Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Judge Rules Domain Names Are Property

Posted by timothy on from the radical-libertarians-all dept.

farrellj writes "A recent decision in the Ontario Appeals court has ruled in favour of Tucows, saying that domain names are considered property, rather than being a license. This has major ramifications for a people both inside and outside Canada, doubly so since Tucows is a major domain registrar. This ruling comes from a very high court, which means that any appeal must go to the Supreme Court of Canada. So there is a good chance this ruling will stand."

142 comments

  1. dr;nca by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no car analogy

    1. Re:dr;nca by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      From the ruling:

      The registered owner of the domain name has the right to exclusively direct traffic to the domain name’s corresponding website and to exclude anyone else from using the same name. The ability to exclude others from the enjoyment of, interference with or appropriation of a specific legal right was held by Cory J. in Bouckhuyt, as a necessary incident of property.

      Therefore, infringing a copyright is just like stealing a car. Have I got this right?

    2. Re:dr;nca by skywire · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, you do not have it right. You have made the common error of imagining that it is the copyrighted work that is "intellectual property", the thing that is owned by the copyright owner. Actually, what is owned is the copyright itself, that is, the exclusive right to authorize copying of the work.

      The analog of car theft would be not infringement, but the act of assuming the ownership of a copyright without the consent of the rightful owner. This could happen if a person were to fraudulently convince the state agency that administers copyrights that the owner of the copyright has assigned it to him.

      Infringement is more like a trespass -- like someone finding your car unlocked and sitting in it. The copyright owner is still recognized as owner and is still for the most part enjoying the state's enforcement of his monopoly.

      Please do not misread me as a defender of the justice of copyright law. That is a question for another time.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    3. Re:dr;nca by Tacvek · · Score: 2

      Oddly though, I think that

      This could happen if a person were to fraudulently convince the state agency that administers copyrights that the owner of the copyright has assigned it to him.

      sounds a lot more like registering a fraudulent title to the car.

      Pure theft of the car would be far more like destroying all copies of the work the copyright owner has. The copyright owner is still lawfully regarded as the owner in that case, just like with the car theft case, but down must track down a copy in order to fully utilize their ownership rights.

      The big difference is that with a car, there is only one that could be tracked down, while with a copyrighted work, there are potentially many, and the owner may be able to use any of them.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    4. Re:dr;nca by skywire · · Score: 1

      more like registering a fraudulent title to the car

      You are perceptive to notice this difference; it arises from the fact that a car is physical, and so subject to a physical theft without transfer of title. But a copyright is not a physical object; it is a legal right enforced by the state. One could effectively steal it from its owner only by fraudulently convincing others, including the state, that one owns it, which under a registration regime would most effectively be accomplished by getting it registered in one's name.

      I'm afraid you have run off the rails with all the talk about destroying and tracking down copies. Destroying a copy or copies of a work is a non-event from a copyright standpoint. It neither infringes nor steals the copyright. And a copyright owner need not track down or even possess copies of the work he owns the copyright in to exercise his exclusive rights with respect to the work.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    5. Re:dr;nca by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Not entirely off the rails.

      With a stolen car, the owner cannot utilize nearly any their rights.

      Without a copy of the copyrighted work, the copyright holder cannot utilize some of their rights. For example without a copy, the copyright holder can still go after infringes, but would experience great difficulty in licensing the work to others, since in addition to a license, most licensees require an initial copy of the work, and telling them to buy it from one of the other licensees is unlikely to go over very well, and may not even be possible. Not to mention that if you are suing for infringement you basically need to register the work, which requires a copy. For works of US origins it is officially a requirement, although it is plausible that a court would waive the requirement if registration were not possible, but you would face a greatly increased burden of proof, since you would need to prove that you created the work, purchased the rights, or commissioned the creation of the work under the works-for-hire doctrine in order to establish holding copyright on the work, plus the normal burden of showing infringement.

      Both cases (stolen car and lack of a copy) can be resolved by re-obtaining the item in question, either the stolen car, or a copy of the work.

      They are by no means an exact match, but there is a distinct similarity between them.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    6. Re:dr;nca by egork · · Score: 1

      Traffic=moving cars
      There, preprocessed that for you. Now pls. start reading!

      --
      ...a stunned silence fell upon the hall.
  2. So who owns it? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Who owns the domain name?

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    1. Re:So who owns it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The registrant. And FWIW, the term "domain name investor" is the best euphemism for "scumbag speculator" I've seen yet.

    2. Re:So who owns it? by tepples · · Score: 0, Troll

      Without speculators, there is no liquidity; without liquidity, there is no well-defined price. What makes a speculator a scumbag or not a scumbag?

    3. Re:So who owns it? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do we need liquidity for domain names?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:So who owns it? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      By that ruling, Tucows owns it. They registered it previously, and the court says it is still theirs and theirs alone to do with as they please.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    5. Re:So who owns it? by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's completely untrue. You need some speculators in the stock market because there's a lot of businesses that need the proceeds of stock sales before they're a reliable bet and during times of risk.

      But this is a completely different matter. Domain names are for the purpose of not having to type an IP address in to access a site. Having people licensing sites with no intention of using the site does nothing helpful.

      As for the ruling, as much as I typically like to see people sticking it to corporations this was an idiotic court decision that will have real consequences in the long term. If you're now the owner of a particular domain, that means that there is no way that the registration can be stripped or a means of a registrar seizing the domain if payment is withheld.

    6. Re:So who owns it? by __aaaehb3101 · · Score: 4, Informative

      By that ruling, Tucows owns it. They registered it previously, and the court says it is still theirs and theirs alone to do with as they please.

      Actually the ruling says that Tucows as the register does not have to turn the domain name over to the person in Brazil, who demanded the domain(because the domain name is the same as his last name). The domain name was in use, and also hosted 14 active domain email addresses that did not have to be surrendered by the person that registered the name with Tucows. The court ruled that the domain name and the domain email have a "real value" which makes them equal to property(as in I can't demand you give me your car because my last name was ford).

    7. Re:So who owns it? by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

      By that ruling, Tucows owns it. They registered it previously, and the court says it is still theirs and theirs alone to do with as they please.

      ...The domain name was in use, and also hosted 14 active domain email addresses that did not have to be surrendered by the person that registered the name with Tucows.

      The article also mentions :

      Tucows acquired the domain name when it bought MailBank.

      So the answer to the question of who owns it is still Tucows. Whether you want to call the original registration domain speculation or not, the end result is the same in that the registrar is in this case the owner as well. Hence at this point there is no "person that registered the name with Tucows", as the registrant and registrar are one and the same.

      FWIW, there is a little more information on mailbank.com on the Tucows wikipedia entry.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    8. Re:So who owns it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let me guess: You've made some "investments"?

