www.battlefieldthree.co.uk

[TeaLeaf]

Guys,
 
For a small fee can we grab this domain? It shouldn't cost much but could pay dividends.
 
NF

No problems with buying it, but would there be problems?

[Penfold]

Can't hurt for the sake of £5.98 I guess for two years.

No problems from me.

[TeaLeaf]

I'll ask Ninja what he wants to do with it.  If it is to point at something then it needs to be something for which we have content!

In the mean time, Gandalf would you mind grabbing it for us please and sending us the bill?  Thanks.

[Gandalf]

Too late.

Whois Info - battlefieldthree.co.uk

[Querying whois.nic.uk]
[whois.nic.uk]

    Domain name:
        battlefieldthree.co.uk

    Registrant:
        Arithon

    Registrant type:
        UK Individual

    Registrar:
        Webfusion Ltd t/a 123-reg [Tag = 123-REG]
        URL: http://www.123-reg.co.uk

    Relevant dates:
        Registered on: 21-Jul-2011
        Renewal date:  21-Jul-2013
        Last updated:  21-Jul-2011

    Registration status:
        Registration request being processed.

    Name servers:
        ns.123-reg.co.uk
        ns2.123-reg.co.uk

    WHOIS lookup made at 10:57:18 21-Jul-2011

--
This WHOIS information is provided for free by Nominet UK the central registry
for .uk domain names. This information and the .uk WHOIS are:

    Copyright Nominet UK 1996 - 2011.

You may not access the .uk WHOIS or use any data from it except as permitted
by the terms of use available in full at http://www.nominet.org.uk/whois, which
includes restrictions on: (A) use of the data for advertising, or its
repackaging, recompilation, redistribution or reuse (B) obscuring, removing
or hiding any or all of this notice and (C) exceeding query rate or volume
limits. The data is provided on an 'as-is' basis and may lag behind the
register. Access may be withdrawn or restricted at any time.

[Penfold]

bugger. That was close.

[smilodon]

Seems we do have this domain. And I have a concern that we may be seen as domain squatters. The owner of battle field 3 might quite understandably see us as paid subscription site attempting to cash in on their intellectual property. The internet is awash with stories of big companies setting lawyers onto little sites like ours. I can't see any reason for us to take this site other than to drive traffic away from BF 3 to us. I'm surprised that they didn't think to secure the domain themselves. When EA (notoriously litigious) find out a gaming site has it I imagine they won't be that impressed

We should IMHO drop any association with the domain and save ourselves a world of legal pain.

[Penfold]

Interesting point.

Worse case we could easily transfer ownership of it should it come to that?

Besides, *we're* not the owners. it's owned privately by Arithon who points it at our address. I fail to see how we could be in any way liable for that. If anything, I imagine they'd ask Arithon to transfer ownership.

Otherwise I could go buy any company's domain which is free and point it at GDTphotography .... would that make *you* liable??

[smilodon]

Very fair point but that wouldn't help Arithon and I wonder if he's considered the possible outcome of buying the site. I'm looking at this very much in the same way we decided we need to get people to sign a disclaimer when they come to the LAN's. It daft but while there's a small chance we could find ourselves sued by someone who broke their leg when the fell over a PC in a late night drunken stupor or got their Laptop nicked because someone forgot to lock the LAN room door, we still  felt the effort of getting people to sign a form was worth it. Just in case.

Having the battlefieldthree.co.uk domain might bring us some traffic and might make us look a bit cool. And most likely that will be that. But there's a chance (IMHO quite a good chance) EA might go looking for people they feel are using their products names etc to feather their nests or drive traffic away from their 'official sites'. If we do come to their attention then we're all going to find out what the consequences are.

What we're doing is technically "name-jacking" with the wikipedia definition being

Yet another approach is "namejacking" (also "name-jacking" or "name jacking") which is accomplished by purchasing an individual's name as a top-level domain name, for example John Jones = JohnJones.com, JohnJones.org, etc. Setting up a website allows the purchaser to capitalize on any searches done for that name. For example, if John Jones has a thriving professional practice (perhaps he is a doctor, a lawyer, a financial professional, or real estate agent - or any other profession which interacts with the public on a regular basis), there is a high likelihood that potential clients will do some research on the internet before doing business with Mr. Jones. If Mr. Jones has been "name jacked",[2][3] then someone else owns johnjones.com and that website will appear at or near the top of any searches for the name "John Jones." These "name jacked" sites are typically set up to sell high-profit items like ebooks and/or various business opportunities and require few purchases to be profitable. As the name-jacked domains are set up using non-trademarked names and they have a purpose other than selling the domain name back to an individual, they circumvent the "Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act" (ACPA) laws U.S.C. § 1125 and U.S.C. § 1129. Since people frequently search the web to find out information, name jacking provides low-cost web traffic to the name-jacked website.

To illustrate the point this actual thread is now the first search result in Google for 'batlefieldthree co uk'

Now we're not actively selling anything but we are a community that offers a paid subscription and that is my main concern. We're accused of using a domain to drive search traffic to our site and away from EA's in the hope of gaining additional subscriptions and making money. Our defence would be....?

• That wasn't our intention?
• We don't personally make money?
• We don't insist on a subscription, it's voluntary?

Yes I'm being a doom and gloom merchant yet again but I think it's something we should at least discuss.

[TeaLeaf]

That was kind of in the back of my mind when i started this thread, but looking back I did not make it at all obvious what I was thinking, sorry.  Still thinking some.

[smilodon]

Seems to be gaining some traction on the main forum and people are being to link back to the domain, which is exactly what I was suggesting would be a problem. I think we either need to decide there's no harm in proceeding or kill the idea quickly. My thoughts are obviously already known.

I think the least we should do is let Arithon know what the possible downside of registering the domain might be and the basic conversation we've been having here.

[TeaLeaf]

Ok, I'm planning on moving this thread directly into the BC2 section for further discussion, I see no point in leaving it here when I think we all have concerns and we probably do not know enough about any penalties that might apply.  The addition of more people to the discussion might help guide us all.

Unless anyone objects I'll move it across tonight so that the BC2 peeps can see our thought process and join the debate.

[smilodon]

Good call.

We might want to blank out Arithon personal details in Gandy's post about the domains new owner. It's public information available on the net but it might not be better to to republish it in an open forum?

[Penfold]

Agreed.

[TeaLeaf]

Edited out the personal info.

[TeaLeaf]

Dear BC2 Game Admins.

Council would like some input on this as we have some concerns over the website.  We decided to transfer the entire thread so that you can all participate.

Your thoughts please!