[djrogers]

I don't see how net neutrality regulations will stop trademark and copyright abuses, which is the case here. Now if Comcast were found to be hijacking or blocking the site in question, that's a net neutrality issue (as well as a likely civil issue in a US court).

[skewart]

But there is no trademark or copyright abuse here. The domain and website in question - comcastroturf - is protected under fair use. It's not impersonating Comcast in any way.

The concern is that if they're willing to be aggressive jerks in a situation like this, why make it easier for them to actually hijack or block the site? Of course, net neutrality is about much more than that, but that's how I understood the direct tie-in here.

[maxerickson]

The claim that the domain infringes the trademark can be considered abuse of trademark law.

[sp332]

Trademark fair use is narrower than copyright fair use, but this does seem to qualify. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

[djrogers]

It's the infringement claim and threat of legal action that is the abuse.

[ItendToDisagree]

The connection is pretty obvious. But I'll spell it out.

Comcast appears to be using patent troll level fuckery in an attempt to further their goal of stopping net neutrality. A goal, which itself is about controlling the flow of information, and mirrors this attempt to control information.

Attempts to control (like turtles) go all the way down.

[mikeash]

I think the point is not that net neutrality would somehow stop Comcast from abusing its trademark like this, but rather that absent net neutrality Comcast probably would be hijacking or blocking it.