A gTLD gold rush?

An acronym gTLD stands for generic top-level domain. Top level domains are strings attached at the end of an internet address, the best know examples are .com, .org, .net etc. On June 20, 2011, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) announced that its Board of Directors had allowed an increase in the number of available generic top-level domains. ICANN stated that the “internet address names will be able to end with almost any word in any language”, and that “virtually every organization with an online presence could be affected in some way.”

This potentially could resemble a web domain gold rush of the 90’s. In the last decade of the 20th century a number of people managed to register web addresses with highly sought after names. Subsequently, once the internet became mainstream medium  many  businesses weren’t able to register their first option name or found that their brand or trademark was already registered. These entrepreneurs were often referred to as cyberpirates or cybersquatters, among them was Rick Schwartz, now known as a domain king. A college dropout, who got an idea after 15 years working as a furniture salesman to start registering adult domains, such as slut.com, porno.com and ass.com. The business model behind it was very simple, it’s the same basic principle as a private parking space, but it’s termed as a parking page. The registered domains acted as a parking space for advertisements of the same subject as the name of the domain. However, this at best helped to cover the cost of an upkeep of the domain. The money was made by selling the actual address of the domain.

The most expensive domain was sold in 2007, for $35 million, Brian Sharples bought VacationRentals.com only to stop Expedia from getting its hands on it first. During the same year, porn.com was sold for $9.5 million, while sex.com in 2010 proved to be worth more and sold for $13 million. Among other notable purchases was fb.com, which was purchased by facebook in 2010 for $8.5 million.There are numerous other purchases of domain names for millions, the list could go on like an accountant’s excel sheet.

One criticism of a domain business is that it’s a bubble, and that it’s about to burst. Forbes writer Deborah L. Jacobs, in an article After The Gold Rush: Domain Names Have Lost Their Glitter, noticed a trend, that there wasn’t a single large sum transaction for a domain name in the last three years. However, what she failed to mention in the article and probably didn’t find during the research, is that for the last three years the unrolling of gTLD’s has been in the process.

To register a gTLD it costs $185,000, therefore it prevents most people, including SMEs (small medium enterprises) from obtaining one. The large fee was designed to cater for large companies who want to secure their trademarks and for wealthy cybersquaters, because high cost still doesn’t prevent them. If one takes a closer look at who and which words are being registered, it quickly emerges that it’s predominantly boutique IP law firms of US origin. The gTLD names such as .porn, were quickly snapped up by Californian based companies, ICM Registry in this case. The same company also owns .xxx, however this gTLD was registered under different circumstances,  surprisingly by an English man Stuart Lawley.

Apart from numerous IP boutiques, other usual suspects to register gTLDs were corporations such as Nike, HSBC and BMW. A number of cities registered their gTLD names, such as London, Berlin, Tokyo and New York.

In the video above, Stuart Lawley, discusses his registration of .xxx, but also provides an in depth view of a business model behind gTLD. The main difference between the old domain business model and a gTLD, is that previously to earn ROI (return on investment) one had to sell the domain name, but for a gTLD, one can accrue profit while administrating a secondary market register. This is where the SMEs can buy into their name of choice, if it’s a hotel, shop or an accountant’s practice.

The gTLD business model is more complex compared to the original park site and hope to sell for a large sum. The cost involved are a lot higher from the registration process, to the legal cost and administration. However, in the secondary market there is still an opportunity for an old style business. The issue might arise that involves the economic principle of supply and demand. Once there is so much choice available, there will be less of a need to purchase a single domain name for millions, but when somebody wants and needs a particular name, he has no other choice but to acquire it.

Since the early days of web domains, the importance to protect brand’s IP online has been high. Just like responsible parents monitor their children, or a jealous partner stalks their spouse’s digital interaction, organisations should be vigilant of their brand’s presence online, before it’s too late. For a strategy on how to protect and which aspects of brand IP to monitor is another story. To answer the questions if the gTLD registration is another gold rush, well, it is, but it’s no wild west, or for that matter a wild internet anymore, one requires capital to invest.

The Intellectual X Factor

The television show X Factor appears as a saviour of unknown artists, who otherwise wouldn’t find their way into the stardom of show business. However, underneath the veil of glitter, the naivety disappears and a bottom line profit of a music industry appears. This was acknowledged indirectly by Simon Cowell himself, in an interview with Piers Morgan. Simon said he didn’t sign a contract with a TV show Popstars, because he realised that the recording rights would be lost (3:20).

