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

[Anonymous Coward]

What, reporting news with a particular bias?

Is it really that much worse than Fox news?

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[prestidigital]

It's interesting that Verisign is being charged w/ a higher degree of liability (at least in terms of the penalty sought). Verisign surely has some liability, but more than the individuals who defrauded them? I won't be surprised if the Verisign defense plays their client as an unwitting victim. Of course, all of my comments are based on an article from a highly editorial new source and hearsay, and may have absolutely zero bearing on the applicable laws. :^)

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, how dare in independent media company use it to print...news!

Just because you don't agree with what they say, doesn't mean they shouldn't say it. Or do you not actually agree with your own constitution?

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[Organic_Info]

"can't be as bad as what it was being used for"

What providing a different point of view?

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. Sure they showed pictures of captured/dead coalition soldiers (God rest their souls) that western audiences found disagreeable - but at the end of the day they showed no censorship in favour of coalition or Iraq sides**.

I'd much prefer to see both sides of the story than be force fed the propagander of a single side - ours or theirs.

**Al Jazerra stopped reporting any Iraq news for a day as the the Iraq government wanted two of their reporters removing for showing coalition progress in to Baghdad - the Iraq government relented and asked Al Jazerra back.

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

[jgalun]

I don't know enough about Al Jazeera to know how good its reporting is. I suspect that it is quite un-objective when it comes to its reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, I do know that after the war the head of Al-Jazeera was forced out because he turned out to have been in the pay of the Iraqi government. And many Iraqis have complained that they will never watch Al-Jazeera again because it supported Hussein's regime and never talked about how bad it was.

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[EpsCylonB]

The funniest thing was having the BBC labelled as "Al Jazeera West" by right wing in the USA. These are the sort of people who take foxnews as gospel.

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

[MAXOMENOS]

It does no good to fault neoconservatives and hyperpatriots with hypocrisy or inconsistency. Consistency of thought is never part of their moral system; what they are interested in, first and foremost, is power by any means necessay.

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[The Benefactor]

What does that have to do with Verisign screwing up? What would you say if they gave your domain over to someone just because they pretended to be you?

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

[kramer2718]

It is possible that a huge part of the $35 million discrepency is due to ALL of the attorneys' fees Verisign will have to pay (both for the initial lawsuit against Cohen and for the Kremen v. Verisign lawsuit).

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.

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[prestidigital]

Mod: Interesting +1, Insightful +1 :^)

Re:verisign in big trouble

[zedmelon]

Very true.

Verisign will definitely incorporate a "we were just as fooled as you were by all this" argument into their defense strategy. I doubt it will hold up at all, and I'm hoping it doesn't. Why register a domain name if you can't count on keeping it? There has to be a level of trust to which you can hold a business-transaction partner accountable.

From grandparent:
It's interesting that Verisign is being charged w/ a higher degree of liability...
Yes, especially since none of Verisign's business involves anything to do with security.

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[qbwiz]

Are you implying that you trust Fox News? Come on now!

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[AnotherBlackHat]

I won't be surprised if the Verisign defense plays their client as an unwitting victim.

That would be amusing.
"Gee your honor, we didn't know he was the rightful owner,
and didn't bother investigating because we can't be bothered with such trivial matters as doing our jobs."

Being duped into transfering the domain is one thing.
Refusing to fix the mistake for three years is quite another.

-- this is not a .sig

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[Nogami_Saeko]

Seems to me that Verisign was just putting roadblocks in front of the guy and hoping that he'd give up and go away.

They screwed up and I imagine they really, really wanted the whole thing to vanish, so instead of taking action to fix the problem (which would've proven they were aware of the situation), they just played dumb and hoped he'd give up.

Of course, they were more than a little stupid to think that with MILLIONS of dollars on the hook that he'd just quit bothering them.

I hope verisign gets nailed right to the wall for this. I transferred my domain away from them (to register.com) as fast as I could when it was nearing expiry, and I never looked back.

N.

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[rblancarte]

Of course if they lose this one, they will lose others. It could be bad too - it would be the end of the internet!

Um, I doubt that.

RonB

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[crawling_chaos]

The revelation that the Al-Jazeera Director-General was an Iraqi agent pretty much doomed them in my eyes. I can trust them about as far as I can trust Faux News, which I have programmed out of my remote control settings.

I would guess that the BBC had the wool pulled over their eyes. Wouldn't be hard to do if they went in thinking that they were going to be documenting the only "western-style" Arab news source. It's really easy to show someone what they want to see. Just ask Uri Geller.

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[Cleon]

In fact, that's not necessarily true. The whole "martyr" thing is a translation bit; the word in Arabic is shahid, and is used for anyone who dies committing an act of violence (it's most commonly used for those who die in battle; like most languages, there is no substantial linguistic difference between terrorism and warfare). English has no word for this; it's translated as "martyr," but shahid doesn't carry the moral/philosophical/dying-for-a-noble-cause tone that "martyr" does. It's not a mistranslation--I call it a "quasitranslation," because it's neither correct nor incorrect, really.

Arabs I've talked to who don't speak English wonder why the West is so infuriated by the use of the word--in Arabic, shahid describes someone who dies blowing up a busful of people just as much as "veteran" describes someone who fought during WWII. There's no moral component, no implication that it was a noble or heroic death--it was simply a violent death. In fact, the Arab world's equivalent of Memorial Day is Yawm Al-Shahid--aka Martyr's Day.

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[nyseal]

Like anyone in the world listens to G.W.? Jeez....he's the headline of the National Enquirer.....except for Clinton

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[macshune]

IRC, Al-Jazeera was formed by BBC staffers who worked for the BBC's arab channel. BBC canned the channel and the staffers moved to form Al-Jazerra with some dough from some mid-east sultan guy, I think the ruler of Qatar.

Re:Verisign in big trouble

[Elminst]

WEll THAT explains a HELL of a lot of what happens on Fox then...
Thanks for opening my eyes.

Look at his name carefully

[hobsonchoice]

They should try searching in Utah

Stephen Michael Cohen

Re:Look at his name carefully

[Zutroi_Zatatakowsky]

So he's claiming one billion dollars. Right. He shouldn't worry about that pesky $65M then.

Re:Look at his name carefully

[inaeldi]

I'm sorry, but that's just not funny.

They put him to an end?

[onion2k]

"We are pleased to put a successful end to Mr. Cohen," said Richard J. Idell, a lawyer representing Kremen

Thats a heck of a price to pay.

Re:They put him to an end?

[pogle]

Considering they're apparently sending bounty hunters after the guy, the end might prove more permanent in the near future. I wonder what they'll do to get the money if they actually capture him? Will offshore banks pony up for people 'under extreme duress'?

Re:They put him to an end?

[Angry White Guy]

Man, now that's justice!

If only we could do the same thing to spammers, instead of suing them for $1000.00 per UCE.

Re:They put him to an end?

[The_K4]

No, but they might release the money if they present a death cirtificate. :) "Everything's legal in Mexico, it's the american way."

Re:They put him to an end?

[AtomicX]

"Thats a heck of a price to pay." Indeed. Assassins would be much cheaper.

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

Re:They put him to an end?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just go for irony and forge the death certificate?

Why don't we just annex all those offshore islands

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, if we can invade Iraq just for it's oil, it's high time the US got off its ass, reacquired some offshore property and get this money back under a lawful system where it can be taxed and/or garnished.

Wow this is pretty cool

[Scalli0n]

This is actually pretty cool, if you read the related articles, this guy who 'snatched' the domain has gotten in gunfights, has bounty-hunters on him, and is a fugitive.

