California Supremes To Decide If Domains Are Property 150
Richard W.M. Jones writes "Are domain names property like plots of land? The California
Supreme Court has been
asked to rule in the case of
sex.com which was
transferred using a forged letter to Network
Solutions.
Wired news also has the story."
If domains are not property, I want my money back (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If domains are not property, I want my money ba (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If domains are not property, I want my money ba (Score:1)
Welcome to VeriSign,
Here you may purchase the domain www.snakeoil.com, but this domain name in reality is irrelevant and pointless, but it may work temporarily with name servers and the like. Or at least until we are caught selling fictious ownership of name lookup rights as decided by the supreme court.
~S
Re:If domains are not property, I want my money ba (Score:4, Insightful)
There not really selling a domain name, you can't take it away with you i.e. it's useless without a TLD entry.
I can run slashdot.org on my home inntranet and even provide alternade DNS services if I want, no-one 'owns' slashdot.org.
Re:If domains are not property, I want my money ba (Score:1)
Re:If domains are not property, I want my money ba (Score:2)
Me an a group of friends could setup our own domain registiry, it would only work for people who pointed to it.
I beleive that there are several free 'underground' domain name registries about. All you have to do is point to them.
Re:If domains are not property, I want my money ba (Score:2)
I agree, there would be havoc, but I have no problem with alternate DNS systems existing. If the advantages are great enough, the competing system will win and the lesser will die out.
I may not agree that Alternic [alternic.org] and the other "alternative DNS" systems out there are the better ones, but by their existence they are not depriving anyone of anything.
Re:If domains are not property, I want my money ba (Score:2)
It is very easy to have multiple DNS servers. Packets would not get lost of fragment because of another server out there. Once your computer found one em the DNS servers it would use that address... no mulitple data streams.
If you want to change your DNS server go for it. If you have a modem your computer probably gets the address automatically in which case you need to find the setting for your DNS server and put your own in there. If you have a broadband connection you may have already put in whatever your ISP told you for your DNS server or like a dialup modem it is done automatically. Either way you can change the setting very easily even under windows.
In my opinion you have no right to own and domain. A company is simply providing a service to those who ask for it to find a web server connected to a certain phrase. The problem with this is that there is basically one choice for your DNS server. The monopoly that has grown has killed anything fair. Because most people think that there is only one domain of a certain phrase available many people get in trouble when a company assumes that they are falsly claiming to be them or related to them. Of course a company like Microsoft is really going to want to obtain the microsoft.com domain from the server most people will use. If someone else got it then many people looking for Microsoft would find something else. This wouldn't be a problem if there was some competition or fair standards out there but instead we have many problems from people not understanding the system. Its not that hard but most people never have a chance to learn how the internet REALLY works.
Re:If domains are not property, I want my money ba (Score:2, Interesting)
I run my own DNS server, so they aren't selling me that.
I can take it to another provider.
A good analogy is that they are selling me an easy to remember phone number, or perhaps a listing in a very popular business directory.
If someone writes to the telephone company, forging a letter saying that I want to give up my 800-sex-com number, I have a good right to be annoyed if the telephone company believes the letter and doesn't even bother to make a follow-up call to me.
Rich.
Re:If domains are not property, I want my money ba (Score:1)
Right, simple version assuming no cache.
I look up you.com
a request is sent to
it returns the NS you registered with
I use this NS record (which should point to your DNS server) to lookup the A or MX or watever record for the you.com domain.
Verisign (.com) hold a record on there name server for you.com that points to you name server.
Re:If domains are not property, I want my money ba (Score:3, Interesting)
You answered your own question. If domain names aren't property, Verisign is still selling a service.
For example, imagine if you pay me $10 to stand on a street corner for an hour and tell anyone who asks about Soporific that his Slashdot uid is 595477. 5 people come up and ask about you, and I answer them all. There's no property I've sold there (and I certainly have no control over your Slashdot handle or its uid), but I've still performed a service.
Now imagine you pay $70 to Verisign so that during the next two years, when anyone asks about soporific.com, they tell those people what the IP addresses for some DNS servers that happen to answer questions about soporific.com.
Two fairly similar services, which don't require the notion of property to work. Of course all that being said, I do believe that domain names are a sort of property. It's just that Verisign's legitimacy isn't predicated on them having to be property.
Re:If domains are not property, I want my money ba (Score:5, Insightful)
Its a rental (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Its a lease (Score:3, Interesting)
I would say a domain is a property, and should be considered the same as a highstreet store (a mall shopfront if you prefer). The "owner" of the shop has leased the property, and for all reasonable purposes can treat it as if they own it. With a bricks&mortars lease you know when you've been evicted, but when you lose your domain, the first you know of it may be when people stop coming into your store.
The agreement between you and the registrar is that they will direct people to your web site, and will continue to do so until your agreement ends or you tell them otherwise. Anything else is a breach of the agreement on their part. If a they act on a letter from a 3rd party saying "I now own this site, give it to me" then that's a breach of their agreement with you. Whether the 3rd party committed fraud is between the registrar and the 3rd party - now that's a court case I would like to see, I'm sure even judges like to see a nice farce now and then!
Re:Its a rental (Score:1)
It's property alright... (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO, it's interesting because it is very hard to specifically categorize domains as property in the sense of the word. It's intangible and value (or price if you prefer to put it that way) differ for every single domain. In the past the value of domain names are judged by the popularity of the site using the name, catchiness of the name, and whether the name is associated with any popular goods or services.