Two years later, Simon Cowell created X Factor. This lead Simon Fuller, the producer of Popstars, to sue X Factor for copyright infringement in 2004. The intellectual property rights story wasn’t as interesting as the performances, therefore it received little media coverage at the time. The lawsuit was settled quietly in 2005, with a clause that prevented X Factor from being aired in United States untill 2011. However, the story resurfaced again, this time the dispute was between Simon Fuller versus Fox channel and rights distributer FreemantleMedia.

 In 2013, the lawsuit was settled out of court, which not only made Simon Fuller wealthier, but also gave him the credit for creating X Factor’s concept. While X Factor was contractually prevented from being aired in US for five years, the same show under the name of American Idol became a huge hit with the audience. American Idol at the time was one of the most expensive advertising showcases, 30-seconds costed $475,000. Simon Fueller’s achievements eventually were recognised, and the rivalry between him and Simon Cowell left no bad blood, as he thanked Simon during his Hollywood Walk of Fame inauguration.

X Factor is popular particularly because it engages the audience to take part in the show, from judging the often crazy auditions, to voting for their favourite artist during the final rounds.

With an average viewing figures of 33.48 million in US and 14.3 million in UK for season 7, it’s no wonder that the winner manages to sell a large number of singles. However, it’s the owner of recording rights that receives most of the money, not the artist. The artist instead wins a prize, an advancement of money which used to be £1 million in 2009, and now its only £150,000 for the first album. The royalty from sales of a single is typically around 15%, and that only comes from an approximate 47p that goes to the label from a single iTunes download.

Even though X Factor was copied on Popstars, the producers do not like then others do the same. In 2008, X Factor defended its intellectual property rights with vigour by forcing eXtra Factor’s musical producers to end the show after initiating legal action proceedings, for breach of its copyright.

X Factor is not the only show that’s interesting to observe from an intellectual property rights perspective in the entertainment industry. The music industry predominantly has been built upon the protection of a copyright monopoly. However, it has come under fire in the 21^st century from new technologies and especially the internet. A recent event at the European Parliament called for reform to a copyright, which indicates that the future for entertainment’s industry appears to be an exciting one from a legal, political and cultural perspective. Therefore, there’s no business like show business.

The Intellectual Video Game

Video games are fun and exciting to play, but are often overlooked as an intellectual activity. Pong was one of the earliest video games released in 1972 by Atari, but since then the video game industry has grown enormously.

According to the IBISWorld Industry report, the global video game market is set to expand from $58.7 billion in 2011 to $83.0 billion in 2016, growing at an annual rate of 7.2%.

There is no denying that the video games are a big business, that cost millions to develop and reaps billions in sales. The developer’s Rockstar North budget for the game Grand Theft Auto V without the marketing costs exceeded $137 million, while the game was a blockbuster hit which achieved over $800 million in retail sales during its first 24 hours on sale, and reached over $1 billion within three days.

What is absolutely fascinating about this game is that it features a virtual world with 25 radio stations, that play 240 licensed songs. This means that the developer Rockstar had to negotiate copyright license for each of the songs on the game. Further, this time Rockstar also developed its own original score, the Rolling Stone magazine did a brilliant report on the music within the Grand Theft Auto V game.

It’s not the first time that the game in set in a virtual mock city of Los Angeles, previously Rockstar called it San Andreas.

San Andreas game is very interesting from an intellectual property rights (IPR) perspective, because it was embroiled in two peculiar lawsuit over IPR infringements. First, an owner of ‘Playpen’ Gentlemen’s Club in Los Angeles, claimed that the game’s strip club ‘The Pig Pen’ violated club’s trademarks. Rockstar successfully defended against the allegations. Then the second lawsuit was even more surreal, a backup singer from a rap band Cypress Hill, Michael Washington, sued Rockstar game, over the likeness of the main character ‘CJ’ to himself. This was again successfully defeated, but it’s up to you to decide if the singer behind songs ‘Insane in the membrane’, ‘Rock Superstar’ and ‘Illusions’ was just paranoid, or unhappy that the game licensed only one of their song ‘How I Could Just Kill a Man’.

