The NYTimes.com just published a post this morning entitled “Clicking Candidate.com, landing at Opponent.com” citing a new survey by the Collation Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA).
The post talks about the numerous political candidates and members of Congress and holders of other political offices that don’t own the domain name of their own name.
According to the article again citing CADNA’s survey says that less than 1/2 of the 100 members of the Senate, and only 40% percent of members of the House own their FullName.com domain names.
Only 32 percent of senators and 22 percent of representatives — when it came to their FullName.org names
Of course CADNA is using this as another opportunity to tell those in office and those trying to get elected this is just another example of those nasty Cybersqatters who buy up domains and then want to get compensated on them, although many of the domains are held by opposing candidates or even political parties:
“The report is aimed at focusing lawmakers’ attention on a practice known as cybersquatting, in which individuals buy up domain names and then use them to extract money or engage in mischief.”
Its just another angle that CADNA is going to try to use to get legislation passed to “Increase penalties for cybersquatting and cybercrime to deter these practices”.
Can’t wait until they come to lock up a guy say the head of the Indiana Republican Party, which owns the domain BradEllsworth.org.
“”Brad Ellsworth, an Indiana Democrat who is running for the Senate. The site forwards visitors to BadforIndiana.com, run by the Indiana Republican Party, which criticizes Mr. Ellsworth as a “reliable rubber stamp for liberal policies.”criticizes Mr. Ellsworth as a “reliable rubber stamp for liberal policies.”
And of course there is the rub, while CADNA is going to want laws passed to punish those cited in the article who would register and try to sell a domain, those opponents of candidates that control a domain of there opponent do much more harm to the candidate than anyone holding just the domain.
Bottom line whether your in politics or not you better register your firstlast.com if you can.
Sounds like a great idea.
Did CADNA look at the ownership of the domain names not owned by politicians to see if they were owned by people of the same name? I don’t own my full name .com but it’s NOT because of a cybersquatter.
I guess it sounds juicer if they leave that part out.
These guys will do anything to try and stay relevant.
To register “my-opponent”.com and put my opinion of him there, is NOT cyber squatting. There is something called Fair Use.
If the site is non commercial (no ads, etc) and is clear that it is not owned by “my opponent”, is protected by free speech.
In politics or in legal battles too, they will do anything to WIN!!!
The question is – What happens when the ‘famous’ person cant get their domain name because somebody else by the same name has it?
what you are going to see in the future is more fair use. opponets will make video clips and post them on the opposing candidates domain name. what this will accomplish is to shift more money awasy from tv advertising an on the net.and when the opponets get smart they will connect all opposing candidates video clips together and network and then add their platform on the web.cadna has zero value here.
No one can argue about fair use.
CADNA is just planting a seed, so when the time comes to vote on a cybersqautting bill they can go back to those 60 senators and hundreds of representatives and say hey remember how that guy held your firstlast.com and wanted you to pay $50K for it?
Don’t you want to do something about these guys?
That’s how they are positioning themselves
to be sure, when enough legislators get burned by these predatory practices, ACTION will be taken in the form of new law that will address the issues you define here, but in the end? Who will carry the issue? The legislators or the business sector? I think the courts will have a few things to say about it as more and more suits are filed all the time and companies with brand names & registered trademarks, many for decades?
That what happens Nissan Motors wanted the Nissan domain but is owned by a guy whose last name is Nissan
****************************************************
The question is – What happens when the ‘famous’ person cant get their domain name because somebody else by the same name has it?
We made a post way back in May 2008 highlighting what then was a “new trend” of parents naming their babies with domains in mind.
————————————————————–
Our first choice for a girls name was Astrid.
Last year, Astrid.us was in the godaddy trash bin… Waiting for that $20’ish name to clear redemption had my heart in my throat, at the very same time I was blowing off a four digure offer on another domain without batting an eye.
Domains are so funny like that. It’s hard to articulate ‘meaning’ down to a dollar amount, but when there’s a domain you really-really-really want, well, that’s why people pay the big bucks for those.
The question is – What happens when the ‘famous’ person cant get their domain name because somebody else by the same name has it?
———————————–
SOL.
There’s a huge difference between squatting a celebrity name for purposes of profiting off their image and two people coincidentally having the same name, but one happens to get to the domain first. Both parties have a legitimate claim to the name, but one wins and ‘celebrity’ isn’t enough to unseat the legitimate domain owner from their rights… which is precisely why Nissan.com is still owned by Uzi Nissan.
Of course, if your name is Michael Jackson, you own MichaelJackson.com and use it as an itunes affiliate, that’s definitely sticking your head in the lions mouth. One that always amused me was abey.com, which I found the same way everyone else found it. Look at the logo LMAO.
They left out http://www.GovernorStrickland.com which pretty much says to vote for John Kasich. It use to meta link to KasichforOhio.com after about 15 seconds or so. Long enough to see the cash bags and message about Obama and Strickland. Even worse for the site is that it’s for sale for around $250 not the $10,000 or $45,000 mentioned in the article.