Sex.com Case Finally 'Over' 279
Spad writes "The Register is reporting that Stephen Michael Cohen has, unsurprisingly, lost his appeal against the $65m in costs awarded to Gary Kremen for defrauding him out of the sex.com domain name almost 6 years ago. However, Cohen is currently a fugitive from justice in Mexico, with his assets in various offshore accounts, making it very difficult for Mr Kremen to claim his money. Kremen is now pursuing a $100m suit against VeriSign for signing over the domain in the first place, which he is expected to win." See our previous story for more background.
Verisign in big trouble (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Verisign in big trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
What providing a different point of view?
I watched a BBC documenty about Al Jazerra filmed during the Iraq conflict. While their slant may be towards their regions audience I found them to be quite imapartial. Sure they showed pictures of captured/dead coalition soldiers (God rest their souls) that western audiences found disagreeable - but at the end of the day they showed no censorship in favour of coalition or Iraq sides**.
I'd much prefer to see both sides of the story than be force fed the propagander of a single side - ours or theirs.
**Al Jazerra stopped reporting any Iraq news for a day as the the Iraq government wanted two of their reporters removing for showing coalition progress in to Baghdad - the Iraq government relented and asked Al Jazerra back.
Re:Verisign in big trouble (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that I'm qualified to express an opinion on this one way or the other but -- how on earth can you determine them to be "quite impartial" on the basis of a BBC documentary about them? Presumably anything from the BBC is utterly objective and impartial?
Incidentally, al-Jazeera's old head was on the payroll of Iraqi intelligence, for what that's worth...
Re:Verisign in big trouble (Score:5, Interesting)
The head of Fox News is George Bush's cousin. What of it?
Re:Verisign in big trouble (Score:2, Interesting)
The documentary was a fly on the wall thing so they could have used editing to influence the perception.
In general the BBC are impartial and don't tend to sensationalise news - why well similar to Al Jazerra they don't just cater for the UK/Arab audience. Remember not all the Arab states liked the Sad
Re:Verisign in big trouble (Score:2, Interesting)
Write to your MP.
Re:Verisign in big trouble (Score:2)
However, I do know that after the war the head of Al-Jazeera was forced out because he turned out to have been in the pay of the Iraqi government. And many Iraqis have complained that they will never watch Al-Jazeera again because it supported Hussein's regime and never talked about how bad it was.
Never again (Score:4, Interesting)
Before the war, they were a semi-independent media agency, the only major one in the Middle East. Shortly after the war (maybe two weeks back, don't remember the exact date of the annoucement), the head of Al Jazerra was sacked by the Qatar government and replaced with a Qatar government appointed individual. This was clearly done (and semi officially side channeled in diplomatic / intel circle's) to appease the west's concern with non pro western reporting by a major international news outlet.
The days of fair non western partial reporting of major middle eastern events by Al Jazerra are over.
Re:Verisign in big trouble (Score:2)
Oxymoron (Score:2)
Fox News
Microsoft Innovation
Military Intelligence
Slashdot Editor
re:verisign in big trouble (Score:3, Interesting)
my guess however is that the plaintiff(s) will argue that verisign has a history of this type of incident (e.g., creating a "pattern of behavior") which does not adequately safeguard the commodity for which they are charging significant monies.
you're likely right that verisign's defense will take that tack, but that's a little too predictable and is likely a strategy that will die under the testimony of aggrieved parties. this has clearly happened enough that there are a number of peopl
Re:verisign in big trouble (Score:2)
Verisign will definitely incorporate a "we were just as fooled as you were by all this" argument into their defense strategy. I doubt it will hold up at all, and I'm hoping it doesn't. Why register a domain name if you can't count on keeping it? There has to be a level of trust to which you can hold a business-transaction partner accountable.
From grandparent:
It's interesting that Verisign is being charged w/ a higher degree of liability...
Yes, especially since none of Verisign's business
Re:Verisign in big trouble (Score:2)
That would be amusing.
