2600 v. Ford Motors

lizrd writes: "The New York Times is reporting in their cyber law section that Eric Corley is in trouble in the courts again. This time he's being sued by Ford Motor Company for pointing a domain name that the New York Times won't mention to Ford's website. It will be interesting to see how this comes out in the courts, both sides seem to have some fairly strong arguments."

Comments

amnesia and deja vu at the same time

[Anonymous Coward]

I think /. has forgotten this story before...

Re:Well, regardless of rights...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if Ford has any problems they can just ask 2600 to change it. BUT THEY DIDN"T. Instead they filed a lawsuit outright. This isn't about a URL containing GM (and some other stuff) pointing to a Ford IP. It's about Ford trying to get a legal precedent set whereby Ford can determine who and who cannot link to them. BAD. Fucking Bad.

They want to own the Internet and what can or cannot be said on it.

Re:Responsible Rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

2600 has been an outspoken anti-capitalist voice, and I wonder if we might not be screwed in the DeCSS fight because of their outlaw image.

You mean like how Hustler might have been screwed because of Larry Flints -- uh -- flamboyant image? This is not supposed to matter. If you read the transcripts of the court cases you'll see that it *doesn't* matter. As much as the over-reaching prosecution wants it to matter.

I'm a Linux user first and foremost, and I see these guys irresponsible behavior hurting something I believe in.

Care to expand on that? Exactly what irrespondible behaviour are you talking about?

I should be able to watch a DVD anywhere I please if I paid for the DVD. 2600's fight with the MPAA is important and impacts us as a community. I wish someone other than 2600 were fighting that battle instead.

In other words, you believe everything the other side says about 2600 right? And if someone else (like Shawn Remeirdes, Roman Kazan or any other other hundreds of people who buckled under the demands of the MPAA's bogus threatening letters) was defending this side of the case would they not be demonized just as much? Buy a fricking clue -- the most important thing we need from the defendant in this case is someone who is willing to stick it through and stand up for what they believe it. You've got a better candidate that 2600 for this? I'd like to hear it.

2600 could be a very important voice if they would learn to pick their fights. You can't be anti-everything. I wish they would think about what they are FOR, and how they jeopardize those things when they act like children.

Children don't go to jail (Phyber Optic, Bernie S, Kevin Mitnick), children do what they are told (Susan McDougal) or they get spanked (Vince Foster).

So just why are we supposed to be angry with GM? Is someone pissed because my Camaro is faster than their Honda CRX? Or is it the same reason we're supposed to be mad at Verison? They're a big company. And all big companies are evil. All of them. Bull.

Why don't you read over the stories at 2600 and find out you dimwit. Its a *joke*! 2600 hasn't, in fact, endorsed or proclaimed any kind of Ford or GM specific attributes worth of criticism or any other commentary. They themselves say that they had been *looking* for content to point their website to, and couldn't find anything. Thus they were left with nothing except for their joke.

If someone is abusing their customers or workforce (ala Nike) shine a light on them. But if someone is just trying to make a buck, hey, so am I. We all have to put bread on the table.

Part of free speech is allowing people speak whenever they want about whatever they want. 2600 isn't *your* voice, its their voice.

What kind of idiot are you ??

[uXs]

If they wouldn't want people to come to their website, then why do they have one ? You're obviously a troll, and a stupid one at that.
It's stupid of me to reply off course, but these kinds of frivoulous attacks on what is obviously free speech are really starting to piss me off.

And another thing, what the fuck is up with the [vulgarity deleted] and the "vulgar word" bits in that article ? They way the USA is putting up with that kind of hypocritical puritanism never ceases to amaze me, and this article was particularily annoying in that respect.

So, in short, fuck GM, fuck Ford, and fuck you.

uXs
--

Re:Is it just me

[uXs]

Your signature pisses me off. Everybody knows that "fscking" should be "fucking" and is some kind of stupid censorship that morons like you somehow seem obligated to impose on yourself.
The real word is "fucking". Say it once... "fucking"... There, that wasn't that hard now, was it ? Did someone die know ? Djeez

uXs

(ps: fuck you)
--

Re:One more thing

[uXs]

Your signature pisses me off. Everybody knows that "f*ck" should be "fuck" and is some kind of stupid censorship that morons like you somehow seem obligated to impose on yourself.
The real word is "fuck". Say it once... "fuck"... There, that wasn't that hard now, was it ? Did someone die know ? Djeez

uXs

(ps: fuck you)

--

no no no

[uXs]

the word is "fucking"
say it... fucking... there - was that so hard ?
somebody die ? didn't think so

thank you for listening, and fuck you

uXs

(just think about it... you're too scared or something to type "fucking" but not to point to that horribly goatse link ? idiot...)
--

Re:no no no

[SoftwareJanitor]

I can type f*** if I want to. You are free to do whatever you want -- leave me alone. And I didn't 'point to' goatse.cx, I merely mentioned it. If someone wants to look there, they certainly can, but if they go to the trouble of cutting and pasting that into their location box, then it sure isn't my problem if they are offended.

The true idiot is the one that purports to tell me what I can say and what I can't, and what I'm scared of or not. So you can go fornicate yourself for all I care. I think it may be truly more offensive to try to violate my freedom of speech by telling me I can't not say a word than to say I can't say that word.

I think I will write f*** a few more times just to p*** you off.

Re:One more thing

[uXs]

there we go, that's the spirit...

uXs
--

Re:Bah

[Danse]

I still think that a simple, polite email or phone call was warranted before unleashing the lawyers. It could very well have averted the whole situation.

Re:Bah

[Danse]

Of course he really didn't have any reason to think they'd care or even know about it. If you're visiting fuckgeneralmotors.com, you probably didn't get there by accident, and anyone can look up the domain owner if they want.

Re:One more thing

[Sabalon]

I can't remember how many times I tried to climb into my web browser to go to the store.

Just the other day, I was clicking on my steering wheel to go to the /. site and get the latest anti-ms drivel.

It's just so hard to tell the two apart, with one being a big, clunky, noisy, oversized piece of junk, and the other being a car.

NOT a troll...

[bobalu]

...just his opinion. Sweet Jesus, what the hell is going on here when ONE PERSON can't express a differing opinion? I support 2600 in a lot of things, but this is a reasonable take on the subject and shouldn't be modded as a troll. Grrrrrrrr.

Ford is right. 2600 is wrong. Good for DCSS :)

[Forge]

This case is a hell of a lot simpler than the DCSS case. This is outright slander. More importantly it dose work the way Ford claims. Since "Fu*kedcompany.com" became popular I have been using variations on that when I want to learn the bad side (or alleged bad side) of a corporation.

2600 is going to louse this one, but it may not hurt the DCSS case. If read the article carefuly. You will realize that Ford is claiming that this hiperlink _IS_ speech. They just think it's one of a very few kinds of speech we have laws to ban. I.e. Slander, defamation of character etc...

You think Joe Public is going to know "whois"?

[SpiceWare]

Sure you and I know how to go about finding out this information. However, your average web browsing user wouldn't have a clue about whois or what it means and would think Ford was responsible.

bad publicity

[Juliet]

I can see both sides.. but from Ford's point of view.. I think it's a bad idea to sue.. It is just causes the slander to linger, and be viewed by a larger audience..

They are letting their buttons be pushed.

Although, I forgot.. everything on the internet is true...

where's the harm?

[Lurking Grue]

"But what he cannot do, Lee said, is lead consumers to believe that Ford is the author of the criticism."

How exactly are consumers going to be confused? The domain is not registered to Ford. Wait a minute...I think I understand. Consumers would not see the humor, and would fail to make an effort to look up the owner of a domain that quite clearly would not be registered by Ford.

Re:Notes from the courtroom

[Kha0S]

heh... I was the guy in the 2600 shirt.

good assessment of the hearing... I agree, and think that Ford will indeed get the injunction.

one important, and somewhat reassuring, element of the hearing was that Judge Cleland was able to distill the essence of the argument to one of whether or not a hyperlink constitutes an implicit attribution or commercial agreement with the linked-to party. this is a double edged sword -- if the injunction is granted, it risks setting up a precedent for further restriction of hyperlinks in future cases unless the judicial opinion is challenged successfully in an appeals court.

finally, it seemed to me that Ford's lawyers were presenting evidence that strongly supported a defamation argument, one which they were NOT MAKING, as they lack sufficient evidence to prove it. On the other hand, they are pursuing a seemingly inapplicable argument on the grounds of trademark dilution and false attribution which the evidence poorly supports, but requires a lower burden of proof than a defamation or slander accusation.

after chatting with Eric Grimm (2600's hired counsel) on the way back from lunch in greektown, I was impressed at his comfort with technical concepts and the nuances and subtleties of the technical aspects of the case. I think that with a little more time for preparation (as many of the early papers were rushed due to Ford's late notice), he's got the wherewithal to present a solid, strong case to prevent this from moving beyond a preliminary injunction.

cheers...

/Andrew

Re:Bah

[Doctor Memory]

lets say there is already a website that says you torture puppies

That's not analogous. This is more akin to registering itorturecutepuppies.com and making it point to his website.

Re:What kind of "pointing" is going on?

[artdodge]

Because that's what all HTTP/1.1 compliant servers are supposed to do. See RFC2616, section 3.1:

Applications that are at least conditionally compliant with this specification SHOULD use an HTTP-Version of "HTTP/1.1" in their messages

Re:What kind of "pointing" is going on?

[artdodge]

Hmm... you're right, my bad. This is case (2), in which case Ford has a technological solution available to them ("400 Bad Request" or similar all requests with "fuckgeneralmotors.com" in the Host field), but their own technology prevents it being a "persistent misrepresentation" since they doa redirect on requests for the "/" document.

Curious... the plot thickens :-)

What kind of "pointing" is going on?

[artdodge]

As we all know, there are a number of types of "pointing" you can do with a domain, and I'm wondering how the eyes of the law would view the differences.

1. A hyperlink. At issue in the DeCSS case. Not the case here. Strong free-speech arguments.
2. Setting a DNS A or CNAME record to point to their server. The intent of this would be for people to be able to browse Ford.com in its entirety with the name "www.fsckgeneralmotors.com" in their "Location" box. This could be dangerous legal ground (misrepresentation, impersonation), however it is technologically trivial (and is in fact the correct behavior, should be the default) for Ford to prevent this on its own servers (who should NOT recognize that Host: field). But again, this is not the case.
3. A redirect. This is in fact the case here - a 302 Object Moved message (served by IIS/5.0). This falls in the squishy middle ground - a link can be explicitly connected with a comment and a speaker (which "substantiates" the speech), and DNS aliasing has the effect of providing for a persistent comment and misrepresentation while using another's resources, but redirection does neither.

Like I said, I'll be curious to see if the courts have the savvy to differentiate, and what their interpretation of the differences is.

Oh yeah, IANAL, UAYOR, IMHO, TINSTAAFL, etc.

Re:What kind of "pointing" is going on?

[Ctrl-Z]

It isn't a 302 Object Moved message. It is a DNS record pointing to a different IP address.

tim@tux:~$ nslookup fuckgeneralmotors.com
Server: localhost
Address: 127.0.0.1

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: fuckgeneralmotors.com
Address: 164.109.71.245

tim@tux:~$ nslookup ford.com
Server: localhost
Address: 127.0.0.1

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: ford.com
Address: 164.109.71.245

HTH

Re:What kind of "pointing" is going on?

[Hobbex]

$ nc fuckgeneralmotors.com 80
GET / HTTP/1.0

HTTP/1.1 302 Object moved
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:23:04 GMT
Set-Cookie: dialogue_id=3e42052c20010518411f690a; path=/; expires=Mon, 16-May-11 16:23:04 GMT; domain=.ford.com
Location: http://www.ford.com/servlet/ecmcs/ford/index.jsp
Connection: Keep-Alive
Content-Length: 169
Content-Type: text/html
Set-Cookie: ASPSESSIONIDGGGQGCDK=DILNHCGCPMNABIDCGOGLKBIB; path=/
Cache-control: private

<head><title>Object moved</title></head>
<body><h1>Object Moved</h1>This object may be found <a HREF="http://www.ford.com/servlet/ecmcs/ford/index .jsp">here</a>.</body>

Re:What kind of "pointing" is going on?

[nivedita]

That's actually a reply from Ford's web server. Try this instead:

$ nslookup www.fuckgeneralmotors.com
Server: localhost.mit.edu
Address: 127.0.0.1

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: WWW.Ford.com
Address: 164.109.71.245
Aliases: www.fuckgeneralmotors.com

It's a DNS alias, not an HTTP redirect.

Re:What kind of "pointing" is going on?

[srvivn21]

A little research reveals that Ford changed IP's of it's website from 164.109.135.183 to 164.109.71.245 on 21-Mar-2001. The server at 164.109.135.183 does not and has never belonged in any way to 2600 or Eric. Ford is doing the redirection.

Re:What kind of "pointing" is going on?

[haruharaharu]

Just a nit - why is Corley's swerver responding to a 1.0 request with a 1.1 reply?

Like a billboard?

[malkavian]

Weird lawyers.
It's quoted in the article that pointing the fuckgeneralmotors.com domain at ford is like putting a billboard by a highway saying "Fuck General Motors" and saying it's sponsored by Ford.
Doh!
Last I checked, if you want to look who's 'sponsoring' the site, you use "whois".
And doing:
whois -h whois.geektools.com fuckgeneralmotors.com
Query: fuckgeneralmotors.com
Registry: whois.corenic.net
Results:
- 2600 Enterprises (template COCO-12817)
emmanuel@2600.com
PO Box 99
Middle Island, NY 11953 US

Domain Name: fuckgeneralmotors.com
Status: production

Admin Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Emmanuel Goldstein (COCO-12818) emmanuel@2600.com
+1 516 751 2600 (FAX) +1 516 474 2677

CORE Registrar: CORE-20

Record created: 1999-09-26 23:21:21 UTC by CORE-20
Record expires: 2001-09-25 00:00:00 UTC

Domain servers in listed order:

phalse.2600.com 216.66.24.2
ns2.icsnet.net 204.194.104.4

Database last updated on 2001-05-18 15:46:51 UTC
That kinda tells me EXACTLY who sponsored that billboard.
Poof, that's this excuse out the window.
In effect, what's happend is that the sponsored by is in the style and colours of Ford ads, (can you remember the nice little 'Fuct' logo done in Ford colours and style that nobody's complaining about??).
Urrr... Next case???

Cheers,

Malk

Re:Like a billboard?

[mark_lybarger]

regarding the "sponsored by" .. the 2600 site itself clearly implies that it's related to ford motor company, buy the mere fact of where it takes you. just like many of the other sites on the net that automajically take you to another site. you have to do some digging to really find out who's footing the bill for the site, and most consumers wouldn't have a clue how to even go about doing that (or even care to find out). i guess this would be similar to say a political ad that say trashes Gore and puts GW in the limelight, but then at the end of the ad in small print you find out the ad was sponsored/paid for by the MOBIL/EXXON/ and all other major oil companies.

Re:Like a billboard?

[markmoss]

And for that billboard, you could always drive over to the billboard rental agency and check their records to find out who really posted it... The point is, the average person never heard of whois, and is too lazy to use it anyhow. And anyone who thinks Ford _might_ have sponsored fuckgeneralmotors.com isn't too bright, but Ford doesn't want to lose its stupidest customers either.

