Draggar’s Universe

It should come as no surprise to most people that today the media and large corporations are running America. Hopefully this isn’t a surprise.

It shouldn’t be a big surprise to see that it is also these corporations and the same media who choose who is our next president. Through advertising and opinionated news reporting, it is easy to skew our impressions of the candidates to favor one over the other.

It has been quite clear since the beginning that these two entities wanted McCain and Clinton to be on the November ticket. Clinton, definitely a player, most likely would have been voted in. I’ll admit, as much as I don’t like her, Hillary is a player. She is charismatic and knows what to say to who and when. The media does the same. Perfect example, the media today was all over Hillary’s “huge” win in Kentucky. She picked up 22 delegates over Obama’s 11 but the media is very quiet about Obama’s win in Oregon (Obama picked up 29 delegates as opposed to Hillary’s 19, making both states only a one delegate gain for Hillary). They are also very quiet about the mass migration of the super delegates over to Obama’s side. Nope, they’re making it sound like Hillary was a huge winner yesterday (even though she lost ground to Obama).

It seems that the American public has flipped the bird to the corporations and media trying to run this country. America has stood up and voted for Obama. Even with the media’s call for “Operation Chaos” to try to get Hillary to win the nod failed.

Obama played a good game. He took the “T Mobile” strategy. In the beginning when all of the mud slinging was going on he didn’t participate, even when the mud was being slung at him (much like as much as the other providers trach T Mobile in their commercials, T Mobile doesn’t stoop to that level). Barak stood back and still stated his intentions and didn’t even try to defend himself. That takes some cohones.

Good job, Barak. You didn’t play the game everyone wanted you to allowing others to chew you out. Instead you acted mature and kept your cool. Even now, as your are ever inching towards the victory, the media is still trying to paint Hillary as the winner.

The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) has issued a statement on the Snowe Bill, calling it a “free speech double-whammy”.
Read it here

Posted by Corynne McSherry

Congress is contemplating a so-called “Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act” (APCPA) that takes an odd view of consumer protection. In the name of stopping phishing schemes, Senator Olympia Snowe has introduced S. 2661, a bill that would expand trademark law, limit consumer access to information about competitive products, and eviscerate key protections for anonymous speech. Co-sponsors are Senators Bill Nelson and Ted Stevens (yes, THAT Ted Stevens).

The bill starts off relatively inoffensively by prohibiting the use of false information to solicit identifying data from a computer (this was already illegal, but we’ll let that go for now). But then it goes on to forbid the use of brand names in domain names, and the use of another’s domain name in emails, on websites, or in web ads. This prohibition is unnecessary: if the use of a brand name in a domain name is confusing, it is already actionable under trademark law. And it is dangerous because, unlike current federal trademark law, the APCPA does little to protect noncommercial and comparative advertising uses of trademarks. For example, U.S. trademark dilution law excludes noncommercial, parodic and comparative uses. Under the APCPA, however, noncommercial use is merely a factor to be “considered,” not a clear exclusion, and comparative use is not explicitly protected at all. Given that trademark law simply doesn’t apply to noncommercial uses of marks, such meager “protection” for noncommercial use is unacceptable. Moreover, it appears that the bill would give a new weapon to folks like Sanofi-Aventis, the pharmaceutical giant that tried to use trademark law to shut down a news site about a new and controversial drug, Acomplia, because the site (www.acompliareport.com) included the name of the drug.

To make matters worse, another provision allows any Tom, Dick or Harry to force domain name registrars to reveal a customer’s personally identifying information by simply sending an email alleging that the customer has violated the new law. No need to comply with the traditional legal niceties of, say, an actual filed lawsuit or a subpoena that might permit the customer to go to court to protect her anonymity. A mere allegation is enough.

Sure, phishing is a problem. But you don’t solve it by rewriting trademark law and depriving lawful speakers of the chance to keep their identities private. This ill-conceived legislation should be

This was posted on a forum (a domainer’s forum) today. It seems that SEDO is taking action with the ICA to lobby against the Snowe Bill or the falsely advertised “Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008″. Feel free to read and enjoy.

