Slashdot Mirror
URLs Aren't Property?
stevarooski writes "I saw this over at Ars. Apparently a judge ruled in a lawsuit about the alleged illegal transfer of the domain name 'sex.com' that URLs do not qualify as property, at least under current law. They are instead a "designation for a service -- akin to a phone number." I dont know if I buy that. . .People very much treat domain names as property--buying and selling them on the web all the time. (Examples from Ebay and Yahoo.)"
I strongly agree with the previous posts that Congress should get on the ball, learn something about the technologies they are legislating, and at least be consistent in their law-making. Even if the laws suck, they should at least suck consistently.
Uncle Sam sent me to the Persian Gulf, and all I got was this lousy Syndrome!
I am so sick of this type of thing happening. If a URL isn't property, why can someone get sued over a domain? If a URL is like a phone number, then what is the difference between getting a phone number that spells something and getting a domain that spells it? Somebody had better start making actual laws regarding modern technology. All we have now are a bunch of laws never meant for these situations being applied in contradictory manners. Judges can come to any conclusion they like just by bending around existing laws. (ie. Your privacy online depends on the medium by which you connect...)
"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." -Richard Feynman
Arbitrarily reassigning your phone number, though, that just doesn't seem right. Yet another reason to dislike the phone company. (I'm still waiting on getting my DSL from Verizon after that cute li'l strike of theirs.)
--
--
We have fought the AC's, and they have won.
Oh, I totally understand that. Of course it wouldn't be an easy task, I'm just saying that it needs to be done, otherwise things that seem unfair to people that know about computers will continue to happen because businesses have a greater influence over what non-computer savvy people think, and how computer related problems should be dealt with.
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
I know for a fact that Ameritech holds back certain mumbers. Absolutely ALL numbers that have ANY type of repitition are 'reserved' because they know they will get more moeny for them (I.e., 888-0088, or 724-9999). I just recently moved to a new house and tried to get ANY number that sounded cool.. I litterally tried over 200 numbers before I just gave up and took what they gave me (a stupid one). I was trting everytthing from 888-1010, 794-9909, ANYthing with two digets that matched. No chance. It was redicluos, and infuriating. When I asked the phone company why those same numberes when called, said they were not in service, I was told they were 'reserved'.
"Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity."
Wait till it's some industry giant like Cisco.com or IBM.com that has sombody claim their place in "Cyberspace" (I hate that term), and we'll see how the URL becomes "property" very fast!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
This way they can use any phone company, and not change thier phone number.
So in that case we do OWN the phone numbers.
Ok, well sorta....
I can get a phone number that spells out my company name or someone elses company name. I can get a personal number plate that spells out my company or someone elses company I can get a URL that spells out my company. In all 3 cases you don't own the 'product', you just have the right to use that 'product', or sell or lease that 'right' to someone else. All these URL legal problems would be solved if they just made URL registraltion, first in first served , just like personal number plates on cars & 'personalised phone numbers. If no one else has already got it I could get a phone number that spells out COCACOLA, or a personalised number plate for my car that spells out COCA-COLA, Coco Cola either had the choice of getting them before me, or buying them off me, if I beat them to it. Now why should URLs be treated any differently than personalised number plates or personalised phone numbers? It would keep things simple & keeps the lawyers away.
"People very much treat domain names as property--buying and selling them on the web all the time. "
So what? That doesn't make them property. Only the law can do that.
Here in the US when you don't pay your "property taxes", you lose exactly that. The land you live on and anything on it, presumably your house. Makes you realize just how little we actually "own". Our ability to own any physical object is dependant on forces largley outside our control, unless you believe the common man actually has much say in our government. As I result I try to look for security in knowledge instead of material things.
Domain names and phone nubers are almost exactly the same thing and I'll tell you why, when you get a phone installed you get a number 555-1234 when you hook a computer to the internet you get a IP adress, 255.254.253.252, now say you want a easyer to remember phone number say "call-bob" you can contact the phone company and if the numbers available and willing to pay what they ask "call-bob" is yours as long as you keep paying for it the same is true about the computer connected to the net, want a easyer name say www.netbob.com insted of a string of numbers you contact a domain registration servis and if its available you can get it for a small fee, both of the seervis phone and DNS are basicly the same after that, if you dont pay for it, they take it away , if you try to get your phone number "1800-mcdonald" bascily couse you wanted the name, you can get sued same as on the web, there are always gray areas such as if your name just happen to be Mc Donald then its up to the cort to deturm if your intent was to break copyright violation
I don't know the law concerning the practice, but desirable 800 numbers have been sold for huge amounts of money. This has also happened with the call signs for radio stations. Someone with a radio station badly wants KROK, and pays the existing station to swap call signs.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
God forbid the US needs ANOTHER way to initiate the creation of NEW laws...what we _really_ need is a way to force legislators to clean up the OLD laws!!!
Big difference. I sell you a digital copy of a piece of software or a song, I still have the software/music AND you have a copy. I sell you a domain name or a +15 sword, and I no longer have the domain or weapon. As such, the domain or game item *is* property, regardless of it being digital.
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
> I will listen to the people who tell me that the income tax is really voluntary,
Can you show me the LAW that requires a person to have a slave, er, social identification number?
I'll save you some time: There is NONE. Therefore it is voluntary. You might want to study contract law, before replying.
The phone company can change your local number without your permission. There are good technical reasons for them to be able to do this.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Hey man, I love crack as much as anyone else around here, but I don't believe for a second that my 1st amendment rights should allow me to tell people where to buy crack.... of course it all depends on the context. Like if someone asks you and you say "oh, you're in the wrong town to be looking for that, you oughta go to New York or something." that could be construed as okay. But hows' the law to decide if that's okay and if you walking up to someone and saying "hey, you want some crack? Well... i don't have it on me, but if you give me $10 i'll tell you exactly which newspaper it's hidden under in that alley behind me...".
