URLs Aren't Property? 151
stevarooski writes "I saw this over at Ars. Apparently a judge ruled in a lawsuit about the alleged illegal transfer of the domain name 'sex.com' that URLs do not qualify as property, at least under current law. They are instead a "designation for a service -- akin to a phone number." I dont know if I buy that. . .People very much treat domain names as property--buying and selling them on the web all the time. (Examples from Ebay and Yahoo.)"
Contradictory Laws (Score:2)
I strongly agree with the previous posts that Congress should get on the ball, learn something about the technologies they are legislating, and at least be consistent in their law-making. Even if the laws suck, they should at least suck consistently.
Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Re:Phone companies taking phone numbers (Score:1)
Arbitrarily reassigning your phone number, though, that just doesn't seem right. Yet another reason to dislike the phone company. (I'm still waiting on getting my DSL from Verizon after that cute li'l strike of theirs.)
--
Re:it's almost time... (Score:1)
Oh, I totally understand that. Of course it wouldn't be an easy task, I'm just saying that it needs to be done, otherwise things that seem unfair to people that know about computers will continue to happen because businesses have a greater influence over what non-computer savvy people think, and how computer related problems should be dealt with.
Re:Phone companies taking phone numbers (Score:1)
Got URL? (Score:1)
If Im not mistaken, Customers do own Phone numers (Score:1)
This way they can use any phone company, and not change thier phone number.
So in that case we do OWN the phone numbers.
Ok, well sorta....
Personal number plates, phone numbers (Score:1)
URL Treatment -- So What? (Score:1)
So what? That doesn't make them property. Only the law can do that.
Reminds me of Real Estate (Score:1)
Domain names and Phone numbers (Score:1)
Re:do they sell 800 numbers? (Score:2)
Re:No matter what he does, he sets a precident. (Score:2)
Re:MP3, Books, Movies, Software, Etc. (Score:2)
Re:Sell != Property (Score:1)
Can you show me the LAW that requires a person to have a slave, er, social identification number?
I'll save you some time: There is NONE. Therefore it is voluntary. You might want to study contract law, before replying.
Re:If Im not mistaken, Customers do own Phone nume (Score:2)
The phone company can change your local number without your permission. There are good technical reasons for them to be able to do this.
Re:Well, (Score:1)
Nothing. Either way could be interpreted as you giving directions to get crack. Unless the law mandates that as long as your directions only get so and so within 10 blocks of the crack, that's illegal, but if it's any further than that it's legal...
Yeah, forfeiture laws are bullshit. Laws abridging the discussion of methamphetamine are equally bullshit. But intended to thwart people trying to stay "one step ahead of the law" are there for that purpose...
Wow... did i wander or what?!?
So, yeah, anyways, go smoke crack or something
Domains are *exactly* like phone numbers (Score:2)
Re:What makes U.S. law final authority? (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:1)
The client ("SLD holder") owns the registered domain name ("SLD"). GANDI ("Registrar") simply acts on the client's behalf.
--
MP3, Books, Movies, Software, Etc. (Score:1)
Geeky.org [geeky.org]
One more question (Score:1)
Can this federal judge really be this stupid?
URL != domain name (Score:2)
from this angle, it looks like domain names should be property, whereas URLs should not.
--Phil
Re:Non-Techie Legal System (Score:1)
Re:What makes U.S. law final authority? (Score:2)
Well, that's interesting. If that's true and I were a citizen of another major industrial nation, I'd be pushing for internationalization of
Re:Sell != Property (Score:1)
which requires something TANGIBLE. A URL clearly
fails that criteria.
Domain names are phone numbers? (Score:1)
The Judge says Domain names are akin to phone numbers and are a service...
Dose this mean PacBell (My local phone carrer) can take away my phone service at any time and give it to someone else?
No... PacBell allmost did this once and returned service to me... (The other guys were a larg company BTW.. I've had the same phone number sence childhood.....)
If it is a phone number then... they can't issue regenal domain names to people in OTHER regens... (*.com, *.org etc are international... like 800,900 and 700 numbers)
They can not remove them for trademark violations.
And first is first...
It is quite posable NSI did this knowingly (Prove it... hmmm?)
PacBell would much sooner sue the larg company for fraud than screw the little guy...
It's probably a matter of being smart and greedy... You can make more money suing a weathy crook than you can by doing busness with same...
Maybe someone should clue NSI in on this fact... they could make a lot of money in the legal area by simply suing fraudulent transfer requests like this...
Re:Domain resolution is a service. (Score:1)
In my opinion? YES. You're helping them out. DNS servers should be subsidized from registration fees. That'd make sure that there's always DNS boxes up, and that they stay current. It's an incentive thing.
But hey, I'm not in charge.
Re:What makes U.S. law final authority? (Score:1)
And before you could do anything else to complain, you'd first for have to try to internationalize
And
And anyways, unless your name is also harrison ford, why in the world would you want that name in the first place, unless just to capitalize from his fame and fortunes?
Re:Stealing Microsoft.com? (Score:3)
The fact this has taken 5 years is ridiculous though, and if it was Microsoft it definitely would have all been over and done with by now. For proof, look at how NetSol did an emergency update of the root nameservers last year when AOL.com's name was hijacked. They would definitely never do that for any company smaller than MS or AOL. But then when there is provable fraud going on, they just drag their heels and let the court take care of it? sick.
sig:
NSI holding domains (Score:3)
=================================
Re:What makes U.S. law final authority? (Score:1)
People buy and sell phone numbers also - diff? (Score:1)
I see the conclusion of the judge perfectly reasonable.
Re:What makes U.S. law final authority? (Score:1)
That said, no matter what the contract says, if the contract is illegal, it's unenforcable. I could agree to you to sell my next 10 children for $10 a kid, but if the courts ever found out, no matter how concrete sounding and binding the contract was worded, you wouldn't get my kids. Though, i probably wouldn't get to keep them either! But NSI's not actively solicting in that sense, and we're not talking about anything but domain names.
Short answer, a contract is only as enforceable as it is legal. If the contract is found to be illegal, it is null and void.
Re:NSI holding domains (Score:2)
Re:Bad News for us (Score:1)
I don't think it's an NSI problem specifically. No registrar ever claims to be selling domain names. They're just selling the service of putting your name somewhere that gets looked at by the reoot servers for a year or two...
Re:Sell != Property (Score:1)
URL's are probably similar to telephone numbers, which can be valuable to their assigned users. The user does not own the telephone number, or a URL, only the exclusive right to use it. There have been cases of telephone number hijacking by companies wanting the number(s) for commercial advantage, and they have essentially gotten away with it because value of the loss of use to the original owner is usually small, so the cost of recovering the value of the loss is as much or more than the value of the loss. It ain't fair, but it is the golden rule - those that have the gold get to make the rules.
URL Names and "Ownership" (Score:1)
Re:So? (Score:2)
THey are not implying 'ownership'.
Sell != Property (Score:3)
Consider a software liscence. You 'buy' that. Do you own it? [0]
A car registration plate can [1] be sold, and bought. You definitly don't own those, they are 'owned' by the govenment, but that doesn't stop you paying extra fo a 'personalised' plate.
You can purchase a liscence to use a patent. The patent does not become your propery.
The term property is used here in a fairly strict legal sense, not in an everyday sense. It's as per the law of 'conversion', whatever that may be.
[0] I'll leave the whole 'is it legal question to the side here'
[1] At leat, you can in the UK
Hunh???? (Score:1)
This is only because of the potential to make money if you own a good domain name. Things like sex.com are URLS that people will type in just to try it out and see if it exists. I'm sure people....companies actually... have purchased the rights to a phone number because it would help with their business. Its just not as widespread.
A slippery slope (Score:1)
searchspell.com [searchspell.com]
Re:URL != domain name (Score:1)
IP == Designation (Score:3)
IP == Designation for service (like phone number).
URL == property. They have become so valuable in today's world that they can easily be considered similar to a great big sign signifying who you are and/or what you do.
Btw. . . this is a pretty old case . . .
--
Multiple Registrars (Score:1)
Re:Contradictory Laws (Score:1)
The only reason that people can sue over domain names is for their trademarks, which protect the trademark holder from other people using it, either to get business away from them, or causing damage to that name. This has lead to companies getting domain names for their trademarks. But it has also let big companies with that trademark name take it from another company with that trademark.
And this is why they need to create new laws that will protect everyone not just people with money by using existing laws that don't make sense in the digital world.
