Slashdot Mirror
"sucks".com Sites Win Legal Victory
amyandjake writes: "Dan Parisi (sucks.com) wins a courtroom battle to keep Michaelbloombergsucks.com instead of giving it to Bloomberg." I'll admit that I used to consider the dot-sucks domains to have few redeeming qualities, but the efforts to take them away have helped change my mind about them. Bloomberg can spare a few dollars to register danparisisucks.com, can't he?
www.slashdotsucks.org! (FP!)
I think you could clearly argue that the intent of a typo-domain name is to confuse the public. The user did not intentionally type yahooo.com. However, the case of yahoosucks.com, is clearly different. yahoosucks.com is not easily mistaken for yahoo.com. The intent is not to confuse the public, the intent is to exercise freedom of speech in particular freedom. This will be allowed by the courts, expecially since freedom of speech is still a "preferred freedom" (although prehaps slightly less so than in the recent past)
Sorta reminds me of the olden days when people figured out they could create their own newsgroups. We then got bombarded with alt.my.roommate.mike.wears.the.same.underwear.ever y.day type groups.
Instead, no commercial entity should be allowed to register T.sux, and specific rules are written that .sux sites must in regard to free speech (eg critism or commentary about company/trademark T), and that the site must not be used to generate significant profit for the owner (eg I can't start amazon.sux as an complete alternative bookstore, though I could use banner ads and/or small gift items like t-shirts and mugs that advertize the site itself.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
When Ford managed to get a guy to give them fordsucks.com and $3,000 in handling fees, I figgerd the best thing for it would be for suck.com to sue Ford for violating their Intellectual Property.
--
I noticed
--
I noticed
It's getting about time to leave everywhere
Uhm, quite true. =) Personally I think this is just a symptom of how rotten to the core the .com/.net/.org domain space is these days. I think it's nice that anyone who needs a domain can get one, but the problem is, domains get registered when there's no need.
How many of those you listed a real company would need? One. companyname.com, under which E-mail, corporate information, product information and all that will go nicely. How many most companies seem to register? All you listed, and then some (you forgot every product the company makes, too =)
(I like .fi domains: Individuals can't register domains (subdomain is being planned), and corporations can get only one domain name per name that appears in National Board of Patents and Registration databases... I really can't speak of DNS pollution here!)
While the market isn't what it used to be (remember the heyday of domain name buying and reselling?), I wonder what the now defunct (or rather non-updating) suck.com could get for their domain from most probably the adult industry.
Why?
It's a big world, and no matter who you are, it's pretty much guaranteed that somebody out there hates you to the core, and they feel like saying so.
Is attempting to prevent the inevitable from happening, really an intelligent strategy?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"Dubya" went his route. He seems to agree with a lot of folks that Bush Blows.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Yep. Cooties.com is already taken. E-Cooties.com seems to still be available, though. I wonder what they would sell.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
How about "fuck-network-solutions-in-the-ass.com"? Network Solutions reports that it is available for registration, and they also suugest that I register "myfuck-network-solutions-in-the-ass.com", "fuck-network-solutions-in-the-ass.net", and "fuck-network-solutions-in-the-asscentral.com"
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
What the world needs is a new
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The difference in this case is that the owner of the "sucks" domain *intended* for the site to be a place where people could complain. On the other hand, the people who lost their "sucks" cases had been found to just be in it for the money; i.e. buying it to get the trademark holder to buy it back from them.
I tend to agree with the distinction.
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
Nice, but why no woc.zimwiz.com?
The link in your article works, but both times you refer to it in the text, you misspell it.
Full of Javascript errors, according to IE5 [hack, spit]
I don't know what wally world is, so apparently I'm a moron who should die.
Your level of literacy is about what I'd expect from a small town in Wisconsin.
If I was the kind of person who was offended easily, or could afford $30* I would be registering MinocquaSucksSucks.com.
* have you any idea how much it costs to put all your stuff in a container and put it on a boat for a few weeks? Those sailors must be making a fortune!
