The Sex.Com Story Continues 183
wherley writes "This story at news.com tells the tale of the lucrative sex.com domain, the incompetent Verisign transfer per forged request, and the $65 million dollars in damages hanging in the breeze."
Sex sex sex! Why are court cases always about sex! (Score:3, Interesting)
One note though, a lot of people see nothing wrong with someone "stealing" a porn website, because they think porn is wrong, and stealing is wrong. But pornography is legal, stealing is illegal. I'm sure that this is one huge reason this case hasn't been settled yet.
Re:Sex sex sex! Why are court cases always about s (Score:5, Funny)
It's not like they had both hands available to hold it down.
Re:Fuck you bitch and your sig too (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Fuck you bitch and your sig too (Score:2)
Makes me glad 'funny' isn't a scientific measurement.
So what real benefit do you get for marking me as foe? Any particular reason I should care? I'm not particularly educated on the 'friend/foe' features of Slashdot.
Re:Fuck you bitch and your sig too (Score:1)
Mark me as foe then. Kids wanting to be friends with everybody make me sick. It's like living on Sesame Street.
Re:Fuck you bitch and your sig too (Score:2)
Fuck that; mark me as foe too. I want a tonka truck!
Re:Sex sex sex! Why are court cases always about s (Score:2, Funny)
Transfer Issues (Score:1)
Or perhaps instances when the registrar refuses to transfer a domain as requested by the owner
Re:Transfer Issues (Score:1)
arrrgh
Re:Transfer Issues (Score:2)
Or perhaps instances when the registrar refuses to transfer a domain as requested by the owner ... grrr
You touch, indirectly, on what I see as the main point of such a concern. A ruling against a company which places itself directly in the path of communications and commerce, then can't be bothered with ethical concerns deserves a slap-down. I can imagine the words in this lawyers head as he addresses his client's concern... "Please, please don't let lightning strike me, please!" If Veri$ign wants to be in that business, let them embrace fully the responsibilities and liabilities, or get the fsck out.
Other cx sites. (Score:5, Funny)
My eyes have been permanently wounded by trolls posting that link here.
Re:Other cx sites. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Other cx sites. (Score:1)
You don't get out much do you?
If that is all it takes to damage your eyes. . . . heh, stay away from the
Re:Other cx sites. (Score:1, Funny)
You haven't seen terror until you've seen a screen full of open goatse.cx guy windows.
malicious code alert (Score:1)
Poor people at CNet... (Score:1, Troll)
Good thing their servers appear to be able to handle it. Either that, or nobody gives a damn about anything reported on CNet...
Re:Poor people at CNet... (Score:2)
They actualy still make some money from trafic to
(cnet is often in the top 5 of largest websites on the world.. slashdot isn't even near the top100)
Re:Poor people at CNet... (Score:2)
Re:Poor people at CNet... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Poor people at CNet... (Score:3, Insightful)
Floodgates, Or perhaps??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps a floodgate of lawsuits where Verisign royally screwed up and did nothing to try to rectify the situation.
There is a difference from being down for a little while, and giving someone a domain that you paid for and registered. Then saying, "ooopps...well here is your registration fee back."
Owning microsoft.com (Score:1)
Gotta ask: who else here also submitted a domain name request for microsoft.com in December 1999, hoping that Verisign would have fscked up with Y2k and reassigned the domain to me? Unfortunately, Y2k was pretty quiet. :-)
The real fraud is NS taking 5 years to return it (Score:2, Interesting)
See! (Score:2, Funny)
As far as Verisign is concerned.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've worked in banks for years, and I know if someone comes in claiming to be Ms. Smith, then steals all of the real Ms. Smith's money/safety deposit box items/etc, the bank is held accountable for fucking up. I don't see a big difference here.
Verisign should pay a fair and equitable amount for their mistake, improve the system (if they haven't already) so it never happens again, and go on.
Re:As far as Verisign is concerned.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:As far as Verisign is concerned.... (Score:2)
The article mentioned stock certificates which is probably a closer analogy. They are just pieces of paper that say you own some stock. So how do you "get" the stock - it's not a tangible thing. But there are a lot of companies running in fear of the SEC over these non-physical things right now.
But how liable should verisign be? If they acted in good faith (okay...calm down...that was funny) and thought the transfer request was legit how liable should they be?
Re:As far as Verisign is concerned.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It should be a no brainer that Verisign cost this guy millions of dollars when they gave away his domain name.
