Slashdot Mirror

The itunes.co.uk site existed long before the itunes service was launched, thats not cybersquatting. That was a case similar to katie.com, this is different.

This person intentionally attempted to exploit people's natural tendancy to make mistakes to infect people with spyware.

The lawyer quoted in the article, Parry Aftab, isn't she the infamous Aftab who (was said to have) harassed Katie Jones of Katie.com?

From the article "...if the agreement is incomprehensible, it may be unenforceable, according to Aftab."

Personally i wouldn't trust Ms. Aftab to sit the right way on a toilet. Let alone give sound legal advice.

Oh, and down with software patents and Linux rules n all that.

Why should the guy give up his domain because a large company wants it? If it was his personal web site most slashbots would probably support him (if it wasn't Apple that wanted it anyway), just because he's a small businessman should he be s.o.l.?

Hrm... I recall the http://www.katie.com/ fiasco, and in that case, I think the right result was finally achieved. The publisher blinked.

This case though seems different.

You have an individual who disagrees with with Jerry Fallwell concerning homosexuality and gay rights. That's all good. If this were merely a parody or disenting view website I'd think that it should fall under free-speech guidelines. But the guy had links to Amazon for a book he published. The arguement then becomes that this was not an issue of free speech, but rather commericially motivated.

Is this the correct reasoning, I don't know. But based on what I read in the article, I don't think the judge erred in his decision. The arguements presented to the judge seemed to be that the use of falwell.com was a deliberate attempt to use the etablished name of Fallwell in an attempt to drive traffic to his site for the intent of selling more books. Asked to base a decision on that regard, and asked to consider this under trademark law, I don't think the judge really could have decided otherwise.

Was this an attempt by Jerry Fallwell and his ministry to silence criticism of his preachings? I'd say most certainly, and ethically, that sort of attack against falwell.com was wrong. Far better would have been to ask the owner of falwell.com to have a link saying something like `if you meant to go to blah blah blah`. But then again, from what I have seen of Jerry Fallwell, reasonable might have been too much to hope for.

I should have been more precise in stating my views originally.

gOOpie

And I should have remembered to add break-tags in my original message... darn lack of coffee!

I think there is a difference here. The Katie.com domain was registered years before the title for the book was made; while, the Jerry Falwell domain was made to copy an already exisiting trademark.

Katie Jones seems to think so anyway, the latest entry to her blog on katie.com reads: "I am sure that this sudden change of heart by the publisher is largely to do with the support this issue has received from the online community and once again I'd like to thank everyone very much indeed."

Katie Jones seems to think so anyway, the latest entry to her blog on katie.com reads: "I am sure that this sudden change of heart by the publisher is largely to do with the support this issue has received from the online community and once again I'd like to thank everyone very much indeed."

I don't mean to be insensitive to the topic of child abuse, but I have nagging suspicion that all the discussion about this book borders on pandering to people's fears. I've heard that statistics say most abused children are more likely to be abused by someone they know rather than complete strangers. The media has a tendency to propagate fear of the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

I can't find a link to information on it, but I recall seeing a report on how statistics proved that the topic of deaths from the drug ecstasy was exhaggerated in the UK media, when they were actually rare and paled in comparison to something that resulted in many more deaths; falling in the shower! Yet no mention was made of this in the media, nor were there any measures taken to do things like enforce safer shower designs. Ecstasy was just more eye-catching as a news item.