:P
Nothing. Either way could be interpreted as you giving directions to get crack. Unless the law mandates that as long as your directions only get so and so within 10 blocks of the crack, that's illegal, but if it's any further than that it's legal...
Yeah, forfeiture laws are bullshit. Laws abridging the discussion of methamphetamine are equally bullshit. But intended to thwart people trying to stay "one step ahead of the law" are there for that purpose...
Wow... did i wander or what?!?
So, yeah, anyways, go smoke crack or something
I've been saying this to anyone who'd listen for years. No one owns a domain name (despite the false advertising of the .tv domain registrar), and no one has a God-given right to a domain name any more than they have a right to a specific phone number. I'm still wondering why it is we ever allowed WIPO to have any say in domain names, let alone this new "authority" to take them away and assign them to others.
Well, Vanatu may be able to register harrisonford.vu (or whatever their top-level is), but they cannot register harrisonford.com. That is a United States top-level domain suffix, as decided by ICANN.
Uncle Sam sent me to the Persian Gulf, and all I got was this lousy Syndrome!
The client ("SLD holder") owns the registered domain name ("SLD"). GANDI ("Registrar") simply acts on the client's behalf.
--
--
We have fought the AC's, and they have won.
The same thing for MP3s, books, movies, software, etc. The internet makes copyright laws nearly impossible to enforce.
Geeky.org
Can this federal judge really be this stupid?
Uncle Sam sent me to the Persian Gulf, and all I got was this lousy Syndrome!
seems to me, a domain name is like an office space, whereas a URL is like a telephone number -- the URL provides a path to your services, the domain name provides a place to house your what-have-you.
from this angle, it looks like domain names should be property, whereas URLs should not.
--Phil
Dude, reread my message. See: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1 005-200-340454.html?tag= I did not state whether or not domains are property. Merely that the system is clueless. If you disagree, then what is your opinion of these comments: "The value of a domain name is that it's a storefront," said Rich Gray, an attorney with Bergeson, Eliopoulos, Grady & Gray." "What the court is saying is unremarkable: A party seeking to get its attorney fees back can try to [tap] the assets of [the defendants] and these domains names are just like a building or property," he added. According to Morrison & Foerster attorney Jonathan Band, "It strikes me that it's an obvious ruling, but one that would need to made."
That is a United States top-level domain suffix, as decided by ICANN.
.com, since it's become pretty much the domain associated with business everywhere.
Well, that's interesting. If that's true and I were a citizen of another major industrial nation, I'd be pushing for internationalization of
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
I think the case actually had to do with THEFT,
which requires something TANGIBLE. A URL clearly
fails that criteria.
What happend.. NSI transfered Sex.com from it's holder to someone else...
The Judge says Domain names are akin to phone numbers and are a service...
Dose this mean PacBell (My local phone carrer) can take away my phone service at any time and give it to someone else?
No... PacBell allmost did this once and returned service to me... (The other guys were a larg company BTW.. I've had the same phone number sence childhood.....)
If it is a phone number then... they can't issue regenal domain names to people in OTHER regens... (*.com, *.org etc are international... like 800,900 and 700 numbers)
They can not remove them for trademark violations.
And first is first...
It is quite posable NSI did this knowingly (Prove it... hmmm?)
PacBell would much sooner sue the larg company for fraud than screw the little guy...
It's probably a matter of being smart and greedy... You can make more money suing a weathy crook than you can by doing busness with same...
Maybe someone should clue NSI in on this fact... they could make a lot of money in the legal area by simply suing fraudulent transfer requests like this...
I don't actually exist.
Excellent, so anyone running a DNS should send a bill to NSI? I guess that's why NSI's business seems like it's pure profit - other people are providing the service that NSI is being paid for.
In my opinion? YES. You're helping them out. DNS servers should be subsidized from registration fees. That'd make sure that there's always DNS boxes up, and that they stay current. It's an incentive thing.
But hey, I'm not in charge.
It is true.
.com in the first place which is highly unlikely.
.com's are nice, but look at this, it's a .org! and i do most of my shoping at .co.uk's... I am a US citizen, with a dot com of my own, by the way....
And before you could do anything else to complain, you'd first for have to try to internationalize
And
And anyways, unless your name is also harrison ford, why in the world would you want that name in the first place, unless just to capitalize from his fame and fortunes?
The fact this has taken 5 years is ridiculous though, and if it was Microsoft it definitely would have all been over and done with by now. For proof, look at how NetSol did an emergency update of the root nameservers last year when AOL.com's name was hijacked. They would definitely never do that for any company smaller than MS or AOL. But then when there is provable fraud going on, they just drag their heels and let the court take care of it? sick.
sig:
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
If domains aren't property, will InterNIC/register.com/etc. still be able to keep them away from customers as they have been doing?
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
No, anyone can register .com's, .net's, and .orgs, but since they're all ultimately adminsitered by NSI, a US corporation, and they need to abide by the laws of the land, if they find that you registered a name that US courts decided for one reason or another yuo couldn't have, they'ed have to take it back from you. If you don't want to deal with US laws, don't get US administered domains, it's a simple compromise...
Way before Gore invented the internet, I had to buy a telephone number back in Australia. The company wanted the number and the person was able to negotiate a fair price for agreeing to transfer it.
I see the conclusion of the judge perfectly reasonable.
Here, we'll put it in GPL terms for you... the GPL prohibits you from GPL'ing software that you don't have the legal right to GPL, such as (until next month) products containing RSA encryption.