Sounds like something from a crappy sci-fi film, but in real life!

and extending the 'crappy sci-fi movie' parrallell, you can see what a bad movie it would be...2 guys fighting over a porn site.

Re:Wow this is pretty cool

[EvilTwinSkippy]

That made me think of the Corporate Raiders scene from Monty Python and the Meaning of Life.

But anyway, it's not a crappy scifi movie until you have the guys talking to themselves while typing on a computer with that infamous 20 character wide screen.

Re:Wow this is pretty cool

[ZachReligious]

Hello, my name is Stephen Michael Cohen

You stole my domain name

Prepare to die!!

Re:Wow this is pretty cool

[Surak]

I'm typing this on a Commodore Vic 20, while muttering to myself how stupid this whole sex.com thing really is. Does that count for anything?

Re:Wow this is pretty cool

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Only it the screen reads (with the last link blinking):

Department of Defense:
<p>Top Secret

Or:

EvilGenius Incorporated
<p>
Press F9 for secret plot<br>
to rule the world, and F5 for<br>
idiotic vulnerability in my next<br>
superweapon

Or maybe:

The Swiss Bank
<p>
Please enter the account number<br>
you wish to loot money from:<br>
<br>
Please enter the amount, and use the<br>
US standard decimal point, and not the<br>
European comma. While you are at it, ignore<br>
the fact the this system is in English<br>
and not in French or German

Re:Wow this is pretty cool

[Alsee]

Sci-fi??

It's sad to think that merely mentioning the internet is enough to get a movie classified as sci-fi. Any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - but only when people are baffled by that technology. Sad commentary on the public's view and understanding of computers and the internet.

-

Re:Wow this is pretty cool

[Aceticon]

Hello, my name is Stephen Michael Cohen

You stole my sex

Prepare to die!!

Re:Wow this is pretty cool

[Surak]

The Swiss Bank

Please enter the account number

you wish to loot money from:

Please enter the amount, and use the

US standard decimal point, and not the

European comma. While you are at it, ignore

the fact the this system is in English

and not in French or German



Hey! Check it out! That's EXACTLY what it's saying RIGHT NOW.

Totally Weird.

Re:Wow this is pretty cool

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!

No wait. Whoever's account that is isn't going to be very "worth"y. Muhahahahahaha.

Re:Wow this is pretty cool

[jpkunst]

But anyway, it's not a crappy scifi movie until you have the guys talking to themselves while typing on a computer with that infamous 20 character wide screen.

Or until you have a 'hacker' type of guy breaking into a remote computer system by typing frantically for 30 seconds and then exclaiming "I'M IN!"

JP

Re:Wow this is pretty cool

[Scalli0n]

hence the *crappy* part :)

Re:Wow this is pretty cool

[ruprechtjones]

Or until you have a 'hacker' type of guy breaking into a remote computer system by typing frantically for 30 seconds and then exclaiming "I'M IN!"

That's exactly how I got into this "slashdot" thing! The two generals nervously smoking and pacing behind me (along with the dashing lead character) really added to the pressure, so I typed quicker and suddenly, I was in!

End of the internet?

[Tickenest]

Man, this story just keeps getting funnier. At the end of the article, VeriSign claims in its court filings that if it loses this case and sets a precedent for others who have been defrauded out of their domains, it'll be "the end of the Internet". Anyone wanna set up a Paypal account to collect donations to stave off the end of the Internet?

Re:End of the internet?

[LorneReams]

Yeah, like god forbid they actually do their fucking jobs. Boo hoo, poor VeriSign. Maybe this will teach them to be more diligent in their dealing in the future. That can only HELP the internet, not end it.

Re:End of the internet?

[yatest5]

Anyone wanna set up a Paypal account to collect donations to stave off the end of the Internet?

Don't worry, Al Gore can always invent another one. They could always use those enigma machines the Americans managed to recover in WWII.

Re:End of the internet?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Sure, so long as by "staving off the end of the Internet" means a new projector from the proceeds.

You know, some new windows would be nice on the house too...

Re:End of the internet?

[Dark Paladin]

[tongue_in_cheek]

I think Verisign is suddenly realizing that "Oh - you mean we, as the people who hold onto the domain names, actually have a responsibility to protect our clients against fraud? I mean - what's up with that? Do you go after a bank if somebody writes a whole lot of checks in your name and only offers them a social security card as ID but no picture identification?

"What? You do? Well, that's just UnAmerican - if businesses are held up to a standard of laws - what? They usually are? Well, shit on me! Who knew!

"Obviously, this means the end of the Internet, then. Who ever took responsibility for what happened on the Internet?"
[/tongue_in_cheek]

Re:End of the internet?

[Ryosen]

Not even a social security card. The correct analogy would be a forged check. It's fraud, plain and simple and, yes, the bank would have a legal responsibility.

What galls me is that Verisign has successfully implanted into the justice system the belief that a domain name is not physical property. This, to me at least, is an asinine assertion devised only to alleviate themselves of professional liability.

While they apparently have no legal responsibility, there is still the professional responsibility of verifying a claim to transfer of ownership. Verisign's inaction encourages fraud, plain and simple, and it is corporate irresponsibility such as this that leads to draconian government regulation of public assets, such as the Internet. If business is not willing to regulate itself responibly, government will step in and do it for them. Invariably, as has happened in the past, the two never have the same agenda.

The loss of Verisign would not bring about the end of the Internet any more than the loss of MGM would bring about the end of Hollywood or United Airlines would eliminate the travel industry.

It's time that corporations be held accountable for their actions or, as is the case here, inactions.

[/rant]

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.

Re:End of the internet?

[Eccles]

You have to wonder though. For Verisign, domain names were worth $100/year or thereabouts. If one gets misappropriated, is their liability much more than that? Can I really be held liable for $100 million for mishandling something someone bought from me for so little?

Re:End of the internet?

[Alsee]

VeriSign claims ... it'll be "the end of the Internet"

Oh my god! They were right!

-

Re:End of the internet?

[Duncan3]

So who else has had clients's domains yanked by Network Solutions despite canceled checks and all.

I'll start the bidding at 3.

That's $300 million they owe right?

Re:End of the internet?

[ClubStew]

But it's only his property for a limited time. That's what he agreed to when he signed up. It is a subscription-like model and you have to keep it going. An entity really only leases a domain. If you don't pay the lease on your car (assuming it's leased), you loose it. How is this any different?

Besides, $65m for the domain stealer and $100m for VeriSign? This has got to be a joke! How can any respectable court award him that much money. 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.

Re:End of the internet?

[jafiwam]

Wait a second.

VeriSign (or Network Solutions) had very bad behavior in the past concerning ability for proper people to manage their domains and ability for shiesters to manage other people's domains.

However, in the last year they have gotten A LOT better and are now pretty easy to deal with, providing account numbers and passwords to manage domains; with a reasonably secure and speedy method for getting them if lost.

It sure would be nice if any lawsuits could go after the individuals responsible for running NSI back in the bad-old-days, that's what needs to get done.

I for one am more interested in making TWOCows cough up legitamate domain registrant information, they seem to be hiding a large section of spammer domains.

Re:End of the internet?

[The Benefactor]

The advertising fees alone for this site are worth $500,000 per month

Re:End of the internet?