--
--
E_NOSIG
Context is important. Duh. Using *sucks.com to make a statement of personal viewpoint - or even facts damaging to the trademark holder if you can support them with evidence - is EXTREMELY cut and dried. It's a textbook case for first amdendment freedoms. Now stop being a pedant.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
If you bothered to read the story on /. (not even the link to the article, you would find out that Dan Parisi owns sucks.com. Its kinda sad when people can't even bother to read the top part of the screen before posting a reply...
I just don't get slashdot. CmdrTaco will routinely support typo-sites, most of which abuse trademarks for purely commercial reasons (such as advertising). Yet legitimate satire and criticism, which is clearly stated as such, appears to have "few redeeming qualities" in Timothy's eyes.
Does anyone have a link to the text of the ruling that Canadian Tire couldn't claim that the domain "crappytire.com" was an infringement of their trademark?
I've heard a rumor the decision was handed down, but I haven't been able to hunt down exactly what resulted.
No, that's not all there is to it. Context matters:
Context is important, and using someone else's trademark in a domain name is not as cut and dried as you seem to imply.
Does this mean that 2600 can keep the domain names they created, like verizonsucks.com, et. al?
Well, I'm sure you could try to make all trademark-holders register under .tm, but the people of Turkmenistan might get a little upset...
The thing about Michael Bloomberg is, he really does suck. He's chairman of the board of trustees at my school (Johns Hopkins University) and he does shit like, make anonymous donations even though everyone knows it's him, on orders that the money be spent for shit we don't need (like brick walkways, instead of, say, student services or online course registration). Plus, the school insists on naming everything after him: so far, we have the Bloomberg Center for Physics and Astronomy, and the Bloomberg School of Public Health.
And now he thinks he can become mayor of NY. ~sigh~
Intercarve Networks, LLC
I can't wait until kids with rich parents get into this. We'll end up with things like:
www.davisisapoopoohead.com
www.kennyhasgirlgerms.net
I own suckssucks.com. I thought it was going to be a cash-cow once Dan Parisi bought it for me for $250,000 like microsoftsucks.com, but I guess not. Makes me cry :(
:D
SucksSucks for sale! $8 OBO!
To avoid having to get the name backwards, why not get a palandromic name to start with? I went for one that rotates to be the same - zimwiz - it can help make a good logo in the process =)
Wheeeee
Then why is he running around registering all these other *sucks.com domain names? Just set up DNS and put all the trademarked names in the third level domain. It'd cost him a hell of a lot less money and I'd think it'd be a lot harder to sue someone over trademark violations in a third level domain.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Why doesn't the guy who owns sucks.com get into this game? (company).sucks.com would be a LOT harder to argue with than (company)sucks.com. It's a lot more readable too. sucks.com could become the suckage clearing house for the entire internet if only the guy had a little vision.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
..oops! There went my karma. :-(
touche
In order to be cybersquatting, you have to register a domain name for which a prior copyright exists, AND be using it in bad faith.
Just registering names for which you hold a copyright or for which no prior copyright exists and then squatting on them is not legally "cyberquatting".
(In fact the bar is slightly higher than this, if you want to read more)
Hold on and read my comment before you flame. I'm behind fair use on this one.
What I think is lacking in current cybersquatting laws is that bad faith squatting is considered only in the case where it has already been shown that the complainant has a prior mark which is infringed upon. link
I think that cybersquatting laws should be extended to any bad faith holding of domain names. Why? Because if you go to register a domain name these days you'll notice that virtually every English word and plenty of common combinations are taken. This wouldn't bother me, except that many of these domains aren't even in use...they've been bought by squatters.
It's simple math...when you can buy in bulk, you can register 428 domains for about $3000. Since the going rate for even crap domains seems to be above this (what is $3k to a company?) even one hit in 400 is a net profit. (example: "dot-diddly-dit-dot.com" is on the block for $99999)
This is terrible, because in its original form the domain name system was available to anyone. With "deregulation" consumers can now purchase domains as cheaply as $10...only problem is, big companies have bought most of the useful ones up, so if you aren't another company with a few Gs in your pocket you can forget about most of the names out there.
