Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sex.com Settles Case Against VeriSign

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the sex-appeal dept.

The Internet 165

netcentr writes "A press release on CircleID has announced that the owner of the Sex.com domain name today has got 'a final settlement with VeriSign (formerly Network Solutions, Inc.), concluding a six-year legal fight that set several important precedents for the future of the Internet. After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Sex.Com a sweeping victory that held VeriSign/Network Solutions, Inc. (collectively "VeriSign") strictly responsible for mishandling the famous domain name, Sex.Com and VeriSign have settled Sex.Com's lawsuit against VeriSign.' Gary Kremen was awarded a $65 million judgment against Cohen for stealing the domain name, which the U.S. Supreme Court declined to overturn on June 12, 2003."

cancel ×

165 comments

is it FP? (-1, Offtopic)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921503)

Benjamin Franklin has a Barely concealed erection!

Re:is it FP? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921535)

Those who would give up permanent erections for temporary sanity deserve neither.

One in a million (4, Funny)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921526)

Ah... good thing they got that taken care of. I was so starved for pr0n for the last six years.

Really - like there aren't enough of these sites out there?

Aren't there enough? (3, Funny)

Fubar411 (562908) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921576)

There are NEVER ENOUGH!

To quote Will Ferrel's Neal Diamond impression, "To quench my insatiable appetite for barely legal porno."

Re:Aren't there enough? (4, Funny)

EpsCylonB (307640) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921937)

Or to quote friends...

"If they took all the porn off the internet I'm pretty sure there would only be one website left, and it would called bring back the porn"

Re:One in a million (4, Insightful)

corbettw (214229) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921585)

Well, if anything that just proves the validity of any judgement. Back when the domain was first hijacked, there weren't a bazillion different porn sites. Imagine how much more money the guy could've earned being one of the first out the gate, if Verisign/Network Solutions hadn't screwed the pooch?

Re:One in a million (5, Funny)

justMichael (606509) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921678)

...hadn't screwed the pooch?

If that's what he was selling, maybe it's a good thing they hijacked his domain to save us. ;)

The thief made much more money (4, Insightful)

billstewart (78916) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921704)

Kremen _was_ first out of the gate, and had the domain to himself for most of a year before it got ripped off. He hadn't done anything particularly profitable with it, which was part of how Cohen was able to rip it off without being noticed for a while. Cohen was the one who built it into a valuable property, though much of that was lucky timing on his part, stealing it before the web boom really took off, but it wasn't likely to ever be worth $40M if Kremen had kept owning it.

But still Netsol not only shouldn't have let themselves get fooled, they should have fixed the problem promptly when they were notified about it.

Re:One in a million (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921586)

There can never be enough porn!!!

Re:One in a million (5, Insightful)

tbase (666607) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921613)

So, by that logic, is it ok for me to illegally hijack the expedia.com domain and make millions from it because there's no shortage of travel sites? Have you been too busy looking at pr0n to realize that Network Solutions handed over this multi-million dollar domain name without verifying the authenticity of the request? The victim (yeah, you heard me) will likely never see a dime of the $65 million settlement against the guy who stole it - shouldn't he have some recourse against the company that handed him the keys?

Re:One in a million (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921815)

"Have you been too busy looking at pr0n ...?"
Yes.

Slashdot Comedy Cop Alert! Re:One in a million (4, Funny)

sharper56 (142142) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921944)

Excuse me, a proper Slashdot retort would have included some passing reference to the act of masterbation when talking about internet porn.

example:
No, I can surf with only one hand.

In future, please try to follow the Slashdot comedy guidelines!

Re:Slashdot Comedy Cop Alert! Re:One in a million (2, Funny)

JudgeFurious (455868) | more than 10 years ago | (#8922191)

That's "No, I can't surf with only one hand you insensative clod!"

In this case use of the classic "Profit!!!" seems mandatory but also easy just like an "All your base" reference.

A "Soviet Russia" or maybe a "Beowulf cluster" comment done well though would really be nice.

I mean, as long as we're following the SCG's and all.

Re:Slashdot Comedy Cop Alert! Re:One in a million (3, Funny)

Mr Guy (547690) | more than 10 years ago | (#8922295)

At Slashdot, Anonymous Cowards make your profits for you, you insensitive clod.