[Diego_27182818]

From a slightly older ABCNews story

[Pamela] Urueta says she has presented evidence in a San Jose, Calif., courtroom showing Stephen Michael Cohen earned millions in profits from 1996 to 2000, the years that he operated sex.com. She claims that since Kremen began operating sex.com as an adult entertainment site in early December, he has made monthly profits "well into the six digits."

Pamela Urueta is Gary Kremen's attorney. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that profits could be close to a million dollars a month. Kremen was also seeking punitive damages. I think that this settlement sends out a good message to people attempting to steal domains.

Re:End of the internet?

[holt]

According to the article, the sex.com domain is worth $500,000 a month in advertising alone. So that's $36m for 6 years. Add court costs and lawyers fees over 6 years, plus costs to get him to pay up, and then a bit more to actually punish the guy. That last bit is where the bulk of the $65m (and the $100m they want from Verisign) comes from.

Re:End of the internet?

[telstar]

"it'll be the end of the Internet"

• Can't we just ask Al Gore to make a new one?

Re:End of the internet?

[Diego_27182818]

What galls me is that Verisign has successfully implanted into the justice system the belief that a domain name is not physical property.

A domains is not physical property. Until you can hand me my domain and let me touch it, it cannot be physical. Now I do believe that it is property, and is valuable.

Re:End of the internet?

[schon]

If you don't pay the lease on your car (assuming it's leased), you loose it. How is this any different?

Well, if you did pay the lease on your car, and the leasing company took it and gave it to someone who said "oh, this is really my car, please give me the keys", and you used your car for your business, then your analogy might hold true.

that's how it's different.

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:End of the internet?

[Ioldanach]

> 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.

Actually, that number is $500,000 per month in advertising ALONE. That number does not include any subscription sales or profit, purchases made, or other possible means of profit, such as selling third level domains. Thus, I think $65M might actually be the amount he could have made with the domain, uninflated.

Given that, a third party handing over the keys to the castle and thus facilitating this theft and then refusing to repair the damage should be considered an accomplice, and be held liable as well.

Re:End of the internet?

[michrech]

Besides, $65m for the domain stealer and $100m for VeriSign? This has got to be a joke! How can any respectable court award him that much money. 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.

It's fairly well known that people almost *never* get the exact amount they ask for. They generally always get less. What you do is ask for a rediculous amount (like one hundred million) so that you are more likely to get what you were wanting in the first place.

However, if I were the one who had my domain stolen, I'd ask for a huge amount just to teach the company a lesson. Say you were VeriSign. Say you were being careless and allowed dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of domains to be transfered without the consent/permission of the one with the legal 'lease'. Wouldn't a penalty of $100m make you more likely to do your job properly in the future; that is assuming you still had a company after that fine?

I knew you could see the point.

Re:End of the internet?

[Parker51]

At the end of the article, VeriSign claims in its court filings that if it loses this case and sets a precedent for others who have been defrauded out of their domains, it'll be "the end of the Internet".

This sounds like the logical fallacies of "Special Pleading" or "Appeals to Sympathy."

Verisign, in its apparent megalomania, seems to be confusing itself with the entire Internet, and like the sovereign of a nation, considers itself entitled to some kind of "sovereign immunity" where the rules that apply to others do not apply to it. Such special pleading (that it can't be punished without hurting society) is not convincing.

Furthermore, its appeals to sympathy ring about as hollow as:

"Please don't punish me for killing my parents, I'm already suffering enough as an orphan!"

or even:

"If you put me in jail, I won't be able to recover the money I've stolen!"

Re:End of the internet?

[evilviper]

"the end of the Internet"

No, even if they were right, it would only mean the end of the DNS system, and that is something I could certainly live with...

Just about all Peer-2-Peer apps work on IP addresses directly, so DNS is not needed.

In fact, not-so-long ago, my sig was "Go ahead, kill off the root DNS servers. That just means more bandwidth for Gnutella."

Re:End of the internet?

[Ryosen]

Tell you what. Go out and start a business. Pour thousands, if not millions, of dollars in to promoting that business. Accept the majority of your business' transactions over the phone. Make sure that every one out there memorizes your telephone number. Ingrain it into the subconcious of the consumer. Build your entire branding campaign around your phone number.

Now, let the phone company hand the phone number over to me, permitting me to take over your business with no reparation to you. No recourse. No obligation as the trustee of the phone number to protect and ensure that the ownership, the possession on that number, is compromised.

Now, tell me how that differs from a domain name.

Re:End of the internet?

[buck_wild]

VERY good point. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Re:End of the internet?

[Carnivorous Carrot]

No amount of apologism will cover the fact that the words "so in a sense, I invented the Internet" passed his lips on video.

Since we're correcting political faux pas, know that Dan Quayle's "potatoe" episode was a setup, with him being given a potato flash card that was deliberately misspelled "potatoe" (this is on the video tape, too.) Now put a dozen cameras on you on a frequently misspelled word, and hand you an "authorative" card, take a guess what 99.9% of people who complain about him would have done in his place.

Re:End of the internet?

[Carnivorous Carrot]

Yes. That you thought it worth so little (or were under agreement to sell it for so little) doesn't affect what it's worth in an economic sense.

Consider the poor sap who sees their old table they sold at a garage sale for $10.00 last week on Antiques Roadshow for $100,000. Could he sue his own appraiser who told him it was worthless only two weeks ago? Sure can.

Re:End of the internet?

[Gonzoman]

does anyone else find this whole thing incredibly ridiculous. Why should I care about a couple of pirates having a a tiff about a domain name. I think this whole lawsuit thing needs a rethink.

OTOH it does supply a good laugh to see the proletariat arguing about this.

Re:End of the internet?

[ClubStew]

Oh, yes, and *everyone* here at slashdot never makes spelling or grammatical mistakes, either intentionally or accidentally.

BTW, the second "loose" should be in quotes to be grammatically correct. See? :)

Re:End of the internet?

[vidarh]

Not to mention that his loss is also expected return on investment for any profit reinvested.

Domain names

[nepheles]

This goes to show just how messed-up the current domain-ownership system is. For property, there is a tightly-controlled system of deeds, and clearly defined ownership. It is almost impossible to acquire ownership of land without the consent of the owner. This is how it should be

Many domains, however, are more valuable than land. And there are far too many cases such as this with disputed ownership and other such claims. A rethink of the system is necessary. It does nobody any good for people such as this to be able to abuse the system.

Re:Domain names

[worst_name_ever]

It is almost impossible to acquire ownership of land without the consent of the owner.

Unless you have, like, tanks and stuff.

Re:Domain names

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Having just bought a house, it is VERY comforting to know the amount of paperwork that goes into a title transfer.

Of course, you run into the issue of recognizing a string of characters as property. A plot of land doesn't move. I can't type it out a new plot of land. I can go out and jump up and down on it.

A string of characters is a thought. At the very most it's like a trademark. Frankly I could fold up shop as FUBAR.COM and start life over again as NUBI.COM, and through the miracle of search engines, poeple would find me again.

And man oh man, if "domains" start to be property, people will start suing for using their "domains" in disparaging ways. Frankly, I think the whole domain name system is silly. If you are looking for "Realistic" speakers, and try to find them on realistic.com, you are in for quite a suprise. I've learned to trust only the search engines.

Re:Domain names

[aug24]

The problem here is that this 'land-equiv' can be created and can also become useless (who's going to want walmart.com if Walmart is sold to Tesco?).

The disputes tend mostly to be quite reasonable. If I have a company called Fred, based in France and you have a company called Fred based in the US, who gets fred.com? (If you lot would only use .co.us like you should've in the first place, most of this stuff wouldn't be a problem!)