Not that I'd want to leave standing any analogy between domain names and titles on billboards. In most places you _would_ get in trouble for posting "Fuck" in large letters in the public view, where it might corrupt the last virgin left in the country. 8-) In a url, only someone who already knows it can directly find it.

Re:Like a billboard?

[mamba-mamba]

First of all, it's not like a billboard at all. Everyone who drives by sees a billboard. This is something seen only by people who deliberately type "http://fuckgeneralmotors.com" into their web browser.

Second of all, I still maintain that very few people are stupid enough to think that ford would do this. It wouldn't matter that they are technologically clueless. Corporations do not behave that way.

When you see a Ford pickup truck with one of those stupid stickers on the window shoing Calvin pissing on a Chevy logo, do you think Ford sold the truck with that sticker on there? No way.

MM

Re:just re-redirect it

[mitheral]

You realize of course that you can never ever trust the client/user right? I bet the vast majority of those hits are from robots and and people like me who like to get raw html instead of somthing that has been prettied by some bandwidth wasting, cycle consuming IE5 only "enhancement". So I often set my browser to report itself as netscape 1 or mosaic. It's been my experience that the vast majority of sites that refuse to serve me pages because of my reported browser are not worth visiting anyways. Ends up acting like a first defence proxy.

Re:Ford isn't stupid. They know what they're doing

[Bearpaw]

Ford's legal department is already funded. This sort of thing is just part of how they try to justify their funding. Gotta look busy, whether or not what you're doing really makes any sense.

Re:It's just a word...

[Bearpaw]

I'm sorry, but that is just a bunch of bullcrap.
...
I'm so tired of living in the United States of the Offended. Build a fucking bridge and get over it.

In other words, this sort of thing offends you, and you feel very strongly that people should express themselves differently. Hmmm.

Re:It's just a word...

[Bearpaw]

People aren't "trying to control what he says", any more than he's trying to control what they say.

Glad it wasn't me

[tregoweth]

I used to own the domain malfunction.com, and I always meant to point it at Microsoft's Web site. I suppose it's a good thing I never did.

Re:And I quote

[ethereal]

On the contrary, the use of Ford's bandwidth is entirely and explicitly authorized by Ford. How do I know? Simple: when I requested "fuckgeneralmotors.com", the request went to Ford.com and one of their machines decided that it was OK to send me the page.

If they don't want to serve me web pages, they don't have to, but it's not my fault (or Mr. Goldstein's) that Ford can't make up it's mind about whether I'm authorized or not. It's fine with me if they even want to make a distinction based on my IP address or the referring page, but it's not my fault if they don't.

As an aside, I often wonder if Mr. Corley is annoyed that news organizations are using his real name so much. I mean, if I had a cool nick like "Emmanuel Goldstein", I'd be pretty unhappy to just be called "Eric Corley", which you have to admit just doesn't have the same ring to it (or the same literary allusion either). I sympathize because my real-life monicker is much lamer than "ethereal".

Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

Re:So this guy wants to be taken serious?

[ethereal]

I don't see the problem:

• this case has nothing to do with illegal cracking
• this case directly involves how linking/DNS redirection is a First Amendment issue
• any actions in this case are probably inadmissible in the DeCSS case, and vice versa.

Maybe this was a dumb idea, but I don't think it's for any of the reasons you listed.

Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

Re:It's just a word...

[ethereal]

This is the same society who practically rode a guy out of town on a rail for saying "niggardly", which isn't even a racial epithet at all. PC-ness is bad, but ignorant PC-ness is a whole lot worse :)

Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

Re:Good old Slashdot

[ethereal]

This is different than the slashback - that was about the caravan to the trial that was going to be formed, this is about the NYT article providing more info on the trial

Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

Re:Lets look at another angle here shall we

[ethereal]

If Ford doesn't want me to use their bandwidth, why don't they just not send me the page? It's silly for them to respond to my request for a web page, and then claim that it was an "unauthorized" access. How can it be unauthorized if it required specific action on their part before it could happen?

The slander argument is more reasonable, and I could even see Ford winning out on that one. But right now Ford's essentially giving away their bandwidth; they can't complain if they've uncapped the fire hydrant and more kids showed up to play than they expected. If you're going to take the trouble to track someone down in your logs, why don't you just save yourself the trouble by blocking the accesses you don't like in the first place?

Who wants to drink from the FIRE HOSE?

Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

Re:Geez, Ford couldn't buy publicity like that.

[SoftwareJanitor]

Yea, yea... I know that... But would any reasonable person actually believe that Ford was behind something like this? And wouldn't a large portion of Ford's employees feel the sentiment of f***ing their biggest competitor? Even the management?

Of course, the whole thing might have been funnier if the f***GM domain had been pointed to that horribly offensive little image at goatse.cx or something... :-)

Re:Geez, Ford couldn't buy publicity like that.

[SoftwareJanitor]

NT, W2k, what's the difference... :-)

Its kinda like "Coca Cola" vs. "New Coke" vs. "Coca Cola Classic"...

Re:Geez, Ford couldn't buy publicity like that.

[SoftwareJanitor]

I guess you don't understand what a smiley :-) is... It was a joke son. A joke. I really don't care who Ford uses to create their web site.

Re:fuckfuckgeneralmotors.com

[IanCarlson]

Which, I would assume, points to generalmotors.com?

God, these fuck* domains are getting confusing.

Re:Well, regardless of rights...

[icepick]

One big hole with your theory is that anyone that wants to find out the real story can use whois.

Just because people are unaware of what the facts are doesn't mean they can act like those facts are not relevant.
--

One more thing

[mTor]

If Ford is so serious about 'protecting' their properties wtf don't they sue Microsoft over the Explorer trademark? MS is using Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer and Ford has trademarked long time ago Ford Explorer. Sure they are competing in different industris but Ford could bring it up under the trademark dilution clause.

Ford needs to be boycotted so they back the f*ck off!

Re:One more thing

[mTor]

I answered this here.

And yes, I have a JD.

Re:One more thing

[mTor]

Re-read my second last sentence for some answers to your questions/arguments.

The cases where companies sue from different industries over trademarks are FILLED with IP law journals.

You'd also have to read the clauses on 'future values and expansions' but I won't bother since you'd need a JD to understand my arguments. A simple example which Ford could argue is by saying: "We want to protect the trademark Explorer in the computer industry because we might release a game with the same name or a screensaver or a VR Explorer exhibit and we feel that MS is diluting our TM." That worked for a ton of companies and it would work for Ford.

Re:One more thing

[ncc74656]

If Ford is so serious about 'protecting' their properties wtf don't they sue Microsoft over the Explorer trademark? MS is using Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer and Ford has trademarked long time ago Ford Explorer. Sure they are competing in different industris but Ford could bring it up under the trademark dilution clause.

It's usually not dilution if they're in different industries. Locally, there's a company called "Best Buy Furniture" that is in the furniture retail business. They even have a yellow-tag logo that bears a certain amount of resemblance to the logo of a certain consumer-electronics retailer. AFAIK, there's never been any litigation between the two companies...and there probably never will be any. If I'm in the market for a big-screen TV, I'm not likely to go looking in a furniture store for it.

Re:One more thing

[GlassUser]

If I'm in the market for a big-screen TV, I'm not likely to go looking in a furniture store for it.

You're not? You haven't driven by Gallery Furniture lately.

Re:Lets look at another angle here shall we

[mTor]

Buut linking is the _foundation_ of the Internet :) Exactly the same thing happens when we slashdot a site. Should a slashdotted site sue because of the uninvited bandwith charges? Hell no! They put it up knowing very well that that could happen. There is NO difference.

Difference might be only in the way the linking is implemented but the overall consequence stays the same.

Ford has absolutely no right to sue under the law and I have a feeling that this case will be dismissed very soon. Let's hope they get a judge who's not in the pocket of the big comapnies.

There is only one thing you can do under the current laws (and let's hope they stay

Re:The big difference no one wants to hear

[mTor]

Ok... let's discuss this one in simple details... When you type in a domain name into the 'Address' box you are asking the DNS server to provide you with the numeric IP so that you can connect to the server with the info you need. There is one more step in there since the FuckFord.com actually redirects you to a different server. When you 'click' on the link which is anchored with "FuckFord.com" and points to Ford.com you are asking DNS server for the numeric IP of Ford.com and after which you can connect to it.

The end result is exactly the same! In any case, you connect to the Ford.com. So what you're saying that one methiod is legal and other is not?

There is no difference and I'm even willing to argue that the embedded HTML link can be even more damaging to Ford than redirect. How many people type in FuckFord.com daily? How many type Ford.com? I think that the ratio is over 10000:1 in favor of Ford.com.

Re:Don't confuse stuff...

[mTor]

yep ;)

Ford has strong arguments?

[mTor]

They are basically saying that you do not have the right to link to their site through "indicent" phrases or words. The linking issue has been resolved already in the Ticketmaster case and I'm sure that it will be upheld yet again.

Ford is just harassing small people. They have a huge team of lawyers and they need some 'exercise' by filing frivolous lawsuits against those who can't defend themselves properly. Why didn't Ford contact them and ask them not to point there or even rejected the headers from the domain name that they didn't like?

Re:Ford has strong arguments?

[Old Wolf]

what planet are you on?

nslookup ford.com ; nslookup fuckgeneralmotors.com

whois ford.com ; whois fuckgeneralmotors.com

Re:Ford has strong arguments?

[iceT]

But they didn't 'link' to it. There is no page on their web-server that has a link to Ford's site.

What they did do was define a DNS entry that points directly to Fords site. There is no linking. It is a DNS ENTRY. To assume it is a 'link' is to assume that the only protocol on the internet is HTTP.

Re:Ford has strong arguments?

[Greyfox]

What, you mean like...

Penis
Ass Raped Monkey
Rhenquest

Uh oh. They're going to sue me now! Oh no! Well I guess they'll just have to blow me!

By the way, they're getting off lightly with a simple taunting given how atrocious their web page is.

Re:Ford has strong arguments?

[bad-badtz-maru]

Another great example of +5 modding on a post whose contents are completely wrong.

Re:Ford has strong arguments?

[bad-badtz-maru]

It would appear I am currently on the planet "dumbass". Oops.

maru

Re:Ford has strong arguments?

[bad-badtz-maru]

Haha, you made the same mistake I did. Assuming (know what happens when you assume blah blah blah) that the redirect was coming from 2600 when in fact it is coming from ford.
In any case, if ford used host headers and had no content on the default site then 2600 would not have been able to do this as easily, as just pointing a domain to the IP would not work under that configuration. So they do have a way to stop the "linking" in an easily-implemented, non-legal manner.

maru

Re:Bah

[Joools]

Ford has every right to just throw the book at them. I sure would. If you don't show a smattering of common sense and respect for others then you deserve to be dragged through the mud.

I don't understand. You think it ought to be illegal to be disrespectful?

Re:just re-redirect it

[The Toad]

It has been said that all PR, is good PR.

I think Firestone would beg to differ.

Re:Bah

[Ctrl-Z]

You don't seem to understand that it's Ford, and not General Motors, that are doing the suing.

Re:Read the article fuckwit

[Ctrl-Z]

2600 v. Ford Motors
Posted by michael on 15:18 Friday 18 May 2001
from the just-buy-a-honda dept.
lizrd writes: "The New York Times is reporting in their cyber law section that Eric Corley is in trouble in the courts again. This time he's being sued by Ford Motor Company for pointing a domain name that the New York Times won't mention to Ford's website. It will be interesting to see how this comes out in the courts, both sides seem to have some fairly strong arguments."

Can you read that?

Another shocking link!!

[Polo]

Take a look at this link:

http://that.ford.motor.company.lawyer.isgay.com/

Of course there's also:

http://this.comment.isgay.com/

(actually, could this help with the case? DNS humor is so much funnier when you understand the work behind it...)

Oh my god this is insane.

[tippergore]

So, basically the argument of Ford/General Motors is that people visiting FuckGeneralMotors.com will think that this link is actually sponsored by Ford themselves?

Because yeah, all the companies I know like to register the domain equivalent of:

Fuck-Me-I-Totally-Suck.com, and then link it to their own site for branding purposes....

It makes perfect sense...

Yeah...

Re:Oh my god this is insane.

[CharlesDonHall]

So, basically the argument of Ford/General Motors is that people visiting FuckGeneralMotors.com will think that this link is actually sponsored by Ford themselves?

That's Ford's argument; GM isn't involved in this.

And, yes, some people will really believe that Ford set up a anti-GM link with a swear-word in it, and they'll refuse to buy Ford products on the basis of that.

(Basically, those are the same people who were boycotting Proctor & Gamble, because of the rumors that the CEO was a member of the Church of Satan.)

Re:So this guy wants to be taken serious?

[Valdrax]

Oh, he's blatantly trolling, but you can't deny that black hats get just as much, if not more, use out of the information in 2600 as white hats. It doesn't matter what they call it, it's still a great resource for pulling off cracking.

Do some research

[Valdrax]

[A]m I the only who relizes that general motors is not ford at all. GM makes chevy, pontiac, cadalliac, etc... Again GM is not Ford. DOH!

No way! Really?!?

Obviously, you haven't read the background on the story at all. Emmanuel Goldstein was protesting against GM with the website "fuckgeneralmotors.com" originally. He pointed it to a variety of critical websites to GM, including a place called "lemons.com." When the webmaster of that small site complained that the extra traffic was hurting him in bandwidth costs, he moved it to point to "ford.com" as a joke. Without warning, and without asking nicely for him to move the URL, Ford decided to sue 2600 for everything they're worth.

Ford is suing Emmanuel Goldstein for pointing the URL at them because it makes it look like they are the ones responsible for the somewhat immature prank. As the man himself says, they are trying to use the court system to create for themselves the right to demand that people ask before pointing URLs to their website. They are also seeking excessive damages in an attempt to financially ruin 2600. Basically, they're taking advantage of the system to tweak the legal system the way they want and to punish a known ally of hackers.

Re:Wouldn't it be cool to Beowulf cluster these?

[Valdrax]

So the fucking euro-pee'ins won't do it first, while rubbing their glistening dick heads aginst the front screens of their fucking iMacs?

Read my sig.

Why to fuck GM (Re:Responsible Rebellion)

[Macki]

Fuck General Motors, because General Motors fucks its workers. It's that simple. By closing US plants and sending them overseas to exploit foreign workers for below a living wage and meanwhile lay waste to US cities. For taking advantage of globalization and free trade agreements that trample human rights. For selling the Suburban to suburban soccer mom's and destroying the enviroment. I could go on... Besides anyone or anything that gets it panties in a bunch over a silly domainname deserves to be rediculed, and this seems to be fairly effective :).

I'm sorry you just want to play DVDs under Linux, but it's a damn good thing 2600 got sued and not you. Anyone facing what we're up against with such selfish motivations, would have surely settled by now. We aren't just fighting for the right to post DeCSS-- DeCSS is already out there, it's a moot point. We are fighting the constitutionality of the DMCA and its effects on fair users in all mediums.

Try to have a little perspective. Emmanuel Goldstein is putting his entire livelyhood on the line with each of these lawsuits. And he "needs to put bread on the table" too.

Re:Why to fuck GM (Re:Responsible Rebellion)

[Picass0]

Fuck General Motors, because General Motors fucks its workers. It's that simple. By closing US plants and sending them overseas to exploit foreign workers for below a living wage and meanwhile lay waste to US cities.

