That question's been beaten to death, and will likely continue to be so. But a.
Noted attorney has given some logical and "reasonable" answers: http://www.namepros.com/showthread.p...light=property.
There are both advantages and disadvantages if domain names are considered.
If you do consider domain names as property, be prepared for the "negatives".
To happen to you...
[quote]If you do consider domain names as property, be prepared for the "negatives"[/qoute] I can't get on this , what do you mean?.
I have read the post you referred , it is related but it is not focused on the specific.
It seemed to me to understand it would be question of taxes, but I can't see any disvantage in that, it is natural that if I sell a domain for 1000$ I should declare this income in my taxes..
If a domain it is sold for much more I would even not to consider to try to do not pay.
What I wished to try to understand if there is some progress in this, obvious that the symilarities between other form properties end to the definition itself..
It would be like to own a trademark, is it a trademark a property?(Even if there is no associate product acutally active?..
Truth be told, there's really nothing analogous to domain names. We can make.
As many analogies as possible, but they're applicable only to a certain point.
We ought to weigh the pros and cons if domain names are going to be treated.
As "property" in all aspects concerned. Maybe on one matter like taxes, but.
Not in an all-encompassing, absolute sense.
One of my beliefs is that everything has an advantage and a disadvantage. Be.
Ready for the latter...
Legally speaking in what jurisdiction?.
There is no single all-purpose answer to your question, and the "negatives" do not merely include income tax from a sale. The sale of property is subject to other taxes in various jurisdictions, and I have never seen anyone pay a property transfer tax on the sale of a domain, nor have I ever seen anyone pay a general property tax assessment on a domain in those jurisdictions in which property ownership is subject to tax. Do you want your creditors to be able to attach your domains? Do you want your divorcing spouse to claim your domains? Do you want to inherit a relative's domains, or fight with your other relatives over them? The list of downside consequences is long.
Some people will tell you the sex.com case somehow established domains as property for all intents and purposes. Those people are wrong...
The way they are going to be treated it depend also from the behavior of those interested in the field , I always push in a direction of fair, honest and clever decisions.
I totally agree, Domain Names require an appropriate and very specific consideration at this point. In favor of prosperity and healt of the market, all the market ,not just for the big guys..
The owner of SEDO lately had to say that the big brothers has legitimate the industry of domain names....how that it could be if the product itself of such so called industry it is still undefined and even unregulated? Seems instead we are far from that.
The risk as it is that the rules will be taylored to suit the big guy needs and if they continue to rule then the small owners just will have to carry the weight, unless they make hear their voice, with fair oriented, clever and interesting proposals...and being professional.
I don't know if in the USA it is like here in Italy where we assist to.
A paradox for wich the rules are in favor of big corporations at totally disvantage of the microeconomy, that at this point it is barely surviving. That's not clever, it is stupid and harmful.
.One of my prefered belief is that all is true as well the contary of all...
Whether domains might be generally considered as being similar to actual "property" is currently up for debate, however something very big that is happening this year might clarify such things in the near future.
What I refer to is that many here on this board seem unaware that as of this very month, the United States government has been forced to divest itself of running the internet (which it regulated from about 1995-2005).
So Uncle Sam's 10 year reign is over as of Dec.1 (or Jan 1, if you don't like to count rulings until the start of the following year). An interesting note on the world internet conference, wherein all this will take place, is that the U.S. reps recently asked the world body that will attend it "Well, then - which government WILL now be running the internet next?".
And the reply they got back from the world body reps was "Government? There will be no government behind it - the USERS of the internet will be running it!" The US reps could only drop their jaws in sheer perplexion.
Very funny stuff...
I think I've got where the confusion about this matter starts..
It come form the word property and the concept of ownership.
That are interchangeable.
If I say I own something I am claiming it is my property as well it works for the e contrary , since I can only claim one thing it is mine only if I own it.
Legally speaking the word property it is associate mostly at durable goods, as lands houses , boats, capitals and so forth, that's why automatically it happen to look in these direction when the subject it is the property of a domain name...just to find it doesn't fit at all.
Domain Names are more likely they fall under the concept of an intellectual property rather than anything else.
They are merely words, like brands , trademarks , names for shops and so forth they are..
The main difference from those cases cited above is that Domain Names are especially designed to meet the rules imposed by Internet protocols. such they are associated with a dotted tld,to an http://.
Furhter more there is the concept of "keywords relevant to search engines robots and algorithms",.
They are written without spaces and more, that make them to be a new unique speciality.
Since registration fees are payed each year in order to mantain the right to use a Domain Name and part of such fees are part of capitals and revenues subjected to be taxed I thing there would never be justified any additional tax to be asked after have payed the fee to claim for a determined amount of time that grant the rights to use such name.
Especially considering that no protection exist for domain names in the reverse case of a person who would register a trademark by grabbing (I would say to steal but, I am not shure it is legally speaking appropriate) a great Dname form the internet, as it happen for the contrary (Domain Name that infringe a trademark) since a separated fees has been paid for that trademark protection.
I'm sorry, I thougtht the US was given an extension of watching over the internet???.
