Are domain parking companies complicit in typo-squatting?

Posted by jerry as Uncategorized

From this article 

“The domain name parking companies are providing a service. Whether or not you agree with the domain name owner’s decision to buy a certain domain name, it is not the parking company’s responsibility to police the internet and protect a company’s brand. That remains the responsibility of the brand itself. The brand or trademark owner should go after the domain owner, and not publicly lynch the domain parking companies:”

I would say that’s debatable.  Think about some “real world” parrellels:
Bootleg merchandise.  The retailer did not manfacture fake Nike shoes, he is just selling them.  It’s not his responsibility to police the goods that move through his store - that’s the responsibility of the real manufacturer.

Pirated music.  Napster, grokster, bearshare, guntella, and on and on, all claimed that they just provided a service, and there were legitimate, legal uses for the service, and that it was not their responsibility to police was was going through. 

Picture duplication.  Photo development companies claim that it’s not their responsibility to police what pictures they reproduce.  The copyright holder must do something to prevent unauthorized duplication.

In all those cases, the organization felt strongly in their footing.  But they key is that each one lost in a big way.  Like it or not, if you’re aiding in something that’s illegal, you’re complicit.  The question is where do you draw the line.  Should ISP’s have been held responsible in the music sharing cases?  Probably not.  Should the manufacturer of photo paper be held responsible for copyright infringement?  Probably not.  It’s a grey line, to be sure, but it seems pretty obvious that the domain parking companies are well on one side of the line.  The only thing missing are lawsuits and legislation now.