Fear-Induced Foolishness: Entertainment Industry Thinks Controls On New TLDs Will Actually Impact Piracy

from the come-on dept

Last month, we wrote about how the RIAA was backing a version of the .music top level domain that would only allow “accredited” musicians to get domains with a .music suffix. Their key concern, as always, was that .music would be used for infringement. It appears that it’s not just the RIAA who’s concerned, and not just about .music. Paul Keating points us to the news that various other legacy entertainment industry groups, including the MPAA, ASCAP and others, have joined with the RIAA to warn of the horrors that await if .music, .movies and .games are allowed without special anti-piracy features.

In a position statement, “New gTLDs Targeting Creative Sectors: Enhanced Safeguards”, the groups say that such gTLDs are “fraught with serious risks” and should be controlled more rigorously than other gTLDs.

“If new gTLDs targeted to these sectors – e.g., .music, .movies, .games – are launched without adequate safeguards, they could become havens for continued and increased criminal and illegal activity,” the statement says.

It goes on to make seven demands for regulations covering Whois accuracy, enforced anti-piracy policies, and private requests for domain name take-downs.

But, here’s the thing: all that stuff already happens on other domains. What difference does it make if it happens on those new domains? It’s not like domains are a totally scarce resource, and stopping piracy on one particular TLD will somehow prevent infringement. This just seems like a strange and pointless battle. It’s not actually fighting infringement. It’s fighting the possibility that a certain domain will be used for infringement — even though preventing that won’t stop any infringement at all, since it will continue on other websites. So why even spend time focusing on something so useless?

It says something about the mindset of these organizations that they can’t comprehend that making a stand over this is completely meaningless. They just instinctively lash out at anything new.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: mpaa, riaa

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Fear-Induced Foolishness: Entertainment Industry Thinks Controls On New TLDs Will Actually Impact Piracy”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
N Gin Ear says:

Re: Relics: don't let the door hit you on the way out!

#1 AC said: I agree with the RIAA and believe it should get full control over who gets to use .music domains. That way I know who to ignore.

I am afraid that you are incorrect. You should have said: “That way I know whom to ignore.”

Other than that, I agree fully. Any group of greedy near-dead relics of a previous millennium that wants to fall with one last mighty bleat on their swords of stupidity and ignorance and thereby bleed their life-blood (cash reserves) to death should be encouraged to do so.

Hey all you ***A-holes! Don’t be so bashful. Be bold and bring on the .copyright TLD! I, for, one look forward to a better list of precisely whom to boycott.

Have a nice death.

(And to think I once supported these greedy bastards. Oh, well – we all learn.)

Hulser (profile) says:

Walled garden

This just seems like a strange and pointless battle.

Exactly. This is why no one should stand in the way of the licensing agencies controlling access to these TLDs. Let them win the battle and lose the war. They’ll waste time with this while the rest of the Internet goes on its merry way. It will be the same as the walled garden approach by the newspapers: people will just ignore what’s inside the wall.

New Mexico Mark says:

Re: Re: Walled garden

In Apple’s case, the walled garden is just part of the general cult mentality. If they offered their customers poop-on-a-stick with the Apple logo, I guarantee it would sell.

(I’m not knocking Apple. They have done a great job of merging leading technology into nice products and putting a spit shine on those products — for those with plenty of extra money burning a hole in their pockets. But their fan boys…. sheesh! They make Ron Paul backers look calm and moderate.)

Baldaur Regis (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Walled garden

lol, but too interesting for these rocket scientists. I imagine:

1) a mandatory pass-through “educating” you on what a FUCKING PIRATE you are for going to a .music site;

2) a mandatory registration form so they can keep track of your FUCKING PIRATING ways;

3) a 90’s era site listing CDs ONLY, at full retail price (S&H extra, of course);

4) a final pop-under warning what happens if you pirate anything, you FUCKING PIRATE.

