SPORl
ie 17, 2002
m
Page 3
mistakes ilia;
t allow. % I
lot the ~ ’
Opinion
The Battalion
grer
Cybersquatting is immoral
in the roi
e his pal, ev
ide the mosi;
ion by closis
the week tos
ig him a in
he first time
ek, made am;
7 th holefora^
fth at 285
;nt to Woo;
A'on as m
Watson, i
to the record
cklaus.
only the i
VIasters and i
same year.H
Wood (1941
1951, 19i ;
(1960) art
for the thh
finished sec;
xe Trevino,
me.
MICHAEL WHITLOW
■-deep grass t
Garcia had a
Jlntion wasdj
oke to
Gpen had fe
yw"n August 1997, James Tombas
II faxed a letter to Umbro, Inc.
lor Woods 1. saying that if Umbro will give
him $50,000 and an unlimited life-
looked at tin time supply of soccer equipment,
i y in a maji he will transfer ownership of his
id Woods; ; website domain name urnbro.com
his mind. to them. The resulting lawsuit became a landmark case in the
got the !;■. ongoing legal war between corporations, celebrities and the indi
viduals who have come to be known as cybersquatters.
For all intents and purposes, a domain name is basically a web
address. The letters and numbers that make up the name of a
website, such as pepsi.com, must be registered as a domain name.
Once it has been assigned, no one else can use it unless the
owner chooses to sell the rights. Cybersquatters are people who
io said hisaJ register as many names as they can think of in hopes that
^someone will someday pay some amount of money for
some of them.
As imprecise and uncertain as that may sound, the
practice can be quite lucrative. Registering a domain
name is simple. There are multiple services online . hi*
that will register your name and host your website
for an average cost of $40 a year. Once regis
tered, however, domain names have been sold X
for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Network Solutions is one example of ah
online registering service that also hosts a
domain name market where you could
purchase BroadBand.com for $975,000.
If you are not into telecommunica
tions, perhaps you would rather
pick up human.com for a mere
$600,000.
Supply and demand theory, a
capitalist world view, and the very
fact that there was actually a market for
pet rocks at one point in this country, suggests that as long as
someone is willing to pay half a million dollars for something
like this, then domain name speculation is a respectable, legiti
mate, business venture. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.
m page 3
• in the mi(i
) a drug-relc
i.
ormancesof
ht suffer, at
uld be evened
'e enough
using perfor-
drugs.
ning out of
:ir own pre
lates Senate
North Daks
ninary invest
s of steroids t
s to call exect
1 Union
Capitol
players out of
should be the
ammissioner
e restoring
mon sense to
Iy way to keef
ing six feet
vernment
laub is a senn'
history muf
In the aforementioned Umbro case, Umbro’s trademark on the
| name had existed for a decade already. Tombas’s attempt to beat
them to the registration of the domain name and his later attempt
to sell it to them was as morally reprehensible as it was incompe
tent. The court sided against him, saying that he violated
Umbro’s trademark. To help pay the statutory damages. Network
Solutions, his registrar, was forced to sell off the rest of his
domain names. The significance of this was that if domain names
could be tapped to pay damages in a civil court, they were con
sidered a form of intellectual property.
But if domain names are intellectual property, then certain
ones should inherently belong to the companies or individuals
thafinspire them. Pepsi.com should be part and parcel of the
Pepsi trademark, just as much as britneyspears.com should be
bundled into the persona she projects.
Laws do exist to help secure these domain names for the logi
cal owners. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
(ACPA) was adopted in 1999 and allows for lawsuits to be filed
under standing trademark infringement against individuals who
have shown a “bad faith” use of the trademark. Losing one of
these suits always means transfer of the domain name and usually
monetary damages are awarded as well.
Bad faith usage is defined as registering names specifically for
resale to individuals or groups that may have a trademark in the
name, or using the website to damage companies or individuals
by posting damaging material under the guise of an official site
(think cyber-libel). An example would be registering a typo of the
name, such as sprinpcs.com, leaving out the t as a fast typing web
surfer might, and then posting news articles about price hikes that
could drive potential customers away from Sprint.
It’s much easier for companies to prove this than individuals.
In 2000, Madonna was successful in her attempt to claim the
domain name Madonna.com from cybersquatter Dan Parisi, who
was using the name as a link to a pornography site. Kevin
RUBEN DELUNA • THE BATTALION
Spacey, attempting to lay claim to kevinspacey.com, was unsuc
cessful however in his case against notorious cybersquatter
Jeffrey Burgar. Burgar could not be shown to have sufficiently
violated the bad faith idea, despite his owning a stable of domain
names inspired by celebrities including the likes of Celine Dion,
Jodie Foster, and Mariah Carey.