As far as domains. We actually only "lease" domains. In my business, registrations are considered "domain license expense" and when I sell a domain, it is listed under "domain license income". I believe domain names are assets, but I do not believe they are property. When you lease a car, you do not own it. But you have rights to it.
If I break the lease of my car, it can be taken away, you break the TOS for a domain, it can be taken away...
I second what DNQuest wrote, at no point do we actually own the domain name, we are just leasing it, so it falls under the same category as your leased car, leased business equipment etc...
I'm not so sure about the lease thing DNQuest, in a way you can compare the Domain Registration Fee's to property taxes. You own your house, but if you don't pay your yearly property taxes it can be taken away from you.
I believe that domain names are as much property as anything else. You just have to pay your "property taxes" on them to keep them from being taken away...
What I am saying is domain names are not property since it is not tangible and you do not own them BUT... they are an asset. As far as the taxes analogy, it doesn't fit. Taxes are government revenue streams on real property, with domain names, you are leasing because you never truely own the domain. The domain is owned by the registrar and we pay for usage of the name. If we do not pay the usage fee, we lose the domain.
But in the end, they are still an asset...
I don't agree with the paragon of the leasing, for the same reason that one leased good must belong to someonelse, that is not the case of registering domain name since, if the reg fee is not renewed, automatically that domain it is free back to the market and another person can register it.
Moreover a domain name in many many cases it is an invention, and it can become a real (Intellectual )property , just by registering a trademark for it..
By doing so it is even not necessary to register it as Domain name,if it not needed, since no one else but the owner of the trademark, can register it as Domain Name.IMHO.
Please forgive me if my english it is so bad.
Since I m read so many valuable opinions here I think I will have a heavy job to assign so many reps for this thread.....
I guess we will agree to disagree here. But as my last parting shot....
Domains are "owned" by the central registry service, not by the person who registers the domain. The registerer has the rights of ownership of the domain, but it is not owned by him. We are able to "create" domains that are appoved by the central registry and they in turn let us use the domain to indentify our IP address. So in essence, when we register a domain, we are requesting to use a "name" instead of the an IP address 99.999.99.99, this service is granted by the central registry provided we follow their rules (and the rules of the actual registrar). We must renew this service annually or we will no longer have access to it just like any other service. Except with this service, there are aftermarkets.
TMs are earned and not a right. One cannot register for a TM without first establishing a TM or exhibit your future use to a TM (IE- developing a product for market, you can apply for a TM before your launch, but you will still need to provide commmerce info once your product hits the market to complete your TM)...
Genialnames it seems like we have made things clear here and you refuse to accept what is fact. Domains are NOT property. The are a leased asset. If you refuse to understand the concept then we simply can't help you...
??? Don't understanding,.
....it seem to me to understand the question it is still open instead.
I tried to contribute with a good reasoning...
It's okay, Genialnames. Some people I know still question that, even insisting.
They should own it exclusively just because they paid for it.
As DNQuest explained, we can never truly "own" them. However, we're given.
The exclusive right to use the names we register subject to the terms and.
Conditions of the provider we use.
Dr. Berryhill explained the implications of considering them property. It'll even.
Be complicated further depending on how each jurisdiction treats them.
Note that the main goal behind the Domain Name System (DNS) was to let the.
Words we humans understand resolve to the IP addresses computers "talk to.
Each other" with. In so doing, however, it opened a can of worms very few (if.
Any at all) realized.
Specifically, domain names gave trademark holders an additional burden to be.
Able to enforce their TM rights. Some mark holders believe they have absolute.
Exclusive rights to the word/s they use, and will at least try wresting control.
Of any domain name bearing their trademarked word/s.
However, there are registrants out there who do have legitimate uses for the.
Domain name-trademark namesake. Some have no intent of passing them off.
As the trademark holder, but some TM holders insist only they have the "right".
To use the domain name exclusively.
Fortunately there are a few laws and procedures how to resolve this. But it's.
Also a case to case thing, it's settled depending on how each state or even.
Country approaches this.
Anyway, the point here is no one intended to treat domain names as property.
When they first began in 1983. And most if not all intend to keep it that way.
If you truly want to own it, it's going to cost you a lot of money. You have to.
Be an ICANN-accredited registrar (which isn't cheap) and spend your money.
Continually maintaining and upgrading the hardware and software needed to.
Manage the domain name/s.
Besides, you wouldn't want your spouse fighting you for it should she divorce.
You (or whatever the equivalent is in Italy), right? If you're married, that is...
ZZZZzzzzzzzzz... a leasehold IS a property interest. That's why Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code is entitled "Sales and Leases". The word "lease" ONLY applies to something which is property. So, saying "it's a lease and not property" is nonsensical as those terms are used in law.
This will be the last time I comment on this non-issue for a while, but the word "property" in law does not refer to a single thing. "Property" consists of a bundle of different kinds of rights, obligations, and interests. When something else consists of that bundle, we call it property, whether that thing is tangible or intangible. Some people treat domains as an intangible property, similar to intellectual property. There are also, once in a while, various laws and regulations that can hinge on whether something is "property". "Property" can be taxed.