Anonymous Coward says:

A well run TLD would be one that has only “approved” sites on it, and would create a reliable brand for consumers to look at. That could include everything from the major players in a field to the independent players, opinion makers, etc. I could picture a .movies with reviews.movies being a big site, run as a collection of movie reviews from all over. I would see independent festivals having their chance, to see movie makers of all levels to be able to be in the public’s eye, in a very much more official way and under a much more respectable banner.

If you look really hard, you can find the bad in anything Mike. Keep up the good work, I am sure you will find the bad in anything the RIAA does.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Or it would create a list of “approved” sites in a manner that is anything but reliable. It would be biased to say the least. If you can’t see the problems that WILL, not might but WILL, arise from this, you’re either seriously naive or completely deluded.

While it is true if you look hard enough you can find the bad in anything, it’s kind of hard not to see the bad when the RIAA is involved. Should we list some of the things they’ve done, along with the labels? Things like sue grandmothers and printers. Things like use misinformation to spread FUD to lobby for laws that affect everyone else to keep them from changing with the times. Things like go out of their way to NOT pay those they have contracts with. And so on and so forth.

Excuse the rest of us if we don’t believe they have the best of intentions in regards to the new TLDs.

I for one seeing them easily and right away trying to get artists of all sorts to sign away even more rights, or risk not being “accredited”. And having their sites under the .music banner. And of course, once you fall under “not accredited”, it makes it easy to fall in the “rogue” website moniker. Ala 50 Cent. Nah, they’d never do something like that. /s

I often wonder, and never bother to look, if there are pro-RIAA/MPAA sites. Where people like you can go and fit in and comment and praise them to your heart’s content. While denouncing the rest of us who see things without rose tinted glasses.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Things like sue grandmothers and printers.”

Grandma shouldn’t let the grandkids download on her internet connection, and the printer one, well, I would say “sneaky IT guy did it”, but hey, not an issue.

If you don’t like the idea of .music, then open .masnick and allow anyone to run scams on it. Have fun.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ah yes, quick to assume guilt.

So in the one case where the grandmother DID NOT even own a computer, who would you blame in that case?

And the printers were on their own separate network. The “sneaky IT guy did it” just won’t fly there.

I do like how you nitpick and assume guilt and blame the grandmother and IT guy, but you seem to completely gloss over and ignore the other things I said. You know, the RIAA/labels giving artists the shaft and all that. Or is that their fault? For not hiring awesome lawyers and accounts to keep tabs 24/7/365.

I’m not saying I don’t like the idea of .music. I’m merely saying this “accredited” thing is a load of bollocks, especially coming from the group it’s coming from.

Also, you can run scams from anywhere. Someone could easily get accredited and end up with a .music TLD, then have their site hacked easily enough and wahlah. A scam being run from a .music TLD. But I suppose in your magical non-reality/fact based world no such thing would ever happen.

We should make a .troll and .idiot for guys like you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Well, fucknut, there can be multiple reasons.

For awhile I needed internet access at a place I lived but couldn’t pay for it. So my parents had an account opened at their home, despite not having a computer in their home, and I was able to use a dial-up only login provided by their ISP to get online where I lived.

From what I recall though, you dumb ass, the grandmother had no computer. Yet the IP address was saying it was a computer in her home at the address she physically lived at. And despite not owning a computer, the burden of proof was placed on her to prove she did not download a thing.

But hey, look you did it again! Angry and blaming the lady with no computer. Ignoring the bad things the labels do on a regular basis. You’re a label piracy apologist! Kids not paying buying records = bad. Labels cheating artists = acceptable/their (the artists) fault. I love the logic people like you seem to have.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

There are plenty more reasonable reasons to have an internet account with no computer, even a broadband account. With your anecdote, your parents could still be blamed if you infringed.

I recently moved into a new home. I have internet and telephone access through my local cable company, but no cable. However, when the other people moved out they never turned off their cable TV. I lived there for weeks with cable TV (unknowingly, until I was going to run an antenna and pulled some wires to where I have my TV set up). I called the cable company and they still haven’t turned it off. They don’t seem to care one way or another. So until they do, I’m using it for local channels that I could get with an antenna anyway.