    9. Re:So who owns it? by daath93 · · Score: 1

      Wah, someone thought of this domain name first and registered it. They want money for having done so before me. Wah. *yawn*

    10. Re:So who owns it? by Fentekreel · · Score: 1

      So if that is true, for not being able to seize the domain, would that make the doj and interpol unable to shut down the pirate bay or others? The sites couldn't be seized, and in that effect if they are property, are the the property of the entity that gives them, the land the entity resides in, or the property owner (considering it is not the distributing entity) ?

    11. Re:So who owns it? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's a large part of the problem, this was a Canadian court that made this ruling. Not an American one. Consequently, this isn't binding on anybody that isn't operating out of Canada.

      If you want a ruling that will affect everybody everywhere you'd have to use the US court system as it stands as presently the US delegates control over some important bits of the system to ICANN. I doubt that will last for much longer given the abuses that the US government has been engaging in of the system, but that's how it is presently.

      You might also have courts in other parts of the world that can put injunctions against parties from using a particular domain name, but it's the US courts that are the ones that have jurisdiction over ICANN.

    12. Re:So who owns it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need liquidity in case any domain name investors want to sell and make good on their investment.

    13. Re:So who owns it? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      But domain names are not there for investment. They are there for simplifying access to internet resources.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  3. cool story bro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but what sort of effect would such a ruling have?

    ie: why the fuck should we care?

    1. Re:cool story bro by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on who owns the domain name. Since I don't know the entities mentioned int he article, nor the case it speaks about, I can't tell. Now if the domain name is property of ICANN or the registrar, I guess not much changes. However if the domain name is owned by whoever registered it, I don't see how the registrar could legally reclaim the domain name, or demand continued payment for it.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:cool story bro by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but what sort of effect would such a ruling have? ie: why the fuck should we care?

      Well, among other minor matters, it would tend to suggest that your registrar is more in the position of a landlord than of a software-licensor(ie. he doesn't have complete power to fuck you over arbitrarily) and it would also tend to suggest that your friendly local feds would be bound by whatever pitiful shreds of procedural protection govern seizing property, rather than something even weaker...

    3. Re:cool story bro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If registering a domain means you own it and registrars can no longer get yearly fees out of you, that's liable to cause a price increase in domain names, yes?

    4. Re:cool story bro by onepoint · · Score: 1

      I find the ruling funny since it can not be Enforced against a .com .net ( and maybe a few others ) since the US Government has already dictated that they own and control it. believe it was handed over to the department of commerce back in 2002 or 2004.

      We have seen the results of the above ruling by the act of the custom's serve in taking domains this year.

      I can not find the ruling but I'm still searching.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    5. Re:cool story bro by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Bollocks. .com and .net are operated by Verisign, Inc. Formerly a hugely overpriced certificate authority until they sold off everything but registry operations to an overpriced bloated antivirus company.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    6. Re:cool story bro by onepoint · · Score: 1

      I have to do this the long way, but let's start off with http://www.internic.net/ which is " InterNIC is a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce "

      then we go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterNIC look at the section internic and icann, again it's a contract agreement for services, the DOC retains control of it.

      then we shoot over to the recent seizure warrant used by ICE, http://www.scribd.com/doc/45473003/ICE-affidavit-partial

      I wish I had the note's where it's mentioned in the DOC that they own it lock stock and barrel. But the current circumstantial points that I might be correct.

      if I find the correct documents I will reply again.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    7. Re:cool story bro by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      You're cherry picking historical info just to make your point correct. Note the following from your Wiki article.

      The Internet Network Information Center, known as InterNIC, was the Internet governing body primarily responsible for domain name and IP address allocations from 1972 until September 18, 1998 when this role was assumed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

      And from interNIC.net.

      InterNIC is a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce. It is licensed to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which operates this web site.

      InterNIC is merely a service mark owned by DoC. They license it, the service mark, to ICANN, no contracting of any services - ICANN completely assumed control of the technical administration of the internet. The Department of Commerce has exactly zero control over it.

      The US government has control over exactly one zone: . (No, that's not a typo. The zone is a fullstop). This means that the best the US government can do is knock an entire TLD out of the DNS. Like .com, or .br, or .ru. Even that zone they farm out to Verisign to maintain.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  4. so once you buy one its yours for life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and then it should also mean if i attach an ip to said domain that all the protections of law regarding my private home must be observed aka you must have a warrant to enter or view anything that iis behind my domain....THIS will really put a crimp in the lawfull access law that wants warrantless search and seizure of internet ....home users i suggest you get a static ip and point a domain at your ip....

    1. Re:so once you buy one its yours for life? by shentino · · Score: 2

      Attaching an IP to the domain and opening up a web server could be implied invitation.

    2. Re:so once you buy one its yours for life? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      THIS will really put a crimp in the lawfull access law that wants warrantless search and seizure of internet

      You say this as if the Justice Department doesn't already do what it damn well pleases...at the end of the day, if they want in, they'll get in.

  5. Court not Judge by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

    TFA explains that it was a panel of three judges, so it was the Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision, not the decision of a single judge.

    --
    The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
    1. Re:Court not Judge by Grumbleduke · · Score: 3, Informative

      TFA explains that it was a panel of three judges, so it was the Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision, not the decision of a single judge.

      Yes, but as often happens in cases where there is a panel, only one of them gave a judgment, the others just agreed.

      If anyone is interested in what the ruling actually says, the judgment is here with the relevant part starting at [41]. The judge seems to have noted that in both the US and UK, domain names are already being treated as a form of intangible property in law (like patents, copyrights etc.), which could, as discussed elsewhere in the comments, lead to greater "rights" for those who have "bought" a domain name; making it more like renting than licensing.

      The reason the court needed to consider this was due to jurisdictional issues; the claimants needed to show a "real and substantial connection with Ontario", i.e. that the case concerned property there. The case seems to be mainly about procedure rather than substantive law. [For the record IAALS]

    2. Re:Court not Judge by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      In Canada, in a panel of judges or justices, they all give their views. This looks to be just the brief, which means it'll take upto a month before the full record is posted since it's not a breaking or earth shattering case. "Property" cases in Canada rank low, personal cases rank high, and are published quickly.

      Anyway, I recommend reading CanLII's page, since it automatically links decisions to make this decision, and has the reflex record built in.

      http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2011/2011onca548/2011onca548.html

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Court not Judge by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

      Ooh, Canada has a LII as well - shiny.

      Ah, so this isn't really a judgment, just some sort of pre-ruling opinion? Also, the other two judges are listed at the bottom with an "I agree" each, so I had assumed that was like the E+W courts where, if there are multiple judges and only one giving the lead judgment, the others will just "agree".

    4. Re:Court not Judge by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      Yes, but as often happens in cases where there is a panel, only one of them gave a judgment, the others just agreed.

