to create greater opportunities for the mass, often anonymous, registration of domain names without specific consideration of third-party intellectual property rights. [emphasis added]
Cybersquatting Remains on the Rise with further Risk to Trademarks from New Registration Practices

506 posted on 08/23/2007 9:31:30 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
LOL!That coming from 1rudeboy a euphemism for someone who goes around destroying private property!
507 posted on 08/23/2007 9:54:48 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer (I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
The combined result of these developments is to create greater opportunities for the mass, often anonymous, registration of domain names without specific consideration of third-party intellectual property rights. [emphasis added]

Why you're a gol'darned communitarian!

You'll never argue for freedom. It gets in the way of the corporatist fascist imposed precautionary principle.
508 posted on 08/23/2007 10:10:38 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer (I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
You'll never argue for freedom.

Freedom? Freedom to what, infringe on others' property rights? I won't argue for that, that is for certain.

The problem with people like you--and I won't say you, because I don't know you that well--but people like you, is that they just fundamentally don't believe that intellectual property is actual property. So when people complain about their intellectual property rights being violated, your ilk says "ho-hum" and then piddles about as if it is of no concern whatsoever. Meanwhile, they are simply oblivious to the fact that intellectual property is fast becoming as important or more important than real property on this globe.

Hmm, if only there was an efficient and reliable means of cross-border enforcement of intellectual property rights...

509 posted on 08/23/2007 10:51:16 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
The combined result of these developments is to create greater opportunities for the mass, often anonymous, registration of domain names

That's the UN talkin' there, who is FAMOUSLY anti private property.

they just fundamentally don't believe that intellectual property is actual property.

LOL! No one copyrighted or otherwise indicated ownership of the thesimpsonsmovie.com, until an indivdiual purchased it legally from a domain name service.LOL!

Meanwhile, they are simply oblivious to the fact that intellectual property is fast becoming as important or more important than real property on this globe.

That's why you and your UN ilk approve of the stealing of real property from millions of Americans through Agenda 21 and "free trade" agreements, and then apply the precautionary principle for transnational corporations so they can control people in countries where they do not originate or are not incorporated. You champion the extension of the federal government (funded by US taxpayers) to foreign countries, inflating the size of our goverment to support the transnational fascist corporatist system so much so that Americans are going bankrupt and our domestic economy is in shambles! Such a deal for the global crooks you support! LOL
510 posted on 08/23/2007 11:09:55 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer (I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
they just fundamentally don't believe that intellectual property is actual property.

That's because it isn't. It's make-believe.

511 posted on 08/23/2007 11:33:59 AM PDT by Sloth (You being wrong & me being closed-minded are not mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
That's because it isn't. It's make-believe.

It's make believe? So let's say you work in your garage and build a desk out of wood. You spend several weeks carving and laquering and assembling it. This is your property, right? If your neighbor took it from you, you could rightfully claim it as your own, right?

But you say that if I spend my time creating something else; like say, a book or a song, and my neighbor steals it, I have no ownership interest in my creation? Are you serious?

512 posted on 08/23/2007 12:11:47 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
No one copyrighted or otherwise indicated ownership of the thesimpsonsmovie.com, until an indivdiual purchased it legally from a domain name service.

That's incorrect. Fox had an ownership interest in it, because you can't cybersquat. It is a federal crime. 15 USC 1125(d).

I'm sorry that you are so bent out of shape about people enforcing their property rights, but property rights are the fundamental core of capitalism. Deal.

513 posted on 08/23/2007 12:18:27 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
If your neighbor took it from you, you could rightfully claim it as your own, right?

Correct.

But you say that if I spend my time creating something else; like say, a book or a song, and my neighbor steals it, I have no ownership interest in my creation? Are you serious?

Absolutely serious. You do have a legal *right* to control the use of your writing or invention (as recognized in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution), but in no sane universe could that legitimately be considered a "property right", and the term "stealing" is at best a misleading approximation of what's going on. If your neighbor "steals" your song, you still have it. If my neighbor steals my desk, it's gone.

514 posted on 08/23/2007 12:26:06 PM PDT by Sloth (You being wrong & me being closed-minded are not mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
You do have a legal *right* to control the use of your writing or invention

You just described a property right. A property right, by definition, exists when a person has exclusive right of control over something. Be it personal property, like the desk, real property, like your home, or intellectual property, like my song.

515 posted on 08/23/2007 12:38:49 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
you can't cybersquat

Is 'cybersquatting' a 'hate crime'? LOL corporatists fascists use 'political correctness' and made up crimes to steal freedom.
516 posted on 08/23/2007 12:55:10 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer (I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius; Sloth

First of all you have to establish ownership, by registering it.

FOX never established ownership of thesimpsonsmovie.com. Someone else did by registering the name! What part of that don’t you understand?


517 posted on 08/23/2007 12:57:00 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer (I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
A property right, by definition, exists when a person has exclusive right of control over something.

An overly broad definition, that leads to such silliness as you espouse. Property must be measurable.

One desk minus one desk leaves zero desks. => Property.

One song minus one song still leaves one song! What's wrong? The 'minus' makes no sense here, because nothing has been taken away. A song is an idea, and not property in any sane sense.

By your definition, when somebody hurts my feelings - over which I have exclusive right of control - they've committed a property crime (vandalism?) against me.

518 posted on 08/23/2007 12:57:09 PM PDT by Sloth (You being wrong & me being closed-minded are not mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Indeed. It’s not as though the Fox cartoon created the name Simpson from scratch. It would have been perfectly feasible for someone to make some different movie called “Simpsons” or whatever — just like there was a movie called “Meet the Robinsons”, which had nothing to do with “Swiss Family Robinson”, which had nothing to do with the Simon & Garfunkel song “Mrs. Robinson”.


519 posted on 08/23/2007 1:10:28 PM PDT by Sloth (You being wrong & me being closed-minded are not mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Is 'cybersquatting' a 'hate crime'? LOL corporatists fascists use 'political correctness' and made up crimes to steal freedom.

You keep changing your story, don't you? First it was that Fox didn't have ownership, then, when federal law clearly establishes that Fox indeed has ownership rights, it is a "made up" law? Whatever. What a clown.

520 posted on 08/23/2007 2:56:43 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540 ... 581-583 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson