Microsoft Target Domains who may infringe on Copyright.

[NguyenRhymesWithWin]

http://www.cio.com/blog_view.html?CID=24158
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6108326.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33854
* http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060822-7563.html

The Jist

Microsoft, the world’s leading producer of software, on Tuesday announced that it has filed two lawsuits against alleged “cybersquatters” or “typosquatters”—parties that intentionally register domain names similar to those of legitimate companies, popular products or other genuine sites to trick Web surfers into thinking they’re associated with sites and companies of interest.

As a file-sharing and share-alike advocate, I'm usually very skeptical of the morality or behind these Copyright lawsuits but I find that Microsoft is totally ethical here. Even if Microsoft didn't reserve all of it's rights to copyright on a share-alike license, these cybersquaters would still be in the wrong.

I also don't think it would be hard to prove in court that most of these cybersquaters are profit organized and gain such profit by using Microsoft Trademarks (more likely in the content within the domain and not the domain itself).

 

[wonder cow]

If they are copying their identity in some way, I agree. But, if for example, Microsoft fails to register Microsoft.biz or hotmail.org, or microsof.com something like that, then I disagree.

In my mind these are logical names mapped to IP addresses, nothing more.

You could have an address of baseball.com and the site could be about wicker baskets, for example.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Actually I have no opinion about that. Saying that I am going to drop-kick those partys for copyright infringements would be very hypocritical. Back in the days, I've been known to infringe on copyrights.

Legally.. the phrase "Happy Birthday to you" is copyrighted.

 

[MrFungus420]

Actually I have no opinion about that. Saying that I am going to drop-kick those partys for copyright infringements would be very hypocritical. Back in the days, I've been known to infringe on copyrights.

Legally.. the phrase "Happy Birthday to you" is copyrighted.

How is the phrase copyrighted when the song is public domain?

 

[Arch Enemy]

Double Post

 

[Arch Enemy]

How is the phrase copyrighted when the song is public domain?

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

That's how.

It's not public domain..

that's why.

 

[NguyenRhymesWithWin]

If they are copying their identity in some way, I agree. But, if for example, Microsoft fails to register Microsoft.biz or hotmail.org, or microsof.com something like that, then I disagree.

In my mind these are logical names mapped to IP addresses, nothing more.

You could have an address of baseball.com and the site could be about wicker baskets, for example.

so what you're saying is, if microsoft fails to register the other domains, it's not a big deal until the content of which the domain is parked on starts to imitate microsoft. Right?

 

[MrFungus420]

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

That's how.

It's not public domain..

that's why.

:3oops:

I stand corrected.

 

[Arch Enemy]

score one for AE!

 

[Travelsonic]

Legally.. the phrase "Happy Birthday to you" is copyrighted.

That seems impossible. I am no legal expert by any stretch, but I though names, titles, and phrases can not be copyrighted, but instead trademarked if they meet the criteria.

 

[paulmarkj]

How is the phrase copyrighted when the song is public domain?

The song can be copyrighted, the phrase cannot. If this were true, then I could copyright any common phrase and expect royalties to flood in.

If a company attempts to copy right a word or phrase already in common use, they can only do so in particular context. MS tried to copyright the word Wiindows; they couldn't, of course, but they can copyright MS windows or a particular trademark.

Also, there is a queastion over who owns the copyright of the song (see ). Though I disagree with Wiki on the issue of:

The current owner of the 1935 copyright believes that one cannot sing "Happy Birthday to You" lyrics for profit without paying royalties.

You can sing any song you like without paying royalties, what you cannot do is sing in public.

As for domains, I think it is right that MS and other companies have the copyright over domains that are clearly trying to use tyhe MS name.If your name happns to be John Ford, and you have a domain www.ford.com, fair enough, but not microsoft. MS own that copyright, and variations on the name are included - minor changes to a work, name or domain name do not make it original.