Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

UN agency gives 20th Century Fox web address to 'The Simpsons Movie'
Yahoo! Canada ^ | Jul 25, 2007

Posted on 07/25/2007 8:30:15 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer

Woo-hoo! "The Simpsons Movie" has won its name back on the Internet.

A UN agency has ruled that ownership of the domain name thesimpsonsmovie.com must be handed to News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox, which owns the rights to the film and the popular TV series.

Twentieth Century Fox complained to the World Intellectual Property Organization over the use of the film's name in the Internet address of a site registered by Keith Malley of New York.

Fox lawyers claimed Malley was using the address to divert Internet users to a website that included sexually explicit depictions of several characters from "The Simpsons" and, later, to his "Keith and the Girl" website. He was demanding a $50,000 fee from Twentieth Century Fox for the domain name, according to the July 22 ruling of the WIPO arbitration panel.

It found that Malley "has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name" and ordered its immediate return.

In an interview, Malley said that Fox lawyers never contacted him and that he learned about the case after the deadline had passed. He said his contact information was available on his website and through his lawyer, although he hadn't updated the official registration records for the domain name, which he bought in 1999.

"I found it bullying," Malley said, adding that he would speak with his lawyer about challenging the decision. Malley could appeal by filing a lawsuit in a court.

The arbitration system, which was set up in 1999, allows those who think they have the right to a domain to gain control of it without having to fight a costly legal battle or pay large sums of money. Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman and Madonna are among the Hollywood stars who have previously won rulings against so-called "cybersquatters."

"The animated television series 'The Simpsons' debuted in 1989, and has become one of the longest-running network series in television history," the ruling said, noting that Friday's release of the film has generated huge public interest on the Internet.

WIPO said Malley's "aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from and exploit" Twentieth Century Fox's trademark to promote and sell his own products and merchandise.

Malley, 33, who produces an Internet radio show, said he obtained the domain name with intentions of creating a parody of "The Simpsons." He said the amount Fox offered for the domain name, $300, wouldn't cover time spent developing ideas for the site; he would not elaborate on those ideas.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; abuseofpower; doh; freespeech; internationallaw; internet; internetporn; mmmmdonuts; pornography; pr0n; sovereignty; thesimpsons; thirdsector; un
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-583 next last
The UN has NO jurisdiction over a US citizen. He can just IGNORE them and they'll (Twentieth Century Fox and the UN) will just dry up and blow away.

Yep those "free traders" were right. It's just a 'trade' agreement and those international 'institutions' have no authority, nope none at all....

1 posted on 07/25/2007 8:30:17 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

You might be interested in this.


2 posted on 07/25/2007 8:30:41 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer (I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

While one can debate the merits of the Simpsons, there is simply no debating the attack on US sovereignty by the UN.


3 posted on 07/25/2007 8:31:49 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer (I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

if the UN tried to pass such rulings on me I’d tell them to send the blue helmet boys down to enforce it, if they tried I’d use any force necessary to defend myself from hostile invaders on american soil.


4 posted on 07/25/2007 8:43:22 PM PDT by utherdoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: utherdoul

They already have already invaded. Their headquarters is on US soil, and our president, in his infinite wisdom, gave them offices in Georgia and Texas so that they could monitor our human rights abuses after hurrican Katrina.


5 posted on 07/25/2007 8:55:39 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer (I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. KeithMalley.com

Case No. D2007-0760

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0760.html


6 posted on 07/25/2007 10:59:18 PM PDT by endthematrix (He was shouting 'Allah!' but I didn't hear that. It just sounded like a lot of crap to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
A UN agency has ruled that ownership of the domain name thesimpsonsmovie.com must be handed to News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox...

Based upon what clause in the constitution? And if in recent legislation, what and where?

I do not recognize that authority.

7 posted on 07/26/2007 4:36:25 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob

They said: “Some panels have held that a respondent’s lack of response can be construed as an admission that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.”.

I guess you can’t ignore the ‘panel’ of an international institution. They are full of themselves.


8 posted on 07/26/2007 6:42:53 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer (I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; nicmarlo; texastoo; William Terrell; cinives; Czar; Borax Queen; janetgreen; Rockitz; ..

Another example of an international institution exerting authority over a United States citizen.


9 posted on 07/26/2007 6:44:26 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer (I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; Toddsterpatriot

Your friends are busy interfering in the lives of Americans.