Asta la vista
NSI's grand plan (Score:1)
They changed the policy to state that they, not you, own the domain.
Now they have a court decision to back it up.
You will be reciving notice in the mail that a corporate partner has expressed interest in your domain name; you will of course have the option to outbid them. Have a nice day.
-- Greg
Steven Cohen: What an incredible scumbag (Score:1)
He claimed to be making $1000000/month at the time off sex.com (as of 2/1996). Of course that didn't explain why he was spending his time doing background checks for contract recruiters...
He represented himself at various times as a lawyer, a locksmith, a travel agent and a brothel owner (in Nevada).
Last I heard about him was a few months ago. I was testifying on behalf of the plaintiff in a sexual harassment suit against the company; Steve was one of the primary named perpetrators, except no one could locate him since he had transferred all his businesses to the Cayman Islands.
Re:Phone companies taking phone numbers (Score:1)
Well, the phone company technically loans you your phone number. Doesn't the sysadmin get first pick on what login he wants? Doesn't he have the right to reassign logins or assign them in whatever fashion he chooses?
This would directly relate to IP addresses, so I would then liken trademarks to the domain name. What if someone took the domain amazon.com? That's integral to Amazon.com's business.
We must remember that property rights in America are extensive in order to facilitate capitalism. That's what drives us, and that's what drives the legal system, like it or not. I see the big companies winning out on this one, so don't be surprised if things do get passed on up the food chain.
Domain Names... (Score:2)
Olympic.com anyone??? (Score:2)
And they can be taken away... (Score:1)
================
Re:NSI holding domains (Score:1)
Is that what the US Navy do in their spare time?
Domain resolution is a service. (Score:3)
Therefore, how NSI runs its business should be entirely up to NSI. I'm not against a little intervention; after all, the Internet is well on its way to being a utility similar to the phone system, but it doesn't mean that they aren't property. They're just the property of NSI.
Re:One more question (Score:1)
treke
Re:Sell != Property (Score:1)
The judge in this case thinks that URLs are like phone numbers or house addresses, as well as like the liscence plate numbers that you mentioned. The pattern here seems to be [my interpretation] that they are assigned designations and therefore not available to be commercialized.
I dont agree. A web URL is a lot more personalized and can do a lot more to describe what it points to than a phone number does. It'd be different if we all could choose phone numbers based on text monikers or something--that might be considered property.
From this, I would argue that a domain name is NOT just a designation for a place on the internet (although technically, it really is). The fact that it in itself can have meaningful content regardless of what it points to makes it different from the examples the judge used. Since that content reflects on the owner, I would have to say that URLs can indeed be 'owned.'
s
Re:Contradictory Laws (Score:1)
DN = designation? (Score:1)
The domain name is more like the sign on the front of the store.
---
Where can the word be found, where can the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence.
I disagree (Score:1)
I do believe that, on a logical, realistic level that domain names are property. I also might have some legal proof that they are. Look at it from this point of view. A telephone number is randomly assigned by the telco and has no meaning, it is a simple address to your telephone. A domain name, on the other hand, is in my opinion intellectual property. Why? Domain names aren't randomly assigned. It takes creativity to think of a domain name, no matter how simple. I wouldnt just go to a dictionay and pick a random word for my website. I would think of one that suites the content of my site, or at least one that has personal meaning for me. To take this even further, go to a registrar and try to register Microsoft.com, and see what happens. It will tell you that you cannot register Microsoft.* anything because it is a tradmarked name. I'm sure that many examples of this are active, but this is just the one that I am aware of. OTOH, Microsoft is an original name, Sex.com is a standard english word. But aren't all works of intelectual property just a compilation of words in native tounge? Who is to say that I cannot write and copyright a book that is only one word long? So what makes a domain name, basicly a title to my book in a manner of speaking, or a title to my business, not copyrightable? How about sites with common words that their domain is their business name? Like Amazon.com, or MP3.com? Is that protected under tradmark laws? Remember, trademark laws are seperate from copyright laws.