That said, no matter what the contract says, if the contract is illegal, it's unenforcable. I could agree to you to sell my next 10 children for $10 a kid, but if the courts ever found out, no matter how concrete sounding and binding the contract was worded, you wouldn't get my kids. Though, i probably wouldn't get to keep them either! But NSI's not actively solicting in that sense, and we're not talking about anything but domain names.
Short answer, a contract is only as enforceable as it is legal. If the contract is found to be illegal, it is null and void.
But if you read your contract at all, or even the verbage on their website, you'd learn that you weren't buying it from them. You can't buy something frm someone that you need to return to them in 2 years. They're loaning it to you for a specified period. And they're not even loaning you a domain name. They're selling to you the service of telling people who type in "www.anydomain.com" that the name server that knows more about that domain is located at the IP address of 192.168.0.12, or if that fails try 10.0.0.15.
I don't think it's an NSI problem specifically. No registrar ever claims to be selling domain names. They're just selling the service of putting your name somewhere that gets looked at by the reoot servers for a year or two...
There are several errors here. IANL, but do have some familiarity with US property law. First, anything, tangible or intangible, that can be bought/sold is property. Second, yes, if you purchase a license to use or do something, you own that right, which can be sold, unless terms of the license prohibit transfer. Third, most US auto registration tags are not transferable, either to another party, or to another vehicle. Fourth, yes, patents can be sold and some companies specialize in acquiring patent rights. A license to use a patent is a property separate and apart from the property of the patent itself, and the license is transferable, unless terms of the license prohibit transfer.
URL's are probably similar to telephone numbers, which can be valuable to their assigned users. The user does not own the telephone number, or a URL, only the exclusive right to use it. There have been cases of telephone number hijacking by companies wanting the number(s) for commercial advantage, and they have essentially gotten away with it because value of the loss of use to the original owner is usually small, so the cost of recovering the value of the loss is as much or more than the value of the loss. It ain't fair, but it is the golden rule - those that have the gold get to make the rules.
One of the issues that is being repeated in this thread is that there are many companies out there that have grabbed their domain name, and all similar ones (.com,net,co.uk,tw etc) just so that they all redirect to a common place. That is fine, but when the name of the company is not unique in the world, they are going to tread on other companies toes, and the consumer (us) are going to suffer when trying to find a site based on what we assume its URL to be. What happens when Billion dollar company meets small consulting company head on over a URL ? If the small company got there first I feel that this is a legitimate case for an "out of court settlement". However in the of cyber-squatting, whereby an individual buys a URL prospectively, I think that there have been too many high-profile examples for the big companies to be playing dumb now. If you are a multi-billion dollar company with no web presence, that is your problem. If I owned ford.com I would sell it to FoMoCo for the millions that it is probably worth to them to own. If I reallyu wanted to get crazy I would just start looking up businesses in the yellows and start registering domains - oh AAAAAAAAAAATaxi.com is already taken huh ??? I think that you should not be forced to part with the domain that you have, assuming a few basic rules, but I have no idea what those rules should be, things like legitimate use of the URL, and a reasonable claim to the domain other than stumping up the $$$$'s. Anyone ???
Not Fragile
It's contextual. They are simply trying to say that they are acting as an agent of the customer, and that they are not registering it themselves, but registering it on behalf of the customer, in the customers name.
THey are not implying 'ownership'.
Just because something is sold does not mean it is 'property'.
Consider a software liscence. You 'buy' that. Do you own it? [0]
A car registration plate can [1] be sold, and bought. You definitly don't own those, they are 'owned' by the govenment, but that doesn't stop you paying extra fo a 'personalised' plate.
You can purchase a liscence to use a patent. The patent does not become your propery.
The term property is used here in a fairly strict legal sense, not in an everyday sense. It's as per the law of 'conversion', whatever that may be.
[0] I'll leave the whole 'is it legal question to the side here'
[1] At leat, you can in the UK
I dont know if I buy that. . .People very much treat domain names as property--buying and selling them on the web all the time
This is only because of the potential to make money if you own a good domain name. Things like sex.com are URLS that people will type in just to try it out and see if it exists. I'm sure people....companies actually... have purchased the rights to a phone number because it would help with their business. Its just not as widespread.
searchspell.com
IP == Designation for service (like phone number).
URL == property. They have become so valuable in today's world that they can easily be considered similar to a great big sign signifying who you are and/or what you do.
Btw. . . this is a pretty old case . . .
--
Never trust anyone over 90000.
A domain name could have been considered like a phone number, but with multiple registrars apart from NSI, this kind of ruling can only lead to chaos. With one company controlling phone numbers, they can give and they can take. If domains aren't property and you can do whatever you want with them, does that mean NSI and Register.com can hack each other to death and grab domain names? Again, this has to do with a stolen domain.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
Another piece of NSI's plan has fallen into place.
They changed the policy to state that they, not you, own the domain.
Now they have a court decision to back it up.
You will be reciving notice in the mail that a corporate partner has expressed interest in your domain name; you will of course have the option to outbid them. Have a nice day.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
He claimed to be making $1000000/month at the time off sex.com (as of 2/1996). Of course that didn't explain why he was spending his time doing background checks for contract recruiters...
He represented himself at various times as a lawyer, a locksmith, a travel agent and a brothel owner (in Nevada).
Last I heard about him was a few months ago. I was testifying on behalf of the plaintiff in a sexual harassment suit against the company; Steve was one of the primary named perpetrators, except no one could locate him since he had transferred all his businesses to the Cayman Islands.
Arbitrarily reassigning your phone number, though, that just doesn't seem right.
