Theft is when something you own is taken away. The squatter never owned the domain, only registered to use it. In this case, ICANN owns the domain and allows a registrar to handle who can use that domain. ICANN sets strict rules on how domains can be used, and the squatter broke those rules.
Maybe the judge is a little smarter on actual laws than you are.
breakingcups@lemmy.world 5 days ago
A domain name is explicitly not property.
shalafi@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Cornell Law disagrees.
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/property
dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 4 days ago
The point isn’t that intangible objects can’t be property. The point is that domains are not legally owned by people or corporations. You can pay for the right to use one, but you don’t own it.
bluGill@fedia.io 4 days ago
Why not? You can't hold it, but why should that be a limit?
Note, phd's can easially be written on this subject defending either side. Some of those will say things like domains are not generally property, but for some situations we should treat them like property and in other situations not. I'm not expecting a response. I'm expecting everyone to think about the question.
dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 4 days ago
This isn’t about an intangible thing being property. This is about the way domains are controlled. Nobody owns a domain, they register the right to use a domain. All domains are controlled and “owned” by ICANN, which allows registrars to handle who can use domains.
They are not anyone’s property.
bluGill@fedia.io 4 days ago
That is part of what a phd can argue about....
I would argue that the registration cost is just a tax and you own it. But remember I'm arguing as a philosopher and not someone who can't see both sides or even thinks there needs to be one correct side.