For Sale WLS Illegal in Wake of Sex.com Ruling?

[basscaster]

With all of the comparisons to property ownership, it should be noted that in the US, no one *truly* owns their own land due to right of "eminent domain", meaning your ownership rights are second to the public interest, as enforced and legislated by the government.

Doesn't change this thread much, but it should taken into consideration.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by xbase234
With all of the comparisons to property ownership, it should be noted that in the US, no one *truly* owns their own land due to right of "eminent domain", meaning your ownership rights are second to the public interest, as enforced and legislated by the government.

Doesn't change this thread much, but it should taken into consideration.

Good points DCC and Xbase and again I think people are missing the point here about the technical details of property ownership. Seems to me it is not really important because the court said domain owners have ownership rights in domains names that courts are to treat as a "plot of land" etc. If those rights have to be recognized and protected by registrars (which the court says they do) then arguing the semantics of forms of ownership is pointless.

 

[puxa2]

Where in the ruling is that said exactly?

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by peaceful
Where in the ruling is that said exactly?

I haven't seen the court transcript (not sure if I could understand it if I did ). I just read the judges quotes in the Associated Press story which I have already provided a link to above.

Here are the first few paragraphs:

By RACHEL KONRAD
AP Business Writer
SAN JOSE, Calif.

A federal appellate court ruled against Web registry Network Solutions Inc., comparing Internet domain names to property such as homes and cars, and saying that the Web registry could be liable for damages after a convicted forger purloined ownership of www.sex.com from an e-commerce entrepreneur.

If Web site names are property, the court contended Friday, domain name registries should be responsible for safeguarding them - no different from a valet who guarantees a client's car won't get stolen from a parking lot.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kozinski said courts should treat domain names, despite their virtual nature, exactly as they treat "a plot of land." Kozinski returned the case to the U.S. District Court in San Jose to be tried again


This is what raised the questions I had at the beginning of this thread. With the court edict giving domains the same status as ownership of a home or car, how can Verisign sell options on those properties when they are paid in full and in good standing? They can't do that with your home or car. All I am saying is I expect that based on that ruling there will be court challenges to WLS using this as a precedent.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

With all of the comparisons to property ownership, it should be noted that in the US, no one *truly* owns their own land due to right of "eminent domain",
+++++++++++++++++++

Again, you are missing the significant point. The point is not that there are other rights or ways to supercede rights or ways to own things. Rights and forms of ownership are all tangential to the main point.

THE MAIN POINT IS THE COURT AFFIRMED THAT LAND IS LAND! THEY SAID DOMAINS ARE PROPERTY!! THIS IS HUGE!!!

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
With all of the comparisons to property ownership, it should be noted that in the US, no one *truly* owns their own land due to right of "eminent domain",
+++++++++++++++++++

THE MAIN POINT IS THE COURT AFFIRMED THAT LAND IS LAND! THEY SAID DOMAINS ARE PROPERTY!! THIS IS HUGE!!!

That's what it appears to say to me too. Verisign has maintained that the string of letters in a domain name is just an invention that disappears when a domain name expires and can then be "re-invented" later. The court is saying it is MUCH more than that - not just a temporary invention that you have no vested interest in.

Verisgn thought they would have no more liability than the cost of a domain registration because of their terms and conditions in the contract agreement, but as I have pointed out repeatedly T&C's mean nothing when they are not in accordance with the law. Rather than being protected after botching things up, Verisign finds themselves staring at $65 million bill.

 

[Ed30]

When the court says domains are property I think they are saying that domains have certain attributes as "property" in so far as the term relates to the case in hand. There have been previous instances where courts have come to the conclusion that domains are not property, again reading the term "property" as it has related to those specific cases.

 

[basscaster]

I really did not mean to confuse the issue of property ownership of domains, only to expand the discussion as related to comparisons to real estate ownership - just food for thought, nothing more.