Nintendo’s Super Mario has intellectual property rights issues of its own. One of the most successful franchises in the video games history, first released in 1983, recently got involved in a copyright dispute over one of its earliest games, the 1985 Super Mario Bros version.

College student Josh Goldberg developed ‘Super Mario Brothers’ on the latest web standards. The game reproduced graphics, sounds and gameplay of the original Nintendo version and allowed the player to play through all the 32 original levels. Josh’s version went even further by allowing to randomly generate numerous levels, and even create your own Super Mario levels with the site’s level editor. Nintendo objected to the website, because of copyright infringements over the look, sound and the gameplay mechanics. Nintendo said in an e-mailed statement thats it “respects the intellectual property rights of other companies, and in turn expects others to respect ours as well”. This time Super Mario’s magic mushroom habit didn’t deceive him in objecting and the IPR law is on Mario’s side.

Last but not least, Zynga was fighting out against its nemesis Vostu in Brazil, over four games, most notably CityVille. The São Paulo trial court was quick to act, by demanding a shutdown of Vostu games in its first brief. The parties settled before the panel of three judges had time to decide. A settlement was reached by Vostu paying an undisclosed sum and agreeing to make changes to the games.

Intellectual property rights, predominantly copyright for video games is an interesting and still developing subject. On July 29^th, World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) released a multi-national study, ‘The Legal Status of Video Games: Comparative Analysis in National Approaches‘ which provides an insight into the legal protection for copyright in video games.

Video games are comprised of multiple copyrighted works, as was earlier showcased in a Super Mario Bros case. WIPO found that “the current landscape of the legal protection of video games appears extremely complex, composed by multiple copyrighted works which deserve independent legal protection” there are two aspects which form the bases for video games: audiovisual, including pictures, video recordings and sounds; and software, specifically how the audiovisual is technically managed and how users interact with elements of the game.

The study also identified areas that might become problematic in the future from the intellectual property rights perspective. This will come as a good news to all gamers who want to become televised superstars. The study stated that it was “not impossible” to imagine video game competitions broadcasted on television “as sporting events are today,” stressing the need for lawmakers to address the issue of rights for television networks and Internet websites. Therefore, happy intellectual gaming to you all!

The Intellectual Fashion

Fashion world is known to be fierce.

However, Johanna Blakley during TED talks stated that fashion world is mostly free from the intellectual property litigation.

It’s partially correct, the fashion industry does differ from other industries in its intellectual property rights (IPR) outlook, but it’s not entirely true because IPR litigation appears to be fierce.

On 5^th of June 2013, a French footwear designer Christian Louboutin, alleged that a California based Charles Jourdan has supplied retailers in New York, counterfeit versions of its Louboutin’s shoes, which bear the distinctive red soles under its own Charles Jourdan label. Charles Jourdan was not the only designer to get sued for having red sole shoes, US shoe shop ALBA and Yves Saint Laurent were sued too. To trademark a red colour on the sole of shoes does appear to be pushing the boundaries of intellectual property right enforcement.

One of the big battle’s that rages in the industry is between US Polo Association brand and Polo Ralph Lauren.The main point of contention is the use of horse in their trademark logo. I believe that the case is rather complex as Ralph Lauren believes that US Polo association is free riding on their image and brand success. The logo infringements are over so many products that I will spare the details, but let you decide if there is a case of trademark infringement, based on their image aka commercials.

Polo Ralph Lauren was founded in 1967.

US Polo Association (fashion brand) was founded in 1981.

The trendy Dolce & Gabbana hasn’t escaped IPR litigation either, in fact it’s involved in one of most interesting lawsuits. On July 22^nd 2013, actor Peter Fonda, star of the 1969 film “Easy Rider,” sued Dolce & Gabbana USA and Nordstrom in California court for $3 million because they improperly profited from advertising and selling men’s T-shirts bearing his image.

Another interesting case of a fashion house involved in a lawsuit with a movie is Louis Vuitton against the film ‘The Hangover’. The laughs were on Louis Vuitton as a judge dismissed that a scene in “The Hangover Part II” involving a counterfeit Louis Vuitton bag did not infringe the luxury brand’s trademark.