I think this whole Intellecual Property debate is going to continue for some time to come. The recent explosion of computers and digital media have come far faster and further than the big, slow wheels of Big Brother could dream of turning. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds. With all the recent news of judges stripping sites of their domains, i.e. Corinthians.com, and others, this seems to be something that needs immediate attention of the lawmakers. Or at least the law interpreters. But just because this happens to involves computers, I don't see how it is complicated. Seems pretty straightforward to me, it's IP. I thought of it, I registered it, it's my exclusive right to use it for as long as I desire. So, while I technicaly might never "own" the domain name, I will forever own the thought that created it. And isn't that what copyrights and trademarks are?
Glad you got your Law Degree (Score:1)
Re:More stupid judges (Score:1)
Re:do they sell 800 numbers? (Score:1)
Not to mention, IMO, that it seems incredibly tacky. Is all this obsession over domain names just a sign that the current system royally sucks?
--
while ( !universe->perfect() ) {
hack (reality);
Re:What makes U.S. law final authority? (Score:2)
A couple of nice metaphors, but what was your point? [btw, I'm aware of the fact that you cannot legally enforce an illegal contract: another example, if I hire you to kill me, with a signed contract exonerating you, you are still guilty of murder. I cannot sign away my life in a contract.]
This thread has been about the rights of foreign nationals to register domains in the .com (and also .net/.org) TLD, and as I see it, this is really quite simple:
G
Re:Just like a company name or logo (Score:1)
It seems to me that domain names should be considered intellectual property, and be covered by the same laws that govern trademarks and copyrights.
Since IP is dying, URLs are dying.
--
LoonXTall
Also (Score:1)
Re:Sell != Property (Score:1)
You can.
Re:Well, (Score:2)
That's only because the War on Drugs has pretty much disregarded the Constitution as well as common sense.
do they sell 800 numbers? (Score:3)
Can they sell the 800 number, or does it have to go back to the telco?
The paradigm seems to fit, despite everyone's arguments that it's a "mew thing" from the "new economy."
Re:Domain resolution is a service. (Score:2)
Touchy situation. (Score:2)
2. If urls are property, can't the government get involved to dictate their usage and or delegation?
3. If urls aren't property, how about other forms of data, like e-mail?
There is something a little bigger than it just being property or not.
---
You OWN the right to RENT a domainname (Score:2)
See it as an apartment. If you rent an apartment from a certain organisation, you live there. but if someone else obtains a legal contract to rent that same apartment and you thereby loose the right to rent it, you have to move.
The ONLY RIGHT thing that should be done here is that the organisation who owns the domain, and thus lets out the domains to others, fixes the rent contracts so the legally owner of the RIGHT to rent sex.com is given back that right.
IMHO, the judge should have ruled that the ICANN or NSI have to fix the records so sex.com is back to the original subscriber.
--
Re:Well, (Score:2)
You most certainly should be able to tell people where to buy crack. You should say, "Go down this street about 3 blocks and take a left. There's a Walgreens about half a mile down." Then that person can show their prescription and buy their crack, or whatever drug they happen to need. The problem is that the WoD is bullshit in the first place. We can smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol, why can't we smoke pot or use cocaine? Any of them can screw up your life and health if you abuse them. They're all addictive to some extent. The WoD is a complete failure and we should put an end to it now. There have been countless human rights abuses perpetrated by the US in the name of the WoD. Thousands of people are sitting in prison for years for having a couple of joints on them. This war has been going on for decades now. When the hell will this country wake up and realize how fucking idiotic this damn war is? How many people will have their lives ruined because of a petty, victimless "crime." How many people's rights will be disregarded because of the exceptions our government makes to the law when drugs are involved?
Re:Sell != Property (Score:2)
In the case of the license plate, the state owns it, and you're just putting it on your car. You don't own it, nor are you licensing it. The only reason it's there is because the law says you have to attach it. When you pay for a vanity plate, you aren't buying that either; what you're buying from them is the usage of a series of digits of your choosing, rather than there's.
The very definition of selling/buying something involves giving up/gaining ownership of it, which in turns makes said item "property". However, just because you've given money to someone for a service, doesn't mean you've bought anything at all.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Huge contradiction here... (Score:5)
On the other hand, URLs can be forcibly reassigned from one party to another. (ICANN)
URLs aren't like software licenses. They aren't fungible assets, they're unique. Can a court rule that your phone number will be taken away just because it's 225-5288 (CALL-ATT)? Can they decide to transfer that number to AT&T in every area code that contains an AT&T office?
