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
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.
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
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!
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
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
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...
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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."
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
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
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
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
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
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!
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.
...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
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!
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!
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.
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
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]