Slashdot Mirror


Sex.com Settles Case Against VeriSign

netcentr writes "A press release on CircleID has announced that the owner of the Sex.com domain name today has got 'a final settlement with VeriSign (formerly Network Solutions, Inc.), concluding a six-year legal fight that set several important precedents for the future of the Internet. After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Sex.Com a sweeping victory that held VeriSign/Network Solutions, Inc. (collectively "VeriSign") strictly responsible for mishandling the famous domain name, Sex.Com and VeriSign have settled Sex.Com's lawsuit against VeriSign.' Gary Kremen was awarded a $65 million judgment against Cohen for stealing the domain name, which the U.S. Supreme Court declined to overturn on June 12, 2003."

165 comments

  1. One in a million by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ah... good thing they got that taken care of. I was so starved for pr0n for the last six years.

    Really - like there aren't enough of these sites out there?

    1. Re:One in a million by corbettw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, if anything that just proves the validity of any judgement. Back when the domain was first hijacked, there weren't a bazillion different porn sites. Imagine how much more money the guy could've earned being one of the first out the gate, if Verisign/Network Solutions hadn't screwed the pooch?

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    2. Re:One in a million by tbase · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, by that logic, is it ok for me to illegally hijack the expedia.com domain and make millions from it because there's no shortage of travel sites? Have you been too busy looking at pr0n to realize that Network Solutions handed over this multi-million dollar domain name without verifying the authenticity of the request? The victim (yeah, you heard me) will likely never see a dime of the $65 million settlement against the guy who stole it - shouldn't he have some recourse against the company that handed him the keys?

      --

      666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
    3. Re:One in a million by justMichael · · Score: 5, Funny
      ...hadn't screwed the pooch?

      If that's what he was selling, maybe it's a good thing they hijacked his domain to save us. ;)
    4. Re:One in a million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      "Have you been too busy looking at pr0n ...?"
      Yes.
    5. Re:One in a million by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 1

      Verisign deserved that one. I've had to scream bloody murder way too many times when that company attempted to steal domain names.

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
  2. Yay! by TWX · · Score: 4, Funny

    So the courts finally come out and say that sex should be on the internet!

    Millions of smelly UNIX administrators breathe a sigh of relief.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Yay! by vwjeff · · Score: 4, Funny

      Millions of smelly UNIX administrators breathe a sigh of relief.

      You don't have to be a UNIX admin to be smelly you insensitive clod. Oh, wait...nevermind.

  3. Oh lord here comes a slew of bad slashdot jokes... by notbob · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh well $65 million for SEX (.com) has to be a new record...

    Even our former mayor of Cincinnati, didn't write a Check that.. good ol' Jerry Springer.

    SEX (.com) has to be the most successful prostitution of a domain name yet :)

  4. what a case, what a name by millahtime · · Score: 0, Troll

    I love the fact that such a case with such a precident has happened over a site with such a same

    Goooo Sex.com!!!!

    1. Re:what a case, what a name by Mateito · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Goooo Sex.com

      or "How to get yourself sued by Sex.com AND Google in one easy domain registration"

    2. Re:what a case, what a name by LMacG · · Score: 1

      Dude. Don't say "goo" and "sex.com" in the same sentence.

      --
      Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
    3. Re:what a case, what a name by AndroidonPPC · · Score: 1

      shouldn't there be an 'at' somewhere in there?

    4. Re:what a case, what a name by huchida · · Score: 1

      A site decidcated to sex with geese? I'd hit it!

  5. Blank Page? by bishop32x · · Score: 1, Informative
    Is anyone else seeing a blank page for the article?

    no more RTFA

    1. Re:Blank Page? by DaHat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're not the only one... it acts like a page is being Dled, and a view source reveals page code... just no text is being displayed in IE, Firefox seems to work, shame I'm still an IE person.

    2. Re:Blank Page? by Teclis · · Score: 1

      Just let your browser sit on it a bit longer, It sat blank for a while, IE said done loading, and then it suddenly appeared....

      --
      Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. --Isaac Asimov
  6. Astounding by Yi+Ding · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, it completely astounds me how Verisign was unable to write a line of code which would have given the guy back his domain, which was clearly stolen from him.

    1. Re:Astounding by Ravensfire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hang on - you wanted them to ADMIT their mistake, without a court order? Right ....

      Good grief - what hill have you been living under?!?

      -- Ravensfire

      --
      "But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"
    2. Re:Astounding by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      From my understanding of the situation, they refused to give it back even after the owner showed that it had been "stolen."

      They gave it away, and instead of fessing up to their mistake, we got this crap.