I'll be keeping a watch on this one.
Re:It's property alright... (Score:1, Interesting)
My reasoning is this: when finding a place to build a building you want to attract people/customers to, you choose a plot of land that is located so the people you want to attract can get to it easily. But if you choose a bad location (let's say you're building a restaurant and you decide to place it in the middle of a forest), nobody will be able to find it or know about it without you doing some advertising.
Similarly, when you choose a domain name to build a website, you are choosing something that will make your website easy to get to and easy to remember (ie. something short, to the point). If you choose a bad domain name (like 123456myecommercesite654321.com), people will have a hard time remembering it and probably won't be able to find it unless it is linked to somewhere.
Another interesting thing (pertaining to the sex.com case as well): lets say you were building that restaurant and you built it in the center of the busiest place in your city. You wouldn't have to do much advertising since people would run into it just by chance. With a domain like sex.com, the same thing will happen since I'm very sure a lot of people visit the site by just typing 'sex' or 'sex.com' in their browser's address bar.
Hm. Hopefully that made some sense
Re:It's property alright... (Score:2)
That said we come to this line:
I would say real-estate type of property.
I have seen the argument made that Real Estate is not completely your property, in that if you stop paying taxes on it, the government comes and takes it away from you. Taxes being a sort of rent paid to the government.
I have to think on this one. My brain cells hurt when I don't have enough coffee in the morning. [d'oh!]
Re:It's property alright... (Score:1)
What kind of property is money? (Score:3, Interesting)
But last time I checked, about 98% of money exists only as bits in a computer somewhere. Not paper currency or anything, just bits.
Which is basically what domain names are. Bits in a computer. So it seems to stand to reason that domain names are regular ol' property.
Re:What kind of property is money? (Score:2)
Yes, but you can convert those bits in your account on the bank's mainframe into cold, hard, cash by making a withdrawal transaction. Money is real property, i.o.w. it is or can be made tangible.
Domains are not real property. You can't convert a domain into something you can hold in your hand.
Just like real property... (Score:2)
This is the same for _real_ property too. An acre in Manhatten and an acre in the middle of Arizona will not have the same price. The value of the element and its variability of value is not a reason to not classify it as property.
It isn't intellectual property as it represents an artefact.
Re:It's property alright... (Score:1)
I'm not comfortable with the legislative habit of trying to fit every new technology into old ways of thinking. When a precedent gets obviously shattered, it's time to think in a new way.
But, for the sake of gross conceptualization, let's say you've started your very own town in Old America. Towns have deeds. And for value we're talking about traffic flow between towns and "proximity" to other towns, suburbs, shops, industry, resources. But web proximity is hyperdimensional, and our 2-d analogy is dead like disco.
Taxing domains makes absolutely no sense. Any number of people could be associated with a domain and making money via traffic that has an unknown level of association with it. Taxing individual pages... ewww. Hopefully that idea will hurt their heads for a long time.
There is a property precedent to protect the legacy of work put into building a web name like slashdot, for example. Criminalization of domain swiping as theft, not just fraud, seems to fit with what actually happens to the victim- either theft or destruction of property.
Some clarifications... (Score:4, Insightful)
Attorneys said it typically takes the California Supreme Court about three months to decide whether to hear a case. A ruling could take more than a year.
Second, this is not an issue of whether domain names are property, but whether they're tangible property - the kind to which "traditional property conversion laws should apply".
The appeals court seems to be bouncing this to the CSC because they're afraid of laying down a precedent in this area. Too much of a hot-button issue, I suppose.
not really (Score:3)
Not quite, the question here is whether the contract rights to the domain name -- which are undoubtedly personal property rights -- are subject to a tort of conversion under California law when interfered with by another person.
the question isn't nearly so interesting -- it isn't so much about domain names and property as it is about how california law treats intangibles.
Good news, bad news? (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, this could result in more difficulties for owners of domain names that are related to trademarked names. Stronger protection could result in more support for the trademark owner.
As usual, either way, the lawyers win.
Patrick
Ancient Anguish [anguish.org]: Free, fun, open-ended.
Re:Good news, bad news? (Score:1)
With domain names such as
A wake up call (Score:2, Insightful)
Why Network Solutions is a defendant (Score:5, Funny)
IANAL, but it looks like the claim against Network Solutions is that they changed the ownership after recieving a letter from a random third party saying essentially "He sold it to me, give it so me". The letter should have been ignored. Only the OWNER of the domain can tell Network Solutions to transfer the ownership.
The judge commented in a footnote:
It's a bit as if Judge Reinhardt sent a letter to the DMV saying, "Judge Kozinski wants you to transfer title to his Lamborghini to me. He'd write to you himself, but he's out of stamps."
-
That's why... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet NSI, through their unreaonable conduct, transferred the domain name anyway. Breach of contract? Sure. Conversion? That's the issue.
the reason why NSI was a defendant is that they were there. The plaintiff will NEVER collect a cent against the judgment proof individual, who is a big sleaze. NSI, or varisign, on the other hand is quite collectible.
What a SLEAZE. (Score:1)
Re:What a SLEAZE. (Score:2)
You might want to talk to the NineNine guy [slashdot.org] or the autopr0n guy [slashdot.org] about that.
We don't own domain names (Score:1)
While I do think that it is good that courts are realizing that ownership of things such as domain names needs to be addressed, I think that at the end of the day, there is really now way to say we can "own" the service. Also the fact that it is sex.com does not help matters much. I think that resonably the best ruling that could be hoped for is that the plaintiff incurred financial losses due to fraud.