Here’s the issue. They could have left internet on at her home when she moved in. She would never know and would never have a modem because she didn’t need it and wouldn’t have tried it like I did (and had no way to try it). This means that the ISPs records are messed up somewhere and any lawsuits for that ISP should be looked at VERY closely.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

I honestly was just giving one example per my experience, as I could not adequately and with complete certainty explain why the grandmother had internet with no computer.

Either way, as you pointed out the ISP records are/could be messed up.

Which brings us back to the IP address is not sufficient proof. They can be and have been wrong. Blaming printers on a network for infringement is testimony to that.

Not an Electronic Rodent says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Someone could easily get accredited and end up with a .music TLD, then have their site hacked easily enough and wahlah

No, no, no! In this utopian vision of total control that could never ever happen. I mean it’s not like 80% of virused websites and 6% of phishing sites are legitimate sites or anything… oh.. hang on a minute… but if the RIAA are in charge I’m sure that’ll be better. After all they’re the internet experts aren’t they?

Benjo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don’t think anyone cares about the idea of .music. Innovative companies will stay clear of it because of the additional regulation / enforcement.

It’s not like kids will be like “I can’t find pirated music on these .music sites. What now!?”

It’s much more likely that the people that only pirate will start filtering out those sites either through self-conditioning or using software tools.

Most likely the next step in the RIAA’s argument is to force these shitty sites to the top of Google’s search results, since they are the authentic source of .whatever, and then complain / sue because they don’t understand how google’s search algorithm works.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Yes but who gets to decide what and what isn’t an official movie or for that matter an official Director, DOP, Editor, Gaffer, etc etc ad infinitum..

Does the RIAA get to decide that if I want to create a yourpersonal.movies site to compete with the likes of flickr, but for movies I can’t becasue I am not an “official” Movie person approved by them. What about non-USA movies? What about private personal HD movies? What about educational public domain movies I might take of lectures or presentations? What about any lawful multimedia data I want to create and place on one of the new .TLDs Do I need permission by some narcasistic organisation that deems that only their members get to use it?

The list goes on..

As for .games and .musicThere are so many game developers now on mobile platforms that they could NEVER control who or what was or wasn’t a game manufacturer.. The same with Music..

Though I Agree you can find the bad in anything, alternatively you can also find the good too. Technology.. it’s neither ying nor yang but totally neutral!

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Where this falls on its face is that just who is an “accredited” musician, who decides what is an “approved” site and just who wants to jump through the hoops?

Your vision seems to be to be a .movies TLD that the MPAA and its partners and members run and only them. And undoubtedly .music would be run solely by the RIAA and its partners and members. For all practical purposes, then, TLDs that are nothing more than ad servers for the part of the “content” industry that the TLD might, just might, affect negatively.

Hardly a reliable brand or a good way to do branding.

All of what you want is already out there on the Web. There is no need to duplicate it except, as you are indicating, handing these TLDs to the “content” industry.

I can’t think of an independent artist who would want any part of those TLDs under those circumstances. All you want to do is re-establish the gatekeeper position the “content” industry has enjoyed for better than a century. Collectively their brands aren’t considered reliable or attractive anymore except in their dream worlds and yours.

E. Zachary Knight (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It is possible to have a well run TLD that is exclusionary. We have .edu, .gov, .mil etc. Each of these are restricted to accredited educational institutions, governments and military (respectively). However, the big difference between these TLDs and the likes of .music, .movies and .games is who decides who gets one of those domains.

With .edu we have national and state accrediting institutions that have strict guidelines on when or if a school is officially a school. So by looking up the school in such databases is relatively easy.

Governments and military are also really easy to determine.

On the other hand, with .music, .movie and .games we have a very subjective process of determination on who qualifies. Does Dan Bull qualify for .music? Does Nina Paley qualify for .Movie? Does Divine Knight Gaming qualify for .games? We don’t know. Chances are if such TLDs are left in the hands of the RIAA, MPAA and the ESA we will see a very closed off system that does not allow for qualified independent artists to use. Of course those artists will most likely not car and continue to use any one of the myriad of TLDs that don’t have such requirements.