Enjoying this thread -

 

[basscaster]

And yes dotcomcowboy, I also think this is huge decision.

Here is a link to the PDF of the judge's decision (cut and paste the link)

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/new...256D6D0078CB88/$file/0115899.pdf?openelement

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Ed30
When the court says domains are property I think they are saying that domains have certain attributes as "property" in so far as the term relates to the case in hand. There have been previous instances where courts have come to the conclusion that domains are not property, again reading the term "property" as it has related to those specific cases.

Isnt the significance of this ruling that it is a NEW precedent set by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court? Only the U.S. Supreme Court ranks higher in the appellate process. So if any lower courts previously said domains were not property, the 9th Circuit Judge is saying they are wrong and that domains are indeed property. I'm sure one of our attorneys will come along and correct all of us where necessary, but this is how I understand it.

 

[Ed30]

I hope one of the lawyers does post here.

The judgement says ultimately that domain names are a "species of property" in so far as they have characteristics similar to other property such as stocks and land. This does not necessarily mean that they are now to be treated in the same way as stocks and land. The comparison to these other types of property is pertaining to the arguments of this specific case and is by no means a sweeping up operation to say that domains can now be treated as real estate full stop. That's the way I see it.

 

[izopod]

Here is a earlier discussion I had with Charles Carreon, the lawyer who got Sex.com for Gary Kremen.

http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18587&highlight=sex.com

 

[puxa2]

Originally posted by Ed30
I hope one of the lawyers does post here.

The judgement says ultimately that domain names are a "species of property" in so far as they have characteristics similar to other property such as stocks and land. This does not necessarily mean that they are now to be treated in the same way as stocks and land. The comparison to these other types of property is pertaining to the arguments of this specific case and is by no means a sweeping up operation to say that domains can now be treated as real estate full stop. That's the way I see it.

That's how I see it too.

 

[avs162]

http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/facstaff/nellen_a/223E Reading/197.pdf

interesting section on domain names and how they are treated and under what circumstance

dont know how current

but the concept is interesting

 

[hiOsilver]

Originally posted by Duke


What does that have to do with anything? Verisign wants to sell options on your home long BEFORE you ever miss a payment. Big difference there. The court has ruled the sex.com owner DID have the RIGHTS of a real estate OWNER. That is why Verisign now stands to lose millions of dollars in damages payable to him. This ruling appears to change everything we assumed before.

This is a competitive business. If my competitors want to buy options on my domains BEFORE I miss a payment, that is just fine by me. Let them waste their money!

 

[JMJ]

I think what alot are saying and Netsols reputation from the past is that delete key my be used on a more widespead basis. Which has me worried all too much. I've had experience and I'm sure many have had Netsol holding domains for ransom and the current redemption period is another example of that. We will pay for any ruling against Netsol either which way it goes and they are proving that. So unless the government wakes up and smells the coffee open up your wallets.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

The 9th Circuit decision in this case has absolutely no connection to "making WLS illegal".

Certain types of club memberships - health clubs, country clubs, etc. - are also property interests (particularly those in which members buy a share or bond in the club as a condition of membership). The mere fact that a club might have a limited membership, and a waiting list to join, is not "illegal". If you want a real-estate analogy, some condominiums and cooperative apartments do precisely the same thing.

The question in this case was not whether a domain name was "property" or "not property". Both sides agreed it was a form of property. There are lots of forms of property, and there are lots of things which qualify as a property interest of one kind or another. The question was whether, for the purpose of the tort law of the State of California (which differs from other states in a significant aspect for the purposes of this case), a domain name was a form of intangible property subject to a claim of conversion. It has zip to do with the WLS.

The full text of the opinion, which is written in a truly atrocious style for a circuit court opinion, but typical of the 9th circuit, is here:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/999D1D5B0D734B6088256D6D0078CB88/$file/0115899.pdf?openelement

I would strongly recommend quoting from it rather than from wire service articles.