Resultados 1 a 2 de 2
  1. #1
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    18,556

    [EN] Is It Legal to Buy Domain Names to Harass Your Enemies?

    Martin Shkreli bought up a bunch of domains associated with journalists who criticized him. We talked to an expert about whether what he did was legal.

    Louise Matsakis
    Aug 24 2017

    Tuesday, Business Insider reported that Martin Shkreli has spent the last several months buying up domain names associated with at least eight journalists who have criticized him. The pharmaceutical entrepreneur, who was convicted earlier this month of securities fraud, has now begun to customize the sites with the goal of mocking the reporters.

    On a site associated with CNBC reporter Caroline Moss for example, Shkreli wrote "Everything you need to know about this CNBC safe spacer." A similar site bearing Vanity Fair writer Maya Kosoff's name sarcastically reads "Here we honor one of the most vibrant Social Justice advocates today." A WHOIS lookup confirms that both websites were registered with domain provider GoDaddy by Martin Shkreli earlier this year.

    Shkreli offered to sell a domain connected to NY Post reporter Emily Saul to her for $12,000, according to Business Insider. On a phone call, Shkreli told me the proposal was a joke. "I'm a very rich guy. I don't need $12,000," he said. "I would never sell any of these domains for any price." Saul declined to comment, citing company policy.

    Shkreli is clearly trying to agitate, but is what he's doing illegal? According to Shkreli, the answer is no. "This is not illegal," he told me. "There's nothing illegal about buying a domain name that's the same name as someone's name." He mentioned he had consulted lawyers before purchasing the websites, which he told me were bought to test software on the backend that his new company is developing.

    According to a legal expert I spoke to, Shkreli could be wrong. Several federal cyberlaws protect individuals like the journalists Shkreli targeted from domain disputes like this one. "There are certainly a fair number of options that these individuals would have," David J. Steele, a lawyer specializing in trademark and internet law and a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, told me on a phone call.

    What's working against Shkreli, according to Steele, is that he has purchased numerous domains. "You can show a pattern of abusive registrations," he said.

    Steele outlined for me three main ways domain disputes like the one Shkreli started can be legally resolved:

    1. An administrative proceeding

    When you buy a domain, like cats.com for example, you enter into a contract with a domain provider, which in Shkreli's case is GoDaddy. As a part of that contract, Shkreli agreed to abide by an international guideline called the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), which was created by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The policy was enacted to protect companies and individuals from people who "cybersquat," or hold onto a domain for no reason, as well as other kinds of abuse.

    In a statement to Motherboard, GoDaddy confirmed it would comply with UDRP hearings or other legal actions whenever they're brought. "Whichever remedy is used, GoDaddy will comply with the instructions of the court or arbitration panel," a spokesperson said in an email.

    If the journalists were to seek an administrative proceeding under the rules of the UDRP, it would be on them to prove that Shkreli registered the domains with "bad faith intent" and that they are "confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark" in which the journalists have a right to. That means they would have to show that their name is connected to the work they do.

    Lastly, the reporters would need to demonstrate that Shkreli doesn't have any "rights or legitimate interests" in the domains that he purchased.

    Steele said that, unlike going through the federal legal system, the process would be relatively fast, which is an upside. But the reporters would only be able to get the domain name from Shkreli, and not any damages.

    2. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)

    This 1999 law was aimed at preventing people from cybersquatting as well. The law "provides a civil cause of action to a trademark holder for the registration, tracking in, or use of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark," Steele told me. Under this law, the reporters would still have the same burdens of proof as they would in an administrative hearing.

    What's different, though, is the ACPA allows for statutory damages ranging from $1,000 to $100,000 per each domain name. If the journalists were to use ACPA, they would have a lot to prove in court. "The downside is that the reporters are going to have to show trademark rights in their names, which is going to be an uphill battle if they're not registered trademarks," Steele explained. "Generally personal names don't serve as trademarks."

    Under the ACPA, courts look at whether the domain registrant tried to sell the domain. Though Shkreli said it was a joke, if Saul can prove that he tried to sell her the domain associated with her name, she could a stronger case. "Courts...routinely look to offers by the defendant to sell the domain name as evidence of his bad faith," Martin Samson, a partner at New York law firm Davidoff Malito & Hutcher, wrote in the Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions.

    In 2014, Donald Trump used the ACPA in order to get four domains associated with his businesses back from a Brooklyn man who was cybersquatting on them. The judge in the case ruled in Trump's favor.

