Kentucky Judge Upholds State's Gambling-Domain Grab

JohnHegarty writes "A Kentucky judge has upheld that state's seizure of some of the world's most popular online casino domain names, ruling they constitute a 'gambling device' that is subject to Kentucky's anti-gambling laws." Wasn't it surreal enough on the first round?

Comments

This just in

[Shivetya]

Congress upholds right of DHS to confiscate your stuff for 24 hours.

I know, but is anyone surprised. Really, gambling is in that same circle as cigarettes and alcohol. Somehow the states have held on to their rights to exclusive domain over them within their borders whereas they lost about every other regulatory ability to the feds.

WTO maybe? Some world body should laugh them off.

Re:This just in

[Kadin2048]

What do we do when an Islamic state with access to Domain Registry, decides they want to take control of all domain names that they feel are unacceptable to their beliefs and laws?

We, along with ICANN, laugh in their general direction, since they have no way of compelling a U.S. corporation (which is what ICANN is) into doing anything. Except as allowed via treaties, foreign court orders and judgments aren't enforceable in the U.S., but judgments and orders from one U.S. state are enforceable in another, due to Full Faith and Credit. (Well, depending on who you ask it's either due to FF&C or due to Federal laws combined with USSC rulings, but the effect is the same either way.)

Is the US just the big bully on the block when it comes to controlling Domain Names in this respect?

To put it bluntly: yes. The U.S. has a sort of...unique position in this respect because ICANN is incorporated here, and ICANN still has some quasi-government baggage that prevents it from just relocating when being in the U.S. proves inconvenient. The U.S. Government could, theoretically, annul the contract that gives ICANN its authority and roll the functions it currently performs back into the Department of Commerce at any time. I don't think they'll actually ever do this -- I don't think it's really possible for them to do it, in fact, because they're not competent enough -- but ICANN doesn't really stand by itself. They exist and perform certain functions basically at the pleasure of the United States government. At least, that's how it is on paper.

What if Nevada wants to assume control over those Domain Names and deploy them under 'Eminent Domain' laws in order to give to a 'responsible party' in order to create more public revenues?

This seems like a risk, if the whole Kentucky thing doesn't get quashed soon. It's pretty obvious that the motives driving the Kentucky seizure are exactly this sort of protectionism, so it doesn't seem like a great stretch. I'm not sure if eminent domain would be the best vehicle to accomplish the task with (passing a few laws so that the sites would be in violation and then seizing the domains as punishment would be easier, I think), but the outcome would be the same.

I don't think the problem is that ICANN exists in the United States, frankly I think the problem is more fundamental: the existence of ICANN is a single point of failure; it's a place where you can, essentially, attack the Internet. Maybe not in the physical sense -- you're not destroying infrastructure -- but you can at least disrupt services to people you don't like, which amounts to much the same thing. I think it's about time to think about alternative methods that would avoid having a central authority altogether.

So...

[cosmocain]

...is Kentucky now responsible for the casino-spam flooding my inbox? Where can i sue'em?

A man can dream...can't he?

Power

[Andr T.]

Every day there's news here about Government trying to control the Internet. China with their great firewall, the UK and their laws, Australia and their version of internet control. Government gets crazy when they sense there's something they can't control. Judges, Senators, Presidents, the whole system.

What makes me sad is that I always thought it'd be harder to 'control' the internet, but it seems they'll do it sooner or later.

Re:Power

[Anonymous Coward]

For those that think it's hard for 'them' (whoever you think 'them' is) to control the Internet, try finding the Saturday Night Live Clinton/Obama debate skit portion where the moderators offered Obama a pillow.

Every place I can find has that part of the 'debate' edited out even though it was the funniest part.

Somebody needs to stop this judge

[Jeff Hornby]

Isn't Kentucky where tobacco comes from? Why doesn't a judge in, say, New York state order the seizure of the name Kentucky for poisoning the good people of New York?

It probablyt doesn't really matter. The judge is going to leave office soon and seek a more public office, probably running for the Senate or state governor (this can't be anything but a publicity stunt) and the order will get overturned on appeal.

Motion to remove to the Federal courts in

[russotto]

...5...4...3...2...1 A state judge rules that state officials have the right to take domain names registered elsewhere and belonging to organizations based elsewhere? This one is not staying in the state courts.

Re:Not entirely accurate

[Kierthos]

It's still a bad move. Basically, the judge should have thrown the case out because it's a piece of shit (or whatever the legal term is). If any of the gambling sites had corporate sites in Kentucky or web-hosting in Kentucky, then the suit has some legal basis.