    3. Re:Astounding by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There was obviously no technical reason Verisign couldn't transfer the domain back to its rightful owner. They make have said there was, but they were, of course, lying. (And, on a tangential rant: the liars at Verisign, like all the other liars at big corporations who routinely lie to cover their fuckups, should go to prison. But they won't.) There is a pathological desire on the part of these corporate pricks to avoid admitting ever that they made a mistake, so they come up with bullshit excuses.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Astounding by archen · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is Verisign we're talking about here. It would be a miricle if they could write a line of code that tells them if the sky is blue.

    5. Re:Astounding by jjohnson · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the mid-late 90s, domain registrars were explicitly avoiding fixing their mistakes on legal counsel's advice, namely that to fix a mistake was to admit liability for that mistake, and to admit liability for that mistake was to open oneself up to damages in the millions. Thus, they all took the legal position that they weren't responsible for anything they did until it was proven otherwise.

      Stupid from a common sense point of view, smart from a business point of view. I can think of a lot of domain name fuckups that, could the owner have sued, would have sunk the registrars. As it is, they've avoided huge lawsuits for the last 8 years.

      It took a domain name with the potential money behind it of sex.com to push it all the way through the courts to the current situation.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    6. Re:Astounding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In the mid-late 90s, domain registrars were
      > explicitly avoiding fixing their mistakes on'
      > legal counsel's advice, namely that to fix a
      > mistake was to admit liability for that
      > mistake, and to admit liability for that
      > mistake was to open oneself up to damages in
      > the millions

      I wonder if those were the same lawyers Ford used when they decided x number of lives times y millions per life in payout was less than a recall.

      And, like Ford, got fucked much harder in the ass, as it turned out.

    7. Re:Astounding by spudgun · · Score: 1

      another example of those crazy american lawsuits actually being counter productive.

      Greed is the problem. people and busness live in fear of being Sued !

      America has to many Lawyers
      they will be the 3rd against the wall when the revolution comes ( after the sirius Cybernetics Cord Marketing devision and the Politicians.)

      --
      Type unto others as you would have them type unto you.
    8. Re:Astounding by glitch23 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Good grief - what hill have you been living under?!?

      Capitol Hill

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    9. Re:Astounding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I checked, you don't have to write any lines of code to update a DNS record.

  7. Good by BoomerSooner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Screw verisign, they suck. Without their monopoly they wouldn't have been able to extort people and give the shittiest service ever.

    I hope it's for the full $65 Million.

    1. Re:Good by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I see you have never had to deal with the goverment.

      Just wait.

      They make vs cs look perfect.

    2. Re:Good by nilloc · · Score: 2, Informative

      From what I read, Verisign settle the case the original owner. The $65 million award is aganist the guy who stole it. The article didn't say how much Verisign had to paid.

    3. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > (Score:2, Troll)

      Moderators on crack, film at 11.

  8. o.O by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our rightful sex.com overlords

    1. Re:o.O by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember when mod points were given out to creatively funny posts ?

      Slashdot is so fucking lame these days.

  9. 2nd post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    VeriSign is bad news(for years thay would not let you put "fu*k" in your domain name)

    The base VeriSign site:
    http://www.recallverisign.com

    Check out this page by GoDaddy.com about VeriSign: https://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/PressReleases/inter net_battle.asp?isc=&se=%2B&from%5Fapp=

    1. Re:2nd post? by realdpk · · Score: 1

      The sad part is no registrars will let you put fu*k in a domain name. Fuck that pisses me off.

    2. Re:2nd post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noob:
      www.FuckFord.com
      www.FUCKGM.com

      thare are all kinds of FUCK in domain names :-)

    3. Re:2nd post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      VeriSign is bad news(for years thay would not let you put "fu*k" in your domain name)

      That's because the asterisk character is not valid in a domain name.

    4. Re:2nd post? by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, of course you can't put "f*ck" in a domain name! Asterisk ("*") is not a valid character for a domain name. You need to read the RFC.

    5. Re:2nd post? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Noob: www.FuckFord.com www.FUCKGM.com thare are all kinds of FUCK in domain names :-)

      Heh. I think he was saying "f*ck" != "fuck". Speaking of which, why was the original poster afraid to put the vowel in FUCK? What are you people, children? Afraid of your mommies? Put on your big boy pants and spell words correctly, you pansies!

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    6. Re:2nd post? by Rura+Penthe · · Score: 1

      Yeah I don't really understand it. One time I bought "sweetjesusrapingthevirginmary.com" to see if they'd let me and that went through no problem. Yet I can't buy any domain with fuck in it. Bizarre.

    7. Re:2nd post? by MurphyZero · · Score: 1

      Have you been reading posts? Most posters can't spell correctly. I doubt many of them have completed elementary education. Fuck is probably the only word they can spell correctly.

      --
      Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
    8. Re:2nd post? by realdpk · · Score: 1

      Heh, I still have "porn4christ.com". Haven't done anything with it though.

    9. Re:2nd post? by LordHedgehog · · Score: 1

      This really makes me wonder if that's why Prince changed his name back. It just got too hard to type (especially with only one hand!)