Therefore, Johanna Blakley was incorrect to describe fashion industry as an IPR lawsuit free heaven, there seems to be more lawsuits in fashion industry than many others. British fashion house Burberry, was involved in a lawsuit yet again with a film industry over the publicity rights of actor Humphrey Bogart for using a photo of him in a Burberry trench-coat on its social media pages.

It might not be a direct IPR lawsuit, in a sense of one designer copying from another but still an intellectual fashion lawsuit.

Apparently Johanna Blakley also finds a link between fashion and democracy of style.

 

The Intellectual Comics

The intellectual property wars that rage in comics industry sometimes are as interesting as the comics themselves, people who read comics often know little about the IPR background of their favourite hero’s.

The fight for Superman intellectual property rights between Warner Bros and co-creators Jerome Siegel family have been going on  for some time now. Recently, a California federal judge Otis D. Wright, II upheld a controversial 2001 agreement between the parties. The lawyer representing Siegel family Marc Toberoff argued that after the studio agreed to a deal in 2001, “DC anticipatorily breached by instead demanding unacceptable new and revised terms as a condition to its performance; accordingly, the Siegels revoked the agreement, and DC abandoned it.” Warner Bros had reportedly been reluctant to push ahead with its Justice League movie project while legal battles were ongoing, however the ruling now paves the way for Warner Bros to release this summer’s Man Of Steel without legal fuss.

Another fascinating intellectual property fight within the comics industry has been between Stan Lee and Walt Disney, or more precisely its subsidiary Marvel. Stan Lee is an interesting character, which Jonathan Ross covered in his BBC4 documentary.

Stan Lee’s former company, Stan Lee Media sued Walt Disney for copyright infringement, stating that the media conglomerate has never actually owned the rights to famed comic book characters that have generated more than $5.5 billion in the past three years. Because, Stan Lee Media complaint claims, that the famous comic creator transferred his copyrights for characters such as Spider-Man, the X-Men and most members of super-team Avengers to Stan Lee Media a month before he purportedly sold them to Marvel.

While, Batman has intellectual property troubles of its own, but this time regarding his batmobile. The US District Judge Ronald S.W. Lew settled a dispute raised by Gotham Garage owner Mark Towle over whether the Batmobile, because it is a vehicle, is entitled to the same copyright protection afforded to its superhero occupant. The judge found that the custom carmaker was liable for making replicas of the Batmobile, ruling that Warner Bros has viable copyrights and trademarks protecting Batman’s iconic crime-fighting vehicle.

The Intellectual Porn

Recently, BBC documentary maker Louis Theroux did a follow up to his now classic documentary Porn. The sequal is called Twilight of the Porn Stars, which shows how the internet has destroyed stable incomes of people within the porn industry.

The original documentary is available on Youtube. This is BBC, so it’s all in a good taste.

What Louis Theroux unearthed in this documentary not only affects the porn industry, but also the wider digital copyrights and in general intellectual property rights field. The internet has provided us all with the means of production, which has nearly a zero entry cost. Back in June, 5th 2012, the Guardian wrote a brilliant article about Louis Theroux documentary, entitled ‘How the Internet killed Porn‘.

However, intellectual property rights are not dead within the porn industry, they are heatedly contested in courts. The founder of production company GGW Marketing, which is responsible for “Girls Gone Wild”, has been accused of offshore intellectual rights fraud. After, R. Todd Neilson filed an emergency motion requesting access to GGW’s computer files, saying that the founder Joe Francis had fraudulently transferred the bankrupt company’s trademarks to an offshore company he owns. Joe Francis is in general an interesting character, in 2011 he was accused of assault, there is a report by ‘The Young Turks’.

Mr Francis might seem as a rich bad boy that some girls just absolutely adore. But, the real bad boys in the intellectual property right industry are patent trolls, and porn industry is no exception. A California Federal Judge Otis Wright presided over the firm Prenda Law notorious for its porn-copyright trolling. He called the organisations litigation operation as a fraud that deserved criminal prosecution under federal racketeering laws.

Renumeration for the intellectual property rights royalty, especially in the current digital age has often been mysterious. Kim Dotcom has stated numerous times that the intellectual property rights business model is outdated.