The basic problem with the bad faith, post-registration lawsuit
approach is that it is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, not
the fence at the top. It is costly to both sides and could easily be
avoided if registration services would take better steps to prevent
potentially actionable domain names from being registered. As it
stands, the ACPA limits the liability of registrars, and registrars
may take no effort to ensure that proposed names do not violate
any current trademarks or bear any significance to the registrant.
Registrants do not need to have plans to develop the site. They
are welcome to register as many names as they want and sit on
them, waiting for the highest bidder to take one off their hands.
This lack of responsibility is deplorable.
As for the cybersquatters, the amount of creativity they have
shown would certainly be better aimed in a constructive direc
tion.
Some cybersquatters have even resorted to registering names
of college recruits in hopes that four or five years from now they
will receive pro contracts and want to start their own website. If
only this kind of forward thinking initiative could be combined
with even an ounce of moral fiber.
For those who do not believe cybersquatters would stoop so
low or think this issue has no bearing on people our age or in our
social circles, point your v/eb browser to
www.reggiemcneal.com. Whoever owns the name and respective
website is looking to sell it if anyone is interested.
Michael Whitlow is a senior
English major.
Eagle gives regents bad advice
Editorial wanted presidential vote to be unanimous
?4-3700
?4-3704
ark.org
O n June 10, The Eagle, the Bryan-College
Station daily, ran an editorial which repri
manded the Texas A&M Board of Regents
for not unanimously voting Dr. Robert Gates as
A&M’s new president. The editorial expressed
that for the sake of unity the members of the board
j should have cast aside any real opinions they held
about Gates’ candidacy and voted for him simply because it was
clear he already had the support necessary to obtain the posi
tion.
Regents Phil Adams, Lowry Mays and Wendy Gramm voted
against Gates during the proceedings and Chairman File Nye
chose not to vote after Gates had already obtained the votes
necessary to secure the position.
While a unanimous vote may have symbolically expressed
to the community the board’s support of Gates, for a newspa
per to dissuade our leaders from expressing their true opinions
is a frightening prospect. Those members ol the voting minori
ty have just as much right to their opinions as those who voted
to approve Gates, and they should not be dissuaded from vot
ing as they truly believe. For the members of the board to do
so would have corrupted the entire process and been an embar
rassment to the entire university system.
The editorial was correct in expressing distaste for Regent
Gramm’s decision to vote even though her husban , en. i
Gramm, was considered by many to be Gates primary compe
tition. Her decision to vote against Gates showed absolutely no
class and was disgraceful to her position. She s °u t lave
abstained from voting even though Gates was all but certain to
be approved. However, despite Regent Gramm s lack of digni
ty, her decision to vote was little worse the unanimous vote
The Eagle desired. . . . ,
The Eagle editorial board supported their position b y saying
Gates will need the support of the Board of fj.^en he
begins his presidency in August. Admittec y, a es
RICHARD BRAY
be able to work with the board if he intends to
achieve the goals he outlined while under consid
eration for the position. However, he must be able
to work with the regents in an honest, commu
nicative manner that does not include false votes
and misconceptions. It is difficult to believe a
unanimous vote will somehow smooth things over
when differences of opinion come to the surface while Gates
and the board make decisions about A&M’s future. For the
board to vote unanimously for Gates would have been an
empty symbolic gesture devoid of any true meaning.
The Eagle should have told the regents who voted against
Gates that despite their differences with A&M’s new president,
they must work together with Gates in order to continue to
improve the University. Even during differences of opinion.
Gates and the regents must be willing to respect each other and
recognize they all have the same goal in common — to make
A&M the best university possible. As long as A&M’s future is
honestly discussed amongst its leadership and the University’s
leadership is able to express its ideas without fear. Gates’ reign
will have an opportunity for success. However, if University
leaders merely follow the tide and do not challenge ideas they
disagree with. A&M will find itself mired in a swamp of politi
cally correct lies.
Everyone even remotely involved in the A&M system, from
the students, faculty and staff to the state taxpayers, deserves
to have representatives in the Board of Regents who will vote
and make decisions according to what they actually believe
will be best for A&M. They do not need to make decisions
according to a pathetic attempt at political correctness or a
false sense of unity. The Eagle should be ashamed of advocat
ing falsity in the presidential selection process.
Page 5 • Monday, June 17, 2002
CHRISTY RUTH
Big businesses
need regulation
D espite cries for accounting
law reform in the wake of
the Enron scandal. Congress
is blowing off such suggestions
with the assumption that voters do
not care enough to make a change.
Perhaps they are right, and the
American public is taking all revelations of corporate deceit
lightly, but the repercussions of this thinking could devastate
America. Although businesses are taking steps to impose regula
tions on themselves without mandates from the government, the
executives who line their pockets with stock market profits
would hardly be affected by whatever punishment they would
receive for document shredding.
