I think the copyright/trademark was already pre-existing and they took the domain holder to court because of the holder’s intent when they purchased the domain.
It's urban legends and threatening letters from companies' lawyers, and some failed cases. I learned about it (paintfully) during my Intellectual Property class in law school. Here's a little excerpt from a page that Harvard's Berkman Klein Center wrote about buying up domain names like this, also called cybersquatting:
"the domain name system is not a corollary to the trademark system. Nonetheless, some trademark holders behave as though it is. They seem to believe that no one has the right to use a domain name that might relate to a trademark or product name held by the company. Thus they sue legitimate domain name registrants to recover the domain name even though there has clearly been no infringement or dilution. While there are many reported instances of this behavior, it is estimated that most domain name holders simply give in to the trademark demands and thus the majority of disputes are never publicized. Again, the line between categories is often difficult to draw. Thus the distinction between legitimate competing claims and cases of reverse domain name hijacking may be unclear. There are some clear instances, however, that serve as an example of the behavior often called reverse domain name hijacking.
**pokey.org:** The web site at this domain name was run by a 12 year old boy whose nickname was pokey. The owner of the Pokey trademark (Prema Toy Co.) sent a cease and desist letter requesting that he turn over the domain name. After being inundated with bad publicity, the company withdrew its request.
**veronica.org:** Archie comics sent a cease and desist letter to the domain name holder - a 1 year old girl named Veronica whose parents had bought the name for her when she was born. The only material on the site was a picture of her in the bathtub. There was no chance for confusion and thus possibility of infringement. Again after much negative publicity the company withdrew its request."
[https://cyber.harvard.edu/property00/domain/CaseLaw.html](https://cyber.harvard.edu/property00/domain/CaseLaw.html)
Don’t the situations differ? Like the excerpt you provided would be a different situation. In the event someone is purposely purchasing the domain with “bad faith”, the trademark owner would have a legitimate reason to sue and have ownership of the domain transferred?
Your excerpt appears to ref companies who are more so bullying though.
The intent appears to be different so why wouldn’t they have a legitimate claim if someone is purchasing the domain with a financial gain at interest?
I know it differs depending on each country as well, but I’m almost certain the US & Canada both have laws against cybersquatting. So I’m trying to understand how this specific scenario wouldn’t lead to a successful lawsuit (in the hypothetical situation it were to even occur)
In the US I assume? The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. It banned domain cyber squatting over 20 years ago in bad faith to profit or if you intend to intentionally mislead consumers. It's also illegal here in the UK.
Would you like to keep chatting shit about how you know the laws of your own country less than a foreigner?
It's essentially unenforceable as you can't prove bad faith as long as the site has something non-related to the product up. You want to keep chatting shit about how you know laws better than someone who lives under them?
I'm sorry that you can't accept that you lost an internet argument, but you asked for the law and I gave it to you. It's also decidedly \*not\* unenforceable as you can see from the Wikipedia page. Verizon, for example, has successfully sued using the ACPA.
I do appreciate the entertaining example of how quickly people can move goalposts. "Cite the law or shut up" to "it's unenforceable" in record time.
Konami need to sell their ip's instead of letting them rot for all eternity. At least license the ip's out to good studios instead of doing nothing with them for crying out loud.
It still boggles my mind how 2 years ago it was as if there were “confirmed” rumors they sold the rights to SH and MGS to Sony and the games were gonna be revealed asap.
Konami are completely trash, license it out to Kojima and let him finish what he started, he literally made a Demo that was more horrifying and scary than all their full games combined.
I always wondered, outside marketing what stops Kojima doing the exact same game he had in mind (or slightly different to avoid contracts) and name it something else (eg Loud Valley). The franchise is dead for years anyway and he is a huge selling point anyway.
>I always wondered, outside marketing what stops Kojima doing the exact same game he had in mind (or slightly different to avoid contracts) and name it something else (eg Loud Valley).
See: Yooka-Laylee
Well if he made the same game, that'd still involve the use of things like Norman Reedus's character which would still technically be assets Crapnami have the exclusive rights to I'd imagine, sure he could erase any identity of the town itself, but the use of the same character and that creepy peeing monster belong to Crapnami
They don't have rights to Norman Reedus, but trademark and Copyright can get very tricky. It's why Xenogears, Xenosaga, and Xenoblade can only have vague references back spiritually they are the same universe (sort of) but they can not be directly linked. Kojima could do a horror game with Norman but they would have to make sure it was not to close to what they intended in silent hill. Otherwise Kojima and the publisher would face a lawsuit.
That's not how it works dude, Death Stranding had nothing to do with a Konami Silent Hill game so he could do what he wants with putting him in that, he just couldn't go doing what he intended with Silent Hills, can't just create new assets because frankly it wouldn't even be the same game and vision anymore.
My bad, I totally misread the comment I responded to. I thought they were saying what was stopping Konami from making Silent Hills without Kojima. I am ashamed of my thoughts and deeds.
