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.)"

Comments

Huge contradiction here...

[KFury]

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

Seems reasonable...

[Carnage4Life]

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)

Non-Techie Legal System

[2quam4]

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.

Stealing Microsoft.com?

[icqqm]

What shocks me is that the URL here was stolen which was the whole point of this case. If I were to go and hijack microsoft.com, would the judge rule in my favor as well? Heck no, because Microsoft is a big company. Network Solutions would yank the domain from under me before I could say "hypocrisy". The little guy once again loses out to the law, and the most important thing to have when it comes to the internet for most companies is now subject to an EULA.

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.