Internet Win For Rev. Falwell

[daum]

Former visitors to the Web sites jerryfalwell.com and jerryfallwell.com are in for a surprise if they click back there today.

Instead of serving up parodies of the well-known televangelist, as the Web sites using those names have been, visitors will instead get the real thing: the official site of Jerry Falwell Ministries, complete with Bible quotations and a thought for the day.

It's a long-awaited relief for the Christian fundamentalist minister, who has been battling an Illinois man for over a year for the rights to the two Internet domain names.

Falwell says this week, he finally won the rights to the two domain names after threatening to again sue the man who set up the parody Web sites.

He is identified as Gary Cohn of Highland Park, a Chicago suburb.

The TV evangelist had been trying to gain legal rights to the domains since early last year, when he filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization. That agency ruled against him.

Falwell later sued Cohn in federal court in Virginia, contending that the Web sites were libelous and an instance of illegal cybersquatting. That lawsuit was dismissed in March on jurisdictional grounds. Falwell was threatening to file suit in Illinois.

Falwell said that after the Virginia suit was dismissed he and his lawyers discovered the name Jerry Falwell had been trademarked with Falwell's talk show "Listen America" several years ago.

That trademark was key in getting Cohn to surrender the domain names, said Jerry Falwell Jr., general counsel for Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church.

 

[draqon]

evil triumphs again. he has no right to the site, it was being used in good faith for a legitimate noncommercial site, but he nuisanced the owner into giving it up. Shame on him.

 

[dtobias]

If it's a "legitimate noncommercial site", why use a .com address (which, according toRFC 1591 "is intended for commercial entities")?

http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc1591.html

 

[Nameable]

Fact remains that it's the guy's name.

Trademark laws and (from what I've seen) the domain arbitrators seem to give precedence to a person whose name exactly matches the domain.

 

[draqon]

Falwell had no legal right to the domain in terms of UDRP, he basically annoyed Cohen into giving it up with threats of further legal action. If I recall correctly, Cohen *won* the UDRP so I don't know why you are saying that domain arbitrators give precedence to a domain that is someone's name; if there is no bad faith usage the complaint must fail.

Dan, do you really think that .com is only used for commercial entities in 2004? That wouldn't have been true in 1999, its completely and utterly false in 2004 in my opinion. EVERYONE uses .coms pretty much, including charities, NGOs, parody sites, etc.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

.COM and .ORG were both whored all over the place by NSI which encouraged everybody to register all extensions regardless of the nature of their company/ website/ use.

.COM commercial/ .ORG non-profit uses were only GUIDELINES offer by ICANN, not requirements.

Falwell is no different than any of the religious charities. They cannot be trusted AT ALL.

Many religious charities use donor funding to pay legal defenses of their priests/ ministers who are accused of child molestation.

Many charities kept money donated for 9/11 for their own purposes.

When you stuff those dollars into that kettle at Christmas time, do you know that your money does NOT go to a charity? You can't get their financials! Your money goes to an ultra right wing church that funds legal defense for child molesters.

Many charities are scum.

More info here==> http://religiouscharity.org

 

[Nameable]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
When you stuff those dollars into that kettle at Christmas time, do you know that your money does NOT go to a charity? You can't get their financials! Your money goes to an ultra right wing church that funds legal defense for child molesters.

Many charities are scum.

Whew! Why don't you share your opinion with us, Hal? :-D

Do you have a site which explains which charities are "not scum"?

Be careful about lumping any group of things together like that... there are a large number of good charities that do a lot of good for the world. Perhaps you dislike the catholic church (for good reason it would seem), but it's unfair to link the Red Cross or Salvation Army (or whoever it is with the kettles) to the horrible actions of some catholic clergy.

Likewise, it's not just the "right wing" that's doing this... I'm sure you've heard of greenpeace, peta, and a host of islamic charities that all funnel their funds to commit nefarious deeds.

As with everything, buyer beware. This site: http://www.charitywatch.org/ is considered by some as an objective resource on which charities actually spend their money wisely.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Nameable,

Some of those charities you mention above may not be lily white, or even charities at all! You mention one organization that is really a church! Do some research.

You prove my point. The public has been snookered.

 

[dtobias]

Originally posted by draqon
Dan, do you really think that .com is only used for commercial entities in 2004? That wouldn't have been true in 1999, its completely and utterly false in 2004 in my opinion. EVERYONE uses .coms pretty much, including charities, NGOs, parody sites, etc.

I know... I list a bunch of them on my Hall of Shame !

 

[dtobias]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
.COM commercial/ .ORG non-profit uses were only GUIDELINES offer by ICANN, not requirements.

They were actually guidelines given in RFC documents way before ICANN even existed. And old-time Internet people were the sort who did their best to follow guidelines, without needing a "net cop" enforcing them.

 

[draqon]

meaning no disrespect, but is this issue really worthy of any effort or worry? noone is hurt in any manner when a noncommercial organization uses a .com, only domainers care. And we don't make up that big a percentage of the world population.

 

[TexasFilly]

wow!

good always wins in the end..

 

[dtobias]

Noone was hurt in any manner by Janet Jackson's boobie being bared during the Super Bowl, but that hasn't stopped some people (including those with political clout) from getting hot and bothered about it.

I think the misuse of the domain name system does a lot more harm than bare flesh on TV... it weakens the logic of the naming structure, and leads to silly and pointless conflict like the nonprofit World Wildlife Fund feeling they have to force the for-profit World Wrestling Federation to give up their wwf.com address, when the system as originally set up would let them peacefully coexist.

 

[Anthony Ng]

Originally posted by dtobias
Noone was hurt in any manner by Janet Jackson's boobie being bared during the Super Bowl ...

Hmm ... I'm not 100% sure of that though.

 

[Nameable]

Originally posted by dtobias
They were actually guidelines given in RFC documents way before ICANN even existed. And old-time Internet people were the sort who did their best to follow guidelines, without needing a "net cop" enforcing them.

Interesting to note that the .org namespace was originally suggested as a "catch-all" and NOT spefically for non-profit use. Jon Postel wrote:

ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here.