      --
      cat "Baggy pants!" > .signature # sig war!
  10. Aren't there enough? by Fubar411 · · Score: 3, Funny

    There are NEVER ENOUGH!

    To quote Will Ferrel's Neal Diamond impression, "To quench my insatiable appetite for barely legal porno."

    1. Re:Aren't there enough? by EpsCylonB · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or to quote friends...

      "If they took all the porn off the internet I'm pretty sure there would only be one website left, and it would called bring back the porn"

    2. Re:Aren't there enough? by Finuvir · · Score: 2, Informative

      Scrubs actually.

      --
      Why is anything anything?
  11. Insert... by mehtajr · · Score: 0, Redundant

    <insert obligatory paying for sex joke here>

  12. Just wait... by radd0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    until George Michael catches wind of this.

    1. Re:Just wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you could tell him with a 'Careless Whisper'

  13. I notice by platypibri · · Score: 5, Funny

    there is no such battle over intellect.com

    --
    Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
  14. Why so much by Teclis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    $65 Million? Are you telling me that's the amount of profit lost? Or that's the amount it cost to run the case through the courts..

    I bet all the lawyers involved are smiling, You do know they aren't that stupid. The case could have been settled 5 years ago, but then how could lawyers make any money?

    Good to see the U.S. Justice system at work.

    --
    Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. --Isaac Asimov
    1. Re:Why so much by mehtajr · · Score: 5, Informative

      $25 million of the award was punitive damages, so presumably, the other $40 million was compensatory (lost profits) and legal fees (probably mostly legal fees).

      Interestingly, those damages were awarded by a judge, not a jury. Here's a link. I would've expected a smaller judgement from the bench.

    2. Re:Why so much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wouldn't doubt that the amount lost during the years that Kremen was denied use of the domain name reached into the millions. After all, this was 1995, the start of the web boom. I don't remember how many years Cohen ran that site, but I can just imagine the $$$ rolling in.

      And as a side note, since Cohen fled the country, Kremen will not see a dime from Cohen anyway.

    3. Re:Why so much by arkanes · · Score: 1

      From what I recall of the original case, sex.com was bringing in a million dollars a year in advertising revenue (banners), at least at the height of the boom.

    4. Re:Why so much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think the SCO case is still going on...

    5. Re:Why so much by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      The thief made much much more than $65mil.

    6. Re:Why so much by Teclis · · Score: 1

      I find that hard to believe... what is your source?

      --
      Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. --Isaac Asimov
    7. Re:Why so much by nikster · · Score: 1

      well, he got awarded $65M. however, Cohen went bankrupt right away. And in any case never had this kind of money.

    8. Re:Why so much by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      Every news article covering this story since the ruling was issued. Where have you been?

  15. PDF Mirror just in case by MrRuslan · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.narvakitchens.com/CircleID.pdf

  16. Next on the agenda by Otter · · Score: 2
    ...which the U.S. Supreme Court declined to overturn on June 12, 2003...

    Next up on the agenda for Rehnquist and company: goatse.cx v. .cx

    I bet they thought being on the Court was going to involve dignity. OK, Thomas probably learned otherwise before he got his robe but the others likely did.

    1. Re:Next on the agenda by hambonewilkins · · Score: 1
      Next up on the agenda for Rehnquist and company: goatse.cx v. .cx

      Scalia is reportedly furious that his private pictures were made public.

      --

      God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?
    2. Re:Next on the agenda by akaiONE · · Score: 1


      Since the goatse.cx website was taken down the contributed 'art' refering to the somewhat adult graphics on the page have been popping up all over the Internet. The Finish TLD admins doesn't seem to mind the whole thing as pages like www.goatse.fi (Warning: adult graphics) have popped up all over.

      But anyways, just head over to this search if you really miss goatse.cx: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=goatse%2Btribute&btnG=Google+Search

      ..EFNet was never this clean.

      --

      "-Who said sit down?!"
      -- S. Ballmer @ MSDC 2003.

  17. Baaah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wanted to register www.sex.orgy a loonnggg time back. But they wouldn't give me the extra 'y'.

    1. Re:Baaah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I don't feel so bad for not being allowed to register www.sex.organ but I really wanted to be master of my domain.

    2. Re:Baaah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there shold be an assembly code TLD: .asm. You could then have www.sex.org.asm

  18. In related news by phats+garage · · Score: 1, Funny

    Verisign itself bought the domain name "ohfuck.com".

  19. How much did they settle for? by billstewart · · Score: 4, Informative

    The press release doesn't say whether it was the full $65million or some smaller amount, or how long Verisign would have to pay. Google News has pointers to one or two versions of the press release, plus Slashdot (:-), plus a Wired article that has the press release but also speculated that the settlement is probably a lot less than the full boat, and some comments on Kremen's attempts to track down the assets of Cohen the name thief.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:How much did they settle for? by red+floyd · · Score: 4, Informative

      The $65M judgement was against Cohen, who stole the domain. This is Kremen's suit against VeriSign for being idiots (for handing over the domain without verification) and dickheads (for refusing to do anything about it).

