Germany is not screwing around when it comes to fake news. Digiday.com goes into the details about the new law. Basically fake news is considered criminal content.
From the article:
Last week, Germany formally proposed a law to fine social networks up to €50 million ($54 million) if they fail to remove harmful fake news or defamatory content — what it’s calling “criminal content” — from their platforms within 24 hours.
Heiko Maas, the federal minister for justice and consumer protection, specified that criminal content includes defamation, slander, threats and criminal misinformation. Unlawful content is a deliberately broad spectrum and could include everything from infringing intellectual property to altering facts to promote racist populism. As part of the proposal, the platforms would also have to publish quarterly status reports, detailing how they handled complaints, how many they received and how their teams are staffed.
You can read the full article here
Wow, good thing you guys (TheDomains) are not based in Germany! Your article about wi.com would have you on the hook for up to 50 Million Euros!
So that was fake there wasn’t a udrp filed on wi.com ? This stuff gets confusing.
@Domain see my comment below
keep trying. if you try hard maybe the reason will get on your side
That was funny!
Fake News insurance makes sense or not?
Sadly, fake news can manipulate people to take actions they normally would not have. A lot of capital can be lost in a fake news inspired campaigns that duped someone into investing where they shouldn’t have (E.g. fake trends based on false statistics). it will be interesting to see just how far they take that new law and what the boundaries will look like for bloggers. Time will tell.
Eric, great comment. That is PRECISELY why I made my post above, albeit I’m fully aware it is slightly out of context and silly.
The wi.com story published here on TheDomains WAS fake news. MB made claims that he had never heard about the prior UDRP for wi.com despite the fact that he was the one that broke the story not only when the UDRP was filed, but also after we won it. He failed to mention that he was the 2nd highest bidder for wi.com (with a $455,000 bid) at the time that he posted the article, which needless to say, presents a massively unethical conflict of interest and actually constitutes tortuous interference. Among many other issues with the story and subsequent comments which MB has inexpicably chosen to leave on the blog despite mutliple legal opinions stating that several of the comments are libelous in nature.
The point being, that article and subsequent comments were not factual. And they lead investors to take actions that they would not have otherwise taken. In this case, they did NOT pay for a domain that they are contractually obligated to pay for after winning at auction. Other buyers did not participate at all because of that article.
Fake news create real damage. Material monetary damage and in some cases physical harm.
@Domain you are right, the fact that a UDRP was filed 2 years before the auction for wi.com was not fake. That is true and was already public knowledge. In fact there were already two articles written about it on TheDomains previously (both by Michael even though he denied ever knowing about the UDRP). However, the context in which it was written and the other details in the article were FAKE. Fake meaning NOT TRUE. Fake meaning inflammatory. Fake meaning derogatory. Fake meaning damaging. Also the timing in which is was written is more than conspicuous.
Now, go read that new German law and interpret for yourself if what I’m calling “fake news” applies to Michael’s post. Or simply read the facts that I laid out above in my prior comment. Those are FACTS. Indisputable facts. Evidenced through multiple legal opinions and actual factual evidence such as not only the winning bidder, but 3 other bidders as well, stating IN WRITING that they did not bid (or pay the winning bid) because of the article, which was inherently false.
The premise of the article is FAKE. The winning bidder of wi.com is in absolutely no greater risk of a subsequent UDRP because of the prior UDRP. The fact is, every single two letter .com domain has existing registered trademark (most have MANY!). If you abuse it, you put yourself at risk. If you abuse it, you are an idiot. But a prior UDRP which we won, does NOTHING to decrease ones rights in the domain as a subsequent registrant. It all comes down to use and abuse. WI.COM is a generic domain name and generic two letter acronym that among other things is the state abbreviation for Wisconsin. That ladies and gentlemen is the issue at hand.
