Domain Names And "3abn", Use of 3ABN Copyright in Domain Names Options

[Observer]

Mr. Matthews,

I didn't necessarily offer them as refutation of your position, but to begin the discussion within a context of understanding the issues surrounding trademark law. I wouldn't say they support your position other than to indicate that there are a different set of circumstances involved in dealing with international copyright infringement. There are a number of law firms that specialize in this issue and have had growing success in winning international battles over copyright infringement/dilution.

Do you have any case law that shows that, say Johann, is not "reachable" if he were to be engaged in copyright infringement? Again, your OP is speculative at best at this point.

- FHB

FHB:

Somehow I must have failed to communicate in a clear manner. As my wife often tells me that such is what I do, I cannot find fault with you for failing to understand what I have posted.

I have stated in certalin situations people may not be reachable by a U.S. court. I have never stated that they could not be reached.

Johann may not be reachable by a U.S. court. But, litigation could be filed against him in another court.

Of course, there are law firms that specialize in International litigation. When they litigate they file in the appropriate court. They do not file in the U.S. if the approriate court is in England.

I apaoligize for communicating in a manner that leads you to misrepresent what I have said. I hope that I will do better in the future.

In addition, please note that in my first post I said:

In addition, a number of new websitess have come into operation that all use some part of the 3-ABN trademark. Again, it looks to me like many of these have been placed into operation in a manner that places them out of the reach of U.S. courts.

I never said that any of the listed websites were actually out of reach of the U.S. courts. What I said was that it looked to me like they had been placed into operation in a manner that they were out of reach.

My position is that it looks to me like they may be out of reach. My position has never been that they actually are out of reach.

You will also note that I have never stated exactly why I think that they may be out of reach. I have not done so because my thinking is speculative on that matter beyond where I want to go today. That is why I have not given my reasons for so thinking.

Time will tell whether or not they are within the reach of U.S. courts. I am willing to wait to see waht happens.



This post has been edited by Observer: Jan 23 2008, 11:50 AM

[Observer]

Just because the technical and administrative contact is listed as a US PO Box does not mean that the person who registered the domains is in the US... there is no name given and the email addresses involved are masked... and no, there is no law that can force the masked email provider to give up the true identity and whereabouts of the person who created said emails. With internet access and a valid major credit card, you could create the sites and obtain the PO Box from anywhere on the planet... so their having a US PO Box says nothing.

I would venture a guess that the reason the domain names were registered in the US is because anywhere else they would require a country code... and the parties that registered the names didn't want that knowledge made public.

This of course is strictly my opinion based on my 13 years experience supporting Internet Protocols including 5 years working for a hosting provider.; I don't know and have not spoken with anyone associated with any of these sites.

In His service,
Mr. J

Correct.

In my thinking, there are indicators in the registration informatlion that suggest to me that information has been hidden and therefore the owners may not be reachable by a U.S. court.

This can easily be done by an informed person who wants to hide such information. On the basis of the registration information, I think it may (?) have been done.

[Observer]

In today's world of technology it's mighty easy to locate "intellectual property" anywhere you please, and have access to said information anywhere. The US, much as it might wish, does not regulate the entire world...at least not yet.

I am aware of two servers in two separate countries, neither of which is the US, which have a full copy of the former save3abn.com website. There could easily be others.

The record we must ALL face one day is well beyond the reach of governments or of earthly powers to try to obfuscate, spin, or erase. It will not be assailed in a court of law within any nation on the planet.

May God preserve us...may He make our conversations sweet...for tomorrow we WILL face them again.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

O.K. We now have a clear statement that there are two places where servers in anothr country have the material. That is exactly what I suspected. If so, it is unlikely that they re reachable in a U.S. court. To litigate against them one would have to discover the appropriate information and do so in the approppriate country.

[fallible humanbe...]

SE,

Along with Pirate Bay there is BitTorrent who are a lot less edgy in presenting themselves.

- FHB

Well, I don't know about trademarks. It seems like the current lawsuit hopes to settle whether save3abn and her clones are violating 3abn's trademark at all, since they're clearly not 3ABN websites.

But having done a little bit of searching, I found related information on in what would seem to me to be a bigger deal (in terms of the money involved): complete and total, unambiguous copyright infringement. They're similar for the purposes of the present discussion, since both are intellectual property.

