Talk:Res nullius
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
Africa is different from Australia -- colonial powers signed a lot of treaties with African states and tribes, none (as far as I am aware) with Australian Aborigine bands. AnonMoos 10:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Domain names?
[edit]Are unregistered domain names res nullius? Seahen 03:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- At first glance, one would think so, but at reflection I see two objections:
- If the the name doesn't work untill it's assigned (I'm not sure, but suppose so), is there already any object (of any value) in existence before it's assigned? If not, the answer is no because no "res" (like an object not yet constructed, an invention not yet made...).
- Since the Domain name registry (or if another authority, that doesn't change he reasoning) has the authority to assign, and even cash in on it, this ipmlicitely proves it already is the owner, so the answer is no because not "nullius" Fastifex 12:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Definition of res Nullis
[edit]Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), res nullius res nullius (rays n<<schwa>>-lI-<<schwa>>s). [Latin "thing of no one"] A thing that can belong to no one; an ownerless chattel
This is the correct literal translation. I'm flabbergasted that someone changed it to "property" with the comment "Someone translated latin 'res' as 'thing' when it can in fact mean property and this sense is more logical in this context. idiots." I'm changing it back. ImTheIP (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)