Franklin G Ryzzo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Exactly this!

Leaving it up to the MAFIAA to determine who gets a domain is prejudicial and discriminatory. A simple set of rules should suffice to maintain control and prevent abuse:

1. You can’t register a person’s name unless it’s your own or your legally registered pseudonym.

2. You can’t register a band’s name unless you are an agent or current member of the band.

3. You can’t register a game/movie studio name unless it’s your studio.

4. You can’t register a song/movie/game unless you are the content owner.

This isn’t really rocket science, and a little common sense goes a long way. To allow the MAFIAA to determine who can and cannot register one of these domains is simply nothing more than a power play to control a new way for artists and creators to gain exposure. With more independent artists realizing every day that they can make it on their own without gatekeeper support, the old guard are doing everything they can to try and hang on to their outdated way of thinking.

Not an Electronic Rodent says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

1. You can’t register a person’s name unless it’s your own or your legally registered pseudonym.

And so we await someone to change their name legally to “Universal Music” and watch the amusing lawsuit.

2. You can’t register a band’s name unless you are an agent or current member of the band.

Which brings us back to “what qualifies as a band and who gets to decide?” I’ve a keyboard and a computer in the house. I can barely play a note and my singing voice sounds like cats being strangled but then that’s the same as many a famous act, ‘specially those on reality TV so why don’t I qualify as a band?

3. You can’t register a game/movie studio name unless it’s your studio.

Again, who gets to decide what’s legitimate? I’ve a text based BBC basic adventure game I knocked up about a thousand years ago I think I titled “Attack of the Evil Dead” or something. I’m sure I wouldn’t have any problems registering “Evil.Dead.Game” Right?

4. You can’t register a song/movie/game unless you are the content owner.

So now a TLD is going to be specific content control too? Ooo that’s BOUND to work… just what a DOMAN NAME was designed to do.

Leaving it up to ANYONE to control who gets to use a name is fraught with danger and far from black and white. With you on the **AA though… DEFINITELY not them.

Franklin G Ryzzo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I didn’t mean that these would be the only reasons that one could register a domain, so I apologize if it seemed that way. What I meant for these rules was a away to settle disputes…

Only Elton John could register eltonjohn.music…

Likewise, only a member or the manager could register wu-tangclan.music, or someone from Universal Studios would have to register universalstudios.movie, and so on…

As for the question as to who qualifies as a band or gets to decide, the answer is no one. You couldn’t register a band name that you weren’t part of or that someone else already has. Trent Reznor is NIN, so he could register both, but you couldn’t register nineinchnails.music because you have no affiliation with them. As an individual, talent is not required (as can be seen by many in the “established” music industry), so if you wanted to register a personal music domain for whatever audio vomit you (or myself for that matter) could piece together in the basement, then that would be perfectly fine. I think notanelectricrodent.music has a nice ring to it.

All I was trying to assert is that common sense should easily be able to determine who can register what on the platform. There shouldn’t be someone saying yes this group can have one but not that group because they aren’t signed to a label. If the purpose of the TLD is to provide exposure for the bands/studios, then they shouldn’t have to worry about someone else taking the domain of their name, but any individual should be free to register one of their own. I couldn’t register metallica.music, but there’s no reason I shouldn’t be able to get ryzzossadisticexperience.music if I wanted it.

Not an Electronic Rodent says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

but you couldn’t register nineinchnails.music because you have no affiliation with them.

Again, I’m having problems with the idea of DNS registration arbitrating trademark disputes. The purpose of DNS is to provide a person-friendly name that points to a computer-readable address. Trying to make a registrar of ANY kind responsible for deciding who’s “entitled” to use what name strikes me as very very wrong, dangerously open to abuse and pointlessly cumbersome.

Franklin G Ryzzo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Unfortunately the alternatives are just as troublesome if not much much more…

On the one hand you give the **AA’s control like they are requesting and then independents are screwed. On the other hand, if there isn’t some sort of control then anyone goes out and registers the name and then it has to be settled through legal arbitration which could be cost prohibitive for many, not to mention the time and effort involved in just trying to get a domain name.

