Slashdot Mirror


Domain Names to Suck More

A submitter writes: "MSNBC is running this article about a free speech lawyer who will be doling out sites with the word 'suck' in it for free. He and others are afraid that too many of these gripe sites have been taken away from their owners and given to the target companies and is willing to fight in court for these people." We posted about the VivendiUniversalSucks decision earlier.

47 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. What we want is a real test case by gowen · · Score: 5, Funny

    I suggest we set up a website to promote a lawsuit where the guidelines are more ambiguous. I recommend registering "www.hoovervacuumcleanersDONTsuck.com"

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  2. Hmm by NiftyNews · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's all well and good for free speech, but these stories always make me wish I had a piece of the Domain Name sales pie. The # of people that actually visit these X-sucks.com sites is slim to nil. Feel free to spend the money, I guess.

  3. At least get it right by DannyGene · · Score: 4, Informative

    The summary should specify that the domains are "company.comsucks.net", not "companysucks.com" as the summary implies.

    --
    *Life is too serious to be taken too seriously.*
  4. New TLD by bdoliver · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think we just need to formalize it, there is a definate need for the TLD ".sucks"

    1. Re:New TLD by fmaxwell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think we just need to formalize it, there is a definate need for the TLD ".sucks"

      Surely you aren't suggesting that .sucks could rival the popularity of the .museum, .coop, .pro, and .aero TLDs recently approved by ICANN!

      My bet: Within 50ms of the .sucks TLD becoming available, someone would register ICANN.sucks. That's why they will never approve it.

    2. Re:New TLD by fleener · · Score: 2

      a definate need for the TLD ".sucks"

      What good would it do? ICANN would give trademark holders first dibbs at registration and then every sucky company would own its own .sucks domain. Sounds more like a ploy to keep the registrars plump.

  5. Full disclosure by Score0,+Overrated · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think it only fair that the existence of this site is disclosed while discussing this story.

  6. Why doesn't the sucks.com owner do this? by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The sucks.com owner could lease out second level domains under his domain and make a tidy little chunk of change for himself. This would, at the very least, make it much more difficult to have domain names siezed and transferred to them, since they'd have to take the trademark dispute to court rather than some completely unaccountable international IP committee.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Why doesn't the sucks.com owner do this? by Hater's+Leaving,+The · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're forgetting the gay.com story. (or whatever the site was)
      The server used PHP to answer every
      your-mate's-name-here.is.gay.com
      request with a faux news page revealing the fact that
      Your Mate's Name Here was in fact gay.

      For some bizarre and stupid reason the site was pulled because a senator (kennedy?!?) put his own name in the URL box of his browser, and didn't like what he saw.

      i.e. If you are responsible for the 2LD (or 3LD in the case of countries with .ac/.co etc. 2LDs), then you are responsible for everything under your 2LD.

      THL.

      --
      Keeping /. cynic density high since the fscking Kwhores/trolls arrived.
    2. Re:Why doesn't the sucks.com owner do this? by Score0,+Overrated · · Score: 2, Funny
  7. No need to complain by Evanrude · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why complain about having a *sucs.com site named after you. Use it as a tool to fix your problems? Or just be flattered that someone took the time to develop a website dedicated to telling the world how much your company sucks. Isn't the irony there pretty thick already?

    --

    ~.Evanrude
    1. Re:No need to complain by Sodium+Attack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The type of people who tend to register *sucks.com sites are generally not those who are interested in providing constructive criticism to a company in the hopes of improving it. No, they're the type who will be upset with that company no matter how much they've done to improve. (Otherwise, there could come a point where they'd have to say, "Yeah, X sucked three years ago, but they've improved a lot and don't suck anymore. We're shutting our site down." Who could see that happening?)

      Don't get me wrong; I'm all in favor of allowing *sucks.com sites. But I don't pretend that they're any more objective than the company site itself.

      --

      Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.

    2. Re:No need to complain by haruharaharu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The type of people who tend to register *sucks.com sites are generally not those who are interested in providing constructive criticism to a company in the hopes of improving it.

      So what? Do I only get freedom to criticize a corp if it's constructive?

      --
      Reboot macht Frei.
    3. Re:No need to complain by Sodium+Attack · · Score: 2

      No, but you do only get freedom to criticize my post if you actually take the time to read the whole thing, rather than just reading the first sentence and making knee-jerk assumptions about the rest of it. Sheesh.

      --

      Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.

    4. Re:No need to complain by geekoid · · Score: 2

      I hate it when people do that.
      Sodium Attack? is that some sort of triffed reference?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  8. Damn, I shoulda waited by gvonk · · Score: 2

    Before I paid to set up RiverMillSucks.com
    *sigh*
    ya gotta love a bunch of college kids bitching about their landlord. That's really the essence of life.

    Or mine, anyway...