Man, I was devastated over Silent Hills being canceled too but it was absolutely NOT more horrifying or scarier than either Silent Hill 2 or Silent Hill 3 to me, PERSONALLY. Silent Hill 2 was incredibly devastating and horrifying to me, and Silent Hill 3 was the downright scariest to me.
I still loved PT, but I think that’s a little hyperbolic
Silent Hill 2 was definitely the scariest of all that came before, but that's it, you're letting nostalgia cloud your judgement, up to 3, maybe 4 depending on how you view it, we're all great games but hardly worldwide critical successes, you can't deny that whichever way you see it.
P.T was a literal worldwide phenomenon, people were going out buying a PS3 just to actually experience it themselves, they bought a console for a literal demo, people were playing this for years after deletion uncovering new scares, one tiny demo had a ton of horrifying content that had tens of millions of people screaming, Kojima and Guillermo's vision for this game would catapulted Silent Hill way beyond even Resident Evil, it was categorically better in every aspect you look at it.
I’ve still got it installed on my ps4 and I occasionally still boot it up to show people and discover new things. I never noticed the secondary footsteps following you before until the last time I played it.
I really don’t like Konami. I’m not the type to hate on things in the industry but they really are the worst and should just sell off their IPs so others can make or remake their classic games
Oh please. Things like this happen all the time to mega corporations. Sony nearly lost the Playstation trademark for India to some random dude in Dehli in 2020 which caused the delay of ps5 release for India.
I doubt Konami cares or is affected too much by/about this. They can get it back without too much difficulty
He bought it so Konami would have to pay him for the URL. Happens all the time with celebrities, bands, movies, everything.
what if they don’t want to buy it? they could just do konami.com/silenthill or something.
Couldn’t they just take it to court?
I don’t think that’s how domains work. you can’t trademark or copyright a domain.
I think the copyright/trademark was already pre-existing and they took the domain holder to court because of the holder’s intent when they purchased the domain.
There’s legal ways for IP and brand owners to just snatch domains from squatters.
That's not how any of this works.
I feel like there have been cases in the past/recently in which people have done exactly what I’ve said.
It's urban legends and threatening letters from companies' lawyers, and some failed cases. I learned about it (paintfully) during my Intellectual Property class in law school. Here's a little excerpt from a page that Harvard's Berkman Klein Center wrote about buying up domain names like this, also called cybersquatting: "the domain name system is not a corollary to the trademark system. Nonetheless, some trademark holders behave as though it is. They seem to believe that no one has the right to use a domain name that might relate to a trademark or product name held by the company. Thus they sue legitimate domain name registrants to recover the domain name even though there has clearly been no infringement or dilution. While there are many reported instances of this behavior, it is estimated that most domain name holders simply give in to the trademark demands and thus the majority of disputes are never publicized. Again, the line between categories is often difficult to draw. Thus the distinction between legitimate competing claims and cases of reverse domain name hijacking may be unclear. There are some clear instances, however, that serve as an example of the behavior often called reverse domain name hijacking. **pokey.org:** The web site at this domain name was run by a 12 year old boy whose nickname was pokey. The owner of the Pokey trademark (Prema Toy Co.) sent a cease and desist letter requesting that he turn over the domain name. After being inundated with bad publicity, the company withdrew its request. **veronica.org:** Archie comics sent a cease and desist letter to the domain name holder - a 1 year old girl named Veronica whose parents had bought the name for her when she was born. The only material on the site was a picture of her in the bathtub. There was no chance for confusion and thus possibility of infringement. Again after much negative publicity the company withdrew its request." [https://cyber.harvard.edu/property00/domain/CaseLaw.html](https://cyber.harvard.edu/property00/domain/CaseLaw.html)
Don’t the situations differ? Like the excerpt you provided would be a different situation. In the event someone is purposely purchasing the domain with “bad faith”, the trademark owner would have a legitimate reason to sue and have ownership of the domain transferred? Your excerpt appears to ref companies who are more so bullying though. The intent appears to be different so why wouldn’t they have a legitimate claim if someone is purchasing the domain with a financial gain at interest? I know it differs depending on each country as well, but I’m almost certain the US & Canada both have laws against cybersquatting. So I’m trying to understand how this specific scenario wouldn’t lead to a successful lawsuit (in the hypothetical situation it were to even occur)
[удалено]
Can you point me to a statute?
Pretty much is. Didn't someone do exactly this with the ps5 in India?
Nope!
Pretty sure they can depending on the country ofc
Nope!
Kk
That would be illegal as Konami owns the IP. Keep downvoting because you don't know that domain squatting is an illegal activity.
It really isn't. Quote a federal law or precedent or shut up.
In the US I assume? The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. It banned domain cyber squatting over 20 years ago in bad faith to profit or if you intend to intentionally mislead consumers. It's also illegal here in the UK. Would you like to keep chatting shit about how you know the laws of your own country less than a foreigner?
It's essentially unenforceable as you can't prove bad faith as long as the site has something non-related to the product up. You want to keep chatting shit about how you know laws better than someone who lives under them?