Likening the domain name to stock certificates (if you read the article) was a very nice analogy.
Re:As far as Verisign is concerned.... (Score:1)
Re:As far as Verisign is concerned.... (Score:2, Informative)
Similarly, stealing the domain name for a high taffic pay-site (and being sex.com you KNOW it had to have huge amounts of traffic) and funneling those users to your pay-site is no less a crime. The logs on that domain would have to be staggering. I'm fairly certain that's where the $65 million judgement comes from.
As a side note, wouldn't it be interesting to grep [gnu.org] those logs and see what your neighbor's been up to?
Re:As far as Verisign is concerned.... (Score:3, Informative)
"Why not?" Kozinski replied. "Why isn't that exactly what it is?"
The first court was wrong, Kozinksi is appealing.
On the the other hand... if the "No Physical Property" argument is true, let the MP3 trading begin!
Re:As far as Verisign is concerned.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As far as Verisign is concerned.... (Score:2)
Yes, the "bank" was real careful when I came in asking for a certified cheque for some $45000 from one of my accounts (I was putting a down payment on a house from the proceeds of the sale of a previous one).
dotster.com may be a concern as well (Score:4, Informative)
Re:dotster.com may be a concern as well (Score:2)
Although, you DO have to pay Fedex and UPS extra to no break your packages.
S
Re:dotster.com may be a concern as well (Score:2)
Re:dotster.com may be a concern as well (Score:1)
Versign is SO Lame. (Score:1)
Think about it (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that it is. The line between physical and intellectual property is very fuzzy.
At the same time, should a company be punished for responding to a letter that looked official?
I suppose that depends on it. I think that if a lucrative domain name sends a letter asking for a transfer, the domain controller should be contacted. Seeing that he apparently wasn't, I think that the company is responsible.
Re:Think about it (Score:2)
Re:Think about it (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, a letter *is* contact. According to the article, the guy got sex.com for five years. The big unanswered question here is, once they knew of their error, why didn't they give it back?
Money Hungry (Score:1)
His "Case" against Verisign is weak. He said it "could have been avoided if they had simply called, or emailed..." "They do it now. They should have done it then" Thats a case?! Verisign can't ammend their policies?
Re:Money Hungry (Score:2)
So, yeah...that's a case. A reasonable one, too.
Re:Money Hungry (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Money Hungry (Score:1)
Verisign is accountable to moment you stop thinking of a domain name as some geeky gadget. Whole companies need to be sure that they can rely on having that name once they pay for it. If verisign can't handle that they should get out of the registar business. Just like any bank that can not meets its obligations and indeed any company that cannot must cease to trade.
Re:Money Hungry (Score:1)
Legal Buffs, please elaborate!
Re:Money Hungry (Score:2)
Getting tricked by an official letter is one thing.. turning your back and telling the guy your not going to do anything about it is quite another.
There *is* potential for a great world of hurt (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see how they could be held responsible for negligence in correcting the matter in a non-expeditious manner....
Anyway, there is a potential for a world of hurt, especially if a DNS server is considered to be a legitimate and unerring source of information linking a domain name with owner information. The liability would be incredible, as would the potential for mega-lawsuits!
Re:There *is* potential for a great world of hurt (Score:5, Insightful)
Seeing as how it took 5 years to get the domain back that would probably qualify under the "non-expeditious manner".
Re:There *is* potential for a great world of hurt (Score:1)
And your point is? What else is a top level DNS server? Isn't that what they are supposed to provide? They charge $35 per domain (the most expensive around) each year to provide a service, maintaining the connection between the DNS name and it's proper owner. They should invest in some insurance, or do their job properly.
Re:There *is* potential for a great world of hurt (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that Verisign shouldn't be held liable because of the transfer - they were conned into it.
But they didn't fix the mistake after it had been pointed out, and for that, they should be nailed.
Maybe not for the full $65,000,000.00, say for a percentage equal to the amount of time they allowed to pass after being informed of their mistake, plus the few days it takes to fix it.
-- this is not a
Verisign sucks hard and long (Score:3, Insightful)
For what I care, they can be slapped with the 65mil damages, that will make my day...
Just my $0.02...
It's nice to see... (Score:1)
Not property? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this another licensing thingy, where you are not the owner of the property, just being allowed to license it from the true owner - in which case it is still owned by someone, and therefore is property, or perhaps rental of database space? What about IP rights, would those apply - again, implying the domain name is property.
I would guess there is some slippery lawyer interpertation that will be introduced, and hope someone can explain it to me...