Now, if it's a trademark issue, then a legal ruling entity should be able to order the cease and desist of the use of a specific domain name, but shouldn't be able to order the transfer to another party. The trademark namespace is not exclusive. Just because there's a Ford Motor Company doesn't stop there from being a Ford Bookstore. It only stops there from being a Ford something-or-other in the auto industry. The Internet in not an industry that umbrellas over all trademark namespaces. A good case in point is Nissan Computers [nissan.com]. They're being sued by Nissan Motors [nissandriven.com] because they want the domain. This is clearly not a case of trademark infringement, as both companies have the registered trademark "Nissan". What right does Nissan Motors have over the domain?
So when would trademarks apply, and how should it be dealt with? If, for example, I had the domain name ford.com and started a car company I would get sued for trademark violation, and rightly so. After I received a judgement forcing me to abandon the name ford in conjunction with my car company, I should be free to market the domain name ford.com to anyone who can legally use it, not just the one who was fastest to sue. Ford Books should have just as much right to purchase it as Ford Motors. It's unlikely that they would, because in an open market Ford Motors would pay me more, but this is an economic issue, not a legal one.
Just one more hypothetical: Say 'Orange' is a small organic farm in Idaho, been in business for decades. Orange.com is registered by someone else and they set up shop as an organic farm on the net. Say the original Orange goes to ICANN and asks for the domain, because of a trademark violation. The company wins and Orange.com is now in the first person's name. then Orange Computers, a multi-billion-dollar company comes along to ICANN and says Orange.com needs to go to them because they have a stronger tie to the name in the internet space. Shopuld it just get passed up the chain? Is this right?
Property is what this is all about. We have far more laws over property and posession than we do over 'name assignments'. The telephone number analogy is full of crap. My 'net telephone number' is my P address and you can do whatever you want with it, I don't care. When you choose a domain name from a mutually exclusive 100+ character namespace you're creating a brand, an identity, and not just a choice between THE-KING (845-5464) or THE-BING (845-2464). When is one of these cases going to make its way up the chain of appeals?
Kevin Fox
Re:What makes U.S. law final authority? (Score:3)
It's not, never has been.
ICANN Sez: [icann.org]
Then again I guess for all intents and purposes...
Reckon US voting should be opened internationally as the laws seem to be, or at the very least the pretence of being a democracy should be dropped.
Seems reasonable... (Score:4)
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.
It seems the judge simply did not want to set a bad precedent and instead decided that congress should write laws that specifically govern "virtual real estate" instead of the pseudo-laws being created as the side effects of various lawsuits.
(-1 Troll)
linking (Score:2)
how can some one sue someone (MPAA Vs. 2600) over listing a *phone number*
-rev
What makes U.S. law final authority? (Score:2)
Just like a company name or logo (Score:2)
Bad News for us (Score:2)
Re:a psychos point of view ::twitches:: (Score:2)
OTOH, I'm in favor of starting wars to kill 4.5 billions of humans
Re:What makes U.S. law final authority? (Score:2)
The original poster was mistaken, or trolling, or both.
Re:What makes U.S. law final authority? (Score:3)
Check out the FAQ [internic.net] at Internic.net. To quote from it:
Yes. The .com, .net, and .org domains are available for registration by Internet users across the globe.
However, Harrison Ford would probably be able to take the domain for a different reason. They generally get you with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii) (here [icann.org]). This is the bad faith clause, i.e. even if you are called Harrison Ford, few people who go to the site www.harrisonford.com are likely to be going there to see you. They would claim that you registered the domain name to either capture people who wanted to go to the site of the actor of the same name, or that you hoped to sting money out of him. They would say that one of these circumstances are more likely than you needing the name for yourself. [I'm trying to stay neutral - though in this circumstance I'd agree with them.]
cheers,
G
Re:What makes U.S. law final authority? (Score:3)
Nothing's stopping anyone else, in any nation, from setting up their own alternative root server. However, as long as the only existing, generally accepted root servers are controlled by organizations incorporated in the U.S., U.S. law will be the governing authority for domain names.
Steven E. Ehrbar
No matter what he does, he sets a precident. (Score:3)
And he set one here.
Makes me wonder if we shouldn't go about creating another option for judges to exercise: "No law for this" which punts the decision straight to the appropriate legislative body to create a law.
