Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to Cochet tiTransfer Letter)

[Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Sotiris,
>
> Sunday, July 29, 2001, 2:31:22 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> > Fraud *is* a type of theft William.  Trademark law was instituted to protect
> > against FRAUD.
>
> Wrong.

One word answers are not what I'd call `convincing'...

>
> >> Courts have already ruled on this Sotiris. While those decisions are
> >> not binding in every jurisdiction, they do set strong precedents.
>
> > Please produce a list of what you consider "strong precedents".
>
> How about a US Federal Court ruling which set a strong precedence,
> which applied the real legal definition of property under the law?
>
> Sex.com
> U.S. District Court Judge James Ware dismissed a theft claim --
> technically called a "conversion" claim -- against the convicted felon
> accused of hijacking sex.com, ruling that Web domains aren't property,
> and therefore can't be stolen.
>
> "There is simply no evidence establishing that a domain name,
> including sex.com," meets the definition of property "as required by
> the law of conversion," the judge wrote in his ruling, citing his own
> words from a May decision in a separate suit brought by sex.com's
> original owner, Gary Kremen, against domain registrar Network
> Solutions.
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38398,00.html

The part you conveniently omitted from your citing of the article is a little less
than favourable to your case, William:

"The judge acknowledged that it's not totally clear whether property law should or
shouldn't apply to Web domains, but emphasized that the job of clarifying the law
rests with the legislature, not the courts. Legal experts seconded his opinion."
("his opinion" i.e. that the job of clarifying the law rests with the legislature, not
the courts!)

>
> >> The Harrods case does nothing to advance the concept of domain names
> >> being property.  Not by ANY reasonable stretch.
>
> > Forgive me for not ascribing to your specific standards of REASON, William.  All
> > I'm haring from you is the same thing over and over again.  Where are your
> > REASONINGS?  Please produce the evidence of which you speak.
>
> How about facts?

How about them?  You have yet to produce the "strong precedents", you mentioned.  You
cite one case, and even the judge in that case admits his decision may be open to
reversal ("The judge acknowledged that it's not totally clear whether property law
should or shouldn't apply to Web domains.."

> I haven't seen any from you at all.  I have a US federal judge saying
> specifically that domain names are not property.  You have a court
> ruling on an entirely unrelated subject that has nothing to do with
> domains and property rights.

I think the judge's admission speaks volumes, and it's a fact.  I'm sure it would have
shored up your argument if he didn't say what he did... but he did.

BTW, try telling AMAZON.COM their domain name isn't their property...

> >> Get a real attorney to tell me otherwise, one who has actually READ
> >> the case, and has a basis in IP and domain law.
>
> > Unlike the both of us, huh William?
>
> I rather like being on the side of Judges, as I said, find me an
> attorney who will read the FACTS and tell me otherwise.

I'd actually prefer to see a jury decide... there still is trial by jury in the United
States, no?  Your FACTS are skewed and misrepresented.  You cite one case without
actually proving anything (as the judge was less than certain), and you completely
ignore the FACT that domains are being declared de facto property in UDRP cases, as
well as court cases in which a claimant (with no registration) is awarded something
originally CREATED by a registrant.  How can you in all honesty ignore the BLATANT
FACT(S) of such a situation?  Then again, never mind answering that...

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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