Re: [ga] Domain names as observed [correction]

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Dear Contributors,

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Sotiris,
>
> Sunday, July 29, 2001, 10:02:43 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >> Or even and older reference:
> >> http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,,3_85661,00.html
> >> which clearly states that Domain Names are indeed Private Property.
>
> > Once again Jeff, good heads-up on this research.  This quote pretty much sums it
> > up: "Typically we thought registrants had a two-year license to a domain name,
> > but the court is suggesting they have a property interest. As a result, if the
> > registry takes a name away from you without a legal basis, than you can sue them
> > for civil damages. And that's a powerful thing," Fausett said."
>
> Don't depend on Jeff for your legal research, Sotiris.
>
> The actual decision doesn't mention domain names and property, this
> was an interpretation made by some media legal analysts for headlines.
>

this is exactly why it is so helpful, it is made by an expert in the area.

>
> As was previously mentioned, its the domain registration contracts
> that were an ASSET, which could be attached, but in no portion of the
> legal opinion did the judge say that domain names are property and are
> subject to the laws of property.
>

You really do not understand how a contract is an asset William so you should stop
using as a construct.  It is not the piece of paper but the rights conferred.  Look up
what it means to be able to attach in this particular jurisdiction and the rethink
your ignorance.

>
> Further, this was a default judgement case, one which sets no precedence at
> all.
>

Whether or not something is a precedence has nothing to do with default or not,
generally speaking a trial court is not of value and there are many issues involved
like location and level of courts.

>
> Notice Brent said that he court was "suggesting they have a property
> interest" but never actually said that or ruled on it.  In fact, the
> sex.com case was the only case to actually apply the legal standard of
> property to domain names, in US federal court.  Not a local court, in
> an uncontested default judgement case.

Yes, so what!

>
>
> Really, Sotiris, do like I suggested, get an attorney to consult with
> you, but don't depend on Jeff Williams to be your "research" source.
>
> You will just end up with egg on your face.
>

Better than the crow in your mouth, which hardly has room next to your foot.


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html