Hi, I'm Raven Alder! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8922102)

I'm a walking, living, breathing cliche! I dress like an extra from 'Hackers'! But I'm a chick so you have to mod all my posts '+5 Insightful', or you might not get to have sex with me! And if you don't, I'll e-mail all my 1337 friends again and get lots of mod points that way. Refer the previous story about me for further examples of this.

Thanks.

PS - My real name is Jane Smith and my daddy is rich.

first? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921538)

yeah

Yay! (4, Funny)

TWX (665546) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921542)

So the courts finally come out and say that sex should be on the internet!

Millions of smelly UNIX administrators breathe a sigh of relief.

Re:Yay! (4, Funny)

vwjeff (709903) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921612)

Millions of smelly UNIX administrators breathe a sigh of relief.

You don't have to be a UNIX admin to be smelly you insensitive clod. Oh, wait...nevermind.

Smelly UNIX (3, Funny)

lildogie (54998) | more than 10 years ago | (#8922422)

I've got to get that distro!

Oh lord here comes a slew of bad slashdot jokes... (2, Funny)

notbob (73229) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921544)

Oh well $65 million for SEX (.com) has to be a new record...

Even our former mayor of Cincinnati, didn't write a Check that.. good ol' Jerry Springer.

SEX (.com) has to be the most successful prostitution of a domain name yet :)

what a case, what a name (0, Troll)

millahtime (710421) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921553)

I love the fact that such a case with such a precident has happened over a site with such a same

Goooo Sex.com!!!!

Re:what a case, what a name (5, Funny)

Mateito (746185) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921751)

> Goooo Sex.com

or "How to get yourself sued by Sex.com AND Google in one easy domain registration"

Re:what a case, what a name (1)

LMacG (118321) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921774)

Dude. Don't say "goo" and "sex.com" in the same sentence.

Re:what a case, what a name (1)

AndroidonPPC (737311) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921952)

shouldn't there be an 'at' somewhere in there?

Blank Page? (1, Informative)

bishop32x (691667) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921557)

Is anyone else seeing a blank page for the article?

no more RTFA

Re:Blank Page? (2, Interesting)

DaHat (247651) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921616)

You're not the only one... it acts like a page is being Dled, and a view source reveals page code... just no text is being displayed in IE, Firefox seems to work, shame I'm still an IE person.

Re:Blank Page? (1)

Teclis (772299) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921663)

Just let your browser sit on it a bit longer, It sat blank for a while, IE said done loading, and then it suddenly appeared....

Astounding (3, Insightful)

Yi Ding (635572) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921561)

Yeah, it completely astounds me how Verisign was unable to write a line of code which would have given the guy back his domain, which was clearly stolen from him.

Re:Astounding (4, Insightful)

Ravensfire (209905) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921589)

Hang on - you wanted them to ADMIT their mistake, without a court order? Right ....

Good grief - what hill have you been living under?!?

-- Ravensfire

Re:Astounding (1)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921594)

From my understanding of the situation, they refused to give it back even after the owner showed that it had been "stolen."

They gave it away, and instead of fessing up to their mistake, we got this crap.

Re:Astounding (3, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921662)

There was obviously no technical reason Verisign couldn't transfer the domain back to its rightful owner. They make have said there was, but they were, of course, lying. (And, on a tangential rant: the liars at Verisign, like all the other liars at big corporations who routinely lie to cover their fuckups, should go to prison. But they won't.) There is a pathological desire on the part of these corporate pricks to avoid admitting ever that they made a mistake, so they come up with bullshit excuses.

Re:Astounding (3, Funny)

archen (447353) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921784)

This is Verisign we're talking about here. It would be a miricle if they could write a line of code that tells them if the sky is blue.

Re:Astounding (4, Informative)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 10 years ago | (#8922267)

In the mid-late 90s, domain registrars were explicitly avoiding fixing their mistakes on legal counsel's advice, namely that to fix a mistake was to admit liability for that mistake, and to admit liability for that mistake was to open oneself up to damages in the millions. Thus, they all took the legal position that they weren't responsible for anything they did until it was proven otherwise.