Kenneth Lay of Enron, for example, took his lot and ran
when the company went bankrupt. Instead of being fired, he
resigned and continues to live comfortably. The New York Times
reported June 9 of protection being built into the contracts of
numerous Fortune 500 chief executives. These usually ensure the
executive will receive millions of dollars at the time of termina
tion or resignation, regardless of the circumstances.
Accountability at high levels, therefore, is virtually non-existent.
Enron will always be remembered as the corporation that got
exposed for fraudulent accounting practices, and while they may
be the first of this economic era, they are certainly not alone. The
latest criminal investigation of a corporation shows that Tyco exec
utives lied to shareholders about weak earnings and then spent
millions of company dollars on personal perks. The executives of
companies like Tyco and Enron are able to maintain their luxuri
ous living as long as investors buy the stock at high prices, even if
the companies themselves are going bankrupt.
People accustomed to making millions each year will not
go down without a fight. Some never go down, regardless of
their involvement in fleecing the American public. Several
economists have publicly accused Enron of being a catalyst
for the California energy crisis. Since America relies on large
corporations for economic stability, the government must have
the ability to regulate them.
When making the case for laissez-faire capitalism, advocates
assume large businesses give stockholders honest accounts of
their earnings. Overspeculation is suicide not only for the corpo
ration, but for the American economy as well. The stock market
crash of 1929 came after a period of major economic boom,
much like the year 2000, and was caused by overspeculation by
corporations. The greed of the CEOs blinded them to the conse
quences, but the Great Depression quickly sobered the executives
and the American consumers.
The stock market can only work if investors are able to trust
they are putting money into something that is making money, and
it is a naive assumption that CEOs of Fortune 500 companies will
put the welfare of middle class America before their own. The
only way for the American public to force accountability on busi
nesses is through their votes, and Congress is not going to focus
attention on passing bills that constituents do not care about. After
the House-led investigations into the nation’s corporate and
accounting practices revealed incriminating evidence, the House
still adopted a measure in April that rejected the strictest proposed
changes. The problem is the issues are too remote for the common
voter to comprehend. Most Americans were not alive during the
Great Depression. The connection between large companies going
bankrupt and unemployment, while apparently obvious, eludes
many taxpayers. The causal relationship between the stock market
and the national economy is lost on many Americans as well.
It is a dangerous dismissal by consumers to think businesses
will regulate themselves. During tough times, it is inevitable for all
Americans to scale back, even the upper class. Corporate execu
tives try to hold onto their excessive lifestyles by relying on con
sumer ignorance and apathy, and it works for the short-term
future. Then the economy becomes so crippled that while most
Americans are taking out mortgages on their homes and dipping
into their 401k savings, the CEOs have to rent out their winter cot
tages in Aspen so they can afford to keep the limo driver.
Christy Ruth is a senior
journalism major.
MAIL CALL
Richard Bray is a senior
journalism major.
Kyoto Protocol will
not hurt economy
In response to Matthew
Maddox's June 12 column:
Al Gore may not be an envi
ronmental expert, but neither,
apparently, is Matthew Maddox.
He argues that predictions
about global warming and
international agreements to
reduce emissions should be
disregarded because previous
warnings about aerosol cans
destroying the ozone layer have
failed to come true. Those
warnings led to an international
agreement (the Montreal
Protocol) to ban the chemicals
in aerosol cans (and air condi
tioners) that had been causing
the destruction of the ozone
layer, leading to the expectation
that as those chemicals disap
pear from the atmosphere, the
annual formation of the man
made ozone hole will cease.
Many things are known to
cause changes in the Earth's
climate. These include, besides
changes in greenhouse gas
concentrations, the following:
volcanic eruptions, orbital vari
ations, changes in solar activity,
changes in land use and urban
ization, meteor impacts and
the positions of the continents
with respect to the North and
South Pole. The relative impor
tance of mankind's influence
on greenhouse gas concentra
tions is open to debate, but the
basic assertion that this will
alter the climate to some
extent is agreed upon even by
those experts who are so-
called skeptics.
What we should do about it is
a policy question, not a science
question. Although processes
beyond our control change the
Earth's climate, it does not logi
cally follow that we should not
do anything about those
processes that are within our
control. The Kyoto Protocol may
or may not be the way to go,
but the technological improve
ments required to implement
the Kyoto Protocol could easily
lead to an increase in GDP,
especially in technological lead
ers like the United States. I'm
an environmental expert, not an
economics expert, but the eco
nomic impact of the Kyoto
Protocol seems to me to be a
lot less certain than the
mankind-induced global warm
ing that the Kyoto Protocol is
designed to reduce.
John W. Nielsen-Gammon
Texas State Climatologist