In this case though, the problem is that there are complete morons working at Verisign who passed over a domain based on a blatantly forged letter, then would'nt transfer it back when their error was pointed out.

That's like a public notary accepting a badly forged will without checking with the deceased. No, hang on, I'll change that: accepting a badly forged contract of sale for a house without checking with the current owner.

As I see it, this is entirely Verisign's fault, and they are currently trying to argue that domains aren't property precisely to avoid the responsibility they have to administrate domains competently

J.

Re:Domain names

[chiph]

But do you want to have to pay a lawyer $500 to transfer a domain? And what about all the (as yet) unclaimed domains? When Kremen first registered sex.com, it was unclaimed territory, much like when the West was settled -- you arrived with your wagon and set up house. Eventually everything got surveyed, deeded, etc. But we're not to that point in domains (and I doubt we ever will be), as you can always tack another few letters onto an existing domain name to create a new one (frightening example: sexwithhillary.com).

So there is a real need for a central registrar to record purchase of previously unclaimed domains. Perhaps this registrar ought to issue a paper document which gets recorded at the local court house and thus becomes legal virtual property?

Chip H.

Re:Domain names

[swillden]

For property, there is a tightly-controlled system of deeds, and clearly defined ownership. It is almost impossible to acquire ownership of land without the consent of the owner.

This is not true.

There are any number of ways that the ownership of land can end up in dispute; my father-in-law tried to buy a house a few years ago and ended up just losing the entire purchase amount, and not getting the house, because it turned out that the seller didn't have a clear title. During a refinance of my house last year (which I have "owned" for over 10 years now) it was suddenly discovered that a creditor of the former owner had a $30,000 lien on it! And, actually, residential real estate is the *least* likely to have problems. Commercial property is often stickier, and unimproved land can be really bad.

The reason you can buy a house or other real estate with some degree of confidence isn't because the state does such an amazingly good job with managing the deeds, it's because when you buy a house you pay $300 to a "title insurance company". The first time I bought a house, I thought "Man, what a way to print money... $300 bucks and all they have to do for it is go to the county courthouse and look up the title."

In fact, when you pay the title insurance company you're buying an insurance policy: they're committing to defend your title and ensure that you either (a) keep the land or (b) get your money back, even if (b) means they have to cough it up. Where my father-in-law went wrong was that he chose not to use a title company (his choice, since he was paying cash), and that's also why commercial and unimproved real estate also often go wrong.

How should this translate into the domain name space? That's hard to say. The title company has an advantage when deciding on the price of your premium -- they have a pretty good idea of how much the house is worth, and while that value may double in a decade it won't grow by a factor of a million. In the case of domain names, most of them are pretty much worthless, but some of them end up being really valuable, and they're all treated the same. Maybe that's what's needed: the domain name equivalent of a property value assessor, so that the equivalent of a title company can provide insurance with a reasonable premium.

Re:Domain names

[untaken_name]

The disputes tend mostly to be quite reasonable. If I have a company called Fred, based in France and you have a company called Fred based in the US, who gets fred.com? (If you lot would only use .co.us like you should've in the first place, most of this stuff wouldn't be a problem!)

Yeah, well...there wasn't a .co.us for a long time. Maybe people in the U.S. are just used to getting .com since we like...invented the internet. (not algore, but Americans even so)
Now, does that give us the right to steal all the .coms and not use .co.us?
I dunno. But people here in the U.S. aren't used to using .co.us, or even knowing it exists. Whether it's good or bad or indifferent, most American people assume .com sites are located in the U.S., unless it says different in really big letters on the home page. The reality of the situation doesn't change popular perception, and when most U.S. citizens go to register a domain, they want .com or .net or .org, not any of the other ones available, which I believe is because they're the most familiar to the most American people.

Re:Domain names

[finallyHasANickname]

Dang you. Now I have to think extra to quote you with italics because you put a little italics in there. :-p

As I see it, this is entirely Verisign's fault, and they are currently trying to argue that domains aren't property precisely to avoid the responsibility they have to administrate domains competently

Is it just me, or does everyone else also suffer amnesia--failing to recall the moment when someone held a gun to Verisign's head, compelling the outfit to administrate domain names?

There is a point to that sarcastic style. aug24 had a good point. Just as in the so-called job "market", if you walk up to the door of your own accord in order to do xyz, then it should come as no surprise to you when you bear the responsibility of doing that job.

Re:Domain names

[kin_korn_karn]

your sig kicks ass.

re: domain names

[ed.han]

"maybe that's what's needed: the domain name equivalent of a property value assessor, so that the equivalent of a title company can provide insurance with a reasonable premium."

interesting idea, but i think what you're proposing would wind up being very expensive. popularity/desirability of a given domain shifts w/ the wind, ultimately, as corporations brand and re-brand stuff they're up to. to keep up w/ that sort of thing, there's going to have to be a constant and very high level of awareness of what they're up to, which in turns would become pricy. this overhead would get passed on to the consumer. these services, therefore, could wind up costing some multiple of the domain price.

just a thought.

ed

Re:Domain names

[mink]

removing a few letters leaves sexwithhill.com I dont see it being the most popular domain (I dont even think it's registered).

Re: domain names

[swillden]

these services, therefore, could wind up costing some multiple of the domain price.

Yep. TANSTAAFL. It seems rather obvious there there is no solution that is both really good and really cheap.

Further, these disputes have proven to be sufficiently rare that it's unlikely anyone would choose to buy the insurance.

Re:Domain names

[aug24]

.com was 1984, when the very first commercials were allowed on, co.us etc 1996 (aiui).

Everyone in the world abuses .com though, not just the yanks: tesco.com? waitrose.com? Daft. .com should be for global enterprises.

Anyway, a Scotsman invented the telly - do the Scots claim rights over your program scheduling? Don't use specious arguments.

J.

Re:Domain names

[aug24]

if you walk up to the door of your own accord in order to do xyz, then it should come as no surprise to you when you bear the responsibility of doing that job.

Nah, sorry mate, I'm a contractor ;-)

Justin.

Re:Domain names

[untaken_name]

Anyway, a Scotsman invented the telly - do the Scots claim rights over your program scheduling? Don't use specious arguments.

I didn't use that as my argument. I simply stated that most Americans were familiar with .com because it started here, and that's all most have ever known. Please read my post again. I said '
Now, does that give us the right to steal all the .coms and not use .co.us? I dunno.'
I wouldn't say that I used any argument to say that Americans *should* steal all the .coms.

Re:Domain names

[aug24]

I didn't use that as my argument. I simply stated that...

Fair enough. I did read it as your justification, rather than your recording of other people's justification.

Can you pop round to all their houses and ask them not to use specious arguments then? ;-)

J.

Re: domain names

[Tenebrous]

Yes, itâ(TM)s rare, but thatâ(TM)s a function of the age of the Internet. The concept of land ownership is as old as dirt. How old is the Net?

Re:Domain names

[swillden]

Your father in law didn't spend $300 on a title insurance company? How did someone that stupid acquire enough money to buy a property for cash?

My father-in-law is far from stupid, or naive, either. He bought the property at a Sheriff's Auction and, contrary to what you might think, they aren't too particular about what they sell, there's little or no recourse in the courts, and they won't wait for you to get title insurance (nor will most title insurance companies insure such situations). The county had taken the guy's home for some reason, but it turned out his brother owned half of the house and the judge ruled that the county could only take the one brother's share, not the other's, which meant they had no right to sell the house. My father-in-law did legitimately own half of the house, I believe, but that did no good. Being only a half owner, he couldn't evict the guy living there without the brother's agreement (yeah, right).