You hate the company but want a job from them? I don't like it when companies find it easier to relocate than put up with government regulation and high taxes. Mexico has been quite pleased to lure American companies south and enjoy the benefits to thier economy. You can bet the companies that move out of the US put up with a lot less shit.

I'm sorry you just want to play DVDs under Linux, but it's a damn good thing 2600 got sued and not you. Anyone facing what we're up against with such selfish motivations, would have surely settled by now.

It's too bad that you see it that way. It's not shallow "selfish motivations" that move me. I have a DVD player and could give a rat's ass --except-- I see it as a piece of a bigger picture. You say DeCSS is out there so move along. But as we switch from traditional means of content storage (paper) to digital (like DVD) the open nature of our society is at risk when people start to micro-manage your ability to use information. The cliche of a digital divide could become real if we allow fair use to get choked to death by near-sighted copyright holders.

Imagine the difficulty of future historians attempting to learn about life in our time, only to find we stored it all on encypted disks that only play on cripled players (players that only work when you have permision to use from the copyright holder.) But oh, the copyright holder is dead, and didn't release the material into the public domain before death

Imagine computer monitors that only display information when you have permision from the copyright holder. Hard disks that only RWX when you have -you guessed it- permission from the copyright holder. Same for your TV set, your video recorders, and even your printers.

It's about more that watching "Gladiator" in Xfree86. It's about your rights as a consumer. It about freedom of information.

Perhaps you think SUVs are the bigger threat. To each his own. I find the bigger threat from those who would control information.

Try to have a little perspective. Emmanuel Goldstein is putting his entire livelyhood on the line with each of these lawsuits. And he "needs to put bread on the table" too.

I honestly hope he wins. I have no ill will towards 2600. I find it juvenile but mostly harmless. I mean it when I say that they could be an important (perhaps even mainstream) voice if they would learn how to control thier impulses. If Goldstein gets his ass sued into oblivion the other side gets to write his obituary. Is that what he wants?

Re:Geez, Ford couldn't buy publicity like that.

[chill]

Ford is suing for "tarnishment" -- by linking to their domain it can imply they are behind it or a part of it.

GM might realize that "spoofs" and this sort of thing are a tough case to win against -- when you are the spoofee. (Or they could be oblivious, or revving up their lawyers, or...)

--
Charles E. Hill

Re:Geez, Ford couldn't buy publicity like that.

[chill]

Reasonable person? We're talking about lawyers and corporate executives, here.


--
Charles E. Hill

Re:It's just a word...

[miracle69]

This same thing happened a while back with the term "nigger". It's very offensive, very hurtful (much more so than "fuck"), ...

I'm sorry, but that is just a bunch of bullcrap. Nigger isn't an offensive word without context - and even then those offended tend to blow it out of proportion. If nigger was truly so damn offensive, then the entire black community would be up in arms about most of the gansta rap where nigger is used in almost every verse. And guess what? They aren't.

The fact of the matter is this - nigger isn't an offensive word unless context is considered. This goes for all words.

I'm so tired of living in the United States of the Offended. Build a fucking bridge and get over it.

It's as if this country has forgotten a childhood rhyme - "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me."

I'm sure the moderators will have a field day with this comment, but sometimes, you've gotta get up on your soapbox and slap some sense into people.

HI Mom!

Good old Slashdot

[tbo]

First of all, this was posted a few days ago as part of a Slashback. Why the hell don't the editors remember anything? I read Slashdot every day, and I can tell when I've seen a story before. One would assume that the editors read it, too (although there seems to be plenty of evidence to the contrary), and since they also wrote the goddamn stories, they have that much more reason to remember them. You don't see the New York Times doing this kind of crap. Of course, somebody's already mentioned all this...

The point I really wanted to make is that yes, 2600 is probably legally in the right here, but that doesn't make their actions any less stupid. Last time around, somebody mentioned that Ford could just block all requests originating from www.fuckgeneralmotors.com. True, but that wouldn't stop 2600 from buying new stupid domains and pointing them at www.ford.com. Ford doesn't want to have to worry about this constantly, so they're just suing 2600 to stop them from doing it any more.

Could Ford have asked first? Yes, but Corley is just being a jackass. I'm sure he knew Ford didn't want that domain pointed at their site, and he did it just to piss them off. It's like if I came up to you, smacked you in the back of the head, then complained to the judge that you never told me not to.

Considering that, as a member of the EFF, I am paying for 2600's legal defence, I really wish they would act more responsibly. Fight for what's important, Corley, and stop making such an ass of yourself. DMCA, DeCSS, and UCITA are all worthy causes; fuckgeneralmotors.com is not. I sincerely hope the EFF does not pay Corley's bill this time. If they do, I'll find a more intelligent charity...

Re:Good old Slashdot

[lizrd]

I'll apologise here. I probably should have done a quick search for fuckgeneralmotors.com before I submitted the story. Regardless, I think that it is significant that the story got a writeup in today's New York Times and got some coverage that didn't come in the form of press releases from 2600. Somehow it just means more when someone not involved in the case writes about it.

________________________

Re:Good old Slashdot

[ahaning]

Of course he did it just to piss them off. What good are these rights if we can't make use of them?

So we've got the freedom to make fun of people. But we're too afraid to do so for fear that we'll be sued. Gee, where'd that first amendment go?


kickin' science like no one else can,
my dick is twice as long as my attention span.

Re:Good old Slashdot

[Sven Tuerpe]

Why the hell don't the editors remember anything?

Web servants work in a stateless way.

Re:Good old Slashdot

[cavemanf16]

While the 'editors', and I use that term loosely as they are more topic givers for discussion than editors of journalistic intent, have to read through hundreds of story submissions EVERY DAY. I doubt that they all get the chance to do anything more than skim what the other 'editors' are putting up. Still, that is a little lazy on their part.

Re:Good old Slashdot

[mamba-mamba]

Emmanuel Goldstein == Larry Flynt

Does that make it any easier to swallow?

This is a really important case, despite what you may think of 2600's chief performance artist.

Either you support free speech or you don't. If you think the right to free speech is only important sometimes or for some people then you are just as bad as FoMoCo or the MPAA.

And just so you know, 2600's website specifically states that the EFF is not helping them out on this one.

MM

Re:And I quote

[MadAhab]

Right, and the lawsuits over those redirects are stupid, too. Porn site operators learned long ago how to stop that, and at this moment, the sleazemeisters are looking a whole lot smarter than Ford. They are looking smarter than the lawyers, too, which is bad for the lawyers, because people already hate the porn pushers less.

You know what? It's not even that hard. Use mod_access_referer. Don't use Apache? It's free and has that capability. If your commercial web server can't handle it, you are getting ripped off.

Ford's trademark argument is pathetic. They might have a slander case if the domain were "lubedwiththefatofbabies.com". But it isn't.

Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.

Re:It's just a word...

[Flounder]

I'm so tired of living in the United States of the Offended. Build a fucking bridge and get over it.

Thank you, I've been saying this for years.

I have the first amendment of the Constitution protecting my speech. What amendment protects you from being offended?

There. I said it.

[Sogol]

Eric Corley can publicly say "Fuck General Motors". That by itself is allowed in the US by the 1st amendmant.
The fact that the phrase "does something" by way of pointing to ford is entirely too abstract for archaic law to moderate.

Re:Geez, Ford couldn't buy publicity like that.

[ncc74656]

Well, Ford runs NT, so they are obviously idiots...

Actually, Netcraft says F*rd runs Win2K (with IIS 5, of course). FWIW, they also say the General runs Solaris (Nutscrape, though, not Apache).

Looking at the uptime info, GM is getting about two months out of Solaris between reboots. F*rd, OTOH, gets less than a month out of Win2K, which gives a whole new meaning to "Found On Road Dead." :-)

(In case I haven't made my vehicular preferences blatantly obvious, check out this link (no, it's not a goatse.cx link, and neither are the others in this post...that site is disgusting).)

Re:Bah

[weave]

If GM were the ones suing then speech aspects like this would certainly be involved; however its Ford suing, on the really quite reasonable grounds that to the average person the site would appear to be owned by them, and therefore imply that Ford had that opinion of their competitors.

I think this is a valid concern. I'm wondering if Ford even tried to voice this concern to Corley and ask him to cease the redirect.

Hmm, a quick check to 2600.com gets the answer.

"Had Ford come to us and asked us not to point to them, in all likelihood we would have pointed it someplace else out of courtesy. But when demands and accusations are made without any attempt at communication, we have to object."

Re:redundant?

[pcurran]

Yes, in a Slashback from a couple of days ago. Interesting case, though...

Who wants to get sued?

[underwhelm]

Explain to me why you believe Eric wants to get sued? Who wants to get sued? He has to go around the country defending his right to speek freely, asking for donations from other like-minded first amendment advocates, all just to exercise a constitutional right!

Or are you suggesting we all just bend over and let the people with the money to shut us up and make us "consumers" run the country? Your argument is like saying the guy picketing scientology wanted to get killed in prison by scientologist mind-control drones, so he drew attention to himself.

Just because you're in trouble doesn't mean you did something bad. Being arrested doesn't make you guilty. Just because you're sued doesn't mean you're wrong.

What a wonderful world it would be

[underwhelm]

The motion picture industry picked 2600, not the other way around.

2600 is for the right to publish. For the right to publish cryptography and security news, and for the right to publish jokes and link on the internet.

You'll notice that fuckgeneralmotors isn't pointed at an anti-general motors site, it's just making a joke. 2600 owns several fuck*.com domain names, and, well, just read his declaration

I repeat, Eric's just doing what he has a right to do, and these companies are filing frivolous and abusive lawsuits against him. Tell me again that it's bull that big companies are evil.

Re:What a wonderful world it would be

[Picass0]

Yes, he has the right. He has the right to tell fart jokes. He has the right to register silly domain names. He has the right to publish anything he wants. He has the right to undermine his own credibility. He has the right to alienate the people he hopes to reach and influence - the American consumer. He has the right to set back multimedia for Linux. He has the right to lose the right to link to websites. He has the right to jeopardize reverse engineering. We can talk all day about his rights.

But it doesn't mean he's doing the right thing. Yeah, the MPAA took the fight to him. He has a responsibility the represent the issue now. Failing to do so means damages for himself, for Linux, and for the freedom to publish on the web.

I used to giggle when I said the word fuck. I was eight. I grew up.

He's engaged in a fight that's important on so many levels we don't even see them all yet. fuckgeneralmotors might sell a magazine or two, but if it loses a court case, it costs me.

Re:What a wonderful world it would be

[Picass0]

Too bad you did the AC thing. You'll probably never know I responded. If I sounded sanctimonious I didn't mean to be. Just as I'm sure you don't mean to sounds like a crass, cynical loudmouth.

Put up your own DeCCS site and challenge the MPAA yourself.

You're assuming I haven't. You haven't seen my website.

Perhaps your ego is a little bit overblown ?

I believe in what I say enough that I'll take credit, Mr.Anonymous Coward.

Re:Lets look at another angle here shall we

[ErikZ]

"And that somehow makes it immune to regulation? Words and pictures are the foundation of printed communication, but that doesn't mean I can string together "General Motors sucks. Sincerely, Ford Motors.", print up a bunch of flyers, and start handing them out."

Er, yes you can. You are within your rights to do just what you described.

Re:Bah

[Old Wolf]

I think Microsoft actually handled this situation much better than Ford did. Remember some time back, http://www.losers.com/, http://www.fuckers.com/, etc. all redirected to Microsoft....
who completely ignored it. After some time the joke died away. Everyone had had a good laugh (probably the MS staff too), and that was that.

Re:Bah

[Old Wolf]

If you think 'fuck' only means 'have sex' then maybe you need to listen to more Monty Python..:)

I managed to follow the fuckgeneralmotors.com link without wanting to fuck general motors and without travelling 5 towns: I saw it on my screen and moved the mouse a little and clicked the mouse button.

Re:Is it just me

[Old Wolf]

What the fuck are you on.
Here we see the new 'geek elite' in action.
No longer is it merely cool to be a Linux fan instead of a Microsoft one. Too many people jumped on that bandwagon already.

Now, you have to be a UNIX fan, and diss the Linux ones as being cheap hacks.

What next? VAX?

Re:just re-redirect it

[Asgard]

What about proxies? Doesn't squid or something change 1.1 to 1.0?

Re:Bah

[Chasuk]

Let's suppose that I own a diner named Ted's. I have erected a handsome sign above my place of business proclaiming that name, but one morning I come to open the doors and someone has erected a second sign above it, this one proclaiming FuckTed's.

This is the equivalent of what clever child Eric Corley did. It has nothing to do with free speech, but everything to do with being a poser punk looking for notoriety.

I think my opinion can best be expressed by saying Fuck2600.com, but that would make me as juvenile as Corley, so I will resist the temptation.

The big difference no one wants to hear

[joq]

2600 is not linking they're pointing the complete domain to Ford motors, why not copy the whole thing over, then do it? Ford did not invite 2600 to point the domain over to their site causing unwanted traffic going there via way of FuckGeneralMotors.com, I'm sure they could care less if there was a link that said Fuck you Ford, as opposed to having the whole domain point to them.

No amount of arguing can clarify this for anyone. Its morally wrong, and legally wrong, unfortunately 2600 is using legal loopholes in the wrong way to fight for their moronic cause.

And I quote

[joq]

We all know that in theory we should have the right to express ourselves as we feel, as it is amended, but one thing 2600 won't point out is that by creating the "FuckGeneralMotors.com" site and pointing it to Ford.com's website, they are using Ford's resources via way of bandwidth which I'm sure is unauthorized. Why not just make a virtual directory with pictures, and or information of a competitor instead of trying to reverse engineer killing two birds with one packet.

Well hopefully their AOL followers don't attempt to h4x0r me for writing this, but enough is enough, time to grow up guys. We do agree with any arguments anyone from there would care to give for the right to register the domain, however there is no one from 2600 that can realistically justify using Ford's bandwidth against Ford's will.

2600 is run by Peter Pan

One of the guys from my site did a semi humorous article on the whole 2600 deal. Some people may find it informative, others will find it funny, others will call it name calling etc. Personally, I think anyone who runs around doing things to get sued for attention is a moron.

Re:And I quote

[cybermage]

Linking to their site violates no copyrights, as far as I am aware. The bandwidth excuse is bullshit though.

IANAL, and I'm not saying I agree with Ford, or not, but I don't know that any legal precendent has been set for linking copywritten images, potentially out of context, into your page without permission is legal. If infact a precedent has been set, I would bet that it is not legal.

The bandwidth thing is surely a statement to attempt to quantify the cost (i.e. damages) associated with mis-appropriating the images. Establishing some claim of cost incurred, would stand to increase any damages they might be awarded and could increase other penalties if this sort of thing was ever determined to be criminal.

Personally, I think Ford should just accept the extra traffic and call it a day. They could have gotten plenty of publicity simply by denouncing the site (driving up it's traffic) and then making it break after they've maximized the number of pass through clicks.

If the site is obviously intended to be some kind of parody or otherwise humorous, they (2600) may have some precedence, thanks to Falwell v. Hustler, to get away with using the copywritten images without Ford's permission.

--

Re:And I quote

[AMuse]

Because creating a virtual directory with images from Fords' website, or cut n' pastes, could actually get you for Copyright violation.

