UDRP vs. WIPO ARBITRATIONs

[lordbyroniv]

Can somebody explain what the difference is ? Are these both arbitration panels?

 

[maroulis]

.....

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

Oh boy....

The UDRP is a dispute policy incorporated into domain name registration contracts in .com, .net, .org, .info, .biz and other top-level domains.

Proceedings under the UDRP are administered by ICANN accredited dispute resolution providers. These include the National Arbitration Forum (www.adrforum.com) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (arbiter.wipo.int).

In addition to handling UDRP's both the NAF and WIPO do other things. The NAF provides "screw you" arbitration proceedings for credit card and insurance companies, for example. WIPO, on the other hand, is a UN organization which administers several procedures under international treaties relating to intellectual property.

 

[typist]

WIPO, on the other hand, is a UN organization which administers several procedures under international treaties relating to intellectual property.

WIPO succeded in almost single-handedly popularizing the term "Intellectual Property".

Less misleading terms have been suggestes, including IMPs for "Imposed Monopoly Privileges", and GOLEMs, for "Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies".

Some say "exclusive rights regimes", but imho referring to restrictions as "rights" is doublethink.

Maybe I'm throwing stones in a glass house here - a domain name is essentially a "Government Originated Monopoly". Protection of domain name holders' rights is less established though.

 

[fab]

Oh boy....

No we're not all lawyers. I learnt about these things from the forum here.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

No we're not all lawyers.

It was just something of an inhale, because I was going to write a longer answer.

Some say "exclusive rights regimes", but imho referring to restrictions as "rights" is doublethink.

Do I have a "right" to exclude you from my living room?

Now, I realize this might be a "restriction" from your point of view, but rights which consist of an ability to exclude others are not limited to the copyright in the things I write, patents in the things I invent, or trademarks in the manner I identify the things I sell.

But, hey, who am I to judge. Please post a list of the things you own, so that I can decide which ones I want to take.

 

[typist]

But, hey, who am I to judge. Please post a list of the things you own, so that I can decide which ones I want to take.

There's an important difference between intellectual property and physical property. If you take my bicycle, it's gone, and I can no longer use it.

If you "take" the song I composed, you can sing it, but your "theft" does not harm my ability to continue to sing and enjoy the song myself.

Royalties complicate the situation; people are entitled to a fair compensation for their work.

Yet, as long as there are sufficient incentives to innovate and create, releasing patents and copyrights into the public domain is a good idea, for society as a whole. Pfizer and Sony Music have a different agenda.

Intellectual property is great. What I dislike, is the creeping expansionism: some rights holders, usually those who already have a lot, keep asking for more.

Do I have a "right" to exclude you from my living room?

Does Sony Music have a right to restrict my usage of "their" works beyond what is stipulated in the law? No, they don't.

Yet, they'll simply change the law, and create that right. Which is probably fine, in a democracy. I guess I'm just being grumpy because I don't seem to have the same resources to change the law to my favor

back to work...