Thanks to the terms you agree to when you buy something from a Sheriff's Auction, the county also did not have to return the money. It was around $40K, I believe, for a house that appraised at around $100K. My father-in-law bought another house, which turned out not to have title problems, at another auction and got it at a similar discount so, arguably, he came out ahead in the end. I think he also sold the 50% share in the first house to the other brother for some pittance.

Re:Domain names

[untaken_name]

Can you pop round to all their houses and ask them not to use specious arguments then? ;-)

Sure! Just provide me a list of names and addresses, and whether you'd like a nutzkick too or just me asking them not to use specious arguments. (and I'll even throw in circular logic, ad hoc assumptions, either/or fallacies and the other major logical missteps that are seen everywhere these days)

Note: For pickers of nits:
I'm not saying I'm immune to logical fallacies!!
I'm not saying I've never committed them!!
All I'm saying is I *try* not to, or at least to qualify or identify them when I do. :)

Re:Domain names

[Fluid Truth]

If I have a company called Fred, based in France and you have a company called Fred based in the US, who gets fred.com?

More imporantly, if I'm in California and I have a Tire business called "Fred" because my name is Fred, and you have a Sewing Machine business in Arizona called "Fred" because your name is Fred, who then gets fred.com? Right now, it's the one with the most money, as they're the ones able to threaten legal action. But, both of us should have equal rights to it. There are a whole host of problems with the current system, based on increasingly granular geographical location and decreasingly granular trades.

Remember when a Trademark only applied to a particular trade?

Re:Domain names

[danger42]

Of course, you run into the issue of recognizing a string of characters as property. A plot of land doesn't move. I can't type it out a new plot of land. I can go out and jump up and down on it.

You can even bury Mr. Cohen on it, may he rest in peace.

Re:Domain names

[Grrr]

Realistic speakers? There's an unlikely web search...

Re:Domain names

[Zak3056]

(If you lot would only use .co.us like you should've in the first place, most of this stuff wouldn't be a problem!)

Only if the US Fred is based in the state of Colorado would that be the correct location for the Fred Company to host their domain...

Re:Domain names

[Tokerat]

I propose a new domain system: ICANN, instead of managing domain names, manages TLDs. A TLD could be purchased ; .business, .porn, anything; by a registrar. Then, that particular registrar would be in charge of any and all domains one might want to create under that name.

Notable problems:

1. Purchaser validity: That's a pretty harsh way to squat domains: Buy an entire TLD. We could put ICANN up to something worthwhile and have them actually check to make sure no one is squatting TLDs (i.e. Buy a TLD and you'd better be a company intent on being a registrar service with hardware and connections to back yourself). That, and laws (presumably in more than one country) may have to be re-worded to suit the new infastructure.
2. Congested address space: Probably would make things harder to remeber, unless it was done right. That and I'm not sure what kind of extra load this would put on DNS servers, if any.
3. Compatability. Presumably it could work, witness the recent addition of .info and .biz, and IIRC .museum? But, once again I'm not the most informed on the intricacies of the DNS system, perhaps a simple patch coudl resolve such issues? (as long as we're on the subject, let's make domains longer than 26 characters, perhaps 50 is enough. You may soon see a domain problem arising liek the IP problem that has already arrived. IPv6 anyone?)

It migh tnot end all disputes over hot names, but instead of two guys wanting to be "sex.com", once could settle for "sex.porn" and the other one "sex.pics" or something...

Re:Domain names

[/dev/trash]

How could you get a loan at a reputable bank without a clear title?

Re:Domain names

[swillden]

How could you get a loan at a reputable bank without a clear title?

A bank doesn't require a clear title; a bank requires title insurance. This is good, because making sure that a title really *is* clear is nearly impossible. It's trivial to make sure that the title is almost certainly clear, but the only way to know for sure is to wait a few years and see if anyone shows up with valid documentation that says otherwise.

Also, it's not strictly necessary to get a loan to buy a house. Cash works.

Re:Domain names

[aug24]

Assuming I've understood what a nutzkick is: Are you unaware of the connotation of a smiley, or were you having a bad day?!

J.

Re:Domain names

[aug24]

Forgive me, but I think you're mistaken. 'co' means commercial as a 2ld. I don't think there are any 2lds for states. Probably there should be.

J.

Re:Domain names

[aug24]

Silly question: does that happen?

Here, there can only be one company with a certain registered name in the entire country (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island).

Can you really have two companies with the same registered name in two different states?

J.

Re:Domain names

[Planesdragon]

Can you really have two companies with the same registered name in two different states?

Hell yes.

There are (multiple) states larger than all of Great Britain. The USPTO takes note of where registered trademarks are assigned, by geography and by market.

Re:Domain names

[aug24]

There are (multiple) states larger than all of Great Britain.

Amusingly, the rest of the world does know that some of the states are quite large. Some of us have even visited them and toured about a bit! ;-)

So, as I'm interested, what's the granularity? How 'close' can two identically named businesses be?

Cheers,
J.

Re:Domain names

[Fluid Truth]

Unfortunately, yes. Because there are several "levels" of trademarks (geographically), this can happen. I don't know how widespread the "fast food" pizza chain "Little Caesar's Pizza Pizza is, but it's pretty big in this country.

However, there was a guy named Caesar, who had a pizza place near my home town. He never heard of them, nor had they heard of him. Insert clashing of David and Goliath when "Little Caesar's Pizza" had to deal with "Little Caesar's Pizza Pizza."

I can only assume that, because the US is so large, they thought it unreasonable to expect everyone to come up with a unique name. That, or before there was widespread, reliable communication, people had similar names, but no one cared because they couldn't compete with each other. And now, you can't go back and re-do everything.

Re:Domain names

[Zak3056]

All 50 US states have their own 2ld, which uses the state's postal abbreviation. co.us is the state of Colorado (see here.)

Re:Domain names

[aug24]

I can only assume that, because the US is so large, they thought it unreasonable to expect everyone to come up with a unique name.

[Aside: By humans, you're only about four times as big as us in the UK!] I did assume that it'd be unique within states, but I can see that, as you say, historically it would be difficult, as the states 'started' with a completely evolved business structure imported from other countries, but no infrastructure.

Ta for the info.

J.

Re:Domain names

[aug24]

That's two new things I've learnt today and it's only twenty to ten!

That's a really strange arrangement as far as the rest of the world is concerned. We use www.xxx.gov.uk for the regional government websites. Still, the whole DNS structure is a bit barmy.

Cheers,
J.

Re:Domain names

[Planesdragon]

So, as I'm interested, what's the granularity? How 'close' can two identically named businesses be?

IANAL (just in case you were thinking about coming to the US and starting "Disney burgers" or something.)

The granularity is probably something like "reasonablely distinct market." If I open up "Doug's comics" in Albany, I can certainy keep any other Dougs from opening up "Doug's comics" in Albany, and maybe in the nearby cities of Schenecteady and Troy--but a slightly more distant city like Saratoga or Utica is probably out, and places like Syracuse, Buffalo, or NYC are proably very different markets.

Link

[Scalli0n]

I'm somewhat dissapointed that /. didn't provide a direct hyperlink to the site in question on the main page...

Re:Link

[Noryungi]

Shoot, man, why did you have to write this?

After reading your post, I just *had* to open www.sex.com in a browser...

I used Lynx. Being at work and all that. Ahem.

Never mind me. Carry on...