Linking to their site violates no copyrights, as far as I am aware. The bandwidth excuse is bullshit though.

If that's a valid excuse, then companies can start suing slashdot for being linked to by us.
--------------------------------------------- -----

Re:And I quote

[mangu]

It could be argued that 2600 is really amplifying the advertisement power of the Ford site, by increasing its viewership. If the Ford site is well designed, there is a good chance that some of those visitors will end buying a Ford vehicle. After all, the idea behind advertisement is to be seen by as many people as possible.

The "resource use via bandwidth" argument would be valid only if the fuckGM site pointed to an internal Ford site, meant for the exclusive use of their workers, for instance.

Re:And I quote

[gaijin99]

In effect, I think that Ford probably feels that they are getting a bad name (or could get a bad name) for something they didn't do. Sooner or later some idiot will start forwarding an emails that say "HEY, LOOK AT THIS. FORD POINTS FUCKGENERALMOTORS.COM TO THEIR WEBSITE". Then Ford would have to spend money on a PR campain to correct that misconception.

Interesting argument there. Some idiots might take it the wrong way, so therefore it should be banned?

Besides which, you are missing two important points here. In the first place, Ford has two easy solutions to the "problem" the first is a technological fix, they can simply refuse connections requesting "fuckgeneralmotors.com", and the second is that they could have asked 2600 to point the domain name somewhere else. The fuckgeneralmotors.com domain name once pointed to a lemon car site until the owner of the site sent them an email asking them not to point to him any more, they complied promptly and politely.

This isn't about Ford not wanting to be associated with a certain domain name, this is about Ford seeking control of the net. If they win this one they will have set a new and deadly precident. What next, people being forbidden to link to certain websites? People being *charged* for the "privilage" of linking to certain websites?

If Ford just wanted to avoid people thinking that they're registered the domain name (which is a totally silly argument, I doubt that anyone would think they had), they could have solved the problem quickly and easily, and without a lawsuit. It is amusing (in a sick sort of way) to note that Ford is part of many "Tort Reform" groups, and theoretically is opposed to frivilous lawsuits....

Re:And I quote

[sdo1]

Good comment. It's not all that different from hijacking images from someone elses server to use on your own page. You ask for the image, their server says "fine" and gives it to you. Surely there are technical ways to prevent that, just as there are surely technical ways for Ford to restrict how their pages are served.

-S

Re:And I quote

[dhovis]

I really don't think that bandwidth is what Ford is sueing over. The real problem here is that the way the redirect is done makes it look like Ford has registered the domain "fuckgeneralmotors.com".

Yes, those of us in the know would immediately do a whois lookup and see who owns the domain name, but if the average person does this, they would think that Ford was playing a dirty trick.

In effect, I think that Ford probably feels that they are getting a bad name (or could get a bad name) for something they didn't do. Sooner or later some idiot will start forwarding an emails that say "HEY, LOOK AT THIS. FORD POINTS FUCKGENERALMOTORS.COM TO THEIR WEBSITE". Then Ford would have to spend money on a PR campain to correct that misconception.

I'll quote: David H. Bernstein, an intellectual property lawyer in New York, agreed that Ford is holding the high cards in the case. He said Corley might have meant his linking to be a joke, but "one of the things about parody is that it's only effective if it's clear to consumers that it's a joke."

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and Ford would rather sue now then end up with a public relations nightmare on their hands.
--

Re:And I quote

[dhovis]

I'm probably going to get modded down for going this far offtopic, but hey.

You are calling "War of the Worlds" a parody? I would disagree. It was intended to be realistic, but not funny.

It also was not really intended as a hoax. If you had listened to the beginning, you knew that it was a program. There were even commercial breaks that said "This is a Mercury Theater Production" (or something to that effect). Have you ever listened to the broadcast? If you picked up in the middle, it was very realistic. That was the idea, there was no reason to doubt it. They were going for realism. They pretened to interrupt a broadcast of ballroom music. Back then, people did not have as many quick means of information transfer as today. You couldn't go and check nytimes.com. It was radio or newspapers. That was it. If you heard it on the radio, your next best source was the next day's paper.

How do you know that aliens couldn't land on Earth tomorrow and start attacking people? If you were alive at the time, how would you know it wasn't true. This kind of "Ha, Ha, I'm too smart for that" sort of thing is BS. You can't tell me you've NEVER been duped.

Anyway, I believe that they did interrupt the broadcast to tell people that it was a work of fiction. It started becoming a matter of public safety.
--

Re:And I quote

[Hostile17]

Personally, I think anyone who runs around doing things to get sued for attention is a moron.

I think you missed the point, somebody has to fight the battles of Free Speech and Fair Use, if 2600 doesn't do it, who will ? You ? or the guy who wrote the Peter Pan article ? Both you and he have made it very clear that you don't want to involve yourselves and you think it is stupid of someone else to involve themselves. So we can safely say neither of you will be fighting these battles anytime soon. Corly is certainly a bit of a clown, he does make himself a target, and very likely he is fighting battles he can't win. But at least he is man enough to stand up for what he believes in, so just maybe once the big corporations have finished gutting the Constitution, we will still have something vaguely resembling Fair Use and Free Speech.

I know I shouldn't feed the Trolls, but sometimes I can't help it.

Re:And I quote

[nesthigh]

We do agree with any arguments anyone from there would care to give for the right to register the domain, however there is no one from 2600 that can realistically justify using Ford's bandwidth against Ford's will.

Who at antionline.com can justify the use of abcnews.go.com's and akamai.com's bandwidth, in their "cocksucking" abc news spoof.
Thought so. I didn't look at the other "spoofs", but i suspect they are just more of the same use of unauthorized bandwidth against the "spoofed" company's will.
At least Goldstien doesn't eat with the same hole he shits.
Next!

Re:And I quote

[Silver222]

So, according to Bernstein, you're only allowed to use parody when you are sure that people will realize it's a joke?

Looks like it's time to dig up Orson Welles and sue him. All those idiots who actually thought that Martians were invading must have a case, right? Because apparently it wasn't clear to the idio...I mean public that it was a hoax.

When is this going to end? It's getting ridiculous.

Re:And I quote

[Silver222]

You are right, "War of the Worlds" wasn't a parody. I didn't make my point as clear as I should have. What I was trying to say was that you can't let the public, whatever the hell that is, to be the ones to decide what parody is or isn't. Just as you shouldn't hold Orson Welles responsible for psychological damage that may have occured because people thought "War of the Worlds" was a newscast, you can't hold Corley responsible for the fact that the public is too dumb to realize that this is a joke.

About getting duped by war of the worlds....I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have fallen for little men from Mars attacking. Call me a skeptic, but I would have thought that something was up. Not saying I wouldn't have loaded my rifle just in case.....

Re:Many different views

[ReconRich]

I don't think the problem here is the word "fuck", but rather that many people (like say, my mom) would believe that Ford was the owner of the domain name. While I can't imagine my mother bringing herself to type fuckgeneralmotors, the principle remains the same. Those of us who realize anybody can point a domain name at anybody else are "in on the joke", but a whole lot of people have no idea that such a thing is possible.
In Other words, I don't think that this is a free speech issue, it is an issue of impersonating a company. It is reasonable for anybody to be concerned about others impersonating them. If someone pointed the domain name "goatfucker.com" at my personal web page, I'd be pissed off too, and not because of the funny, but because people WOULD believe that I pointed that domain name at my web page. Something like that happens to you and the next thing you know, ignorant social workers are taking you kids away from you.

-- Rich

Re:Bah

[ReconRich]

Using your example lets say there is already a website that says you torture puppies. is there anyhting wrong with me going out and registering a domain name and making it point to that web site?

Well, the guy with the problem here would be the guy with the puppy torture website is being impersonated. Is there anything wrong with this? I say yes. I believe you have the right to say anything you want about anyone you want either anonymously or as yourself. You do NOT, however, have the right to say something AS someone else, or with the appearance of being someone else. If we want to keep (get back ?) right of anonymity on the 'net, we ought to take a hard line against those who pose as someone else.

-- Rich

Re:names

[ReconRich]

Probably not very good, however, she might do it if she heard about it from one of her friends. BTW, she owns a GM car, so she has probably THOUGHT it at least by now :-)

-- Rich

Re:just re-redirect it

[outlier]

The example the Ford lawyer used in the hearing (for more on that, see my other post) was that it was ok for someone to wear a t-shirt that says "F*ck the draft" but it isn't ok for you to put that shirt on an official with the draft board (undoubtedly an entertaining scene).

Notes from the courtroom

[outlier]

I just got back from watching the case unfold in the courtroom (and stopping off for a Slurpee on the way back). Here are some observations:

About 20 of the 25 or so people in the gallery were obviously on the 2600 side of the debate (white male twentysomethings with a penchant for wearing t-shirts (one in a 2600 T-shirt) -- some with O'Reilly books (XML and Apache)).

Ford had 4 lawyers, led by Thomas Lee. Corley had one lawyer, Eric Grimm.

The Ford case seemed to be:
- the web site (referred to as www.fgeneralmotors.com so as to save everyone the embarrassment) appears to the casual web surfer to be owned by Ford. Since it associates an obscene, caustic word referring to a close competitor of Ford with Ford's trademarked website, it was causing damage to Ford's intellectual property.

- this confusion couldn't be remedied by most users.

- If this is parody, then it isn't funny, and nobody gets it.

- Free speech rights aren't relevant in this case because this is about commerce and the sullying of trademarks.

- They made Corley re-sign his statement because it was originally signed with his pseudonym Emanual Goldstein - the judge thought that his re-signed signature was the same as the first, and Corley had to print his name next to the signature just to make it clear...

They presented printouts from a web site that allows you to query a database of domain names and provide links and whois info to them. They showed that if you queried "generalmotors" you'd get a bunch of stuff including "fgeneralmotors.com" which would link to whois info and the ford site. The whois info that it linked to either didn't include contact info or, as the defense claimed, had the contact info whited out.

The defense claimed that it was highly unlikely that someone would go to the web site without typing in www.fgeneralmotors.com, something that they would have heard via 2600 magazine or wired or something, and thus wouldn't be confused, and that the search engine the plaintiffs were referring to was designed specifically for searching for domain names, and would thus not be used by the consumers who would allegedly be confused. And that it wasn't Corley's responsibility to police other people's databases.

More importantly, they claimed that what they were doing wasn't commercial in nature, and that it was a free speech issue.

The judge tried to construct a few what-if scenarios involving situations where users could actually click on links rather than be forwarded to the site automatically.

My biggest concern stems from the apparent inept skills of Ford's programmers. The Ford lawyer repeatedly stated that Corley could remedy this situation with "a few computer keystrokes," while Ford's programmers would have to write complex software and test it on their hundreds of web sites in order to block traffic from fgeneralmotors.com. Ford cars have tons of computers in them, I hope those were programmed by people who are at least capable of doing some simple referrerd checking!

Corely's lawyer appeared a bit more nervous than Ford's lawyer, and he kept forgetting that you are supposed to stand up when addressing the court. He obviously knows his technology, but didn't appear as strong on the legal aspects as Ford's lawyers (who didn't bowl me over with their tech knowledge). The judge commented that he was a little flustered by receiving CD-ROMs from Corley's lawyer.

My prediction is that they'll get the injunction, and the ultimate outcome of the case will swing on Corley's lawyer dealing with Ford's reference to trademark law, and not relying strictly on the first amendment arguments.

Re:Notes from the courtroom

[big.ears]

Cool! I feel like I was actually there. Thanks for the report--somebody should mod this up.

This should read Ford Motors v. 2600

[bugg]

Lawsuits are typically written as plantiff v. defendant. I read the title, and came to the impression that 2600 was suing Ford Motors- something I found out was false upon reading the article.

Slashdot editors, try making your headlines accurate; don't put "2600" at the front to just attract all of the 2600-roadies.

freedom and responsibility

[rossz]

I don't care if 2600 could legally do the redirect or not. It doesn't matter one little bit. What they did was wrong. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. The members of 2600 really need to get out sometime and get laid for a change.

Re:But they dont vote....

[UnknownSoldier]

> And I am not arguing with you (of course ;-).

Aye, you're just pointing some of the problems of treating corporations as persons. You're exactly right (And I agree with you.)

Corporations were declared persons in 1886 !

[UnknownSoldier]

> Since when do companies enjoy the rights of individuals?

In 1886, the US Supreme Court ruled a railbed dispute titled Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad. The ruling held that a private corporation was a "natural person" entitled to all the rights and privileges of a human being.

You can read how the history of how corporations acquired their ill-gotten rights here:

http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/corporate/index .html

NOW you know why certain "informed" (rich) people become a "Corporate Sole" (A Corporate Sole exists for perpuitity. Read Black's Law dictionary for more goodies. i.e. The Queen is one.)

Re:Corporations were declared persons in 1886 !

[TwistedGreen]

I was just loading up www.adbusters.org to find the exact same link that you posted. I thought "This guy is over 100 years too late" and then "I should give him a link to the adbusters page about that." Then I thought, "maybe I should see if anyone else posted the same thing." And lo and behold, you posted exactly what I wanted to say, with a link too!

I just found that slightly amusing.

----

Re:Corporations were declared persons in 1886 !

[Bluesee]

Thanks for that reducto ad absurdium. That is exactly my point, thereabouts. Funny how money bends and warps everything it touches to serve its own desires...

Re:Geez, Ford couldn't buy publicity like that.

[iceT]

Gee, you don't suppose that Ford OUTSOURCES the development, hosting and implementation of their website, do you? I mean, what to you suppose the odds are that Ford contracts an Ad Agency to develop and maintain their website...

Let's see:

$ host www.ford.com

www.ford.com has address 164.109.135.183

and Arin.net's whois says:

164.102.135.183 is owned by:

Business Internet, Inc. (NET-ICIX-MD-BLK1)

3625 Queen Palm Drive

Tampa, FL 33619

US

"There are thing in the universe that aren't the same as in your little corner of it..."

Re:WRONG!!!

[iceT]

There's two IP addresses in there... which is the typo?

Re:just re-redirect it

[iceT]

Redirect it where?

If Ford feels that it's wrong to redirect it in the first place, where should they redirect it to?

2600? That's hypocrytical.
To their own webpage? That makes it look like it IS theirs....

www.whitehouse.com?

Re:My point!

[Cramer]

some people? Just because you and I and most of slashdot know how DNS works -- or even HTTP -- doesn't make it "common knowledge". The vast majority of people do not know how "this internet thing" works. Obviously Ford doesn't or they would simply redirect the request back to 2600. In fact, one could expect the web server(s) to be configured to answer only requests for valid names (name based virtual hosts.)

Re:just re-redirect it

[mnot]

HTTP Version in the request-line *doesn't* imply the types of headers in the message (or at least, minor version doesn't).

Most HTTP/1.0 clients also send a Host header. The number that don't is VERY small, IIRC limited to Netscape 1 and its peers.

just re-redirect it

[eries]

Sheesh. Just look at the HTTP headers, and put up a page that tells you what happened (ie this is not an official GM page, obviously) and gives you the choice of clicking-through to the real page. It'll give you a chance to make the pranker seem juvenile, and it wil increase hits to your web site. What more do you want?

Re:just re-redirect it

[BlueUnderwear]

> Does anybody still have an HTTP 1.0 browser? I suppose there might be some green-screen luddite using an ancient copy of Lynx, but...