Well, the phone company technically loans you your phone number. Doesn't the sysadmin get first pick on what login he wants? Doesn't he have the right to reassign logins or assign them in whatever fashion he chooses?
This would directly relate to IP addresses, so I would then liken trademarks to the domain name. What if someone took the domain amazon.com? That's integral to Amazon.com's business.
We must remember that property rights in America are extensive in order to facilitate capitalism. That's what drives us, and that's what drives the legal system, like it or not. I see the big companies winning out on this one, so don't be surprised if things do get passed on up the food chain.
Are bits in someone's computer. There's nothing that says I can't come up with a competing system. I've actually been advocating this for quite some time. So I think a bigger question is at what point does a system that people decided on become succeptable to government registration? If a few hundred people on the net use a new naming system, no one would notice. If a few million people did, would the WIPO step in and claim juristiction over it?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Does anyone here remember the big deal the olympic committee made a while back over people using any type of domain name with the word olympic in it? I seem to think there is a contradiction in law here. They can enforce the laws surrounding olympic name useage but URLs can't be property? I just don't get it. If someone could explain this to me, please do.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
================
================
Microsoft is not the answer, Microsoft is the question. The answer is "no".
You pay these people to resolve a domain name to your IP address. The address is like the phone number (that's the only analogy I can use to explain it to people anymore anyway), and a company provides a layer linking your friendly name to an address.
Therefore, how NSI runs its business should be entirely up to NSI. I'm not against a little intervention; after all, the Internet is well on its way to being a utility similar to the phone system, but it doesn't mean that they aren't property. They're just the property of NSI.
Does this judge not know what an IP address is? THAT is the designation akin to a phone number.
The domain name is more like the sign on the front of the store.
---
Where can the word be found, where can the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence.
"Where shall the word be found, where will the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence." -T.S. Eliot
I do believe that, on a logical, realistic level that domain names are property. I also might have some legal proof that they are. Look at it from this point of view. A telephone number is randomly assigned by the telco and has no meaning, it is a simple address to your telephone. A domain name, on the other hand, is in my opinion intellectual property. Why? Domain names aren't randomly assigned. It takes creativity to think of a domain name, no matter how simple. I wouldnt just go to a dictionay and pick a random word for my website. I would think of one that suites the content of my site, or at least one that has personal meaning for me. To take this even further, go to a registrar and try to register Microsoft.com, and see what happens. It will tell you that you cannot register Microsoft.* anything because it is a tradmarked name. I'm sure that many examples of this are active, but this is just the one that I am aware of. OTOH, Microsoft is an original name, Sex.com is a standard english word. But aren't all works of intelectual property just a compilation of words in native tounge? Who is to say that I cannot write and copyright a book that is only one word long? So what makes a domain name, basicly a title to my book in a manner of speaking, or a title to my business, not copyrightable? How about sites with common words that their domain is their business name? Like Amazon.com, or MP3.com? Is that protected under tradmark laws? Remember, trademark laws are seperate from copyright laws.
I think this whole Intellecual Property debate is going to continue for some time to come. The recent explosion of computers and digital media have come far faster and further than the big, slow wheels of Big Brother could dream of turning. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds. With all the recent news of judges stripping sites of their domains, i.e. Corinthians.com, and others, this seems to be something that needs immediate attention of the lawmakers. Or at least the law interpreters. But just because this happens to involves computers, I don't see how it is complicated. Seems pretty straightforward to me, it's IP. I thought of it, I registered it, it's my exclusive right to use it for as long as I desire. So, while I technicaly might never "own" the domain name, I will forever own the thought that created it. And isn't that what copyrights and trademarks are?
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
Glad to see that CDRTaco got his law degree. Nice to know that you know more about the law then a judge.
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
Not to mention, IMO, that it seems incredibly tacky. Is all this obsession over domain names just a sign that the current system royally sucks?
--
while ( !universe->perfect() ) {
hack (reality);
--
while ( !universe->perfect() ) {
hack (reality);
}
A couple of nice metaphors, but what was your point? [btw, I'm aware of the fact that you cannot legally enforce an illegal contract: another example, if I hire you to kill me, with a signed contract exonerating you, you are still guilty of murder. I cannot sign away my life in a contract.]
This thread has been about the rights of foreign nationals to register domains in the .com (and also .net/.org) TLD, and as I see it, this is really quite simple:
-
When you register a domain name you are entering into a legal, enforcable contract.
-
This contact gives ICANN/your registrar certain rights to revoke your domain name. Eg, domain names must be registered appropritely: so you must be a comercial entity to register a name in the
.com TLD. However, there is no requirement that you must be based in the US to register a .com address, so they have no right to arbitrarily take .coms from non-US companies.
-
If you are not satisfied that the actions of ICANN/your registrar uphold the contract that you have with them, then you have recourse against them through the US courts.
-
If ICANN have treated you unfairly, the courts should restore the domain name to you. [and/or possible impose damages against ICANN for failing to uphold their part of the contract.]
IANAL-
Short answer, a contract is only as enforceable as it is legal. If the contract is found to be illegal, it is null and void.
Are you suggesting that the contact entered into between domain name registers and their customers is not a legal, enforcable, contract? If so, why is it not legal? Otherwise, what the @%*& is your point?G
It seems to me that domain names should be considered intellectual property, and be covered by the same laws that govern trademarks and copyrights.
Since IP is dying, URLs are dying.
--
LoonXTall
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
Never meant half of the things I said to you. So you know, there's a half that might be true - G. Phillips
Don't judges have to take at least one class in law before they can be appointed? I'm beginning to wonder. Of course URL's are property. You pay for them, don't you? Are they property to the Megacorps? You betcha! If ths ruling stands, only the megacorps will have rights to their URL's, but then only because they have lawyers.