Neither of these options is attractive for the masses. That is why I felt that a few common sense rules for registration would cut down the abuse to a manageable level. The rules I stated may not be the right ones, but if there were some basic requirements like there are for .gov/.edu/.mil then the system could work for everyone and not be riddled with lawsuits and wasted time and money.

aldestrawk says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

You’re looking for a simple solution for resolution of conflicts for domain names. Sometimes it is not so simple. Take “Napolean Dynamite” for instance. Do we accept that a very popular movie title has precedence over the song title of the same name created much earlier by Elvis Costello? ICANN already has a domain name resolution process, one which has caused controversy because it seems to give more weight to the size of a company even over an existing trademark holder. ICANN’s resolution process will still be the ultimate decider if a conflict occurs within a registry.

Franklin G Ryzzo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Your example actually resolves itself… one is .music and the other is .movie, not to say that other cases wouldn’t arise that weren’t as simple. In all honesty I don’t think there would be much demand for domains registered to an individual song, but who knows.

ICANN’s current resolution process is deeply flawed, and allowing them to be the arbiter here is better then letting the **AA’s, but its still biased and discriminatory.

Franklin G Ryzzo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:


The dot is optional, and either way that could be a good system to find the soundtrack of any movie intuitively. In all honesty a system like that would make too much sense for it to ever come around, but if anyone wanted to go crazy registering domains you could have .album.music, .song.music, .band.music, etc… There’s a lot the **AA’s could do with this, it’s just imperative they don’t mess it up for the rest of us which has really been my only point from the beginning. ICANN is discriminatory, and the **AA’s are delusional, so even though what I proposed may not be the ultimate solution, I think it’s a step in the right direction. Some TLD’s have restrictions, and I see no inherent problem with using that model for these new domains. Execution is the key, and while my simplistic description may be lacking, there are plenty of bright people out there who could come up with something better. I know it’s a dreamer’s utopia, but what a wonderful world it would be if it was openly designed by the users…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“you can find the bad in anything Mike”

A: Good, as we should always look for the bad in something.

B: If anything, he pointed out how silly and useless this is, which is not specifically “bad”.

“I would see independent festivals having their chance, to see movie makers of all levels to be able to be in the public’s eye, in a very much more official way and under a much more respectable banner.”

Do you still have a GeoCities like view of how the internet is laid out, where TLD are somehow the same neighborhood were people can stroll down the street?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“A well run TLD would be one that has only “approved” sites on it, and would create a reliable brand for consumers to look at.”

In other words, it would create a private corner of the internet that is fully under the control of the RIAA/MPAA — they’ll decide which sites are allowed and which aren’t (in their sole discretion). Yes, I can see why they would like that.

aldestrawk says:

Re: They can have .music, I am getting .mp3

Individuals cannot apply for a gTLD. You must be a company or organization. Let’s suppose you represent the community of generic John Does. For each gTLD you must pay $185,000 for the application and evaluation. If approved, then you must run a registry for each gTLD. You cannot just sit on a gTLD and let it exist unused. You have 8 days left to register.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 They can have .music, I am getting .mp3

Well because that example makes no sense to start with:

Square is rectangle. This is because a square fulfills all the requirements of being a rectangle and some more that qualify it to be a square ie a square is a rectangle with all sides of equal length.

Organizations are people. I can think of a whole bunch of properties people have that organizations don’t.

Spot the difference.

Legally speaking an organization may meet all the requirements of a person (but I sincerely doubt it, I can think of a bunch of laws that it’d be hard to apply to an organization) but since there’s probably not even so much as a single lawyer on the planet who perfectly understands the law you’re asking a lot to ask people to understand that.

Torg (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 They can have .music, I am getting .mp3

All I’m asking is for people to realize that organization=people doesn’t mean people=organization. The most common way of expressing that concept is with squares and rectangles. I’m not saying that the laws are reasonable, or that it’s a prefect analogy, I’m just saying that it’s stupid to think that organizations being people makes everyone an organization.