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    2. Re:How much did they settle for? by billstewart · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, but at least one of the court cases (I think the CA Supreme court one, but it's been a while since I read them) said that Cohen and Verisign were jointly liable, so if Kremen couldn't collect from Cohen (who took the money and ran), they could collect it from Verisign and leave Verisign stuck trying to catch Cohen and any of his assets.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  20. People, Dumbness, $ex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People do dumb things with computer.

    Ca$h involved.

    (*) (*) involved.

    Sigh. This is like a really uninspired and boring cover of People vs. Larry Flynt, or something. Although I spse the courts get a collective huzzah for having their heads out of their asses for a change. But isn't the Appellate Court to corrupt business kind of like the UN is to corrupt nations (i.e., a joke)?

  21. GPLed pr0n by Metex · · Score: 1

    I havent checked that site for a long time and I just took a quick look at it. damn cant that guy hire a deceant web designer. while the other guy stole it at least it was asteticly pleasing.

    --
    Never could figure out why my girl liked my bitch tits, then I found out she was a lesbian.
    1. Re:GPLed pr0n by PitaBred · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Damn, can't that guy hire a spell checker? At least most of the other posts on /. are readable without having to figure things out phonetically.

    2. Re:GPLed pr0n by Metex · · Score: 2, Funny

      sorry 5 beers makes my spelling horrible

      --
      Never could figure out why my girl liked my bitch tits, then I found out she was a lesbian.
    3. Re:GPLed pr0n by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      a-testicle-y pleasing ?

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    4. Re:GPLed pr0n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like ass-testicle-y pleasing.

    5. Re:GPLed pr0n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most posts on /. are readable without having to figure them out phonetically? Dang. Are you, uhh, new here?

      Maybe you just wanted to give your ego a bit of a boost? Acting like you're too dumb to understand what people are saying doesn't make you look too smart!

  22. Finally. by 7Ghent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, it's great that the good guys finally won and defeated the spectre of Verisign's vast incompentence and utter lack of responsibility, but SIX YEARS? I don't even want to think about the legal fees. There's definitely something wrong with our justice system when a stright-forward case of theft takes SIX years and millions of dollars to successfully prosecute.

    1. Re:Finally. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Well, it's great that the good guys finally won and defeated the spectre of Verisign's vast incompentence and utter lack of responsibility, but SIX YEARS?

      That is not so surprising when you consider that the very core of (then)Verisign's domain name registration service was being questioned in court. If the registrant can't trust that the registrar will protect their name, what rightful-thinking registrant would use that registrar?

      There's definitely something wrong with our justice system when a stright-forward case of theft takes SIX years and millions of dollars to successfully prosecute.

      According to the press release, the case against Verisign was not for theft but for conversion, which is (basically) the unauthorized assumption and exercise of the rights of ownership over property belonging to someone else. The case reaches well past Verisign and the particular domain name owner; it stands for the proposition that a domain name registrant has the legal right of ownership in their domain name and that interference with that right by another (including the domain name registrar) is legally actionable.

    2. Re:Finally. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta keep the lawyers off the streets... geesh, talk about gang violence !

  23. I interviewed there. by Kenja · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I interviewed at sex.com or as they like to be known "deerfield communications". Place was run out of the basment of an abandoned building. Not realy what I was looking for in a job.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:I interviewed there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I interviewed at sex.com or as they like to be known "deerfield communications". Place was run out of the basment of an abandoned building"

      Perhaps you were interviewing for the onscreen "Prison Bitch #2" role, rather than Network Engineer.

    2. Re:I interviewed there. by fsmunoz · · Score: 1

      I interviewed at sex.com or as they like to be known "deerfield communications". Place was run out of the basment of an abandoned building. Not realy what I was looking for in a job.

      Perfectly understandable. I find that 1st floors of abondoned buildings give me so much more work satisfaction.

  24. The thief made much more money by billstewart · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Kremen _was_ first out of the gate, and had the domain to himself for most of a year before it got ripped off. He hadn't done anything particularly profitable with it, which was part of how Cohen was able to rip it off without being noticed for a while. Cohen was the one who built it into a valuable property, though much of that was lucky timing on his part, stealing it before the web boom really took off, but it wasn't likely to ever be worth $40M if Kremen had kept owning it.

    But still Netsol not only shouldn't have let themselves get fooled, they should have fixed the problem promptly when they were notified about it.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:The thief made much more money by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 2, Informative
      They didn't get fooled. They probably outright stole the domain like I've seen them do many, many times.

      Once they did steal one of my domains and then sold it back to me for $1,200 under another company name that was owned by Verisign.