> I don't think that would be a problem.

So, in your eyes, any blind person is a "green-screen luddite"? Blind people often surf the web using lynx (or other text browsers) connected to a text-to-speech engine or to a braille line. Any content browseable only through Internet Explorer 5 is thus inaccessible to them...

Well, you may have a point though: as blind people don't drive, they'd probably not be interested anyways by the petty quibbles between Ford, GM and 2600...

Re:just re-redirect it

[T.Hobbes]

... perhaps to 127.0.0.1?

Linus has,in fact,grown,and explosively-JonKatz

Re:just re-redirect it

[Arcanix]

damn, that site has got a hella lot of porn on it

Re:just re-redirect it

[Zone5]

Anyone who runs a website and tracks statistics will tell you that yes, there are in fact luddites out there still running ancient (and I mean truly ancient) browsers out there... (never mind the insanity of calling anyone using the internet a luddite, but the term fits)

We still get a significant number of people visiting our banking site with - and I kid you not - early beta versions of Netscape 1.0... never mind the rubes still using the ancient IE built into Windows NT4.

Now, of course this is a very small fraction of users, but it probably doesn't take much potential exposure to open a crack where a legal argument can worm into.

Re:just re-redirect it

[Erasmus Darwin]

Does anybody still have an HTTP 1.0 browser?

Doing an fgrep on the webserver logs (going back to July 2000) at work (not an especially high traffic site by Internet standards, nothing geek related) turns up:
841920 HTTP/1.0 requests
1076070 HTTP/1.1 requests

For just the past few months, the numbers are 254055 (1.0) versus 369703 (1.1).

Re:just re-redirect it

[hillct]

That'd probably only work for HTTP/1.1 where you have a HOST: header.

You have to wonder though, is ford looking for a solution or just trying to set legal prescident? there are plenty of technical solution to this problem, that would have kept it miles away from the courts.

Maybe they thought the PR benefit of a highly publicized court battle would be greater than the PR benefit of added trafic to their website, and you'd have to admit, on that count they'd probably be right.

--CTH

--

Re:just re-redirect it

[Marc Boucher]

I use Netscape 4.7x and it always identifies it's requests with HTTP/1.0, but is HTTP/1.1 compatible.
You can only identify older browsers with their name, or by setting a dummy default site on apache. Site which will only be visited if the browser can't use the "host" header.

Re:just re-redirect it

[dachshund]

You have to wonder though, is ford looking for a solution or just trying to set legal prescident?

Probably the latter. Trademarks need to be vigorously defended. If they don't sue here, they weaken future tarnishment cases along the same lines. Additionally (and this is much more doubtful), they might open themselves up to some liability if a company like GM sued for slander-- not that GM would have a case, but at least Ford can prove that they don't approve of the prank.

And yes, I think that they're overreacting and that they shouldn't have the right to tell me what I can do with my HTTP/DNS server as long as it doesn't actually touch them. Unfortunately the trademark system actively encourages litigation.

Re:just re-redirect it

[dachshund]

OK, exactly *which* part of www.fuckgeneralmotors.com is a *Ford* trademark?

None of it. The article focuses on tarnishment. If I put up a big sign that says "we kill baby seals", then draw a big arrow to an Exxon billboard... Theoretically, I'm tarnishing their trademark. Even though I've never actually used the word Exxon in my treatise.

I'm not agreeing with Ford in this case, just trying to explain the legal issue behind the suit.

Re:just re-redirect it

[cavemanf16]

Maybe they thought the PR benefit of a highly publicized court battle would be greater than the PR benefit of added trafic to their website

It has been said that all PR, is good PR.

Re:just re-redirect it

[bare_naked_linux]

I think this is an excelent idea. If you tried to sue every asshole that offended you (or offends someone else at your expense, as it was in this case), you'd spend sooo much time in court.

However, being able to turn their childish and immature antics against them with a few hacked together scripts and some clever wording may do more to prevent it from happening again. When you take'em to court they get publicity, which is probably what they were after anyway.

--

Re:just re-redirect it

[slashdot.org]

It looks like Ford has just installed 'My First Web Server' (Win2K/IIS) and are still waiting on 'My First Web Server For Dummies' to arrive.

After which they'll figure it out somehow.

In fact, they probably don't redirect because this looks a lot worse in court.

Oh no, what am I doing, flaming M$ and Ford on /., I must be desperate for some Karma.

Re:just re-redirect it

[srvivn21]

Maybe you missed the part about an ancient copy of Lynx... Last time I checked, Lynx has been HTTP 1.1 complient since version 2.5 at least. Anyone know when that was released?

Re:fuckfuckgeneralmotors.com

[rkent]

Ha Ha. I think the funniest part of the NYTimes article, however, is that the author won't dare to utter "fuck" in his column, but instead directs people to view the website at its IP address, 164.109.135.183, which is of course ford.com. Bet THAT clarifies things for the average reader.

---

Re:Do the editors read their own site?

[rkent]

I knew someone was going to say this, and be called "insightful" over it. Thing is, there were new developments (I think an article in a major media source, the NYTimes, counts), and so they were keeping track of the story. What a horrible editorial technique it is to be persistent.

Advance warning: there might even be Another story when this goes to trial. Beware.

---

Re:It's just a word...

[Datafage]

No, he's not saying people should express themselves differently, he's saying people shouldn't try to control what he says. Big difference; you reached too far with that. The people are free to say they wish he wouldn't use those words, but not to go to any length to try to FORCE him not to. Next time, engage brain, THEN use it.

-----------------------

Re:I just called Ford

[geomon]

The customer service rep didn't laugh out loud at my protest and was pleasently pleased that I spoke favorably about Ford products.

Apparently she was so used to getting flamed about Ford that any positive statements got her attention immediatley.

Keep in mind, if you are going to call large companies, try to find at least one thing positive to say about them. That way you are more inclined to get your comments elevated to someone who can act on your concern. Calling them just to rake their asses over the coals will result in a round file rejection.

I just called Ford

[geomon]

I just called Ford's customer service line (an 800 number) and told the representative that I was extremely disturbed that they would go after 2600 this way. I told them that I started buying Ford products because I was so sick of the constant quality problems I had with GM products. I also told them that my wife and I just purchased a 2000 Taurus, we've owned our '96 Escort Wagon since 1997, and that we are buying my wife a 2002 Mustang this fall. In short, I informed them that I am perfectly happy with Ford's products.

But I expressed my dismay at the legal tack they have chosen to take. I told them that if I had typed "fuckgeneralmotors" into a search engine, or directed my browser to go to fuckgeneralmotors.com, it wouldn't have bothered me a bit. I would have been laughing at the joke, and would have appreciated being directed to a company who produce a product that I have been happy with for 5 years running.

I told the customer rep to send a note to legal that they shouldn't have been so heavy handed in dealing with Corley and 2600. They could have expressed their displeasure with being associated with the domain name without having to resort to lawsuits.

Gee, maybe they could have even talked to Corely and explained their position. What a novel concept that would have been.

In short, shame on Ford for being so odious. Call their customer reps and let them know that you got the joke, that you would buy Ford products based on your impression of their quality (not on a domain name), and that by basing 2600 they have shown themselves to be nothing but corporate bullies.

They did take my comments seriously.

Re:I just called Ford

[Lizard_King]

They did take my comments seriously.

you sure about that? i've learned from my experience dealing with customer representatives is that these underpaid, under-appreciated employees usually don't give much of a hoot about the company. They have no stake in the company, therefore they feel no ownership, therefore they really don't care that much. They get paid to man the front line, and part of their job is absorbing the occasional bullet.

hopefully i'm wrong, but i'm skeptical with your approach.

Re:I just called Ford

[F_Scentura]

heh. you do tech support too, so i see? :)

Re:I just called Ford

[CeramicNuts]

totally. I used to work phone customer service, and calls like this guy just went in one ear and out the other. you say things like "yessir, I understand... blah blah" then when they hang up you just say "loser".

unless you demand to talk to a supervisor, then ask for THEIR boss, you're comments go nowhere and your time is wasted.

Re:Read the article fuckwit

[SaDan]

Naw, you just didn't have a clue when you typed up your original post in complete error.

From the sound of the two posts you've made in reply to those who pointed out you don't have a clue, you obviously still have no idea what the story is about.

Shut up. Read the story first. Think about it for a bit.

It's people like you who degrade the quality of SlashDot.

It's just a word...

[The Good Reverend]

This time he's being sued by Ford Motor Company for pointing a domain name that the New York Times won't mention to Ford's website.

When did journalists turn into a bunch of pansies? So the domain name has the word "fuck" in it. It's a dirty word in our culture. But it's relevant to the story. The author of the piece wouldn't be including it to be funny, it's news, and should therefore be included. It's not as if readers won't have heard it anywhere before.

This same thing happened a while back with the term "nigger". It's very offensive, very hurtful (much more so than "fuck"), and it has a cultural history that most Americans aren't proud of. But at the same time, when it's relevant to a news story, you say it/print it. No one is going to accuse the journalist of being a racist because he mentions what someone else says. It's time for people to grow up and realize reporting the news means reporting it all, offensive letter combinations included.

The Good Reverend
I'm different, just like everybody else.

Re:It's just a word...

[MxTxL]

What you say is ALMOST true, i still very frequently hear on the news and radio people say "the n-word" instead.

Instead of reporting accurately, which no one will argue that news services DON'T really do, they serve a watered down version that no one will disapprove of. It sells more newspapers, and more people watch your TV program.

Unauthorized bandwidth usage? Nope!

[King_TJ]

That argument makes no sense, when you realize that Ford made their site public. That's the whole point of running most advertising-type web sites. You want a public presence on the Internet.

Claiming that linking to them from a site they don't approve of is equal to unauthorized use of their bandwidth makes as little sense as trying to control who can and can't view billboards on the side of the highway.

In my opinion, if Ford can't handle the heat from people slandering their web site, they should reconsider running one at all. There's no legal battle to be fought here, though.

Re:Bah

[nublord]

Sounds like a cop-out to me (2600's cop out, not yours). Some people just seem to be out to pick a fight, and while I stand behind 2600 for their work against the RIAA, this seems ridiculous.

Ford has every right to just throw the book at them. I sure would. If you don't show a smattering of common sense and respect for others then you deserve to be dragged through the mud.

Re:Ford isn't stupid. They know what they're doing

[nublord]

I think Ford did do their research on 2600. They know these guys won't give in just because they receive a strongly lettered word to change the link.

They decided to cut to the real issue and just drag 2600 into court.

I hope 2600 looses. There are better things to do with the net than piss in Ford's coffee pot.

Re:Bah

[donutello]

I agree. I think a simple, polite email or phone call was warranted before Corley pointed that domain name to Ford's website. It could very well have averted the whole situation.

Did Corley call Ford motors and ask if they would mind terribly if he pointed fuckgeneralmotors.com at them? No. I see no reason why Ford shouldn't return the favor.

You go ahead and act like a dumbass and you get treated like one.

Original Use of a Domain Name!

[dewright_ca]

I have to admit I am big General Motors buyer, but this has to be one of the most original ways to make a statement about a motor company.

Re:Original Use of a Domain Name!

[ichimunki]

You seriously believe there is a big difference between Ford and GM? You're from Detroit, aren't you? This would have been a lot funnier if it pointed to Schwinn or Huffy imho.

What I'm waiting for next is for Ford and Chevy to come out with a "purchase agreement" contract that restricts your right to put those lame Calvin-pissing-on-the-other-logo stickers in the window of your truck. Talk about tarnishing a reputation!

Re:Original Use of a Domain Name!

[LaminatorX]

Eric's done this sort of thing before. Originally, verizonreallysucks.com pointed to the Communications Workers of America site.

lame?

[MicroBerto]

So let me get this right:

2600 is lame. Who would waste time and money doing this?

Ford is lame. Who cares? They don't have a very strong case.

The judicial system is lame. No matter what decision is made, it will be based on the wrong reasons.

Slashdot is lame. Wasn't this already mentioned yesterday?

Arrr.. perhaps i'm in lame spirits! Time to bust out the booze :)

Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto

What Ford should have done...

[wickline]

Why didn't they just set up their webserver to redirect any HTTP 1.1 traffic with that host header to 2600's site?

That would have nullified 99% of the effect of the prank and made the prankster's look foolish when their frieds try the links they sent out via email.

Instead, the legal folks got their panties in a bunch and now Ford looks like a bully with no sense of humor.

Pay me the big bucks and I'll spout common sense for your company too ;)

-matt

Am I the only one..

[Lacutis]

Who realized the fact that this is NOT a redirect?

There is no redirection taking place:

*** Looking up fuckgeneralmotors.com
-
*** Resolved fuckgeneralmotors.com to 164.109.71.245
-
*** Looking up ford.com
-
*** Resolved ford.com to 164.109.71.245


The Domain name resolves to the same IP as fords website. A redirect involves loading a page which causes the browser to connect to a different page.

Come on people.

Re:Bah

[OmegaDan]

Are they really worried about loosing the customers who type in "fuckgeneralmotors.com" to ford ?

Or could it be that the company dosen't want to be critisized ... which I do believe is a constitutionally protected form of speach!

Re:Responsible Rebellion

[T.Hobbes]

You're ignoring the fact that, by fighting this case, they're setting a precident for future cases where someone tries to sue someone else over domain refferal. Read www.fordreallysucks.com. You'll then see that their fight dosen't have anything to do with ford's or gm's cars; it has everything to do with their behavior in regards to the internet; i.e. litigous, bullying, and irrational.

Linus has,in fact,grown,and explosively-JonKatz

Re:fuckfuckgeneralmotors.com

[isfry]

Or Ford have a fuck2600.com going to GM and then have GM have a fuckford.com goto 2600

Re:Bah

[BradleyUffner]

But that's not what's happening here. He sut registered a domain name and made it point to the website. Using your example lets say there is already a website that says you torture puppies. is there anyhting wrong with me going out and registering a domain name and making it point to that web site?
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\= \=\=\=\

fuckfuckgeneralmotors.com

[Domini]

GM should have fuckfuckgeneralmotors.com pointing to fuckgeneralmotors.com...

Re:Bah

[Ominous Coward]

Not at all! It's more like erecting your fabulous sign, and then, 5 towns over, someone erecting a sign saying FuckJohn's, and posting your address. Sure, it's mean, but it's not directly connected to you.
Also, in order to go there, you have to want to "fuck general motors" (.com). The average Ford website user won't see it, and neither will the average GM website user.
URLs act as queries, not directions. If someone wants to fuckgeneralmotors(.com), then Corley suggests Ford. If people query for Ford or GM (.com), then they get what they asked for. There's nothing wrong here. Would you expect "fuckgeneralmotors.com" to consist of cars having sex with each other?

Re:My point!

[jo44]

I doubt that most people who understand that you can redirect links wherever the hell you want would suspect that Ford set this up themselves. Should 2600 be responsible just because some people don't realize you can do this?

Re:Many different views

[friedo]

Corporations have the same rights of people, essentially. A corporation pays taxes, can sue and be sued, can enter into contracts, etc - just like a person. That's really the whole point of having a corporation in the first place.

Read the article fuckwit

[popeydotcom]

It's not about GM vs 2600, but Ford vs 2600.

Re:Read the article fuckwit

[Sarcasmooo!]