Re:Link

[croddy]

site is slashdotted - tittorrent?

Bounty?

[Greyfox]

What's the bounty on the guy? The story says that bounty hunters have been involved in several gun fights already, but with unemployment at an all-time high I bet there'd be no end of people willing to hunt the guy down like a dog if the price is right.

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:Bounty?

[b_sirrobin]

It looks like the bounty is a measly $50,000.


I might be crazy, but I'm not crazy enough to get in a gun fight with Mexican police for a chance at $50,000.

Re:Bounty?

[Nick of NSTime]

I've been in gunfights with Mexican police over a $4 bottle of tequila.

Re:Bounty?

[sharkey]

...people willing to hunt the guy down like a dog if the price is right

Wow, just like in the movies:
Out-of-Work geek: Would I have to kill anybody?
Bounty-Hunter Agency: Would you like to?

Re:Bounty?

[Art Tatum]

I might be crazy, but I'm not crazy enough to get in a gun fight with Mexican police for a chance at $50,000.

Hey, doesn't that sound like a great idea for a reality TV show?

ffs its just a domain !

[DaLiNKz]

I don't see what the big deal is.. I mean, yes, I do believe 99.9% of all internet users went to it for a laugh or because they are a bit odd (or just looking for pr0n), but its still just a domain name.. I do agree i'd be pissed if i lost my domain in some stupid event.. but i've losted 'group' held domains (like for IRC networks) before.. Its annoying but you can't trust everyone.. even the registar sometimes.

Re:ffs its just a domain !

[foofboy]

The big deal is, to quote the article
"[sex.com] is worth $500,000 a month just in advertising space"

Re:ffs its just a domain !

[DaLiNKz]

Hmm then perhaps that is something to rant about :P I could imagine that being true though, since every n00b to the internet visits sex.com when they first get on it.. other then grandma.. unless..

007 must be involved somehow

[AtariAmarok]

With all the international intrigue, this sounds like a plot for a new film:

"James Bond: Imminent Domain"

which has a working title

"Live and Let Domain-Sqaut"

(The title "The Spy who SEX.COM'ed me" has been rejected")

Re:007 must be involved somehow

[Alsee]

And the Bond girls' names will be right at home:
Honey Rider
Pussy Galore
Plenty O'Toole
Mary Goodnight
Holly Goodhead
Octopussy
Xenia Onatopp

-

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:If not property right, then what?

[LorneReams]

It's funny. They have no problems taking your money to reserve the space for you. Their problems seem to stem from actually taking accountability for that responsibility.

Re:If not property right, then what?

[Lord_Slepnir]

You "buy" a few words on their DNS server, which gets mirrored by every other Primary DNS server out there. In a way, it's like buying a sign for the front of your store. Sure, people might stumple upon your pr0n server at 18.1.26.5 by random, but if you have something that says sex.com and it point there, you'll generate a lot more revenue. Think of it like having the best Strip bar in all of New York City, but no sign. All customers have to identify you is the street address. Sure, some word of mouth bussiness will occur, but when you get a sign that says "SEX" you'll get more perv^H^H^H^Hcustomers.

Re:If not property right, then what?

[sahonen]

Well, signs are legal property as well... If someone steals your sign, you can get them arrested, though I doubt the police would look very hard. Though sex.com is more like the hollywood sign... If someone stole the hollywood sign, someone would get mad in a hurry. =D

Re:If not property right, then what?

[Alsee]

It's more like dial information, asking for Microsoft, and the phone company gives you the phone number for RedHat. Microsoft would sue the phone company into the ground.

-

Re:If not property right, then what?

[Uncle Eazy]

I understand that's how all the hot bars in L.A. operate. (At least according to "Swingers".)

You "buy" a few words on their DNS server, which gets mirrored by every other Primary DNS server out there. In a way, it's like buying a sign for the front of your store. Sure, people might stumple upon your pr0n server at 18.1.26.5 by random, but if you have something that says sex.com and it point there, you'll generate a lot more revenue. Think of it like having the best Strip bar in all of New York City, but no sign. All customers have to identify you is the street address. Sure, some word of mouth bussiness will occur, but when you get a sign that says "SEX" you'll get more perv^H^H^H^Hcustomers.

Verisign claims losing the case would kill the Net

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah right. a better, more responsive and responsible registrar would gladly take it's place. end of the Internet my ass.

Sex.com offender

[barcodez]

Will Stephen Michael Cohen be added to a sex.com offenders list?

Re:Your sig

[3.5 stripes]

You've obviously never played the game then...

It's a flash game, but I do not remember exactly where. Some site with a tank for a logo.

Yippie!

[Stephen Samuel]

Now I know who my spam's coming from!

Why sue Cohen?

[NeB_Zero]

Why sue Cohen? I mean, yes it was wrong of him to try and defraud VeriSign, but isn't it really VeriSign's fault for not VeriFying the transfer? Let VeriSign sue Cohen for attempt to defraud AFTER they discover that the transfer was not sanctioned. If VeriSign would have provided a little more customer service, Kremen wouldn't be out any money, and Cohen would not be hunted. Just a thought.

Re:Why sue Cohen?

[LordKaT]

While he defrauded VeriSign, sex.com was a legitimate business, bringing in $500,000/month in advertising revenue alone. He, literally, destroyed a business. You go after both VeriSign and him, not just VeriSign.

--LordKaT

Re:Why sue Cohen?

[revery]

And if the bank had just had better security, I wouldn't be a criminal today... ;)

You could just as easily flip it around. If Cohen hadn't tried to defraud Verisign, then Verisign wouldn't be in this position.

Re:Why sue Cohen?

[sporty]

Why sue Cohen? I mean, yes it was wrong of him to try and defraud VeriSign, but isn't it really VeriSign's fault for not VeriFying the transfer?

He effectively stole something. How you "steal" a contract that's done electronically is beyond me, but all in all, something was taken he paid for and wouldn't give it back. He had proof he "owned" it. What's worse is, he also caused damage to a business and made money while doing it.

Verisign is just as guilty.

Sounds like fraud on fraud.. or something.

Re:Your sig

[Tickenest]

1) "stand a chance", not "win"

2) The Eddie George in question is, of course, Eddie George, running back, Tennessee Titans. I used to play in an online Tecmo Super Bowl league and had Eddie George as my running back. So I decided to combine my love of Street Fighter II victory quotations and Eddie George carrying the ball for me, and came up with the line, "You must defeat Eddie George to stand a chance."

So who is this other, less relevant Eddie George of whom you speak?

First we need

[BoomerSooner]

a coalition of states with populations less than Idaho. Then we'll have the support of the world!!!!!

In other words...

[seanmeister]

... he lost his sex appeal.

ba-dum-bum. :-|

bounty hunters

[More Trouble]

From http://reward.sex.com/
Offer To Pay Reward Is Withdrawn

Dated June 26, 2001 at 2:00 PM PDT.

The offer to pay a reward for information leading to the arrest of Stephen Cohen is hereby withdrawn. In other words, no reward is available.

Re:Your sig

[Tickenest]

Fergie's not really interested in having Beckham around anymore, as his sparing usage of him towards the end of the season (especially the return leg in the CL quarterfinals) shows. I find it bizarre that a player would insist on staying with a club that has shown it does not want him anymore but no one's ever accused Becks of being a genius.

I think he'll go to Spain (probably Real rather than Barca), but I'd prefer to see him stay with the Red Devils just to see how it turns out.

So, how'd I do? Did I show enough footie knowledge? Did you like my use of "CL"? "Barca"?