Stupid from a common sense point of view, smart from a business point of view. I can think of a lot of domain name fuckups that, could the owner have sued, would have sunk the registrars. As it is, they've avoided huge lawsuits for the last 8 years.

It took a domain name with the potential money behind it of sex.com to push it all the way through the courts to the current situation.

Good (3, Insightful)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921568)

Screw verisign, they suck. Without their monopoly they wouldn't have been able to extort people and give the shittiest service ever.

I hope it's for the full $65 Million.

Re:Good (2, Interesting)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921892)

I see you have never had to deal with the goverment.

Just wait.

They make vs cs look perfect.

Re:Good (2, Informative)

nilloc (678273) | more than 10 years ago | (#8922435)

From what I read, Verisign settle the case the original owner. The $65 million award is aganist the guy who stole it. The article didn't say how much Verisign had to paid.

o.O (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921569)

I, for one, welcome our rightful sex.com overlords

Re:o.O (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921849)

Remember when mod points were given out to creatively funny posts ?

Slashdot is so fucking lame these days.

Stop your whinin', beeeotch! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921940)

I wish I had mod points so I could mod you up as "funny" and watch you get modded down three times as "overrated".

2nd post? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921574)

VeriSign is bad news(for years thay would not let you put "fu*k" in your domain name)

The base VeriSign site:
http://www.recallverisign.com

Check out this page by GoDaddy.com about VeriSign: https://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/PressReleases/inter net_battle.asp?isc=&se=%2B&from%5Fapp=

Re:2nd post? (1)

realdpk (116490) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921826)

The sad part is no registrars will let you put fu*k in a domain name. Fuck that pisses me off.

Re:2nd post? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921864)

Noob:
www.FuckFord.com
www.FUCKGM.com

thare are all kinds of FUCK in domain names :-)

Re:2nd post? (1)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 10 years ago | (#8922717)

Noob: www.FuckFord.com www.FUCKGM.com thare are all kinds of FUCK in domain names :-)

Heh. I think he was saying "f*ck" != "fuck". Speaking of which, why was the original poster afraid to put the vowel in FUCK? What are you people, children? Afraid of your mommies? Put on your big boy pants and spell words correctly, you pansies!

Re:2nd post? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921878)

VeriSign is bad news(for years thay would not let you put "fu*k" in your domain name)

That's because the asterisk character is not valid in a domain name.

damn. (1)

hot_Karls_bad_cavern (759797) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921917)

Well, thank f**ck they let me put fuck in my domain name! ;)

Re:damn. (1)

hot_Karls_bad_cavern (759797) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921943)

"...f**ck..."

heh, i'm not sure what that is, but i'll try anything once! O_o

God, i need a drink.

Re:2nd post? (3, Funny)

callipygian-showsyst (631222) | more than 10 years ago | (#8922005)

Well, of course you can't put "f*ck" in a domain name! Asterisk ("*") is not a valid character for a domain name. You need to read the RFC.

Insert... (0, Redundant)

mehtajr (718558) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921592)

<insert obligatory paying for sex joke here>

Just wait... (3, Funny)

radd0 (558899) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921597)

until George Michael catches wind of this.

I notice (5, Funny)

platypibri (762478) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921600)

there is no such battle over intellect.com [intellect.com]

Why so much (4, Interesting)

Teclis (772299) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921602)

$65 Million? Are you telling me that's the amount of profit lost? Or that's the amount it cost to run the case through the courts..

I bet all the lawyers involved are smiling, You do know they aren't that stupid. The case could have been settled 5 years ago, but then how could lawyers make any money?

Good to see the U.S. Justice system at work.

Re:Why so much (5, Informative)

mehtajr (718558) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921804)

$25 million of the award was punitive damages, so presumably, the other $40 million was compensatory (lost profits) and legal fees (probably mostly legal fees).

Interestingly, those damages were awarded by a judge, not a jury. Here's a link [law.com] . I would've expected a smaller judgement from the bench.

Re:Why so much (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921933)

I wouldn't doubt that the amount lost during the years that Kremen was denied use of the domain name reached into the millions. After all, this was 1995, the start of the web boom. I don't remember how many years Cohen ran that site, but I can just imagine the $$$ rolling in.

And as a side note, since Cohen fled the country, Kremen will not see a dime from Cohen anyway.

