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.
Speaking of Microsoft, when you (legally) purchase a computer running a Microsoft OS, can you copy the code to create “Sloth OS” without fear of retribution? If not, why not?
No. Do you think that was witty?
Not at all.
I wonder why Microsoft OS is only $3 a copy in China?
Of course not.
If not, why not?
Because there are laws protecting Microsoft's copyright. Copyright legally exists; it's just not a legitimate PROPERTY right. We also have laws protecting endangered species, and you can't kill bald eagles without retribution, but that doesn't mean they're anyone's property.
How about 20th Century Fox’s copyright on its cartoon franchise?
What about it? If some party attempted to independently market a cartoon that infringed on the existing copyright, then it'd be legitimately enforceable. Fox might have an argument in getting an injunction against this guy for publishing what the article calls "sexually explicit depictions of several characters from 'The Simpsons'"; I suspect there'd be some claimed defense of parody, etc. But in any case, that would be a cease-and-desist type of situation, with (at most) damages for the harm done to the copyrighted franchise. In no just system could Fox seize the guy's domain name just because it had the word "Simpson" in it.
ABC has a series called "Lost." Do they magically gain rights to every imaginable domain name with the sequence of letters L-O-S-T in it? Including some guy who has the domain 'LostMovie.com' for years before they ever consider making a movie?
Of course not. It's what you do with the domain-name named L-O-S-T after you purchase it. That's what this case is about. Much like MS doesn't "own" the letters/numbers/whatever in whatever sequence in its code. But if you use the code for nefarious ends, you might stand to lose your computer.
The distinction that you fail to understand (and that others on this thread deliberately avoid) is not that I, 1rudeboy, could have filmed an indie film consisting of a montage of different individuals, all named Simpson, and properly registered the website in this case. But that I can't use Simpsons™ characters without permission from 20th Century Fox.
The notion that property rights come in "bundles" is a common-law tradition that goes back to the Norman Conquest, or thereabouts.
Now that I think about it, this is essentially a trespass case . . . the technological version of my neighbor’s cow (through no fault of my own) eating my cabbages. And the fact that my neighbor legally purchased his cow has no bearing. And I’m entitled to damages, which in those days may have been the cow itself.
Complete and exclusive control over private property comes from Roman private law.
You UN types hate that because it gives people the right to use their property as they see fit.
You and your corrupt views of private property are hurting this country and the people in it. There’s nothing funny about it.
So let’s return to my Microsoft OS example. When you legally purchase a computer with it installed, does that give you the right (under “Roman private law,” whatever that is) to copy it and sell it to someone else?
Let me know when you get around to answering my question, and I’ll address the red herring.
By the way, wouldn’t “complete and exclusive” control of private property constitute a “bundle” of property rights?
No red herring, sir. Microsoft OS is intellectual property, is it not? Why is it worth only $3 in China but hundreds of dollars in the US?
Imagine that the purchaser and seller are both located in the U.S. Duh.
So we return (as your circular-reasoning continues). Have you come-up with any "workable" (I jest, of course) solution to the problem of 20th Century Fox's rights being violated apart from having it pre-register the domain name (and every permutation thereof) in every country on the face of the planet?
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.