      It would actually be kinda creepy/cool if they had to recite the judgement at the same time. :p

    5. Re:Court not Judge by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      It is a judgement, but in Canada, new cases and rulings are generally published as a brief. A short condensed version before the judges, justices, or JP's finish writing out their full opinion. Even in the even that a single judge leads, the other 2 will often give their own opinions as to why they're in agreement. Which are stripped out for the short condensed version.

      But sometimes what is is, is.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:Court not Judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree with Grumbleduke.

  6. Tucows? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    The Ultimate Collection of Winsock Software is registering domains? Man I'm old. Has Flint Michigan done so bad that we gave it to Canada?

    Next you're going to tell me Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company has stopped selling stuff for my mine.

    1. Re:Tucows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Ultimate Collection of Winsock Software is registering domains? Man I'm old. Has Flint Michigan done so bad that we gave it to Canada?

      No, but bad enough that Tucows would want its head-quarters in Canada rather than there. From Wikipedia:

      Tucows (originally an acronym for The Ultimate Collection of Winsock Software, a name which has long since been dropped) was formed in Flint, Michigan, USA in 1993. It incorporated in Pennsylvania and headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

  7. Interestingly... by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 2

    If it does go to the Supreme Court in Canada, oral arguments will be watchable. In the US, the Supreme Court does not allow cameras in the Courtroom (although you can still hear the audio).

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:Interestingly... by VolciMaster · · Score: 1

      If it does go to the Supreme Court in Canada, oral arguments will be watchable. In the US, the Supreme Court does not allow cameras in the Courtroom (although you can still hear the audio).

      You watch oral arguments? Funny. I listen to them.

      --
      antipaucity
    2. Re:Interestingly... by hldn · · Score: 1

      amazingly enough, yes you can watch someone deliver oral arguments.

      score -1 for the pedant.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    3. Re:Interestingly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean that you can't read lips? How deficient of your upbringing and education!

    4. Re:Interestingly... by Surt · · Score: 1

      As a deaf lipreader, yeah, that's my preference, thanks for asking.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:Interestingly... by fnj · · Score: 1

      Do you ever watch concerts on TV?

    6. Re:Interestingly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes. and i would like to see john roberts rave.

  8. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    Yes. They have the internets. Power, on the other hand... they have it, but it costs an arm and a leg. Literally.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  9. So... sufficient greed can make anything property. by RyanFenton · · Score: 1

    If I were to create some new kind of network, and start assigning a system of names to things that people on the network had control over, no one would think that such names were property at first.

    But if they were to start making money on those resources, eventually, the assigned names would be considered 'property', in the sense of legal ownership? On a shared network? Seems odd.

    It seems that whenever people start to depend on a resource, they start clamoring for exclusive ownership to be imposed on that resource.

    From thoughts and ideas, to physical objects, to living creatures, and to entire genders and classes of people, we've had a LOT of odd ownership systems come and go.

    I just don't see what the purpose of this system of legal property is. It's there already effective consequences for hijacked domain names? Does it have to be tied up in the mess that is legal ownership, what names are assigned in a DNS system?

    Ryan Fenton

  10. Great, more power for the registrars by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    By this ruling, if you were to lapse on payment for your domain registration, your registrar could "purchase" (by way of "paying" themselves) it for themselves and it would become their own property forever. They could sell it to you for an inflated price, or never sell it to you again if they felt so inclined.

    And of course, they would likely list the registration of what used to be your domain through an obfuscation service, so that it would be unclear who the new owner is - which would then result in you having to pay multiple companies to get back what used to be yours.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Great, more power for the registrars by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      I imagine that domain names will be irrelevant in a few years anyway. People will find you and come
      back to you based on content, and how you package that content when you pay a search engine to index you.
      The domain name gold rush will come to an end.

    2. Re:Great, more power for the registrars by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      The domain name gold rush will come to an end.

      That is clearly not what ICANN is counting on with their decision to start selling gTLDs. They are in fact betting the exact opposite, that they can start a new domain gold rush - and of course make some money for themselves in the process!

      That said, people do use the internet differently now than they did back when the first rush of name registration began. Indeed the search engines are, for many users, the primary way to get to web sites. And for many of those same users, the secondary way is through links sent to them by their friends.

      So indeed names may become less important in the future, but presently they are still valuable.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:Great, more power for the registrars by mysidia · · Score: 1

      They could sell it to you for an inflated price, or never sell it to you again if they felt so inclined.

      They can and some already do this.

      Ever hear of "redemption fee"? If your domain goes into redemption, they'll happily charge you $100+ for redemption

      The registrar can hold onto it as long as you like.

      If you don't like it, take it up with ICANN. Personally, I think we have a conflict of interest situation here, where registrars are encouraged to act in a manner inconsistent with their customers' interests in regards to their own duties -- domain registrars should not be allowed to own domains other than a small number of 'pre defined' domains they list on their application when becoming accredited as a registrar.

      ICANN should change the policies so that registrars have to be neutral parties and not profit from domain expiration.

  11. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's only Canada. Do they even have the internets in the Canadaland?

    Neil Young, Rush, John Candy... that's all you'll ever need to know about that country.

    ... but then you miss this.

  12. Re:So... sufficient greed can make anything proper by v1 · · Score: 1

    You'd think they'd be more like trademark than property, in that respect?

    I don't really see how a domain name can be property any moreso than a mailing address?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  13. Property in Canada by __aaaehb3101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If as the court has ruled that a domain anme is "property" that means as long as it is maintained, it requires a court order to seize it, and that a business with a domain name is entitled to all the rights and privileges or a "real" business(actual court orders to search or read domain email without holders permission, ect.) A very interesting judgement, I imagine this may go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the area of property, ISPs would not be able to take your site down without a court order as long as your paying for hosting. Just as a business can't be evicted as long as it pays the rent, without a court order. You would be able to sue in court for loss of access due to outages, as if the landlord blocked a door to a store. Or if you are hosting your domain on your own equipment, a real court order would be required to block DNS records. I imagine this has huge implications to Intellectual Property rights, Copyright, and legal copying/file sharing under Canadian Law. I imagine the US and the EU are going to have an apoplectic fit once the lawyers start really discussing this.

    1. Re:Property in Canada by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      The domain name is not the mail or web server addressed with it. If I own a direction sign, I do not acquire additional rights to whatever it points to.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Property in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. I own a domain for personal use and my soon to be ex-wife has an email account with this domain name. If this were valid in the US then I could just shutdown her email account and remove all of her web pages she created as part of the divorce since this would have been "property" that I owned before our marriage and I still have the "property". Maybe I should push this issue in the divorce case instead of maintaining everything of hers on my domain for the next year per her request.