In 2000 America, is a non-lawyer truly free?
That's only because the War on Drugs has pretty much disregarded the Constitution as well as common sense.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
$35 ?! What a ripoff! I paid $10 at gandi.net
I guess it would be nice to know if stealing a domain name is theft or fraud, until legislation catches up with technology. But it seems like a focus on phrases like "property" and "designation for a service" is unlikely to lead to useful legislation. Whether we call domain names property or not, presumably the core issue is the entitlement of the registered owner of a domain name. It seems like the right answer is probably that domain names are in some ways like property (we'd like the right to buy/sell them) and in other ways like a designation for a service (somebody agrees to resolve your address). Ultimately, wouldn't it would be nice if the applicable laws had to do with the rights explicitly held by the domain name registrant, and not with the status of domain names as property or as designation for a service?
As a card carrying NAL (as in IANAL), it also seems to me like an important issue is whether or not the services provided by NSI (and ICANN?) should be considered a public accomodation (is that the right phrase?). If not, then presumably domain names entail roughly whatever rights they specify.
Let's say that 1-800-mattress decides to close up shop....
Can they sell the 800 number, or does it have to go back to the telco?
The paradigm seems to fit, despite everyone's arguments that it's a "mew thing" from the "new economy."
Huh. Well, it sounds like gandi.net is in breach of contract to anyone registered through them, eh?
No relation to Happy Monkey
2. If urls are property, can't the government get involved to dictate their usage and or delegation?
3. If urls aren't property, how about other forms of data, like e-mail?
There is something a little bigger than it just being property or not.
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
They way I see it, it's about time that a whole lot of law knowledgable computer techies need to sit down and discuss the laws
That's a lot easier said than done. Law is a pretty complicated subject; it takes 3 years to learn it, and once you do you're still going to be spending a large chunk of your time researching laws and rulings you don't know about. Maybe we should try to convince computer science graduates to go to law school (or law school graduates to go back to school and learn computer science).
--
If URLs are going to be under the same laws as phone numbers, do that mean they can no long be copyrighted? You can't copyright a number.
And what about the people who are lucky enough to have the phone numbers that spell WINDOWS or GATEWAY (926-2697 and 428-3929 in all US area codes)? Are they Phone Squatting?
IMHO, I think this really needs someone to take a good look at it. The copyright laws might need to be changed for this.
Viv
-----------
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
>False
.com domain is available for registration by Internet users across the globe; but the top level name server is located inside US legal jurisdiction. So a US judge can take away a domain that a Iranian(etc.) court says belongs to you.
False. The
Does someone pay you for this?
I forget what 8 was for.
Does this in any way imply that any judge in California can force a registrar to change a domain name registration to reflect his ruling regarding a domain name? Could he also decree that California ISPs point microsoft.com to 207.46.131.137 should that domain ever get 'hijacked' by a foreign registrar? What about US citizens and compaines who register their domain names abroad. Could the registrants be forced to request alterations to foreign domain name registrations which the court would normally have jurisdiction over?
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
You would think a judge could read about past precients. This arument isn't new. Its the old Telex name arument applied to dns names.
History is doomed to ummmm something...
But Yahoo isn't a good example of where Hong Kong people trade phone numbers though - they're often traded in mobile phone malls.
The Napster lawsuit comes to mind. In that case the judge did not accept that the fair use applies to this type of file sharing, and therefore sided with the plaintiffs.
In the domain case the judge did not accept that the laws on the books apply to this.
Now that I look at it, there is absolutely no similarity between the two cases. But still there is something in my mind that links the two. Maybe it is just the anti-government sentiment. If it is, I apoligize for that. In an unrelated note, I believe that Judge Patel of the napster lawsuit thinks she is the great stimulator of the american economy. If you read her ruling, you will see how she hopes to help the future online music sites and of course, the media giants.
See it as an apartment. If you rent an apartment from a certain organisation, you live there. but if someone else obtains a legal contract to rent that same apartment and you thereby loose the right to rent it, you have to move.
The ONLY RIGHT thing that should be done here is that the organisation who owns the domain, and thus lets out the domains to others, fixes the rent contracts so the legally owner of the RIGHT to rent sex.com is given back that right.
IMHO, the judge should have ruled that the ICANN or NSI have to fix the records so sex.com is back to the original subscriber.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
You most certainly should be able to tell people where to buy crack. You should say, "Go down this street about 3 blocks and take a left. There's a Walgreens about half a mile down." Then that person can show their prescription and buy their crack, or whatever drug they happen to need. The problem is that the WoD is bullshit in the first place. We can smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol, why can't we smoke pot or use cocaine? Any of them can screw up your life and health if you abuse them. They're all addictive to some extent. The WoD is a complete failure and we should put an end to it now. There have been countless human rights abuses perpetrated by the US in the name of the WoD. Thousands of people are sitting in prison for years for having a couple of joints on them. This war has been going on for decades now. When the hell will this country wake up and realize how fucking idiotic this damn war is? How many people will have their lives ruined because of a petty, victimless "crime." How many people's rights will be disregarded because of the exceptions our government makes to the law when drugs are involved?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Example of a (random) URL: http://www.geocities.com/d.j.butler/Techno.html
/. readers don't seem to see the difference, especially in this context.
Example of a domain name: slashdot.org
I find it hard to believe that so many
On one hand URLs aren't property, thus can't be stolen. (US court)
On the other hand, URLs can be forcibly reassigned from one party to another. (ICANN)
URLs aren't like software licenses. They aren't fungible assets, they're unique. Can a court rule that your phone number will be taken away just because it's 225-5288 (CALL-ATT)? Can they decide to transfer that number to AT&T in every area code that contains an AT&T office?