Shock! Horror! (Score:5, Funny)
-brennan
Re:Shock! Horror! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Shock! Horror! (Score:1)
What I really want to know is.... (Score:1)
How about: www.sex2.com (Score:2)
no, because... (Score:2)
Re:How about: www.sex2.com (Score:2)
unanswered question (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems that if he had pursued the return of the domain early, that there would not have been 5 years to run up $65million in lost revenues.
How is this verisign's problem? Forged documents - One letter, return of domain name. I just don't understand.
Did Verisign refuse to return the name registration??
Re:unanswered question (Score:1)
how about i forge a letter to your bank saying to transfer all your money to me, and, without verifying it with you, they go and do that?
Liability (Score:3, Interesting)
The question is, does Verisign have any legal responsibility. Ideally, no one would ever forge a letter to Verisign (or my bank), and it wouldn't be an issue. Since it's well known that seedy elements do exist in society, organizations have some obligations to guard against fraud. So what exactly should they have to do to guard against fraud?
Of course, in the end, it will come down to a judges interpretation of existing laws, and how they apply to domain names. For the purposes of this discussion though, I'd argue that they probably did enough and should not be held liable, certainly not for anything near the full 65 million dollar amount. It sounds like this occurred early in the development of the internet, at a time when procedures and practices surrounding domain names was just being thought out. Obviously now that movies about websites are being made (fear.com), the thought of turning over a domain without contacting the owner for independent verification seems negligent. And of course, they don't do that now. If someone told you about this in 1995 though, I doubt it would have seemed nearly so clear cut.
That still leaves open the question of why it took five years to get back the domain name. If Verisign was just lazy, well, that's another story, which we don't seem to have many details on. For now, I'll assume Verisign acted reasonably here (perhaps not a good assumption based on other comments about Verisign posted here...).
In short, it's an unfortunate situation (kind of... it is sex.com after all), but Verisign shouldn't have to pay.
Re:Liability (Score:2)
I don't think so. The problem here is one of negligence on the part of Verisign, and morally they are very much responsible for the harm that was cased to the rightful owner of sex.com.
Lack of intent doesn't let you off the hook, morally or legally, when we're talking about negligence. Consider this: Suppose I hop into my car knowing full well that the brakes are in dangerously poor condition. And sure enough, they fail as I'm driving, and I slide into a schoolbus and kill the entire load of children.
So, do I get a "get out of jail free" card? After all, I never intended to hurt anyone - I just wanted to drive to the grocery store, right?
Well, of course not. Of course I'm responsible, both legally and morally. My negligence in not acting to avoid an entirely foreseeable and preventable consequence has caused harm to someone else, and I am liable both legally and morally.
And by the same token, Verisign's negligence in not taking simple steps to verify that the transfer request was, in fact, legitimate, makes them partly responsible for the harm to this man, whether they intended to harm him or not...
No more real than real property (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Both are fixed - only one entity may occupy a particular "parcel" at a time.
2. There is a fixed supply of each (excluding adding stupid TLDs, and Hawaii)
3. Whether you "own" either is really just a description of what you own, stored in a central database which can be verified by a third party.
4. In general, any changes you make or sites you build are just superficial - they may add or detract from the value, but the basis of the value is more dependent on the site (location, location, location). Once you relinquicsh your license/deed, the next owner may keep or remove your additions, but the space hasn't really changed.
Of course, there are exceptions, however...
Owning real estate is just ownership of a document which has the force of law allowing you limited use within a prescribed boundary. Nearly identical to a namespace.
Re:No more real than real property (Score:2)
A better way to state this is "each domain name is globally unique". There are an awful lot of "good enough" names possible in the namespace so you wouldn't want to imply that the supply is "scarce". With the advent of quality search engines, there's no real reason to keep the artificially scare scheme of simple TLDs around.
-l
The best quote has got to be: (Score:2, Funny)
Tangible property (Score:2)
Maybe it is all for a greater good. If it holds maybe other intangible goods like future contracts and stock options can be so tranfered without much fuzz. We can them start redistributing Enron executives fortunes to Enron employees, for instance...
Re:Tangible property (Score:1, Offtopic)
RTFA.
Re:Tangible property (Score:2)
The previous poster was refering to the original judge. This is the appellate court that they argued in front of most recently.