Jeremy Lyman (profile) says:

What now?

This is silly. Pirates would obviously host their sites on .pirate domains, not .music or .movie tlds. That is, of course, if they can get their official accreditation from the Super Pirate Association of America (SPAA) or one of it’s worldwide analogs that control the International Pirate Industry (IPI).

Uh-oh, I may have said too much…

aldestrawk says:

Re: What now?

Not all that far-fetched. If someone, somewhere in the world, has the money upfront, and was able to not be too obvious about desiring to infringe or even criminal intent, they might be approved. Once approved, it is the contract between them and ICANN that determines whether they can be shutdown worldwide.

grammar note: analogue instead of analog.

Jeremy Lyman (profile) says:

Re: Re: What now?

Ok, feasible in the sense that ICANN might decide to cash in by allowing hundreds more tlds for no meaningful reason. Ridiculous in the suggestion that a wide variety of consumer activities defined as “piratical” by select organizations would become centralized around a new well-defined structure as if these activities were coordinated and maintained by a national or global syndicate in parity with the content cartel that seeks to limit culture in a similar centralizing manner.

Regional note: We use ‘analog’ for both in the US, and ‘analogue’ for nothing.

DannyB (profile) says:

The next step after .music

A law that forbids any music on a non “.music” domain.

Only “accredited” (aka “pwned” musicians) allowed on the .music domain.

Then introduce a .movie domain.

Then sue someone, maybe everyone, because the .tv domain is already taken.

Then patent the method of lobbying for laws that are in your own self interest — thus preventing the lowly populace from lobbying because they cannot afford the patent royalties.

Anonymous Coward says:

step one

If they get their way and .{music,movies,games} appear as walled gardens, they will be able to claim that all music, movies and games outside those domains is by definition unapproved and unauthorized, and by insinuation illegal and illicit.

It’s a pretty trivial logical fallacy, but it’s the kind of thing that traditional news media and politicians seem to swallow without discomfort.

Jeremy Lyman (profile) says:

Re: step one

Yup, they’re trying to figure out how to get the entire industry back inside a walled garden so it can be controlled from a central location.

It really makes me wonder if music execs understand that music existed before there was an industry and that there will be music long after the current industry as we know it is gone.

Anonymous Coward says:


I think they should pass a law requiring BLDs (Bottle Level Domains). So the RIAA can go out and buy RIAA as a BLD and every DNS will return an RIAA webpage when a user goes to say “RIAA.thepiratebay.se”. The RIAA can then use this page to inform the user how the pirate bay is bad and stuff. This will work great and I promise has no possibility of abuse.

Dibs on www and mail.

Trails (profile) says:

Strange and pointless... LIKE A FOX!!!

The point here is to establish a precedent for these lobby groups to control dolling out of TLDs.

The initial message will be “we only wanna control these, not then entire domain system.”

It will invariably morph into “we already control .music, .movies, and .games, we should be able to control the rest too”.

This is a play for control over the DNS of the world, make no mistake.

Baldaur Regis (profile) says:

Good Grief.

Their words: “…fraught with serious risks…without adequate safeguards, they could become havens for continued and increased criminal and illegal activity…“. Fucking babies. Speaking as a hardened criminal, TLDs have ZERO effect on my piracy and never will.

Let them have their stupid gTLDs , but make them pay say, 1,000X regular registration fees to keep their exclusivity.

Anonymous Coward says:


It says something about the mindset of these organizations that they can’t comprehend that making a stand over this is completely meaningless. They just instinctively lash out at anything new.

I disagree, this is not a instinctive lash out but a concert effort to undermine the freedom in the internet changing how things are done by creating imaginary problems.

What happens if they get what they want?

They can turn around and say, hey look it is already done elsewhere so it needs to be done everywhere.

Anonymous Coward says:

By setting a precedent to something they would want to see everywhere they are actually trying to erode privacy for everyone.