But since they don't, it's setting a bad precedent of "Well, it's illegal here, so our laws apply to the website no matter where it's located".

Hang on tight, kids, it's a slippery slope coming up!

Re:differant registrar?

[G0rAk]

Why don't these companies just move their domains to a registrar that doesn't have to follow US law?

And that would stop this judgement how exactly? Apparently the law of the state of Kentucky is applicable to any server on the internet, regardless of country of origin.

block kentucky

[Anonymous Coward]

All sites should block all of Kentucky. I'm writing a script that will give a "403 - Kentucky, unstable jurisdiction" error for their IPs.

What we need is for a complete blackout of Kentucky in order to cause that judge's world to cave in.

Re:Not entirely accurate

[Mr. Slippery]

It's not the wholesale grab of domain names some people want you to believe.

The issue is not whether it's a "wholesale grab" or not. The issue is that if Kentucky has authority to seize a domain name used for gambling, any state has authority to seize a domain name used for anything in state law, and the net is quickly reduced to the lowest common denominator.

(Indeed, seems to me - though IANAL - that if this nutcase theory of jurisdiction holds, any country hostile to free speech can seize domain names left and right. Germany can seize "HolocaustDeniers.org", Russian can seize "PutinSucks.com".)

Utah

[Jaysyn]

So what happens when Utah starts doing the same thing to your porn sites or issuing warrants for people drinking on their *public* MySpace / Facebook pages?

Re:Utah

[Hoi Polloi]

So what happens when Utah starts doing the same thing to your porn sites..?

Available bandwidth would increase by a factor of 100.

Re:There will be a time

[Jaysyn]

What are you smoking & where can I get some?

Re:Follow the Money...

[Calydor]

Which, in fact, is a complete mock-up of how things work. Are you going to stop going on ski trips because you can visit an ice skating rink? Are you going to stop taking a week at Mallorca because you can go to the solarium? As he says, horse racing is a Key Tourism Industry. People go to WATCH, to experience it. Being able to place bets on the net is not going to satisfy that desire. It's like saying, "Oh, I got this CD of my favorite band, so now I don't have to go to their concert." It just doesn't work that way. If something attracts people, it'll attract people, end of story.

Ban CNN ?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if some judge in Iran rules that any websites showing pictures of women without a veil are illegal, and should be taken off the internet ? Would this judge agree to take CNN offline ?

Methinks he is exceeding jurisdiction!

Re:Not entirely accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

The threat of seizure is bogus, but the real intent I think is fair... they are simply asking the sites to control where they offer their business... when you access these sites you are physically gambling within Ken-tuck state lines. If you argue against that you are complicating idiot.

Kentucky has always been one of the most corrupt

[Zerelli]

As a former resident, I can say that this is no surprise. Kentucky is probably one of the most corrupt states in the union. The entire state is governed by old money and the horse racing industry. Every governor in my life time has had a major scandal of some sort. Kentucky is the best argument against States' rights that I can think of. The bridges on Interstate 65 have been being painted for about 8 years now because of the corrupt transportation cabinet forcing various contractors to pay bribes that drove them off from finishing the job.

Re:differant registrar?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this may come as a shock to you but in a free world, you are the one who is responsable for following the letter of the law

It may come as a shock to you, but we don't live in a free world; a fact demonstrated by the existence of laws.

Re:Not entirely accurate

[Kadin2048]

I would suspect so, or at least that seems logical; I would bet that lots of people are watching the Kentucky thing closely. If no higher court steps in and slaps them upside the head, then I don't see why there wouldn't be a rash of gTLD domain confiscations due to sites violating U.S. laws. I'm sure there are lots of state attorneys general that would love to brag about confiscating the domain name of some dirty foreign terrorist/pirate/smut-peddler/etc. I could see it becoming the method of choice for busybody public servants looking to score points -- get the web page of some unsympathetic foreign (and therefore basically defenseless) organization confiscated and redirected to the BSA/MPAA/DEA's homepage instead.

The Pirate Bay definitely seems like a high-profile, high-value target; I would be more than a little concerned if I were them (and I'd be looking into getting a domain under a Swedish ccTLD, if they don't have one already).

Basically, companies or organizations that already maintain their servers outside of the U.S. in order to avoid legal problems, probably ought to consider getting their domain name moved out of the U.S.-controlled namespace as well. It might also be time to start considering situations where it would be appropriate to de-synchronize DNS root servers from those located in the U.S., although that's a bit of a "nuclear option."

I'm hopeful that the Kentucky stupidity will get slapped down by a Federal court (or the SCOTUS), but I certainly wouldn't bet my business or organization on it, if I was at risk.