IANAL btw.
Re:We don't own domain names (Score:1)
*slaps self*
but I think what I intended to say was still clear.
I think you put it a little better than I did. I'm not sure though if it would be as much a patent as a copyright though.
hmm
not property (Score:2, Interesting)
For instance General Motors owns the name "General Motors" and we cannot use it for any purpose, including as a domain name (at least under US copyright law, which is generally enforced in any industrialized country).
Re:not property (Score:2)
If a company were to start up and call itself General Motors, and manufactured electric motors, General Motors (the motor vehicle company) would have no right whatsoever to demand use of the domain, let alone sue for use of a trademark. If General Motors (motor vehicle company) were then to start manufacturing electric motors, they would be in breach of trademark laws if they sold them under the name General Motors. Funny old world, but still.
Trade marks are exactly that, and only apply within that particular trade. I could start making Microsoft toilet paper if I wanted to, and Bill G would have no comeback whatsoever.
Re:not property (Score:1, Funny)
Re:not property (Score:1)
Electric motors is probably a product which General Motors sells somewhere, or that a "reasonable' person would assume that that they would sell.
Re:not property (Score:2)
Why a property case? (Score:5, Insightful)
As I understand it, the domain name was obtained using forgery and other fraudulent methods. Does it even matter whether the domain name is property?
The type of property affects recovery methods... (Score:4, Interesting)
Property (Score:1, Insightful)
By hoaxing a letter to transfer the domain, they aren't really stealing an untangible domain, because that matters very little. He is in fact stealing the people browisng to the site. Almost as if someone faked diversion signs to a shop that led to a different shop in the end.
It is theft, and the penalty should be... (Score:2)
Re:It is theft, and the penalty should be... (Score:2)
Secondly, I believe that the only "worth" a domain name has is the value that you built it up to. The original "lessor" got it for free, just kind-of sat on it for nearly two years, and then the speculation in domain name was just beginning. (Even in 1996 when it was "stolen" domain name registrations were almost completely non-speculative; look at the way Proctor and Gamble was being ridiculed for registering "diahrea.com" and "femininehygiene.com" in 1995. In retrospect it's still funny :-) )
Of course, I believe the guy who hijacked the domain did something wrong. But the "value" of the domain name shouldn't relate to how wrong it was - I think all hijackings are equally wrong, whether they're of a big corporate name or sex.com or some guy's personal domain with pictures of his wife and cats.
Property (Score:1)
IMHO, the most similar item to a domain name in the physical world would be the humble PostOffice Box - you rent it, and it redirects traffic (or at least lets you pick it up in person) to an address (IP address or physical) of your choice.
Why don't they think of domain names like that? It makes things much simpler IMHO!
David
That's not what this case is about . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Conversion is a theft-tort related to the taking and use of personal property of another, even if the property is later returned. An example might be joyriding your car, returning it in perfect condition to the place you were.
It is an old tort, steeped in common law. At common law, it did not apply to anything but physical, tangible personal property. Then came the bank note cases, and the bond cases and the stock cases -- here, where only paper was converted, the argument is that the damages were the value of the paper (the personal property that was tangible) rather than the value of the instrument (the intangible obligation represented by the property).
Under the old rules, conversion didn't give a remedy for the conversion of a contract right or other intangible. Most states have poked holes in that, primarily in negotiable instrument cases. The question is whether California permits an action for conversion for the imposition on the contract rights of another, in this case, a domain name.
The facts entailed the obviously fraudulent taking of a domain name and Varisign's failure to make a single phone call, taking a ridiculous (laughable) forgery instead. The jury found conversion, among other things, and a massive judgment -- and now the case is on appeal.
Of course it is a massive judgment -- the domain is sex.com!
Turning justice into litigation for profit (Score:2)
The utterly unimportant, dangerous, and despicable thing for ordinary mortals in this case is that because of the subsequent litigation for damages, the case goes on and on forever to the benefit of lawyers' pockets and judges' careers, while the original party is enticed to keep feeding the legal system by the carrot of millions in damages for doing nothing productive at all.
It's this issue of damages that so utterly distorts the fabric of modern life in countless ways, away from productive endeavours that actually create things and into litigation for profit.
Open your eyes people to the motivating forces behind patents, trademarks and other restraints on progress in the modern world, and see beyond the dollar signs. Beneath a shallow surface veneer in which it delivers useful and commonsense justice, there lurks a legal monster that creates and carefully encourages most of our daily problems in the first world.
Re:Turning justice into litigation for profit (Score:2)
Open your eyes people to the motivating forces behind patents, trademarks and other restraints on progress in the modern world, and see beyond the dollar signs. Beneath a shallow surface veneer in which it delivers useful and commonsense justice, there lurks a legal monster that creates and carefully encourages most of our daily problems in the first world.
Our civil litigation system is the worst in the world -- until you compare it to the consequences. It is certainly reasonable to suggest that legal systems cause problems, perhaps even "most of our daily problems in the first world," but this is naive. I think it is far more responsible and likely that it is the daily problems in the first world that have led to our legal system. It is litigants, not lawyers, who bring the lawsuits, and they bring them, for the most part, because they have been wronged.
Adopt this poster's variaation, and reduce the cost of engaging in piracy of a domain name through fraud is to zero (the worst thing happening to you being that you don't get to keep the domain name you stole through fraud), and NSI has zero incentive to actually check and assure a responsible effort (which historically has meant that NSI does NOTHING to improve a bad situation), and what you have is no free market at all, just a have and have nots world where things are taken at will by those who abuse the system -- often with no downside at all.