Websites that serve torrent trackers in other countries have been repeatedly threatened by the likes of no less than Microsoft as well as companies such as Warner Brothers and Electronic Arts, only to be taunted on the sites because under current law, Internet servers are apparently subject to the laws of the country in which they operate. If you want an example of the correspondence involved, google "the pirate bay legal." I'm not providing a direct link because the "pirates" use very bad language in replying to the legal demands of these high-power companies. Suffice it to say that people with legitimate complaints in unambiguous cases of copyright violation (stealing software, movies and music) have had no effect on the operation of these tracking sites, because of the local laws which the sites are subject to.

For those reading, a torrent is a method of copying large files, such as software or movies that have been converted from DVD to a computer format, or music. A torrent tracker is not a server that stores the files for download, but rather allows people with torrents to network and exchange these types of files. In the U.S. it's very illegal, but not everywhere. It is unethical everywhere.

[fallible humanbe...]

Mr. Matthews,

So looking at this from all sides, consider that the domains are registered and hosted by US companies . . . does the mere fact that the individual registering said domains (which may violate trademark or copyright law) lives outside of the US create the type of indemnity that you speculated about in your OP?

Where does ownership reside? Can a case be made that the domains in question are in the US because they were registered and are hosted by US companies? Does it matter where the bank, upon which funds were drawn for the domain name and hosting, is located?

One would have to see if there is any sort of working relationship between countries, such as Iceland and Canada, and the United States in regards to trademark laws.

- FHB

You are correct. I am speculating. I assumed that my post was worded in a manner that people would know that I am speculating.

However, your questions raise issues that some may not understand. So, I will respond.

The major aspect of this is a legal principle known as jurisdiction. That principle relates to the authority of the court. It simply says that the authority of a court is limited by its jurisdiction. A municipal court in the city of Sacramento, California, does not have jurisdiction over a matter localized to Winnemucca, Nevada. A Federal court in the United States does not have jurisdiction over a matter localized England.

The essential element of my comment was that U.S. Courts are limited in jurisdiction to matters that occur within the sphere of the United States.

I am making an assumption, which may be wrong as I do not know, that the ownership of some of the websites that are springing up resides outside of the United States. I am also making the asumption, which again may be wrong as I do not know, that the servers on which the content of those websites resides, are situated outside of the United States. If my two assumptions are accurate, I believe that those websites and their owners are outside the reach of U.S. courts.

You will note that I did not say that they were outside of the reach of any legal system. I simply stated that they, in my opinon, were outside of the reach of U.S. courts.

If I am wrong, I will be delighted for you or anyone else to correct me.

From this standpoint, no reference to case law is needed. I am making a simple statement of jurisdiction. If I am correct, litigation filed against such will need to be persued in courts other than the U.S. legal system.

There is another issue which I have not previously mentioned. Let us say that 3-ABN obtained a binding judgement against one of the websites that, for example, was located in Burma. Even with that binding judgement, enforcement would have to be sought in any websites located in England, China, Panama, Costa Rica, Denmark and I could go on and on. A binding judgement against a website located in Burma would do no more than shut that website down.

Folks here is the deal: Ownership of domain names and locations of websites may reside in other countries. After all the so-called Web is international. If people want to hide, there are methods that they can use to hilde ownership of the domain names and to protect the servers from enforcement actions. While I may be wrong, I think that attemps have been made to dothis in connection with some of the domain names that I have listed.

FHB: Thanks for asking. I hope I have responded to your questions.

[Observer]

Respectfully, some of us have more than an idea here:

O.K. Ian: It does appear that Johann is linked to one of the sites. This assumes that someone has not registered it under a false name. But, it looks like Johann is so associated.

If he is truely the owner, it appars to me that he would be out of the reach of a U.S. court and that any litigation against him would have to be filed in another country. However, specifics like this are for a specialist in International law (and trademark/copyrigtht) to determine. So, I am not giving a legal opinion.

[Observer]

Mr. Matthews,

So looking at this from all sides, consider that the domains are registered and hosted by US companies . . . does the mere fact that the individual registering said domains (which may violate trademark or copyright law) lives outside of the US create the type of indemnity that you speculated about in your OP?

Where does ownership reside? Can a case be made that the domains in question are in the US because they were registered and are hosted by US companies? Does it matter where the bank, upon which funds were drawn for the domain name and hosting, is located?