The author of the book, Katie Tarbox seems to be turning this into a career- she actually has a company, Katie Tarbox, Inc., and even plans to launch a school curriculum. Her lawyer, Parry Aftab, seems to be revelling in the spotlight, touting herself as "The Angel of the Internet" and boasting about her media appearances; "She regularly appears on national and international television, in national, international and regional news publications and in both business and mass market publications around the world. She has been featured in Readers Digest, People Magazine, TV Guide, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, Biography Magazine, Cosmopolitan, Glamour, Seventeen, Family Circle and Ladies Home Journal, among others". Yet this is the very same woman who called Katie Jones, the owner of the Katie.com domain name and threatened that "things would only get worse" if she didn't freely hand over the domain name- and Jones had just given birth only a week before. The lawyer also spread defamatory remarks about Jones, claiming that Jones had a hidden agenda. Tarbox claims that Aftab doesn't represent her but represents her publisher, Penguin, yet there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

All this media hype, aggressive legal action, PR damage control, and not to mention incorporation, all have the trademark characteristics of a profitable business. If this was an effort focused more on social change and education, the controversies surrounding the book would have been resolved long ago rather than having escalated to this point. There is always the danger of children coming into contact with pedophiles through the internet, but how does this statistically compare to things like the murder rate for children? What about the institutionalised rapes of women in Somalia? Why focus on this topic? Is it about reality, or is it more about pandering to the tabloid psyche?

Took a quick look over at katie.com and she makes mention of slashdot, and offers much thanks to the support of the community making a difference. Good to see that she holds no hard feelings over the publicity :) Go good guys.

At least Katie Jones seems to think that slashdot may have had an effect. See the latest entry on katie.com.

According to a press release on their site today, Penguin Puttnam have finally decided to do the right thing and rename the book. I cannot tell you how pleased I am!. Of course they should have done this 4 years ago and saved us all a load of grief, but I am thrilled that they've finally realised the consequences of their actions and admitted fault by retitling the book.

All that remains is to hope that Katie Tarbox does not continue to promote herself or her services as 'katie.com' as previously threatened and maybe then my life can return to normal :-)

I am sure that this sudden change of heart by the publisher is largely to do with the support this issue has received from the online community and once again I'd like to thank everyone very much indeed.

A few hours after this story hit the front page at /. Katie Jones reports that Penguin publishing has decided to retitle the book!

4 years too late, but better than never. Perhaps their lawyers and marketing people finally got a love tap from the ol' clue stick?

I like to think the /. crowd helped bring this about.

The press release is at http://www.penguinputnam.com/static/packages/us/ab out/press/press76.pdf.

Not sure if this whois link will work or not, but agirlslifeonline.com was just registered yesterday to Katie Tarbox. Probably a smart idea.

Her name is an ANAGRAM of "A FAT B*"!

Take a look at her photo. This looks like someone who has never walked past a twinkie without stuffing it into her face. She called and harrassed Katie Jones a week after Jones gave birth. Atfab truly is a fat b*.

No, she's from Canada.

Kinda of a cop out, if you ask me, and sidestepping the issue discussed in the article about her lawyer trying to intimidate Katie Jones to hand over katie.com for free.

On that note, if anyone wants to email the lawyer directly, KatieJ publishes the name and address on her "How can I help" page.

The address for Parry Aftab (her lawyer) is parry@aftab.com.

Ironically, Parry Aftab describes herself as "one of the leading experts worldwide on cyber-crime, Internet privacy and cyber-abuse issues.

According to Katie Jones, it is not Penguin but Katie T.'s lawyer who is bullying her to give up katie.com.

[ Inspired by this brilliant post ]

"Penguin refuses to apologize, saying that it would be a violation of their free speech to re-title the book..."

Treat others as you would want them to treat you.

What if Katie Jones (katie.com) did this (with some help...)

1. Write a book about Linux. Title it, um... 'penguin.com'

2. Launch a campaign to persuade Penguin publishing to donate control of their penguin.com domain. Of course... in aid of millions of citizens abused for several years by a convicted monopoly. Many of these citizens are finding comfort in the things described in 'penguin.com'

3. Keep praising our right to free speech.

4. Work hard promoting 'penguin.com': a CD jacket, translations to various languages, lecture tours, bookstore appearances...

5. Oh, I almost forgot... by all means, register 'penguin.com' as a trademark.

What if?

Remind me again, why she can't move this shit to another domain?