      Verisign does what they want to do and have been doing it for way too long and getting away with murder.

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
  25. More people these days have sex into their 70s, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I heard a report about this recently. Just because you aren't getting any doesn't mean noone else should. Besides, the article was about a precedent setting internet law case, Slashdot is not pushing porn in any way.

    1. Re:More people these days have sex into their 70s, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      But I don't want my grandchildren reading slashdot because they will find out about sites like sex.com. I read it because it is helpful to me at work, where I am a C++ programmer.

  26. Re:Offended by andy666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    This isn't a story about sex, it is a story about the internet. Unless you find the supreme court sexy...

  27. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    1. Shut up
    2. Make me a sandwich

  28. Re:Offended by LordKazan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My girlfriend and I are both technically feminists - it's actually illogical for a feminist to condemn porn. Why? Sure some porn is negative, but saying ALL porn is, is saying that it's impossible for a woman to enjoy her sexuality. You are perpetuating the very double standards you are trying to destroy.

    --
    If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
  29. Court of Appeal Decision by David+Hume · · Score: 5, Informative


    You can find the decision by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit at:
    Kremen, et al. v. Online Classifieds Inc., et al. (pdf warning)

    To get the html version, paste this url:

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ 99 9D1D5B0D734B6088256D6D0078CB88/$file/0115899.pdf?o penelement

    into the Adobe PDF Conversion Page.

    1. Re:Court of Appeal Decision by henriksh · · Score: 1
      You can find the decision by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit at: Kremen, et al. v. Online Classifieds Inc., et al. (pdf warning)

      You don't really have to give a "pdf warning". PDF is an open format, with free-as-in-rms viewers.

    2. Re:Court of Appeal Decision by bendelo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or you could include the form data in the URL

    3. Re:Court of Appeal Decision by sampowers · · Score: 1
      $ HEAD http://access.adobe.com/<b>perl/convertPDF.pl</b>? url=...

      200 OK
      Connection: close
      Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:42:08 GMT
      Server: Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) mod_perl/1.20
      Content-Type: text/html
      Client-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:50:31 GMT
      Client-Peer: 192.150.13.144:80
      Client-Response-Num: 1

      I knew you could do this with perl, but of all the websites in the world to use perl to do so, on a unix server even, I would expect this the least from Adobe, creator of PDF.

    4. Re:Court of Appeal Decision by prodangle · · Score: 1

      You don't really have to give a "pdf warning". PDF is an open format, with free-as-in-rms viewers.,

      The warning is useful - I know to right click on the link and 'save' rather than letting the PDf viewer open up in my browser and slow everything to a crawl.

  30. Do you have *any idea*... by TheTranceFan · · Score: 0, Funny

    ...how many subscriptions to MILFHunter you can buy with $65 million?

  31. Re:Offended -Depends???? by millahtime · · Score: 1

    " This isn't a story about sex, it is a story about the internet. Unless you find the supreme court sexy..."

    Well, that all depends. What are the Justices wearing under those robes.

  32. Theft, fraud, scams, racketeering, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are also reported, and in my opinion they're a much worse activity for kids to be thinking about engaging in than sex. Besides, the Internet is for adults, you can't rely on a news website to keep your kids from seeing inappropriate content. If they were curious and simply typed the word 'sex' into an address bar, most browsers would automatically resolve to www.sex.com anyway. It's not like Slashdot is giving out the location of illegal kiddie porn or snuff flicks.

  33. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was actually a joke from an earlier post. Thanks for feeding the troll though, bo.

  34. A phone call? I wonder by burgburgburg · · Score: 4, Interesting
    My favorite part of all this is that "at a time when the queue for domain names was over four weeks", all it took to commit this crime was "Cohen simply picked up the phone, asked for and was granted the Sex.Com domain name immediately".

    Am I the only one who suspects that there was a lot more than just a phone call behind this? That people high up in Verisign must have been conspiring with Cohen? Why else go through so much to keep obviously stolen property from it's rightful owner? Why lie to the courts about a supposedly forged letter if you weren't covering for something much worse?

    1. Re:A phone call? I wonder by SnappleMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, it must be a conspiracy.

      Remember, if they're really out to get you, you aren't paranoid.

      As to why they didn't fess up, I read an interesting post above. Basically registrars were not fixing mistakes/thefts to avoid admitting legal responsibility. Sounds more plausible than a conspiracy to me.

      --
      Be happy. Nothing else matters.
    2. Re:A phone call? I wonder by denlin · · Score: 1
      Why else go through so much to keep obviously stolen property from it's rightful owner?

      although i agree w/ you on every point, the difficulty was that the domain name sex.com wasn't property & therefore couldn't be stolen...sounds ludicrous, but there it was. were they morons? yes. dickheads, absolutely.