Sure, new TLDs addresses the problem. But really, why should one settle for i-friable.com, or friable.info, when the owner (houseofdomains.com) is just sitting on them? Shouldn't they go to someone who can contribute something to the Internet? What is to stop someone with a few million in capital from buying a large swath of useful names in every TLD, and waiting for the cash to roll in? (especially since some registrars are giving businesses the first crack at new names)
Opening the door to any bad-faith challenge certainly opens up a can of worms, but wouldn't it be nice to have a web where sushi.com actually led to a sushi site, and thousands of other dead, unused names were being put to good use and making it easier to find information in the billions of web pages out there?
However, the case of yahoosucks.com, is clearly different. yahoosucks.com is not easily mistaken for yahoo.com. The intent is not to confuse the public, the intent is to exercise freedom of speech in particular freedom. This will be allowed by the courts, expecially since freedom of speech is still a "preferred freedom" (although prehaps slightly less so than in the recent past)
So why does yahoosucks.com give a page which purports to be about supermodels driving sports cars ?
The worrying thing is that this argument was explicitly rejected by the first two judges.
Didn't Ford win a case against 2600-guys and got their fordsucks.com back ?
It's funny to see same kind of conflict resolved in two different ways...
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
BTW, it's the same SUCS (Swansea University Computer Society) often mentioned in the Linux startup messages...
But I thought cybersquatting was illegal...
- ------------
Doh. Forgot. Big company registers tons of domains in every possible spelling or misspelling of their name = good. Person registering a site of their own that happens to resemble a company slightly = bad.
Sheesh. Ever been to mattl.com?
-------------------------------------
The "poor guy" you are talking about is a porn-maven. Remember that monthly item you see on your credit card bill to "Starlite Entertainment Group"? Well that is how he pays for *sucks.com
According to GANDI's whois database, cocksucks.com (as in fellatio) is owned by Starlight Communications. But wouldn't cocksucks.com be a free-speech site criticizing the pr0n industry? Apparently, he has thought of this; http://www.cocksucks.com doesn't link to americasucks.com like the rest of them do.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Organization:
Secaucus Group Inc
Secaucus Group Inc
295 Greenwich Street (Suite 184)
New York, NY 10007
US
Phone: (973) 503 1785
Email: dparisi@garden.net
Registrar Name....: Register.com
Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com
Domain Name: DANPARISISUCKS.COM
Created on..............: Fri, Sep 25, 1998
Expires on..............: Tue, Sep 24, 2002
Record last updated on..: Fri, Feb 23, 2001
Administrative Contact:
Secaucus Group Inc
Secaucus Group Inc
295 Greenwich Street (Suite 184)
New York, NY 10007
US
Phone: (973) 503 1785
Email: dparisi@garden.net
Technical Contact:
Dan Parisi
Dan Parisi
295 Greenwich Street (Suite 184)
New York, NY 10007
US
Phone: (973) 503 1785
Email: dparisi@garden.net
Zone Contact:
Dan Parisi
Dan Parisi
295 Greenwich Street (Suite 184)
New York, NY 10007
US
Phone: (973) 503 1785
Email: dparisi@garden.net
Ever need an online dictionary?
It's silly for a company to register their own 'sucks' domain. What does it matter if I visit SuperMegaCorpSucks.com or SuperMegaCorpIsEvil.com? Either way I probably already hate Super Mega Corp, or why else would I be visiting? Virtually all of my traffic will come from links on other sites, so the URL doesn't matter. Just pick a domain name that is brief enough that it doesn't wrap when enclosed in an e-mail message.
I chatted with Aurbach on it and he pointed that *sucks.com is not fair use -- Its proper use!
The purpose of a trademark is to identify a company, product, or service. You are identifying it as sucking. That is what prompted me to register mattelabuse.com. It has also been ruled In Mattel v. MCA Records -- the Barbie Girl case that trademark cannot be used to silence critics or satire.
