Slashdot Log In
KY Appeals Court Nixes Seizure of Gambling-Linked Domains
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Jan 21, 2009 05:12 PM
from the stick-to-the-whiskey-making dept.
from the stick-to-the-whiskey-making dept.
davidwr writes "A state appeals court in Kentucky ruled that the state courts cannot seize domain names as 'gambling devices.' The court ruled that 'it's up to the General Assembly — not the courts nor the state Justice Cabinet — to bring domain names into the definition of illegal gambling devices.'"
Related Stories
[+]
State of Kentucky Seizes Control of 141 Domain Names 505 comments
ashmodai9 writes "In a rather interesting (read: insane) decision, a district judge in the State of Kentucky has awarded control of 141 online gambling domain names to the governor of the state. Most of these are hosted offshore, and very few are registered under US domain name registrars, let alone registrars in the State of Kentucky (are there any?). You can check out the press release here, and confirm that the Commonwealth of Kentucky does in fact now 'own' these domain names by performing a WHOIS search on any of the domains listed here."
[+]
News: Kentucky Judge Upholds State's Gambling-Domain Grab 272 comments
JohnHegarty writes "A Kentucky judge has upheld that state's seizure of some of the world's most popular online casino domain names, ruling they constitute a 'gambling device' that is subject to Kentucky's anti-gambling laws." Wasn't it surreal enough on the first round?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Kentucky (Score:2, Funny)
a network not a jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, there is gambling on the Internet. Sure, they may not like it. Could they prevent Citizens from using those websites?
Re:a network not a jurisdiction (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
And this differes from other countries how? (Score:4, Interesting)
I love how each state thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules.
And how does this differ from other countries - like China, Russia, England, ...?
Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries. The States just happened to join a federation for dealing with other countries - a federation like Common Europe, NATO, the UN, the League of Nations, etc.
(And of course the federation has progressively encroached on the States' sovereignty ever since, eroding the safeguards intended to retard such behavior. That's exactly what was expected at the time. But it's also a separate issue.)
Parent
Re:And this differes from other countries how? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a gross oversimplification. Many of the people who contributed to the Constitution were in favor of a strong Federal government (hence the term 'Federalist' used to describe them). While some were vociferously against a strong Federal government, it is mistaken to say that the United States was intended to be a federation like those you mention -- the original intent, as ratified by each of the states, was to be a much stronger union than any of those federations.
I will not disagree that the federal government has subsumed much of the authority of the states; I will, however, point out that the original States were not considered to be independent countries, otherwise foreign relations would not have been assigned to the federal government.
As for Indian tribes, they truly are more like sovereign nations, but there are entanglements that make them not quite independent.
To get back to the meat of your post, though -- states do have certain sovereign rights, and while sometimes they act without considering the impact of their actions on other states, this is one reason why we have a federal government -- to mediate disputes. It is a valid point that the OP makes, that it's somewhat screwy for a state or country to make unilateral proclamations that affect the rest of the country (or world). It's a very provincial attitude that pisses other people off.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, states in the US are *not* separate countries. That was true under the Articles of Confederation, but the states gave up their sovereign status by ratifying the Constitution. The states are now semi-autonomous legislative districts with delineated responsibilities under the nation the United States. Far closer to the Scottish parliament and the UK than to the EU, UN, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Looks like someone flunked american history or government. The states aren't countries. The commonwealths like Mass or VA aren't countries either.
As originally envisioned, the states were supposed to do most of the governing, except for things that are international or inter-state, but the states are not countries.
I agree that someone flunked but I doubt it was yours truly.
Note that the first 13 states PREDATE both the Continental Congress and the Federal Government which succeeded it (though "staged a coup
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is that this judge didn't even rule that Kentucky didn't have jurisdiction over domain names. He just ruled that domain names weren't gambling devices. If the legislature decides to classify domain names as gambling devices, they could try the whole thing over again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can be bigoted over more things than race. When you believe your race is better than all others, that's racism. When you believe your country is better than all others, that's patriotism. In each case, you only support a group because you happen to be a member of it.
Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
I predict a bill will be introduced in the next session of Kentucky's General Assembly changing the definition of "gambling devices" to include domain names. Way to suggest an escape hatch for the attorney general and lawmakers...
Re:Great... (Score:5, Informative)
If it passed, the law would get struck down in the Federal courts as unconstitutional. States don't get to interfere in interstate commerce, and that includes trying to regulate internet domain names.
Parent
Re:Great... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
What?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What?? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
KY? (Score:5, Funny)
I thought this article was about something else entirely. Sure, Kentucky makes more sense, but its much less ... appealing.
I'm disappointed. Disappointed and dry.
KY (Score:5, Funny)
I saw KY, and thought it was some elaborate goatse troll.
What prerogative does KY act under... (Score:4, Interesting)
It *IS* just a name after all (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not making a statement for or against this action. But it's an odd thing when you think about it. A domain name is really just that. The name of a domain. The site can still be up, it just cannot be referred to by the name anymore. It won't stop the the gambling, it will simply make it more difficult to describe (or find in this case). They cannot confiscate the IP address or shut down the machines if those sites are off shore.
I guess this is the equivalent of keeping people away from a location by erasing it from their map.
No it's not. It's an entry in a database. (Score:4, Interesting)
But it's an odd thing when you think about it. A domain name is really just that. The name of a domain.
"What's in a name?"
In this case it's NOT just a name. It's an entry in a publicly-accessible and trusted database, mapping the name to a set of servers.
THAT's what the state of Kentucky seized.
And it's very valuable. I'm waiting with bated breath for the suits demanding reimbursement for lost (legal!) revenue resulting from the disruption of their business (along with damage to their trademark) caused by Kentucky's successful appropriation of their domain records.
Parent
The ruling was obvious (Score:2, Funny)
Things don't sieze up when you lube up with KY.
What is kentucky to do? (Score:3, Insightful)
KY doesn't have jurisdiction over the organizations behind the gambling sites (or the domain registrars, another problem with this case) - so they couldn't force location aware IP blocks (which don't work anyway), they couldn't fine the organizations, or impose any normal civil/criminal penalties. In addition, ISP level blocks don't work & are costly, and the servers were also outside KY and couldn't be seized.
I agree this was a stupid stupid order that violated due process, free speech, and commons sense. But if the websites & owners in Antigua (or wherever they're based) were selling US credit card numbers & the accompanying data, from servers in Antigua at http://identity-theft.ag/ [identity-theft.ag] for purposes of fraud - what could a state do to enforce anti-fraud laws? (assuming this was a state question) What could the feds do, apart from file a claim with the WTO? (which they have regarding gambling in antigua I believe).
Information wants to be free (Score:3, Insightful)
Short answer: it cannot. It would be unconstitutional in at least two counts: if considered as commerce, states cannot interfere in interstate commerce. If not considered as commerce then it's equivalent to speech, and would violate the First Amendment.
A state can prohibit gambling, for instance betting on horse races. But it cannot prohibit anyone to publish horse race results. What could the state of Kentucky d
Re: (Score:2)
KY doesn't have jurisdiction over the organizations behind the gambling sites (or the domain registrars, another problem with this case) - so they couldn't force location aware IP blocks (which don't work anyway), they couldn't fine the organizations, or impose any normal civil/criminal penalties. In addition, ISP level blocks don't work & are costly, and the servers were also outside KY and couldn't be seized.
I know, it sucks, doesn't it? But if someone created, I dunno... say, a Bingo system that use
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What are they to do? Nothing. What should they have done? Not passed laws they can't enforce, or tried to enforce them in ways that are clearly not legal.
Politicians simply need to stop thinking they can control the world or get everything they (personally) find morally objectable. It's silly enough when the federal government tries to enforce its morality on the Internet, but it's twice as silly when an individual state purports to have any authority over the rest of the world.
Bad Stuff(tm) will al
GoDaddy in this case was a Wimp (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-news/kudos-network-solutions-standing-online-gambling-sites-100708.html [gambling911.com]