Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:26:44 +0100 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreshPorts fraud Message-ID: <xzp8ylrjnez.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20031205150152.GM63350@submonkey.net> (Ceri Davies's message of "Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:01:52 %2B0000") References: <3FCF887E.7562.4A7C8BE3@localhost> <20031205150152.GM63350@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net> writes: > To their credit, absolutely nothing, as far as I'm concerned. This is > an outright abuse, and if I were you I'd lodge a complaint with ICANN to > get the domain transferred to you. The side has been taken down, so it's hard to prove any wrong-doing. If the perps decide to fight the charges, it'll be Dan's word against theirs. The fact that Dan has had freshports.org for two and a half years while freshports.net was only registered two weeks ago would certainly help Dan's case, but I'm not sure that it would be enough. The complaints also cost money. A fraud suit backed with evidence from from PayPal might work, except the perps are in Sweden, so the cost of litigation would be truly horrendous, and it might turn out to be nearly impossible for a Swedish court to subpoena evidence from PayPal. The only practical recourse is for people who have actually donated money to file a complaint with PayPal. From what I've heard, PayPal generally (and summarily) sides with the donor in cases like this. That policy can spell real trouble for the recipient if the complaints are false, but in this case it works to Dan's advantage. Donors would get their money back, and the perps would lose their PayPal account, but not much else would happen. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzp8ylrjnez.fsf>