Without compensatory damages, there would be no downside to enagage in wrongdoing and no downside to try to keep wrongdoing from occurring, indeed, all the incentives would be to the contrary.
Re:Turning justice into litigation for profit (Score:3, Insightful)
Whereas what we have at present is a have and have nots world where things are taken at will by those with money to pay lawyers through the incentive of litigation for profit.
Both alternatives are bad, but the first is in general only taken up by "bad" people (in the sense of anti-social) and hence is generally frowned upon and hence is somewhat self-limiting.
In contrast, the second is painted as seeking justice despite going orders of magnitude too far in terms of financial redress, and since the benefit is obtained via the legal system, the practice is given a sheen of respectibility. The whole thing is inherently questionable (and often questioned), yet it continues to gain ground despite the distortions it creates in so many areas --- we tend to discuss mainly how the disease affects "intellectual property", patents and trademarks here on Slashdot, but of course the effect is vastly wider than that.
Without compensatory damages, there would be no downside to enagage in wrongdoing
And with that sledgehammer argument (which is valid) you justify seeking 65 million in damages for stealing a domain? There's the problem displayed in glowing neon lights.
Re:Turning justice into litigation for profit (Score:3, Insightful)
All meaningful experience to the contrary. Having dealt with businesses working in less law-centric nations, I can assure you that anti-social commercial conduct, at least, is not at all self-limiting. To the contrary, graft and worse simply becomes part of the culture. Moreover, modern products are, and have become, far safer in a world of negligence and products liability.
The whole thing is inherently questionable (and often questioned), yet it continues to gain ground despite the distortions it creates in so many areas --- we tend to discuss mainly how the disease affects "intellectual property", patents and trademarks here on Slashdot, but of course the effect is vastly wider than that.
This is probably because redress for meaningful harm is more important to society than the "questions" you raise. Commerce depends upon the enforceability of contracts, and if damages were not available, no meaningfully enforceable promises would exist. Likewise with real damages caused due to negligence -- the idea is to give incentive to do the right thing, and discincentive to fail. Your trust in avoiding public scrutiny for loss of face isn't terribly reliable -- even in nations where social face is considered tremendously important.
And with that sledgehammer argument (which is valid) you justify seeking 65 million in damages for stealing a domain? There's the problem displayed in glowing neon lights.
If you say so. It does seem like a lot of money to me, but I have several clients who would suffer millions of dollars of actual damage a day in lost revenues if they were torn from the internet. I don't know the facts of the case, but I do know that two fairly well-monied entities litigated (in this case a far bigger defendant than plaintiff) the question of damages, and that the verdict was also subject to post-trial review, which did not reduce the verdict. It might be more reasonable than you think.
Conversion in California Law, and who pays (Score:3, Informative)
Common law on conversion originally only applied to tangible property - not just real estate, but horses and cooking pots and later cars and computers - but not to intangibles. As Werdna says, in most states that's changed. Kozinski argues, and IANAL but it looked convincing to me, that California law has really settled the issue solidly that conversion can apply to intangibles, or at least to intangibles that have some connection to tangibles like paper, so there's no issue here.
The big deal for Verisign is that conversion is a tort, and since they lost, they have to pay up, and since Cohen, who actually ripped off the domain name, has skipped out of the country and hidden or spent most of the money, they may have to pay the whole $65 million to Kremen and try to get it back from Cohen if they can. They already lost the part about giving back the domain name, but that didn't bother them so much.
The amount of money actually is a bit surprising - this case started in 1995, before the Boom, before business.com sold for $150K in 1997, and before Altavista.com sold for $3M in 1998. The plaintiff Kremen had registered the name, but hadn't actually used it for anything yet and didn't know it was gone for about 8 months. Meanwhile, Cohen, who had ripped it off, had figured out how to turn it into a highly profitable business, and after several years of litigation, he'd made a big enough pile of money on it that the court awarded the plaintiff $65M as well as giving him the name back (that was either ~$20M in actual damages and ~$40M in punitive damages, or maybe the other way around.) He and Verisign appealed, in Cohen's case partly because he said the judgement was way out of line for an asset was only worth so much because he'd built it up himself, and in September 2002, the court handed him his ass for even trying to appeal because he'd fled and hidden the money, and they told Verisign to give Kremen the name back, but the conversion issue is still not decided, so Verisign doesn't know how much of it they'll have to pay.
Estate settlements and domain names (Score:5, Interesting)
The Bad Part... (Score:4, Insightful)
Licensing vs property... IMHO (Score:4, Insightful)
These rents are managed by organisations (companies in some countries though that could be non-profit orgs).
Now, you don't own a name, you just have rented its excusivity for some time.
If it's being hijacked, then your exclusivity has been infringed.
Now, the names are to be used on a first come first served basis which also includes the priority to renew an existing domain...
Finally, if domain names were properties, then they'd be bought forever, until then these rather seem to be licensed... or rented if you prefer.
Re:Licensing vs property... IMHO (Score:2)
Let's follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. If you are only renting the use of the name, the "seller" of the service has the right to not renew the contract or change the price based on the popularity of the domain name. Network Solutions could tell Time magazine that they are now charging $10,000 per year instead of the $35 we charged you last year.