    3. Re:Property in Canada by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I own a domain for personal use and my soon to be ex-wife has an email account with this domain name. If this were valid in the US then I could just shutdown her email account and remove all of her web pages she created as part of the divorce since this would have been "property" that I owned before our marriage and I still have the "property". Maybe I should push this issue in the divorce case instead of maintaining everything of hers on my domain for the next year per her request.

      Or just demand a fee for continued maintenance?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Property in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they leave site hosting up to the descretion of the hosting company. It would suck if some domain existed for the sole purpose of spamming and you wouldn't be able to kill service without a court order.

    5. Re:Property in Canada by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      the court has ruled that a domain name is "property"

      Not just property but "real property". It has always been something that can "belong" to an entity. eg, intellectual property. Now it is a real something, just like any other physical belonging. Your also correct in that EU and US copywrong lawyers are now flopping around and foaming at the mouth.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    6. Re:Property in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      or just let sleeping dogs lie...

      Who really gives a fuck about "maintaining" a web account for a year. It's not like she's fucking eating up all your bandwidth or anything. Why bother creating/perpetuating the bad blood?

      (serious question, btw)

    7. Re:Property in Canada by shentino · · Score: 1

      Continuing the property analogy of domain registrars being landlords, you could say that spamming is a lease violation, and the consequences could be like getting evicted.

    8. Re:Property in Canada by fnj · · Score: 2

      Oh ye of little cynicism. ANY government can do ANYTHING to its hapless citizens and most of them perform execrable acts against their citizens repeatedly. Governments have armies and marshals; U.S. State governments have state police; local governments have police. All of these entities and forces have more than ample power to get the job done, and break any number of constitutional clauses and similar restrictions every day.

      Your optimistic idea that a court order is necessary for property to be seized by our overlords is a false if wistful one. It ain't true in North Korea, or Myanmar or Rhodesia - beg pardon, Zimbabwe - it for damn sure ain't true in the U.S., and I daresay it ain't true in Canada. They just make the right incantations - drug lord, RICO statute, terrorist, gang, organized crime, homeland security, disloyalty, dangerous element, etc, etc, vomitous etc.

      So I doubt the U.S. and EU are going to see this as a blip on the radar. And I don't see why it would have any impact whatever on the mentioned issue of copyright when governments have that bit in their teeth.

      It is, however, as you say, a very promising sign in terms of legal standing of mere people in relation to power establishments outside of governments (MAFIAA, ISPs, etc al). Oh wait. Leave the MAFIAA out of that. They already have the governments signed up to do their bidding.

    9. Re:Property in Canada by Mozai · · Score: 1

      > ISPs would not be able to take your site down without a court order
      You're confusing the server with the domain name.  The ISP could not tamper with the domain name records (wiping out or changing A records) without a court order, but it could shut down the server that responds to an IP address listed in the domain name records. 

    10. Re:Property in Canada by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      Well, it's funny that you compare the US with those military dictatorships, and then pull other countries into the mix.

      Sure, anybody with a few men and a few guns could do whatever they want to unarmed civilians -- but without the law on their side they'll eventually suffer the consequences -- if they're in a place with rule of law.

      Be cynical of the world you're in if you will. Not every part of the world has abandoned the pretense of maintaining the rule of law, don't speak as if the world follows eagerly the footsteps of the Great American Empire and the great dictatorships that you mention.

      Note: I'm not a Candian nor do I have particular sympathies towards Canada.

      ---
      And by the way, if I'm not mistaken, Canadian precedents aren't followed in the US nor the EU. It probably doesn't have much persuasive force either.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
  14. Re:So... sufficient greed can make anything proper by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

    Domain names are extremely similar to company names. There already exists legal precedent to consider your company name the legal property of the company.

    For example: that large company up in Redmond is called Microsoft. Some guy named John Microsoft brings them to court, claiming that he has the legal right to the company name of "Microsoft", since it is his legal name. The courts would disagree, and rule that the name "Microsoft" belongs to Bill Gates & co.

    A similar case has been going on for many, many years here, over the domain name nissan.com. Details here.

  15. Re:Who gives a fuck? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    ... but then you miss this [canadiansexacts.org].

    I first read the domain name as "canadians exacts" and wondered if there's also a canadiansapproximates.org :-)
    Then I noted that you can also split it in three words, and it started to make sense ...

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  16. Murky: could be good or bad by Compaqt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's hard to know exactly what the judge had in mind (yes, I read the article).

    I was reading the actual judgement, but it was too long.

    This brings up some interesting points: if you have a property interest in a domain, then what do you pay the yearly fee for?

    It must only be for server usage. By that standard, a registrar shouldn't be able to seize your domain if you don't pay the fee.

    Or, perhaps, in order to recover their fee, they could auction the domain, and take their cut ($9). The rest is your money. So if a domain sells for $100k, you get $99,991.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Murky: could be good or bad by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1

      This brings up some interesting points: if you have a property interest in a domain, then what do you pay the yearly fee for?

      Administrative costs. In a similar way, once I stake a claim to a particular trademark, I continue to own it as long as I do not abandon it. IMHO, this is an easy decision, though I agree there will be pressure in some quarters to get it quashed.

    2. Re:Murky: could be good or bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the yearly fee is like a yearly lease payment and a lease is a form of intangible property that grants rights to the underlying property.

    3. Re:Murky: could be good or bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the annual fee is then "for maintaining/managing on your behalf the various DNS records for your domain name"?

    4. Re:Murky: could be good or bad by da_foz · · Score: 1

      This brings up some interesting points: if you have a property interest in a domain, then what do you pay the yearly fee for?

      Is it not similar for patents and/or trademarks? Don't you have to pay a fee to maintain your status?

      I was just discussing this with a (Canadian) IP lawyer and his take on it was he would consider a domain (intangible) property similar to patents, trade-marks and copyrights.

  17. Re:So... sufficient greed can make anything proper by unrtst · · Score: 1

    Good point... at first I kinda liked the idea that domain names could be "owned" by the person that registers them (assuming registrar can still charge maintenance fees like a Co-Op landlord), but that last phrase of yours made me think of something...

    ...in a DNS system

    What about other DNS systems? Anyone can setup their own root-server. For more cases, "somedomain.com" is a unique property on the net, but that's not technically accurate - it's only a unique property on a given DNS server (or possibly extended to that DNS network, though any server can hijack the name somewhat legitimately). Domain name hijacking is one of the techniques that parental control systems use... would that be a violation?

  18. Re:So... sufficient greed can make anything proper by pbhj · · Score: 2

    >You'd think they'd be more like trademark than property, in that respect? //

    Trademarks are [intellectual] property and can be sold, rented, etc..

  19. Supreme court in Canada by gary_7vn · · Score: 2

    What? Just because this case may (almost certainly) will go to the Supreme Court of Canada means exactly nothing. The Supreme court will not, and does not, simply uphold lower court rulings as a matter of course. That's just speculative nonsense.

