http://www.northcountrygazette.org/news/2007/08/10/domain_law/ I just read this and I wonder how a state government can pass laws that make it illegal to register or own domain names of individuals and businesses. I have not read the law, just this article but it raises numerous questions. On individual domain names how would it be determined who had the right to the domain name? I looked up one domain name I own and use for parked advertising revenue in the white pages and there are over 200 individuals just in the U.S with this name. It has already been established that the use of domain names to generate advertising revenue is a valid use of domain names but under this law which of these 200 individuals would have a greater right to the domain that I have since I have owned and used it for this purpose for seven years. This doesn’t consider individuals in other countries with the same name that would just as much as right to the domain name. I should add that I have never had an inquiry or question from anybody concerning my use of this domain name nor the purchase of it from me. Nor have I ever attempted to sell it. What about business domain names under this law. I own hundreds of domain names that might be a business name somewhere in the world. If an individual opens a new business using one of these domains does he have a right to demand that I turn this domain over to his business because I am and have been using the domain name to generate advertising revenue for years instead of operating a business under this domain name? Also does a state government have the right to make laws such as this which impact federal and international commerce? I will be interested in any comment concerning this issue. Gene
This means the won't allow "cyber squatting" But how the hell would they stop that? I mean there are 49 other states..... Quick buy them up now
This law is basically useless. Cyber squatting is already covers what the law made illegal. Either way, it's still nice to see that politicians are starting to get into technology. However, the law passed in New York is already way past the times. Many domainers agree that registering domains of other businesses and companies is a bad idea for trademark reasons. This law looks like it is mainly meant to help small businesses.
I don't believe the issue discussed here is registering trademarked names. This law goes way beyond that from my reading of the article. The point I see is that many domains apply equally to a lot of business or individuals, regardless of whether they are large or small. A valid use of domain names is generating advertising revenue, whether it is from ads on parked pages or Google ad sites. Plus many domains are used to promote affiliate sites such as Amazon, eBay, etc. Frankly I hate to see the politicians get into anything, as they either sell out to the highest bidder or they totally screw everything up due to their being clueless about the issue. Any domain can be used as the name of a small business. An example: http://housepainters.com appears to be strictly used for advertising revenue by its owner, which in at least my opinion, is a legitimate use of the site. So I incorporate a business under the name of House Painters, Inc. in my state or a DBA in my county, assuming that a business of that name does not currently exist. So I then apply the New York law to insist that this domain be turned over to me since it is the name of my legitimate registered business and is currently the properly to a cyber squatter who is only using it as a parked page for adverting revenue. Does that mean that the small business should be able to seize the domain if it is not already being used by a small business? Plus you have the fact that numerous small unrelated businesses are using the same business name in the various cities, counties and states across the U.S, not including world wide common usage. Which of these small business gets take the domain name away from whoever currently owes it if they are not using it to advertise a small business? The first one who demands it or what? ICANN regulations and Federal law adequately handle the issue. I don’t believe the states should get involved in this. What happens if all 50 states each pass their own version of the law, which conflicts with the versions of the other 49 states? I don’t purchase domain names to sell; I purchase them to develop income generating sites. These may just be parked advertising sites but they generate income for me, which from my personal viewpoint, is a valid use of the domain name. Just as valid as that of the small business owner who now wants to advertise his business using the domain that I have developed over the years. Hopefully we will get more discussion on these issues. Gene
this is both ridiculous and funny to me...as gene said..if this Law does come into existence..people can use the loop holes to grasp domains from others wth this a really foolish law IMHO...
Good point. I agree that states should not pass laws regarding domains after reading your post. Several posters have failed to notice that the law only applies in cases where the domain register bought the name with the sole intention of selling it to businesses. This would neither affect housepainters.com nor most other parked domains. Trademark law does fall into place here. By using a business name in commence, that business automatically has a trademark for it. Because of this, businesses looking to get their domains from cyber squatters could simply register a domain and go through the usual proceedings. Businesses do not need the law in New York to get their domains back, as they would already have a trademark. Granted, this law might make the process easier.
Given the bill was approved by seemingly the same governor who UDRP'ed his namesakes and likely has lots of time in his hands, it's no wonder there was much gusto in getting this through. Much ado about nothing, folks. Except if you're in the Big Apple, of course.