10 posted on 07/26/2007 6:45:43 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer (I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Please explain. This is a cyber-squatting case with copyright/intellectual property implications.


11 posted on 07/26/2007 7:11:30 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: utherdoul
. . . if the UN tried to pass such rulings on me I’d tell them to send the blue helmet boys down to enforce it, if they tried I’d use any force necessary to defend myself from hostile invaders on american soil.

The UN doesn't have to send the blue helmets. You'd be firing on your own Sheriff's Department . . . and I think you know where that would lead.

13 posted on 07/26/2007 7:20:28 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
They said: “Some panels have held that a respondent’s lack of response can be construed as an admission that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.”.

They are right. Silence implies consent.

BUT -

The respondent can send the panel a letter responding to their decision and tell them to do something anatomically impossible with it.

THAT will hold up in a court of US law, and the respondent can go on about his business.

:-)

14 posted on 07/26/2007 7:31:40 AM PDT by MamaTexan (~ Government can make no law contrary to the Law that created the government ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Cyber-squatting is soooo 90’s.


15 posted on 07/26/2007 7:33:42 AM PDT by ▀udda▀udd (7 days - 7 ways Guero >>> with a floating, shifting, ever changing persona....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
THAT will hold up in a court of US law, and the respondent can go on about his business.

On what legal grounds would it "hold up?" I'm afraid that, at best, you are uninformed on this subject.

16 posted on 07/26/2007 7:42:48 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

When the UN cracks down on Human Rights abuses in Saudi Arabia (including religious freedoms), I will consider paying attention to any rebuke from the UN against the US.


17 posted on 07/26/2007 8:10:50 AM PDT by weegee (NO THIRD TERM. America does not need another unconstitutional Clinton co-presidency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
I don’t recall the UN rebuking Castro for showing a bootleg of Fahrenheit 9/11 on Cuban state television.
18 posted on 07/26/2007 8:11:55 AM PDT by weegee (NO THIRD TERM. America does not need another unconstitutional Clinton co-presidency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: weegee
I don’t recall anyone bringing that issue to the UN. Castro was probably sitting on Michael Moore's lap during the broadcast.
19 posted on 07/26/2007 8:14:47 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists, FairTaxers and goldbugs so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Open question to the forum:

assume that you have a daughter named Svetlana and your last name is X. Someone (let's call him Larry F.) comes along and registers a domain named SvetlanaX-is-a-slattern.com, and Photoshops your daughter's head on a bunch of female porn stars engaged in what porn stars do for a living.

You take Larry F. to (U.S.) court and legally (and justifiably) win a judgment compelling him to cease and desist. Larry F. closes his website and moves his operation to Belarus (or finds a registered agent to do so--no need to complicate the hypothetical), creating a website named SvetlanaX-is-a-slattern.by. How do you propose enforcing your (U.S.) cease and desist order?


20 posted on 07/26/2007 9:41:16 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; hedgetrimmer; processing please hold

Tell me how it is the U.N.’s jurisdiction to interfere? It matters not who brought it to the U.N., or that it was even brought to the U.N. That is what is the question here.


21 posted on 07/26/2007 12:21:27 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

Simple answer? The U.S. signed a treaty. Care to take a stab at my question?


22 posted on 07/26/2007 12:24:08 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

What treaty did the U.S. sign that would remove jurisdiction from the United States and place it with the U.N.?

Your question is irrelevant. I could care less what this case involves. I want to know under what authority, what treaty, as you call it, the U.N. has jurisdiction over American citizens’ affairs.


23 posted on 07/26/2007 12:26:37 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

Ah, the old “irrelevant” trick. Tell you what, the answer to your question leads through mine. Answer it, and you’ll be rewarded.


24 posted on 07/26/2007 12:32:05 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
How do you propose enforcing your (U.S.) cease and desist order?

Personally; I would track the bastard down and shoot him.

Here’s an open question to 1rudeboy.

A global organization has moved into your village on a “peace-keeping” mission. Your 8 year old daughter (or son) comes home crying. He/She is bleeding from the nether regions and has obviously been molested. You later learn several Moroccan soldiers on loan to the UN have taken turns raping your child. They claim they gave your child a jar of pickles in exchange for their services as a prostitute. Would you gather friends and neighbors to help you kill them or would you take them on your own?