"Gee your honor, we didn't know he was the rightful owner,
and didn't bother investigating because we can't be bothered with such trivial matters as doing our jobs."
Being duped into transfering the domain is one thing.
Refusing to fix the mistake for three years is quite another.
-- this is not a
Look at his name carefully (Score:2, Funny)
Stephen Michael Cohen
Re:Look at his name carefully (Score:2, Insightful)
They put him to an end? (Score:4, Funny)
Thats a heck of a price to pay.
Re:They put him to an end? (Score:2)
Re:They put him to an end? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:They put him to an end? (Score:2, Funny)
If only we could do the same thing to spammers, instead of suing them for $1000.00 per UCE.
Re:They put him to an end? (Score:2)
Why don't we just annex all those offshore islands (Score:3, Funny)
First we need (Score:2)
Re:Can't you do better than that? (Score:2)
1) To teach the ragheads in neighboring countries that fucking with us is not an option. That we can and will come and kick your ass if you piss us off and there isn't a damned thing the UN can do about it.
Don't you think this kind of reasoning also applies to "terrorists": We brought down their WTC to teach them they shouldn't fuck with us etc. etc. Are you crazy? Seriously! Just because an operation is carried out by a gover
Wow this is pretty cool (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds like something from a crappy sci-fi film, but in real life!
and extending the 'crappy sci-fi movie' parrallell, you can see what a bad movie it would be...2 guys fighting over a porn site.
Re:Wow this is pretty cool (Score:2)
But anyway, it's not a crappy scifi movie until you have the guys talking to themselves while typing on a computer with that infamous 20 character wide screen.
Re:Wow this is pretty cool (Score:2)
Re:Wow this is pretty cool (Score:3, Funny)
Or:
Or maybe:
Re:Wow this is pretty cool (Score:2)
Please enter the account number
you wish to loot money from:
Please enter the amount, and use the
US standard decimal point, and not the
European comma. While you are at it, ignore
the fact the this system is in English
and not in French or German
Hey! Check it out! That's EXACTLY what it's saying RIGHT NOW.
Totally Weird.
Re:Wow this is pretty cool (Score:2)
No wait. Whoever's account that is isn't going to be very "worth"y. Muhahahahahaha.
Re:Wow this is pretty cool (Score:2)
But anyway, it's not a crappy scifi movie until you have the guys talking to themselves while typing on a computer with that infamous 20 character wide screen.
Or until you have a 'hacker' type of guy breaking into a remote computer system by typing frantically for 30 seconds and then exclaiming "I'M IN!"
JP
Re:Wow this is pretty cool (Score:2)
It's sad to think that merely mentioning the internet is enough to get a movie classified as sci-fi. Any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - but only when people are baffled by that technology. Sad commentary on the public's view and understanding of computers and the internet.
-
Re:Wow this is pretty cool (Score:3, Funny)
You stole my sex
Prepare to die!!
End of the internet? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:End of the internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:End of the internet? (Score:5, Interesting)
They aren't guilty of theft like Steven Michael Cohen. Verisign is guilty of not protecting the domain name which in this case is very valuable property.
This is like a bank giving away the money of a customer to someone who fraudulently obtains access to their account.
Just by the premise that Verisign accepts people's money to protect and secure a domain name is proof in itself that domains are valuable. If they weren't valuable companies and individuals wouldn't be paying hard, cold cash to assure that the domain doesn't slip away from them.
Verisign would be better off compensating Mr. Kremen than sending a message to all their customers that they are not trustworthy.
Re:End of the internet? (Score:2)
But it's only his property for a limited time. That's what he agreed to when he signed up. It is a subscription-like model and you have to keep it going. An entity really only leases a domain. If you don't pay the lease on your car (assuming it's leased), you loose it. How is this any different?
Besides, $65m for the domain stealer and $100m for VeriSign? This has got to be a joke! How can any respectable court award him that much money. I cannot believe for one second that the domain - even over the cours
Re:End of the internet? (Score:3, Interesting)
> years - would've made even close to $65m! Maybe close to $1m, but even that's
> probably pushing it! This is rediculous.