Domain names are similar to trademarks. Web site owners may invest a lot of money promoting their web sites. As it become more valuable, the registars can extort more money from the web site owners. This "extra value" is not based on anything the registrar did; but, what the domain holder did.
Re:Licensing vs property... IMHO (Score:1)
It depends on the contract itself : it seems that if the w3 grants the registrars the right to decide how much they'll bill their clients, they however seem to want them to stick to the "prioritary renewal" policy.
After all a registrar rents from the public organisation the amount of names it can "sell" in return.
Now, if they just prevent their clients to renew their own domains, then it is either "cybersquatting" or an infringment to the "first come first served" rule.
Sex.com stolen? (Score:2, Funny)
I wouldn't mind but ... (Score:1)
I wouldn't mind this topic going through the court system, but the California's 9th District Court gives me that queezy feeling in my gut. They've had several rulings overturned which means this issue could get mired down as it propogates upwards towards the U.S. Supreme Court.
That not being a lawyer, I'm wondering if we're not opening up a whole new can of whoop-you-know-what on ourselves by bringing property law, and lawyers into this game. You know, the whole pandora's box scenario only more expensive without any payout us tech types other than grief.
Re:Whoop-you-know-what? (Score:2)
California's 9th... (Score:1, Interesting)
Umm, it isn't the 9th District Court or even the 9th Circuit Court. It is California's Supreme Court. If you get your news from Faux or some of the other far right lunatics, they will slander the 9th as being ultra liberal but it isn't true and their reversal rate is not much different than any other court on the Federal Circuit.
In this case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals kicked the question to the California Supreme Court. If the California Supreme Court decides to answer it, then the answer goes back to the 9th Circuit which will give then kick it back to the Federal District Court with what amounts to instructions to 'do what the California Supremes said.'
Since this is a state law question, the California Supreme Court is the final arbiter. The US Supreme Court cannot overrule the California Supreme Court on a question of California state law. Unless of course they are willing to commit a constitional coup like when they told the Florida Supreme Court what Florida law on elections should be.
The ruling on this one will be interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
If on the other hand the court decides that the domains are property, then we get into an interesting grey area of trespass etc.
IANAL, but I would guess that the reason the court was asked to sort out this distinction is that the original owner needs to be able to work out whether they are arguing about theft of property by deception, or something else if it is a service. It's like the distinction if someone steals your cable box vs someone hooks into your service.
Re:The ruling on this one will be interesting (Score:2)
Show me one ad where any registrar has ever claimed this.
If you were BUYING PROPERTY, you would never have to renew your registration, would you? Buying is a one-time transaction.
Domain name law in other instances...? (Score:4, Insightful)
In the UK, I believe there was a case where someone had legitimately bought www.marks-and-spencer.co.uk (Marks & Spencer is a department store chain, for those who don't know). However, Marks & Spencer decided that they wanted the name, filed legal action and got the name.
The question is, though, was this legitimate? Arguably, if the initial owner of the site was attempting to profit from the name, or pass off as the real thing, then M&S should inherit the name. However, if they aren't doing such actions which are illegal under current law, there is no reason why the name should be transferred to M&S.
Slightly off-topic perhaps, but it raises a lot more interesting questions. In my opinion, standard law should cover this kind of situation - what would happen if someone managed to steal a profitable company's telephone number?
Re:Domain name law in other instances...? (Score:2)
Marks & Spencer is kind of different. With most trademarked names where the owner was sitting on it or using it to run a site similar to what the trademarked name would run, presume Marks & Spencer is trademarked, they have been awarding the domain name to the trademark owner. Sex is probably mot a trademarked name.
Otherwise it has been rather interesting cases, for thoses look at cases with ajax.com/ajax.org(cleaning chemical) veronica.com/veronica.org(archie comics character) where thoses were the names of the owners and they wanted to put up thier own site not related to the product. In thoses kind of cases the original owner has won or come to some sort of agreement.
Your phone number idea is probably the closest to this or maybe license plates, the only case I can recall is the suit Unix System LAbs had with berkly software where berkley software had a number like its-unix, and that they just changed thier number when sued. I would think thier have been similar law suits with phone number.
Insightful? Nope - Very Wrong (Score:2)
Almost totally wrong. They - a company called "One in a Million" - did register marksandspencer.co.uk. They also registered buckinghampalace.org, burgerking.co.uk, thetimes.co.uk, mcdonalds.co.uk, and assorted others. They then tried to extort money from these organisations for sell them the names, which is when the scam became illegal. See The BBC website [bbc.co.uk] for further details.
Re:Domain name law in other instances...? (Score:2)
What I'd like to know is, in a case like this: Say I registered one of these first and then they decided they wanted it. Would I have been forced to give it to them?
I'm waiting until their registration comes up for renewal and hoping one of them will conveniently forget about it.
Re:Domain name law in other instances...? (Score:2)
Perhaps a little OT, but I've got karma to burn...
what would happen if someone managed to steal a profitable company's telephone number?This actually happened to me, though not in the manner that you might think. I've moved twice, and it turns out that the phone company forwarded the phone number of a successful business to my new number, rather than forwarding my old number. The really embarassing thing is that they did it twice - even though my phone number changed two times, I was still getting calls for the same business.
Quite frankly, it would get annoying to get calls for someone's business, and after a while, I complained to the phone company. Nothing was done - we still get the occasional call for "Just Name It For Kids". But I can't imagine the hassle that the business owner has gone through - they've had their business phone number forwarded at least twice to a residence. Granted, it wasn't stolen, but the effect is virtually the same - their customers can no longer get in contact with them, and they'll have to advertise (spend $) to let people know their new number.
