Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
America Online Your Rights Online

AOL Stealing Domain Names? 51

Posted by michael from the some-animals-are-more-equal dept.
zack writes "Observers.net has an interesting story about someone who registered the domain aolbeta.com after finding out it was available to purchase on August 20. The next day, it was somehow magically transfered to AOL's own registrar, and under their name. Since AOL is an ICANN accredited registrar, apparently they can have any domain they want. Do you really own your domain name?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AOL Stealing Domain Names? More

AOL Stealing Domain Names?

Comments Filter:
  • I just registered AOLstealsdomainnames.com ....guess I'll wait and see if I get any nasty letters......

  • Problems of shared registry (Score:5)

    by wesmills ( 18791 ) on Wednesday September 06, 2000 @05:11AM (#801720) Homepage
    We really need to put this on the front page, and not just for people who have found the YRO section.

    On-topic: One of the biggest fears I've had of a shared registration system is the ability to do exactly what AOL has apparently done .. Since there's apparently no user-level authentication built into the registry (why should there be? you don't own your name, according to the Big Boys), as evidenced by having to prove your identity to the registrar, then what's to prevent slipping someone who has the technical equivalent of "root" access a bit of cash to harass your competitors by swapping their names around?

    Unfortunately, there's probably not a way to fix this in the current system, as adding authentication for the individual domain name holder would most likely require a re-write of the existing shared registry system, and I think we can guess the chances of NSI&Cartel letting that go through.

    ---

  • ...then folks will simply start up their own "name lookup system" that is independent of the current DNS setup.

    Build it on freenet, submit an RFC that defines a new class of URL, say ihttp, iftp, or blabla.com.i, etc. for "independent" or whatever. There is no rule that precludes a complete "shadow" or parallel naming system from being constructed.

    You and I can do this today. Set up a new root server, using different ports than the defaults for named, patch bind to first check the alt-dns database servers and if the name is not found there, check the "real-dns".

    There are lots of possibilities and none of them are "regulated".

  • It's already happening. I found this link on Slashdot within the last month: http://www.opennic.unrated.net [unrated.net].
  • how this can happen? My friend registered a domain name a couple of years ago in his name, but used my address. I wanted to change all the information to my name but could not (Network Solutions is NOT very friendly, even though the hosting company offered to verify that I paid the bills for the registered name). Doesn't Network Solutions have some kind of protective service, that does not let others change the site's address? I remember that I had to email all this information to them, and a week later they emailed me back to confirm that it was indeed me...yadayaada.

    If this proves to be true, and you have proof that you have actually registered the site, why not try to get ICANN to change the ruling?

  • AOL doesn't have to go through NSI, Inc, not the courts, to change the domain. They are an approved registrar and as such have access to the root nameservers. Why bring the issue up in court, spending money on laywers and getting your name in the press when you can quietly steal the domain!

  • Come on, does anyone really think that the end result would have been any different if this had been handled through the formal dispute resolution system? It doesn't matter how reasonable the registrant's claim to the domain name is (they could even be someone with the name Albert Olbeta) you know that WIPO is going to side with the big corporate interest. I know damn well I'm never going to be able to register rogermoore.com even though that's my name just because there's someone much more famous with the same name.

  • Yep except if they're caught with their pants down by someone and you can prove that they stole it, then they're screwed. Although undoubtely their PR department would be like:

    "Stealing??? No...That's way to harsh! We were merely...uh...TESTING them to make sure that the names were suitable...yeah. Thats it! Testing them!"

  • > We really need to put this on the front page,
    > and not just for people who have found the YRO section.

    Keep it off the front page. Notice how few trolls, FP!s, and other BS is evident here? It's like a return to the pre-moderation-good-ole-days.
  • Just a question, but why would anyone WANT the "aolbeta.com" domain name? Is there some other acronym/group/entity that I don't know about that would make this make a bit more sense?

    Otherwise, it would seem that registering any aol*.* domain names would just be harrassing AOL (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, if they keep shit like this up).

  • I just registered AOLstealsdomainnames.com ....guess I'll wait and see if I get any nasty letters......
    Heh, you can tick off a bunch more people at the same time.