Actually that is what he pointed out (proved?) in court.
sex.com would bring in $500,000 per MONTH.
So he made 1 mil per 2 months, or 6 mil per year.
Assuming of course that number didnt decrease over the years (which we know it would, but according to the RIAA/MPAA it would double each year, and the cou
Re:End of the internet? (Score:2)
Actually, that number is $500,000 per month in advertising ALONE. That number does not include any subscription sales or profit, purchases made, or other possible means of profit, such as selling th
Re:End of the internet? (Score:2)
VeriSign (or Network Solutions) had very bad behavior in the past concerning ability for proper people to manage their domains and ability for shiesters to manage other people's domains.
However, in the last year they have gotten A LOT better and are now pretty easy to deal with, providing account numbers and passwords to manage domains; with a reasonably secure and speedy method for getting them if lost.
It sure would be nice if any lawsuits could go after the individuals responsible for run
Re:End of the internet? (Score:2)
You know, some new windows would be nice on the house too...
Re:End of the internet? (Score:5, Funny)
I think Verisign is suddenly realizing that "Oh - you mean we, as the people who hold onto the domain names, actually have a responsibility to protect our clients against fraud? I mean - what's up with that? Do you go after a bank if somebody writes a whole lot of checks in your name and only offers them a social security card as ID but no picture identification?
"What? You do? Well, that's just UnAmerican - if businesses are held up to a standard of laws - what? They usually are? Well, shit on me! Who knew!
"Obviously, this means the end of the Internet, then. Who ever took responsibility for what happened on the Internet?"
[/tongue_in_cheek]
Re:End of the internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
What galls me is that Verisign has successfully implanted into the justice system the belief that a domain name is not physical property. This, to me at least, is an asinine assertion devised only to alleviate themselves of professional liability.
While they apparently have no legal responsibility, there is still the professional responsibility of verifying a claim to transfer of ownership. Verisign's inaction encourages fraud, plain and simple, and it is corporate irresponsibility such as this that leads to draconian government regulation of public assets, such as the Internet. If business is not willing to regulate itself responibly, government will step in and do it for them. Invariably, as has happened in the past, the two never have the same agenda.
The loss of Verisign would not bring about the end of the Internet any more than the loss of MGM would bring about the end of Hollywood or United Airlines would eliminate the travel industry.
It's time that corporations be held accountable for their actions or, as is the case here, inactions.
[/rant]
Re:End of the internet? (Score:2)
Oh my god! They [rcn.com] were [apple2.org.za] right! [sillyhumor.com]
-
Re:End of the internet? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Your sig (Score:2)
It's a flash game, but I do not remember exactly where. Some site with a tank for a logo.
Re:Your sig (Score:2)
1) "stand a chance", not "win"
2) The Eddie George in question is, of course, Eddie George, running back, Tennessee Titans. I used to play in an online Tecmo Super Bowl league and had Eddie George as my running back. So I decided to combine my love of Street Fighter II victory quotations and Eddie George carrying the ball for me, and came up with the line, "You must defeat Eddie George to stand a chance."
So who is this other, less relevant Eddie George of whom you speak?
Relevancy (Score:2)
Surprisingly enough google agrees with you, as your eddie george [eddiegeorge.com] (a college drop-out who apparently runs around a sports pitch or something) (ok he went back to school to finish, which is admirable) outranks him by 18 places, and my one [bankofengland.co.uk] (who controls interest rates and the banking system of the united kingdom) only gets a mention at 19 for opening a building (!). google has spoken and I bow to the wisdom of the populance.
Re:Your sig (Score:2)
Fergie's not really interested in having Beckham around anymore, as his sparing usage of him towards the end of the season (especially the return leg in the CL quarterfinals) shows. I find it bizarre that a player would insist on staying with a club that has shown it does not want him anymore but no one's ever accused Becks of being a genius.
I think he'll go to Spain (probably Real rather than Barca), but I'd prefer to see him stay with the Red Devils just to see how it turns out.