I don't use cookies and I don't register at NY Times. Since the site that pissed Ford off is fuckgeneralmotors.com (linked in the story) I drew a connection.

Re:Read the article fuckwit

[Sarcasmooo!]

What I meant by 'drew a connection' was that I thought GM owned Ford because of the url 2600 used. In other words, at the time, I didn't see anything that would've explained to me why the address would contain 'generalmotors' and point to ford, so I assumed they had a partnership of some kind. You two must really get off on correcting other people if you're willing to take the time insulting something that apparently made no sense.

Re:Read the article fuckwit

[Sarcasmooo!]

I can tell you're quite a contribution to it. In all those words you added nothing but more insults, repeated what had been said already, and didn't explain why it needed to be said again or why I still didn't understand. You get off on flaming people to boost your ego, and the entire internet would be better off without people like you. If I'm wrong, please show me anything at all that your response accomplished, besides keeping this thread going.

Re:Well, regardless of rights...

[DrSkwid]

slander?

When I fuck people it's a complement.
.oO0Oo.

Re:Many different views

[DrSkwid]

Imagine what the New York Times would say

Oh fucking hell! Who the fuck do those those
fuckers think they're fucking with. Well fuck
them, we're gonna fucking well get some of our
fuckers to fuck them over, motherfucker.


.oO0Oo.

Re:Many different views

[DrSkwid]

it may well become illegal to redirect or possibly even link to websites without explicit permission from the website owner

I seriously doubt it. No right minded person would want that, surely?

And anyway they love it really. It's some pointles something for people to get wound up about. Lawyers love it, I mean they must enjoy their jobs. It's just a way of draining your enemies of energy.


.oO0Oo.

Re:Many different views

[DrSkwid]

We might have to put our faith in "precedents are there to be broken"


.oO0Oo.

This *IS* a DNS pointer!

[alexburke]

; > DiG 8.3 > www.fuckgeneralmotors.com ANY
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 4
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; www.fuckgeneralmotors.com, type = ANY, class = IN

;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.fuckgeneralmotors.com. 23h58m44s IN CNAME WWW.Ford.com.

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
fuckgeneralmotors.com. 1d23h58m44s IN NS NS2.ICSNET.NET.
fuckgeneralmotors.com. 1d23h58m44s IN NS PHALSE.2600.com.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
NS2.ICSNET.NET. 1d23h58m44s IN A 204.194.104.4
PHALSE.2600.com. 1d23h58m44s IN A 216.66.24.2

;; Total query time: 1 msec
;; FROM: machine.domain.tld to SERVER: default -- 127.0.0.1
;; WHEN: Fri May 18 16:02:11 2001
;; MSG SIZE sent: 43 rcvd: 152

--

Re:2600 sued for publication of DeGMC source

[bad-badtz-maru]

This would've been funnier if it was along the lines of "GMC sues Chilton for publishing information that allows users to break the mechanical encryption on General Motors cars and trucks".
"Chilton's reference material contains detailed information concerning the disassembly and reassembly of General Motors' Vehicle Engine 1.8 and above."

maru

Re:Well, regardless of rights...

[spiro_killglance]

IANAL but its Libel not Slander, and in Libel there is a strong fair comment defence. Basically you can slag off anyone or any company to your hearts content as long as you don't lie and say something that is demonstratably false.

For instance if I wrote, Madonna is old and ugly and her music sucks, and she sues me I have a defence of fair comment, as looks and music are matters of taste.

But if I was to wrote that Madonna had sex with a monkey, she can sue me for libel, and if the jury believes that she has never had sex with a monkey, I will lose.

So, writing fuckford or linking to fuckford may be offensive or obscene, but is in no way libel.

Direction, not redirection

[Animats]

Actually, it's not an HTML redirect. "www.fuckgeneralmotors.com" and "www.ford.com" both resolve in DNS to "164.109.71.245".

Related sites

[Animats]

There's already Sucks.com, which is pointed to by gmsucks.com. (They also have intelsucks.com, microsoftsucks.com, and a number of others, all of which point to sucks.com. Nobody seems overly excited about that.

The wierd thing here is that Ford is sueing, not GM. GM may have a case, because something using their trademark is being redirected to a competitor. It's hard to see how Ford can show injury. What's the legal theory?

Re:Related sites

[dhovis]

Have you actually tried typing in www.fuckgeneralmotors.com into your browser? You immediately get redirected to www.ford.com. To the casual observer, it looks like Ford has registered the domain. It would be another thing alltogether if a page flashed up saying fuckgeneralmotors.com (brought to you by 2600) came up and then redirected you to Ford's website.

Parody is only protected if it is plainly obvious that it is a joke. This is a case where it it not obvious. Unless you actually look at the redirect header or do a whois on the domain name, you'd think Ford was playing a dirty trick.
--

Re:2600 is completely WRONG on this one.

[nojomofo]

To 99% of people accessing the WWW site, this would look like Ford had registered fuckgeneralmotors.com.

I would say that it's a person's responsibility to understand how "things" that they're using work. It's not 2600's fault that the average person doesn't have a clue how to do a whois. If some 10 year-old tries to drive a car and gets into an accident, is it GM's fault that the kid didn't know that R is for Reverse, and not Race?

WTF?

[tsieling]

Why does this story keep getting repeated play here? Wake up, moderators.

Re:Bah

[mangu]

I believe the average person would realize that a site named fuckgeneralmotors is some kind of joke. IANAL, but I saw "The People vs. Larry Flynt". Satire isn't difamation. You only could be defamed if the hypothesis that you claim torturing cute puppies is fun were credible.

Re:Bah

[frknfrk]

I disagree. It is more like you own a diner named Ted's, and Eric Corley took out a billboard down a dark, deserted road called 'Random Road' with a sign pointing to your diner and labeled 'Fuck Joe's' . In your example, it would be more like Mr. Corley hacked Ford's web server to spit out 'fuckGM' when it displayed its index page, etc. What i think is that this is yet another example that corporations still don't get hypertext AT ALL. you have a website? i can link to it all i want! that is the way it works! a URL is NOT copyrighted, sorry, next in line, please. i do agree that it is a bit more complex that this is a redirected site, very strange and i haven't seen many (any?) cases like this. but it all comes down to the fact that someone has to type in 'fuckgeneralmotors.com' into their browser (or follow a link) to get to the ford site. the question is, does this redirection honestly have a high likelihood of confusing people into thinking that ford really goes around saying 'fuck general motors!'. my answer is: no way would any reasonable person believe that this OBVIOUS parody/satire/whatever stupid prank/joke is serious.

So this guy wants to be taken serious?

[Pflipp]

Wait... lemme try to get it. This is the same guy claiming that 2600 isn't an illegal cracker's hangout, and that linking to DeCSS is legal due to first amendment thingies and stuff? Then I really have to say that this was a stupid action from him, regardless what ANY amendment has to say about it.

It's... It's...

Re:So this guy wants to be taken serious?

[HuskyDog]

I don't see the problem:

At the end of the day, its about perception. Let me try to explain.

It is possible that I might be able to explain the merits of the DeCSS case to a disinterested party such as my mother. However, if she discovered that the person behind DeCSS was also creating web sites with expletives in their names then she would conclude that Corley was a foul mouthed yob who doesn't deserve her support. I agree that this conclusion has no legal validity, but it is how very many ordinary people think. Also remember that although judges are supposed to consider cases purely of objective legal grounds, anyone who believes that they are not influenced by their personal feelings towards the plaintifs needs a reality check.

Why do you think that of all the sites containing DeCSS the MPAA went after 2600? Just go to www.2600.org and have a look at it. Can you conceive of a site better designed to offend the average judge. The MPAA know that once they have won against 2600, it will be much easier to move on to more difficult targets like university professors.

Now, I am sure that DeCSS and F***GeneralMotors are both cases of great merit (although the latter does strike me as being remarkably juvenile). But I can't help feeling that the former would be better off if they were being fought by different people.

fight the good fight?

[Ksop]

So is it time that we all cough up the $20 and register our own fucksomecompany.com|net|org they cant take us all down. Unless they rewrite the constitution when the megacorps take over. Oh they did!? I didnt notice I was playing the Operation Flashpoint demo.
Personally I want to register davethomassucks.com

When is a word just a word?

[Wintermancer]

Slightly offtopic from the main thread, but worth saying:

Odd. I frequently see it being referred to as the "n-word", which is rather perplexing in it's own right. And this is in prominent and respected newpapers. Yes, the word nigger does have a lot of negative history associated with it, and I can understand how upsetting it can be.

Which is why it is important to quote people completely. Something is just lost in the translation.

There is also the question why is the "n-word" only associated this priviledged status? When someone calls a Jew a kyke, you don't see it being referred to as the "k-word"? Or when someone calls an Asian a slope, the "s-word"? Or a homosexual a faggot, the "f-word"? // Add recursive code here

I would rather that they use what was said and let the audience interpret it for themselves. Otherwise, in the Politcal Correct-only dictionary, we will have to correectly parse the "[a-z]-word" for what it really means. Talk about codification of language! But, that is only my opinion.

Re:When is a word just a word?

[gughunter]

I always thought that the term "n-word" was a deliberately ironic comment on the whole way the, uh, n-word is treated in society today.

Read George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman books sometime for some interesting historical perspective on the term... Flashy throws the n-word around like it was going out of style.

Re:When is a word just a word?

[cavemanf16]

S-word T-word F-word U-word !

Re:For crying out loud

[luckykaa]

Maybe the moderator was just agreeing with him.

Re:If anything..Ford should be thankful!

[iainl]

They probably are now. When the domain simply existed, it was a bit of a defamation of character to make it appear to the average web user that they owned the domain insulting their major competitor, and only drew a little traffic to their site. By kicking up a stink, they both bring the site to people's attention (thereby massively increasing their hit count more than leaving it alone for people to find) and simultaneously make sure people know that this wasn't their idea, oh no. They wouldn't say that sort of thing ever.

Re:Bah

[iainl]

If GM were the ones suing then speech aspects like this would certainly be involved; however its Ford suing, on the really quite reasonable grounds that to the average person the site would appear to be owned by them, and therefore imply that Ford had that opinion of their competitors.

If I were to post news that made people believe that you claimed torturing cute puppies was fun then you'd have grounds for claiming I was defaming you; speech isn't completely free of limitations.

Do the editors read their own site?

[locutus074]

Didn't we already see this in a recent Slashback?

--

Re:Do the editors read their own site?

[TimeTrip]

I thought I had read about this on slashdot a few days ago.. I just had trouble finding the article. Damn slashbacks ;)

And these morons are defending DeCSS?

[-tji]

Read the info that 2600 put up on this fight with Ford.. The come of as childish whiners, with poorly reasoned and exaggerated claims.

I hope this is not representative of their behavior/ability in general. If it is, the DeCSS case is DOOMED.

Of course, nobody in their right mind would jump to Ford's conclusion. And most people who remain in their right mind would have no problem doing a "whois" on the Domain Name which clearly shows no connection to Ford

Yeah.... right... We're are in the right here, because anyone accessing the WWW site can easily do a whois lookup to find the owner.. Every internet user knows all about DNS, and the process for registering a domain, and whois. I'm sure most people keep a seperate browser open so they can do a whois search on every site they go to.

This frivilous crap hurts the whole community, and tarnishes any REAL issues that come up. Like, all the DeCSS, MPAA, RIAA battles. 2600 even drags the EFF into this, claiming "the EFF supports our stand" on their WWW site.

Re:And these morons are defending DeCSS?

[mamba-mamba]

Please don't quote out of context.

The following is a somewhat more lengthy excerpt from the materials you allude to which explains the argument more fully:

Plaintiff's allegations clearly do not deal with the Internet population at large, but rather with a self-selecting sub-population (namely users who type www.fuckgeneralmotors.com, wondering where that address will take them). How many of them mistakenly believe that FORD Motor Company actually published the Website pointer? There is no evidence on this issue. Nor is there any factual basis (and Plaintiff will present none) to infer that the number is greater than zero. Plaintiff bears the burden of proof on this issue, and in the absence of evidence to validate Plaintiff s speculation, Plaintiff loses.

Even assuming (hypothetically) that a non-zero number of people form such a belief (as though it isn t obvious enough that the person pointing this Domain Name couldn t possibly be the Ford Motor Company), what percentage of them lack the basic skill of performing a Whois search and thereby determining who the real owner of the Domain Name is? Given that most of the people who get the idea to type the domain name do so from sources like the 2600 Website or Wired (where the story has been publicized), it is only reasonable to expect an extraordinarily tech-savvy audience that simply is not going to be fooled.

And it goes on. I urge others to read it as it is quite good. Well, there are a few typos that make it look a bit shoddy, but hey, they were in a hurry! Afterall, 2600 is corporate America's favorite defendant.

As for your implicit claim that this is not a real issue, I disagree. If FoMoCo can forbid people they don't like from pointing domain names at their site, then soon coroporations will be saying that only approved links are legal, too. Then bye-bye slashdot. In fact, it could mean bye-bye www. But hey, they can't take usenet and FTP away, can they?

MM

Re:2600 is completely WRONG on this one.

[-tji]

It has never been the consumer's responsibility to understand how something works before operating it. Anything with that requirement would never reach mass-market status.

Using a Ford example, if consumers had to understand the intricacies of how a car worked in order to operate it, there would be very few cars on the road. Instead, I need only know how to turn the key to start the car, I do not need to know the details of the electrical system. If there is a problem with that, I take it to the expert who has the tools to diagnose it.

2600 is completely WRONG on this one.

[-tji]

How can anyone argue for 2600 on this issue?

To 99% of people accessing the WWW site, this would look like Ford had registered fuckgeneralmotors.com.

I disagree with the vast majority of domain protection lawsuits. But, I do agree with them in the case that someone is trying to pass themselves off as the company in question. If they have logos of the company & confuse consumers, they have stepped over the line.

This standard has been upheld in many other cases. That is why you always see a disclaimer if there any confusion.. "This is not an official BobCo site". The 2600 DNS thing clearly gives no indication of being non-Ford. In 2600's info, they say "anyone confused can easily do a whois lookup", ya, let me explain this to my Mom.. If you ever are unsure about a domain name, telnet into my Linux box & run whois.

Re:2600 is completely WRONG on this one.

[InsaneGeek]

The counter argument is: does the driver of said car need to stop the car and look at the manufacturer information on every street sign to make sure that the direction information comes from the correct place?

Re:2600 is completely WRONG on this one.

[mamba-mamba]

You excerpt only a small part of 2600's argument, and then refute it.

You say that to "99% of people accessing the WWW site, this would look like Ford had registered fuckgeneralmotors.com." This would be true if we were talking about all web users. But, as 2600 has argued, we are not dealing here with the population of all web users. We are only dealing with web users who type in www.fuckgeneralmotors.com into a web browser. Why would anyone do this? Because they read about the domain name in Wired, 2600, or here on slashdot. So it is reasonable to assume that anyone who has done this already knew who registered the domain. Not only that, but most people who read 2600, /., and Wired are technically savvy enough to understand the DNS process somewhat and could either do a whois search or have someone else do it for them.

I might add that you don't need to use linux to do a whois search. You can go to, among others, internic (
http://www.internic.net/whois.html)

Also, if you are really running telnet, I would suggest you switch to SSH.

MM

Re:Well, regardless of rights...