Please help

[BigBir3d]

If I read this right:

With the case finally put to rest however, Mr Kremen faces his toughest battle - forcing VeriSign to accept blame for transferring the domain without checking in the first place. He is expected to win although VeriSign is sticking to its defence that a domain name cannot legally be held to be property and as such it cannot be held to account for giving the sex.com away to someone else.

If VeriSign's defense is that they sell something that can not be defined as property, then how can they sell it if they don't actually own anything?

Re:Please help

[tbonium]

If VeriSign's defense is that they sell something that can not be defined as property, then how can they sell it if they don't actually own anything?

It's a voucher for a service, not property of value. Much like you go to the gas station and buy a ticket for the car-wash. The face-value of the ticket is worthless, and it expires in time. But, punch that number into the machine and your car is washed. How many times have you tried to redeem the 1/100th of 1 cent in coupons from the Saturday paper?

Re:Please help

[Chasqui]

...you go to the gas station and buy a ticket for the car-wash. The face-value of the ticket is worthless...
But when you go to punch in the code number and it does not work because the gas station has given your code away, you have been defrauded. Not for the value of the ticket - for the value of the car-wash.

Re:Please help

[tbonium]

But, you wouldn't sue the gas station for zillions of dollars, claiming that they gave away your PROPERTY, either.

Case over.

[MasonMcD]

mmmmmm. Somebody got a cigarette?

Re:Your sig

[3.5 stripes]

Beckham's going to Milan, mark my words.

Especially if Man U can get Shevchenko plus money for him.

Porn

[Unixinvid]

Since their is a Sex.com why not Porn.com.

philosophy of property

[finallyHasANickname]

And there are far too many cases such as this with disputed ownership and other such claims. A rethink of the system is necessary. It does nobody any good for people such as this to be able to abuse the system.

Know what? You basically summarized a chapter or two of Rousseau's Social Contract there. Then again, the same could be said of Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward. Private property is such a messy thing. It puts people in a bad mood. The only thing more horrible I can imagine would be, um, its absence. (nod nod) Y'spose?

(And no. I am not accusing anyone of wanting to dispense with private property. As opposed to participating in a possibly emergent zero-ego-sum-game pissing contest, I'm just musing, k? Anybody into musing anymore?)

Hint: Feel free to babble about the "pace" of conceptual development in social conventions of property, internet versus real estate, most of all if you did at least a quick read of some Rousseau or at least "Cliff's" commentary about his "strategy" as a formulator of opinion.

Relevancy

[pommiekiwifruit]

Hey, I've heard of Alan Greenspan even though I'm not a left-ponder.

Surprisingly enough google agrees with you, as your eddie george (a college drop-out who apparently runs around a sports pitch or something) (ok he went back to school to finish, which is admirable) outranks him by 18 places, and my one (who controls interest rates and the banking system of the united kingdom) only gets a mention at 19 for opening a building (!). google has spoken and I bow to the wisdom of the populance.

Re:Venezuela

[M1FCJ]

And that's why USA is backing people to remove him and Venezuela is in such a state...

Americans, you really suprise me!

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

And, in a related joke...

[WIAKywbfatw]

Is this case the biggest turn-off or what?

You've got more chance of finding some action at www.whitehouse.com. Err, I mean www.whitehouse.gov.

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.

VeriSign could have prevented it

[NeB_Zero]

but VeriSign could have prevented sex.com from being affected by Cohen, had they been more efficient. That was the reason for my comment

Re:VeriSign could have prevented it

[LordKaT]

That still doesn't dismiss the fact that Cohen stole the domain and ruined the business. It just means that VeriSign can be sued. You're missing the fact that what Cohen did was not only immoral, but it was illegal and he is responsible for the damages he caused.

--LordKaT

Re:VeriSign could have prevented it

[tbonium]

It just means that VeriSign can be sued

If I were a retailer, could I be sued because you came in and bought something with a fake credit-card (your name and someone else's acct)?

I'm not saying your wrong, I just don't see the logic between Cohen and Verisign. It's not like they were conspiring.

Re:VeriSign could have prevented it

[buck_wild]

Yes, if it was your job and MISSION to ensure that the credit card is absolutely and without question the customer's card.

As it currently stands, if I understand correctly, there is only a cursory check done as to the identity if the purchasing party, with the majority of the checking going to "is this a valid account in good standing, with enough room."

SEX.COM - i used to work for a pr0n company...

[ryan303]

I used to work for these 2 guys that paid Cohen to put their banners on sex.com. The reason this domain is so sought after is becasue it rakes in somthing like a 200,000$ a day just on referal sign-up traffic. You had to pay Cohen 10k-20k A DAY just to have your pr0n banner on the front of sex.com's site. So with no overhead, just one html page that needs to be served, its a genius business model. I actually got to meet Cohen, and he is not someone you wanna mess with. Right when he walked in our office you could tell, he was ready to beat the crap outta anyone who looked at him wrong. This was back in 1999, Unfortunately, the original owner will probably not see a dime from Cohen.

Re:It's because

[yomegaman]

The US "retaliated"? When did Iraq ever attack the US?

You might say...

[tomcio.s]

It CAME to conclusion...

I know. Sad. I just couldn't resist.

To moderator: The above joke is so lame it deserves to be modded down.

Re:You might say...

[SoCalChris]

Yeah, I'm glad this thing finally came to a climax.

Re:Except we didn't

[mvizos]

I think we need to invade the dude on goatse.cx, because he apparently has WAD...Weapons of Ass destruction.

Re:Your sig

[The Benefactor]

Beckham won't be making the decision for his upcoming move to Europe, it'll be decided by posh spice who runs their household.

This is not still the end, so far as I can tell.

[werdna]

The article quoted in the story was posted in December -- all of this stuff REALLY isn't news. In August of 2002, the Ninth Circuit finally got fully fed up with Cohen, who continued to have lawyers work his case while abusing litigation process and with his fugitive status. Cohen's lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court to take up that decision -- the dismissal of Cohen's appeal, but retained the questions of the Kremen lawsuit as against all the remaining defendants.

On June 9th, the Supreme Court denied certiorari (that is, refused to take up the appeal of Dismissal of Cohen from the appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine).

When I last checked, the main issues on appeal devolved to a question certified by the 9th circuit to the California Supreme Court on the question whether California law permitted a cause of action for "conversion" with respect to intangible contract rights, such as a domain name. (In an opinion by which Judge Kozinski wrote BOTH the prevailing opinion AND the dissent. Does anyone know the status of that portion of the case?

So, while Mr. Cohen is a ghost (both legally and fugitively), all of the issues in the case remain, and are likely to be litigated for so long as we breathe -- at least it would seem. NSI/Varisign has been, alas, too cavalier and arbitrary in their management of domain name reassignment and disputes, creating a great deal of trouble for those unfamiliar with how they operate -- even those who irrevocably lose control of a domain name. Holding them accountable might change some of their "policies," possibly for good or bad. That will be the only likely legacy of sex.com.

BBC: Al Jazeera West

[henrygb]

What is so strange about that?

Many al Jazeera staff came out of the BBC Arabic service, and the two broadcasters now have an exchange deal.

Re:Can't you do better than that?