So, how'd I do? Did
Re:Your sig (Score:2)
Especially if Man U can get Shevchenko plus money for him.
Domain names (Score:5, Insightful)
This goes to show just how messed-up the current domain-ownership system is. For property, there is a tightly-controlled system of deeds, and clearly defined ownership. It is almost impossible to acquire ownership of land without the consent of the owner. This is how it should be
Many domains, however, are more valuable than land. And there are far too many cases such as this with disputed ownership and other such claims. A rethink of the system is necessary. It does nobody any good for people such as this to be able to abuse the system.
Re:Domain names (Score:3, Funny)
Unless you have, like, tanks and stuff.
Re:Domain names (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Domain names (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, you run into the issue of recognizing a string of characters as property. A plot of land doesn't move. I can't type it out a new plot of land. I can go out and jump up and down on it.
A string of characters is a thought. At the very most it's like a trademark. Frankly I could fold up shop as FUBAR.COM and start life over again as NUBI.COM, and through the miracle of search engines, poeple would find me again.
And man oh man, if "domains" start to be property, people will start suing for using their "domains" in disparaging ways. Frankly, I think the whole domain name system is silly. If you are looking for "Realistic" speakers, and try to find them on realistic.com, you are in for quite a suprise. I've learned to trust only the search engines.
Re:Domain names (Score:5, Insightful)
The disputes tend mostly to be quite reasonable. If I have a company called Fred, based in France and you have a company called Fred based in the US, who gets fred.com? (If you lot would only use .co.us like you should've in the first place, most of this stuff wouldn't be a problem!)
In this case though, the problem is that there are complete morons working at Verisign who passed over a domain based on a blatantly forged letter, then would'nt transfer it back when their error was pointed out.
That's like a public notary accepting a badly forged will without checking with the deceased. No, hang on, I'll change that: accepting a badly forged contract of sale for a house without checking with the current owner.
As I see it, this is entirely Verisign's fault, and they are currently trying to argue that domains aren't property precisely to avoid the responsibility they have to administrate domains competently
J.
Re:Domain names (Score:2)
Yeah, well...there wasn't a
Now, does that give us the right to steal all
Re:Domain names (Score:2)
Everyone in the world abuses .com though, not just the yanks: tesco.com? waitrose.com? Daft. .com should be for global enterprises.
Anyway, a Scotsman invented the telly - do the Scots claim rights over your program scheduling? Don't use specious arguments.
J.
Re:Domain names (Score:2)
I didn't use that as my argument. I simply stated that most Americans were familiar with
Now, does that give us the right to steal all the
I wouldn't say that I used any argument to say that Americans *should* steal all the
Re:Domain names (Score:2)
Fair enough. I did read it as your justification, rather than your recording of other people's justification.
Can you pop round to all their houses and ask them not to use specious arguments then? ;-)
J.
Re:Domain names (Score:2)
Sure! Just provide me a list of names and addresses, and whether you'd like a nutzkick too or just me asking them not to use specious arguments. (and I'll even throw in circular logic, ad hoc assumptions, either/or fallacies and the other major logical missteps that are seen everywhere these days)
Note: For pickers of nits:
I'm not saying I'm immune to logical fallacies!!
I'm not saying I've never committed them!!
All I
Re:Domain names (Score:2)
More imporantly, if I'm in California and I have a Tire business called "Fred" because my name is Fred, and you have a Sewing Machine business in Arizona called "Fred" because your name is Fred, who then gets fred.com? Right now, it's the one with the most money, as they're the ones able to threaten legal action. But, both of us should have equal rights to it. There are a whole host of
Re:Domain names (Score:2)
Nah, sorry mate, I'm a contractor ;-)
Justin.
Re:Domain names (Score:5, Insightful)
For property, there is a tightly-controlled system of deeds, and clearly defined ownership. It is almost impossible to acquire ownership of land without the consent of the owner.
This is not true.