There's been *lots* of discussion about this :-) (Score:2)
In the Marks-and-Spencer.co.uk case, that was a clear attempt at ripping off somebody's name, and there was no legitimacy about it. But there are lots of cases where Example Industries in New York and Example Pizza Shoppe in California both want to be example.com, or where two different unrelated Example Pizza Shoppes in different countries want to be example.com, or where Fred Example has been using example.com for his home website since 1992 and Example MegaConglomerate wants to take the name, and one of their arguments for why it should belong to them was that Fred's web page has a picture of his dog on it and They Sell Dogfood so he's obviously trying to infringe their trademark.
And then of course there was EToys trying to steal EToy.com's [slashdot.org] web site, claiming it was trademark dilution and was a mean nasty offensive art-project site that might upset people who were looking for etoys.com, when in fact EToy.com had existed for several years before EToys was even founded as a company.
In the sex.com case, standard law has mostly covered the situation, but two of the Federal Appeals Court judges think that there may be some issues in Califonia law that affect whether Verisign is liable for damages in this case or whether they only have to give the original owner the name back and only the guy who ripped it off is liable.
What about Phone Numbers ? (Score:4, Insightful)
This for me is a direct link with domain names. If previous cases have covered phone number theft or transfer then surely they will be taken into consideration. After all a phone number is associated with a person or company rather than a physical location, you move house and you can often take your number with you, move out of the same TLA or sub-domain (area code) and you have to get a new number.
As ever with the internet, this isn't actually new, but the lawyers will make money arguing that it is.
Re:What about Phone Numbers ? (Score:1)
My brothers a post man, and reciently one of the houses he delivers to changed it's name to that of the house next door.
In the UK you must inform the post office if you change the name of your house (maybe seek permission), but no-one ever bothers and no-one is ever prosicuted.
Re:What about Phone Numbers ? (Score:2)
Huh? You Brits name your houses? Does it still have a street address (yaknow, 123 Boing Lane?)
Re:What about Phone Numbers ? (Score:1)
Re:What about Phone Numbers ? (Score:2)
I've never seen a place that had just a name -- they've all got a street address..
Re:What about Phone Numbers ? (Score:2)
What are farms and the like called, do they have a number?
Most houses outside large towns or not in block housing have names not numbers. I've never lived in a 'town' and have no plans to either.
Maybe it's a townie, yocal thing?
Re:What about Phone Numbers ? (Score:2)
Farms, etc. still have addresses. Most/all are off of FM or RR (FM = Farm to Market, RR = Ranch Road). Streets (obviously) are sectioned off into blocks. Since farmhouses arent't usually directly on the street, the mailbox placement likely determines the farmhouse's street address. Yes, farms/ranches probably have names (funny, living in Texas I've not seen many but I live in the city). Places like this still have street addresses. I imagine it has to do with property taxes, ability for postal carriers to deliver to the correct place, etc.
Rentals and property (Score:1)
Saying it is a rental rather than property isn't even begging the question. When you rent something, you are buying a temporary property right. You rent the possessory right to be in or use the property and that right generally means that you can exclude all others. For example, if you rent an apartment and your landlord decides to sleep over, you can call the police and have him arrested for trespassing even though he 'owns' the property.
To a lawyer, property is not land and houses. It is a bundle of rights that include the right to possess now, the right to possess in the future, the right to give it away, the right to exclude others, etc. An owner's ability to rent, sell or give away or otherwise divide up those rights is limited only by her lawyer's imagination and, sometimes, local law. One example of a limit is the law's prohibition (outside of Nevada) on renting out one's property right in one's own bodily orifices for someone else's sexual gratification. I can see a policy reason for banning that kind of property transaction but there is no good reason not to treat sex.com and any other domain name as traditional property.
If it was made to be like property (Score:1)
Joke-ready Name (Score:3, Funny)
But while reading the pdf [uscourts.gov], I noticed that the name of the guy who is the plaintif in this sex.com lawsuit is "Gary Kremen."
Oh, the jokes...
information cannot be owned (Score:2)
Domains are not property, however the hardware and service or running this software can be property.
Ultimately domains are not ownable, but if you pay to have exclusive use of a domain for a certain amount of time, while you dont own the domain you should be able to own commercial use over it.
‘Too Much to Bear’ (Score:1)
Certified? (Score:2)
"The decisions of the California appellate courts provide no controlling precedent regarding the certified question, the answer to which may be determinative of this appeal. We respectfully request that the California Supreme Court answer the certified question presented below. We acknowledge that your Court may decide to reformulate the question, and our phrasing of the issue is not intended to restrict your Court's consideration of the case. We agree to follow the answer provided by the California Supreme Court. We invoke the certification process only after careful consideration and do not do so lightly. The certification procedure is reserved for state law questions that present significant issues, including those with important public policy ramifications, and that have not yet been resolved by the state courts."
The impression I get is that this reference to "certified" can be understood as "answering the question specifically and directly so that it may be settled once and for all," but that is just a guess because (you guessed it) IANAL. Can a Slashdotter who is a lawyer provide a bit of detail on this concept of "certified?"
Will They Accept? (Score:2)
Kremen said he wasn't looking forward to the prospect of more legal bills if the case winds up in the California Supreme Court but was pleased with Friday's decision.
"They clearly think this is a really important issue for Californians, and I think they're just trying to highlight that to make sure they get it absolutely right," he said.
