Slashdot Mirror
California Supremes To Decide If Domains Are Property
Richard W.M. Jones writes "Are domain names property like plots of land? The California
Supreme Court has been
asked to rule in the case of
sex.com which was
transferred using a forged letter to Network
Solutions.
Wired news also has the story."
What exactly are domain registrars selling if not property? If the Supreme Court decides that domain names are not property, it'd be fun to start a class action against ... hmmm... Verisign to recover the millions spent on domain names which are apparently not actually "property" at all.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
but what kind of property are domain names? Intellectual property? Trademarks? Or plain old real-estate type of property? This ruling will be an ideal acid test to see how the (U.S.) laws perceived domain names to be.
IMHO, it's interesting because it is very hard to specifically categorize domains as property in the sense of the word. It's intangible and value (or price if you prefer to put it that way) differ for every single domain. In the past the value of domain names are judged by the popularity of the site using the name, catchiness of the name, and whether the name is associated with any popular goods or services.
I'll be keeping a watch on this one.
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
Reading the opinion, the question presented is quite different from the suggestion in the heading. The California Supreme Court is being asked by the 9th Circuit whether, under California law, the tort of conversion applies to intangible personal property.
Conversion is a theft-tort related to the taking and use of personal property of another, even if the property is later returned. An example might be joyriding your car, returning it in perfect condition to the place you were.
It is an old tort, steeped in common law. At common law, it did not apply to anything but physical, tangible personal property. Then came the bank note cases, and the bond cases and the stock cases -- here, where only paper was converted, the argument is that the damages were the value of the paper (the personal property that was tangible) rather than the value of the instrument (the intangible obligation represented by the property).
Under the old rules, conversion didn't give a remedy for the conversion of a contract right or other intangible. Most states have poked holes in that, primarily in negotiable instrument cases. The question is whether California permits an action for conversion for the imposition on the contract rights of another, in this case, a domain name.
The facts entailed the obviously fraudulent taking of a domain name and Varisign's failure to make a single phone call, taking a ridiculous (laughable) forgery instead. The jury found conversion, among other things, and a massive judgment -- and now the case is on appeal.
Of course it is a massive judgment -- the domain is sex.com!
When I was involved with settling an estate a couple years ago, I would have been grateful to have some legal answers about what to do with the three domains owned by the deceased. None of the lawyers and tax accountants involved had any idea how to handle that situation, and the service through which they were registered didn't have an answer either. If domain names are governed under some kind of property law, it will greatly help in these situations.
Where's the forest? And what are all these trees doing here?
IANAL, but the type of property (i.e., tangible, intangible, or intellectual) has some impact on the way the original owner can recover his loses. It also affects how third parties should treat the transaction. For example, certain types of property can be transferred by oral contract, other types require a written contract. I believe most, if not all, states require a written contract for real estate transactions. In contrast, movies deals involving intellectual property are routinely based upon oral contracts and handshakes. Therefore, the degree to which Verisign is responsible, the due diligence that Verisign should have taken, and thus how much they are legally responsible for the original owner's loses are at stake.
A "Hell Yeah" they're property. You pay money for the domain and the domain is registered in your name. It should be treated no differently than any other property. The physical property associated with the domain name is that little SERVER that's the actual target in the DNS records. While the owner of the domain doesn't actually OWN the server, this shouldn't matter. When you RENT a P.O. Box, its your property (the contents, at least and it cannot be opened without a court order) until you either turn over the keys or stop paying for it.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!