Judge Allows Kentucky To Seize Domain Names

from the bad,-bad-news dept

Mon, Oct 20th 2008 6:33am — Mike Masnick

Last month, we wrote about a judge allowing Kentucky's governor to seize 141 domain names that were somehow associated with gambling sites under a bizarre interpretation of Kentucky law. Pretty much everyone involved admits that this is just Kentucky's governor protecting local gambling establishments who supported him in the election. No one is even hiding the fact that this is purely about protecting the governor's political supporters from any sort of competition.

However, what's scary is in how the seizure is incredibly broad and far-reaching. None of the sites are based in Kentucky. Many of the sites are nothing more than holding pages, rather than actual online casinos. And, the law itself interprets these sites as "illegal gambling devices" which seems like a big stretch. There was some pushback, as people explained to the judge what an incredibly bad precedent this ruling would set -- as it would effectively allow any local law to be used to take possession of any website.

Apparently, the judge doesn't care. Late last week, the judge upheld the original ruling, giving one small out to the various sites. If they implement filters that block access to any IP address in Kentucky, they can keep their domain names. That's backwards. It shouldn't be the responsibility of a website that is just online to use geocoding techniques to comply with every single local law. If that were the case, the internet would ground to a halt, as any website would face so many different liabilities from so many different jurisdictions to make it impossible to comply -- and in each lack of compliance, face a potential seizure of the domain name. This is a bad ruling by any stretch of the imagination, made even more bizarre by the judge's unilateral ruling before a hearing was even held. The whole thing sounds quite questionable, and hopefully will be dumped on appeal.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: domain names, gambling, governor, kentucky, online gambling

37 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Thomas, 20 Oct 2008 @ 7:02am

Wonder how much they paid the judge for the ruling? He must owe the governor something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
shmengie, 20 Oct 2008 @ 7:27am

good, old tyme politics!
makes me think of phrases like "mob boss," "judge in his pocket," "incriminating photo of judge on all fours taking a dildo up the butt," etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hegemon13, 20 Oct 2008 @ 7:27am

Not concerned
This will be appealed. Once it goes beyond the state level, it will be reversed, no question about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daves2K, 20 Oct 2008 @ 7:30am

ORLY?
I wonder what would happen if they then asked the judge to give them a list of all the IP addresses in the state of Kentucky? You know, so they can be sure they are blocking all the right ones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Clarence, 20 Oct 2008 @ 8:31am

Ignorance?
This also could be the judge's ignorance of how the internet works. Which makes it e ven more sad that such stupid people are interpreting laws that affect many more people than they have a right. If this affects people outside of Kentucky, then certainly its OUTSIDE of his jurisdiction. What if the sites are outside of the country? Ignorance is bliss... even if it makes you look like FOOL!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shohat, 20 Oct 2008 @ 8:50am

No, this isn't an Ignorance issue
Judges are supposed to be ignorant to some extent, especially to such new technologies such as the Internet and domain name issues. There is no problem in that.

But point is, if Kentucky can do this, so should be able every single country in the world, to any site in the world.

They should not block sites, but just punish Kentucky visitors. Jail time.
Problem solved
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2008 @ 8:56am

How about if we ban sites like jimbeam.com (a KY company) because drinking is banned in some areas of the country?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Duane (profile), 20 Oct 2008 @ 9:23am

Re:
Actually, I think that is a very good idea. I like the thought of a Web Armageddon of that type.

The judge in this case doesn't appear to be particularly stupid or corrupt (determined by a quick review of other cases)so something else is at work. Maybe Steve Bashear just needs to realize this sword cuts both ways. Pissing off the alcohol lobbies would be just the thing to ensure he doesn't get elected again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2008 @ 9:24am

Sounds like this judge's law license needs to be revoked. What a moron. Kentucky's governer should be fined heavily for wasting so much money and time on such a stupid topic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 20 Oct 2008 @ 9:28am

Ruling...
Judges know little if anything about the internet. They have no idea the effects of such a ruling.