    --


    El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
  9. The domain to get now is... by dhamsaic · · Score: 2

    VivendiUniversalReallyReallyReallySucks.com

    or

    VivendiUniversalSucksButt.com

    or, to show you're not looking for money...

    seineeWerAsreenignElasrevinUidneviV.org

    (pardon the silliness. this post composed umop apisdn)

    --
    Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
  10. obviously by jjeffries · · Score: 2, Redundant

    We need a .sucks top-level domain. To save time the
    registrar could send the owner the date of his/her trademark infringement suit as soon as the first payment was made!

  11. Re:waste of time by Bobo_the_Chimp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > Why can't people that lost their domain
    > names just fight their own battles?

    Ok, let me get this straight. Because I can't
    afford to match legal dollars with GM, it means
    that I don't have the right to free speach?

    I'm sure the lawyer here is trying to make
    a name in this arena, but I have no problem
    with that - it's a win-win sitution. The people
    who have lost their right to protest with
    domains now can do so with sub-domains.

  12. Ooh ooh, I want this one! by Uttles · · Score: 3, Funny

    http://slashdot.orgsuck.com

    That's a mouthful!

    --

    ~ now you know
  13. Re:got one yet ? by Hater's+Leaving,+The · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://freespeechcenter.org/portfolio/com.html

    It is a _third level domain_ that you get.

    They've registered almost all common non-national [TLD]sucks.[TLD] second level domain names, and therefore can hand out third level ones of whatever variety you want.

    So you could create names like MSN.NETsucks.info if you like. (case of course being irrelevant).

    Hope that's clear now.
    THL.

    --
    Keeping /. cynic density high since the fscking Kwhores/trolls arrived.
  14. usuck.com by dimer0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I tried to do the something similiar last year. I set up a subdomain redirection site so you could assign microsoft.usuck.com to wherever you wanted, etc. (Actually, that site pointed HERE - and I didn't do it). I had over 70,000 domains being redirected.

    After the spam community started using my domain service for their own good, Verio threatened to pull the plug, so I stopped that service. What a pity.

    It was so fun, though. Getting emails from parents saying their kids were going to drop out of school because people had set up redirections from (example) johnsmith.usuck.com that ended up redirecting to gay porn sites.

  15. doesn't address the real problem by nzhavok · · Score: 3

    This is sort of a good thing in that you can (at least in the future) get your VivendiUniversal.comsucks.com address for free (?) but it doesn't address the underlying issue that these "suck" domains shouldn't have been taken away in the first place. So kudos Ed Harvilla for the idea but it's a workaround for the problem not a solution to it.

    Personally if I were to create a parody site in the future I'm going to learn from Jay Sallen's mistake and NOT create a sucks domain. Think: VivendiUniversalBlowsGoats.com how's the WIPO going to award that to them? Actually, perhaps I shouldn't have asked that question...

    --

    He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
    1. Re:doesn't address the real problem by eAndroid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously once he wins a few cases there will be precedent that should stop suck domains from being taken away. This isn't a workaround at all, unless you have a time machine and can travel back to the 90s and repair the damage there.

      --

      I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
    2. Re:doesn't address the real problem by kindbud · · Score: 2

      I'd rather see VivendiUniversalBlowsWIPO.com go into a dispute. Now who's passing off what?

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    3. Re:doesn't address the real problem by nzhavok · · Score: 2

      not neccesarily, remember there are many places that businesses can go for a hearing of the dispute, WIPO (heard in Switzerland) is a popular one for them because it makes decisions along the lines of: it's possible that a company would like sucks in its domain name, ergo vivendi universal has some claim to the *sucks domain; The owner said he might consider selling the domain, ergo he has given up his right to free speech.

      Precedents are only going to work in aa system which is prepared to enforce them. Given the previous outcomes and rediculous arguments made for them I can imagine the court side-stepping the precedent for equally stupid resons, with no recourse for the accused.

      --

      He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
    4. Re:doesn't address the real problem by nzhavok · · Score: 2

      Yes, a more accurate name, however the problem with this is it might be shown to be true ;-)

      --

      He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
  16. Re:primus sucks by daniel_isaacs · · Score: 3, Funny
    primus knew what they were doing when they made thier home page primussuscks.com [primussuscks.com] right from the begining.

    Or even PrimusSucks.com :)

    --
    - Dan I.
  17. No, you need to be trickier... by FortKnox · · Score: 2

    If you don't like the DMCA and want to make a 'suck' site from it, you should go grab:
    DMCARules.com

    Then make it a suck site. That way, instead of just making a suck site that hardly anyone will go to, you make a site where the trolls are your friends!

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
  18. Re:waste of time by SirSlud · · Score: 2

    > Why can't people that lost their domain names just fight their own battles?