It can be seized by the state, by creditors, by ex-spouses, etc. It can be used as security for another obligation. It can be stolen. The list goes on and on, but I can never figure out why the label matters to anyone whenever this silly argument comes up...
Nah, don't even bother. Some people may understand a thing, but it doesn't.
Mean they have to accept it.
BTW, thanks for elaborating on the terms lease and property. At least people.
Haven't considered domain names "sets"...
Ops.it looks like I have said something that make others think I have taken some position in favor I would own them,or something else, that's not..
Just seeking for arguments in favor of marketability of Domain Names, that require to have a deeper knowledge about a product, any product, but now I have a doubt,.
Are Domain Names a product?.
Apologize and thanks..
It also partly depends on the TLD registry contract. Some domains could be considered "property" in that you can own, sell, develop, or transfer "ownership". Some other TLD's don't even allow transfers (.aero), which would be more of what I'd consider a right to use rather than owned property. However, I'm basing this on a philosophical, not legal sense of property.
For most gTLD's, it's really not that much different than real property. It's yours as long as you fulfill your obligations. You can lose a domain by not renewing; you can lose a lot by not paying the property taxes. You can lose a domain by unfair TM use; you can lose lot by improper zoning use. You can pass ownership of either to another person by sale or to an heir...
At cost to ruine my reputation I prefer to clarify a milseading situation that I have unvoluntarely created, than to have my person passed for a contradictory one in front of persons that have demonstrated a genuine interest to my question and have tried to contribute with meaningful reasoning..
What happened then?.
After few comments I felt something was wrong , like I am receiving answers for a different question.
I even thought at a certain point maybe I had put inapropriately comments in someonelse post..
Then I read the whole thread again and no , it was one started by me....
I couldn't find the reason why, then I even received a quite hard comment that was almost upsetting me..
I thought some people was acting quite in a strange manner..
So I read it back again ..
To make it short,.
There are two big mistakes I made..
One: in the title I have used the word "property".
And two: in the thread I used the expression "legally speaking".
I never supposed that this would have resulted into an explosive mix , especially if a layer is involved.
I have synthetized too much the question, and I have obtained that by using terms that for layers have a precise univoque meaning.
I never had also the intention to provoke (I can understand why it could appear like I did it , but I hope now it is clear for you also that I did not)..
Well I have said what I felt was correct to say.
But nothing it lost, I have been only partially answered true, but at least the comments you posted they are still useful, since many and many interesting considerations about domain names have emerged.
(I hope I am not making the situation even worse.).
I still consider domain as a service. like electrisity. you have it untill you pay for it...
Your interpretation of recent news is wrong. First the US doesn't own, reign over, etc the Internet. As such they are not divesting anything. Second, the issue of who manages root servers (or anything else) is irrelevant to whether something is considered property or not. I would agree, but the IRS doesn't. One of my complaints with the way names are classified is the way you can't do many things with them tax wise that you can with real assets.
It depends on which side of the dispute you are on as to whether you benefit or loose out in each situation.
There are downsides to the downsides.
If you can't inherit a name then after your death it will be deleted when it expires. Or even worse the service will be canceled along with your other services, utilities, credit cards, etc.
You build up a family business and then get divorced. You get equal shares of the business but she keeps the domain name because she registered it.
You lend money to someone. They use it to buy and market a name. They default on the loan and their only asset is the name, which you can't touch.
The door swings both ways. It just depends on which side your standing on as to whether someone's coming or going...
And what part of the news that the US will eventually no longer be running the internet is wrong? As another poster on this thread correctly said, "domains are 'owned' by the central registry service, not by the person who registers the domain..." And who runs the central registry? The US government - the same body that DEVELOPED the internet in the first place.
Secondly, therefore regarding domain names themselves as property, it's very relevant which country is later going to be behind their base workings, just as it's important to know how solid the foundation is of a piece of physical property, such as a house...
There are all kinds of property...Tangible, intangible, real, intellectual, etc.
I think they could potentially fall under several of them depending on the situration. Mostly they would fall under intangible or intellectual property types. Technically, they are more of a "leasholder right" than a property. Trademarking can turn them into a stronger property right by making them IP giving rights beyond that of mere possession of a specific domain...
The part that says or implies that the US owns or controls the Internet now.
The news is about management of the DNS root servers. This is about the only aspect of the Internet the US government might be percieved as having control of. They don't control number allocation. They don't control networking. The US controlling the Internet is a media myth, like Y2K or the scuba diver found in the middle of a forest fire. A better question is what is this central registry service.
Rather I am pointing out the wisdom of the US government in recognising the global and commercial nature the net developed into and privatising it. A process that was begun roughly two decades ago and currently leaves only one aspect of the Internet managed by a company that answers to the US government. Exactly. That is why the UK is behind the base working of .UK, Germany is behind the base workings of .DE, and so on. It is the solid foundation of these countries that helps to give the names value while the ccTLDs of poorer less tech savy countries languish in obscurity.
Just ask yourself a simple question. Do you really believe that the US government "owns" www.gov.cn?..
Someone just posted an article on the subject: http://www.circleid.com/posts/is_a_d...name_property/..