Have some fun with this. Write the gov and tell him since you've learned of this you are relocating your or, better yet, your companies event to another state! Send it to him on letterhead for the effect that will have. Be sure to connect it to the ruling mandated by this judge!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shohat, 20 Oct 2008 @ 9:37am

Stop claiming judge is ignorant
Seriously.
Most internet users are completely ignorant of low-tech things which they have grown up with.

Most people don't know how to make a chair, fix a window, build a simple table, fix a fridge, etc. Simple things that they have grown up with.
You can't expect people to know what email is just because some 5% of the earth's population happen to use it. Considering the microscopic importance of the Internet in people's lives, it should be the last requirement for someone to be a judge.

BUT, a judge should know when his actions have an impact on things that are not in his jurisdiction. That's the issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen, 20 Oct 2008 @ 9:42am

I WONDER
If any of the sites seized are companies that make money from the web (not gambling)If so I look forward to the law suits for compensation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tony, 20 Oct 2008 @ 10:24am

Re: Not concerned
The problem is, there's too much of that sort of ignorance, incompetence, or just plain corruption at every level. We certainly can HOPE it will be reversed, but it may not.

Of course, if the registrars are in different jurisdictions - or better yet, a different country entirely, that may make enforcement just a bit difficult.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2008 @ 10:30am

Blocking Kentucky
Why not just block Kentucky from internet access?
They can't have more than 3-4 IP adresses.
The last think I want to see is some video with a toothless idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
philxbefore, 20 Oct 2008 @ 11:21am

Re: ORLY?
They would receive a one page list with 2 IP Addresses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PhilxBefore, 20 Oct 2008 @ 11:25am

Re: Stop claiming judge is ignorant
Wow, you are completely out of touch.

Go back to your mop and broom, janitor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rob (profile), 20 Oct 2008 @ 11:27am

TechDirt...
depresses me every day. Seriously, when are our personal freedoms going to stop being trampled on. Thanks for being the messenger, even if its horrible news, day in and day out.

Now, if these domain owners can prove residency outside of Kentucky, Hosting and Purchase outside of Kentucky, etc. etc., can they have their local / state / even the US government step up and stop this seizure?

I mean, if they aren't residents, whats the difference between this and Kentucky just attacking another state and seizing a building; both are loss of personal property.

Now, if they are in Kentucky, these owners are probably pretty hosed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
another mike, 20 Oct 2008 @ 12:09pm

whiskey tango foxtrot
How do you even implement this? The only part of these websites that's in Kentucky is the visiting browser. If it's not illegal where the server and domain registrar are located, then it doesn't seem like KY has jurisdiction, much less a case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lima Oscar Lima, 20 Oct 2008 @ 1:31pm

Re: whiskey tango foxtrot
Love the title of your comment. I'll have to use that one myself...unless, of course, you are from Kentucky and you have a judge in your pocket or just one thinking he might be needing a favor down the road and is willing to take from me and give you my office that I happened to write this from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
robert, 20 Oct 2008 @ 1:45pm

Re:
like a blowjob?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
robert, 20 Oct 2008 @ 1:45pm

Re:
like a blowjob?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2008 @ 2:01pm

Sorry for my ignorance but exactly how is Kentucky 'seizing' these domain names? Are they forcing ISP's to redirect web traffic elsewhere? Is this only in effect in Kentucky? Please enlighten me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 20 Oct 2008 @ 2:10pm

Re:
Sorry for my ignorance but exactly how is Kentucky 'seizing' these domain names? Are they forcing ISP's to redirect web traffic elsewhere? Is this only in effect in Kentucky? Please enlighten me.