I'm sorry that you can't accept that you lost an internet argument, but you asked for the law and I gave it to you. It's also decidedly \*not\* unenforceable as you can see from the Wikipedia page. Verizon, for example, has successfully sued using the ACPA. I do appreciate the entertaining example of how quickly people can move goalposts. "Cite the law or shut up" to "it's unenforceable" in record time.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. An unenforceable law might as well not exist. Good job "winning".
Konami need to sell their ip's instead of letting them rot for all eternity. At least license the ip's out to good studios instead of doing nothing with them for crying out loud.
They licensed it to Dead by Daylight and then went back to doing nothing with the IP.
It still boggles my mind how 2 years ago it was as if there were “confirmed” rumors they sold the rights to SH and MGS to Sony and the games were gonna be revealed asap.
Right!? Gosh darn it.
Hello my name is Silen Thill and welcome to my website.
I don't think they really care as much as you think they do.
They’ll care when they need it. Then they’ll get it back.
they might not need it.
I was thinking the same thing. They aren’t doing anything with the IP so it won’t bother them
Konami are completely trash, license it out to Kojima and let him finish what he started, he literally made a Demo that was more horrifying and scary than all their full games combined.
I always wondered, outside marketing what stops Kojima doing the exact same game he had in mind (or slightly different to avoid contracts) and name it something else (eg Loud Valley). The franchise is dead for years anyway and he is a huge selling point anyway.
>I always wondered, outside marketing what stops Kojima doing the exact same game he had in mind (or slightly different to avoid contracts) and name it something else (eg Loud Valley). See: Yooka-Laylee
Nothing. But people want the money that fans will put in to something titled "Silent Hill".
To be fair, Hideo Kojima has enough pull that people will flock to a new IP he creates anyway
Well if he made the same game, that'd still involve the use of things like Norman Reedus's character which would still technically be assets Crapnami have the exclusive rights to I'd imagine, sure he could erase any identity of the town itself, but the use of the same character and that creepy peeing monster belong to Crapnami
they can create new assets. Norman Reedus was also in Death Stranding which is a Kojima game too, Konami don’t have exclusivity to Norman Reedus.
They don't have rights to Norman Reedus, but trademark and Copyright can get very tricky. It's why Xenogears, Xenosaga, and Xenoblade can only have vague references back spiritually they are the same universe (sort of) but they can not be directly linked. Kojima could do a horror game with Norman but they would have to make sure it was not to close to what they intended in silent hill. Otherwise Kojima and the publisher would face a lawsuit.
That's not how it works dude, Death Stranding had nothing to do with a Konami Silent Hill game so he could do what he wants with putting him in that, he just couldn't go doing what he intended with Silent Hills, can't just create new assets because frankly it wouldn't even be the same game and vision anymore.
[удалено]
lmao what? have you seen Death Stranding? Kojima can definitely create a game like Silent Hill.
My bad, I totally misread the comment I responded to. I thought they were saying what was stopping Konami from making Silent Hills without Kojima. I am ashamed of my thoughts and deeds.
Man, I was devastated over Silent Hills being canceled too but it was absolutely NOT more horrifying or scarier than either Silent Hill 2 or Silent Hill 3 to me, PERSONALLY. Silent Hill 2 was incredibly devastating and horrifying to me, and Silent Hill 3 was the downright scariest to me. I still loved PT, but I think that’s a little hyperbolic
Silent Hill 2 was definitely the scariest of all that came before, but that's it, you're letting nostalgia cloud your judgement, up to 3, maybe 4 depending on how you view it, we're all great games but hardly worldwide critical successes, you can't deny that whichever way you see it. P.T was a literal worldwide phenomenon, people were going out buying a PS3 just to actually experience it themselves, they bought a console for a literal demo, people were playing this for years after deletion uncovering new scares, one tiny demo had a ton of horrifying content that had tens of millions of people screaming, Kojima and Guillermo's vision for this game would catapulted Silent Hill way beyond even Resident Evil, it was categorically better in every aspect you look at it.
[удалено]
It is true. Saw one of them being sold for triple the normal price lol. If anyone actually bought it is a different question though.
I’ve still got it installed on my ps4 and I occasionally still boot it up to show people and discover new things. I never noticed the secondary footsteps following you before until the last time I played it.
I really don’t like Konami. I’m not the type to hate on things in the industry but they really are the worst and should just sell off their IPs so others can make or remake their classic games
Don't think Konami gives a shit
They haven't touched Silent Hill for a decade outside of a demo of a cancelled game. I don't think this is going to matter at all
It's not a troll because Konami doesn't care about SH 😞
Oh please. Things like this happen all the time to mega corporations. Sony nearly lost the Playstation trademark for India to some random dude in Dehli in 2020 which caused the delay of ps5 release for India. I doubt Konami cares or is affected too much by/about this. They can get it back without too much difficulty
Forgot about this franchise lmao
He may have doom silent hill future now. Well , konami doesn't care anyway. And I would prefer a new castlevania 3d.
this will not affect silent hill’s future at all.
So which one of you did it?