Established in 1998 by the Global Anti-Counterfeiting Group (GACG), "World Anti Counterfeiting Day" is held annually in June to raise awareness of the international impacts of counterfeiting and piracy. According to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the cost of counterfeiting is a $600 billion a year problem. MarkMonitor estimates the cost of online counterfeit trade at $200 billion annually.
This is the prepared opening statement given on behalf of Depository, Inc. at the panel discussion "IP addressing in the new age of scarcity" in the context of Internet governance and public policy at the Global Internet Governance: Research and Public Policy Challenges for the Next Decade Regional Conference held at the American University School of International Service on Thursday, May 5th, 2011 between 11:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. with Prof. Milton Mueller moderating and on the panel as well was John Curran, President and CEO of ARIN and Michael Froomkin, Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law.
At the annual Dutch "delegation" dinner at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Vilnius, Lithuania, I voiced that it may be a good idea to start a Dutch IGF. This followed a discussion in which we discussed the possibilities of involving more people and organisations from the Netherlands in Internet governance. The, now, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation followed this thought and made it possible for the ECP/EPN foundation to start the NL IGF.
This is, of course, about the recent NYT article that showcases the results of Prof Stefan Savage and his colleagues from UCSD/Berkeley. As my good friend and longtime volunteer at CAUCE, Ed Falk, points out, this is a great find, but hardly a FUSSP. The nice thing about the fight against bots and spammers is these little victories people on "our" side keep having in an endless series of skirmishes and battles...
There's more than a hint of theatrics in the draft PROTECT IP bill that has emerged as son-of-COICA, starting with the ungainly acronym of a name. Given its roots in the entertainment industry, that low drama comes as no surprise. Each section name is worse than the last: "Eliminating the Financial Incentive to Steal Intellectual Property Online" (Sec. 4) gives way to "Voluntary action for Taking Action Against Websites Stealing American Intellectual Property".
Last week, I visited Budapest to deliver a speech at the ICANN Studienkreis, an annual conference where experts study and address some current issues relating to Internet governance. I discussed how the Internet is on a slippery slope. Starting with the legitimate concern over how to deal with cybersquatters, we have moved to an unreasonable focus on legal control of Internet content and the domain name system.
Not satisfied with seizing domain names, the Department of Homeland Security asked Mozilla to take down the MafiaaFire add-on for Firefox. Mozilla, through its legal counsel Harvey Anderson, refused. Mozilla deserves thanks and credit for a principled stand for its users' rights.
In the second of three posts about how brand owners can protect their trademarks from misuse, I will focus on two concepts: the role of "use" and registration in protecting your brand, and domain names -- specifically acquisition and protection. Internet domain names have emerged as a major battleground for brand promotion and protection. While it is easier than ever to register and promote your name on the internet, it is also easier for others to trade on another brand's equity.
Trademark laws exist around the world to facilitate the use, registration and protection of your brand. With the incredible growth of the internet and the surge in global commerce it has helped produce, the importance of having a recognizable name has grown. In tandem, the risk of infringement, the threat of someone else trading on or benefiting from someone else's brand equity, has also grown. While it is easier than ever to create a global brand, the challenges involved in protecting the equity it creates have increased.
A few days ago, CAUCE published a blog post entitled "Epsilon Interactive breach the Fukushima of the Email Industry" on our site, and the always-excellent CircleID. A small coterie of commenters was upset by the hyperbolic nature of the headline. Fair enough, an analogy usually has a high degree of probability that it will fail, and clearly, no one has died as a result of the release of what appears to be tens of millions of people's names and email addresses. But, the two situations are analogous in many other ways, and here's why.