Of couse, some large companies will use the courts to bankrupt a critic. Those the case frivilous, they count on the expense of litigation to scare and crush the little guy.
Fight Spammers!
The decision says:
A majority of the Panel agrees with the holding in Cabela's and concludes that the Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's marks.
This is bad, even though other issues let Parisi carry the day. If -sucks sites were decisively ruled not to be "confusing similar" to their prefix, then they'd all be in the clear forever. As it is, survival of a particular site depends on the makeup of the arbitration panel.
The rationale for saying that -sucks sites are "confusingly similar" is that the name similarity will confuse a search engine. You type in Bloomberg, and you get directed to Bloombergsucks. Clearly, there has been confusion. But there are overwhelming arguments that this is nonsense:
An earlier ruling addressed the "confusing similarity" of sucks sites much better: "Both common sense and a reading of the plain language of the Policy support the view that a domain name combining a trademark with the word "sucks" or language clearly indicating that the domain name is not affiliated with the trademark owner cannot be considered confusingly similar to the trademark".
Common sense is so refreshing!
So why not try them out anyway? If you have a bad experience, you could start a "vendorsucks" website for that vendor & help them get that next big contract...
On a clear disk you can seek forever
On the other hand, we have the deliberate misuse of a trademark name for the purposes of degradation and or maliciousness intent (Forwarding fordsucks.com to chevrolet.com or whatever that past issue was).
A lot of points of view will depend on the general outlook of the trademark process to begin with...Is a name really worth that much? If the product isn't good enough without the name attached to it, why is it being purchased?
But, we have the slippery slope with suing out of existence the *sucks.com domains...Who's next? The deliberate misspellings, the last names that are too close to corporate trademarks, the .org's vs the .com's. There really isn't any one solution...my best guess for this is to have a domain set aside specifically for JUST trademarked corporate names (.tm) If you access a .tm domain, you know it's a valid trademark for a valid product...play first come, first serve with the rest of the domains, you lose it, you sucks.com
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
Did you read the article?
The "poor guy" you are talking about is a porn-maven. Remember that monthly item you see on your credit card bill to "Starlite Entertainment Group"? Well that is how he pays for *sucks.com.
You are right that the victory is hollow; this guy is just as much a part of the problem as any big business. It's all about the greed.
- Toby
--
< )
( \
X
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
the guy who used to runisgay.com said the site was going down a while ago, but it appears to be back up again ... Just in case, you might want to snag the source for the site while you can...
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off coffee drinking
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
This guy owns over 700 domains with the suffix sucks. That means he pays $28,000 just for the domains, plus whatever he pays for hosting. Every year. Mind you, thats more than I and quite literally, tens of millions of americans made last year.
If we want to factor in hosting, this guy is probably looking at a $100,000 bill each year.
Added to that - he's probably not making a profit
Even if he is buying names in bulk - for $10 a piece, that's still 7 large plus hosting - Lets not mention the fact that the legal fees associated with this must of have been quite a nice sum.
There is no victory here for the "little guy", the "little guy" doesn't have the backing to blow money defending him/herself against a corporation that literally has billions to defend itself.
The basic issue is that even frivilous lawsuits, legal challenges, etc.. are enough to either make the little guy capitulate or run out of $$.
Eventually the *sucks sites are going to be controlled by big business, or by "business interests" (i.e. the competition) - not by independent people who are the majority of the american public.
This victory is a hollow and false one - fuck you sheep who are parading this like it's the best thing since the toilet.
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off coffee drinking
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
How crazy.. slashdot is my homepage, I do that so I remember to check the latest articles every time I open my browser. Well just now, slashdot wouldn't come up, I'm not sure why. So to test my internet connection, I decided to go to some other random site. For the first time ever, I just typed in something like MicrosoftSucks.com, and got that sucks.com site. I browsed through it a bit. Then I decided since my internet IS working, minus well go back to slashdot. And I see this article?! Thats crazy.