Those people have people on the payroll that understand how the internet work and they are asking them how they can fence it and are being pointed to the core of the internet.

This actually is pretty big issue, since the more requirements are imposed to get a TLD the number of people able to get one also gets diminished, forcing them to create a new system where they actually can get some, oh snap that may actually be a good thing LoL

Anonymous Coward says:

I thought to get a new gTLD you would have to pay the huge registration fee and be responsible for hosting and running your own DNS servers for that domain. If the RIAA or whoever launched the gTLD .music, for example, then wouldn’t that organization already have sole control over that all the domains under that gTLD since they run the DNS for that gTLD?

Why would they bitch about control, when they in fact would have control and be responsible? Or is it that they just want to be in control, but not responsible?

Scott@DreamlandVisions (profile) says:

Re: Controls

I hit submit too soon. Wasn’t finished.

There is also the chance (likely, actually) that they will not end up in control of those gTLDs. And why would they want to spend the money and resources on being a registrar if they can get rules passed that limits what the people who do pay for those gTLDs can do.

They get their control and don’t even have to pay for it.

Berenerd (profile) says:

?If new gTLDs targeted to these sectors ? e.g., .music, .movies, .games ? are launched without adequate safeguards, they could become havens for continued and increased criminal and illegal activity,? the statement says.

With the MAFFIA and RIAA and such running them, they would absolutely be havens for criminal activity…Labels not paying their artists is a crime afterall…

Scott@DreamlandVisions (profile) says:

gTLD system.

After looking into the details on the gTLD system being set up, there are a couple of details that seem to be missing from this discussion.

The process is expensive; hundreds of thousands of dollars expensive. No one on here is going to be buying .pirate or .whatever anytime soon.

The organization, company, group, etc.. that lands control of a generic TLD such as .music or .movies will have the rights and obligation to control the domains that are created on that TLD.

Assuming the RIAA gets .music then it is perfectly acceptable within the contract for a gTLD for them to only offer domains to their own members. There is no requirement to offer the general public access to that gTLD.

Personally, I don’t have a problem if EMI wants .emi for their bands or Disney wants .disney for their brands. I have a problem with generic words such as .music or .movies being in the control of a single organization such as the RIAA or MPAA.

If they do land .music or .movies, then the rest of the world will just happily move along with the current .com/.net/org or other domains just like we’ve been doing for 20+ years.

I also foresee competitors, or even groups of indies coming together to buy something like .indie. Think of what someone with an understanding of the new markets, how the internet works, and a desire to not be a gate-keeper but fascilitator to those bands and producers could do in competition against the walled gardens.

Let the **IA’s of the world have their gardens, I’ll take the wilds of the internet any day. It’s more fun out there anyway.


TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: gTLD system.

If they land these gTLDs I suspect the RIAA, for music to do exactly what you say they might. The same for the MPAA with .movies and so on for .games. (For now .books isn’t there but I can’t imagine that not coming soon just for the “content” industry.)

Like you I also object to, under the circumstances, the assigning of common words to gTLDs or TLDs of any description.

They can have their walled gardens and good luck to them. There aren’t all that many brands as badly tarnished as those of the “content” industry and they just seem to want to tarnish them some more.

Then again with their ignorance of how the Web actually works I don’t see them making a go of it. Or they can wait for the .indie gTLD to come along and let “Broken Social Scene” show them how it’s done. 😉

Tinker (profile) says:


Distribution. This is no longer a business decision issue. It’s distributed. Boats and ropes will not keep you from sinking into the tar.

If you are an “information distributor” and have, for decades, had a viable source of income through controls, windows, regions, licenses, fees, outright treachery and disingenuous designs then you’re just about plum out of a job. Nothing like trying to pull democratic institutions down with you I guess.

Domain controls..?? That’s almost but not quite like worrying about just how deep the tar pit is. I’m quite sure that you won’t care by the time you reach the bottom.