Why Verisign *IS* responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
Point is -- Verisign still thinks it's the wild west out here on the net, and they don't provide customer service of any kind. Furthermore, they are completely incapable of providing the services they offer. Criminal negligence is prosecutable. The fact that it's easier to change IBM's domian than it is to change IBM's phone number shows the maturity of the phone company -- they've already had to deal with pranks like that for decades.
And the fact that Verisign has no provision for knowing how to deal with these situations, and furthermore doesn't follow standard business practices (such as those provided by a phone company) makes them responsible for both "letting it happen in the first place" and "dragging their heels to fix the problem once it became clear what happened".
Just my 2 cents.
sex.com eh? (Score:1)
liability (Score:4, Insightful)
As it is now, you have almost no recourse, and they have little incentive to perform. I had a heck of a time getting a domain moved to a new host last year. Their system wasn't working for me and there was no other way to contact them. They were ignoring faxes and they don't have a customer service phone number.
Re:liability (Score:2, Informative)
That's not true, I have called it numerous times. I never could talk to a person, but there was a customer service number, and a machine to answer it.
In the end I paid them for another year, since they refused to transfer my domain name to another registrar, or even provide me any way to talk to them and request it.
They do provide handy forms online if you want to transfer from another registrar, just no help at all if you want to transfer from them. I guess I could take them to court, but I'm not going to, since it would cost me way more than it will to just pay them their yearly fee. Nice business model, get them hooked, and make it too expensive to get them to perform their job properly.
Re:liability (Score:2)
In short, to transfer a domain, the registration can't be expired, then it's fairly simple. Of course, if any problems occur during the transfer, they don't try too hard to fix them, and nobody else can.
transfer (Score:2)
Re:liability (Score:2)
But given that you've tried several times, and your new registrar couldn't help you, You're probably in the "Our database is fucked so that you can't do that, and there is now way to fix it." group. I had a friend who's domain expired three years ago, yet Verisign wouldn't let the record expire, so he couldn't register it with a new registrar. With Verisign, that's par for the course.
Names not tangible? Aren't trademarks names? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh huh. Tell that to people who wind up on the wrong end of 'cybersquatter' lawsuits, like this guy. [nissan.com]
If a domain name isn't tangible property, then doesn't this ruling somehow negate or diminish the concept of a trademark, which is also in most cases just a name?
If a big corporation can sue for alleged misuse of their name or dilution of their trademark, then I would say that a name certainly can be tangible property and that the ruling that stated it isn't is flawed as all hell. Or is this just another case of monied corporations having rights that citizens don't?
~Philly
Re:Names not tangible? Aren't trademarks names? (Score:2)
Verisign doesn't want domain names to be tangible property because this limits their control over them.
A modest proposal (Score:1)
I know this is dangerously close to the core idea of their company so it would probably never work. It's all part of the "if you're not sales, you're overhead" mentality if you ask me. Why give a certificate to your customers when you might be able to sell it to them.
VeriSign got spoofed on ID? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then again, they could always spin it and say, "See? See why you need to pay our monopoly^W company $xxx.95 for a VeriSign-certified PGP key?"
Screw 'em all (Score:2)
fdsggae4 (Score:1)
And I quote: (Score:4, Funny)
something isn't right...
Sex(.com), Lies and VeriSign (Score:2)
Usually greater analysis in the media equates to corporate spin.
> In this phase of the legal saga, which has gone on for more than six years, the appellate judges are trying to decide VeriSign's culpability in the case.
VeriSign knew it possible to spoof transfers and DID NOT verify the transfer with original owner - so why aren't they guilty of gross negligence?
Objectively, who can say they are not to blame?
Should it not have been pointed out, for those new to this story, that the case was overwhelming against VeriSign?
> However, the court also ruled Kremen cannot sue VeriSign for the transfer because a domain name isn't tangible property. Now Kremen's hoping the appellate panel will overturn that ruling.
Is intangible property worth nothing when owned by individuals - but worth a fortune when owned by corporations?
Obviously, double standards are wrong.
VeriSign had a duty of care for this property.
> Judge Alex Kozinski wondered how VeriSign's DNS database of domain names was any different from a stock certificate, which he said connects an owner with some property.
> David Dolkas, a lawyer for Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich who's representing VeriSign, said that if the judges were asking "is the DNS database somehow representative of an ownership right, the answer is no".
> "Why not?" Kozinski replied. "Why isn't that exactly what it is?"
Nobody can deny that the DNS is representative of an ownership right (as well as pointer to web address).
The article should have highlighted that David Dolkas spun a LIE in court.