They've asked the registrars to transfer the domain names to the state of Kentucky. Some have already complied.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
direwolff (profile), 20 Oct 2008 @ 2:45pm

Boycott Kentucky residents ;)
while i'm saddened to suggest that we take it out on kentucky residents, since they have the power to vote these judges and governors in and out of office, perhaps it s/b in their hands to help the judge think this through a bit more. given this state of affairs and the power this judge and governor have decided to exact on the net, if all web sites prevented users fm a kentucky ip address to view any of their pages, that might help these official better align their decision with the rest of our country's. to say that this is an abuse of power is an understatement, but there are simple remedies to bring order back to this chaos they're inflicting. don't forget, the net always routes around points of failure ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2008 @ 3:39pm

Re: Re:
Ah, are these registrars that complied located in Kentucky as well? If not, I don't see why any registrar would comply to a court order that clearly crosses jurisdictional limits. I sincerely doubt any foreign registrar would even bother with this. And I like to see a judge in Kentucky order a registrar in a foreign country to turn control over to a U.S. State. Could you imagine the liability incurred by an ISP complying with such a farcical order?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 20 Oct 2008 @ 3:54pm

Re: TechDirt...
Now, if these domain owners can prove residency outside of Kentucky, Hosting and Purchase outside of Kentucky, etc. etc., can they have their local / state / even the US government step up and stop this seizure?

Probably not, given that others are trying to compete for their state or Federal government's attention for their respective issues.

Fortunately, there are parties who are trying to resist this, namely the 2 registrars Moniker and Network Solutions (yup, the Network Solutions):

http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-news/kentucky-online-gambling-domain-seizure-case -predicted-outcome-100808.html

Network Solutions is standing by the 20 plus online gambling companies they represent

http://domainnamewire.com/2008/10/09/moniker-kentucky-cannot-have-our-customers-domains/

As such, Moniker has not handed over the domains and will protect the rights of the owners of the domains subject to the order of the Kentucky court by not handing over such names unless and until the matter has been resolved by the Kentucky court or there is an order of a court of competent jurisdiction ordering Moniker to do so.

It's still hanging for Go Daddy, although their giving the Kentucky a certificate agreeing to their jurisdiction has hurt the domain registrants' case. And eNom is really one to possibly avoid since they transferred the domains way before the judge eventually ruled for the seizure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 20 Oct 2008 @ 4:02pm

Re: Re: Re:
Ah, are these registrars that complied located in Kentucky as well? If not, I don't see why any registrar would comply to a court order that clearly crosses jurisdictional limits. I sincerely doubt any foreign registrar would even bother with this. And I like to see a judge in Kentucky order a registrar in a foreign country to turn control over to a U.S. State. Could you imagine the liability incurred by an ISP complying with such a farcical order?

See my comment above, AC. The other registrars might comply out of their own choice though the foreign ones like Fabulous don't, and it'll take any existing legal treaties between the U.S. and whereever country the registrar is in if the Kentucky state wants to force the issue.

They can also try to force it in Virginia since that's where the .com Registry is located, though that's debatable. It remains to be seen, depending how far all the involved parties want to go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas, 20 Oct 2008 @ 4:11pm

Re: Boycott Kentucky residents ;)
I don't think judges are usually elected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
YetAnotherKentuckySchmuck, 20 Oct 2008 @ 5:34pm

Elected Judges
Tragically, many places elect judges, including Kentucky. We also elect sheriffs, Commonwealth (District) Attorneys, tax collectors, and Railroad Commissioners.

The governor is shaking down the online casinos, he's said as much. The simple fact is that it's a protection racket kind-of-a-deal, and it hasn't worked-he's not extracting any taxes or revenue. He may be gaining market share for his donors, the resident casinos and tracks, but that's arguable...the state runs a lottery too, I wonder if he'll go after that next.

It's my guess that the attempt to condemn domains will fail on appeal. Many such bits of opportunism have gone that way in my experience.