  20. Re:Who gives a fuck? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

    Power, on the other hand... they have it, but it costs an arm and a leg. Literally.

    Where did you get that impression? I pay 5.9c/kWh off peak and 10.7 on peak (60% of my usage was offpeak, only 25% of my usage is peak).

    This site http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/electricprices.html shows the average US citizen pays a lot more than that.

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  21. Analogy to property tax by tepples · · Score: 1
    Now I see your point that speculators are more useful where all units of the commodity are identical, such as shares of stock, not so much where each piece of property is a unique "location, location, location".

    If you're now the owner of a particular domain, that means that there is no way that the registration can be stripped or a means of a registrar seizing the domain if payment is withheld.

    The owner of a piece of real estate still has to pay property tax to the state.

    1. Re:Analogy to property tax by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      There is only and only one owner of domain names, that is the domain registrar, the entity that owns the database that provides the link between domain names and IP addresses. People pay them to make changes to that database, basically a licence to print money.

      This is largely a an act of modern marketing as it is driven by getting all significant entities to direct traffic to DNS services that recognise the leading registrars.

      It is likely that the whole Domain Service will come under growing attack as countries seek to take greater control over their citizens addressing and those citizens themselves likely start to become more humorously rebellious and seek to devalue domain names and stick it to ass hat corporations by using alternate domain name services for certain marketing driven ranges.

      Domain names, a marketing illusion, not property.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:Analogy to property tax by daath93 · · Score: 1

      Okay, so someone buys a lakeside house in a trendy community and sits on it to sell it later because they understand the property will be in high demand in a couple years is a scumbag speculator because someone who wants to buy it (because of its exclusive location) wants to live in it now. This is a dumb conversation full of ignorance.

    3. Re:Analogy to property tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How true!

    4. Re:Analogy to property tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. This is spot-on: domain registration and hosting is a service.

      You can't "own" a domain name because you have no right to a service provided by someone else!

  22. Trademark vs Property Interest by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    This overall case would seem to have two elements:
    One is the conflict between trademark protection and property right.
    The second is the horribly messy jurisdictional overlaps that occur in Internet related legal disputes.

    If I acquire the domain name Googler.com legitimately because someone from the big G forgot to register that variant,
    I now have a property right to that domain name.

    But Google also has a trademark right to it (easily confusable etc etc) so under trademark law they ought to be able to
    prevent me from using Googler.com in association with trade (at least in computer/advertising/software related things.)

    Except that maybe I bought Googler.com while residing in, say, Canada.

    So I have Canadian property rights to the domain name, apparently, and also I might be able to set up the town of Parish Ontario Googler search engine,
    because that's a local and foreign business, compared to google.com

    Hopelessly confusing legal mess really.

    It really boils down to which party owns a 737 that can be rigged up with air-to-surface missiles, doesn't it.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Trademark vs Property Interest by bleeware · · Score: 1

      Job security for lawyers?

      --
      HaHa: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  23. Re:Who gives a fuck? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

    Neil Young, Rush, John Candy... that's all you'll ever need to know about that country.

    And .. Pamela Anderson, Dan Aykroyd, Justin Bieber, Jim Carrey, Tommy Chong, James Doohan (Scotty) William Shatner (Kirk), Erica Durance (Lois in Smallville), Brendan Fraser, Natasha Henstridge, Margot Kidder (Lois in Superman), Howie Mandel, Rick Moranis, Matthew Perry, Jason Priesly, Keanu Reeves, Martin Short, Eugene Levy, Keifer Sutherland, Amanda Tapping (my fave!), Fay Wray, Leslie Nielson, Meg Tilly, and hundreds of other actors generally thought of as American.

    Also dont forget Canadians created all the robotics on the shuttle and space station, Superman, IMAX, insulin, sonar, timezones, roller skates, chocolate bars, the pacemaker, trivial pursuit, electric streetcars, football goalposts, and of course the Blackberry.

    We also helped you name the whitehouse by setting fire to the original.

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  24. Slashdot effect in the great white north by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 1

    I was quite eager (as in "Isn't the eager beaver our national mammal, eh?") to see explanations of the Reverse Rick Moranis, Montreal Meatpie, and Saskatoon Totem Pole. But alas, instead I was served some witty "our site is having trouble" messages. Damnation.

    --
    Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
  25. Re:So... sufficient greed can make anything proper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait... I'm confused here /.

    I thought we were against music, games, movies, etc. being licensed goods because we bought it, we own it, it is our property. We can share and duplicate our property as we want.

    But here licenses are good? Why do we want licenses? I can see the cost of domain names going up, possibly, but wouldn't it make it harder for the US to take domain names if this catches on internationally? I mean, the US would then be hijacking and stealing the property of a foreign national who likely is in that foreign country.

  26. ice ice baby by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

    Will this at least put ICE domain seizures on hold (presuming American judges hold to the same logic)? Seizing property is generally held to be a pretty big deal.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:ice ice baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, we'll just extend the ridiculous existing forfeiture laws as needed to serve the interests of the government. That's how we roll.

      - T

    2. Re:ice ice baby by fnj · · Score: 1

      Why would it do that? Seizures under the RICO act and similar measures without proper court proceedings are already plainly and boldly unconstitutional in the U.S. as it is. Why would American governmental thugs care about any other impediment if they are already getting foreign connivance in their thuggery as it is?

    3. Re:ice ice baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the US pretty much already treats domain names as property but more to the specific point ICE had warrants to take down the domains and once you have a warrant you can do pretty much whatever you want....
      Sucks but true.

    4. Re:ice ice baby by werfu · · Score: 1

      No it will not. This is a canadian ruling and as such, it's only binding in Canada. Now let's say any company deposit a complain to ICANN or get's a ruling in the US against a canadian company operating a web site infringing on their copyright or IP (let's say a torrent site), than domain could be seized by ICE, allowed that the registred domain is part of a TLD operated under US juridiction (com, net, org...). However, if the domain is a .CA, the domain cannot be seized. The plaintiff can however gets the judgment and try to make it stand under a canadian court It's worth noting that canadian law favor actual property and individuals over Intellectual property and big corporation, if you compare to other country. We don't have software patents and file sharing still has little treat here. That's one of the reason why we do get on the worst country to fight against piracy list of the US. And we like it that way :)

  27. This is Canadian. by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is Canadian. Canadian and UK law don't have as much baggage attached to the concept of "property" as the US does. Through an accident of legal history, that Blackstone's commentaries were more available in America than other writings on law, American law and the American constitution attaches undue weight to property rights. The "due process" clause in the U.S. Constitution limits due process to "life, liberty, and property", which is part of why it matters so much whether something is "property". A leasehold, for example, is not property.

