3 ms·

So the domain owner should have registered a business called "France.com"

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jkaplowitz 9y ago
He did operate such a business. From the article: "For over 20 years, Frydman built up a business (also known as France.com) [...]." I don't think we've routinely required ".com" to be part of the business branding of .com domain owners, but Ars Technica says he had that.
ThomPete 9y ago
He did, but more importantly, the French government isn't a business either.
- koolba 9y ago
  Nor is the French government a US citizen, permanent resident, or corporation. Does this mean they can seize the word “France” in other languages well?
  - gsich 9y ago
    They definitly want to. France is a vulture when it comes to it's language.
- tripzilch 9y ago
  As far as I understand, this is a US citizen, having registered their domain with a US business (web.com), and the government of France filed a lawsuit in a US court, and the decision was made based on US law. And apparently US law allows this for the French government, even if they're not a US citizen or corporation (I'm not sure how that works but if it wasn't specifically allowed by US law, it wouldn't have happened). So France didn't "seize" anything. You can argue the govt of France shouldn't have filed this suit, but based on what reasoning? It's not really their job to protect the interests of US citizens. I mean, that's how it is. It's not very nice. In reverse, the US only seems to care about US citizens as well. I agree it would be nice if governments cared more about the rights of their allies' citizens as well, such as not violating their privacy on a global scale and not hacking into the private home computers of allies' citizens. Also I kind of feel the article confuses the matter a little by referring to the guy as a "French-born American" (which isn't at all relevant enough to the case to lead with in the first paragraph), and incorrectly stating he "has now sued his home country" when he has in fact sued his country of birth. His home country is the USA if he's an American. (unless I got the meaning of those terms wrong, in which case I stand by the fact that it's confusing to lead with :) ) edit I think I wanted to reply to the sibling post, sorry for even more confusion :)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

He did operate such a business. From the article: "For over 20 years, Frydman built up a business (also known as France.com) [...]." I don't think we've routinely required ".com" to be part of the business branding of .com domain owners, but Ars Technica says he had that.

ThomPete 9y ago

He did, but more importantly, the French government isn't a business either.

koolba 9y ago
Nor is the French government a US citizen, permanent resident, or corporation. Does this mean they can seize the word “France” in other languages well?
- gsich 9y ago
  They definitly want to. France is a vulture when it comes to it's language.
tripzilch 9y ago
As far as I understand, this is a US citizen, having registered their domain with a US business (web.com), and the government of France filed a lawsuit in a US court, and the decision was made based on US law. And apparently US law allows this for the French government, even if they're not a US citizen or corporation (I'm not sure how that works but if it wasn't specifically allowed by US law, it wouldn't have happened). So France didn't "seize" anything. You can argue the govt of France shouldn't have filed this suit, but based on what reasoning? It's not really their job to protect the interests of US citizens. I mean, that's how it is. It's not very nice. In reverse, the US only seems to care about US citizens as well. I agree it would be nice if governments cared more about the rights of their allies' citizens as well, such as not violating their privacy on a global scale and not hacking into the private home computers of allies' citizens. Also I kind of feel the article confuses the matter a little by referring to the guy as a "French-born American" (which isn't at all relevant enough to the case to lead with in the first paragraph), and incorrectly stating he "has now sued his home country" when he has in fact sued his country of birth. His home country is the USA if he's an American. (unless I got the meaning of those terms wrong, in which case I stand by the fact that it's confusing to lead with :) ) edit I think I wanted to reply to the sibling post, sorry for even more confusion :)