    Host DeCSS, link to DeCSS, host source and binaries for all the peer to peer file sharing programs you can find (Napster, Gnutella, etc), link to other sites with PtoP, link to sites hosting Metallica MP3s, host a web email service and encourage your users to have "questionable" conversations with your service, append "hot" keywords to email sent from your service. Hmm, let's see, MPAA, RIAA, Metallica, FBI, NSA. Yep, that's most of 'em. Go for it!

    Call us from jail. :)

    Louis Wu

    "Where do you want to go ...

  • I'm interested in this project, only i'm ignorant.

    can we just create a new name for existing protocols and then get computers to recognize them? I mean, is typing 'ihttp://' into my webbrowser a possibility, just waiting for execution?

    ...flic
  • i am hoping that the guy would use it to put up info. on the AOL linux client.. which would be cool for linux users at home who dont have dsl/cable.... and more importantly it would be
    nice for joe shmoe who wants AOL.
  • Um. The Albino Organization of Liberating Banana-Enema Therapies for All?

    Dunno...Just a guess.

  • Re:I'm missing something (Score:3)

    by JCCyC ( 179760 ) on Wednesday September 06, 2000 @10:36AM (#801733) Journal
    No. Army Of Lawyers Busy Engineering The Alibi.
  • ...the ihttp part any way, but the www.blablabla.upyours part is completely legit. ;-) It requires no changes to your user software at all. Only some nameservers need some config info.

    Otherwise, for the ihttp/iftp stuff you'd have to have a plugin or something to support the new naming/whatever protocol. Just like https, or ssh plugins for http or telnet programs. You can of course invent your own protocol, call it whatever you want, make a plugin, and hand it out. Whether people use it or not is another question ;-(

    Other than that, there might be some things you can do in the MIME setup stuff that would make it work. Perhaps you can try to add a setup to your mime/application junk that causes ihttp: to be handled just like http: or something like that. Could be fun to fool around and make up some funky URLs.
  • Personally I'd rather have all the crap comments, and have more people be aware of AOLs bad behaviour and the weaknesses of the domain name system.

    Personally I think it's a real shame the domain name system wasn't designed to be decentralised at the beginning of ARPANET - it would be make sense for a fault tolerant network, and would hve made it harder for corporate entities to get a stranglehold on domain names.

  • More stupid corporate hijinks. (Score:3)

    by nezroy ( 84641 ) on Wednesday September 06, 2000 @11:18AM (#801736) Homepage
    The really stupid part of this whole thing is that, given the current precedents as far as domain names go, AOL would have had no problem legally gaining rights to that domain name. AOL is one of those world recognizable trademarks, and they probably wouldn't have had to be in court for more than a week to get it legally transferred to their ownership. Not to mention the fact that a lot of people are still very sympathetic to a company's right to protect its trademark, and AOL's public image would not have been impacted much by this kind of trial (other than to piss off even more the people who already hate AOL anyway).
    NOW, however, they have gone and stolen the domain, bypassing the courts, and setting themselves up for a MAJOR PR disaster. If this manages to go to trial, I'm sure it will be a notorious battle that will seriously tarnish AOL's image. It's one thing to initiate a court proceeding to fight for your trademark -- it's quite another to be taken to court for what amounts to theft and a serious abuse of power. We probably couldn't have tied the noose any better for AOL than they've done for themselves! Now we just have to get this article up front on Slashdot where people can start reading it :)
  • If anything they should get their ICANN rights revoked. What does ICANN have to say about this anyway? I am sorry to be using Time Warner Cable Road Runner but it is the only high speed access in my area.
  • I didn't see anything in the article stating if Nickolas was actually billed for the domain registration? If he was, that credit card charge may be the start of an real nice evidence trail.
  • they have gone and stolen the domain, bypassing the courts, and setting themselves up for a MAJOR PR disaster. If this manages to go to trial, I'm sure it will be a notorious battle that will seriously tarnish AOL's image.

    Welcome! Have you been living in the United States long? This country is a corporatist state, where the law and the media bend for big corporations. There will be little mention of this incident in any "news" media. Do you remember AOLSearch.com? Same story, different year.