[HerrGlock]

IINAL, but I believe if you could show that you had legitimate reason to believe what you printed, NOT that the voices in your head told you, rather sources that were in a position to know told you or gave evidence that led you to that conclusion, you would still be covered.

If that were not the case, no newspaper would survive.

DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page

Great .sig!

[TheWarlocke]

n/t

names

[www.sorehands.com]

What is the likelyhood of your mother typing in www.fuckX.com?

Re:Many different views

[www.sorehands.com]

Is it because the fuck is in the name? What about sucks or reallysucks or justplainstinks?

If it does make a difference, you lose. On regulating speech, to get around the prohobitions, one of the test is, if the restriction is content neutral.

Re:Wrong

[gaijin99]

But they didn't 'link' to it. There is no page on their web-server that has a link to Ford's site. What they did do was define a DNS entry that points directly to Fords site. There is no linking. It is a DNS ENTRY. To assume it is a 'link' is to assume that the only protocol on the internet is HTTP.

Feh, a text-based domain name, which points to a given server is a link. Not in the HTTP sense perhaps, but it is a link in the exact same sense that a symbolic link is in *nix.

A domain name can point to any IP address that the owner of the domain name wants it to. If the owner of that IP address doesn't like it he has two possible solutions a) tell his server to reject requests from that domain name, or b) ask the person who owns the domain name to stop pointing it at his IP address. Ford rejected both of those solutions (the domain name is still pointing to their address), which sort of nullifies their argument that they are afraid that people will think they registered the domain name (if they were genuinely afraid of loosing their reputation they'd have taken measures to make it stop already). Instead they're engaging in militant nastyness and asking for buckets of money in an effort to put 2600 out of business.

But neverminding all that, the point of your post is dead wrong, a domain name is *by*definition* a link.

Why it matters who has the fight.

[Picass0]

Why should it matter who is fighting the battle? It is an important battle and anybody fortunate enough to be called to the field should be honored for the opportunity they are presented with.

Nicely put. Cue the dramatic music.

What you say would be true if the court system in our country had more common sense. Right and legal are two different things. 2600 has never been found guilty of a crime. Yes. 2600 is right about DeCSS and even the fuckgm.com thing. But when they have the appearance of being lawless and then depend on the law to clear them, they are on thin ice.

The problem is that if the law is going to protect anybody it _MUST_ protect 2600.

I hope they win. There's a little matter of freedom of information at risk.

PS - it sucks that your post got moderated down.

Responsible Rebellion

[Picass0]

2600 has been an outspoken anti-capitalist voice, and I wonder if we might not be screwed in the DeCSS fight because of their outlaw image. I'm a Linux user first and foremost, and I see these guys irresponsible behavior hurting something I believe in. I should be able to watch a DVD anywhere I please if I paid for the DVD. 2600's fight with the MPAA is important and impacts us as a community. I wish someone other than 2600 were fighting that battle instead.

2600 could be a very important voice if they would learn to pick their fights. You can't be anti-everything. I wish they would think about what they are FOR, and how they jeopardize those things when they act like children.

So just why are we supposed to be angry with GM? Is someone pissed because my Camaro is faster than their Honda CRX? Or is it the same reason we're supposed to be mad at Verison? They're a big company. And all big companies are evil. All of them. Bull.

If someone is abusing their customers or workforce (ala Nike) shine a light on them. But if someone is just trying to make a buck, hey, so am I. We all have to put bread on the table.

Used to be IRIX

[green pizza]

I remember www.ford.com being IRIX about two years ago. www.whitehouse.gov too... I can just see the auctions on eBay: "SGI Challenge L, former FORD webserver!!"

Is it just me

[MR.Gates]

or am I the only who relizes that general motors is not ford at all. GM makes chevy, pontiac, cadalliac, etc... Again GM is not Ford. DOH!

Re:Is it just me

[AddressException]

Why don't you shut up until you know what you're talking about.

fsck isn't from Linux, it's from UNIX.

Deal with it.

I just spoke to Eric...

[joe630]

He said "It's over and we presented our case well." The arguments are over, and he's awaiting a desicion. Some documents and other info will be at the website soon.

Re:Well, regardless of rights...

[SquadBoy]

You are both right it just depends on where you are at. The first poster is clearly from England and under the laws there he is right but under Usian laws you are right.

Re:Suing over a link?

[smack_attack]

The difference is that no one ever clicks the EXIT button on a porn site, so Disney never gets any hits, thus they didn't know... until you just blurted it out here.

On behalf of the pr0n industry, thanks for revealing that secret. Geez, now Disney is going to start sueing people too.

---

I thought that companies bought the domains...

[Aloekak]

...themselves.

For some reason, I remember that large corporations were buying all the domains that could be against them, and just point them to their own website anyways.

In this case it seems that Ford hadn't thought of everything yet.

Re:Ford isn't stupid. They know what they're doing

[hawkear]

But the problem is, Ford didn't even send them a letter telling them to stop. The first they heard of the problem, they were issued a subpoena!

Re:Many different views

[Bluesee]

Since when do companies enjoy the rights of individuals? Seems to me we're talking about a company being offended. I thought only people have a right to be offended. Corporations are in it only to make money, and if a consumer has a gripe, his airing of it should be protected. Let the company fix it any way it can, but certainly not in the courts.

So, the company is not offended, it's 'good name' isn't being tarnished, because it isn't a citizen in the community! The only interest it cares about is its profitability. I hate when court time is spent protecting the marginal return of corps...

Yes, I know this rant has nothing to do with what you wrote... thanks for being my parent post. :)

Re:Unauthorized bandwidth usage? Nope!

[gerddie]

In germany a court ruled, that a company has not to undergo linking from competition: heise (german).
Then again, 2600 is not what i would call competition to Ford ...

If you don't want to click through 2600 ...

[gerddie]

read here.

I just thought I'd be the first to point out

[whirred]

fuckslashdot.org is still available. And no, I don't have the nerve to reserve it and point it to goatse.

Re:Lets look at another angle here shall we

[Erasmus Darwin]

Buut linking is the _foundation_ of the Internet :)

And that somehow makes it immune to regulation? Words and pictures are the foundation of printed communication, but that doesn't mean I can string together "General Motors sucks. Sincerely, Ford Motors.", print up a bunch of flyers, and start handing them out.

Similarly, if I were to take a random phone number from the phone book (for the sake of argument, let's say "Jenny 867-5309") and start publishing this already publically available information ("Hey, everyone, I saw this in the phone book -- Jenny 867-5309"), it's still a form of harassment.

Re:Many different views

[Wordsmith]

I imagine that as newspaper people, the NYTimes people would be miffed but respect the right of the "fuck" publisher to do so. We newspaper people are kind of gung-ho about free speech that way.

Re:Well, regardless of rights...

[AddressException]

The first poster is clearly from England

I think you meant "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
Get a clue before you assume anything....

Don't confuse stuff...

[AddressException]

I think you meant:
"Linking is the foundation of the World Wide Web".

Am I right??

The pointed at site

[CMan0]

If I'm not mistaking, the above-mentioned site is http://www.fordreallysucks.com

Here's who needs to be sued...

[Elkman]

I'd love to sue the genius who created those stickers of Calvin pissing on a Ford logo and Calvin pissing on a Chevy logo. Maybe those things are useful for mullet-headed Ford and Chevy truck drivers to work out their aggression, but to most sane people they're annoying.

Besides, these stickers are a lot more visible than fuckford.com, fuckgeneralmotors.com, or fuck {insert automaker name}.com.

Re:Many different views

[agentZ]

I think history would show that the New York Times would not take kindly too it. After all, back in the day they made Infocom stop publishing (in hardcopy) The New Zork Times.

Lighten up

[Smoking Joe]

No, not Ford. You guys. All you indignant self-righteous paranoid delusionalists need to lighten up.

It's a yuk. It's a funny. This case will have no impact whatsoever on your Constitutional right to download pr0n through the company firewall. The second it starts to get serious publicity, Ford will probably drop it. If they don't, it's just because they want to make it clear they had no involvement in setting the site up. Like the Democratic Party, Ford has to make it clear they are not responsible for the actions of their more ...ahem... zealous supporters.

If I bought billgatesisatwit.com and redirected it to redhat.com, I would expect Red Hat to distance from me. Of course they wouldn't, but that says more about the immature juvenile name-calling Linux culture than anything else.

It's funny. Laugh. It has nothing to do with Your Rights Online.

Re:Lighten up

[Ryan_Terry]

If stopping people from thinking that they are the cause of this link were the only reason Ford were suing over domain names I would think it is okay. However as others have stated, there is proof to show that Ford is doing more than this.
I think this is a case where Ford, being a huge corporation, is throwing their weight around to try to scare others from doing the same. I think the fact that they are allowed to do this is only because of who they are.
My rights online are being threatened, not because I can't curse in a URL, or domain name, but because if someone has enough money they can sue me and people like you will defend them.

It's not funny. Don't laugh. Your online rights could be next...

DocWatson

both parties are being stupid

[maxwells_deamon]

2600 should be able to register this domain name and General Motors should not be able to do any thing about it.

Ford should not be able to control who links to their site.

All that being said, why does 2600 have to be so stupid in this case.

I like freedom of speech and think that I should be able to say most anything I like. However I don't think people should make harmful speech just to see how far they can go.

Free speech is a good thing, but pick your battles with care.

Ford is also being stupid in that they did not even send a letter to 2600 to ask them to break the link. IIRC

Re:Geez, Ford couldn't buy publicity like that.

[dherman]

Ford runs Solaris, IRIX, HP-UX, as well as NT/W2K. They use Netscape, APACHE and IIS. Ford has the largest internal intranet out of an company in the world. Because the external websites are run/maintained by an external org does not mean that there is not diversity of systems on the inside of the firewall.

Many different views

[Daath]

There are many different views on this matter... -My personal view is that some spoof-domains are ok, but fuck[inserttrademark].com is not ok... Imagine what the New York Times would say if someone published a newspaper named "Fuck New York Times"...
But hey, let's see what the courts say... :P

Re:Many different views

[Daath]

I imagine the NYT lawyers would disagree... But what do I know :)

Re:Many different views

[Courageous]

The domain name system is All Fucked Up (tm).
Where is it written that "all of .com is one
giant space in protection of a Trade"? The
domain name system is as much an expression of
ideas as it is labels of trade; The ability to
register a website called "Fuck Ford" isn't a
abuse of Ford's trade mark, it is an expression
of free speech reflecting the right of citizens
everywhere to express their dislike of the Ford
corporation.

Companies these days attempt to acquire all known
permutations of their name, including ones which
are negative derivations of their name in order
to protect themselves from things like this.
However, I believe that this should _not_ be
allowed. A company should _not_ be able to buy
up the right to free itself from criticism; this
is tantamount to allowing those with the most
money to buy away the rights of others.

The internet domain system is screwed up, as are
its current policies.

C//

Re:Many different views

[mamba-mamba]

Your comment is off base for several reasons. First, in this case, the URL is fuckgeneralmotors.com, not fuckford.com. So ford does not have the same basis to sue in this case that the NYT would have in your hypothetical example.

If general motors were suing, that would be an analagous situation.

Second, "fuck general motors" however offensive a sentiment is apparently conceded by the plaintiff to be a form of speech, and speech has been historically defended irrespective of mere offensiveness by US courts.

Finally, if ford is allowed to set precedent with this case, it may well become illegal to redirect or possibly even link to websites without explicit permission from the website owner. Bye-bye search engines, bye-bye slashtdot, bye-bye web.

MM

Re:Many different views

[mamba-mamba]

I would like to think you are right. I hope you are right. But the argument that Ford is using would almost certainly apply just as much to an automatic re-direct webpage as it would to this case. Links? I think it depends. Right now, a link-based lawsuit might not ever see the light of day. After this, a link-based lawsuit might have to be defended. What if I did this:

Check this out: http://www.RenaultSucks.com

If 2600 looses this case, I think Ford would have a case against me for doing that. Well, not here, but if I put it directly on a website rather than in a discussion thread.

In any event, I don't think what 2600 did should be subject to punitive or any other type of damages, and now that Ford has initiated the lawsuit, there is no choice for 2600 but to defend vigorously.

Also, even if, as you say, I am exaggerating the importance of the precedent that would be set by a 2600 loss, it could nonetheless put 2600 out of business if the judge awards lawyers fees, and I like reading 2600. Like I say, I hope you are right! MM

Check your Facts

[Jyminator]

Reread the article. Ford doesnt have a new CEO. The quote is from the Chairman of the Board, William Clay FORD Jr. He has been around the company for a long time, as has his dad, his grandfather, and greatgrandfather (i.e. Henry Ford). He does have a better appreciation for environmental stewardship than his predecessors though.

Re:Check your Facts

[Kraft]

The quote is from the Chairman of the Board, William Clay FORD Jr

And that was who I was referring to. Sorry, I meant Chairman of the Board, not CEO.

-Kraft

Bah

[HongPong]

Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but it seems to me that "fuckgeneralmotors" is a statement of opinion, and someone at fuckgeneralmotors.com would not confuse it with the real GM. Routing it to Ford I'd say is a bastard thing to do, but this is free speech, IMHO.

Companies are on a kick of saying that "Hey! That domain has our company name in it, so it's OURS!" Well, no. No it isn't. It's speech about your company.

--

Re:Bah

[dachshund]

He's picking a few too many fights, I agree. But somebody's gonna do it anyway. Better it be a guy who doesn't mind being sued, and isn't going to cave after a couple of cease-and-desist letters.

Re:Well, regardless of rights...

[The Monster]

kypper says:

I think Ford has a right to be a little frightened and want it GONE.

If I were the Webmeister at ford.com, I'd have the server respond to the domain name in question with a special page explaining that said domain name is not in any way associated with Ford Motor Company or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, with a link to Ford's home page, GM's home page, and a copy of the whois for that domain name with a link (and probably a 15-second refresh tag) to 2600. Then Ford comes out being the Good Guy instead of overly litigious.

Re:Ford isn't stupid. They know what they're doing

[zhensel]

No offense, but the amount it costs to fund a corporate legal department for a battle like this far outweighs any advertisement gained with their charge. Ford just wanted to stop this so that they wouldn't get sued by General Motors which would be a much, much more expensive battle. They didn't do their research on 2600 though.

We were in Detroit fo the hearing today!

[Lottaguns]

Of course, since my pal didn't bother bringing pertinent info, like the defendant's real name, or the location, judge hearing it, etc. we got a wonderful tour of the Detroit court/police buildings downtown.

On topic, we ended up at the records department at the City County building after being bounced from one building to another attempting to find the hearing. While there we found that the public access records department computers had outbound internet access (you simply exited the mainframe terminal emulator session and then did a search for iexplore* - apparently removing the icons and start menu stuff was considered "security"). From there we were able to get far more information about what was going on than we could get from any of the Detroit clerks.

Slashdot and 2600 were both filtered sites on their system, alas.

2600 sued for publication of DeGMC source

[corvi42]

HUMOUR TYPE=SARCASM
In a related story, General Motors Corp. said they would be launching a second independant lawsuite against 2600 for their publishing of DeGMC source code.

This software potentially allows users to break the digital encryption on General Motors cars and trucks. A spokesman for the car manufacturer said: "This clearly infringes upon our intellectual property rights, and can seriously damage our business. What would happen if instead of paying us for the millions it costs us to manufacture and develop new cars, people were just downloading "cracked" versions from the internet?"