    Like, why can't people who got beat up just beat the other guy up? Duh .. I think the idea is, there is a reason they lost in the first place, and that would be lack of support, lack of ammunition, lack of fighting supplies ($$s and lawyers in today-speak.) Companies have been notorious for threatening legal action against small domain owners who have no choice but to fold, given the enormous financial risk that legal defence imposes.

    You remind me of those rabid free-market capitalists who keep asking, "So those people in countries with no money and food .. why can't they just build some shit and make money for food?" You know, sometimes you're so focused on the next meal (or not losing your life's savings in the case of the domainname holders) that you couldn't concentrate on the bigger plan (being the champion, the hero, the company killer with respect to the domain holders) even if you wanted to.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  19. Re:Free speech should be protected. by Em+Emalb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Really you think the KKK shou have the right to assemble?" Actually yes I do, for otherwise, a lot of people would have died in vain protecting this right they so often abuse. For the record, I ABHOR everything the KK stands for. I personally would be glad if they never existed. But, just because I disagree with their views, doesn't mean they don't have the right to do what they wish. (within the laws of course)

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
  20. Re:This is DANGEROUS! by TheRowk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know if you're a troll, trying to be funny or actually serious with this post but regardless of which I'm using it to respond with my own bit of my own constitutional rights. And I do not mean free speech.

    First I'll let you know right off that in the spirit of America hating America is alright. Think about what this country would be like ( and many in this world are ) if you didn't have the right to express Anti-American ( politics, economy, foreign policy ) sentiment.

    More importantly however is that I'm fully capable of being an American without being Christian. As I've so noticed especially with our God bless everything president we have right now what most people interpret Freedom of Religion to be freedom to choose your christian sect. Which admittadely is what our founding fathers meant when they wrote the constitution.

    So if you actually were serious with your post and not a troll or just not funny, stick it in your ear.

    I'm proud to be an American.
    I'm proud to be atheist.

    -TheRowk

    --
    You can change without improving, but you can't improve without changing. -Quote stolen from I don't remember who
  21. How about... by ppetru · · Score: 2, Funny

    freespechcentersucks.org?

    :)

    --

    Petru
  22. nothing beats an original ... by beanerspace · · Score: 2

    These domain names are fun, but nothing beats and original like WebPagesThatSuck.com ...

    or a better yet .... nothing says suck like grabbing your nemises domain name before they did original owner of PETA.Com ... here are some examples via WPTS : Domain Names

  23. Re:Free speech should be protected. by InsaneGeek · · Score: 2

    So? My father was a Marine guard at the American embasy in Moscow during late 60's; back when it was a big fucking deal (i.e. Cuban Missle Crisis). Does that make you better or worse? Who actually gives a shit.

    I wasn't arguing that free speach is something to be defended. Now if you actually look at my post you'll see that it's your parotting of the hundred posts previous to yours that parotted the hundred posts before them of the exact same phrases, that I dislike; you can think for yourself and say something original can't you (at least jumble up the words or something).

    Note: Yes, my father was really an embasy guard (I am being truthful), of course he said that he did it because after doing a couple of years there you got to pretty much pick which embassy you wanted to go. He met my Swiss mother there who was a nanny for some diplomats, and well the rest is how you say history. So I have a very firm grasp as to defending this country, and have a very large fucking clue about it.

  24. new horrible domains by Perdo · · Score: 2

    .tob
    .eor
    .not
    .tob
    .eth
    .ati
    .sth
    .equ
    .est
    .ion

    --

    If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

  25. these also pose a problem to politicians by DontCallMeShirley · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Bush campaign registered every derogatory domain name they could think of, to keep people from having websites that would post negative info about him. I'm sure other politicians have done or will do the same, it is a race to get them before someone else does. I wonder why they even bother - if someone thinks they suck, and wanna have a site to say so, why not just let them. Isn't that what freedom of speech is mainly about? Being able to express our pleasure/displeasure the government?

    1. Re:these also pose a problem to politicians by Kamel+Jockey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Bush campaign registered every derogatory domain name they could think of

      In an ironic twist, Hillary did not register hillary2000.com, which ended up in the hands of a group of people who were strongly against her candidacy.

      The funny part was that people from Hillary's campaign would post messages on the hillary2000.com site saying things like:

      • Its illegal for you to use this site!
      • We're going to sue you!

      So much for free speech!

      --
      In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
    2. Re:these also pose a problem to politicians by overunderunderdone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Would it be OK for a company to buy up all the words in the English language so that you couldn't complain about them?

      If I understand your meaning - and I apologise if I'm missunderstanding - this is just a silly fantasy hypothetical situation. A company can't buy words and then forbid you from using it to criticise them.

      How can it be OK for them to buy up all the derogatory domain names, then?