Re:Why so much (1)

arkanes (521690) | more than 10 years ago | (#8922310)

From what I recall of the original case, sex.com was bringing in a million dollars a year in advertising revenue (banners), at least at the height of the boom.

PDF Mirror just in case (3, Informative)

MrRuslan (767128) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921609)

http://www.narvakitchens.com/CircleID.pdf

Next on the agenda (2)

Otter (3800) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921617)

...which the U.S. Supreme Court declined to overturn on June 12, 2003...

Next up on the agenda for Rehnquist and company: goatse.cx v. .cx

I bet they thought being on the Court was going to involve dignity. OK, Thomas probably learned otherwise before he got his robe but the others likely did.

Re:Next on the agenda (1)

hambonewilkins (739531) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921817)

Next up on the agenda for Rehnquist and company: goatse.cx v. .cx

Scalia is reportedly furious that his private pictures were made public.

Baaah (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921619)

I wanted to register www.sex.orgy a loonnggg time back. But they wouldn't give me the extra 'y'.

In related news (3, Funny)

phats garage (760661) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921624)

Verisign itself bought the domain name "ohfuck.com".

How much did they settle for? (4, Informative)

billstewart (78916) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921628)

The press release doesn't say whether it was the full $65million or some smaller amount, or how long Verisign would have to pay. Google News [google.com] has pointers to one or two versions of the press release, plus Slashdot (:-), plus a Wired article [wired.com] that has the press release but also speculated that the settlement is probably a lot less than the full boat, and some comments on Kremen's attempts to track down the assets of Cohen the name thief.

Re:How much did they settle for? (4, Informative)

red floyd (220712) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921773)

The $65M judgement was against Cohen, who stole the domain. This is Kremen's suit against VeriSign for being idiots (for handing over the domain without verification) and dickheads (for refusing to do anything about it).

People, Dumbness, $ex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921644)

People do dumb things with computer.

Ca$h involved.

(*) (*) involved.

Sigh. This is like a really uninspired and boring cover of People vs. Larry Flynt, or something. Although I spse the courts get a collective huzzah for having their heads out of their asses for a change. But isn't the Appellate Court to corrupt business kind of like the UN is to corrupt nations (i.e., a joke)?

Offended (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921654)

As a 48 yo grandmother and a feminist, I am offended that a technical site such as slashdot spends to much time discussing sexual topics.

More people these days have sex into their 70s, (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921706)

I heard a report about this recently. Just because you aren't getting any doesn't mean noone else should. Besides, the article was about a precedent setting internet law case, Slashdot is not pushing porn in any way.

Re:More people these days have sex into their 70s, (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921729)

But I don't want my grandchildren reading slashdot because they will find out about sites like sex.com. I read it because it is helpful to me at work, where I am a C++ programmer.

Theft, fraud, scams, racketeering, etc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921830)

are also reported, and in my opinion they're a much worse activity for kids to be thinking about engaging in than sex. Besides, the Internet is for adults, you can't rely on a news website to keep your kids from seeing inappropriate content. If they were curious and simply typed the word 'sex' into an address bar, most browsers would automatically resolve to www.sex.com anyway. It's not like Slashdot is giving out the location of illegal kiddie porn or snuff flicks.

Re:Offended (5, Funny)

andy666 (666062) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921710)

This isn't a story about sex, it is a story about the internet. Unless you find the supreme court sexy...

Re:Offended -Depends???? (1)

millahtime (710421) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921805)

" This isn't a story about sex, it is a story about the internet. Unless you find the supreme court sexy..."

Well, that all depends. What are the Justices wearing under those robes.

Re:Offended (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921713)

1. Shut up
2. Make me a sandwich

Re:Offended (-1, Redundant)

king-manic (409855) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921894)

1. Shut up
2. Make me a sandwich
3. ??
4. Profit

Re:Offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8922132)

1. Shut up
2. Make me a sandwich


If you insist...

/me waves a magic wand


Poof! You are not a sandwich.

Re:Offended (5, Insightful)

LordKazan (558383) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921740)

My girlfriend and I are both technically feminists - it's actually illogical for a feminist to condemn porn. Why? Sure some porn is negative, but saying ALL porn is, is saying that it's impossible for a woman to enjoy her sexuality. You are perpetuating the very double standards you are trying to destroy.