Now, if it's a trademark issue, then a legal ruling entity should be able to order the cease and desist of the use of a specific domain name, but shouldn't be able to order the transfer to another party. The trademark namespace is not exclusive. Just because there's a Ford Motor Company doesn't stop there from being a Ford Bookstore. It only stops there from being a Ford something-or-other in the auto industry. The Internet in not an industry that umbrellas over all trademark namespaces. A good case in point is Nissan Computers. They're being sued by Nissan Motors because they want the domain. This is clearly not a case of trademark infringement, as both companies have the registered trademark "Nissan". What right does Nissan Motors have over the domain?
So when would trademarks apply, and how should it be dealt with? If, for example, I had the domain name ford.com and started a car company I would get sued for trademark violation, and rightly so. After I received a judgement forcing me to abandon the name ford in conjunction with my car company, I should be free to market the domain name ford.com to anyone who can legally use it, not just the one who was fastest to sue. Ford Books should have just as much right to purchase it as Ford Motors. It's unlikely that they would, because in an open market Ford Motors would pay me more, but this is an economic issue, not a legal one.
Just one more hypothetical: Say 'Orange' is a small organic farm in Idaho, been in business for decades. Orange.com is registered by someone else and they set up shop as an organic farm on the net. Say the original Orange goes to ICANN and asks for the domain, because of a trademark violation. The company wins and Orange.com is now in the first person's name. then Orange Computers, a multi-billion-dollar company comes along to ICANN and says Orange.com needs to go to them because they have a stronger tie to the name in the internet space. Shopuld it just get passed up the chain? Is this right?
Property is what this is all about. We have far more laws over property and posession than we do over 'name assignments'. The telephone number analogy is full of crap. My 'net telephone number' is my P address and you can do whatever you want with it, I don't care. When you choose a domain name from a mutually exclusive 100+ character namespace you're creating a brand, an identity, and not just a choice between THE-KING (845-5464) or THE-BING (845-2464). When is one of these cases going to make its way up the chain of appeals?
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
If you have followed the case, it is even worse than that, since this case revolves around NSI moving a domain name on an alleged forged letter. However, it does raise an interesting issue. While .net, .com, .org are by in large domains used by us entities, they are not restricted to such, any more than I am restriced from the .to (tonga) prefix on a site I run. Is the governing law on property the legal domicile of the registering authority? Or is it where the parties reside? or.... Another example: My .com site is registered through oznic which are the austrailian folks. If an american hijacks the name, is it american, or austrailian law that governs?
Assuming for the moment that this viewpoint is valid, it raises some interesting questions with respect to large and well known organisations and their rights to DNS entries based on their name. If a DNS name is a "designation for service", then I cannot see how I could be taken to court for having one that somebody else wants. Mind you, I'd also be hard pressed to sell it.
Icebergs this far south? Don't be silly!
Ever wonder what happens to the dead dot.coms? They go to a dot.com graveyard where they moan, lost souls of failed companies...
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
It's not, never has been.
ICANN Sez:
Then again I guess for all intents and purposes...
Reckon US voting should be opened internationally as the laws seem to be, or at the very least the pretence of being a democracy should be dropped.
~ppppppppö
[Domain names are]...akin to a phone number
IP addresses are more like phone numbers. I wonder if the judge has ever heard the phone book analogy describing the way DNS's work.
If you can read this, then I forgot to check "Post Anonymously".
Dont you rent the URL? $x per year. The buying and selling of URLS is just people acquiring the right to rent it.
-- Cheer, Cheer, The Red and the White.
From the article:
The judge acknowledged that it's not totally clear whether property law should or shouldn't apply to Web domains, but emphasized that the job of clarifying the law rests with the legislature, not the courts. Legal experts seconded his opinion.
It seems the judge simply did not want to set a bad precedent and instead decided that congress should write laws that specifically govern "virtual real estate" instead of the pseudo-laws being created as the side effects of various lawsuits.
(-1 Troll)
how can some one sue someone (MPAA Vs. 2600) over listing a *phone number*
-rev
What I find really interesting is how U.S. law seems to be the driving force that's deciding so many of these issues. It's as though the rest of the world doesn't exist. How come I never hear of some Spainiard, for example, saying "Hey wait a minute! Our law says cybersquatting is perfectly reasonable!" Who's resolving this sort of thing, or is the U.S. just dragging the rest of the world along with it involuntarily?
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
My understanding of business names is that you are not allowed to have the same name as another business in the same US county period. And, you are not allow to have the same name in the entire US if you are an interstate company.
So for example if you start a company called Razorback (that sells ribs) in California and somebody else starts a company in Washington called Razorback that sells razors, once both companies go interstate, ie start selling across state lines, the first company to register the name wins and the other company has to change their name. Note: this is only IF the first company actually cares and they don't usually care until people start getting the two confused. ie. people trying to reach one company find the other
At least that's my understanding. If fact the names to not have do be the same, just confusing to the consumer. If Razorback the ribs company was first and starts getting lots of phone calls for people trying reach a company called Razorbuck that sells dear hunting equipment Razorback and get a court order to have Razorbuck change their name. I remember this because when I worked at Microprose they were sued by MicroPro, makers of Wordstar (if anybody remembers that) I believe it was settled out of court
Of course the new problem is the web makes every name a global name instantly and so lots of small companies that were not interstate or intercountry now have to deal with all these name clashes.