      Because unlike words domain names are a commodity that CAN be bought and sold. Turn the question on it's head - how can it be OK for someone (the government?) to STOP the company from buying the domain names it wants? Aren't the individuals who own the company afforded the same freedoms of speech and property that their detractors are?

      Granted, you can still criticise them with a different domain name, but having a -sucks.com address does heighten your visibility.

      This is actually a pet peeve of mine. The confusion over freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of speech which you can use to criticize the company. You do not however have a RIGHT to a soapbox! You have every right to buy, rent or borrow a soapbox from whoever might be selling. But you do not have a right to compel them to sell or to speak on your behalf. You do not have a right to air time on TV or Radio, in print, or to any particular web domain you don't already own. The government choosing to deny your NEA grant, the paper refusing to print your editorial, the *sucks.com domain the company you hate already bought - none of these scenarios is an abridgement of your freedoms of speech or property!!

      Besides even this is an unrealistic hypothetical. Any creativity at all will suggest domains the company never would have thought of. Apple could buy Applesucks.com (they didn't but they could have) but they would most likely have missed crapple.com. If someone want their own domain as a soapbox but can't think of ONE the company didn't think of... well, if that's the case they're probably better off with a geoshanties site anyway.

  26. and in 100ms. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2, Funny
    And in 100ms, there will be porn sites registered as mywife.sucks, mytwolesbiangirlfriendsandI.sucks.

    The problem here is by making a distinction between .sucks and .com or you don't get people getting the same information on the same searches. There may be a stigmatism from the information being on the .sucks tld, it is someone who is just complaining. Then you will have the issue of domain battles for barbie.sucks, because people will fight over who thinks barbie sucks more.

  27. Re:Question by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First, you're attempting to apply logic to the situation. Never a good idea when legal matters are involved. Second, you should probably read all the fine print when you sign up for a domain name. Hell, read the fine print on that toaster you bought.

    There's lots of language in these things about the applicable laws, regulations, and the right to choose venues (where any trial might take place). If you recall the UCITA had some particularly odious language about venue choice and gave all the power to the vendors.

    Finally, *THE INTERNET ISN'T A LOCATION*. While you may live in NY, where is the server that's hosting your site? Maybe it's in your basement, or a local ISP, but maybe it's somewhere else in the US or the World. Second, where are the resources used to find and access your site? The distributed nature of the Internet laughs at national borders (though nations are trying to erect borders).

    The WIPO and ICANN are organizations created by international treaties. Mainly they exist to exert US laws on the rest of the world, so we shouldn't complain (if we're "greedy blood-sucking RIAA-spawn corporations") about the rules they impose on us.

    So, remember when you sign up for that domain name, read the fine print.

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
  28. Isn't that domain already taken? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought Comsucks was for Comcast's new "high speed" cable modem service.

    1. Re:Isn't that domain already taken? by sharkey · · Score: 2

      I thought Comsucks was for Comcast's new "high speed" cable modem service.

      No, you're thinking of "Comstipated.net".

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  29. The-MPAA-And-RIAA-Suck.com by JamesSharman · · Score: 2

    If you registered it presumably the MPAA would (sooner or later) womp out the lawyers and claim the domain for themselves, of course at some point the RIAA would also notice it...

    Nature abhors a paradox

    We can but dream

  30. Big Business and Lawyers by Garry+Anderson · · Score: 2

    By attacking these sites, Big Business wish to muffle criticism.

    They also wish to have sole control of these WORDS - have PRIORITY over others using the same words as them.

    Like I say - MOST share the same words with others.

    e.g. Why should Dell Computers have priority over others using the word Dell?

    This one from the year 1943 - filing Date October 27, 1958 - don't they have precedence?

    Word Mark DELL - US Serial Number 72061365

    Goods and Services IC 016. US 038. G & S: PAPERBACK BOOKS AND PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS. FIRST USE: 19430500. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19430500

    Lawyers are making a loads of money from Big Business clients attacking these sucks sites.

    These are reasons why they both do not want a solution to this problem - they are CORRUPT.

    The moderator of my previous post was being disingenuous - the contents was on topic - so is either moron, lawyer or in Big Business.

    Free Speech is a right - not a privilege. Americans - check out the First Amendment: they abridge what words you can use.

  31. Ed Harvilla by Alsee · · Score: 2

    Will Ed Harvilla give me the site EdHarvillaSucks.com for free?

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  32. "silence that individual" by Garry+Anderson · · Score: 2

    I will draw your attention to my posting below, with reference to the following quote from your link:

    "Presumably these Nazi Moderators think it's more important to burn a user's existing karma, to silence that individual for the future, than to use the moderation system for what it's meant for : identifying "good" and "bad" posts (Notice how nearly all oppressive governments in the past and present do the same thing : marking individuals as bad and untrustworthy because they have conflicting opinions, instead of engaging in a public discussion about these opinions)"