[agurkan]

Just to address one of your points (I don't agree with any of your reasoning):
1) To teach the ragheads in neighboring countries that fucking with us is not an option. That we can and will come and kick your ass if you piss us off and there isn't a damned thing the UN can do about it.
Don't you think this kind of reasoning also applies to "terrorists": We brought down their WTC to teach them they shouldn't fuck with us etc. etc. Are you crazy? Seriously! Just because an operation is carried out by a government who has a seat in UN SC and has the largest army and biggest economy in the world does not make that operation just, or logical. In the end, US lied about its reasons for this war, innocent people got killed by thousands, a country is thrown into chaos, the hostility against US has increased. In short world became a worst place. Why? To fill someone's pocket, make no mistake about it.
You can't justify a colonial war. I hope you are just trolling and do not actually believe in what you have written.

Re:Why don't we just annex all those offshore isla

[PetoskeyGuy]

Where would all the crooked businesses and politicians hide their money? Plus I'm sure most people would be against it for such silly reasons as it would change the number of stars on the flag and make it look silly. Of course how many people who think like that actually vote?

Finally Over?

[PetoskeyGuy]

He won his case and appeal against the first guy, now he's going after Verisign. There will then be an appeal. This is far from over, just got a new target.

Oxymoron

[sharkey]

These are the sort of people who take foxnews as gospel.

Fox News
Microsoft Innovation
Military Intelligence
Slashdot Editor

Bounty, Shmounty

[LittleGuy]

This is the New Millenium, the Pax Americana. We'll just send in 10,000 troops to /b/r/i/n/g /h/i/m /t/o /j/u/s/t/i/c/e render him and his organization impotent.

Besides, I heard there's oil in Mexico -- Profit!

Better Title

[FutureShoks]

"Sex.com case finally reaches climax" would have been a much better title for this story.

So you want virtual property to be real?

[starcraftsicko]

Perhaps I am just demonstrating my ignorance here, but don't we encounter some "slippery slope" type problems if we apply too many of the "physical world" (or RL) rules to virtual property?

Six months ago on Battle.net I was "killed". Should someone be charged with murder? Should Blizzard, or the PK that killed me be forced to pay for the time (at my consulting rate of $200/hr) to regain lost experience and gold?

I was tricked into dropping a SOJ. Is that fraud?

I posted my password for my Everquest account on my website. Somebody took over my account. Theft? Identity Theft? (US) Federal Felony?

If Ultima Online's servers suffer an outage, or a disk crashes, or "they" wipe a server and all accounts on it, do I have rights? Must I be compensated?

You may think that I am joking, but there is a legitimate market for virtual items and accounts. People will pay real money for virtual stuff. ...like domain names. If governments ignore the contracts and TOS of these providers and apply physical world laws to virtual items, an astronomical burden will be placed on these providers. Do we want to do this? Really?

We need to tread very carefully before assigning "real property" rights to virtual items and actions.

If I crash my Cesna into the Sears Tower in MSFS2002, am I a terrorist?

Won't be sorry if Versign loses

[whoever57]

My own experience is that Verisign broke their own procedures and re-configured my the primary/secondary nameservers for my company's domain name.

We set up website hosting through a third party. I intended to keep control of the DNS. However, the website hosting firm put in a request to Versign to move the nameservers to the hosting company's servers from my nameservers.

Versign sent an email to the correct address to request approval for the change, stating that if we did nothing, the change would NOT go ahead.

Yet it did. Versign made the change! I spent the rest of the day shouting at them on the phone trying to get them to change it back before the scheduled update. They refused.

I sent an email to their "investigations" department. Strangely, I heard NOTHING back.

I will NEVER register a domain name through them again!

100 million suit against verisign? DROOL

[Indy1]

God i hope he wins. I am SO fucking sick and tired of verisign. They are a joke of a registrant, and deserve to be nuked. Anyone who's ever had to do a domain transfer with them would agree

What's missing...

[A_Non_Moose]

is the sub domain names:

4play.b4.sex.com

winemedineme69me.sex.com

Smoking_after.sex.com

safe.sex.com

dontcom.sex.com

fishnet.stockings.sex.com

...uhhh, what were we talking about again?

Ah yes. Sex.com.

[xeeno]

This one definitely wasn't a quickie, was it.

Domain Names are Clientelle.

[Lab_rat0]

You can sell the goodwill of a business, i.e. its customer base.
This is treated as property.
Praise search engines as much as you like, if your a small site and you change domain names, sure your new name will soon be indexed and you will once again receive visitors, but you won't receive hits from people who have memorized your domain name or access it from a link.
Also you will loose your google page rank.
Visitors = money (especially in the case of sex.com's $500k/month advertising revenue.
If the content was moved to another domain name, it certainly wouldn't receive the same number of hits.
If my domain names aren't my property, then what am I working for?

Re:Can't you do better than that?

[leereyno]

That kind of reasoning does apply to terrorists, unfortunately for them they don't have the military capability we do. The only thing they have to offer to their cause are their lives, of which we're more than happy to deprive them, improving the quality of the world's gene pool one idiot at at time.

War isn't about right or wrong, its about win or lose. Anyone who tells you different is lying to you. War is never a good thing, but it is sometimes necessary.

I also don't see how we lied about our reasons. We wanted Saddam out because he was a threat, we got him out. We also wanted a secure base of power in the middle east, we have that now. Compared to that oil is not terribly valuable. Like I said before, if we wanted the oil we would have taken it 12 years ago. This wasn't about oil, it was about power and security, the power to intimidate other nations around the world so that they don't threaten the security of our citizens. How has the world become a worse place when countries that once sponsored terrorism are shitting in their pants and North Korea is begging to talk?

As for the hostility against the US, it is irrelevant. Europe is irrelevant, China is impotent, and the rest of the world might was well not even be there. Not that we don't appreciate goodwill from Japan, Australia, Britain, Poland, etc. Its just that in the final analysis none of it matters because the US has all the chips. The other people at the table are token players. Those who aren't at the table simply don't exist in a political sense. The whole UN is nothing but a bunch of also-rans terrified that their facade of relevance has been yanked away. Europe is such a non-player that it tries to pretend that the game doesn't even exist anymore. Well that illusion is due to the US creating a bubble in which western Europe has existed since the end of WW-II. Europe could pretend that power and realpolitic didn't matter anymore bacause we were the ones protecting them against the Soviets. I sometimes wonder why we bothered. Western europe certainly doesn't seem to be very thankful that we spent untold billions protecting them from the evil empire. How many europeans are alive today becuase they didn't get shipped off to a death camp in Siberia? If you ever want to see the true face of the Soviet Union, read the Gulag Archipelago sometime. Then come complain about the US foreign policy that protected millions for Europeans from that fate, or worse. Because of us, Europe could pretend that impotent diplomacy, press releases comdeming what they didn't have the muscle to put a stop to (the balkins), and hand-wringing were what got things done. Well guess what, in the real world things like bombs, and bullets are what make things happen. Raw, brutal force is the only thing that dumb animals like these ragheads understand. There is no diplomacy with people who hate you because you won't join them in the 14th century. Now that the US has meted out a good dose of force, things should quiet down. If they don't well then we've got plenty more in our can of whoop-ass ready for dispensing. The world has been given notice that doing things that threaten our security is going to get you wacked. If you sponsor terrorists or give them sanctuary then we're going to roll tanks into your country and level it, and there isn't a single thing that anyone anywhere can do about it. Be nice to us and we can be your very best friend. Piss us off and we'll be your judge, jury and executioner.

As for needing to justify this war all I can say is that victories don't require justifications, only failures do. If we'd lost then the US would have something to justify, as it is we don't.

Lee

Re:Except we didn't

[vegetasaiyajin]

Venezuela has the second largest oil reserve in the world, but most of it is extre-heavy oil.