It seems like if you applied the same rule to domains then lots of people are going to be losing their domains if (a) they were second or (b) the other guy has more money. Microsoft.com,.org,.net,.anything is going to belong (registered too, licensed too) Microsoft because following the rule above, people will be confused if they type Microsoft.org and get something other than the Microsoft we all know and ____. It may or may not be wrong but it's nothing new really.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
It seems to me that the most direct comparison between a domain name and something pre-internet would be a company's name or logo. The name or logo is not a solid object, but is identified with a particular entity which created it. It seems to me that domain names should be considered intellectual property, and be covered by the same laws that govern trademarks and copyrights.
Uncle Sam sent me to the Persian Gulf, and all I got was this lousy Syndrome!
You rent it!
(At least I pay for my domain every third year.)
I'm sure that there are some nic's who have rules about "selling" your rented subdomain (under the root domain that is) to someone else.
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
Phone companies sure can take away your phone number. I know because it happened to me. I was chilling out at home one day when I got a call from Pac Bell. The nice man told me that they had meant to give my phone number to someone else and so they'd have to give me a different one.
I asked, "Do I have a choice?" The nice man said, "No." So I had to tell everyone I know my new number. The worst part of it is that my current number used to belong to a fax machine and so I get fax calls at all hours.
In the article, it says that NSI lawyers were arguing that domain names aren't property either. That leaves them open to always "owning" them, since they aren't really property, you can't legally own them. Sounds like trouble for everyone that has a domain name through them. They got the courts to give them a good amount of power.
Here in Japan, one buys one's phoneline, then you pay the phone company for the service of connecting the phoneline which you own. Just because it is true in the U.S. does not make it true everywhere. Also, domain names can be purchased from anywhere in the world. It would then fall under international law I think. This case should never even seen daylight. It is out of the judge's jurisdiction, or should be. just my IANAL $.02
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
Because of this, you can not simply purchase a domain but must "lease" it and renew your lease each year.
I don't like this. I wish I could say that I "owned" my domains. I wish I could say that my startup could sell domains and consumers would own them for enternity. This just isn't the case and as such, we must continue to renew our domains each year.
There are things being done to keep this renewal hassle to a minimum. For example, we are allowing domain registration for up to 10 years at a time. However, this gets us back to the registry getting in the way. The ten year limit is not something we mandate but is a registry limit.
What is the difference between storing an expiration date that is 10 years from now and storing one that is 11 or 50 years from now?
actually, the DNSes for 'anydomain.com' (which probably covers 'www.anydomain.com' as well) are 207.8.152.2 and 207.8.152.3
...but since the rate of technological advance is accelerating, we'd have to shrink the "kill-off" intervals continously (sorry, don't know how it's spelled ...) .... for today, I'd say an interval o f 10 years should be fine ....
... then (most of) humanity could have good living conditions
OTOH, I'm in favor of starting wars to kill 4.5 billions of humans
I would say that an IP address is like a service, because it is given, but a dns entry is owned, bought, and sold. A phone number is like an IP address, it's normally just given, and not taken once you have it, normally. A DNS entry is not always just given, you have to get one.
Remember, Al Gore invented the internet! (Please note, extreme sarcasm)
It's been demonstrated time and time again. Simple, seemingly common sense IP issues are often misinterpretted by our court system.
This can probably be partly attributed to the fact that most Judges are > 50 years old. Their minds are cemented in a pre-internet age, it seems.
This will definately not be the last time a stupid IP/Internet law decision is made. What can be done?
----------
----------
"They misunderestimated me." --George W Bush, Nov. 6, 2000
And he set one here.
Makes me wonder if we shouldn't go about creating another option for judges to exercise: "No law for this" which punts the decision straight to the appropriate legislative body to create a law.
--
Ben Kosse
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
(sorry if this goes wrong first post) The interesting thing about the issue of url's being property is that it rasies the issue of how the concept of property is defined in the increasingly digital world, property has traditionaly been a physical concept in that it tended to pertain to a physical item however there has always been the 'loop hole' for interlectual property the question then becomes does this 'loop hole' extend to information in the digital age which is far more diverse and also quite repetative in that one person my have the same thing on there page as a thousand other poeple and be totaly oblivious to the fact however if property extends to level of idea and concept in the digital world it would be true to say most of us are both theives and poets. In short in any real sense urls can not be property as they dont have any phycial form to posses however in the context of intelectual property url's are perfectly valid as property. Dang now theres sommin ta tink about.
Lifesigns: Present Hair: Escaped Age: Increasing
You might want to keep reading until you get to point 21. Where it clearly states that 21 - The client agrees that its registration of the SLD name shall be subject to suspension, cancellation, or transfer pursuant to any ICANN-adopted policy, or pursuant to any registrar or registry procedure not inconsistent with an ICANN-adopted policy, (1) to correct mistakes by Registrar or the Registry in registering the name or (2) for the resolution of disputes concerning the SLD name.
I do not have a signature
For Radio stations. The letters signify a certain frequency which is kind of similar to a domain name resolving to an IP address. Call letters can be bought and sold, but the FCC technically "owns" all of them.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
They'd better be property. for what I paid for mine I really wouldn't appreciate the government coming along and taking them away. I think these law makers and judges should seriously begin seeking out expert advice on these subjects.
I wish domain names would become personal property even though they aren't exactly physical. What gets me is the people that play online games that buy/sell online items on eBay and such. I have a feeling a lawsuit will come up about such items and i'm interested in what the judge will say.
If I gave you a phone number to call to get some crack, I bet I could end up in jail.