Sounds like a money maker to me.
As much as I dislike this, I can see it as a business plan, to drive traffic to his "sucks" themed websites.
This must annoy the big players no end, so he gets bonus brownie points just for that.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Saying "McDonalds sucks" or "GM sucks" is free speech. That's all there is to it. And all this talk about extortion and why or why not someone owns a domain is nonsense. If these corporate retards had understood the internet instead of just spending the late 80s/early 90s getting drunk at the golf course, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.
GM/Disney/AOLTW/Fox aka Murdock now control the media. The last vestige of free speech is the net, which is exactly the reason it is under attack. Its kind of shocking to read wishy-washy posts on this issue on slashdot. Imagine if this site were moderated by AOL or MSN.
ps, *nix rules, microsoftsucks.com
What are you, some kind of AOL luser???
The article isn't very telling with regard to the factors contributing to the inconsistant decision with regard to the domain ownership. This is a cop out really:
I think it's sufficient. Actually, though, if you go read the entire decision you'll find that they did dither a whole bunch before deciding that this was pretty much all it took.
What I really liked, though, was the other opinion. There were three judges on the panel, and two of them wrote this long, tortuous analysis of the application of the domain name registration policies, complete with cites of relevant cases and analyses of how they applied. The third judge agreed with their conclusion, but his analysis was much simpler.
He just pointed out that the first requirement of the policy that allows a domain name to be cancelled or transferred was that the name must be confusingly similar to the complainants domain (meaning someone might think that michaelbloombergsucks.com is an official Bloomberg site), and then noted that:
It's so nice when you see legal minds following rational paths...
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Again about a lawsuit on the rights to a domainname. In this case it was quite provocative, but sometimes I think by myself that it becomes dangerous for an individual to register a domainname for it's humble site, without the risk of an international lawcase of some company that exists in x country with the same name.
Dispute Resolution is being used to deny freedom of speech.
I have WoolwichSucks.co.uk - because I believe Woolwich Building Society (Woolwich.co.uk) defrauded me. I have evidence on my site to back this up.
There are other reasons for this dispute process, to do with money and power, stated on my WIPO.org.uk site.
WIPO.org.uk is a DIRECT challenge to WIPO.org - as you can see by the domain name I have chosen. The World Intellectual Property Organization is part of the United Nations, dealing with these domain and trademark problems.
I just registered www.slashdotisgoingunder.com. Do you think they'll sue?
-- Shamus (with tongue stuck firmly in cheek)
This space for rent. EZ terms!
Sure it is. Free Speech and the 1st amendment was created for this very reason. Free Speech is about protecting unpopular speech not popular speech, which doesn't need protection. What can be more unpopular to the people in control then saying they suck?
The journey is better then the end.
AllYourSucksAreBelongToUs.com
(sorry, couldn't help myself)
>whois slashdotsucks.com
Registrant:
...
Record last updated on 19-Jun-2001.
Anthony DiPierro
34 Putnam Ave
suite: A7
Brewster, NY 10509
US
Domain Name: SLASHDOTSUCKS.COM
Record expires on 31-Oct-2001.
Record Created on 31-Oct-2000.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.MCFLY.COM 216.97.123.61
--CTH
---
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Here's the publsihed dcision from the Domain Name Dispute Committee, for the MichaelBloomburgSucks.com domain:
The Dispute Resolution Comittee Decicion
--CTH
---
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
And if Ford wants and can buy "explorer-sucks.com", that's well and good.
And then they'll be sued by Microsoft for the rights to the name :)
Living better through chemicals
A .sucks TLD was proposed to ICANN (listed here in ICANN's list of proposed TLDs in October 2000), with the stipulation that the owner of domain.sucks could not be associated with the product/company/etc. domain. I'm assuming this was rejected by ICANN, since it's not on their list of new TLDs.
.sucks is already carried by ORSC.
Surprisingly, the monicalewinskysucks.com domain is not registered yet...