There are any number of ways that the ownership of land can end up in dispute; my father-in-law tried to buy a house a few years ago and ended up just losing the entire purchase amount, and not getting the house, because it turned out that the seller didn't have a clear title. During a refinance of my house last year (which I have "owned" for over 10 years now) it was suddenly discovered that a creditor of the former owner had a $30,000 lien on it! And, actually, residential real estate is the *least* likely to have problems. Commercial property is often stickier, and unimproved land can be really bad.
The reason you can buy a house or other real estate with some degree of confidence isn't because the state does such an amazingly good job with managing the deeds, it's because when you buy a house you pay $300 to a "title insurance company". The first time I bought a house, I thought "Man, what a way to print money... $300 bucks and all they have to do for it is go to the county courthouse and look up the title."
In fact, when you pay the title insurance company you're buying an insurance policy: they're committing to defend your title and ensure that you either (a) keep the land or (b) get your money back, even if (b) means they have to cough it up. Where my father-in-law went wrong was that he chose not to use a title company (his choice, since he was paying cash), and that's also why commercial and unimproved real estate also often go wrong.
How should this translate into the domain name space? That's hard to say. The title company has an advantage when deciding on the price of your premium -- they have a pretty good idea of how much the house is worth, and while that value may double in a decade it won't grow by a factor of a million. In the case of domain names, most of them are pretty much worthless, but some of them end up being really valuable, and they're all treated the same. Maybe that's what's needed: the domain name equivalent of a property value assessor, so that the equivalent of a title company can provide insurance with a reasonable premium.
Re: domain names (Score:2)
these services, therefore, could wind up costing some multiple of the domain price.
Yep. TANSTAAFL. It seems rather obvious there there is no solution that is both really good and really cheap.
Further, these disputes have proven to be sufficiently rare that it's unlikely anyone would choose to buy the insurance.
Re:Domain names (Score:2)
Your father in law didn't spend $300 on a title insurance company? How did someone that stupid acquire enough money to buy a property for cash?
My father-in-law is far from stupid, or naive, either. He bought the property at a Sheriff's Auction and, contrary to what you might think, they aren't too particular about what they sell, there's little or no recourse in the courts, and they won't wait for you to get title insurance (nor will most title insurance companies insure such situations). The county h
Link (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Link (Score:2)
After reading your post, I just *had* to open www.sex.com in a browser...
I used Lynx. Being at work and all that. Ahem.
Never mind me. Carry on...
Bounty? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Bounty? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bounty? (Score:2, Interesting)
If he did he could buy himself out of situations instead of shooting
That's what those rich folks do al the time
Re:Bounty? (Score:4, Informative)
It looks like the bounty is a measly $50,000.
I might be crazy, but I'm not crazy enough to get in a gun fight with Mexican police for a chance at $50,000.
Re:Bounty? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bounty? (Score:2)
Wow, just like in the movies:
Out-of-Work geek: Would I have to kill anybody?
Bounty-Hunter Agency: Would you like to?
Bounty, Shmounty (Score:2)
Besides, I heard there's oil in Mexico -- Profit!
007 must be involved somehow (Score:5, Funny)
"James Bond: Imminent Domain"
which has a working title
"Live and Let Domain-Sqaut"
(The title "The Spy who SEX.COM'ed me" has been rejected")
Re:007 must be involved somehow (Score:3, Funny)
Honey Rider
Pussy Galore
Plenty O'Toole
Mary Goodnight
Holly Goodhead
Octopussy
Xenia Onatopp
-
If not property right, then what? (Score:5, Interesting)
The core of Verisign's defence seems to be that domain names are not property rights. From the BBC article [bbc.co.uk] on the same ruling:
Two questions: what excatly am I buying when I buy a domain name from Verisign and why do "legal experts" think they'll loose that battle -- presumably they have an extensive user agreement that clears them of responsibility for all and any wrongdoings?
Confused.