Entitlement? You’re God Damn right. It would seem all parties have a healthy sense of this. I am entitled to use technology in any way I can and make this little technological wonder box function. That’s kind of the beauty of it, much less the point. It’s no longer my problem to be concerned with certain lots inabilities to plot paths around the pits. The conveyer belts have stopped moving, the boxes are loaded and the ship has sailed. Pay no attention to the lack of a flag on the mast but do feel free to continue to fire at will as your previous and current sense of entitlement basically dictates that you must fire, in all directions, blind and not with no fear of reprisals.

Control .music. That’s fucking funny. A bit like 1996 “and we can do this” thinking. I wonder how long before 2012 thinking kicks in.

Make no mistake, I get it, I understand your quandaries, but the basic fact in the matter is that you can no longer afford that house – there is no house. The illusion is spent and it’s time to craft another. Only this time you have no curtain.

Anonymous Coward says:

It says something about the mindset of these organizations that they can’t comprehend that making a stand over this is completely meaningless. They just instinctively lash out at anything new.

How can anyone be amazed by the entertainment industry reaction, this has been their standard reaction since the days of Player Piano paper scrolls.

Digitari says:


I can see it now, wanna watch a Movie cool, but you have to log into .Music to hear the music with it, .Dialogue to hear them speak, oh and of course .Actor to see them, see all new browser plugin’s and of course direct access to all bank/finical accounts, automatic pay out. will we have .set for the set creators, .Cgi well that’s obvious. .sky and .earth? or are those “public domains”.

this could open up entire new business sectors.

.dumbass ( for the Doddmeister )
.greed (wallstreet)
.moneygrubbers (bankers or politicians, it’s a toss up)

aldestrawk says:

confusion over gTLDs

I think there is some real confusion on the part of RIAA, ASCAP etc. and in a lot of people’s minds about gTLDs. There are two basic models of TLDs, sponsored and unrestricted. The grandfathered unrestricted TLDs are; .com, .net, .org. Since 2000, .biz and .info have been approved as new unrestricted gTLDs. Also, since 2000, there have been a handful of new sponsored gTLDs approved (e.g. .jobs, .mobi, .tel, .travel, .museum) in addition to the existing sponsored gTLDs .edu, .mil, and .gov. A sponsor is an organization or company that is ultimately responsible for running the registry and who can decide, pretty much on their own, what 2nd level domain names are approved and who can have them.

Maybe the RIAA et. al. is just using any opportunity to rant about piracy, but I sense that they do not understand that any new gTLD will be a sponsored one. There is no point in complaining to ICANN or the DOC, at this juncture, about needing restrictions on a gTLD to avoid piracy, economic ruin, and world chaos and destruction. Such restrictions will be up to the holder of the new gTLD. Surely they understand this as they are backing Far Further for the .music gTLD.

Then again, maybe I am misunderstanding their intentions and they are really being very smart and forward looking. Maybe what they are asking for is for ICANN, with some behind the muscling from DOC NTIA, to include in all the gTLD contracts clauses which are similar to this following, which was asked for back in an October 2011 by Verisign as a change to their contract with ICANN for .com.

(b) to comply with any applicable court orders, laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency, or any dispute resolution process;

(c) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of Verisign, as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, and employees;

So, even when someone creates and run .pirate. The registry for that gTLD will be forced to operate under rules that allow an organization such as the RIAA to shut down a domain name just because they say it is infringing or is contributing to infringment. Yes, avoiding the tedious requirement of getting a court order to do the same.

Everyone must remember though, that the process of applying, evaluation, and approval of new gTLDs is going to be somewhat open (yes, big ? here) and that everyone is allowed input to this process.

aldestrawk says:

Re: correction and summary

should be: “behind the scenes muscling from DOC NTIA”

I think the goal of the copyright mafia is to have language included in every contract that ICANN has with a gTLD registry that allows for the shutdown of a domain if a government or court deems it necessary. Such language could also include the possibility of an organization, company, or individual asking for a domain shutdown as part of a dispute process as exists now with the DMCA. Verisign, as the registry for the most important Internet domain, .com, has already asked for this. This battle won’t be pointless when all gTLDs are subject to contracts with such clauses.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...