The post can be read here:
DNForum.com

Added 3-11-08:
Sedo has posted on the same forum:
Sdeo’s Post

Dear (),

As a founding member of the Internet Commerce Association, Sedo believes that it is important to invest our resources in ensuring the long term health and viability of the domain name market and the business of traffic monetization. Whether you buy and sell domains for your business, maintain a portfolio of domain properties, or simply enjoy the use of domain names for personal websites or blogs, a threat has emerged to domain ownership and it is time for interested individuals and businesses to protect our rights.

As you may have already read in the news or on a forum, a bill was recently introduced in the United States Senate by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) that aims to drastically and needlessly expand the scope of rights associated with a trademark outside the realm of traditional trademark law. The Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008, or the Snowe bill as it is referred to, appears on its face to be directed to fighting the practice of “phishing”, which is a worthwhile cause, but contains many elements completely unrelated to this purpose, such as creating a cause of action for displaying advertising on a generic or descriptive domain name simply because another company has registered rights to a similar word or phrase.

If this bill is passed by Congress and signed by the President, it would immediately arm large businesses and government agencies with the ability to claim countless valuable and legitimate domains from their current owners. Supported by the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA), a coalition of companies that include Verizon, AIG, Dell, and several large hotel chains, the Snowe bill is attempting to confuse the issue of malicious phishing scams with the lawful and legitimate business of buying, selling and monetizing domain names.

By removing many of the intended checks and balances of traditional trademark law, designed to ensure that trademark rights are limited by geography and class of goods and services, the Snowe bill is attempting to eliminate many of the roadblocks large companies have faced in their attempt to gain de facto monopoly rights on words that rightfully belong to the public domain. Furthermore, the absence of due process principles make it likely that valuable domain properties could be taken from their rightful owner due only to a vague resemblance to another’s mark.

I encourage all Sedo users and domain owners anywhere to help fight the Snowe bill by joining the Internet Commerce Association, a non-profit industry organization founded to help represent domain name investors and developers and the direct search industry. The Internet Commerce Association is comprised of responsible businesses and individuals who have joined together to improve public confidence in internet commerce. Based in Washington D.C., their mission is to promote and share best practices among participants in the domain name industry and to educate consumers, policy makers, law makers and the media about the value and benefits of direct navigation traffic and the domain name industry.

Please visit www.internetcommerce.org to learn more about the Snowe bill and how you can support the ICA in our effort to fight its passage.

Best Regards,

Your Sedo Team

A list is being compiled of the winners and losers of the Snowe bill and so far:

The winners are any corporation who is aggressive against cyber-squatting and domains:

* Dell
* Microsoft
* Adidas
* Walmart
* Mariott
* Verizon
* Several other large corporations

* Plus WIPO (more claim fees)
* ICANN (more registrations changing hands = more revenue)
* Cyber Squatters outside of the US since they’ll be outside of US jurisdiction
* Phishers outside of the US (like most of them) for the same reason

And the losers:

* Small businesses (they’ll lose their web presence)
* Domainers (internet real estate investors)
* Web masters / programmers - they’ll also lose their sites
* Parking companies such as Sedo, Parked.com, NameDrive, etc..
* Registrars such as GoDaddy, Moniker, TuCows, etc..
* Ad supplying companies such as Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft (yes, they’re a winner and a loser)
* Web hosting companies, more people won’t want to have websites or domains in fear of them being taken away

This has already been tested when a senator named Sam Adams used SamAdams.com as his campaign page and Sam Adams (the beer) sued him for copyright infringement.

Even generics are not safe, like cars.com, laptops.com, pictures.com etc..!!!

Before I go, here’s a list of companies who support this bill, as you can see, some of these are going to benefit from this new law. Companies are part of an organization that is trying to pass a law that will benefit them and hurt others. What’s wrong with this picture?

