3 ms·
He owns it and can offer to sell it at any price. And it sounds like he's certainly helped to keep the security issues contained all this time. Your statement
by manigandham 7y ago
He owns it and can offer to sell it at any price. And it sounds like he's certainly helped to keep the security issues contained all this time.
Your statement is completely ridiculous. There's no requirement to "work" or provide benefit to society before you can sell something you rightfully and legally purchased.
Everyone investing in the stock market is the first to buy something at a lower price. Do they not own the stock? What work did they do when it increases in price? Do they have to prove to society that they're a good person when they offer to sell the stock?
- toomuchtodo 7y agoA domain is a registry entry in a database, a contractual right, not property. Sure, some people have treated it as property with IP mechanizations, but it is not an asset in the sense of a house or other tangible. If a decision is made you can't trade in them, or makes it difficult (ARIN with IP block space comes to mind), you're outta luck.
- manigandham 7y agoIntangible virtual items can be legal assets with ownership. This is not a new concept. > "If a decision is made you can't trade in them" Ok, but it hasn't been made. Ownership can be sold and transferred so that's what's happening.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoRegistration information does not equal ownership. My phone number is assigned to my mobile provider account. I do not own my phone number, as it is not tangible property.
- manigandham 7y agoThis is a pedantic argument that I suspect you know is completely irrelevant. The ownership is of the registration itself. When you buy a share of a company, it's also just assigned to you. But you still own it.
- CydeWeys 7y agoActually, when you buy a share of a company in the US, unless you're getting a physical stock certificate (which no one does), the registration isn't even assigned to you. It's assigned to the Depository Trust Company. You as an individual are then several layers of indirection removed from that.
- CydeWeys 7y agoThis example is working against you here, as people do have a right to retain their phone number, similar to domain names. Your phone company cannot take your number away from you, and you have the right to transfer it to another company whenever you want.
- kortilla 7y agoStock ownership is just an entry in a database.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoCodified in law. The others I mention, not so much.
- CydeWeys 7y agoAs far as I know, there's nothing specifically codified into law prohibiting others from stealing my wheelbarrow. It just fits into the general category of theft of an item owned by someone else. Domain names are treated in exactly the same way. The concept of private ownership of things (tangible or sometimes intangible) is definitely codified into law. And domain names are actually much more tangible than most IP. If I pirate a film, I'm only making an unauthorized copy; I'm not actually depriving the copyright owner of anything save for maybe some hypothetical revenue. But domain names aren't copyable; they are globally unique, and if you take someone else's then you are completely depriving them of their right to use it. It's theft in a very real sense, unlike piracy. The courts have found as such.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoDo you have a link to a court case you can reference establishing precedent that a domain is considered tangible property? If so, I’m happy to eat crow.
- CydeWeys 7y agohttps://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/property/property-law-keyed-to-cribbet/what-is-property/kremen-v-cohen-network-solution-inc/ https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/property/property-law-ke... https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2008/10/18/kentucky-vs-141-domain-names/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2008/10/18/kentucky-vs-141-dom... They're intangible property (I never said they were tangible), though that distinction doesn't really make a big difference here anyway since the physicality of the property isn't relevant.
- CydeWeys 7y agoThere's decades of case law supporting the idea that domains are in fact property. So you are, in fact, not "outta luck".
- andrepd 7y ago>Your statement is completely ridiculous. Criticism of loose capitalism isn't automatically ridiculous. >There's no requirement to "work" or provide benefit to society before you can sell something. Well, obviously some people think that that is a problem with our current system of wealth distribution :)
- manigandham 7y agoI fail to see the criticism here, and yes it's ridiculous to say someone can't sell something they own without a subjective moral evaluation on how they benefited society first. Some people believe ridiculous things. Doesn't make it any less true, and I've yet to hear of any magic utopia system that's any better than capitalism in reality.
- andrepd 7y agoI don't get what you're saying. That any possible alternative system of allocating DNS domains rather than "auction to the highest bidder" is necessarily a "magic utopia"? Sounds rather bizarre to me, personally.
- manigandham 7y agoYou said "Criticism of loose capitalism" and "current system of wealth distribution", and nothing about the domain auction process.