One would have to see if there is any sort of working relationship between countries, such as Iceland and Canada, and the United States in regards to trademark laws.

- FHB

FHB: You hae raised valid questions. I am not informed enough as to the specifics on those issues to even engage in speculation. So, I cannot respond. In my personal opinion, some of your questions are more valid than others. But, I am not going to speculate on this. People who want to know shoud seek the council of an appropriate legal specialist.

[Panama_Pete]

Mr. Matthews,

So looking at this from all sides, consider that the domains are registered and hosted by US companies . . . does the mere fact that the individual registering said domains (which may violate trademark or copyright law) lives outside of the US create the type of indemnity that you speculated about in your OP?

Where does ownership reside? Can a case be made that the domains in question are in the US because they were registered and are hosted by US companies? Does it matter where the bank, upon which funds were drawn for the domain name and hosting, is located?

One would have to see if there is any sort of working relationship between countries, such as Iceland and Canada, and the United States in regards to trademark laws.

- FHB

This is just a quick note to, perhaps, clarify things.

Merriam-Webster definition of the word "sucks"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sucks

Definition: 4. slang : to be objectionable or inadequate

Now, with the definition of the word "sucks" in mind, let's look at some domain names that use trademarks.

http://www.gmsucks.net/

http://www.fordreallysucks.com

http://wellsfargosucks.com/

http://www.mcspotlight.org/

http://www.ihatestarbucks.com/

http://walmartsucks.org/

http://www.target-sucks.com/

http://www.bankofamericasucks.com/

http://www.mychryslersucks.com/

http://themacsucks.com/joomla/index.php

http://panasonicsucks.org/

http://www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com/

http://www.microsoftsucks.org/

http://www.dishsucks.com/

http://www.dupontsucks.com/

http://www.paypalsucks.com/forums/showthre...amp;old_block=0

http://www.comcastsucks.org/

http://www.uhaul-sucks.com/

http://www.csx-sucks.com/

http://survivorsucks.com/forums/63/t/Survivor-Sucks.html

http://www.mitsubishisucks.com/resources/sucks.html

http://www.homedepotsucks.org/Your_Home_Depot_Store.php

http://www.whylostsucks.com/category/10-re...why-lost-sucks/

http://www.allstateinsurancesucks.com/


And now, back to your regularly-scheduled programming.

[lurker]

Nice to see that these companies are not trying to terrorize people by suing over the websites. The companies seem to realize that it is better p.r. to shrug criticism off as not worth their notice.

And the discussion over whether people who are outside the states can be sued makes me think that some people here are trying to put the word out that others should be afraid and hoping that word gets back to them. The same tactics that were tried by starting the original lawsuit. It doesn't appear that they are taking part in a hypothetical discussion as much as that they are trying to use scare tactics.

[Ian]

Nice to see that these companies are not trying to terrorize people by suing over the websites. The companies seem to realize that it is better p.r. to shrug criticism off as not worth their notice.

And the discussion over whether people who are outside the states can be sued makes me think that some people here are trying to put the word out that others should be afraid and hoping that word gets back to them. The same tactics that were tried by starting the original lawsuit. It doesn't appear that they are taking part in a hypothetical discussion as much as that they are trying to use scare tactics.

Actually Mr Matthews started this discussion. I don't think he did so to terrorize people...
but I may be wrong. Please notice that I didn't say that he didn't start it to terrorize people, only that I think that he didn't... I am only sharing my thoughts here and don't really know...


I was wondering why people are so worried about being out of reach of the U.S. law though... seems to me if you aren't violating the law, there's nothing to worry about, It sounds like we may have a bunch of outlaws on our hands, but it only sounds like that, and maybe not to others, I only meant it sounded like that to me, but I don't know for sure, that is only my opinion based on what I have read, but I may be wrong, or I may be right...

I will not speculate further at this time...

This post has been edited by Ian: Jan 23 2008, 06:59 PM

[lurker]

Actually Mr Matthews started this discussion. I don't think he did so to terrorize people...
but I may be wrong. Please notice that I didn't say that he didn't start it to terrorize people, only that I think that he didn't... I am only sharing my thoughts here and don't really know...
I was wondering why people are so worried about being out of reach of the U.S. law though... seems to me if you aren't violating the law, there's nothing to worry about, It sounds like we may have a bunch of outlaws on our hands, but it only sounds like that, and maybe not to others, I only meant it sounded like that to me, but I don't know for sure, that is only my opinion based on what I have read, but I may be wrong, or I may be right...