      --
      Yes, I have RTFA. Yes, I have a girlfriend. Yes, I'm new here. And no, I don't want a free iPod.
    3. Re:A phone call? I wonder by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Or it could have been something as simple as Cohen saying "Well then, how much would it take to buy sex.com? Would a million dollars be enough?" and Verisign saying "Um, well, since you put it that way..."

      Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by plain old greed and bribery :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:A phone call? I wonder by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who suspects that there was a lot more than just a phone call behind this? That people high up in Verisign must have been conspiring with Cohen? Why else go through so much to keep obviously stolen property from it's rightful owner? Why lie to the courts about a supposedly forged letter if you weren't covering for something much worse?

      While I'm certainly not saying that it's impossible, I also think that the sheer incompetence they displayed is enough to want to cover up; no further conspiracy theory is needed to explain it IMHO.

    5. Re:A phone call? I wonder by benito27uk · · Score: 1
      No you're not. From theregister...

      "Now the truth has emerged that Cohen in fact never used the letter to get hold of the domain and it may even have been a concoction of Network Solutions in order to undermine Kremen's case against both Cohen and Network Solutions.

      Cohen had in fact tried several times to get hold of the Sex.com domain through phonecalls and emails to Network Solutions staff before finally succeeding in persuading an employee - with whom it is suspected he had a sexual relationship, and who later became head of the investigation team into the domain's unauthorised transfer - to change Kremen's ownership details to Cohen's over the phone."

  35. Well, thank f**ck they let me put fuck in my domain name! ;)

    1. Re:damn. by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 1

      "...f**ck..."

      heh, i'm not sure what that is, but i'll try anything once! O_o

      God, i need a drink.

  36. State Action + Converstion = takings by pdcryan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Very interesting.

    Not all of the pieces of the puzzle are in place yet but it looks like VeriSign is finally being pegged as a state actor. What does that mean? Well, all of those annoying parts of the constitution that apply to governments, but not to private parties... might apply to them (little things... like... due process maybe?).

    Further - if domain names are property (which is contrary to some lot of previous court precedent - partially based on the idea that domain names are only protected in so much as they are trademarks, which generally cannot be transferred without transferring the good will of the company behind the trademark) VeriSign has some further problems. When they bumble these things, not only are they violating the domain owners due process rights - but it might be a constitutional "taking" - requiring compensation.

    Hopefully finding that VeriSign is a state actor, and that there is a property interest in a domain name - will be the final nail in SiteFinder's coffin (which essentially would be conversion of all of the unregistered domain names).

    Anybody interested in being the .net and .com domain registry? I have a feeling ICANN might be looking to fill some positions soon.

    --
    Ryan Kennedy opposes comm
    1. Re:State Action + Converstion = takings by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, all of those annoying parts of the constitution that apply to governments, but not to private parties... might apply to them (little things... like... due process maybe?).

      If the FCC (a state actor if there ever was one) can still arbitrary levy fines on Howard and Bono (and the companies that give them airtime) for incidents that may have occurred several years ago without due process, what hope do we have that Verisign will ever be held to the proper standards?

    2. Re:State Action + Converstion = takings by rsborg · · Score: 1
      If the FCC (a state actor if there ever was one) can still arbitrary levy fines on Howard and Bono (and the companies that give them airtime) for incidents that may have occurred several years ago without due process, what hope do we have that Verisign will ever be held to the proper standards?

      Remember that the FCC Commissioner is appointed by the President (google cache)... and that this is an election year. If you care, use your power and vote them out.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    3. Re:State Action + Converstion = takings by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 1

      And what about the bogus bills? After you transfer your domain they keep sending out bills to you anyway. The unknowing pay them.

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
  37. Stop your whinin', beeeotch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish I had mod points so I could mod you up as "funny" and watch you get modded down three times as "overrated".

  38. Slashdot Comedy Cop Alert! Re:One in a million by sharper56 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Excuse me, a proper Slashdot retort would have included some passing reference to the act of masterbation when talking about internet porn.

    example:
    No, I can surf with only one hand.

    In future, please try to follow the Slashdot comedy guidelines!

  39. Expires 2012 - Still Stuck With Verisign? by bcolflesh · · Score: 0, Redundant

    How long before he transfers the domain?
    ______________________
    Registrant:
    Krem en, Gary (SEX452-DOM)
    Grant Media, LLC
    2544 3rd Street
    San Francisco, CA 94107
    US

    Domain Name: SEX.COM

    Administrative Contact:
    Kremen, Gary (GK3508) gkremen@AOL.COM
    Grant Media, LLC
    2544 3RD ST
    SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107-3113
    US
    415 647 5111 fax: 415 285 7111

    Technical Contact:
    Payne, Lewis De (LDP3) administrador@pkventures.com
    PK Media Ventures, Inc.
    Avenida Cuba y Calle 34
    Edificio 34-20
    Panama, Panama Panama
    PA
    011- 227-2658 fax: (818) 506-0699

    Record expires on 30-Nov-2012.
    Record created on 18-Oct-1995.
    Database last updated on 20-Apr-2004 17:02:53 EDT.

