181–190 of 232 posts
Germany doesn't seem to care much about http://germany.com :)
Or UnitedStates.com - a spam site Or America.com (a godaddy page). Could this guy sue Web.com? Maybe he can win the fight to Web.com on behalf of the WWW.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Phone numbers take you to the same phone until... - that person gets a new phone - a hacker politely calls customer support and asks to have a new phone activated on that number - the area code is split and someone else ends up getting the number The phone system has a lookup table too.
In Australia, your phone has zero to do with your number; the SIM card is what “holds” it (not really. And that’s an oversimplification but oh well). And there are no area codes for mobiles.
The courts, in the USA, have found that domain names are not property, instead they are like telephone numbers: ---------------- The court found that under the California tariffs, rules, and regulations applicable to public utilities, and under the terms of the contracts, the debtors had no “proprietary right in the number.” https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0a84b472-c89f... Also: ...under Virginia law,…
The weird thing about this to me is that phone numbers always take you to the same phone, but domain names just involve me trusting some table I use to look things up. The internet is deeply democratic, maybe anarchic -- whatever rules I want my machine to follow it follows. If people generally disagreed with this decision, a viral hosts file would roll it back. (I don't think this so alarming a case that it will spa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or UnitedStates.com - a spam site Or America.com (a godaddy page). Could this guy sue Web.com? Maybe he can win the fight to Web.com on behalf of the WWW.
Back in the early 2000's whitehouse.com used to be a patriotic-themed adult site. So I'm told...
So the case came down to violating French trademark law. That's because country names cannot be trademarked internationally ( and why tourist agencies register names like Visit ) So it's not clear why Web.com even responded to the complaint unless they have a presence in France. Or was the risk that it could have been escalated to a European level of penalty?
I think he will win according to US law. At least there's no bad faith, simply a site about "France"
I doubt he’ll get anywhere by suing the French government. They’ll either just ignore him, or assert sovereign immunity. He’d probably have better luck suing web.com or the new registrar in a US court and forcing them to hand it back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's the exact opposite. .com websites are very rarely legitimate, canonical whereas .org, .edu, .gov etc... are more legitimate and trustworthy
All of those are US only, making .com the next best thing in this case I guess?
Tangential to the core issue, but seems kinda weird to me that he claims he bought it from web.com in 1994 and he’s had the domain for 24 years when web.com has only existed for 19. A quick Wikipedia search would’ve clearly shown this. Further, in 1994, there’s only one place he could’ve registered this domain as it wasn’t decentralized until the late 90s. I guess Ars was sleeping at the wheel when posting this.
Network Solutions was started in 1994, and was later bought by Web.com. It is correct to say that he got a domain name from a registrar which is now the property of Web.com.