--
Ben Kosse
Re:So? (Score:2)
Actually this is similar to Call Letters.... (Score:2)
Re:linking (Score:2)
I could have a URL that had certain content, and, indeed these exist. However, the case against 2600 was not over the existance of these places, but the fact that 2600 was publicising a list of them.
By the analogy with the telephone service [0] 2600 are prevented from publising the phone number of the code.
Very different case.
[0] Which, in my opinion, is actually a good one
Well, (Score:3)
Linking to a site with illegal content is certainly different than linking to yahoo. Especially if I knowingly do it (i.e. the link say "go here to get your kiddie porn/warez/etc.")
cot
Virtual Property (Score:2)
Re:What makes U.S. law final authority? (Score:2)
When you 'buy' a domain name, you are not buying it in a property sense. However, you are binding ICANN/NSI, to a contract, to honor your domain name. The contacts allow for them to take the domain name away from you under certain circumstances. If you had a legal right to the domain name that you had registered, a US court should force ICANN/NSI to allow you to keep the name.
When I said 'False' in was refuting Meatloaf's claim that .com was a US specific TLD. .com is not a US specific TLD, and therefore the defendant being a foreign national is not sufficient justification for ICANN to take away your domain. If ICANN take away a .com domain from an Iranian citizen, it should be because they would have taken the domain away from a US citizen, in the same circumstances.
I repect the US judicial system, and I would expect US courts to uphold contract law, and force ICANN to treat US and non-US citizens equally.
BTW. This judge made a brilliant decision. He ignored conventional 'wisdom', that domain names are property, and simply applied existing US law.
I'm not saying that domain names shouldn't be treated as property, but if you want that change made, it should be the leglislature, not the judiciary, who change the law. Talk top your congressman. When judges make up the law as they go along, you get the kind of situation in the DeCSS case where judge Kaplan made an 'unprecedented expansion of traditional copyright law'[story] [wired.com], or the Napster case where the betamax precedent was totally ignored.
Well done, judge.
Re:NSI holding domains (Score:2)
Local numbers are less frequently bought & sold, mainly because there isn't so much demand, but it still happens.
Domains are a service! (Score:2)
Just because your root server is ignored by the world isnt my fault, the other root server's organization's fault, or anyone elses.......
Grow up, the DNS system in my opinion is outdated and should be replaced by a better directory service......but stop complaining, you do not own it.......you pay for them to set it up and maintain the service........
Remember, it was once free when demand was very low......once the damand dictacted hiring hundreds of people to manage domains and the equipment, they needed to charge money.
Re:Sell != Property (Score:2)
The UCITA says otherwise, but it's only in effect in some states and is obviously the product of extensive bribery. For the rest of the world, this bullshit about licensing is just something else to laugh at the software companies for.
You own that software, and have the legal right to use it in any copyright-law compatible manner you see fit. Any license that says otherwise is void, at best, and perhaps grounds to sue for fraud. (If you, for instance, disclaim responsibilities in a warranty that you can't disclaim, you can be sued by a customer.)
So go and buy a 10-user license of NT server and use it to serve files on a 50-computer network, it's not breaking any law or any contract.
Non-Techie Legal System (Score:4)
Illegal - Wire Fraud (Score:2)
sulli
So? (Score:3)
Had any of them READ their contract when they 'registered' a domain, they would clearly see that they do not 'OWN' it, that this is merely a registration of a name in the DNS, and all that that implies.
IT's companies that started treating them like comoddities that have made idiot people think they are 'property'.
Re:Non-Techie Legal System (Score:2)
Domains ARE NOT PROPERTY.
They only exist in the context of the DNS system at-large, and that is also subject to change in the future.
They are 'leased'. Read your domain registration agreement. You don't 'own' it at all.
The judge is right on.
He's not sayhing 'it's not property at all', he's saying that for the purposes of law, current property law does not apply to domains.
If you steal my domain.. I can get you for fraud, theft of service, etc... but not 'theft over 1000' or whatever.
Stealing Microsoft.com? (Score:4)
P.S. This is the second story in a day that I submitted well in advance. (2000-08-25 19:08:15 Judge Rules Domains Aren't Property (articles,doj) (rejected)), note that it has a more correct title, since this applies to domain names and NOT URLs.
Re:What makes U.S. law final authority? (Score:2)