Emmanuel Goldstein, of the 2600 "hacker" magazine, defended the software on the grounds of fair-use laws: "This software is purely for the private use of individuals wishing to make full use of their GMC vehicles under existing fair use laws. It is simply impractical for most individuals to pirate whole automobiles, especially given the extensive cost of the bandwidth necessary to download a working GMC car or truck."

He also pointed out that the auto manufacturing giant is unable to show any real cases of this software being used to create stolen cars.

GMC lawyers said that the arguments of 2600 would be unlikely to stand up in court, and in a press release yesterday described the software as a "digital coat-hanger", and as a tool to aid car thieves.
/HUMOUR

ford fucks up

[johnk-hates-everyone]

Interesting, fordsucks.com is registered to Ford.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[Higher Authority]

Actually, the copywrite/trademark laws allow you to violate them for criticism. So in either case, there is no case, IIRC. Ford's just being bitchy and wants publicity. We all know it. They probably like the domain name and think it's cute and want to snatch it up for themselves.

A Solution

[DaHat]

Exactly, I think it would be an interesting experiment to buy a large number of names that start with www.ithink___.com so that you might own www.ithinkfordsucks.com or www.ithinkfuckford.com. They might sue you for it, but all you are doing is expressing your feelings, aren't you?

What about me?

[DaHat]

Doh... 2600 gets sued for their fuckford.com name and I haven't heard anything from Digital Convergence on my name fuckDigitalConvergence.com

'The Rebel Driving Ford'....

[Kraft]

... is a really nice piece from Time Magazine from last week about the new CEO at Ford and how he's pushing for green industrial revolution (he's actually a Ford too :).

Ford is well aware that there is precious little evidence to date that being green brings in greenbacks. And sustainability will require profitability. "Can we do this and make money? We have to," says Ford. "Has it ever been done? No. But it hasn't been tried either."

I hope he's for real, and that he actually has some influence. And that maybe he has more sense than his legal advisers.

-Kraft

Re:Well, regardless of rights...

[someone247356]

Yes, Ford is trying to control who can link to them. Something, if aquired would quickly bring the world wide web as we know it to a screeching halt. No one should be _legally_ forced to get permission to link to anyone.

If the redirect _really_ bothered Ford all that much, all they had to do was refuse referrals (i.e. redirects) from www.fuckgeneralmoters.com.

Unless you are implying that one of the larger companies in the country can't hire anyone capable of running a web server.

*Uggg*

Ford isn't stupid. They know what they're doing...

[Gruneun]

They know by making a big stink out of this they end up in a series of headlines and articles. They also get a ton of people who feel compelled to try out the page and... surprise... they end up on Ford's website.

Ever wonder why why Marilyn Manson gets so excited about church groups fighting to stop his concerts? There is no such thing as bad publicity... it still helps for name recognition.

The real issue?

[ppolf]

The DNS entry is fuckgm.com. It points to ford.com. How does this hurt Ford? GM is NOT Ford! They are competitors in the same business space. I would understand Ford being upset if it said fuckford.com...(upset being as far as they should go), but fuckgm?! I would bet that they are happy that an anti GM url points to theirs....but to show proper "business ethics" they are suing the people that just upped their press exposure. Just a thought....

Both sides?

[Sarcasmooo!]

I don't see how General Motors has a cause at all. And if they do, better start hiding any hyperlinks you might have used to say something sucks. When you use your page to point visitors (via worded-link) to something that you think blows, you could argue that people aren't even sure what they're going to until they get there. They click a word like 'blows' and it takes them to something which may or may not blow. Hell, if people are as stupid as GM would have us believe, then anyone who clicked that last link is forever convinced that GM BLOWS. But obviously, this is just me expressing my opinion. The issue I'm making is that for GM to have a case, they would have to argue even beyond my use of links, by saying that someone who goes to fuckgeneralmotors.com might be confused, or might think that GM is somehow involved with it, and thusly wants to fuck themselves. GM wants to argue that people don't have the right to link to them in a critical manner, and that people who do are misusing their bandwidth by linking to a publicly accessable website, that is a completely valid target for criticism or parody.

www.fuckgeneralmotors.com

www.fuckgeneralmotors.com

Is there a difference?

silly troll... trix are for kids

[dachshund]

If Ford wanted to avoid the redirected hits, they could simply check out the HTTP headers. A few browsers won't include them, but that would take care of the vast majority of the hits.

In any case, it's a silly argument. The 2600 server makes no connection to the Ford server. It simply directs the client to make a connection. This is the same as your average Hyperlink, and while some people would have you believe that we should control what links people put on their sites, when a company chooses to put their server out there, they agree to accept traffic. I've never heard of a case of a Hyperlink being disallowed because it might put a burden on another server (and god help Slashdot if that ever happens.)

Re:Well, regardless of rights...

[markmoss]

Unless you are implying that one of the larger companies in the country can't hire anyone capable of running a web server. It's entirely possible that Ford can hire 10,000 lawyers easier than they can _recognize_ who's good at running a web server. Yes, it would make more sense for them to have first _asked_ for the redirect to be taken down, and second asked their webmaster if he could just block it, instead of mobilizing a battalion of lawyers. But don't expect much sense from large corporations.

Re:Well, regardless of rights...

[markmoss]

Ford is not trying to control who can link to them. It would be one thing (and IMO it should be legal) if there was a visible *generalmotors.com web page with a link to Ford. But instead, type *generalmotors.com and the first thing you see is a Ford corporate web site. There is nothing to say that someone else and not Ford set up that automatic transfer. Corley crossed the line here.

Re:Well, regardless of rights...

[markmoss]

One big hole with your theory is that anyone that wants to find out the real story can use whois. So, according to your reasoning, if I say you've been convicted of child molestation, your reputation isn't injured because anyone who really cares could go down to the court house and look it up. IANAL, but I sure wouldn't go into court with that for a defense.

I do wonder what reasoning is behind filing this suit under trademark law rather than slander law, though. Also, it's plain common sense (and good manners) to ask that the re-direct be taken down before filing suit, and Ford seems to have ignored this.

Speaking of the "tarnishment" of the Ford Name...

[Chris Tucker]

Anyone else remember the 'explode upon impact and incinerate everyone inside' Ford Pinto?

I can't see how Eric and 2600 could do any worse to Ford than what Ford did to themselves with that little fiasco.

Marilyn Manson: "That boy tries too hard"

[Artifice_Eternity]

The Onion did a great parody of MM pointing out this exact aspect of his career: that it's basically designed to piss people off. He thrives on opposition.

Perhaps Corley is the kind of "activist" who likewise does whatever he can to position himself as a persecuted underdog fighting the Man. I don't know...

More rambling: Personally, I think we have to stop acting like cyberspace is some kind of fairyland where ordinary laws don't or shouldn't apply. Ford's "tarnishment" claim seems at least somewhat reasonable. I think the dilemma in cyberspace is figuring out which laws or legal precedents should apply, given that the parallels to previous situations are never exact, and that different people will view the situation using different analogies. (I.e., "the Internet is like TV" vs. "the Internet is like print media" will give you two very different ways of viewing the Internet.)

In this case, the question might be phrased as "What is a domain name like?" Is it analogous to the billboard described in the article, or something else? While I think people should be able to hyperlink to whatever they want (on the theory that a hyperlink is like a footnote, asterisk, or bibliographic reference), a domain name may indeed be more like a billboard, or perhaps more precisely, a road sign. Imagine driving along and seeing a sign saying "Fuck General Motors, Next Left"...you turn left, and find yourself at the entrance to Ford. Ford's name isn't on the sign, but the sign does direct you (unknowingly) to Ford.

The funniest thing is Ford's slogan...

[mech9t8]

"Striving to make the world a better place."

Heh. Right. ;)
--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

the onus...

[JohnnyKnoxville]

is on Ford to prove that they don't suck.

I have an idea...

[linuxpng]

If you want to piss Ford off good, why not use www.rollover.com or www.ourfirestonetiresblowupat60.com?

Re:I wonder where...

[Chakat]

www.fucknbc.com used to go to cbs and www.fuckcbs.com used to go to nbc.

IIRC, the Merry Pranster Emmanuel Goldstein is the one responsible for those two beauties of domain redirects, also.

But they dont vote....

[criswell4096]

My biggest problem with this ruling (and others which are similar) is that the companies do not have representation (i.e., they do not vote... at least in the US ;-)

This, of course, leads to the problems of "campaign contributions", kick-backs and the like, meaning that the individual citizen (real people, not amalgamated masses of people in a company) will be at a disadvantage when it comes to their representation because they cannot usually compete financially with these companies.

Now I know this is redundat.. most people know this... And I am not arguing with you (of course ;-)... I'm just pointing out a problem I see and I have with the whole mess. :/

If anything..Ford should be thankful!

[SacredSalt]

He's driving traffic to their site! Companies spend thousands of dollars to get hits to their sites. Some even resort to dreadful spam campaigns....and here, 2600 is driving traffic to their site without even recieving payment from Ford. Where's the beef?

put some creative effort into your attacks...

[orius_khan]

Why not try creating something meaningful and demonstrating how/why a particular company sucks, rather than just pointing it to other people's sites?? (example: www.flamingtowncars.com)

By just throwing visitors to the domain towards a different corporation, you are involving a third party in something offensive without their knowledge or consent. The last thing that the recipients of such suprise redirects will be is polite...

Dangerous precedent

[dnwheeler]

Unfortunately there has already been a dangerous precedent set that domain names are, in fact, "names." If domain names were considered "titles," then all of these issues go away. It is perfectly legal for me to write a magazine article and title is "Microsoft Sucks" (or whatever), but if I create something NAMED "Microsoft Sucks" then there are trademark issues. So far, I have not seen anyone use the "title" or "description" defense in these types of cases. It will really simply things if domain names were considered "arbitrary" text, which may correspond to a name, a description, a title, or some other related or unrelated term.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[mamba-mamba]

I don't mean to be a jerk, but you really need to be aware of the facts before you post.

FORD IS NOT SUING 2600 FOR REGISTERING FUCKFORD.COM

The domain name in question is fuckgeneralmotors.com. It does not make sense for Ford to sue 2600 for infringement of GM's trademark. Furthermore, the whole antic was accomplished without using the word Ford. The DNS lookup retrieves an IP address directly, no name involved.

MM

Re:Old News

[Ryan_Terry]

Read the FAQ, there are several sections that explain this.

DocWatson

Re:Well, regardless of rights...

[mamba-mamba]

There is no way that any person who is not a complete moron would type "www.fuckgeneralmotors.com" into a web browser and, upon reaching ford, believe that ford was in some way responsible.

Furthermore, they could easily block the redirection technologically, but they did not. They could also have asked 2600 to stop, but they did not. In short, I think you are wrong when you say that they are not trying to control who can link to them. They most certainly are!

Check out www.fordreallysucks.com, also registered by 2600.

MM

Re:Well, regardless of rights...

[mamba-mamba]

Actually, because Madonna is so famous, she is fair game for parody or farce. If you wrote that she had sex with a monkey, depending on the details, you could probably say that it was an obvious parody, not meant to be taken seriously, and get away with it.

Larry Flint did something similar to Jerry Falwell, IIRC. Of course, I'm basing this on the movie, _the People vs. Larry Flint_

MM

Well, regardless of rights...

[kypper]

this is a sort of slander, and it would imply that Ford has a hand in it.
I think Ford has a right to be a little frightened and want it GONE.
Still, nothing illegal about it unless you do some fancy loophole searching.

My point!

[kypper]

Thank you for articulating it better than I did.
It would take Ford a while to prove that they didn't set it up, and in the meantime, their reputation is damaged.

True...

[kypper]

Yeah, I know they could've done that.
I managed an apache serv for a long time. I don't agree with the litigation bullsh*t. I just can understand a little of Ford's upper-management perspective.

I wonder where...

[PYves]

www.fuckKuro5hin.com goes to?

www.fucknbc.com used to go to cbs and www.fuckcbs.com used to go to nbc.

-PYves

Illegal use of bandwidth?

[PYves]

give me a break, that's the same thing as linking to another website. Has slashdot ever been sued for slashdotting?

I really have a hard time believing you can sue someone for giving them the means to get to somewhere that is completely open to the public anyways.

he best be kidding.

-PYves

Suing over a link?

[Johnny5000]

If Ford can sue over what website is linking to them, can disney sue every pr0n site that links to www.disney.com? In case anyone got confused and somehow thinks that disney is associated with hot tranny midget schoolgirl action, we'd better shut them all down.

-Johnny5000

p.s. disney sucks.

Re:Geez, Ford couldn't buy publicity like that.

[Ratbert42]

Business Internet, Inc. (NET-ICIX-MD-BLK1)
3625 Queen Palm Drive
Tampa, FL 33619

I believe that's Intermedia.

Really, I think GM Is 1337 and Ford SuX0rs

[Eric_Corley]

Me and my H4x0r friend Jeff. K will use our Windows 2000 to re-edirect /. to kiru5hin to prove that LUnIX SUX and Bill G4TES RULES!!1!!!

Warmest Regards,

Eric Corley

%%%%%%%
Information WAnts to Be
Free Kevin

P.S. -

I'm not really Eric Corley. You probably already know that. Imagine, though, for a minute that you have never visited /. before, and think that Eric Corley really wrote this message. That is the same naivete that many internet users will have when they enter this page. Most don't even know what a re-direct is, and will assume that Ford owns the URL when they see the Ford site.

Many people, myself included, don't believe profanity is the best way to express yourself. I will support your right to say what you want, but not to put words in other peoples' mouths. There are a lot of people that would think less of Ford, not only for the language used but also for putting down their competition in such an underhanded way.

I have supported 2600 in their earlier conflicts with corporate America, but this time they have crossed the line. If they had put up a page saying, "2600 thinks Ford is better than GM", with a link to the Ford's page, I would have no problems. Same if they had put up a parody, even if it may infringe on somebodys "intellectual property". But the way the page stands it is a joke many people would not get, tarnishing Ford's reputation in the process.

Maybe Seanbaby is right and some people just shouldn't try sarcasm, or parody.

A joke

[terrorist-a]

One End Imagine what will happen if www.fuckusa.com would be redirected to www.china.gov.cn (or some address with the expected content) Should I be in jail (or dead) for making you imagine that? If a child would insult me should i kick him/her in the mouth? The other end Is this propaganda technique is going to be patented? (lol)

Do Something!

[Anonymous American]

<P>Although the opinions expressed in 2600's site might be immature, I think they are covered under free speech. Ford has picked this fight for an obvious reason, they want to set a legal precedent allowing them control of who links to their web site and who uses the name they "own". Who better to choose as your opposition for this battle than a group of <STRONG>scary hackers</STRONG>. They chose the <EM>least credible opponent</EM>.</P>

<P>This would set an incredibly terrible precedent. This case is important and we need to stand behind our dubious "champions". <STRONG>Enough talk</STRONG>, fight off your apathy and donate to the 2600 warchest by following the link below. I am donating 150$ (One months worth of Starbucks coffee), but you can drop as any amount you like in 1$ increments.</P>
<P><a href=http://store.yahoo.com/2600hacker/legdefdon.h tml>http://store.yahoo.com/2600hacker/legdefdon .html</a></P>

A concerned American