  • Well, yes, what do you expect? Its in their best interests to be able to do whatever they want with domain names, because then they can easily alter any aspects of the current scheme that don't result in them making money. Depending on how democratic they wind up being, and how the US government decides to get involved, ICANN might be able to change things, but I don't think its likely.


    -RickHunter

  • Nah, they can come up with something better than that. They've got Time-Warner's lawyers and PR department at their beck and call now, remember? It would probably turn into AOL steadfastly protecting capitalism and IP from the evil communist hackers who think information should be free to anyone who can break into a computer system to obtain it. :-P

    Of course, if we (meaning anyone who isn't AOL) are lucky, this COULD turn into a major enough PR disaster to get the US government to stop turning a blind eye to AOL's activities... But I don't think that's likely. The blinding glitter of gold and all that...


    -RickHunter
  • I guess you are pissed because you don't have broadband? I guess it did sound a little like I was bragging and I apoligize for that. My mom let me get it as long as I got my hair cut.
  • Think of it this way:
    You spend an hour of your time convincing your boss to give you a raise. More money for you, always a good thing!

    Now some other management type, not even your boss or boss's boss or anything, decides to change it back. Why? Because you'll be making more than him, shame on you. How? Well, everyone on that level has access to the payroll information of everyone, not just their own subordinates. Now imagine that your boss is as responsive as NSI and try convincing him to change it back. Ugh.

    --

  • That kind of logic frightens me. Keep things secret to avoid problems. That seems so...United States.

  • It can take up to 72 hours.... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I just registered a domain and was informed via e-mail that it can take up to 72 hours for the name to become officically registered.

    If I check with whois it comes up as available still, so be careful when you register to make sure that your details are there and not somebody elses.

    I assume if someone/entity has submitted that domain to the NIC before you then you're out of luck :-(. Would suck if you got billed for it too!

    StarTux
  • I bet AOL thinks nothing will come of this because they are dealing with a 16 year old, and minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. So all those agreements that he had to 'click thru' to originally obtain the domain are probably null and void also. He'll be hard pressed to find an attorney.
  • My personal opinion is all registrars should be independant of conflicts of interest in regard to top level domain registration!

    Let me explain. AOL for example is a ".com" company. They should be excluded from participation as a registrar for that very reason.

    Should a domain dispute come up involving AOL how can a fair dispute and resolution be conducted? It can't because AOL is a registrar themselves, with contacts and influence inside the registration process. And should anyone object it has to go to civil court for a final decision.

    So I would think registrars should be neutral, independant and do ONLY registration issues. I also believe companies like AOL, for example, shouldn't be allowed to own any portion of a registrar to avoid issues like what I describe above.

  • Does AOL know this person's a minor? ... I don't think so. :-\

    -aardvarko
    webmaster at aardvarko dot com
  • *roflmao*

    Maybe he'll get stuck in a jail with web access, so he can continue to administer his domain for the five years he's awaiting trial. :-)

    -- Talonius
  • and post the scores when the olympics start :)

    //rdj
  • If AOL can defend their trademark through direct action, and other non-Registrar companies have to go to the courts, then AOL have an unfair competitive advantage. We have laws to govern trademark disputes, and the WIPO is there to adjudicate, so AOL can sit and wait like everyone else, IMO.
  • ICANN should have a policy whereby a registrar *immediately* upon request to register a domain marks it as being in-process, effectively locking it for a short period (3-5 days?) such that another registrar can't swoop in and do it faster. -Nev

  • Yeah, but in this case, AOL probably realized they'd forgotten to grab something, and wanted it no matter what. They'd probably have grabbed it the instant that period expired.


    -RickHunter
  • If it were locked by whichever the originating registry was, then they'd have had to go through domain dispute procedures to get the domain, though. -Nev
  • I first discovered the article and posted it up on Geeknews. We have had alot to say about this issue. Personally I want to see AOL beaten over the head about this. Check it out <a href="http://geeknews.efront.com/cgi-bin/fooboard. pl?968196734>here</a>.
  • I believe only the minor or his parents can end a contract signed in this way. IANAL, but I watch a lot of Judge Judy [judgejudy.com].