I will not speculate further at this time...

Greg started this discussion but I felt that it was taken to another level.

Actually, I do not think of these people as outlaws but as those who will not bend under threats from the powerful and vengeful.

[Richard Sherwin]

Unfortunately in the US you can be taken to court and rack up 10 of thousands in lawyer fees even if you have not broken any laws. It's called intimidation. Of course I'm sure that no SDA would do that to another SDA. Perish the thought. How utterly ridiculous for me to even speculate that that would happen.

Actually Mr Matthews started this discussion. I don't think he did so to terrorize people...
but I may be wrong. Please notice that I didn't say that he didn't start it to terrorize people, only that I think that he didn't... I am only sharing my thoughts here and don't really know...
I was wondering why people are so worried about being out of reach of the U.S. law though... seems to me if you aren't violating the law, there's nothing to worry about, It sounds like we may have a bunch of outlaws on our hands, but it only sounds like that, and maybe not to others, I only meant it sounded like that to me, but I don't know for sure, that is only my opinion based on what I have read, but I may be wrong, or I may be right...

I will not speculate further at this time...

[Pickle]

This is just a quick note to, perhaps, clarify things.

Merriam-Webster definition of the word "sucks"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sucks

Definition: 4. slang : to be objectionable or inadequate

Now, with the definition of the word "sucks" in mind, let's look at some domain names that use trademarks.

http://www.gmsucks.net/

http://www.fordreallysucks.com

http://wellsfargosucks.com/

http://www.mcspotlight.org/

http://www.ihatestarbucks.com/

http://walmartsucks.org/

http://www.target-sucks.com/

http://www.bankofamericasucks.com/

http://www.mychryslersucks.com/

http://themacsucks.com/joomla/index.php

http://panasonicsucks.org/

http://www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com/

http://www.microsoftsucks.org/

http://www.dishsucks.com/

http://www.dupontsucks.com/

http://www.paypalsucks.com/forums/showthre...amp;old_block=0

http://www.comcastsucks.org/

http://www.uhaul-sucks.com/

http://www.csx-sucks.com/

http://survivorsucks.com/forums/63/t/Survivor-Sucks.html

http://www.mitsubishisucks.com/resources/sucks.html

http://www.homedepotsucks.org/Your_Home_Depot_Store.php

http://www.whylostsucks.com/category/10-re...why-lost-sucks/

http://www.allstateinsurancesucks.com/


And now, back to your regularly-scheduled programming.

Too bad. Danny won't be able to get any of those companies to file friend of the court briefs in support of his cause, since they've read the law and the court cases and know that suits of this type won't go anywhere ... in my opinion.

[inga]

Yes, Richard, you've pronounced the name of the game of the legal maneuvers!

Website copyright infringement is a non-issue because the http://www.save-3abn.com site is so clearly not illegal as major companies found out years ago when they tried to sue the "sucks" sites.

The current law suit against Gailon and Bob appears to focus on "defamation," and, seeing that the website largely consists of evidence, it seems to me that the initiators of this law suit actually have no legal leg to stand on -- or they shouldn't.

However, they have more money. They can continue to make motions and other legal maneuvers that take time and money to oppose. They clearly have the ability to "wear out the saints" unless God intervenes.

May God have mercy!

By the way, there's more on questions surrounding the web site and the law suit at http://www.AdventTalk.com, which I won't repeat here. Gailon Joy is posting personally there.

Unfortunately in the US you can be taken to court and rack up 10 of thousands in lawyer fees even if you have not broken any laws. It's called intimidation. Of course I'm sure that no SDA would do that to another SDA. Perish the thought. How utterly ridiculous for me to even speculate that that would happen.

This post has been edited by inga: Jan 23 2008, 11:30 PM

[Ian]

By the way, there's more on questions surrounding the web site and the law suit at http://www.AdventTalk.com, which I won't repeat here. Gailon Joy is posting personally there.

Big whoop...

He wants it posted here I'm quite sure he'll send SSOM, or another, as he usually does...

Aw, shucks! You really want me to stop posting at http://www.AdventTalk.com? But I like it there!

and you and some others seem to be workin real hard at advertising and soliciting here...

This post has been edited by Ian: Jan 24 2008, 04:55 AM