[Gnso-rpm-protection] [gnso-rpm-wg] Food for Thought: DMCA procedure at YouTube contrast with URS/UDRP

Mon Jan 8 19:58:02 UTC 2018

Rebecca

Not changing my opposition but facts are always a good thing. 

Pls make sure that the registrant has remained the same. You should also acquire a screenshot from screenshots.com (free). 

Interestingly a few years ago it was found that the vast majority of domains transferred in a UDRP were subsequently allowed to expire by the complainant. 

Sincerely,
Paul Keating, Esq.

> On Jan 8, 2018, at 8:48 PM, Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu> wrote:
> 
> My RA is presently coding all decided cases and will look at whether the domains are still active and registrant identity, if any. 
> 
> Rebecca Tushnet
> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
> 
> Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. 
> 
> On Jan 8, 2018, at 12:07 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Paul,
>> 
>> I don't have the exact numbers.
>> 
>> Anecdotally, it appears a non-trivial portion of the suspended domains are being renewed by the losing registrant; see this blog article:
>> https://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/18/strange-thing-happening-domain-names-suspended-urs/
>> 
>> From the domains I've researched, a much smaller subset are being put back into use by redelegating the Name Servers. 
>> 
>> I previously sent around reference to a domain that was suspended, and the registrant took back control and the domain is being offered for sale.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Claudio
>> 
>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Has there ever been an instance where someone has made a nuisance of themselves by re-registering and abusing names that they have had suspended under a URS determination?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:26 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> George, all,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for this note.
>>>> 
>>>> Just for clarification on the last point, as I understand the current remedies available under the URS does not include cancellation of the domain.
>>>> 
>>>> As a result, upon expiry the suspended domain can be renewed and used (including for abusive purposes) by the losing registrant of the URS decision.
>>>> 
>>>> To address this issue we can consider adding cancellation as a remedy (or otherwise modifying the URS) to minimize the need for repeated, serial enforcement against previously suspended domains.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Claudio
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:09 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that they are different. Just
>>>>> pointing out that there are other systems out there that don't have
>>>>> that role reversal feature.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, I believe some folks had mused about the possibility of a single
>>>>> DRP that integrated the URS and UDRP. The issue of creation of a
>>>>> "Notice of Dispute", that preceded the actual dispute, also has
>>>>> arisen. If such a system also handled the high number of defaults
>>>>> differently than today, then one result might be a much lower cost
>>>>> procedure in the case of defaults (i.e. it could be very lightweight
>>>>> like the YouTube procedure), and then reference to the courts for the
>>>>> disputes when both sides show up and are heavily contesting the
>>>>> matter.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In terms of integration, one way to look at the URS is that it's very
>>>>> similar to a UDRP where the Complainant (TM holder) asks only for
>>>>> cancellation, albeit that the URS cancellation happens with a delay
>>>>> (under the UDRP, the cancellation would happen almost immediately,
>>>>> after allowing for the appeal to the courts)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>> 
>>>>> George Kirikos
>>>>> 416-588-0269
>>>>> http://www.leap.com/
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Paul Keating <Paul at law.es> wrote:
>>>>> > George,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I know that a response has already been posted but I wanted to add my
>>>>> > quick thoughts.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I agree that the DMCA and the UDRP/URS are not identical.  In fact the
>>>>> > roles remain reversed throughout the UDRP/URS process.  The DMCA merely
>>>>> > provides a notice, take-down followed by the opportunity to revive the
>>>>> > posting.  Once reposting occurs the issue remains as it was before the
>>>>> > notice - the copyright owner must proceed with litigation.  The UDRP/URS
>>>>> > however, results in the domain being transferred/suspended or not.  In the
>>>>> > case of transfer, it is the registrant that must file.  In the case the
>>>>> > complaint is denied then the trademark owner has that burden (like the
>>>>> > copyright owner in the DMCA example).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > PRK
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On 1/6/18, 12:23 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of George Kirikos"
>>>>> > <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>Hi folks,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>There was an interesting article published today about a copyright
>>>>> >>dispute involving "white noise" videos on YouTube:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>https://gizmodo.com/man-s-youtube-video-of-white-noise-hit-with-five-copyr
>>>>> >>i-1821804093
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>which linked to the dispute procedure that YouTube follows:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>Going through the various links, it was very interesting that they
>>>>> >>even have a "Copyright School", see:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>(expand the "How to resolve a copyright strike" to see the link to
>>>>> >>it), which is quite interesting, given how often the education aspect
>>>>> >>for registrants has come up in our PDP's work.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>Also of interest is the section on "Counter Notification Basics":
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>where importantly it says:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>"After we process your counter notification by forwarding it to the
>>>>> >>claimant, the claimant has 10 business days to provide us with
>>>>> >>evidence that they have initiated a court action to keep the content
>>>>> >>down."
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>and it's the content creator who posts the relevant jurisdiction:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005919
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>""I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the
>>>>> >>district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside
>>>>> >>of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is
>>>>> >>located, and will accept service of process from the claimant."
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>As noted in prior threads, various issues arise under the URS (and
>>>>> >>UDRP) when the natural role of plaintiffs vs. defendants (had the
>>>>> >>URS/UDRP not existed) gets reversed (e.g. the Yoyo.email UK "cause of
>>>>> >>action issue", as well as IGO and other groups' claimed "sovereign
>>>>> >>immunity").
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>With the dispute resolution procedure followed by YouTube, instead the
>>>>> >>onus is on the copyright owner (the "claimant") to file the lawsuit,
>>>>> >>in the same natural way that would exist had that dispute resolution
>>>>> >>procedure not existed. Thus, none of the issues due to reversal of
>>>>> >>plaintiff/defendant arise.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>I thought it would be of interest, especially as it also might also
>>>>> >>give insights as to how "defaults" are handled.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>Food for thought.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>Sincerely,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>George Kirikos
>>>>> >>416-588-0269
>>>>> >>http://www.leap.com/
>>>>> >>_______________________________________________
>>>>> >>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>> >>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>>> >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-rpm-protection mailing list
>> Gnso-rpm-protection at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-protection
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-protection mailing list
> Gnso-rpm-protection at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-protection
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-protection/attachments/20180108/cfc325ba/attachment-0001.html>