Re:Offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921887)

It was actually a joke from an earlier post. Thanks for feeding the troll though, bo.

Re:Offended (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921911)

The reason God created sex was so that the man would enjoy planting his seed in the womb of the woman.

Female pleasure has nothing to do with it, you pussywhipped self-hater.

Re:Offended (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921776)

Sooo Granny, how many miles of knob have you gobbled in your long and fufilling life?

GPLed pr0n (1)

Metex (302736) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921656)

I havent checked that site for a long time and I just took a quick look at it. damn cant that guy hire a deceant web designer. while the other guy stole it at least it was asteticly pleasing.

Re:GPLed pr0n (1, Insightful)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921783)

Damn, can't that guy hire a spell checker? At least most of the other posts on /. are readable without having to figure things out phonetically.

Re:GPLed pr0n (2, Funny)

Metex (302736) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921837)

sorry 5 beers makes my spelling horrible

I'd agree, except (1)

BayBlade (749886) | more than 10 years ago | (#8922517)

I haven't had 5 beers, and your spelling still looks horrible.

Re:GPLed pr0n (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 10 years ago | (#8922196)

a-testicle-y pleasing ?

Re:GPLed pr0n (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8922304)

More like ass-testicle-y pleasing.

Finally. (5, Insightful)

7Ghent (115876) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921671)

Well, it's great that the good guys finally won and defeated the spectre of Verisign's vast incompentence and utter lack of responsibility, but SIX YEARS? I don't even want to think about the legal fees. There's definitely something wrong with our justice system when a stright-forward case of theft takes SIX years and millions of dollars to successfully prosecute.

Re:Finally. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8922187)

Well, it's great that the good guys finally won and defeated the spectre of Verisign's vast incompentence and utter lack of responsibility, but SIX YEARS?

That is not so surprising when you consider that the very core of (then)Verisign's domain name registration service was being questioned in court. If the registrant can't trust that the registrar will protect their name, what rightful-thinking registrant would use that registrar?

There's definitely something wrong with our justice system when a stright-forward case of theft takes SIX years and millions of dollars to successfully prosecute.

According to the press release, the case against Verisign was not for theft but for conversion, which is (basically) the unauthorized assumption and exercise of the rights of ownership over property belonging to someone else. The case reaches well past Verisign and the particular domain name owner; it stands for the proposition that a domain name registrant has the legal right of ownership in their domain name and that interference with that right by another (including the domain name registrar) is legally actionable.

I interviewed there. (4, Interesting)

Kenja (541830) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921681)

I interviewed at sex.com or as they like to be known "deerfield communications". Place was run out of the basment of an abandoned building. Not realy what I was looking for in a job.

Re:I interviewed there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921800)

"I interviewed at sex.com or as they like to be known "deerfield communications". Place was run out of the basment of an abandoned building"

Perhaps you were interviewing for the onscreen "Prison Bitch #2" role, rather than Network Engineer.

Court of Appeal Decision (5, Informative)

David Hume (200499) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921789)


You can find the decision by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit at:
Kremen, et al. v. Online Classifieds Inc., et al. [uscourts.gov] (pdf warning)

To get the html version, paste this url:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ 99 9D1D5B0D734B6088256D6D0078CB88/$file/0115899.pdf?o penelement

into the Adobe PDF Conversion Page [adobe.com] .

Re:Court of Appeal Decision (1)

henriksh (683138) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921979)

You can find the decision by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit at: Kremen, et al. v. Online Classifieds Inc., et al. (pdf warning)

You don't really have to give a "pdf warning". PDF is an open format, with free-as-in-rms viewers.

Do you have *any idea*... (0, Funny)

TheTranceFan (444476) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921791)

...how many subscriptions to MILFHunter you can buy with $65 million?

In Soviet Russia... (-1, Funny)

Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921880)

In Soviet Russia, Sex sues YOU!

Reminds me of an old joke (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8921888)

Punch in the bag

A phone call? I wonder (4, Interesting)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921916)

My favorite part of all this is that "at a time when the queue for domain names was over four weeks", all it took to commit this crime was "Cohen simply picked up the phone, asked for and was granted the Sex.Com domain name immediately".

