Satire website survives domain name challenge A website that parodied the site of a political lobbying organisation has survived a domain name challenge from the target of its satire because there was no commercial exploitation of the name, even though it was deliberately confusing. The Sutherland Institute in the US is a right wing think tank based in Utah that seeks to …
This post has been deleted by its author
''There are no requests for financial support on [the] website.''
Very often a site like this will have a ''request for donations in support of the campaign'', does this suggest that if they had done so the decision might have gone the other way ? Or would it have been a matter of ''profiting'' - ie generating funds over and above those needed to maintain the campaign ?
(Alain Williams): 'Very often a site like this will have a "request for donations in support of the campaign", does this suggest that if they had done so the decision might have gone the other way ? Or would it have been a matter of "profiting" - ie generating funds over and above those needed to maintain the campaign ?'
The criterion is whether or not the organisation is "for profit", not whether or not they have made one in any particular period, whether by asking for donations or by selling sponge cakes.
Being in the black at the end of the year doesn't make an organisation "for profit" any more than a commercial organisation can claim not to be "for profit" by claiming that "we made a loss for the last five years".
Based on the content of their website, they should be happy with this ruling as it fits in with their philosophy of free markets and minimal regulatory interference.
Or perhaps they should have bought all the obvious domain combinations when they had the chance?
"The Institute said in its evidence to the panel that the site had caused confusion and had caused one donor to the Institute to be worried about its direction."
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall for that conversation....
"Hi, Sutherland Institute."
"Uh, hi. Listen, I'm a regular donor to your campaign, but I've just been on your website and ... er ...."
"Had the political roles been reversed, had it been a right-wing group spoofing a left-wing group, the former would have been lucky to avoid arrest, never mind have their 'right' upheld."
It's like when right-wing groups commit terrorism it's somehow part of the holy struggle against Communism / Islam / British Imperialism / whatever.
Had the political roles been reversed, had it been a right-wing group spoofing a left-wing group, the former would have been lucky to avoid arrest, never mind have their "right" upheld.
And how would they be arrested in the US ? Hmm ever seen the site god hate fags? Its right wing and spews hate speech. Yet those evil left wing folks have not manged to get the site shut down.
"Yet only by the exercise of mental gymnastics may a group of gay rights activists be defined as a 'competitor' of a conservative public policy think tank."
Very well put, especially for a court ruling.This case delights on so many levels: free-marketeers hoist with their own petard, die-hard republicans outwitted by gays, and so on. Anyway, isn't 'right-wing think tank' some sort of oxymoron..?
Ironic that the first website is exercising their free right to speech, the second is attacking it for doing so, then the second is saved by the constitutional right to free speech.
All of which means they're both cancelling each other out and everyone will retain the same opinions they had before they visited either site!
It's a wonder we bother getting out of bed in the morning for all the difference we make to the world.
Well, I don't (at least, I hope) that it was not just money that made them go with an .org domain. There once was a time when domain extensions actually served a purpose. When they told you what type of site it or the organisation behind the site was.
".org"'s were just that; organisations. Could be a local chapter of your garden social, could be a PAC, but it was a gathering of people of like minds, usually non-profit.
".com"'s were commerical endeavors. Hence, you know, the "com" part.
".net"'s were networks or a company involved in upkeeping the "net"work, eh?
But, all this has been subverted back in the domain gold rush days of the "90er's". Oh, well. Doesn't forgive anyone for their views, but does show that someone's web admin was actually doing their job. Nowadays, they would be flayed for not buying every conceivable combination of domain name to "protect the brand". Bah.
This decision appears to have been reached solely because both parties were in the US. That leaves open the possibility that the outcome could have been the reverse if either party was not based in the US. It sets a precedent to include national politics in domain name decisions.
Will all targets now enjoy this same standard, or will rights be ranked on a scale of 0-10 and domains made to be handed over accordingly?
"This decision appears to have been reached solely because both parties were in the US. That leaves open the possibility that the outcome could have been the reverse if either party was not based in the US. It sets a precedent to include national politics in domain name decisions."
No. What they say is simply "since both organisations are US-based, they are both subject to US law, so that's all we need to consider". It does not set any precedent for what might happen in international cases, simply that international law is irrelevant in this particular case.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
