Copyright Maximalists Come Out Against New TLDs Because It Creates 'More Space' For Infringement

from the the-internet-is-like-a-box,-see... dept

There are all sorts of reasonable points of disagreement over ICANN's plan to add generic top level domains (.whatever rather than just .com, .net, etc...). Of course, we've argued that the whole idea of TLDs is obsolete anyway, and rather than ICANN's convoluted process of selling each new generic TLD, it should just open things up, so that rather than saying people can register "," they should be able to just register "whatever." Trademark owners have also complained about the generic TLD efforts, in large part because they've seen what happens when ICANN created absolutely useless TLDs like .jobs, that made many companies feel they need to go out and pay to register their (leading to sophomorically snicker-worthy sites like, which appears to no longer be functioning, though it did for a while).

However, one complaint that simply hasn't made much sense are complaints from copyright holders over generic TLDs. We've seen the RIAA complain that it might lead to more infringement, which appeared to be based on a misunderstanding of how the internet works (shocking) rather than on any legitimate complaint. Of course, Copycense points us to the news that "The Copyright Alliance" (a sort of propaganda/lobbying organization for extreme copyright maximalists) has now come out against generic TLDs as well for the delightfully ridiculous reason that it means "more Internet space would be available to rogue website operators."

Apparently, the internet isn't a series of "tubes," but it's a box with limited space, and this will expand it. Or something.

Filed Under: copyright, infringement, tlds

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2011 @ 8:59am

    The entire purpose of new TLDs... registrar revenue. That's it. No matter what ICANN says, no matter what the registrars say, no matter what anyone says: the entire process has been carefully engineered to maximize revenue.

    We have come a long way from the one-entity one-domain rule that was the de facto way things were done Once Upon A Time, when it was recognized that it's quite impossible to 'own' a domain; one merely is permitted to use it by the mutual consent of everyone else on the 'net, as it's a resource that belongs to everyone and noone. Now we've reached the point where spammers routinely register domains 10,000 at a time, burning through the namespace and rendering those permanently unusable by anyone.

    ("permanently"? Of course. Once a domain has been owned by a known abuser, it can, should, and will be permanently blacklisted. Such entries should never be removed because -- thanks to ICANN -- there's no way to know what the alleged new owner isn't really the same abuser.)

Add Your Comment

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

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.