    3. Cyberpiracy protections for individuals

    There's another federal law that aims to protect individuals when another person registers a domain in their name.

    "The protection is a lot more narrow," Steele told me. The cyberpiracy protections for individuals requires that the journalists prove Shkreli registered the domains with "the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for financial gain."

    If the reporters were to use this law, they would need to show that Shkreli intended to profit, which would likely be difficult. They also would only be able to recover the domain itself, as well as attorney's fees (no damages).

    In addition to a suit brought using one of the two federal laws discussed here, the reporters could also tack on additional charges like slander or defamation. In response, "there are fun first amendment issues he [Shkreli] will probably bring up," Steele said.

    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...s-your-enemies

  2. #2
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    18,556

    Martin Shkreli buys domain names associated with journalists

    "I wouldn't call these people 'journalists."

    Maxwell Tani
    Aug. 22, 2017

    Over the past several months, the former pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli has trolled journalists who have written or tweeted about him by purchasing internet domains associated with their names.

    After sitting on the domain names for months, Shkreli appears to be customizing the sites, explicitly mocking reporters who have tweeted about him.

    A website named after Maya Kosoff, a tech reporter at Vanity Fair, welcomes the visitor and adds, "Here we honor one of the most vibrant Social Justice advocates today," alluding to "social justice warriors," a derisive slur associated with advocacy for liberal causes.

    Shkreli wrote a similar message on a website he bought associated with Caroline Moss, an editor at CNBC. A site associated with her name welcomes visitors and says it has "everything you need to know about this CNBC safe spacer," a reference to colleges' so-called safe spaces, which are often mocked by the right.

    The former CEO also customized a domain associated with Emily Saul, a court reporter for the New York Post, and offered to sell the domain back to her for $12,000.

    Since the beginning of the year, Shkreli has purchased domain names for 12 people, including journalists and commentators from CNBC, Vice, the Post, Vanity Fair, Teen Vogue, AOL, Bloomberg, Dealbreaker, Gizmodo, and Business Insider.

    In an email to Business Insider, Shkreli dismissed Kosoff's and Moss' work and described his activity on the sites as "occupying cool namespaces."

    "Anything special you want on yours?" he asked.

    "I wouldn't call these people 'journalists.' They are the unwitting recipients of liberalism subsidy from large media and telecom companies," Shkreli said, adding that they were "only a few notches above the white supremacists we hear so much about these days."

    Shkreli first sparked national outrage in 2015 when his company Turing Pharmaceuticals raised the price of a drug used to treat a disease that can be fatal in people with HIV by more than 5,000%. He has since embraced his image as a provocateur and "pharma bro."

    On the day in January when Twitter suspended Shkreli's account for harassing Lauren Duca, an opinion writer at Teen Vogue, the former exec snagged MarryMeLauren.com.

    He has continued to mock and criticize journalists who've covered the spectacle surrounding his trial and celebrity, singling out outlets that cover the pharmaceutical industry.

    Shkreli has repeatedly blasted CNBC, and he refused to take questions from a CNBC reporter after being convicted this month of securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud while he was managing his drug company Retrophin.

    He livestreamed himself earlier this year purchasing domain names associated with Max Nisen, a pharma reporter at Bloomberg who has written about Shkreli, and Phil Witmer, a reporter at Noisey. Witmer had published a story titled "Lil B Shouts Out Martin Shkreli, We All Die a Little Inside," in which he dubbed Shkreli a "living cartoon gremlin" and called the rapper shout-out a "stain on the BasedGod's good name."

    "Can I buy PhilWitmer.com right now?" Shkreli said on the livestream. "Yes I can, and yes I will."

    The former CEO has also toyed with reporters in other ways, posting private exchanges with Dylan Scott, a former correspondent for Stat News, to "put this geek journalist on notice" when Scott reached out to him for a story.

    After Business Insider published an article in March about Shkreli's actions, he purchased a domain associated with the author and emailed him offering the opportunity to purchase it back.

    Disclosure: Moss, Kosoff, and Nisen previously worked at Business Insider.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/marti...-custom-2017-8
    Última edição por 5ms; 24-08-2017 às 21:52.

Permissões de Postagem

  • Você não pode iniciar novos tópicos
  • Você não pode enviar respostas
  • Você não pode enviar anexos
  • Você não pode editar suas mensagens
  •