Linking to a site with illegal content is certainly different than linking to yahoo. Especially if I knowingly do it (i.e. the link say "go here to get your kiddie porn/warez/etc.")
cot
While this cases current resolution does make me cringe to think of the large holes in laws regarding ownership of virtual items, I have to say that the Judge ruled correctly in deciding that current law does not cover such property. Simply looking at the complex and often misapplied laws for physical property, I don't think that expanding their scope to cover this kind of problem would be either a viable or desirable end. Since the wording of existing statutes can be twisted enough by a skilled lawyer when it is used in its intended form, I doubt it would add any clarity to simply extend them to cover an unintended area. I hope that the size of the earnings that were realized from this domain name (the article quoted hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue) will add to the pressure from other well known cases and persuade legislators to write laws specific to the electronic economy.
If Business B could steal a phone number of Business A, by writing to the telco pretending to be business A and saying they'd like their number transferred to business B, (aren't we glad most telcos are better than NSI?), then they would get lots of business intended for business A.
This sounds like a bad thing to me; why is it NOT illegal, as this case would seem to suggest?
--
Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
Pardon me, I moved the Christian calendar in the wrong direction. A more magnanimous mind would have seen the obvious error and derived the meaning from the intent. The point trying to be made was simply calendars are arbitrary.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
IP is not property, URL is property
No one can own slashdot.org but slashdot.
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
Although, as a domain holder, my knee-jerk reaction to this is "Hey! My domains are very much my property!" I have to agree that "property" is the wrong legal protection for domain names.
The current domain name system was never intended to be a keyword based system, unfortunately this is what it has become. As a result we have domain name speculators running rampant, as evidenced by Netcraft's recent report that over 10 million web sites are inactive. If domains are treated as property, then a domain name is like real estate, and you should scoop up whatever looks potentially valuable with the hope of unloading it at a nice profit.
It is entirely feasible that for some reason or another the present domain hierarchy could be abandoned and replaced with a better system. (I personally doubt it though, since a lot of companies have dumped a lot of money into promoting their domain names by now.) Registry services need to be free to withdraw a domain or shuffle things around if necessary.
The phone number analogy, while still a crappy way to think of domains, is decidely better than treating domains as real estate.
That said... 1-800-COLLECT or whoever would be pretty pissed off if the phone company dropped the ball and accidentally let someone else use that number. The same thing goes for a big site like microsoft.com. Just because something is not semantically property doesn't mean it can't be stolen. Clearly someone needs to be culpable for giving sex.com away.
Regrettably, I think it falls to attorneys to determine a just system for handling this sort of thing, since a large part of what lawyers do is hashing out precise legal terminology. I only hope that the legal system gets good technical council.
1-800-flowers basis its whole business on their phone number, and I believe pays big bucks for that number. Ditto for other phone-based businesses. Granted, _local_ phone numbers might not be property, but non-local 800 numbers are a whole nother can of wax.
Last time I checked when you pay for a domain you do not buy the root server. The domain system that is used is only one of many.......if you want to own them, setup your own root level server. The Root Server and all domains on it are property of the server's owner.
Just because your root server is ignored by the world isnt my fault, the other root server's organization's fault, or anyone elses.......
Grow up, the DNS system in my opinion is outdated and should be replaced by a better directory service......but stop complaining, you do not own it.......you pay for them to set it up and maintain the service........
Remember, it was once free when demand was very low......once the damand dictacted hiring hundreds of people to manage domains and the equipment, they needed to charge money.
www.atacomm.com - The Leader in VoIP Product Distributi
Something I don't understand about this is (IIRC) 800 phone numbers were ruled property in a sense several years ago. Specifically, it was ruled that AT&T couldn't stop someone (say 1-800-FLOWERS) from switching telephone services by holding the phoe number hostage. It seems that this should similarly apply to URL's. Simply put, people put a lot of money into a URL's (or phone numbers in the previous case) and their company is strongly tied to it. That alone should entitle them to property type protection.
Ok.IANAL but here's my two cents.Since domain names aren't property under current law shouldn't the real question be whether fraud was committed instead of stealing.From what I know about the case it would seem that some sort of "alleged" fraud occured when the domain was transferred.And if fraud was proven then shouldn't NetSol transfer the domain back to the original owner .I dunno.I'm prolly wrong but just what I was thinking.
notimeforsigs
I think this is yet another example of the legal system not understanding technology, mainly the net (OMG, its a new and scary thing). For some odd reason, the system continually treats anything Internet related differently than if a law was to be applied to any other subject matter. Courts just don't get it. For instance, a court ruled in 1999 that domain names are property. What to do? I graduated law school, worked for a federal judge and became extremely frustrated -- I returned to tech. A significant number of attorneys continue to utilize WordPerfect for DOS. Most judges do not know how to use a computer. The vast number of 'high-tech' lawyers are in it for the $ and are clueless. It is interesting that a system which is suppose to apply precedent to all legal matters has, with the Internet, not applied precedent. Rather, new rules have been written for application to anything Net-related. This is great material for conspiracy theorists. However, is it simply a problem of techies unable to communicate to the legal community (i.e.: "Open Source = Anti-copyright")? Even if it was, how could techies communicate with the legal sector? Free luncheon conferences? Campaign donations? ABA and state bar advertisements? Frustrating.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
Just because people 'treat' somethign like property doesn't mean it is.
Had any of them READ their contract when they 'registered' a domain, they would clearly see that they do not 'OWN' it, that this is merely a registration of a name in the DNS, and all that that implies.
IT's companies that started treating them like comoddities that have made idiot people think they are 'property'.
P.S. This is the second story in a day that I submitted well in advance. (2000-08-25 19:08:15 Judge Rules Domains Aren't Property (articles,doj) (rejected)), note that it has a more correct title, since this applies to domain names and NOT URLs.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]