American International Group, Inc.
Bacardi & Company Limited
Compagnie Financière Richemont SA
Dell Inc.
Eli Lilly and Company
Hilton Hotels Corporation
HSBC Holdings plc
Marriott International, Inc.
Verizon Communications Inc.
Wyndham Worldwide Corporation

(Source: http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/senate-anti-phishing-bill-or-reverse-cybersquatting-in-disguise/ )

Wow, 3 posts in one day!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/snowe-bill-threatens-domain-name-registrants-and-internet-commerce

Sign the petition!

(Author’s note - I am not against anti-fraud, anti-phishing, or anti-cyber squatting / typo squatting legistlation, but people really need to look into the misleading titles of many of our laws to see what they truly involve. This is truly a don’t judge a book by it’s cover case).

Senator Bill Nelson,

I am writing this letter in response to the Ms. Snowe’s bill a.k.a. the “Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008” (“APCPA”). I am emailing it to your office now so I can be assured that there is a quick delivery of this letter and I will also mail it (USPS) a copy of it to your office in the next few days so there is a hard copy on paper about my serious concerns in regards to this bill.

While the cover of this bill does seem for the better good of every person in the US, the law itself opens the gateway to take control of a large part of the internet from the people to large corporations.

The two major points in the bill are both already illegal or against parent-organization policies.

Phishing (a.k.a. using deceptive practices to obtain information to acquire a gain from an unsuspecting target (monetary, etc…)). This is already illegal against US law (fraud, theft etc..) and including this in the bill is just a redundant addition to our laws. Not only that, the vast majority of phishing attempts are conducted by individuals outside the US and outside of US jurisdiction. This bill would not even put a small dent in the number of phishing scams we see in our emails often (I’ve seen many). The average consumer needs to be educated on how to notice a phishing attempt as opposed to a legitimate communication from the institution that they do business with (most commonly banks).

Typo-Squatting and Cyber-Squatting (a.k.a. the use of a trademark in a domain or something that is “confusingly similar” to a trademark and/or creating a site that is confusingly similar to the copyrighted material in order to profit (either though ads or the sale of the site and/or domain). This is already against ICANN and WIPO policies, so once again, this addition to the law is redundant to current policies.

Both of the main points in this law are not needed in new legislation since they already exist with their respective governing bodies.

The main concern is that this bill allows entities to register a trademark then file a case with WIPO and obtain any domain name (including generic words), even if it is used for legitimate purposes and had been registered long before the trademark was submitted.

For example, if I own the domain “laptops.com” (I do not, just an example) that I registered years ago and had a site dedicated to laptops (sales, support, reviews, etc..). A large computer company could easily trademark “laptops” and then file a claim against me for the domain forcing me to hand it over. I would lose all the time and money I put into the site plus the large corporation would then quickly and easily gain from all of my hard work (by getting in all the traffic I was getting on the site) and my reputation as a web master would be tarnished since I would have this case against me and would have a “cyber squatter” black mark on my name. While this bill is proposing to prevent cyber squatting the exact opposite would happen, large corporations would be able to profit from the hard work of small businesses and individuals who pour a lot of hard work into developing a successful site.

I can understand that many members of the senate may not have the most current knowledge of web development, domaining, and related industries. If you’d like, feel free to contact me (information at the bottom of this letter) and I can give you a list of names of people who are very well educated as well as ethical in this industry who can discuss it in full detail. This bill is bad news for small web-based businesses and I’m sure you can agree that small businesses are the backbone of this country’s economy more so than the large corporations who would fully benefit from the points in the bill that are not already covered under other laws and policies.

I don’t have much time to discuss this but click on the link above to read about a new bill that can kill the domaining industries and give corporations the ability to just take domains from anyone for any reason.

This is a blatant attempt to commercialize the web and take control of domains. This is a huge industry that they are trying to kill so these corporations can pad ther own wallets by taking the money away from domainers.

Also, CADNA has an article on their site:
http://www.cadna.org/en/press-release-february-26-2008.html

Abuse is one thing but allowing companies to take long time registered domains because of newly registered trademarks, regardless of their use, is plain old legal theft. This is another attempt from our government to let corporations control the internet and the economy while taking it away from the average consumer.

