RMT, ICANN and XIN NET TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

[Ooshima]

When I see ICANN, I chuckled.

My first job (quite a few years back, though) was to work for an international domain name registrar and at the same time, the company deals with litigation (we have an in house counsel for that) for things like intellectual property, brand name management, trademark infringement yada yada.

ICANN, really? They aren't as powerful as it seems. And registrars don't feel obligated to move unless you provide them tons of substantial documentary proofs and proof the damage and harm blah blah before they make contact with their client about it. Because such claims can also be a potential form of attack from competitors to try to shut your client's website down, registrars are usually skeptical about it at first. Afterall, registrars work for their own client's interests. What's you to them?

It might have been better if SE themselves issues these registrars a cease and desist letter, but based on what? These people aren't infringing their trademarks or whatever to the point that the act is as good as me sending a lawyer's letter to spammers to tell them to stop spamming my e-mail account. It is not as simple as it seems.

Plus, these people are paying customers to the registrar. Unless a court order comes from their own jurisdiction, don't expect much to be done.

[SarcasmMisser]

It might have been better if SE themselves issues these registrars a cease and desist letter, but based on what? These people aren't infringing their trademarks or whatever to the point that the act is as good as me sending a lawyer's letter to spammers to tell them to stop spamming my e-mail account. It is not as simple as it seems.

A relevant precedent is the case of Michael Donnelly, see MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Ind...rtainment,_Inc.

What's to note that what stuck in terms of precedent was on circumvention of copyright technologies (ie. warden, client side detection that SE doesn't have) as far as the DMCA violation goes. The other side was tortious violation of the EULA, which is more relevant to RMT as a whole, and after the appeal there was not a judgment on that issue and there remains no precedent.

And if you have taken law 101, you would know what a tort is; it is not a criminal offense. Given there's no precedent for even a successful civil lawsuit on this issue what legal basis do they have to shut down sites?

Now carry on people suggesting solutions that have no grounding in reality. You can be recommending total rubbish but the real menace are people being negative right? Registers are slow to move on literal cyber criminals who engage in all sorts of truly criminal activity, even with encouragement from international law enforcement. But ignoring that, ignoring the comical ignorance in the OP on the authority of ICANN that suggests he just did a quick google search and has no idea what he is talking about, despite the jurisdiction issues, they will be right onto the issue of people getting bothered by tells in an online game. Because a mmo forum is angry and can't accept that their anger doesn't accomplish much.

[wicked-one]

A relevant precedent is the case of Michael Donnelly, see MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
-snip-

Nailed it, thanks for this excellent wording, couldn´t say better

[tocsin]

Well thought out snip.

Very, very well said, +1 brownie points, or your preferred form of gratitude.