Craniac  02-04-2003
08:38 AM ET (US)
|
"The big mistake here is to judge the matter on ideological grounds and to decide who is right or wrong based on our prejudicial feelings towards the parties. That is an attitude which we see far too often on this blog. Let us rather try to be impartial and to recognize that in a complex legal dispute, both sides may have merit to their arguments."
Only lawyers are capable of completely shedding their "ideological grounds" and judging impartially, and it takes them years of "training" to do this.
The rest of us are stuck with our convictions.
|
Rich Gibson 02-03-2003
03:08 PM ET (US)
|
Hey Cypherpunk, I'm not sure that I can see any merit to NSI's arguments. If I read The Register article correctly (and if that article reflects reality...a long chain of supposition :-) NSI is asserting that what they do is not subject to the oversight of tort law.
I believe that their argument is that there is _nothing_ that they can do with domain names that would provide a cause of action for a registrant.
Am I misreading something here?
As for the property claim...I have trouble treating a domain name as anything other than property. And it seems that NSI agrees, with language like 'claim your domain online' and 'create your online identity' and 'having a web site means people can find you anytime, anywhere.'
In addition, they have a whole section on appraising and selling domain names.
A domain name is clearly _something_, and the legal thing that it most closely resembles is 'property.'
I fully admit to a bias on the issue, but just because I'm biased doesn't mean I'm wrong :-)
|
QrazyQat 02-03-2003
02:39 PM ET (US)
|
In their defense, NSI uses the idea that domain names can't be "owned" anymore than can telephone numbers. So if some business' vanity 800 number is given to one of their competitors, there's no reprecussions? I don't think so. Edited 02-03-2003 08:57 PM
|
cypherpunk 02-03-2003
02:25 PM ET (US)
|
There is actually an interesting legal question, although of course the article does its best to present it in a biased way.
Network Solutions is arguing that what actually happens with the DNS is that NS provides a service. Given a domain name, they reply with the IP address of the name server. This information gets cached in many places, but ultimately NS is responsible for mapping the domain name to the IP address. This, they claim, is a service. They contract with their customers to provide that service, and of course their contract is full of disclaimers that permit them to screw up more or less at will.
The plaintiff on the other hand claims that a domain name is property. Verisign is acting as something like a title company that keeps track of who owns that property. But they don't get to decide who owns it, any more than a title company can just decide to give your house to someone else. When Verisign did this, in error, it was like they stole property from the plaintiff.
I can see merit to both arguments. I like the idea of abstract property rights, whether of domain names, intellectual property, or spectrum bands. We have long experience working with property, markets, sellers and buyers, and people understand it well. OTOH I think NS has a point, that ultimately the DNS is a service that they are providing, and if and when they fail they should be judged as a failing service provider, not a property thief.
The big mistake here is to judge the matter on ideological grounds and to decide who is right or wrong based on our prejudicial feelings towards the parties. That is an attitude which we see far too often on this blog. Let us rather try to be impartial and to recognize that in a complex legal dispute, both sides may have merit to their arguments.
|
QrazyQat 02-03-2003
02:23 PM ET (US)
|
Change "Artie" to "NSI" in the following from The Simpsons: Artie: Marge, I would appreciate it if you didn't tell anybody about my busy hands, not so much for myself, but I am so respected, It would damage the town to hear it. Edited 02-03-2003 08:57 PM
|
turnstyle 02-03-2003
01:02 PM ET (US)
|
Right at this very moment my ears are burning with beaurocracy-induced adrenaline-rage at Verisign, so I feel compelled to post.
I'm in the throes of two battles, one regarding a SSL certificate renewal, and another regarding a hijacked domain name.
These guys are honestly lousy.
It seems that they've got a far tighter monopoly on SSL certificates than Microsoft has on OS's. The only serious competition is Thawte, and they *own* Thawte!
It's worth the effort to avoid doing business with them.
|
Rich Gibson 02-03-2003
12:43 PM ET (US)
|
Cory, are you trying to create the death of the internet, again? Shame on you! For god's sake, next you'll be wanting corporations to take responsibility for their actions, and then where will we be?
|
|
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
606
(Unique:
482
) / Subscribers:
3 | What's this?