É que os desafinados também têm um coração
1) *.biz
2) *.info
3) keywords in all countries separately
4) and any other root domain they come up with...
Get's to be expensive, time consuming, and a general pain-in-the-butt...
MadCow
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Death to the grammar nazi's
Why its Plain ole' American, like PB&J or lawyers and web sites.
A while ago a rumor got back to me that the town was going to try to sue the domain back from me but now with this ruling I feel much safer. Considering I had a 'sucks' site before i got the domain and I'm not offering it for sale I feel much more confident in it. Now if I can just get a TradeMark on it.
The site is MinocquSucks.com. Go and be amazed at how much 10 square miles of town can really suck.
Now if I can just get the lawsuits to go away I can just worry about finding a good cheap host.
Why its Plain ole' American, like PB&J or lawyers and web sites.
I was talking about this not long ago with a friend over corporate fast food in a corporate department store chain in the trendy little college town in which I live:
Most companies create for themselves and image. They build a face, maybe a logo, a mascot, a color scheme, a tagline, whatever, and they associate this image with their name. Most companies work so that their name and image (and sometimes catchphrase) far overshadow their product. Why? Because people are bored by details. Soundbites, hot logos, and "the idea" are what sell things.
Examples: Tony the Tiger has NOTHING to do with Frosted Flakes, and neither do those little guys on the Rice Crispies box have anything to do with their cereal. McDonalds doesn't care if we smile or not -- they lie about what they cook their fries in.
With companies, it's all buzzwords and ideas that "make ya feel good about the product." IBM isn't going to bore end users and PHBs with jargon and technobabble. No, they'll play up the B2B angle, show pictures of sleek machines (and people) working hard. They play up the power aspect. Who cares that the whole tech crew might have to make a shift from Solaris to AIX, or from BSD to NT, or whatever. It's the CONCEPT that they feed us, the associations that they attach to their name and image, that is important.
That's why (whatever)sucks.com is such a big issue with these people. It's hard to put on the hard sell when Joe Sixpack in Blindpossum, OK can just surf over to (whatever)sucks.com and instantly see a negative view there.In the thread about teaching seniors about the Internet, concerns were voiced about being savvy enough to tell the shysters from the experts. After all, a lot of people really do believe everything that they read, and anyone who represents himself as an expert.
That's part of what motivates companies to sue (whatever)sucks.com webmasters: it interferes with the picture they paint. Whether or not the material that appears on the site is true is immaterial, because either way, it's bad for the company.
Americans especially are used to being told how to think, what to buy, etc. Our entire society is very neatly designed for us, from what our families should be like, how we interact, all the way to what to wear, eat, drive, etc. In a modern age of media, those with broadcast control have the power.
The Internet is a unique media where the common man can expend very little money and effort ($35 to buy the domain, about the same monthly for a cheap-midrange hosting package, and a few hours) to create something just as publically available as microsoft.com. If Joe Sixpack from Blindpossum, OK decides that some company or another has given him a raw deal, the Internet can provide a perfect forum to voice discontent (although I will say that this forum is also a great place to spread disinfo, and I'm suprised rival companies haven't snatched up (whatever)sucks.com domains, started hosting them in South Korea, etc).Companies aren't used to the little guy having so much power, and react the way they always do: by crushing their adversary.
I don't think it's ever been about confusion. It's companies defending their carefully wrought, expensive images from Joe Sixpack of Blindpossum, OK's untrained hand.
"Because the truth is available in limited quanitites."
It really says something about your company if people expect to find your company site by tacking "sucks" onto the end of your name.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
suwain_2
You probably mean trademark not copyright.
There is no need for slashdotsucks, everybody can complain about slashdot right here.
that you've got to think ahead when you create a website for your company. You need to register:
.net
1) 'Your company's name'.com
2) 'Your company's name'.org and
3) 'Your company's name misspelled'.com/org/net
4) 'Your company's name'sucks.com/org/net
5) 'Your company's name permuted'.com/org/net
6) 'Your company's name backwards'.com/org/net
7) 'Your company CEO's name'.com/org/net
8) 'Your company CEO's name'sucks.com/org/net
And so on and so on...