    The US never had feudalism, where the lords owned all the property, and thus never had to get rid of feudalism. In the European countries that did, when feudalism went down, so did the emphasis on property rights. This remains quite real today. In Britain, (but not Scotland) there is a "right to ramble", to walk over undeveloped, uncultivated private land. Squatters in abandoned buildings have rights. Penalties for trespass are very low by US standards. Conversely, the rights of renters are stronger in England than in the US.

    Canada generally follows English precedent in this area. "Properly" is not an absolute; it's a bundle of rights established by law and precedent. So that domains are "property" means less than it would in the US.

    1. Re:This is Canadian. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. Case in point, in Texas you almost never get your deposit back because they have almost no renters rights.

    2. Re:This is Canadian. by Taty'sEyes · · Score: 2
      While I support your right of opinion, I take issue with your statement,

      ...American constitution attaches undue weight to property rights.

      Understand one thing, the founders knew that property rights equaled liberty. There is no "undue weight to liberty".

      --
      We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
    3. Re:This is Canadian. by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      In Texas they don't need renters rights. To paraphrase the NRA: Six-guns don't kill people, Disgruntled renters kill people.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    4. Re:This is Canadian. by joe545 · · Score: 2

      But not Scotland? Scotland has had the right to roam since time immemorial (much like Scandinavia's allemansrätten) whereas for England & Wales that's only really been allowed since the Countryside and Rights of Way Act of 2000 - and even then it's more restrictive than in Scotland.

    5. Re:This is Canadian. by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      I'll see your "property rights equaled liberty"

      and raise with "Freedom's just another name for nothin' left to lose"

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    6. Re:This is Canadian. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can see example of that in Hawaii where most of the land is private and where virtually all hikers are trespassers at some point of their hike.

      Another example is beach access. In Hawaii all beaches are public (ground marked by the highest tide) yet beach access is limited since you can only get to it over private land.

    7. Re:This is Canadian. by thetartanavenger · · Score: 1

      In Britain, (but not Scotland) there is a "right to ramble", to walk over undeveloped, uncultivated private land.

      You make it sound as if Scotland does not have these rights, however this is not the case. Instead, here in Scotland we have a complete "right to roam", far less restrictive than that of England and Wales. I believe the main difference is we can be on any land for a variety of purposes instead of just certain types of land like moorland and coastal land.

      I realise this does not necessarily affect the point you were making, I just thought it should be pointed out.

      Sources: Me (An Englishman living in Scotland) and wikipedia

      --
      Who need's speling and grammar?
    8. Re:This is Canadian. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada has worked hard to increase rights to property. Adverse possession is all but gone now, following electronic conversion of land titles. The trespass to property act pretty much makes "rambling" as illegal here as it would be in the US.

    9. Re:This is Canadian. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      This is Canadian. Canadian and UK law don't have as much baggage attached to the concept of "property" as the US does. Through an accident of legal history

      The big deal here is... if the UDRP cannot be applied to Canadian residents, then the UDRP is inherently unfair and should be crossed off the books. The whole point of the UDRP is it's to be universal.

      The UDRP is unfair anyways, and should be crossed off the books anyways. The concept of 'disputing' a registration based on what the name is, should go away.

      You want to secure your name? Use a 'registration by proxy' service in Canada, with a Canadian trustee managing your domain and leveraging Canadian property law to defend your domain against any UDRP claims...

  28. Re:Who gives a fuck? by farrellj · · Score: 1

    What has Canada given the world?

    Donald Sutherland, Keifer Sutherland (Donald's son, and grandson of the guy who brought universal medical care to Canada), Jim Carry, Cirque du Soleil, UN Peace Keepers (created by Nobel Laureate The Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson, past Prime Minister of Canada), Shania Twain, Norman Jewison, Long Distance Telephony (The first long distance transmission was made in August 1876, between Brantford and Paris Ontario.), Wayne Gretzky, The Light Bulb (Edison bought the patent from the two Canadian inventors), Joni Mitchell, The Guess Who/Bachman-Turner-Overdrive (BTO), Superman, William Shatner, James Doohan (Scotty!), Insulin (Frederick Banting), and Basketball.

    So, yes, that's all you need to know about Canada...

    ttyl
              Farrell

    --
    CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
  29. Re:So... sufficient greed can make anything proper by RyanFenton · · Score: 1

    For games/movies, the issue isn't ownership - it's the ability of companies to take AWAY your right to play the game you sacrificed resources to obtain.

    For art in general, it's more of a business model argument - that they should have a way to make money akin to another profession. Again, legal ownership is a proxy argument, not the key issue.

    Licenses and ownership arguments are about setting defaults in other arguments, who gets to take what from who. The status of these legal agreements change over time... it's just strange to see these agreements starting to reach into what name gets assigned to which number on a computer network (DNS), in terms of "ownership".

    Seems a strange realm of ownership. As in, I own this association, and all DNS machines now have to make this association on my behalf, by power of law.

    Ryan Fenton

  30. Re:So... sufficient greed can make anything proper by Taty'sEyes · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure your analysis is correct.

    Just imagine a nickname on IRC or anywhere else for that matter. People claim to own it. It becomes part of their identity and is irrespective to money.

    So it makes sense to me that domains would be treated the same or even the system of names in your "some kind of network".

    --
    We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
  31. Taxable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this ruling stands I wonder if this means the government will start to tax domain names? And, if they do, what would they use as the basis for taxation? Number of hits? Revenue?

    1. Re:Taxable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      riiight, like they tax copyrights and trademarks and patents.... It's only real/personal property that tends to get taxed. Imaginary "property" that actually actively undermines property rights doesn't.

      Actually, as I support the abolition of both copyright and patent, I'm wary of proposals to tax them. Once they're a taxation revenue stream they'd be much harder to abolish (we have that problem partially with patents already, the government is addicted to the filing fees and treats the USPTO like a piggy bank).

    2. Re:Taxable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Length, which leaves www.majorleaguebaseball.com sort of fucked, don't you think?

  32. Re:So... sufficient greed can make anything proper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >You'd think they'd be more like trademark than property, in that respect? //

    Trademarks are [intellectual] property and can be sold, rented, etc..

    Intellectual property is a figment of the imagination of lawyers and has no basis in law.

  33. Re:So... sufficient greed can make anything proper by v1 · · Score: 1

    Intellectual property is a figment of the imagination of lawyers and has no basis in law.

    Unless you count case law. In which case there's a crapton of it.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  34. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    On the bill I am thinking of, power has gone up from 15c/KWh to 20 c/KWh recently. I am not sure offhand if that is before or after they multiply KWh by 1.1.

    That is as expensive as it is in Hawaii, the most expensive state in the US. Only this bill is in Ontario, where power generation is a LOT cheaper than in Hawaii.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  35. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    Note: those are actual costs, i.e. take the price, divide by KwH. Not Generation costs.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  36. NOT if you have a login and pass and say PRIVATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then its no different then having house guests or friends over...

  37. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Jon+Stone · · Score: 1

    James Doohan (Scotty) William Shatner (Kirk),

    I really hope you don't have to explain who Doohan and Shatner are to people on Slashdot.

  38. Re:Who gives a fuck? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

    I think you are remembering wrong. The prices I quoted are in Ontario from the latest bill I have sitting in front of me. Ontario with over 50% nuclear power is among the cheapest places for power in north america.

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  39. Re:Who gives a fuck? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

    Yea. I was just being clear. Canada also has a famous Michael Jackson, except he's white.

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  40. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    I am not remembering wrong. I am looking at the bill on hydroone. The prices you quoted are what they formally say prices are, which generally means generation bill up to a certain amount. Divide your total bill by your kilowatt-hours. Even then, distribution costs vary depending on where in Ontario you are. Debt retirement charges, the result of massive mismanagement for years, also go into it.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  41. Re:So... sufficient greed can make anything proper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know. Seems to me it is more like your IP address is your mailing address. It is assigned to you. Your domain name is an alias that you purchased the rights to use in lieu of your IP address. You can either purchase (eg. mydomain.com) one or be granted one (eg. mysubdomain.geocities.com). In the one case it is your property. In the latter case it the the grantors property and they may indeed yank it away at their discretion.

  42. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apologies for being off-topic, but I can't resist complimenting you on your sig. Nice to see someone duly venerate the hyper-brilliant Tesla and bring down to size the corrupt hack what's-his-name.

  43. Reasons by debrain · · Score: 1

    Here's the Judgment on Canlii: Tucows.Com Co. v. Lojas Renner S.A., 2011 ONCA 548 (CanLII) .

    This dispute is about the service of a Statement of Claim (the document that initiates a claim). Once a claim has been served, there is an obligation to respond - otherwise the defendant may be noted in default and lose the right to defend themselves. Service of a Statement of Claim may only be completed on a foreign company in certain circumstances, namely where (in principle) the allegations in the claim are related to something in Canada. In this case, the issue was whether the claim related to personal property in Canada - i.e. whether the domain name renner.com was personal property of a Canadian company.

    The Statement of Claim in this case was issued by Tucows (a Canadian company), who allege that Lojas Renner S.A (a Brazilian company) does not have any right to renners.com (which has been registered by Tucows). Lojas Renner allege that they've trademarked "Renner" and Tucows is violating that trademark by using the domain name renner.com (and therefore Lojas has a right to take the domain name away from Tucows).

    A lower Court ruled that the Statement of Claim was not served on Lojas because the allegations did not relate to personal property of someone in Ontario. The Court of Appeal overruled that decision.

    The Court of Appeal commented on the lower Court's ruling as follows:

    [20] The motions judge set aside the service of the statement of claim and stayed this action on the grounds that there was no real and substantial connection between the defendant and Ontario and as such rule 17.02 was not engaged. In particular, the motions judge held that a domain name was not âoepersonal propertyâ within the meaning of rule 17.02(a), and that, being intangible, it was not âoelocated in Ontarioâ. Thus, she held that there was no presumption of a âoereal and substantial connectionâ, and that Tucows had failed to establish that such a connection existed in the circumstances of the case.

    (emphasis added)

    The Court of Appeal determined as follows:

    [68] Rule 17.02(a) gives the court jurisdiction to settle controversies with regard to rights or claims against personal property. Personal property consists of both tangible and intangible property: see Brian A. Garner, ed., Blackâ(TM)s Law Dictionary, 8th ed (St. Paul: West, 2004), at p. 1254. See also Metlakatla Ferry Service Ltd. v. British Columbia 1987 CanLII 2748 (BC CA), (1987), 37 D.L.R. (4th) 322 (B.C.C.A.), in which the court held at p. 325 that the term âoepersonal propertyâ in s. 87 of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, included intangible property, in this case a lease and the debt owing under it. Intangible property refers to personal property that cannot actually be moved, touched or felt, but instead represents something of value such as good will. In Manitoba Fisheries Ltd. v. R., 1978 CanLII 22 (SCC), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 101, the Supreme Court held that although good will is intangible in character, it is part of the property of a business just as much as the premises, machinery and equipment employed in the production of the product whose quality engendered it. As such, there is a presumption of compensation for the regulatory taking of this property.

    [69] It seems to me, as well, that for purposes of jurisdiction, a domain name is part of the intangible property of Tucowsâ(TM)s business. In Williams v. Canada, 1992 CanLII 98 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 877, at pp. 891-93, the Supreme Court developed what is now referred to as the âoeconnecting factorsâ test,[10] in which the situs of intangible property is determined by where it has the strongest contacts: see Canada v. Folster, 1997 CanLII 6344 (FCA), [1997] 3 F.C. 269 (C.A.), at paras. 15-18. In this case, the domain n

  44. US is still mostly Feudal by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    The US never had feudalism, where the lords owned all the property, and thus never had to get rid of feudalism

    Actually we still have feudalism in the US. In most States, most property is owned 'in fee simple'. You only ever own a title to the land, you don't own the land itself (in allodium, historically available in Nevada and a few other States). Most often, the State is the landowner, and effectively he can take it back whenever he wants to. If you don't pay him rent on his land, he'll seize the title and throw you off his land.

    We never really made much progress - we just instituted State feudalism instead of Lording feudalism. Besides the rent, we have to pay him almost half of our harvest, or he'll put us in a cage. Technically we have a say in who the Lord uses as a foreman, but about half the time we don't even get that.

    We sing songs about the plantation and tell our kids how great it is.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:US is still mostly Feudal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd mod you up if I could.

    2. Re:US is still mostly Feudal by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Actually we still have feudalism in the US. In most States, most property is owned 'in fee simple'. You only ever own a title to the land, you don't own the land itself (in allodium, historically available in Nevada and a few other States). Most often, the State is the landowner, and effectively he can take it back whenever he wants to. If you don't pay him rent on his land, he'll seize the title and throw you off his land.

      We never really made much progress - we just instituted State feudalism instead of Lording feudalism.

      Allodial title may sound like a solution to an overbearing government, but it's got a major problem of its own. Since it can't be seized, you can't use the property as security for a loan: transactions involving the property must be paid in full at the time of sale, contractors must be paid in advance (since they can't get a lien on the property, they've got limited recourse if someone refuses to pay for work done), the property owner can't get an equity loan to finance a project, and so on.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    3. Re:US is still mostly Feudal by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Good points. There are probably alternate options, though. You could rent-to-own from a bank, with a 30-year commitment (transferable). For a contractor, a trusted third party could hold money in escrow. Home equity loans could be converted back to the rent-to-own model, starting at 80% or so.

      There are some interpretations of allodial title that say it's never saleable or transferable, but that's pretty narrow and doesn't jive with other tenets of property rights.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  45. wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    page says private property of ME

    i put remote access login here by my permission , aka i have keys for my friends the rest of you bugger off.
    NO diff then a home.

    1. Re:wrong by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The passwords you set on the servers are completely independent of the domain name. You could as well put a password on a server only accessible via IP address. And if you lose the domain name, you don't lose the server.

      You do not put your server's access permission into the domain name system. You put it on the server.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  46. Re:Who gives a fuck? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

    Ok, divide my bill by my total use and I get 14c/kWh. Even if you pretend the US utilities don't include things like delivery in their bill (which is over 30% of my bill) the Ontario prices are still in line with the US.

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  47. IP Addresses by corychristison · · Score: 1

    Now the real question is, do I also own the IP the domain name is pointing to if I have a static IP address, or am I leasing it?

    1. Re:IP Addresses by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Now the real question is, do I also own the IP the domain name is pointing to if I have a static IP address, or am I leasing it?

      The concern that some day organizations might try to claim some sort of property right to an IP address was thought up a long time ago.
      The ISP assigned the address, if it was obtained in the past 12 years [or so], had to sign the RSA, which contains the following clause, as a condition of being assigned IP addresses:

      Applicant acknowledges and agrees that the number resources are not property (real, personal, or intellectual) and that Applicant does not acquire any property rights in or to any number resources by virtue of this Agreement or otherwise. Applicant further agrees that it will not attempt, directly or indirectly, to obtain or assert any trademark, service mark, copyright, or any other form of property rights in any number resources in the United States or any other country.

  48. so i can create property by selling a hosts file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    interesting i bet they never thought about this use of domain names.....

  49. Service by tepples · · Score: 1

    Police protection of land and the things on it is also a service, yet holders of title to land are entitled to it.

  50. Pretty much truth if I ever heard it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For instance, as you said: Don't pay your "property tax" (or school tax for that matter, even if you don't have kids)? You lose "your" land/home!

    (YES - Even if say, Your home's worth a couple hundred thousand, fall behind 1 yr.'s worth of taxes (which is FAR less than that)? Well, "your" home & property's up for auction to "the sharks" that actually LOOK for that happening, & for pennies on the dollar (all so the state can put someone in who will pay taxes, which is of course, their payrolls)).

    Want to try to put up your own source of power, such as a windmill on "your land"?? Guess what:

    The "POWERS THAT BE" (pun intended regarding power/utility companies) have enough "bought & paid for" politicians (who are merely messengers for laws written by corporate execs really) to have that "RIGHT" zoned off/ordinanced away in most places!

    (I mean - Heck: Give me my own powersource & land to grow food on (water is available in streams/ponds/lakes or rainfall)? I don't NEED THE SYSTEM, period, & they KNOW IT!)

    Also... think you own "your land"???

    Guess again, as you said pretty much/alluded to & I merely supplemented with practical actual examples...

    To myself @ least by this point??

    Well... It seems the entire process is setup to support the LEAST PRODUCTIVE BLOCK OF SOCIETY - politicians & the WORST PART IS??? They don't seem to be doing a good job of things (look around you, tell me different what with the economy & stupid wars + more problems) either... & yet, we support them!

    * Some "Food 4 Thought" that...

    APK

    P.S.=> You know, it really astounds me (especially the ordinances I've seen on properties I own, especially regarding becoming self-sufficient in power such as using WIND resources available) - I was told my whole life:

    "Get a big house, get a good job, get a pretty wife, make some kids..." etc.

    So much for that, per what I wrote above... it seems to be a GIGANTIC SCAM we're all fed from day #1 in elementary school onwards, just to support the REAL PROBLEM (our "fine leaders who get such great results" & send your jobs overseas & don't really do a DAMNED THING OF USE THEMSELVES, not really... again, look @ their results as of the past decade++ in the USA as my evidences thereof!)

    ALL those things... Hey - THEY'RE NOT REALLY YOURS!

    Nothing is, except the skin you live in really (well, until they "ordinance that away" too, for Pete's sake, which is probably only a matter of time as well)...

    ... apk

  51. Bad for domain owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is very bad for domain investors and domain owners in general. It means that if someone gets a money judgement against you they can take away your domain names.

  52. Complicating the issue by neurosine · · Score: 1

    The registrant, as listed in the admin contact would be the owner of the domain name. Any other legalities would be dictated by the registrants contract with anyone they gave rights to. This seems rather obvious.

  53. taxing intangible property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the intangible property held by the senmace were to be taxed, there would be no need for the personal income tax.
    Keep it up court in Canada, soon you may solve the deficit problem in America.

  54. Ah, & by the SAME TOKEN on home loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "federal reserve" & banks creating money out of NOTHING (e.g.-> For every $1 of a deposit, $9 more is created out of SHEERLY NOTHING!!!)

    Yes - That's right, & THAT IS WHAT THE "FRACTIONAL RESERVE" BANKING SYSTEM SCAM IS ALL ABOUT but, it CAN WORK IN YOUR FAVOR (even though default & bankruptcy are expected & BUILT INTO THIS FAULTY SYSTEM)... read on:

    HOWEVER - See the above, because it's VERY KEY (& can save your home for you, it has for others on mortgages)!

    Pay attention... now, this is the "tricky crap" they pull when pulling someone's home from them on a mortgage & it's illegal/unethical really in a contract for this - AND, mind you: Banks have been beaten on it also in courts as well too!

    Just because the BANK really didn't actually put up ANY collateral of their own in a home loan! That's right... remember - they're creating MONEY FROM NOTHING, see the above... especially regarding your downpayment/deposit on said mortgage for title to said property!

    Thus, the bank can't technically yank a home from someone, because BOTH parties to a loan transaction & contract, actually had to put up actual collateral/property in consideration on BOTH PARTIES' parts ( & the bank, actually DOES NOT in a "fractional reserve" system!)

    Look up the 1969 Court Case with Jerome Dailey (daley?)... you'll see what I mean here. The bank is simply inventing cash from thin air, & not really putting up ANYTHING OF THEIR OWN, per the above earlier... period!

    This?

    * THIS IS SOMETHING VERY POWERFUL TO KNOW people - Especially if you're a home owner in trouble on a mortgage & many folks today, are...

    So, that all "said & aside": Well, IF you are a home owner that took out loans & cannot make your payments (almost makes me angry my properties are paid in full really (well, not really, but in a way, it does - I'd have more "fun money" is why)).

    APK

    P.S.=> What you may wish to refer to, is the "Zeitgeist Addendum" IF NOT "Zeitgeist" itself... it will fill you in on ANY details I may have omitted here!

    ... apk