We just acquired the domain name impala.com. Now clearly there is a trademark from General Motors for their car model “Impala”. Does that mean that impala.com is a high risk domain? Absolutely not. Not unless I try to sells cars on Impala.com or do something else stupid that infringes on someone’s trademark. “impala” is an animal. It can be used for an airline, ice cream shop or whatever the hell I, or anyone else, want to use it for as long as it doesn’t infringe on someone’s mark. There could have been 25 previous UDRP’s on Impala.com or WI.com for that matter and it would make absolutely no difference to the value of the domain or its risk potential (as long as the respondent won in all the prior UDRP’s as we did in wi.com case). In fact, I would argue that it make the domain MORE attractive. It clearly shows the domain as valuable. It clearly enhances our rights in the name. It clearly shows that there are 3rd parties that want to own this name and are willing to spend money to try and steal it from us. Many times a poorly intended UDRP results in a large sale as a settlement after the complainant fails.
If you don’t understand that the premise of the wi.com article was inherently fake because it was based on false rhetoric and statements, then you are hopelessly and willfully destined for failure anyhow.
If you think for one second that you are going to be successful in domain investing and never buy a domain name that has a registered trademark, then you have ZERO chance of success. Just quit now, otherwise you’ll just look like a public fool like @striker and @rich and @jose. Class clowns and the joke of the town. The ONLY domains which are of any inherent value are ones which are generic in nature and have existing trademarks. If a keyword or acronym has any value then SOMEONE has already trademarked it for SOMETHING. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be used for something else. Domaining 101.
Are you sure about that? I’m dubious.
@Striker I think you meant to say “I’m dumb” not “dubius”. First consultation is free.
I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap out a smarter comeback than what you just said.
@Andrew
Does this personality of yours, the one you’ve exhibited here for all of our amusement…does it actually carry over into “real life” for you? I mean, like in a successful & productive way? I just don’t see it.
Striker just call the IRS on him, along with tax offices in the UK, Germany
US based companies will stop doing business with these offshore types.
@striker actually it is for my own amusement that I am bothering to comment and distainfully continue to poke the cancerous parasitic folks like yourself.
I take time out of my VERY SUCCESSFUL day (sold $173,000 in domains today) in the “real world” to try and educate new entrants into the domain business. To try and give back a little. I do this through our blog, commenting on other blogs and my appearances on Domain Sherpa (among other things). There is hardly a day goes by that I don’t mentor someone in the industry that I see working hard to make a living. Giving them advice, helping them buy or sell and doing what I can to help the overall industry.
Are you a member of the ICA (Internet Commerce Association)? Do you give money for the betterment of the industry as a whole? To help protect all of our rights in domain names against frivolous UDRP’s and legal actions like in the case of wi.com. NO, YOU’RE NOT. You add no value to anyone or anything.
Do you own any domains? Which ones? Why do you think you are qualified to have an opinion at all? What domains have you sold? Do you actually know what a domain name is?
I try to collaborate and support all my friends and fellow domainers who are actually putting in the time and effort to make a living in this business. Look at the comments on DomainSherpa, you’ll find HUNDREDS of folks that have garnered benefit from my advice and other Sherpas.
However, despite this (and believe me I’m not looking for a round of applause or even a thank you by ANY stretch of the imagination), but despite this, I get attacked by anonymous blog trolls who instead of spending their time learning to be successful in this business use their energy and time to attack and shit on those who ARE successful. Doing nothing but spreading negativity and inhibiting the success of others purely because they are envious and hateful losers.
It is really interesting to analyze the folks that like me and the folks that hate me (very few are in between). Those that hate me are 99% folks who can’t make money in domain names to save their life and they are envious and resentful of those that do. The other 1% are folks that just got out hustled by me and can’t stand it. The folks that like me are the ones that are successful in the business and understand that I am a straight shooter, hustle and work harder than most & know how to make deals better than most.
I guess we know what side you fall on…
@Andy
I don’t believe you (and neither does anyone else reading this). Pffttt…your responses are typical for a pathetic bottom-feeder. I expected more – I’m disappointed, and now find your drivel more boring than amusing so I will now cease interacting with you.
@striker MISSION ACCOMPLISHED