Versign, Sex, Property . . .

[painperdu]

As posted at IDG via whois.sc news :

" . . . a federal appeals court has asked the California Supreme Court to consider whether a domain name can be considered property."

O.k., there are three things here that get me excited.

1. Verisign will breathe it's last breath.

2. Domain names may become property and therefore legally treated as such.

3. Sex

This, I'm sure, will be the most anticipated court action to date for this industry.

I'm excited!

 

[dvdrip]

I agree with 1,3 but why 2?
Are you excited with paying tax?
I am sure there must be a plus in this decision but I can't think of one right now. I am too sleepy!

 

[Kazam]

Why 2 : If names are property and regarded as such you can take a loan against a name and even better, someone else can take a loan to buy your name. Also it will be better "policed" and losing names or having them stolen will be very hard. I also think the value of names will go up loads. GOOD IF YOU HAVE LOADS THEN ;-)

 

[askii]

What's all the fuss about "intellectual property"
if domains are not property?

 

[jberryhill]

"If names are property and regarded as such..."

Then they can be seized by your creditors, claimed by your ex-spouse, taxed, etc., and the cost of doing business to registrars (and passed to you) will go through the roof, as they have to face a zillion different inheritance laws, probate disputes, etc., etc.

The whole "property" thing is a dopey, non-sensical issue. No, you are not going to obtain an asset for ten bucks and then get a car loan on it.

 

[FineE]

I am actually keenly watching the sex.com case whcih will likely determine the domain as property question.

The reality is that a few domain names are worth a pretty dollar, and when "something" trades for thousands or even millions of dollars in our economy it makes sense for it to be property.

And if they are not property I can see a novel way of

1) Avoiding creditors by purchasing domain names. I mean cash can be seized but a domain worth say $1,000,000 or for the more modest debtor say $20,000 cannot? In Canada CIRA the .ca registry has a clause that causes the domain to be released back into the pool in the event of creditor action. Sort of the mutual assured destruction MAD approach to creditor protection. To my knowledge this has not been tested in the courts.

2) Avoiding probate and estate taxes by purchasing domain names. Wait for the US IRS to get a wind of this one!

As for borrowing. Why should not a willing lender and borrower be able use a "something" worth say $100,000 as security for say a $20,000 loan? I see the registrar community (particularlay Verisign) fighting domains as property because it makes them accountable. And making the registrars accountable is a good thing for the Internet community as a whole.

 

[jberryhill]

"I am actually keenly watching the sex.com case whcih will likely determine the domain as property question."

...for domain registrants in the State of California.


"The reality is that a few domain names are worth a pretty dollar, and when "something" trades for thousands or even millions of dollars in our economy it makes sense for it to be property. "

Did you ever see the movie _Indecent Proposal_?

 

[jberryhill]

Incidentally, NSI already agreed that domain names are "property":

From the Judge's decision dismissing the claim against NSI:

"Historically, the tort of conversion was confined to tangible property. See 5 Witkin, Summary of California Law, Torts § 613 (9th ed.1988). However, California law does recognize "conversion of intangibles represented by documents, such as a bonds, notes, bills of exchange, stock certificates, and warehouse receipts." Id. Intangible property such as "goodwill of business, trade secrets, a newspaper route, or a laundry list of customers" are *1173 not subject to conversion. Id. In Berger v. Hanlon, 129 F.3d 505, 517 (9th Cir.1997) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 242 and comments), the Ninth Circuit noted that "[a]lthough the common law rule has been relaxed somewhat, and the tort may now reach the misappropriation of intangible rights customarily merged in or identified with some document, it has not yet been extended further."
[6] NSI contends that a domain name is a form of intangible property which can not serve as a basis for a conversion claim."

Now, do you see that part at the end where NSI contends that domain names are a form of property?

The argument is not about whether domains "are" or "are not" property. The argument is about what kind of property they are, and which, out of a wide grab-bag, property rights inhere in them.

And, yes, when someone whose expired domain name you registered says, "I did not intend to abandon that property", then you come back here and explain how much you want domain names to be considered "property".

 

[charles]

I see the registrar community (particularlay Verisign) fighting domains as property because it makes them accountable. And making the registrars accountable is a good thing for the Internet community as a whole.

This is precisely what is at issue. Nobody is out there arguing that "domain names aren't property because it will faciliate tax avoidance and government regulation." Those arguments never win!

 

[FineE]

...for domain registrants in the State of California.

I seriously doubt this will remain limited to the state of California. In any case the property rights for a .com would have to be enforced in the Commonwealth of Virginia the home of the .com registry. Also California is a key jurisdiction as the home of ICANN.

And, yes, when someone whose expired domain name you registered says, "I did not intend to abandon that property", then you come back here and explain how much you want domain names to be considered "property".

But this comes back to again registrar accountability. So you register the name subject to a redemption period for the previous registrant. Nothing wrong with that as long as the rules are made clear from the outset. The analogy is purchasing real estate in a tax sale where the previous owner did not pay the taxes. You buy the property subject to a redemption period for the previous owner.

 

[jberryhill]

"So you register the name subject to a redemption period for the previous registrant. Nothing wrong with that as long as the rules are made clear from the outset. The analogy is purchasing real estate in a tax sale where the previous owner did not pay the taxes. You buy the property subject to a redemption period for the previous owner."

And that is what many registrars, such as Tucows, already do. Not too far back here, you will find a thread by someone screaming like a stuck pig over just that.