Kentucky's Attempt To Seize Gambling Domain Names Goes To State Supreme Court

from the waste-of-kentucky-taxpayer-dollars dept

Tue, Sep 22nd 2009 4:12am — Mike Masnick

A year ago, we were surprised to hear that Kentucky's governor was trying to seize the domain names of a long list of over 100 sites that had something to do with gambling. The governor was basing this on a Kentucky law that let the government seize "devices" used for gambling, even though none of the sites in question were based in Kentucky. The governor -- who many say did this to protect local Kentucky gambling operations -- compared these website to "a virtual home invasion." While a judge originally was going to allow the seizure, the state appeals court overturned the ruling, saying that it was clear that a domain name is not a gambling device.

Rather than back down, the governor pushed ahead and is using taxpayer money to appeal the ruling. Ragaboo alerts us to the news that the Kentucky Supreme Court is getting set to hear the case. It's difficult to see how the governor has much of a leg to stand on here. He's trying to seize the domain names of businesses operated entirely outside the state. Allowing such a seizure of domain names would set a horrendous precedent and create all sorts of problems. Hopefully the Kentucky Supreme Court sees this, and Governor Steven Beshear realizes it's best to give up this dangerous crusade.

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, kentucky, steven beshear, supreme court

16 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Bob Mime, 22 Sep 2009 @ 4:23am

I wonder..
I wonder how Steven would feel if some animal rights group in another place decided to do the same thing about horse racing and went after the horse tracks in Kentucky? I think he would have a fit, after all that's what the people that own him would do...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2009 @ 5:00am

Hope he is prepared to deal with the E.U., China, Russia and the rest of the world, because if he does that and the U.S. federal government allow it it will be hell to pay after.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pete Austin, 22 Sep 2009 @ 5:27am

Piracy
If these were ".US" domains (i.e. targeting the USA) then there might be a slight point here, but ".COM" domains are international.

It sounds similar to Somali Pirates hijacking international ships.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2009 @ 6:26am

@Bob and Horse Tracks
@Bob - It wouldn't be like taking horse tracks in Kentucky. It would be more like taking the phone number for that horse track.

Not that it would be right to take their domain, but the internet has a nasty reputation of routing around problems. I assume if Kentucky did take their name, they would probably just go get a new name. Annoying - yes... shutdown business - no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 22 Sep 2009 @ 6:37am

he can huff and puff
But can he actually DO anything even if he wins.

Domain names are managed by ICANN here is an extract from Wikipedia on the subject:

Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). This policy essentially attempts to provide a mechanism for rapid, cheap and reasonable resolution of domain name conflicts, avoiding the traditional court system for disputes by allowing cases to be brought to one of a set of bodies that arbitrate domain name disputes. According to ICANN policy, a domain registrant must agree to be bound by the UDRP — they cannot get a domain name without agreeing to this.

Now if the state of Kentucky holds any domain names they must have agreed to UDRP so this matter cannot be settled in the Kentucky Courts - or any other court unless Kentucky first relinquishes all the domain names it holds.

So long as Kentucky holds any domain names they can only use the UDRP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- imfaral (profile), 22 Sep 2009 @ 6:40am
  
  Re: he can huff and puff
  Shh, you are using logic and reason to try and these types of people don't like or understand any of that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- inc, 22 Sep 2009 @ 6:54am
  
  Re: he can huff and puff
  Not only that but wouldn't it have to be a federal court to cross state lines? Instead of wasting money trying to steal the domain name why didn't they just make an honest bid to buy the domain name?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Matt (profile), 22 Sep 2009 @ 11:29am
    
    Re: Re: he can huff and puff
    No.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt (profile), 22 Sep 2009 @ 11:28am
  
  Re: he can huff and puff
  The UDRP is not exclusive. You agree to be bound by it - so if the process is started, you will have to comply with the result - but that is not the same thing as making it an exclusive forum for all disputes.
  
  Put differently, _that_ is not why this is a silly case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Garrett, 22 Sep 2009 @ 7:42am

So many questions...
How does any appeal even last more than 3 seconds when none of the websites are based out of KY, or even the US for that matter? Shouldn't the appeal court have made that clear?

Like mentioned above, even if the Kentucky Supreme Court allows it, then what? It would be like Sri Lanka claiming ownership of the moon. Good for you, but it means nothing.

Has no one explained this to anyone down there? Is there not one person who explained to the administration or state house how the world operates? I know the internet is confusing, being a series of tubes and all, but.....seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Me, 22 Sep 2009 @ 7:50am

Just seize the internet wires.
He should seize the wires used for gambling. Just take the wires from the ISPs! I know, stupid idea, but so is thinking you can take a domain name. Maybe is the domain name was registered within his state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chucky Cheese, 22 Sep 2009 @ 9:22am

Grab it while you can!
Cool! I've been wondering what domain to purchase next.

The domain STEVENBESHEARISANIDIOT.COM is available!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Luci, 22 Sep 2009 @ 4:07pm
  
  Re: Grab it while you can!
  Go for it. Use it to enumerate the many ways this man is being a total moron. Kentucky already gets a bad rap for backwards, inbred, redneck idiots. He's just showing the world how close to the mark that is.
  
  Seriously, Mr Beshear. Do you really think you have the authority to demand anything from an international organization that doesn't answer to you? How about you demand the UN only lets its members speak a single language?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Al, 22 Sep 2009 @ 11:53pm

quick, let's pass a law...
As a Canadian, I'm offended that I can surf the internet and be exposed to all these gambling sites. I think we should pass a similar law and grab any sites he's overlooked, like, oh I don't know, how about www.kylottery.com.

Presumably we could also grab some of the state's computers and trucks - assuming they have electricity and horseless carriages in Kentucky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ukmark, 24 Sep 2009 @ 11:58pm

backhander
I think he is being paid a backhand load of cash by the casino thugs. Why else would you try something so stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greg WIllies, 2 Dec 2009 @ 3:13pm

RE: backhander
That may be the case. These politicians usually do dirty things for dirty money. I think he's backed up by giants that's why he's that stupidly brave to try and pass that law. UK sites like Gamblux casino and many other survived that controversy, I'm sure those 100 domains will pull through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]