Slashdot Mirror
The Sex.Com Story Continues
wherley writes "This story at news.com tells the tale of the lucrative sex.com domain, the incompetent Verisign transfer per forged request, and the $65 million dollars in damages hanging in the breeze."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
You know, I hope someone steals the domain for goatse.cx so it points somewhere far more harmless.
My eyes have been permanently wounded by trolls posting that link here.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Or perhaps a floodgate of lawsuits where Verisign royally screwed up and did nothing to try to rectify the situation.
There is a difference from being down for a little while, and giving someone a domain that you paid for and registered. Then saying, "ooopps...well here is your registration fee back."
Fight Spammers!
"This case is out of hand."
It's not like they had both hands available to hold it down.
"Derp de derp."
I'd think that they can be held liable - not for $65 mill, perhaps, but let's face it: if not for their crummy system, and for really dropping the ball as far as security and verification are concerned, this never would have happened.
I've worked in banks for years, and I know if someone comes in claiming to be Ms. Smith, then steals all of the real Ms. Smith's money/safety deposit box items/etc, the bank is held accountable for fucking up. I don't see a big difference here.
Verisign should pay a fair and equitable amount for their mistake, improve the system (if they haven't already) so it never happens again, and go on.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
You're KIDDING!! Verisign? Incompetent? The hell you say! Who could possibly have guessed? Why, I've had nothing but an easy time with them, and their procedures have been nothing but pleasurable to conform to. And I have *not* abandoned them for other registrars.
-brennan
Net domains and real property have more in common than difference:
1. Both are fixed - only one entity may occupy a particular "parcel" at a time.
2. There is a fixed supply of each (excluding adding stupid TLDs, and Hawaii)
3. Whether you "own" either is really just a description of what you own, stored in a central database which can be verified by a third party.
4. In general, any changes you make or sites you build are just superficial - they may add or detract from the value, but the basis of the value is more dependent on the site (location, location, location). Once you relinquicsh your license/deed, the next owner may keep or remove your additions, but the space hasn't really changed.
Of course, there are exceptions, however...
Owning real estate is just ownership of a document which has the force of law allowing you limited use within a prescribed boundary. Nearly identical to a namespace.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Let me create an analogy for a minute. Let's say I'm some prankster, and I call up the Local Telco here (Verizon) and say I want to foward the number of IBM to my home phone instead. Now, if Verizon were as stupid as Verisign, all I'd have to do is fax them a change order on IBM stationery, and it would go through and all of IBM's business would come to my home phone. Don't you think IBM would hold the phone company responsible if it took them a long time to resolve the situation (or even let it happen in the first place!)
Point is -- Verisign still thinks it's the wild west out here on the net, and they don't provide customer service of any kind. Furthermore, they are completely incapable of providing the services they offer. Criminal negligence is prosecutable. The fact that it's easier to change IBM's domian than it is to change IBM's phone number shows the maturity of the phone company -- they've already had to deal with pranks like that for decades.
And the fact that Verisign has no provision for knowing how to deal with these situations, and furthermore doesn't follow standard business practices (such as those provided by a phone company) makes them responsible for both "letting it happen in the first place" and "dragging their heels to fix the problem once it became clear what happened".
Just my 2 cents.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I can see how they could be held responsible for negligence in correcting the matter in a non-expeditious manner....
Seeing as how it took 5 years to get the domain back that would probably qualify under the "non-expeditious manner".
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
They say that "a domain name isn't tangible property."
Uh huh. Tell that to people who wind up on the wrong end of 'cybersquatter' lawsuits, like this guy.
If a domain name isn't tangible property, then doesn't this ruling somehow negate or diminish the concept of a trademark, which is also in most cases just a name?
If a big corporation can sue for alleged misuse of their name or dilution of their trademark, then I would say that a name certainly can be tangible property and that the ruling that stated it isn't is flawed as all hell. Or is this just another case of monied corporations having rights that citizens don't?
~Philly