Re:If not property right, then what? (Score:2)
Re:If not property right, then what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If not property right, then what? (Score:2)
-
Sex.com offender (Score:3, Funny)
Yippie! (Score:2)
Why sue Cohen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why sue Cohen? (Score:4, Insightful)
--LordKaT
Re:Why sue Cohen? (Score:2)
You could just as easily flip it around. If Cohen hadn't tried to defraud Verisign, then Verisign wouldn't be in this position.
Re:Why sue Cohen? (Score:2)
He effectively stole something. How you "steal" a contract that's done electronically is beyond me, but all in all, something was taken he paid for and wouldn't give it back. He had proof he "owned" it. What's worse is, he also caused damage to a business and made money while doing it.
Verisign is just as guilty.
Sounds like fraud on fraud.. or something.
In other words... (Score:5, Funny)
ba-dum-bum.
And, in a related joke... (Score:2)
You've got more chance of finding some action at www.whitehouse.com [whitehouse.com]. Err, I mean www.whitehouse.gov [whitehouse.gov].
bounty hunters (Score:4, Informative)
Offer To Pay Reward Is Withdrawn
Dated June 26, 2001 at 2:00 PM PDT.
The offer to pay a reward for information leading to the arrest of Stephen Cohen is hereby withdrawn. In other words, no reward is available.
Please help (Score:3, Insightful)
If VeriSign's defense is that they sell something that can not be defined as property, then how can they sell it if they don't actually own anything?
Re:Please help (Score:2, Informative)
It's a voucher for a service, not property of value. Much like you go to the gas station and buy a ticket for the car-wash. The face-value of the ticket is worthless, and it expires in time. But, punch that number into the machine and your car is washed. How many times have you tried to redeem the 1/100th of 1 cent in coupons from the Saturday paper?
Re:Please help (Score:2, Insightful)
But when you go to punch in the code number and it does not work because the gas station has given your code away, you have been defrauded. Not for the value of the ticket - for the value of the car-wash.
Case over. (Score:4, Funny)
downanddirty.sex? (Score:4, Interesting)
sex.com would be such a moot issue if there was a
Chris
SEX.COM - i used to work for a pr0n company... (Score:4, Informative)
You might say... (Score:3, Funny)
I know. Sad. I just couldn't resist.
To moderator: The above joke is so lame it deserves to be modded down.
Re:You might say... (Score:2)
This is not still the end, so far as I can tell. (Score:3, Informative)
On June 9th, the Supreme Court denied certiorari (that is, refused to take up the appeal of Dismissal of Cohen from the appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine).
When I last checked, the main issues on appeal devolved to a question certified by the 9th circuit to the California Supreme Court on the question whether California law permitted a cause of action for "conversion" with respect to intangible contract rights, such as a domain name. (In an opinion by which Judge Kozinski wrote BOTH the prevailing opinion AND the dissent. Does anyone know the status of that portion of the case?
So, while Mr. Cohen is a ghost (both legally and fugitively), all of the issues in the case remain, and are likely to be litigated for so long as we breathe -- at least it would seem. NSI/Varisign has been, alas, too cavalier and arbitrary in their management of domain name reassignment and disputes, creating a great deal of trouble for those unfamiliar with how they operate -- even those who irrevocably lose control of a domain name. Holding them accountable might change some of their "policies," possibly for good or bad. That will be the only likely legacy of sex.com.
Better Title (Score:5, Funny)
Won't be sorry if Versign loses (Score:3, Informative)
We set up website hosting through a third party. I intended to keep control of the DNS. However, the website hosting firm put in a request to Versign to move the nameservers to the hosting company's servers from my nameservers.
Versign sent an email to the correct address to request approval for the change, stating that if we did nothing, the change would NOT go ahead.
Yet it did. Versign made the change! I spent the rest of the day shouting at them on the phone trying to get them to change it back before the scheduled update. They refused.
I sent an email to their "investigations" department. Strangely, I heard NOTHING back.
I will NEVER register a domain name through them again!
Re:ffs its just a domain ! (Score:5, Insightful)
"[sex.com] is worth $500,000 a month just in advertising space"