In Web disputes, U.S. law rules the world, by Michael Geist, in the Toronto Star. ... [A blog doesn't need a clever name]The [Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act] statute, which applies to dot-com, dot-net, and dot-org domains, reaches that conclusion by referring to the fact that the domain name system's root server, the database that houses all domain names and their corresponding numeric addresses, is located in Virginia. The use of the in rem jurisdictional provision is a classic example of legislating outside national borders. For example, the provision surfaced in 2000 in a dispute between two Canadian parties over the technodome.com domain name. Although the trademark holder could have launched a trademark infringement action in Canada, where the courts have addressed cybersquatting issues on several occasions, it chose instead to launch an ACPA action in Virginia where it successfully invoked the in rem jurisdiction clause by suing the domain name, rather than its owner. So it looks that at least for disputes concerning most important domains, all roads lead to Virginia and US law will apply. This is still going to be a contentious area. I remember how outraged people were that the High Court of Australia dared to assume jurisdiction in the Dow Jones v. Gutnick case - and dared to reach a different outcome than an American court would have. But that tussle over jurisdiction is miniscule compared with what could happen. This week the news has come out that the US Government has seized domain names for non-cybersquatting purposes. The Department of Justice has seized the isonews.com domain because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The site sold mod chips and was a forum for people wanting to play bootlegged console games. In related news the DEA took over sites that sold drug paraphenalia. So what do you get when ultimate power of domain names rests in the US, and a US government that is willing & able to use this power to advance its political agenda? This could be very messy indeed. If the DEA could seize a domain in the name of the war on drugs, imagine what could be done in the name of the war on terrorism or the war on Iraq? If the PATRIOT Act and PATRIOT Act 2 are any examples, I don't think that the US Government is interested in being restrained with this power.
9:47:29 PM 
|
|