    Domain servers in listed order:

    NS2.PERSIANKITTY.COM 216.218.223.131
    NS1.SEX.COM 209.81.7.11

    1. Re:Expires 2012 - Still Stuck With Verisign? by akaiONE · · Score: 2, Informative


      If you had bothered to paste the first part of the whois you would display the fact that Kremen can not change the domain himself anymore:

      Domain Name: SEX.COM
      Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
      Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
      Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
      Name Server: NS2.PERSIANKITTY.COM
      Name Server: NS1.SEX.COM
      Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
      Updated Date: 03-dec-2003
      Creation Date: 18-oct-1995
      Expiration Date: 17-oct-2012

      I guess it's just going to sit like that until NSI decides that it's time for the real owner to have control back.

      --

      "-Who said sit down?!"
      -- S. Ballmer @ MSDC 2003.

  40. In Soviet Russia, by Anubis333 · · Score: 0, Funny


    In capitalist America
    65 million buy website.

    In Soviet Russia,
    65 million buy country.

  41. Hi, I'm Raven Alder! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I'm a walking, living, breathing cliche! I dress like an extra from 'Hackers'! But I'm a chick so you have to mod all my posts '+5 Insightful', or you might not get to have sex with me! And if you don't, I'll e-mail all my 1337 friends again and get lots of mod points that way. Refer the previous story about me for further examples of this.

    Thanks.

    PS - My real name is Jane Smith and my daddy is rich.

  42. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Shut up
    2. Make me a sandwich


    If you insist...

    /me waves a magic wand


    Poof! You are not a sandwich.

  43. Re:Slashdot Comedy Cop Alert! Re:One in a million by JudgeFurious · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's "No, I can't surf with only one hand you insensative clod!"

    In this case use of the classic "Profit!!!" seems mandatory but also easy just like an "All your base" reference.

    A "Soviet Russia" or maybe a "Beowulf cluster" comment done well though would really be nice.

    I mean, as long as we're following the SCG's and all.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  44. Re:Slashdot Comedy Cop Alert! Re:One in a million by Mr+Guy · · Score: 3, Funny

    At Slashdot, Anonymous Cowards make your profits for you, you insensitive clod.

  45. Smelly UNIX by lildogie · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've got to get that distro!

  46. I'd agree, except by BayBlade · · Score: 1

    I haven't had 5 beers, and your spelling still looks horrible.

    --

    The key difference between a Programmer and a Senior Programmer is that one of them is Mexican.

    1. Re:I'd agree, except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAA THAT WAS FUNNY YUO ARE MR FUNNAY MAN!@#
      fjgflkgjfdlj gljfl gldfk jgdflgj df dflgjl dfgj dfklgjldfkjgfkldjgldf gf gdfg - more lameness to beat the anti-caps lameness filter

  47. maybe I'm missing something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but why would they need to settle if they had already been granted a judgement and the higher courts declined to hear the case?

    1. Re:maybe I'm missing something... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because most companies do not have 65 million dollars in cash laying around. Rather than the plaintiff spending years garnisheeing and collecting on a bunch of properties, it's much easier to reach a figure with the loser and take it. A very large percentage of cases settle post-judgment.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    2. Re:maybe I'm missing something... by nacturation · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, that's not it. The $65M judgment was from last year in a case against Cohen, who stole the domain. The article doesn't say what Verisign settled for.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:maybe I'm missing something... by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 1

      Yeah maybe I can sue them for denying domain transfers over and over so they can force me to pay them for another year. How much is that worth?

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
    4. Re:maybe I'm missing something... by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Yeah maybe I can sue them for denying domain transfers over and over so they can force me to pay them for another year. How much is that worth?

      About 15 minutes worth of lawyer time. :)

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  48. Sex.com? by bfg9000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why should we care? This is obviously not something that will ever affect us geeks. Now, HabitualSelfPleasure.com, *there's* News For Nerds, Stuff That Matters.

    --

    I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."

  49. Yay! by AvoidTheNoid · · Score: 0

    Score one for the good guys...


    ...seriously...

  50. Landmark case by Audacious · · Score: 2, Funny

    It is also a landmark case because now we know who's had sex and who hasn't.

    (I'll just go back to playing my video games now. You know - the ones with the simulated sex. :-P )

    --
    Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke. :-)
    1. Re:Landmark case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly, with regards to sex.com, we know who got it in the end.

      Oh, wait...

  51. Legal Fees: Deflating the Free by dunng808 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This case reminds me of the IBM vs. SCO case, and the Microsoft vs. Sun case, and so many others, in that of all the attempts to monetize free software and the Internet, those most likely to be profitable are lawsuits. Will the Internet be the last new open range for grazing lawyers on Earth? What next, then; the moon? The sun?