Sadly, my coal powered government has chosen to abuse technological opportunity more often than not, as educated affluent people don't go in for medievel things like strip mining. Keeping a lot of chaff in the air makes it easier to do things folks wouldn't approve of. I keep wondering what he's trying to distract me from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jay, 20 Oct 2008 @ 6:01pm

If I were a law enforcement agency how would I do this? Personally, my ISP is in another state, so there are just routers between me and the ISP (which is where I am assuming any firewalls live). So the phone and cable companies would have to have firewalls on their routers for out of state ISPs. But of course the satellite dish users wouldn't have this restriction which would make them very popular. This would be a very expensive request for the utility companies and in the end wouldn't accomplish much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Allen Taylor, 20 Oct 2008 @ 9:06pm

Not necessarily
It shouldn't be the responsibility of a website that is just online to use geocoding techniques to comply with every single local law. If that were the case, the internet would ground to a halt, as any website would face so many different liabilities from so many different jurisdictions to make it impossible to comply -- and in each lack of compliance, face a potential seizure of the domain name.

Not necessarily. The state of New York has imprisoned gambling site owners who lived in foreign countries and whose servers were located in another country simply because New Yorkers were gambling on their sites. I don't agree with the law nor the way that it has been enforced, but there is some precedence and case law that may swing in favor of the state.

On the other hand, this appears to be an interstate commerce issue and if the defense attorney approaches it from that perspective he might win an appeal. But then that would open the door for federal legislation of e-commerce.

If the sites voluntarily agreed to block Kentucky IP addresses, they'd be doing a public service. The law is currently in favor of law enforcement agencies when it comes to online gambling. Porn providers have more freedom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Willton, 20 Oct 2008 @ 9:15pm

Constitutional issues
It would seem to me that this protectionist legislation and subsequent enforcement thereof would run afoul of SCOTUS's Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. My guess is that if this case gets to the federal level, it will likely be overturned and the Kentucky law may be declared unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scott Neuman, 21 Oct 2008 @ 7:07am

Judge Goes Crazy! Says he created internet domain names and wants them back.
This is just amazing. Congress passes law after law telling the states, hands off. Prior case law states that domain names are licensed. There is no correct way to block a Kentucky IP address and it just looks like the Judge is either 1. crazy 2. nuts 3. a ultra conservative 4. paid off by the gaming companies in his state.

Of course, the problem becomes if he can do it, then any local, state or goverment entity can do it. None of which makes sense.

Scott Neuman - President - Recordweb.com.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
remowill, 22 Oct 2008 @ 10:06am

Seizing Domain Names
I'm not sure how a judge from kentucky can do this legally. I'm sure it will be overturned on appeal.
Especially if he is doing it at the behest of the governor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Felecia Davis, 3 Dec 2009 @ 12:27am

Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon rock
Hello. My names is Felecia Davis. I am a Administration of Justice student at University of Phoenix perusing my Masters degree. I need someone from the Kentucky Governors office to contact me concern the Apollo 17 Goodwill moon-rock ASAP> This is a assignment for me that I must complete very soon Ps or if ANYONE know please let me know. Thank you very much Ms Felecia Davis
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Felecia Davis, 3 Dec 2009 @ 1:40pm

Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon rock
Hello. My names is Felecia Davis. I am a Administration of Justice student at University of Phoenix perusing my Masters degree. I need someone from the Kentucky Governors office to contact me concern the Apollo 17 Goodwill moon-rock ASAP> This is a assignment for me that I must complete very soon Ps or if ANYONE know please let me know. Thank you very much Ms Felecia Davis
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Felecia Davis, 3 Dec 2009 @ 1:41pm

Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon rock
Hello. My names is Felecia Davis. I am a Administration of Justice student at University of Phoenix perusing my Masters degree. I need someone from the Kentucky Governors office to contact me concern the Apollo 17 Goodwill moon-rock ASAP> This is a assignment for me that I must complete very soon Ps or if ANYONE know please let me know. Thank you very much Ms Felecia Davis
[ link to this | view in thread ]