Speaking of Hollywood,  a Universal City Studio and the copyright owner of the best-selling “Fifty Shades” book series asked a California Federal court to bar adult film studio Smash Pictures from marketing and selling pornographic adaptations of the trilogy, claiming that the “cheaply produced” knockoffs are likely to taint public perception of the trilogy and the forthcoming Universal films.

Even the mighty Hulk Hogan has not escaped the intellectual property rights and porn trouble. The mighty Hogans sex tapes were leaked on the internet, and to add further to the embarrassment Florida appeals court granted Gawker Media LLC an emergency stay of a lower court’s order that the website take down a 1,400-word narrative detailing Hogan’s sex tape. It might only be a text narrative, but still a loss for a wrestling champion.

The Intellectual Rap War

The rap wars are usually known as the East Coast – West Coast hip hop rivalry in the 1990s between artists and fans of the East Coast rapper The Notorious B.I.G. (Bad Boy Records) and West Coast rapper 2Pac (Death Row Records), both of whom were murdered.

In 2013 a new rap war is escalating, now the mature rap industry has became intellectual. This time rap wars are fought in court rooms, using Intellectual Property Right lawyers instead of guns.

Kanye West is one of the best known pirate’s for sampling a 1974 recording in several songs, including West’s chart-topping “Gold Digger” track.

That sample is Ray Charles – I Got A Woman.

The other rapper involved in the intellectual war is a globally known artist Jay-z, or Shawn Corey Carter. In 2012, Forbes estimated Carter’s net worth at nearly $500 million. He has sold approximately 50 million albums worldwide, while receiving seventeen Grammy Awards for his musical work, and numerous additional nominations. Consistently ranked as one of the greatest rappers of all-time, he was ranked #1 by MTV in their list of The Greatest MCs of All-Time in 2006.Two of his albums, Reasonable Doubt (1996) and The Blueprint (2001), are considered landmarks in the genre with both of them being ranked in Rolling Stone magazine’s list of the 500 greatest albums of all time. The song that landed him in court was Big Pimpin.

The nephew of an Egyptian composer, Osama Ahmed Fahmy filed a motion for contempt against Jay-z, EMI, Warner Music and more than a dozen other defendants for failing to hand over documents showing all the concerts figures, in order to count copyright royalty revenue.

View this document on Scribd

The actual song sample is known as Khosara, Khosara or;

However, one of the more interesting intellectual rap battle’s is fought by an artist called Rick Ross, who was sued for misappropriating the name and identity of a former drug kingpin “Freeway” Ricky Ross. In March, 20, 2013, California Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Rita J. Miller threw out a right of privacy lawsuit ruling that the convicted cocaine trafficker waited too long to bring his claims.

The song has since sold over 5,600,000 copies, became five time’s platinum certified by RIAA. While, the real “Freeway” Ricky Ross was sentenced to life imprisonment after being convicted of trying to purchase more than 100 kilograms of cocaine from a federal agent.

Lose a zero & get yourself a Hero

Proliferation of smartphones, internet and social media has enabled us to tell fascinating stories in an interactive way. We can curate our life’s and display them to our friends and people around the world as if we were superheroes, James Bond’s or superstars. Democratisation of communication enabled all of us to become a star in our own special way, within our select community of friends and followers.

 

 

In the age of television, adverts were limited to short time span. This prevented complex stories with enriched detail to create much stronger brand loyalty. However, the imagery and the world that designer Ralph Lauren created, had always inspired me. The ideas that it carries and associates with are much stronger than many other brands.

 

 

Now days with the use of social media communication we can build even more powerful imagery world. Producing videos as long in length as directors sees fit, publishing as many pictures as is required. All is done in an organised and curated manner to build a plot that will not only be interesting to watch, because of the beautiful models, clothes and scenery. But also, out of audience interest to find out how the story develops. Karl Lagerfeld, a genius designer behind Chanel has done a marvellous job with his short film.

 

 

The characters in our world can possess much deeper personalities. With an ability for two way communication with the audience in means of facebook, google+ and twitter. This allows for a costumer to have much deeper, more enriched experience with the story, brand and the characters. Fashion artist and a poet Daphne Guinness performs this brilliantly.

 

 

To create such an engaging story it will require great preplanning. The release of media content should be choreographed, potentially in the style of never ending soap. As real world events could potentially reflect the public mood in the campaign story. However, to make it a great peace of art it should not be an infinite story, but an interesting plot with great characters. Nothing should be ruled out to engage the public, campaign could include part with a video game, PR stunt that ends up in viewers daily news or just a plain ad in a magazine or television. But, most importantly all the parts must be synchronised to achieve one coherent engaging campaign story.

