Sex.com Case Finally 'Over'

Spad writes "The Register is reporting that Stephen Michael Cohen has, unsurprisingly, lost his appeal against the $65m in costs awarded to Gary Kremen for defrauding him out of the sex.com domain name almost 6 years ago. However, Cohen is currently a fugitive from justice in Mexico, with his assets in various offshore accounts, making it very difficult for Mr Kremen to claim his money. Kremen is now pursuing a $100m suit against VeriSign for signing over the domain in the first place, which he is expected to win." See our previous story for more background.

Comments

Verisign in big trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

If they do loose this one others will follow. I read recently they let Al Jazerra's domain go to a US citizen using a forged fax.

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[Otter]

I watched a BBC documenty about Al Jazerra filmed during the Iraq conflict. While their slant may be towards their regions audience I found them to be quite imapartial.

Not that I'm qualified to express an opinion on this one way or the other but -- how on earth can you determine them to be "quite impartial" on the basis of a BBC documentary about them? Presumably anything from the BBC is utterly objective and impartial?

Incidentally, al-Jazeera's old head was on the payroll of Iraqi intelligence, for what that's worth...

re:verisign in big trouble

[ed.han]

disclaimer: IANAL.

my guess however is that the plaintiff(s) will argue that verisign has a history of this type of incident (e.g., creating a "pattern of behavior") which does not adequately safeguard the commodity for which they are charging significant monies.

you're likely right that verisign's defense will take that tack, but that's a little too predictable and is likely a strategy that will die under the testimony of aggrieved parties. this has clearly happened enough that there are a number of people w/ an axe to grind, and who kept documentation of their dealings with verisign during the process.

come to think of it, i would expect to see a massive class-action suit against verisign, which verisign would be moronic to avoid: the ability to collectively settle, once and for all, will probably result in a payout of some kind, and in the process, grant them immunity to further such suits (a la the tobacco companies settlement).

now, if the government were to get involved, it gets more interesting: no knowing which side they'll come in on...of course, the realist in me keeps thinking:

"i'm from the government; i'm here to help!"

[guffaws of laughter]

ed

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO it's the same as if a bank would transfer all assets of a customer to someone else based on a forged fax without seeking confirmation.

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[onion2k]

Incidentally, al-Jazeera's old head was on the payroll of Iraqi intelligence, for what that's worth...

The head of Fox News is George Bush's cousin. What of it?

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[Organic_Info]

I was merely passing on some information I thought relevant and I persoanlly thought that during the documentary they appeared impartial. Someone else watching the same documentary may have thought different.

The documentary was a fly on the wall thing so they could have used editing to influence the perception.

In general the BBC are impartial and don't tend to sensationalise news - why well similar to Al Jazerra they don't just cater for the UK/Arab audience. Remember not all the Arab states liked the Saddam regime so the news can not be completly biased towards them/it.

Incidentally, al-Jazeera's old head was on the payroll of Iraqi intelligence, for what that's worth...

I didn't know that...but its not suprising. People of power within any organisations being the pockets of security services/governments is pretty much the norm the world over.

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[Atrahasis]

While the BBC may have been impartial in the past, legislation in the works will give the police powers to shut them down/take them over in the event of "an emergency". Trouble is, THEY get to decide what an emergency is.

Write to your MP.

If not property right, then what?

[cybaea]

The core of Verisign's defence seems to be that domain names are not property rights. From the BBC article on the same ruling:

Forcing Verisign to accept blame for transferring the domain name in the first place could prove equally difficult.

Verisign maintains that domain names are not legal property and as such it cannot be held accountable for giving it away.

If it loses, as legal experts expect, Verisign would face a huge legal bill and fines of up to £100m.

Two questions: what excatly am I buying when I buy a domain name from Verisign and why do "legal experts" think they'll loose that battle -- presumably they have an extensive user agreement that clears them of responsibility for all and any wrongdoings?

Confused.

Re:Bounty?

[Angry White Guy]

Bounties are usually like 2 to 10 percent of what the guy owes, although that usally only applies to bail bonds. If it were me, I'd bump the ante up to a cool ten million, as long as I could actually get at least $20 million from him. But that means that he'd have to be brought back alive...

Re:Bounty?

[TheDredd]

I don't think this guy's got that $ 100000000

If he did he could buy himself out of situations instead of shooting
That's what those rich folks do al the time

Re:End of the internet?

[malia8888]

Verisign had a fiduciary duty to protect Mr. Kremen from theft of his property. They didn't do their jobs and they should pay.

They aren't guilty of theft like Steven Michael Cohen. Verisign is guilty of not protecting the domain name which in this case is very valuable property.

This is like a bank giving away the money of a customer to someone who fraudulently obtains access to their account.

Just by the premise that Verisign accepts people's money to protect and secure a domain name is proof in itself that domains are valuable. If they weren't valuable companies and individuals wouldn't be paying hard, cold cash to assure that the domain doesn't slip away from them.

Verisign would be better off compensating Mr. Kremen than sending a message to all their customers that they are not trustworthy.

downanddirty.sex?

[EChris]

So when do y'all think the .sex TLD will come out? Or would that make sex sites too easy to censor? Or is that a good thing for the pr0n business, being easy to block by parental units, avoiding costly court cases?

sex.com would be such a moot issue if there was a .sex top level domain, in my opinion.

Chris

Never again

[Eol1]

Not sure how closely you follow Al Jazerra and Middle Eastern politics, but unbiased non-pro western reporting by Al Jazerra is a thing of the past.

Before the war, they were a semi-independent media agency, the only major one in the Middle East. Shortly after the war (maybe two weeks back, don't remember the exact date of the annoucement), the head of Al Jazerra was sacked by the Qatar government and replaced with a Qatar government appointed individual. This was clearly done (and semi officially side channeled in diplomatic / intel circle's) to appease the west's concern with non pro western reporting by a major international news outlet.

The days of fair non western partial reporting of major middle eastern events by Al Jazerra are over.

Re:End of the internet?

[dissy]

> I cannot believe for one second that the domain - even over the course of 6
> years - would've made even close to $65m! Maybe close to $1m, but even that's
> probably pushing it! This is rediculous.

Actually that is what he pointed out (proved?) in court.
sex.com would bring in $500,000 per MONTH.

So he made 1 mil per 2 months, or 6 mil per year.

Assuming of course that number didnt decrease over the years (which we know it would, but according to the RIAA/MPAA it would double each year, and the courts seem to believe that BS, so... assuming its $500,000 for all 6 years afterwards) it works out to 36 million dollars over the 6 years.

Nomrally if you can prove bad faith, you can be rewarded 3x for impunitive damages. He is basically trying to get twice, not three times, the damages.
(Ok, i dont know if thats what hes asking for, or what the lawyers are just trying for.. but you know what i mean)

He is being ripped off basically, and should get around $108 million, not $65 million, assuming he wins.

Re:They put him to an end?

[rblancarte]

The Bounty Hunters are the best part of this whole story. Personally, I think this story just got good.

RonB