  • What do you mean "if"? This is why we have the Open Root Server Confederation [open-rsc.org]

    And the protocol specifier has nothing to do with DNS lookup. You'd still use http:// whether you were going to frolic.org or free.tibet or google.search

  • Well, yes. Having a more responsible entity controlling the root nameservers would be an incredible boost. Maybe we should turn that over to Sealand? ;-)


    -RickHunter
  • That is precisely what AOL is doing now, probably with that very domain name.
  • Thanks for clearing that up for me my fellow American. NY,NY,USA
  • I bet AOL thinks nothing will come of this because they are dealing with a 16 year old, and minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. So all those agreements that he had to 'click thru' to originally obtain the domain are probably null and void also. He'll be hard pressed to find an attorney.
    I bet you think that minors are not allowed to enter into contracts :-P Sorry, just ain't so!

    A Minor may enter into any contract, but they have the right to nullify the contract until they are 18. If the other party is over 18, only the minor may back out of the contract. The minor may sue the other side for breach of contract if they back out, since they are bound by the contract. The minor can back out without breach of contract.

    To make this clear:

    • The kid could back out and not be sued if they return everything they recieved from the contract that is in their posession (The Domain Name).
    • AOL CANNOT back out or change the contract. Once the kid hit "OK" they are stuck. They can be sued for breach of contract.


    And, there cannot be a clause where they sign away their right to back out, or have specific penalties. It is null and void the second they say no.

    The only exception is if the contract is for a "necessary", such as a utility bill, etc.

    IANAL, but people tell me I should be one...
  • Let's take a reality check on how the domain-name registrars operate.

    You go to a registrar, and lookup "aolbeta". Then you request to register it. You may or may not succeed.

    Meanwhile, someone else goes to a different registrar, and looks up "aolbeta". It's not taken, so they request to register it. They may or may not succeed.

    It's called a race condition and it happens in all distributed databases of this nature. This doesn't mean AOL are throwing their weight around. They may simply have registered it before this other guy.

    The fact that AOL had it the very next day seems to bear with this analysis. Let's focus on real issues, not some guy who's peeved because he doesn't understand the domain name registration process.

  • There could very well be a "race condition" in the domain name system. In other words, due to insufficient locking, 2 entities can gain access to an exclusive resource, because the system does not efforce consistent, ordered access to the shared database. I.e. registrar one sees it available, and registar two sees it available, and then registrar one claims the domain, after registrar two thought it was available. registrar two will then blindly overwrite the domain record.

    Or it could still be maliciousness on the part of AOL. The courts very likely will decide which.

  • Just like I said in another post. Now that I think about that, if the above is the case, that is really sad. Something as critical as the domain name system should not have bugs like that! But it would not surprise me, given how many large, complex systems have serious bugs in them today...
  • Actually, the article states that another domain that happened to be aol*.. I believe it was African-American Online Leauge or something.. and whoosh.. CompuServe comes in and poof..

    Bastards.
  • This domain has a history..

    Thet previous owner was able to block AOL, but when it was transfered to Nick, AOL swooped in and took it.

    I ran a whois at CompuServe.. the domain came up as taken..

    Registered To:
    Insert Date:
    Expiration Date:

    AOL has now registerted it, but at the time this article was submitted to /., it was completely fucked.
  • Always one to want to see the whole story, who had the domain prior to 16 August? I see the .Net and .org variations were taken before then. I'd find it hard to believe that this name just hadn't been snatched up until August. Was the name really "available"? Did the previous owner give it up, or just fail to pay the bill? Was AOL the previous owner? I am one to believe in funny timing. I acquired a domain in 1998 that had "lapsed". Within a month I got a call from someone who wanted it, had been waiting for it to become available, I'd beat them to it. Another domain I registered a year later on a Friday got me an email the following Monday from a company who was "just about to register", but I'd beat them to it.
  • See subject. And yes, I -am- a clueless bastard. ;)

  • er, is my brain out of gear this morning?

    My friend registered a domain name a couple of years ago in his name, but used my address. I wanted to change all the information to my name but could not

    So the domain belongs to your `friend', doesn't it? Ergo, only your `friend' should be allowed to change its details...

    Or am I missing something dead subtle here? Like if I order a book (or a pizza) using my own money, but get it delivered to my office, the book (or pizza) mysteriously becomes the property of my employer, just because of the address?

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close