It's a wonder anyone wants to get online these days.
Dancin Santa
Sorry, but domain names are most definitely not property. There have already been court decisions affirming this, and you may recall that Network Solutions rewrote their contract terms a few months back to make this explicitly clear.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
Even if he is buying names in bulk - for $10 a piece, that's still 7 large plus hosting - Lets not mention the fact that the legal fees associated with this must of have been quite a nice sum.
Most of the sites point to the discussion boards at sucks.com. So whatever you estimate for hosting, you don't need to multiply it by 700. Besides, I suspect the traffic to the sucks.com discussion fora is negligable next to the bandwidth from his porn properties.
As for this being a vistory for big business: while porn may be a big business, it is hardly in the same class as the corporate intersts that are typically accused of running things.
Nope, no sig
And that's actually a good thing, if you look at it from a taxpayer point of view.
Eventually I go look at their website for the positive stuff, then I tag on the word "sucks" to their URL to see if there's an opposing viewoint. But a funny thing has happened in the year that I've been doing this... when I first started, I treated finding a "vendorsucks" website as a deficit. But lately, if I don't find a "vendorsucks" site for a bidder, I wonder if they're a serious contendor in the marketplace.
In other words, if they're not big enough to have pissed somebody off, somewhere, do I want to deal with them?
The old adage about bad publicity being better than no publicity seems to make sense.
i think that if you register a domain name- no matter what it is- it is yours as long as you have intent to include some content which is along the lines of the domain name.
Anyone who types in microsoftsucks.com, etc. obviously doesn't want to go to microsoft.com. they want to see if there is a page where they can bitch about microsoft. If that domain name redirects the user to Sucks.com; a page to bitch about things; then he has every right to own that domain name.
however- who wants to waste their time going to sucks.com
By Dan Parisi... :p
Guess he got Bloomberg there.
Then again, danparisisucks.org, or even danparisiisthegoatseman.com are both available, ready for Bloomberg to register.
So how long beforewe get NameOfATotalLosersuckssucks.com? And then NameOfATotalLosersuckssuckssucks.com? And then NameOfATotalLosersuckssuckssuckssucks.com? Ad nauseum....
TODO: Something witty here...
So if Parisi wants to complain about the band Primus, he'll have to register primussuckssucks.com....
You ARE the Missing Link. Goodbye!
On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
Hiding flaws of products or services does no good and in the long run it's everybody's loss. Company goes and expands when middle management covers negative reclamations, and when there's too much to cover and hide, it's too late and whole division/company falls.
Of course such a forum could not prevent false accusations but I still believe that real problems would show clearly. It would be excellent place for cmopanies to check if customers aren't satisfied and why. They'd save money for not wasting time listening or reading angry nonproductive reclamations but to just tell customers: "go to we.sux and tell why you're dissatisfied. we'll listen."
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
sounds like the discussion about new TLd's should be extended with
.sucks
those were my 12 words.....
There are two sides to this issue. On the one hand, a domain name is property - private property, earned (read: paid for) by the person who registers it. Under the law, and under any reasonable code of morality, none may reject the property claims of another, providing that ownership is earned. On the other hand, there are such things as slander, libel, defamation of character. Under these concepts, it is wrongful to publicly attempt to damage the name of an individual or a company, provided that attempt is unprovoked, or undeserved. whateversux.com domains are a difficult call, it would seem, then.
However, the fact is that a domain name itself is not inherently damaging to anyone. The content available at such a domain may be, but the domain itself is not. If the content is derogatory in any reasonably illegal manner, then the content may be forced to be changed - but the domain itself stays. If I, as an individual, register a domain such as xyzcompanysucksabigone.com for example, I am simply using the company name or the individual's name according to fair-use laws. If I were a for-profit interest, especially one with a vested interest in defeating the company named in the domain, that would be a totally different case.
think for yourself, you won't like the results if others do it for you.