Am I the only one who suspects that there was a lot more than just a phone call behind this? That people high up in Verisign must have been conspiring with Cohen? Why else go through so much to keep obviously stolen property from it's rightful owner? Why lie to the courts about a supposedly forged letter if you weren't covering for something much worse?

Re:A phone call? I wonder (2, Interesting)

SnappleMaster (465729) | more than 10 years ago | (#8922427)

Yes, it must be a conspiracy.

Remember, if they're really out to get you, you aren't paranoid.

As to why they didn't fess up, I read an interesting post above. Basically registrars were not fixing mistakes/thefts to avoid admitting legal responsibility. Sounds more plausible than a conspiracy to me.

Re:A phone call? I wonder (1)

denlin (733557) | more than 10 years ago | (#8922631)

Why else go through so much to keep obviously stolen property from it's rightful owner?

although i agree w/ you on every point, the difficulty was that the domain name sex.com wasn't property & therefore couldn't be stolen...sounds ludicrous, but there it was. were they morons? yes. dickheads, absolutely.

State Action + Converstion = takings (5, Insightful)

pdcryan (748847) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921925)

Very interesting.

Not all of the pieces of the puzzle are in place yet but it looks like VeriSign is finally being pegged as a state actor. What does that mean? Well, all of those annoying parts of the constitution that apply to governments, but not to private parties... might apply to them (little things... like... due process maybe?).

Further - if domain names are property (which is contrary to some lot of previous court precedent - partially based on the idea that domain names are only protected in so much as they are trademarks, which generally cannot be transferred without transferring the good will of the company behind the trademark) VeriSign has some further problems. When they bumble these things, not only are they violating the domain owners due process rights - but it might be a constitutional "taking" - requiring compensation.

Hopefully finding that VeriSign is a state actor, and that there is a property interest in a domain name - will be the final nail in SiteFinder's coffin (which essentially would be conversion of all of the unregistered domain names).

Anybody interested in being the .net and .com domain registry? I have a feeling ICANN might be looking to fill some positions soon.

Re:State Action + Converstion = takings (2, Interesting)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 10 years ago | (#8922323)

Well, all of those annoying parts of the constitution that apply to governments, but not to private parties... might apply to them (little things... like... due process maybe?).

If the FCC (a state actor if there ever was one) can still arbitrary levy fines on Howard and Bono (and the companies that give them airtime) for incidents that may have occurred several years ago without due process, what hope do we have that Verisign will ever be held to the proper standards?

Expires 2012 - Still Stuck With Verisign? (0, Redundant)

bcolflesh (710514) | more than 10 years ago | (#8921959)

How long before he transfers the domain?
______________________
Registrant:
Krem en, Gary (SEX452-DOM)
Grant Media, LLC
2544 3rd Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
US

Domain Name: SEX.COM

Administrative Contact:
Kremen, Gary (GK3508) gkremen@AOL.COM
Grant Media, LLC
2544 3RD ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107-3113
US
415 647 5111 fax: 415 285 7111

Technical Contact:
Payne, Lewis De (LDP3) administrador@pkventures.com
PK Media Ventures, Inc.
Avenida Cuba y Calle 34
Edificio 34-20
Panama, Panama Panama
PA
011- 227-2658 fax: (818) 506-0699

Record expires on 30-Nov-2012.
Record created on 18-Oct-1995.
Database last updated on 20-Apr-2004 17:02:53 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS2.PERSIANKITTY.COM 216.218.223.131
NS1.SEX.COM 209.81.7.11

In Soviet Russia, (0, Funny)

Anubis333 (103791) | more than 10 years ago | (#8922084)


In capitalist America
65 million buy website.

In Soviet Russia,
65 million buy country.

you rFAIL i7.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8922504)

When I stood \for anyone t4at thinks

maybe I'm missing something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8922693)

but why would they need to settle if they had already been granted a judgement and the higher courts declined to hear the case?

Sex.com? (3, Funny)

bfg9000 (726447) | more than 10 years ago | (#8922694)

Why should we care? This is obviously not something that will ever affect us geeks. Now, HabitualSelfPleasure.com, *there's* News For Nerds, Stuff That Matters.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...