The proliferation

Factual Questions
1

Please look at this English text…
The proliferation of so-called cybersquatters, people who register the Internet domain names of high-profile companies in hopes of reselling the rights to those names for a profit, led to the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows companies to seek up to $100,000 in damages against those who register domain names with the sole intent of selling them later.

I marked a** RED** there . I doubt that usage . Is it a correct use ?

Here is where I have objection in Pink

passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting

Can we write this way ? is it a correct use in English?

I’d love this way though … ***led to the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting in 1999 ***

Your help needed at this part. Could you please explain .
by the way , Can a cybersquatter create a domain called yahoo.com for sale ? :slight_smile:

2

Both ways are equally correct. English is pretty flexible about word order in a lot of cases. Often, you can achieve the same literal meaning but slightly different connotation by moving stuff around. I would use your example, with “in 1999” on the end, if I wanted to emphasize the year that the law was passed. But the original author treats the year as less important information, burying it in the middle, and emphasizing the fact that the law was passed.

3

As friedo said, it’s perfectly fine either way, just a matter of emphasis.

Though there’s an argument for the way it is in the original, because that way the noun (‘Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act’), is immediately followed by the clause describing it (‘which allows companies to seek…’). In the other phrasing, you end up with the description clause immediately following the year, which could be jarring, as the reader has to realize that the description clause isn’t about the year 1999, but about the Act. (’…led to the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999, which allows companies to seek …’)

I think my preference would be to move ‘in 1999’ even sooner.
‘… which in 1999 led to the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which allows companies to seek…’

4

not comfortable.

*…passage **in 1999 **of the Anti-Cybersquatting * …do you mean I can move around that red part to anywhere ?

5

*…passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting …
*
AND

*…passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting in 1999 …
*
Is there any difference between these two ? you said “emphasize” …right ?

Is that the first one “emphasize” the year 199 because its sooner ?

Is that the second one “emphasize” the Anti-Cybersquatting because its sooner ?

6

I realize you put the smiley at the end there, but allow me to address the question.

The answer is, “No, you can’t, simply because yahoo.com already exists.” In order to register a domain name, it cannot already be in use. Cybersquatting involves the practice of registering a domain name in the hopes that when a company goes to use that domain, they will have to pay the cybersquatter for the rights to the name.

You could, however, create a domain called yahooo.com, yahhoo.com, yyahoo.com, etc., assuming, of course, that none of these names were in use. However, if you did, then you will probably run afoul of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (Wikipedia: Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act - Wikipedia).

7

Suppose, For example, I have purchased a domain today say fffhhhh.com . After 3 years I would sell this domain to a company with a high price . Do you call me a Cybersquatter or just a reseller ? are they different or same thing ?

8

It depends on your intent. If you purchased the domain with the expectation that fffhhhh.com would become valuable, and didn’t actually use the domain for anything yourself, you could be considered a cybersquatter. If you purchased the domain because you actually wanted to use it yourself, and then decided to sell it later, you probably would not be considered a cybersquatter. In any case, there is no firm definition of the term “cybersquatter.” It’s largely a matter of how the transaction is perceived.

9

The domain name yahoo.com is already registered and exists. A cybersquatter cannot create and attempt to sell that which already exists and is owned. Well, they can try to sell it but at great risk, of course.

10

As a real-life example, in 2004 the John Kerry/John Edwards campaign tried to use the cybersquatting law to force a guy to give up the domain KerryEdwards.com. Except, the guy’s name was Kerry Edwards, and he had been using that URL for his personal website for years. So he wasn’t a cybersquatter, and didn’t have to give up the URL.

11

Not happy. thats pure business . profit making business. a domain owner have the rights whether he would put his domain idle and wait for the price hike or do anything himself.

looks like definition and scope of cybersquatter is complicated. I’m not yet sure who could be convicted as a cybersquatter .

12

You can, but you can’t really just copy and paste it… but we’ll get to that.

Let’s fix your original, first. …passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting… has no meaning :wink: I’m sure it was just an oversight, so let’s change it to:

…passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting act…

Let’s add a bit more to that so that we have a functional sentence:

The proliferation of cybersquatters led to the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Act.

Now, we have enough to work with.

OK, on to moving stuff around:
In 1999, the proliferation of cybersquatters led to the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Act.

This sentence is ambiguous and could mean several things–it could mean that the proliferation happened in 1999, that the act was passed in 1999, or that both occurred in 1999.
The 1999 proliferation of cybersquatters led to the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Act.

This sentence (notice that we left out the word “in”) means that the proliferation occurred in 1999. No information is directly given about when the act was passed.
The proliferation in 1999 of cybersquatters led to the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Act.

This sentence also refers to the proliferation as happening in 1999 and gives no direct information about when the act was passed.
The proliferation of 1999 cybersquatters led to the passage in of the Anti-Cybersquatting Act.

This is also ambiguous, but for a different reason. Were the cybersquatters proliferating in 1999 (date) or were there 1999 of them (number)?
The proliferation of cybersquatters in 1999 led to the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Act.

This also implies that the proliferation occurred in 1999 and that the act was passed at some unspecified time afterward.
The proliferation of cybersquatters led in 1999 to the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Act.

This sentence does the opposite of the above examples–it states when the act was passed, but doesn’t specify exactly when the proliferation occurred. in 1999 should probably be set off with commas, though it’s not strictly necessary.
The proliferation of cybersquatters led to the 1999 passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Act.

Again, we’ve dropped the word “in”. And again, the date applies to the passage of the act and not to the proliferation.
The proliferation of cybersquatters led to the passage in 1999 of the Anti-Cybersquatting Act. (the original)

This sentence means that the act was passed in 1999 because of previous proliferation of cybersqutting.
The proliferation of cybersquatters led to the passage of the 1999 Anti-Cybersquatting Act.

Similar to the above, except that readers might think that the name of the act is The 1999 Anti-Cybersquatting Act.
The proliferation of cybersquatters led to the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Act in 1999.

This sentence almost certainly tells when the act was passed, but it could also refer to both the proliferation and to the passage.

13

It’s like trademark law. You can’t just go out and trademark a bunch of random phrases in the hopes that someone it the future might want to use one and would have to pay you for it. You have to demonstrate that you’re actually using the mark in business.

There’s no benefit to society in allowing a bunch of speculators to sit on internet addresses without using them. All it means is that real businesses have to pay more for to get a website, or that more businesses have to use bizarre or cryptic addresses instead of common, memorable ones.

14

I apologize if you’re just using the above rearrangements as a shorthand, but I haven’t seen this addressed above, so I’ll be pedantic.

“Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act” should be treated as a single noun when forming English sentences; you can’t break off “Anticybersquatting” from the other three words in the name and use it independently. So it is valid to say

… led to the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 1999 …

but not

… led to the passage of the Anti-Cybersquatting in 1999 Consumer Protection Act …

Hopefully I’m just being too pedantic, but I figured I’d make sure.