Funny, the site is a blank page. I would have thought that if I was going to register a name like that, I'd at least do something with it. Frankly, you probably should have gone for slashdotsucks.org, rather than using the one with a .com TLD; seems more consistent is all. It's either slashdotted or bogged right now, but it definitely exists. Probably another poster further down the thread mentioned it already ;)
A word can paint a thousand pictures
Is there a slashdotsucks.com yet? :)))
Someone has already done the slashdot site..
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
It is interesting that Parisi argues free speech, yet CENSORS his own site so heavily. I visited sucks.com for the first time today and was surprised at how many words get hacked out of member comments.
I remember hearing something a while back about an idea to introduce a new TLD called .sucks (or perhaps more with the spirit of 3-letter TLDs, .sux). The person who mentioned it to me attributed the idea to Ralph Nader, and thought I can believe he may support it, I rather doubt he conceived the idea. The concept was that xxx company could buy all the xxx.com/.org/.net etc. they wanted, but they would be explicity barred from purchasing xxx.sucks. I suppose this would require the cooperation of some group like ICANN (who probably wouldn't cooperate), but I think it sounds like a reasonably good idea.
To put things a little more in perspecitve, it really wouldn't have to be a "sucks" TLD, so much as any TLD that was put aside for criticism of it's corresponding .com. Now of course, besides prohibiting the .com owner, the direct competitors of the .com owner should probably be prohibited as well. Perhaps ownership of a .sux should be limited to non-profits, or consumer advocacy groups. (It could be a .con, ha ha.)
This probably sounds terribly idealistic, but I think the real issue right now is that *sucks.com is not a cogent movement, therefore it's hard to rule on unilaterally. What do other people think?
"The general contract of the method run is that it may take any action whatsoever." -- Java 2 API
See, what you're missing is that New York really needs brick walkways to raise the morale of the citizens. With better walkways, there won't be as much of a problem with people leaving them in order to jaywalk (apparently a huge problem in the city). In addition, there aren't enough things in the Big Apple named Bloomberg and that must be corrected.
Maybe it's time to register Sucksdotcomsucks.com. I suppose if that was turned in to a viable product someone would have to worry abotu sucksdotcomsucksdotcomsucks.com.
The currnt system of domain ownership needs to be overhauled at some point. While I disagree with large corporations forcing domains out of the little guy, domain squatting and typosquatting and the like need to be controlled somehow in the new economy. An internet domain is a valid trademark, and should be protectd somehow.
"Moderate drinking can help prevent amputated limbs" -- Abigail Zuger, NYTimes, 12/31/02
Alas, this is just a small victory for free speech in America... one which I think we will eventually win.
The new legal approach for pursuing the *sucks* domain names are to (1) pretend that such *sucks* domains could have a positive business value for the trademark holder, and (2) Those who originally own and register the *sucks* sites are merely squatting on a piece of realestate.
Of course, we all know it's far from that simple - "Oh, explorers-suck.com helps us relate to our customers". Yeah, right.
In our capitalist economy, every domain name is for sale for some price. And if Ford wants and can buy "explorer-sucks.com", that's well and good. But to proclaim that such domain ownership is squatting unless proven otherwise is the current trend of the lower courts.
Happily, the supreme court may thing otherwise. In Amptron vs. Amptronics, the court determined that there is the reasonable concept of so-called "Dualistic Trade Rights", where the trademark holder was found not to have automatic rights over a similar name. Proof that not guilty unless proven innocent still exists.
If and when one of these cases makes it to that court, it'll be interesting to see if they equate the outcome of this kind of case with the Amptron case.
I'd bet that they will, and all these "*sucks*" cases will be history. Only after it gets that high up in the courts will we have a final answer
You know...it's not like the "suck" sites are popular or even good sites. They are only there, and that is all.
However, if some of these sites got real popularity, the affected company should think, why this is happening.
What I say, is, that they CAN be an annoyance, but hardly something else.
Of course, go tell the CEOs that.