KY Appeals Court Nixes Seizure of Gambling-Linked Domains

davidwr writes "A state appeals court in Kentucky ruled that the state courts cannot seize domain names as 'gambling devices.' The court ruled that 'it's up to the General Assembly — not the courts nor the state Justice Cabinet — to bring domain names into the definition of illegal gambling devices.'"

Comments

a network not a jurisdiction

[drewzhrodague]

IANAL, but the Internet is a network, not a jurisdiction. I can't imagine they'd be able to do anything, other than block the site at the borders of the state, which is ridiculous.

Sure, there is gambling on the Internet. Sure, they may not like it. Could they prevent Citizens from using those websites?

Re:a network not a jurisdiction

[internerdj]

The great firewall of Kentucky...

Great...

[CmdrPorno]

I predict a bill will be introduced in the next session of Kentucky's General Assembly changing the definition of "gambling devices" to include domain names. Way to suggest an escape hatch for the attorney general and lawmakers...

Re:Great...

[Chris Mattern]

If it passed, the law would get struck down in the Federal courts as unconstitutional. States don't get to interfere in interstate commerce, and that includes trying to regulate internet domain names.

Re:Great...

[Translation Error]

That's the court's job. When disallow something in a ruling, they tell why they did so; they don't say, "You can't do this, but we're not going to tell you why."

What??

[imamac]

It's not the job of the judicial branch to make law? Who knew?

Re:What??

[LandDolphin]

No, they don't make law. However, they do invalidate unconsitutional laws.

KY?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this article was about something else entirely. Sure, Kentucky makes more sense, but its much less ... appealing.

I'm disappointed. Disappointed and dry.

KY

[MyLongNickName]

I saw KY, and thought it was some elaborate goatse troll.

What prerogative does KY act under...

[Snotman]

when grabbing domain names owned by some other entity in the World? If any entity can just claim that a domain name is illegal, then what prevents me from grabbing KY domain names? Why would a state entity have a greater authority than any other political entity or individual? Who holds KY responsible for acting without a prerogative for this power? For instance, why don't the island nations hosting gambling companies grab all KY GOV domains just to be malicious? I would.

It *IS* just a name after all

[dmomo]

I'm not making a statement for or against this action. But it's an odd thing when you think about it. A domain name is really just that. The name of a domain. The site can still be up, it just cannot be referred to by the name anymore. It won't stop the the gambling, it will simply make it more difficult to describe (or find in this case). They cannot confiscate the IP address or shut down the machines if those sites are off shore.

I guess this is the equivalent of keeping people away from a location by erasing it from their map.

And this differes from other countries how?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I love how each state thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules.

And how does this differ from other countries - like China, Russia, England, ...?

Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries. The States just happened to join a federation for dealing with other countries - a federation like Common Europe, NATO, the UN, the League of Nations, etc.

(And of course the federation has progressively encroached on the States' sovereignty ever since, eroding the safeguards intended to retard such behavior. That's exactly what was expected at the time. But it's also a separate issue.)

Re:And this differes from other countries how?

[Red Flayer]

Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries. The States just happened to join a federation for dealing with other countries - a federation like Common Europe, NATO, the UN, the League of Nations, etc.

(And of course the federation has progressively encroached on the States' sovereignty ever since, eroding the safeguards intended to retard such behavior. That's exactly what was expected at the time. But it's also a separate issue.)

That's a gross oversimplification. Many of the people who contributed to the Constitution were in favor of a strong Federal government (hence the term 'Federalist' used to describe them). While some were vociferously against a strong Federal government, it is mistaken to say that the United States was intended to be a federation like those you mention -- the original intent, as ratified by each of the states, was to be a much stronger union than any of those federations.

I will not disagree that the federal government has subsumed much of the authority of the states; I will, however, point out that the original States were not considered to be independent countries, otherwise foreign relations would not have been assigned to the federal government.

As for Indian tribes, they truly are more like sovereign nations, but there are entanglements that make them not quite independent.

To get back to the meat of your post, though -- states do have certain sovereign rights, and while sometimes they act without considering the impact of their actions on other states, this is one reason why we have a federal government -- to mediate disputes. It is a valid point that the OP makes, that it's somewhat screwy for a state or country to make unilateral proclamations that affect the rest of the country (or world). It's a very provincial attitude that pisses other people off.

No it's not. It's an entry in a database.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

But it's an odd thing when you think about it. A domain name is really just that. The name of a domain.

"What's in a name?"

In this case it's NOT just a name. It's an entry in a publicly-accessible and trusted database, mapping the name to a set of servers.

THAT's what the state of Kentucky seized.

And it's very valuable. I'm waiting with bated breath for the suits demanding reimbursement for lost (legal!) revenue resulting from the disruption of their business (along with damage to their trademark) caused by Kentucky's successful appropriation of their domain records.