Who's Opposed To .XXX Domain Names? Not Exactly Who You'd Think | Hacker News Reader

Who's Opposed To .XXX Domain Names? Not Exactly Who You'd Think

npr.org

23 pointsFluidDjango29 comments

Open articleView on HN

It's exactly who I think.

People who want to censor content they disagree with don't think optional .xxx goes far enough.

People who worry their content will be censored don't want a "voluntary" ghetto built they can be forced into.

Approval of .xxx only makes ICM Registry happy as they charge registration fees in a wide open namespace.

The real problem with xxx is that it solves nothing (i can still register a .com), and is nothing but a money grab.

Why is that a problem?

Because in this case, "money grab" actually means "extortion". The original article mentions that NPR has registered npr.xxx, but they don't plan to do anything with it. They registered it strictly to prevent someone from putting up "adult content" that could be associated with them. NPR is not alone in this. I'd be interesting to see what percentage of .xxx domains actually have pornography on them.

Registrars always pushed their customers to buy multiple domains on different TLDs to "control their brand," but ICM is taking that strategy to a whole new level.

Wouldn't it be possible to challenge someone else's use of your name in a .xxx domain as a trademark issue?

Probably not. Trademarks are specific to a particular market or kind of product. For example, Apple Computer didn't really conflict with the Apple Records until Apple started selling music. So a porn company probably wouldn't legally conflict with your trademark.

What? There's a whole huge controversial process around trademark disputes for TLDs, spanning all the TLDs, .XXX included. It was all Slashdot could talk about for months and months, because it favors trademark holders.

It's also possible to "tarnish" a brand. So if you register something like Disney.xxx, they might be able to sue you on those grounds. There's also increased protection for famous marks, And finally, there are some marks, like the Olympics & Red Cross that are statutory trademarks. That is, they were created by international treaty and have special rights associated with them due to the legislation that enacted the treaties.

In short, it's more complex than that. IANAL, but I sure wouldn't go tempting lawyers by registering apple.xxx or whatever.

Does that cost more or less than 80 USD/year or whatever it is?

No. When you have a registered trademark, you do not (contrary to what you might believe if you read most Internet forums) "own" the word; you have only registered your usage of the word in a specific field, which allows you to make it easier to prove in court that someone else is being confusingly similar to you in their conduct of business.

However, for most people, their business is small and focussed, so usages of the same name in other fields would not be defendable against someone using it for adult entertainment production. This would be exceptionally difficult an acronym such as "npr", especially as it has been used for many things in the past (such as Northern Pacific Railroad, although Nevada Public Radio is a more interesting example).

(edit: After posting this I noticed I had had the tab open long enough that some other people responded with similar commentary, but I'm going to leave this up as I think it has a slightly different character, as well as a funny example.)

Even if you can, it will take time, waste energy, leave uncertainty, and only the lawyers benefit. The fee people are forced to pay is an insurance policy to prevent all that hassle.

There are TV ads based on exactly that marketing approach.

I see what you mean. Yeah, I agree with you there. Apologies for me knee-jerking to the wrong conclusion.

And the worst part is that I heard this segment ON NPR last night on my way home.

I don't think that's it. If ICANN can ever launch their TLDs-for-everyone plan and let a thousand flowers bloom, you won't have companies buying defensive domain names in every TLD, because there will be thousands. It makes the point moot; with only a few tlds, consumers might expect that airsupply.com leads to a medical services co or the high-tenor ballad king of the 1970s, and they'll each compete to register that name first. When it's airsupply.brakes.railway and airsupply.diving and airsupply.fixaflat, that assumption is broken, and it becomes futile to try to pounce on every domain with your brand in it.

The companies pushing the loudest "Sky is Falling!" messaging are those like MarkMonitor who (a) already protect their customers from fraud, real or exaggerated, and (b) just happen to be a registrar..

The problem is that you have some established brand with a .com domain name. Now, people will probably go looking for <your brand>.xxx. That means you have to register that domain name, or your competitor will buy it first.

It was a pure money grab. Whoever didn't see that coming had their head buried in the sand.

The Adult companies are opposed (and boycotting) as they already have established brands. The Xtian groups are opposed due to it validating pornography (when they shouldn't be, easier filters). The mainstream companies are opposed as the 'prevent registration for $100/yr is a bleedingly obvious protection racket to avoid higher lawyers fees for disputes.

This decision was good for nobody except ICANN, its associates, and those behind the registry.

Wait for gTLDs in April 2012 to completely distort people's concepts of the www, make the lawyers happy, and yes, break some of my regexen ;)

I'm curious, is "Christain" really such a long word that you have to weirdly abbreviate it as "Xtian?"

I read it as rhetorical device somehow. It evokes something of careless contempt for artificial or overbearing crude faith.

Except Christians were the first ones to replace Christ's name with X, the first letter in the Greek Χριστός.

yeah sure, but if he had said Χριστός that'd be obscure formal respect.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. My point was that Χριστός has been abbreviated to "X" for thousands of years without any implication of disrespect. I don't see how the fact that writing out the Greek word implies formal respect is supposed to disagree with me.

In that case, I don't understand the point you were trying to make by saying "Except Christians were the first ones to replace Christ's name with X, the first letter in the Greek Χριστός."

It sounded like you were trying to disagree with my assertion that Xtian had a certain rhetorical intent, but you did it by bringing in a completely different rhetorical construct.

I do know the origins of the X abbreviation.

Are "constant", "variable", "integer" and "is not" so long? Not really. People just like shortcuts.

People abbreviate Christmas as Xmas. I feel that, for consistency, it should be Xian, rather than Xtian, but Xtian seems to be the standard.

Incidentally, I enjoy that you used the slur "Christain." alt.atheism?

When I see the string "Xian", I read it as a Chinese word, and it sounds completely unlike "Christian". This is a problem.

Same, here. It's really just the consistency I like about it. Or we could switch to Xtmas.

Xmas as a replacement for Christmas comes from Χριστός and usage in English dates back to the 1500s. Admittedly the use for Christian [sic] was a bit lazy, but I was not attempting to make any point.

I enjoyed Helianthus' take on it though - goes to show whatever you say can be reinterpreted by analysts to provide a depth of meaning you never intended ;)

One time, I half expected someone to try to introduce a law mandating that all adult sites have to be on a .xxx domain, so that they could be easily filtered. Of course, it would be stupid to try that, but that's never stopped a politician.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com