Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Education Technology

Schools Buy .xxx Domains In Trademark Panic 231

Posted by samzenpus
from the keep-them-off-the-pole dept.
bs0d3 writes "Schools nationwide, including The University of Missouri and Washington University, are snapping up .xxx domain names to avoid people making porn sites with their names in the url. The new .xxx domain will be launched later this year, and before that, everyone with a trademark will have the opportunity to reserve names during what's called a "sunrise period". Someone is promoting the possible horrors of what could happen as a way to sell these domains, which cost up to $200 dollars per domain per year. Even though these schools may already be protected from defamation and trademark infringement, they still feel compelled to buy these names."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Schools Buy .xxx Domains In Trademark Panic

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13, 2011 @09:17PM (#38044418)

    protecting companies and institutions in the US from having to fork over more than a nominal amount (let's say $10/yr) to reserve a domain based on their own name, provided that they never back it with content.

    What if ICANN doesn't play ball? Well, the legislation should then direct US-based ISP's to block all .xxx traffic.

  • by jd (1658) <imipak@yaCOLAhoo.com minus caffeine> on Sunday November 13, 2011 @09:21PM (#38044444) Homepage Journal

    ...there's really only one TLD because everyone has to buy the same name from all of them to protect themselves. (Especially as you lose a trademark if you don't protect it.)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13, 2011 @09:24PM (#38044468)

    Great idea, but not in practice. People only recognize the AOL keyword kind of URLs. There is no http://slashdot.com or http://slashdot.net , only http://slashdot.org . I like the ideas of namespaces, but for average people using the internet, the TLDs don't matter. Its .com or it does not exist. This is common in other countries as well, where .com should not be in their default namespace.

  • This is brilliant (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Sunday November 13, 2011 @10:19PM (#38044758) Homepage

    I'm going to propose creating a new .xxy TLD for the real celebrity porn now that .xxx is exclusively used to pre-emptively block celebrity porn domain names. .xxy is one whole letter more naughty than .xxx, so domain names cost twice as much to register!
     
    .xxy domains can be pre-reserved within a sunrise period over the next N years, where N is the time until I have enough money from registrations to retire. After that time it will totally launch, honestly. So if want to prevent spammers from offering pornography on a website that has your name in the address (rather than just all over the page), be sure to buy up all variations and misspellings of your name now!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13, 2011 @10:20PM (#38044770)

    So I should be able to slap any company's logo on my piece of shit product and pass it off as theirs? Trademarks are not "retarded, outdated, and plain don't work"; the abuse of trademark law has perhaps gotten out of hand, but that is not an indictment on the basic premise of the trademark.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Sunday November 13, 2011 @11:04PM (#38044936) Homepage

    This is 100% correct.

    The US suffers from a HUGE conflict of idealism and it is precisely the items you speak. I would have said "sex sells" rather than "brand is everything" but the core of marketing is correct. Business and sales rule the U.S. The problem is business and sales interests are often in direct conflict with moral idealism nearly all of us profess to maintain. Personally, I have identified those conflicts and reject all business that conflict with my own moral ideals. As a result, the companies I reject include Sony and Disney. I reject Sony for reasons that should be clear and obvious to all. I reject Disney because they are selling sex to very young children in a way I cannot agree with.

    I suppose that last sentence seems a bit odd. But I will say this: I think it's normal and healthy for kids to be curious about sex and everything else in the world. They experience life in their bodies just as we did when we were children. It is definitely not productive to tell every child he is evil because he is curious about sex, sexuality and his sexual instincts. So I say explain them to children and teach them honestly and do not punish them for being human children. But what Disney does adds so much more confusion to the mix that it is even more difficult for children to be themselves and to be well adjusted as they grow and develop. Worse, they create the same sort of self-hating and self-destructive idealism in children that we have seen in women across the globe. (Of course you know I speak of the modelling and fashion industry creating unhealthy ideals for women to pursue and fail to achieve resulting in self-loathing and even self-destructive behavior.) So when a child doesn't look, dress and act like the Disney kids, they are ugly in their own eyes.

    I'm seriously glad I don't have any girl children as they are the most targeted victims of Disney's behavior and it would be very challenging to mitigate the damage Disney does directly or indirectly to society.

    And you know? People still somehow see whatever Disney does as being "pure and clean" and rated G. It's amazing to me because people were initially up in arms when young girls were being made up to look like little sluts but no one says anything when Disney does it. Just amazing.

    I don't agree with "Save the Children." I think I would rather say "Leave the Children ALONE!" This would include leaving them out of marketing crap.

  • by rolfwind (528248) on Monday November 14, 2011 @12:37AM (#38045306)

    Exactly. Just like the whitehouse.gov vs whitehouse.com from years ago.

    Just let it go. Snapping up every permutation is a fool's game. Search engines made the whole domain thing largely superfluous to the layperson anyway and the technical person knows his way around.

  • by devent (1627873) on Monday November 14, 2011 @01:38AM (#38045556) Homepage

    They all act as if that was not the intended purpose of the .xxx domains (or the purpose of any of the TLDs). The purpose of the new .xxx domains is that all your suckers have to buy .xxx just to be save, and not to control the porn industry.

    Since a porn site can still have a regular .com domain, you still have to use all the old filter software to block porn sites, plus you have to block all .xxx domains, and now of course you have to buy .xxx to be save.

    What would have make more sense is a .kids domain. That way you could just block all other domains except .kids and be done with it. And you don't have to worry that someone will get a .kids and put porn on it. (of course if a .kids domain gets some rules attached to it, like the site with a .kids can only have content appropriate for kids).

    Was a .kids TLD even discussed? What was the argument against a .kids domain vs. a .xxx domain?

  • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Monday November 14, 2011 @02:55AM (#38045894)

    Maybe instead of trying to hide everything from the children (by stopping the advertising), things should be explained instead. I like that option better than pretending such things don't exist.

We want to create puppets that pull their own strings. - Ann Marion

Working...