25 posted on 07/26/2007 12:37:05 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

By what treaty does the U.N. have authority over American Citizens?

That is the question to be answered.

What you propose is not, as it should remain within the courts of the United States, who are to have jurisdiction over American citizens, not some U.N. court/authority.


26 posted on 07/26/2007 12:37:29 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

Why don’t we approach it this way, then. The field of internet law is rapidly-evolving, and true experts in the field are scarce. If you wish for me to do your legal research there is the small matter of whether you will pay by certified check, electronic transfer, or some other device.


27 posted on 07/26/2007 12:41:40 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I’ll remember that the next time you demand “proof” from me when I make claims.

That’ll be your pat answer.


28 posted on 07/26/2007 12:48:41 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
No, you should remember it the next time you ignore one of my questions, yet insist that your own be answered. Be honest, you don't even want an answer to yours. If you did, you'd answer mine first. The two are directly related.
29 posted on 07/26/2007 12:50:39 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; nicmarlo

No, you should remember it the next time you ignore one of my questions...


I answered one of your questions in my Post #25. Then I asked you a question.

Here’s another question. Why are you so eager to go from being a citizen of a nation to becoming the subject (aka property) of a socialist dictatorship?


30 posted on 07/26/2007 12:55:28 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

This matter should be brought before a U.S. Court. What further is there to discuss on the subject matter? Absolutely nothing.

But because you know that the crux of the matter is that the U.N. portends authority and jurisdiction over U.S. citizens, you want to make it about the contents of the litigation, rather than the participants: U.S. citizens over which the U.N. should have no legal authority or jurisdiction.


31 posted on 07/26/2007 12:56:10 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: nicmarlo

Leftists pretend that because the US signed the UN treaty,
anything the UN does supercedes the US Constitution.


35 posted on 07/26/2007 1:11:36 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Good point.

And the globalists are aiming that the U.S. Constitution be subsumed under the U.N. in all things.


36 posted on 07/26/2007 1:15:35 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: 1rudeboy; MrB; Grizzled Bear
Are you suggesting that Fox can not take this man to court in the U.S. if it chooses to do so, and vice versa?

you got that, out of this?:

This matter should be brought before a U.S. Court. What further is there to discuss on the subject matter? Absolutely nothing.

But because you know that the crux of the matter is that the U.N. portends authority and jurisdiction over U.S. citizens, you want to make it about the contents of the litigation, rather than the participants: U.S. citizens over which the U.N. should have no legal authority or jurisdiction. Please....you can at least TRY to do better. FOFLOL!


38 posted on 07/26/2007 1:20:40 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: 1rudeboy

What’s up with all the name calling?


40 posted on 07/26/2007 1:26:24 PM PDT by jedward (Mission '08 - Take back the House & Senate. No Negotiations...No Prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

To: jedward

It’s the only language they use and understand.


42 posted on 07/26/2007 1:27:46 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: nicmarlo; Grizzled Bear; 1rudeboy

Knock it off.


44 posted on 07/26/2007 1:32:59 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

You too.


45 posted on 07/26/2007 1:37:02 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
The UN has NO jurisdiction over a US citizen.

You got it. Thanks for posting this. I'm teaching information policy in the Winter and cover international domain name resolution issues. Students always think that these bodies are necessary, until you ask them which of their Constitutional rights did they give up when they chose a domain name.

Cybersquatting and holding domain names ransom is one thing; giving up your rights is another.

46 posted on 07/26/2007 1:37:37 PM PDT by radiohead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

Me too what?


47 posted on 07/26/2007 1:41:22 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists, FairTaxers and goldbugs so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

“Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience.”


48 posted on 07/26/2007 1:46:35 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
I’m sorry if I reminded people that a poster who has called me a traitor, numerous times, agrees with a Communist front group, CISPES.
49 posted on 07/26/2007 1:47:55 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists, FairTaxers and goldbugs so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator; nicmarlo; 1rudeboy; jedward

I just returned from some errands and I missed the responses that are now removed. I was not here to see the “name calling.”

One of my posts was among those pulled. I admit I was out of line and I am sorry to whomever may have been offended.

Should we be able to discuss the matter civily I would still like answer to the questions I posed in #25 and in #30.

God bless,

GB


50 posted on 07/26/2007 4:16:35 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-583 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson