Domaincar

**.biz** · 02-22-2006, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by jberryhill

I have NEVER moved into an apartment and had the previous tenant start banging on my door with their excuses about why they didn't pay their rent, and how I should let them move back into the apartment from which they were evicted.

A domain name with business website on it is totally different from an apartment. You should compare it with an empty desert in Nevada that someone rented it, built a casino, and has been promoting for 3 years to get a lots of gamblers. After that he let the payment lapse for 3 days and the landlord came over to seize his property which 100 times more valuable than 3 years ago and also try to charge him $300 millions to let him rent it again.

It's probably legal, but it's morally wrong.

Originally Posted by jberryhill

Yes, and real estate agents make millions because people don't renew their residential or commercial leases. So what.

I didn't say it's wrong. I said forgetting to renew domain is pretty normal that it grows another lucrative business.

**stuff** · 02-23-2006, 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by .biz

if nobody let their name expired, would you be able to catch those names? Aren't Pool, ClubDrip, etc earn millions a year because of the domain dropping?

by the way, that isn't me. So "You" in your sentence is inappropriate.

.biz

whatever

**DaddyHalbucks** · 02-28-2006, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by jberryhill

Zuccarini's guilty plea was not related to cybersquatting.

The RICO statute is a legal tarbaby. Yes, you can stitch together a RICO claim out of anybody that's ever been civilly liable twice. Courts aren't eager fans of the abuse of RICO claims, though.

Um... thanks. But that only distinguishes you as the side of the argument that didn't need my input in order to look like a total idiot.

Stocdoctor, per usual, nailed it.

You can apply RICO to serial jaywalking, if you want to. I wouldn't be surprised to find some enterprising prosecutor somewhere which has done just that.

<googles....>

Yep, sure enough, it's been applied to serial jaywalking in the context of going after abortion clinic protestors:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/news/i...et02-12-04.htm
"What’s at stake is the First Amendment right of free speech. NOW is alleging that extremely minor criminal conduct—jaywalking, trespassing, standing on the steps of an abortion clinic—constitutes extortion under RICO."

Yes, it looks like the courts are not fans of the abuse of racketeering laws. Interesting article here:

Supreme Court Backs Abortion Protesters

Feb 28 10:25 AM US/Eastern

By TONI LOCY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON

The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.

Anti-abortion groups brought the appeal after the 7th Circuit had asked a trial judge to determine whether a nationwide injunction could be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence absent a connection with robbery or extortion

The 8-0 decision ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 decision by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress did not intend to create "a freestanding physical violence offense" in the federal extortion law known as the Hobbs Act.

Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with anti-abortion groups in arguing that similar lawsuits and injunctions could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/28/D8G26MTG0.html