 

Data Privacy & Cookies

The ‘Right to be forgotten’ online is extremely important for future society. As it would allow for a procedure to take down information that can be incriminating or have other unforeseen negative consequences, especially in the long-term. This is rather controversial, as it can be misused to censor freedom of speech. However, ‘right to be forgotten’ should be ensured for personal reasons, and it can work without undermining human rights. The Internet does not forget, content posted online can be accessed globally by 7 billion people, and subsequent generations of offspring from those 7 billion people. It gets worse, then other people can easily post information about you, or even blackmail a person. Blackmailing incidents have recently increased, as many young girls find themselves victims of blackmail & harassment over pictures that often their ex-boyfriend threatened to release. Procedure to allow take-down for personal content should be available, but only after careful study and consideration of the content, to prohibit censoring freedom of speech. This would also go some way in helping situation of child safety online, as the procedure would allow a legal way to take down child pornographic content. However, education of young people from primary school should be prioritised. I listened to my family then was told not to take sweets from strangers, not to send naked pictures of oneself to strangers should be the same. And, if you do manage to get in this sort of a mess, data protection authorities should be able to differentiate between naked pictures of you and a political statement against authoritarian government.

Consent to cookies is a step in the right direction to making sure that Internet users are aware that their actions online are being followed and stored. Cookies are a non-monetary payment for an Internet services that people enjoy mostly for free. Advertising is already paying for people’s use of music, videos on such channels as youtube. Facebook and googles’ multi-billion dollar business models are build on main idea that profit and company value will come from the advertising revenue. The Internet allows for a possibility to target individual users, therefore the chances of offering you’r product to the person who actually needs it, greatly increase with the use of cookies on the net. However, there are many controversial issues surrounding this, especially than race and religion is introduced into the cookie dough formula. But, few can object to getting the right solution to their problem, when one actually requires it.

The day of advertising on TV 1.0, for example baby pampers, to people that don’t have children and don’t require pampers was part of the 20th century. Internet allows advertising that is tailored to each individual person, even if the media content is the same. There are issues that regulators require to deal with, especially such cases like the rumour I heard that apparently those using apple macbooks can get quoted higher prices online, in my opinion this is an awful price discrimination and should be prohibited.

There are talks & even projects to replace cookies, but for now we have to deal with them. Even the name given to something that collects information about the Internet user is interesting, its the ‘cookies’ that you get in return, instead of charging money to browse the internet site. ‘Cookies’ are often very helpful for remembering your previous preferences, thus saving you a lot of time. It allows this 21st century unique product, instead of generalised media, reduced to the lowest common denominator to appeal to the masses. However, once we enter into the realm of zombie cookies, it starts to get objectionable. Because once I click delete cookies on my Internet browser, I expect it to be deleted. But zombie cookies just renew themselves and keep adding information about you, to already long list of data. On such preferences as food, hobbies and all kinds of psychological life-choices that come to your head to browse on the Internet. US already had a lawsuit regarding such objects, while EU still has to encounter its cookie zombie…

With #ACTA defeat #excitement doesn’t #STOP

The 4th of July is usually known as American Independence Day, but in 2012 it’s been overshadowed by events in Europe. First it was rejection of Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty Agreement in the European Parliament at around 1PM. Which was rejected by 478 MEPs, while 165 MEPs absteined from the vote and only 39 MEPs voted for it. As soon as we were able to process the votes, I looked at computer screen, and what do I see…, a discovery of Higgs Boson!

Higgs Boson… one might say, “but what that has to do with European Union politics and Amelia’s work”. Well, Higgs Boson was found by CERN, which stands for European Organisation for Nuclear Research. Amelia is a full member of ITRE, an Industry, Research and Energy committee. Finding Higgs, has long-term implications for Europe’s and rest of the world’s scientific and research community.  At the moment Higgs Boson is considered to be around the mass of 126.3 with variance of +/- 0.6 GeV and significance of 4.9Q.

• You can watch CERN announcement of Higgs Boson discovery HERE
• Also CERN blog in further detail HERE