But as Alex Kozinski, the lone dissenting judge in the case pointed out, there's no guarantee the state's high court will take the case. In his dissent, Kozinski noted that the state's high court has turned down a third of such requests submitted by the federal appeals court, a record he attributed to the California judges' already formidable caseload.
I'm hesitant to second-guess a federal judge in his assessment here, but perhaps the reason he cites for them not taking this case is precisely why they will. If they have a significant caseload and they keep getting this request, perhaps their attitude is "oh lets just get this over with."
Great ... (Score:1, Redundant)
IMHO (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes absolutely Domains are Property (Score:2)
Re:Yes absolutely Domains are Property (Score:2)
There shouldn't be a "grace period" if/when the registration expires it should go back in the pool. If someone owns a domain name and aren't responding to the emails about the upcoming expiration (I don't own a domain, but assume that the registrar sends out messages letting you know the reg is about to expire and giving you options to re-register) then why should the domain go on hold, especially if someone else is interested in purchasing it?
Abandonment should be defined as a registration that expires after repeated attempts to contact the owner for re-registration. Even if you don't do anything with a particular domain name, if you've paid for it, it should remain registered. Once that expires, put it back as available.
Re:Yes absolutely Domains are Property (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes absolutely Domains are Property (Score:2)
Yes, with mortgages you get a notice and a grace period. However, don't pay the mortgage long enough and the bank will repo the property. Same with the domain name -- you pay for it for a period of time. When that expires, if you don't pay it goes to someone else (or back in the pool).
Your friend that almost lost his domain - that's his fault. Its upto him to make sure that his registrar has the correct info and its upto him to keep an eye on when its about to expire. Ideally, the registrar should initiate getting the domain re-registered (and it sounds like they were trying) however, if the information is incorrect should they waste the manpower to inform him that his record is about to expire? Would he be willing to pay them for their effort? Shouldn't he be obligated to?
Re:Yes absolutely Domains are Property (Score:2)
Property is property...and perhaps the defination of domain names as property needs to be refined so they are considered the same as "real estate"...The Domain registration fees are the same as paying your taxes if you look at it that way. Well actually I do have utilities sent to my domain names, internet access is that utility. Electricity is needd to make the domain name exist on the internet. The world really needs to break out of the property is a physical thing mind set. I own my domain name its mine...I pay utilities and registration fees as upkeep on that property. Truthfully thus far is have kept my real view in a minimalist perspective. My true feelings are that once you register a name it should be yours for all time. if someone else wants it they have to negotiate with you for it. If you don't pay your internet fees it becomes unavailable period. However I don't believe in domain squating either if you have a domain name you are obligated to do sometihng with it over time and purchasing domain names for the purposes of selling them to cash in on them is wrong. Of course from your replys I suspect thats probably counter to your view of the world.
Yes, with mortgages you get a notice and a grace period. However, don't pay the mortgage long enough and the bank will repo the property. Same with the domain name -- you pay for it for a period of time. When that expires, if you don't pay it goes to someone else (or back in the pool).
And I completely agree, I just think your missing the point that Domain Names are property just like a house...and should be treated the same way. If I don't pay my mortgage/taxes they can take it away from me. However if I miss a payment I should get a chance to make restitution, not loose the property immediately. In fact usually that restitution comes with a late fee and if the registrar wants to charge as late fee because I got my payment in late thats fine. I personally monitor my domain names like someone with OCD becuase I can never remember the damn dates and money has been tight so i can't afford to make long term renewals.
Your friend that almost lost his domain - that's his fault. Its upto him to make sure that his registrar has the correct info and its upto him to keep an eye on when its about to expire. Ideally, the registrar should initiate getting the domain re-registered (and it sounds like they were trying) however, (1)if the information is incorrect should they waste the manpower to inform him that his record is about to expire? 2. Would he be willing to pay them for their effort? 3. Shouldn't he be obligated to?
Yep he's and idiot no arguement there.
as for your questions...
1. They should make a best effort thats what the registration fees are funding in my point of view.
At the very least an email to root, postmaster, hostmaster @ domainname when things are getting tight.
2.The effort is already paid for registrations pay for the day to day administration overhead of being a registrar.
3. gain as I siad earlier I have no probalem with the concept of paying a late fee if your late with the payment.
One final comment I have my domains with 3 registars currently...most of the world is still stuck with Network Solutions...they bay far have the worst systems for accoplishing anything related to my domains. Much of the reason my friend had so much trouble is because he onlonger lived at the address or had the email that his domain was orginally registered with...this made it nearly immpossible to reregister his domain because their systems depended on that information. it took him over a week to fix these problems before he could deal with the impending doom...becuase they have zero customer service. They have gotten better since sometihngs can now be managed in a web interface on the netsol site however not everything...many other registrars allow me to change everything related to my domains on my web account. I feeled him as best I could but the netsol clunky outdated systems were as much at fault as hiom not paying attention to his domain registration.
Legal recognition essential for web businesses... (Score:3, Insightful)
Without legal recognition of your ownership of that domain name, you may as well build your business on quicksand.
It's all about Sex(.com) (Score:2)
4 Jan 2003
A dispute over the transfer of the domain name Sex.com may be heading
to California's highest court. In a decision published Friday
Tussle over sex.com [sfgate.com]
4 Jan 2003
damage claim from the owner of the pornographic Web site sex.com....