    --

    Gary Dunn
    Open Slate Project

    1. Re:Legal Fees: Deflating the Free by Disavian · · Score: 1

      If you can build something to launch them all into the sun, then that might be a very possible place for them.

      I, for one, welcome our new Solar overlords.

  52. Was Beelzebub the Judge? by wonkavader · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess it makes sense that Verisign would wind up in the Ninth Circle. Oh, wait. That was Ninth Circuit.

  53. Re:Slashdot Comedy Cop Alert! Re:One in a million by why-is-it · · Score: 1

    Given the subject matter of the story, would mention of Natalie Portman (grits optional, temperature variable) be in order? What about a goatse reference?

    --
    *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
  54. Damn it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way to post an invalid URI, you insensitive clod! BTW, have you seen this site? I hear that it's CowboyNeal's home page.

  55. Nice by NarrMaster · · Score: 1

    where are my mod points when I need them....

    --
    That's right. All your base.
  56. Re:Slashdot Comedy Cop Alert! Re:One in a million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He did say "hijack" and "Expedia", a travel company that sells plane tickets, in the same sentence.

    Cut him some slack, jack!

  57. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Aww, DENIED! One spelling mistake and you've gone and ruined what would've otherwise been pretty funny; T and W aren't even adjacent on the keyboard, for shame!

  58. Oh for God's sake! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sex.com? I thought it was Slashdot, news for nerds, not news for perverted sociopathic deviants watching pornography who might find this news interesting in any--- Oh, wait a minute...

  59. I worked with Steve Cohen weeks after he stole sex by hmhoek · · Score: 5, Informative

    I had just started at a small recruiting shop and he was around in various unspecified capacities. We started talking one night and he was really excited about showing me how he owned sex.com. He did a whois, which had his name, then logged into the sex.com servers and poked around a little. He then bragged about the cashflow and the offers to buy from Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler.

    He also asked all the secretaries to pose naked, used the company phones to call Nevada brothels for business advice and other shady activities.

    I was later deposed as a witness for a sexual harassment case against the company because of his behavior (he was not an employee but rather an acquaintence of the owner) and the behavior of other sales people. The company's attorneys were in the process of searching for him at that time, which was around 2000 or 2001.

    I can't wait for him to finally get caught. He reminds me of Robert Vesco; he's probably funding Al Queda or Russian prostitution rings or something now.

  60. Re:I worked with Steve Cohen weeks after he stole by hmhoek · · Score: 1

    [stupid title size limit]
    Make the above: "I worked with Steve Cohen weeks after he stole sex.com"

  61. Re:Offended -Depends???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ring them up and ask them.

  62. I met the thief by gbulmash · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Oddly enough, when I was a salesperson at the Circuit City in Huntington Beach, CA, I sold a VCR to Steve Cohen, the guy who stole sex.com.

    This was within a couple of months of him getting the domain. He was bragging about how he owned it and how he'd already been offered a million dollars to sell it, but he was going to hold on to it because he thought it was worth a lot more.

    Guess it was.

    - Greg

  63. abandoned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Place was run out of the basment of an abandoned building.

    Yeah, that place was *so* abandoned... well, except for all the people that were working there!

  64. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it was a fraudulent Sex change?

  65. How The Grinch Stole sex.com flash cartoon by adzoox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How The Grinch Stole Sex.com - a very funny flash cartoon with a little background on the story and the legal matter.

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
  66. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck you feminazi

    i cut your tits off and feed them to your father, you whore

  67. Re:Offended by LordKazan · · Score: 1

    Idiot - "Feminazi" is an 'extreme feminist' aka radical feminist, my girlfriend and I make fun of them

    Oh and I'm a hetereosexual white male WASA (White Anglo-Saxon Atheist) - So I don't have tits to cut off, and since i've only had three partners in my life I guess im not a whore.

    --
    If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
  68. Re:Offended by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1
    My girlfriend and I are both technically feminists

    Please stop telling my fish that he doesn't need a bicycle.

    --
    Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  69. talk about an ass backwards conclusion by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    Being able to sue for millions of dollars is a *good* thing. 1) because they need to be smacked around for screwing people over and 2) they need to be hit hard enough that they don't do it again. So Europe wants to fine Microsoft $600 some million, whoop de frikkin do. Their business practices led them to their $40 billion pile of cash, so not only is that fine pocket change, they'll write it off as a business expense and keep doing the things that led to the fine in the first place.

    Why is it that anti-regulation people see that having a economy where business's have all the rights of individuals + no regulations + no responsibility for their actions is A BAD THING?

    1. Re:talk about an ass backwards conclusion by spudgun · · Score: 1

      You're think of Mega corperates
      I'm thinking of small Business.

      isn't it the job of Law enforcment to protect the people, it should never get to lawsuits.

      --
      Type unto others as you would have them type unto you.