> Judge Margaret McKeown also grilled Dolkas, asking him if the company is claiming that it has no responsibility at all in the case.
> Dolka reiterated claims that VeriSign shouldn't be held liable, saying the database is simply a neutral translator between Web addresses and domain names.
The database is a neutral translator between domain and web address - but that is not germane to this central question.
It is spin - evasion - deflection.
Article certainly should have highlighted this.
VeriSign are responsible for the security and accuracy of their database.
They also have a duty to their clients - which they are evading.
Ask anybody in I.T. - the essential requirement of any system like this is for ACCURATE SECURE DATA.
> He said a ruling against his company would "create a world of hurt", opening the floodgates for all types of suits, including contract and property claims from people whose domains are down for just a short while.
It is evasion again - article should have pointed out that this is not at all what the case is about.
The case will make registrars more careful about verifying transfers of domain with the original owner.
> Wagstaffe said the whole case could have been avoided if VeriSign had simply phoned or emailed Kremen and asked him if he approved the transfer. "They do it now. They should have done it then," he said.
Exactly - what else need be said?
> At one point, the judges chastised Cohen's lawyer for his characterisation of the federal judge who ruled against his client. Mike Mayock said the judge was "sucker punched" and "blindsided" by Kremen, an assertion that didn't go over well with the judges.
> "You're really standing there telling us he's a fool?" wondered an incredulous Kozinski. "I don't think it's appropriate for you to call a district judge a sucker."
Shame - Judge Alex Kozinski showed good insight earlier.
Cohen's lawyer was telling the truth, the judge was "sucker punched" - he never said the judge was a moron.
Clever people can fool us ALL.
It is an unwise person who thinks they or others cannot be fooled.
Who here is so arrogant - they think themselves so intelligent, they cannot be fooled?
Additionally: It is my informed opinion the facts are clear - should VeriSign 'get away with it', then either the court is an ass - they ARE morons OR the court is lead by corporations - they ARE corrupt.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, Corporations steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment.
The Corporations illegally abuse and expand their brand using domain names - above all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization [wipo.org.uk] - not connected with United Nations WIPO.org !
civil case? (Score:2)
the person who forged the letter to begin with?
Seems like a criminal charge of fraud together
with civil asset forfeiture would go a lot further
than trying to sue verisign for "65 million".
Re:civil case? (Score:2)
Why Domain Names aren't property (Score:2)
Real IP at least has an objective existence even if it's abstract. But domain names exist only subjectively. They are a server's opinion of what address maps to a name. Another server may have a different opinion. By saying that Verisign's opinion of a name mapping is somehow "property", you state-legitimize their opinion and hold it higher than everyone else's. This is an inappropriate position in a democracy, since ICANN does not represent people.
Furthermore, real IP involves creativity. Nobody involved in this case invented the word "sex". Comparing this to a trademark dispute, is ludicrous.
In Verisign is liable in any way, it should only be in terms of defaulting on a contract with a customer, to publish a mapping. This issue should be entirely limited within that scope.
Re:65 mil? (Score:2)
And that frontal shot of the goatse.cx guy? Genius photoshop work.
Re:What a scam! (Score:2, Offtopic)
They don't scam "us", they only scam really really stupid people.
Re:What a scam! (Score:1)
Re:What a scam! (Score:1)
Re:What a scam! (Score:4, Interesting)
In the end it worked out more profitable to them to just redirect their traffic to the bigger porn sites than to try to deal with the customers themselves.
For every customer you get to do the $5 trial, we would get $20!
When spamming, we would get a hit rate of around 1 in 1000 - so basically if we sent 10k emails, we would get $200.
I only dealt with the security side, and didn't work there for long btw.
Re:What a scam! (Score:2)
Re:What a scam! (Score:2)
That's a bit unfair -- we all know people who use Verisign. Or were you talking about different scammers?
Re:What a scam! (Score:2)
But if I do any new ones, they sure as heck won't be with Verisign.
Re:One hell of a case (Score:1)
Do you even know what prurient means?
For the poor soul who has some ideal so ingrained into his everyday life that he does not know there's a defenition for it.. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=prurient
I just wonder how Europeans think about sex.com? They have a very relaxed view toward sex and sexual conduct in general, at least compared to the general American stereotypical view. Also, their views on property laws are slightly different as well. What kinds of differences could create problems with this, and other cases on the unintangible web
Re:DISCLAIMER (Score:1)
Re:Pick Me Pick Me!!! (Score:1)