Supreme Court Asked to Decide Domain Name Conversion Issue [metnews.com]
7 Jan 2003
long legal battle over âoesex.com.â. The name was registered
News briefs from around California [heraldtribune.com]
4 Jan 2003
court to rule on the alleged theft of the domain name sex.com.....
TECH TICKER [bayarea.com]
4 Jan 2003
the sex.com domain name in a dispute over whether VeriSign's Network Solutions
Putting a Price on Cyber Love [wired.com]
20 Dec 2002
is running the website Sex.com, he still views personals as one of the most
In other news . . . (Score:2)
-Peter
PS: The Supremes are a Motown group AFAIR.
-P
Obviously it is - compare to music (Score:2)
In fact domain names are more unique property.
You can take a MP3 copy from music tracks without taking original from the owner or degrading quality.
Many copies of music may exist - but only one domain name (e.g. my own [skilful.com] ) may exist.
It is unique property that may be transfered or sold - like a car number plate.
Should anybody take my property away from me, I will beat them with a stick
Why should domain names be properties ? (Score:1)
It's the same with phone numbers one doesn't go and try combinations until to find the right one, you take the phone book and look for it, using name, adress, etc.
So I don't think domain should be cnsidered as properties, they are a part of information useful or not, to get or find a company or whatever is behind that name.
The trial is about falsification. Network Solution s shouldn't be on th defendant side, they whole thing is because of their lack of awerness and negligence.
More Taxation (Score:1)
Seems like theft of (leased) property (Score:3, Insightful)
An analogy: if I lease a car for 3 years (off course I would not be that stupid :-) and it is stolen, I would call the police and complain that my car was stolen. I paid for the exclusive rights to use the car and someone stole/took away those rights.
-Mark
two issues, several cases (Score:3, Interesting)
There's been several good analogies in the thread, here's mine: Domains are "more similar" to a government allowed frequency monopoly that the FCC grants to a broadcaster. Broadcaster pays x amount of money per year for this license, and also must follow a set of rules. In this case switch FCC as a governmental agency to a private company that has similar powers "subcontracted" to them. We do this now in a big way inside the US in the prison system, a lot of them are privately owned and run (wackenhut for instance). I don't like that, but it's current reality,a very important public governmental *thing* being subbed out to a private definetly for-profit concern can lead to a lot abuses, IMO.
Where it is different is that there isn't any total exclusivity to this particular subcontractor,although they are *very big and very known and quite well used*, all they have going for them is inertia and size, as other forms of registration exist-albeit small and not used much-and it's international in scope, just not within a single state or nation.
The FCC can "grant" a license to someone to broadcast on such and such freq, outside their jurisdiction in another nation that doesn't mean a thing, and two signals can and frequently are on the same freq, or pointing at a similar place to follow the analogy. Happens all the time in radio. There's various international *almost-rules* but in fact there is no absolute enforcement short of warfare.
here's another way to look at it
The basic reality is, although it *appears* to be a property rights issue as to the word address represented as the domain "name", the "rights" involved don't actually exist because the REAL property itself doesn't exist, only the temporarily placed digital SIGN that POINTS TO where a temporarily installed digitial numeric address exists, and it's quite possible to have any number of signs, all saying different things, that will point to the same address.
If it was REAL property you could own it forever if you chose to, like a trademark, car, or house. It would be unique, and "yours".
The IP number and actual computer where the content is hosted, and any copyrighted content served therein and from is the real "property" in the classic sense of property, the sign giving directions to it is just an advertising and direction finding convenience and a separate thing, although still a "sort-of" property,it isn't absolute in any sense, it can never be "owned" forever, therefore isn't property in any other sense compared to any other sort of property in past historical common law.
These signs-pointing-to the real property have varying levels of advertising effectiveness in attracting "travelers" on the road that are looking for addresses to stop at. In that case the signs themselves are a separate piece of "sort of property" from the IP address and content served, and the people who build and set out the signs-the domain registrars-own all of them as if you don't pay them off you lose it, so you never "own" them as property, you temporarily lease them with limited rights. And you can still put your own signs out and use other sign companies if you want to, just one has currently more advertising impact.
So there's two pieces of property-so now you have to ask which is more valuable and who actually owns each piece of property. The website creator and host sort out with themselves who owns what over there, but any "word" domain name you can't ever, ever "own" unless you "do it yourself" with your own domain server, and it still can't stop anyone from doing it themselves and copying the same wording and pointing at their property, so it gets down to who has a better advertising company and who will use your advertising directions over some other fellow's constructs. Both are legal in other words, no one over the other in toto is possible, although currently it is more highly probable that one will get used a lot more than the other.
Now how you contract that with another sign pointing company because you realise doing it yourself isn't real effective and you want to go with the current entrenched "bigdog" in the sign pointing business is a variable, if you choose to keep renting their advertising signs that give directions to your 'real' property that you can own forever that's an easier issue. In that case you have a tort action if they fail to fulfill their side of the contract, so that part to me seems like a slam dunk for the website originator and whomever paid the loot first to the sign pointing company that stuck the signs out. That's really easy to see. In this particular case the sign pointing company screwed up because they were lamers and didn't verify who was who effectively,so they should lose in the first case, BUT, they themselves have a civil tort-potential against the letter sender, who also may suffer an additional criminal action if the state (and feds actually) chooses to prosecute.
Law gets easier to understand if you first sort out the differences between dealing in "real property" and "commerce" and tangibles you can own forever and temporary intangibles.
Most Overturned Court Ever (Score:1)
Just GREAT... (Score:2)
The California Supremes? (Score:2)