This is part of Palm Beach County’s new pet law:

I have been chatting on one of my breed group lists about these
legislative nightmares and just had some scary feedback from Palm Beach FL.

Palm Beach county is now hiring deputized volunteers. They call the volunteers s the Citizens Pet Patrol. These volunteers will act as puppy buyers, call on ads, call clubs for referrals, roam the neighborhoods, and yes, even dog shows. If they find anything they “THINK” might be wrong or against their agenda, they will run to get a warrant to enter your home. The hobby breeders who have a permit from the county have already given implied consent to these people to enter their homes by signing the permit.

Here is some language directly off the volunteer application:

*You must have a car and be able to volunteer 4 hours a day two days a week.

*Responsibilities involve setting up educational booths at pet supply stores, special events in the county (dog shows, perhaps?) and schools.

Additional roles include patrolling known problem areas for non-compliant issues and report findings to AC.

The volunteers are said to be mostly AR’s who apparently have nothing better to do.

My breeder friends are terrified and feel they can no longer allow potential puppy buyers to come to their homes to visit the puppies.

(end quote)

WHAT THE HELL? Are we in Nazi America now? Citizen patrollers / tattle tales / uneducated animal freaks can just volunteer and easily get a warrant so THEY can enter your house?

Sorry, I thought this was America, home of the free. Well, this isn’t freedom. In fact, this is the government intruding into your house. Yes, the government is once again telling us how to live our lives.

Hey Palm Beach, here’s something to do: GO AFTER THE PEOPLE CAUSING THE PROBLEMS! You know DAMN WELL that the people abusing the animals will easily volunteer so they can keep their abused animals and go after the legitimate people trying to improve the animals lives. APRI registered “breeders” will go after ethical breeders and you’ll be left with poorly bred, poorly raised, poorly trained, poorly kept animals all over the county. They’re punishing the people who do things the right way.

I knew this law was a bad idea when I first head it and it is obvious that the people who wrote this have no clue about animals, breeding, training, or even how to raise them (and having a kitty cat you got from the shelter DOES NOT COUNT!!).

Grow up Palm Beach politicians.

Yep. The primaries are over here in south Florida and the politicians have left in HUGE numbers, how typical. Now they’re all off to their respective states (probabaly where they’re behind in the polls) telling the super-Tuesday states how much they care about them.

I’m glad. No more phone calls from them telling me how much the recorded message cares about me. No more mud-flining ads, false advertising from the poloticians, and no more having their faces plastered every two seconds on TV.

My question now is: WHO IS GOING TO PICK UP ALL OF THE DAMN SIGNS???

Seriously, these campaign groups should take care of their own trash and should be fined for littering if they do not go around and pick up the thousands of signs on roads, medians, public parks, and so on, and if you have one on your front lawn, throw it out now or at least bring it inside incase your candidate makes it to the final election.

I came across this interview between “Sir David” (British news reporter / interviewer?) and Benazir Bhutto after the attack on her in October.

Roughly 6:08 to 6:20 into the video, Benazir not only says that Osama Bin Laden was “murdered” but WHO killed him.

This throws many questions into my mind.

1) If Bin Laden was killed, how come no one has peeped a word of it?
2) If it’s not “the” Osama Bin Laden, leader of Al-Qaida, then who else is it? I haven’t been able to find another reference to another Osama Bin Laden.

I understand that the war on terror needs to continue, even if he is dead, we should know this. If Benazir knows it, and Sir David doesn’t react one bit, then we can assume that this is known throughout the world.

One point that questions the credibility of this. She refers to him as “the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden”. Interesting choice of words, if she’s so anti-terrorism, why would she refer to him as “murdered” as opposed to killed, KIA, etc..? Limitations in English or loose translation from a native language is possible.

Thoughts?

Post note: The name she mentioned, Omar Sheikh, is the one who murdered Daniel Pearle.