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
First of all, the supreme court has not yet accepted the case. Don't hold your breath:
Attorneys said it typically takes the California Supreme Court about three months to decide whether to hear a case. A ruling could take more than a year.
Second, this is not an issue of whether domain names are property, but whether they're tangible property - the kind to which "traditional property conversion laws should apply".
The appeals court seems to be bouncing this to the CSC because they're afraid of laying down a precedent in this area. Too much of a hot-button issue, I suppose.
It's Slashdot's evil twin... SlashNOT
I was puzzled at first at why Network Solutions was a defendant...
IANAL, but it looks like the claim against Network Solutions is that they changed the ownership after recieving a letter from a random third party saying essentially "He sold it to me, give it so me". The letter should have been ignored. Only the OWNER of the domain can tell Network Solutions to transfer the ownership.
The judge commented in a footnote:
It's a bit as if Judge Reinhardt sent a letter to the DMV saying, "Judge Kozinski wants you to transfer title to his Lamborghini to me. He'd write to you himself, but he's out of stamps."
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
There selling the service of linking the domain name to an ip address. (or a DNS server anyhow).
There not really selling a domain name, you can't take it away with you i.e. it's useless without a TLD entry.
I can run slashdot.org on my home inntranet and even provide alternade DNS services if I want, no-one 'owns' slashdot.org.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Can someone explain why this case goes the property route at all ?
As I understand it, the domain name was obtained using forgery and other fraudulent methods. Does it even matter whether the domain name is property?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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?
If they declare it to be property in California, what them figure out a way to asses it, tax it, ...annually. Ouch
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
I consider using a domain name consists of renting the use of a name from a TLD.
These rents are managed by organisations (companies in some countries though that could be non-profit orgs).
Now, you don't own a name, you just have rented its excusivity for some time.
If it's being hijacked, then your exclusivity has been infringed.
Now, the names are to be used on a first come first served basis which also includes the priority to renew an existing domain...
Finally, if domain names were properties, then they'd be bought forever, until then these rather seem to be licensed... or rented if you prefer.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
What happens, say, when the domain name isn't stolen, but is being held by someone, when another company wants it?
In the UK, I believe there was a case where someone had legitimately bought www.marks-and-spencer.co.uk (Marks & Spencer is a department store chain, for those who don't know). However, Marks & Spencer decided that they wanted the name, filed legal action and got the name.
The question is, though, was this legitimate? Arguably, if the initial owner of the site was attempting to profit from the name, or pass off as the real thing, then M&S should inherit the name. However, if they aren't doing such actions which are illegal under current law, there is no reason why the name should be transferred to M&S.
Slightly off-topic perhaps, but it raises a lot more interesting questions. In my opinion, standard law should cover this kind of situation - what would happen if someone managed to steal a profitable company's telephone number?
Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
Since when did they started selling property? Last time I checked it looked mre like renting domains on a permanent first-refusal basis. If you miss one payment you don't own anything at all, and there is an infinite stream of payments that the registrar will want to (and will :) charge you.
unfinished: (adj.)
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.
Do people have a right to their phone number ? As long as they pay the bills can another organisation grab hold of their phone number and start taking orders ?
This for me is a direct link with domain names. If previous cases have covered phone number theft or transfer then surely they will be taken into consideration. After all a phone number is associated with a person or company rather than a physical location, you move house and you can often take your number with you, move out of the same TLA or sub-domain (area code) and you have to get a new number.
As ever with the internet, this isn't actually new, but the lawyers will make money arguing that it is.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
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!