Slashdot Mirror
Jail Time for Misleading Domain Names
Bootsy Collins writes "The Miami Herald is running a
story
on the first-ever prison sentencing (and, for that matter, prosecution and conviction) under the Federal Truth in Domain Names Act. This act, combined into the larger
Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act (PROTECT) of 2003, made it a violation of U.S. Federal law to use a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive someone into viewing obscene material -- larger penalties if attempting to so mislead minors, but up to two years even if adults are the object. In the case in question, a man was convicted for registering thousands of domain names which were close misspellings of popular web sites for kids. Attempting to surf to those sites would redirect to a site entitled 'Dorm Sex Party.' Before being arrested, the convicted typosquatter made about a million dollars for the referrals." He's been on Slashdot before.
now see, if you had put a link in there somewhere, you could have been on-topic and gotten first post to boot. How cool would *that* be?
So if I got the facts wrong, I'm going to look like a real idiot now.
I tell ya, recently I have become very pissed about domains in general. The OSS project I run, had .org .com and .net when we started. (This is when domains cost $79 each).
.com domain expired. Nobody is sure how it slipped up. Needless to say, some jerkoff company bought the domain up. The price started at $300 and now its close to $2000. Becuase of how many people go to the site on a daily basis.
6 months ago, the
Here is where it gets worse, the name of the project is a registered trademark. We tried to use that, and they won't budge. We don't have the money to go after them legally for the rights to the domain.
So maybe this rant isn't totally on topic, it just pisses me off to see they are making laws against typos, and won't deal with those blatenly stealing trademark names.
-1, Troll? Ah, the irony-challenged are out right now! Must be early-evening in the USA!
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
why don't you go back to india you fucking injun
Because they won't have me. I'm not Indian.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
You do realize that statement somewhat undermines the point of your sig? It is very difficult for Americans to emigrate to India, at the very least for protectionist if not more emotional reasons, the equivalent of an Indian "green card" is far more rare than the American one.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
the "anti-gay marriage" stance the current administration has embraced is an attempt to pander to the religious right
and gain votes.
For what it's worth, I'm a Christian and I am opposed to gay marriage, but I believe you're absolutely right about that. Sure, Bush mentions God in just about every (carefully prepared) speech, but that doesn't mean he actually tries to submit himself to God's will. I'm not aware of Bush attending church aside from special occasions which he uses to his political advantage.
I also agree with you about the prison issue, although I don't think oil was a major factor in the decision to go invade Iraq - I believe it was done for political reasons, trying to capitalize on the momentum of the war in Afghanistan in hopes that the American public would continue to rally around the President during a continuing crisis ("we have always been at war with East Asia...").
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I always wondered why the christians were opposed to gay marriage. The bible does not say "don't let homosexuals marry" it says that homosexuals should be executed.
Leviticus 18:22 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Notice it does not say anything about trials or anything either. Just execution.
Why aren't the christians calling for execution of homosexuals or at least making homosexuality a death penalty offense.
The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
I am fully aware of the old adage likening the discussion of religion on the internet to running a race in the Special Olympics, but I feel a duty to clarify this point. Christians are very much obligated to live by the morals of the Old Testament. However, the act of propitiation (look it up) accomplished by Christ's crucifiction had provided us with a "dispensation" of grace. Meaning: now we are living in a time of delayed punishment. Jesus didn't say that "the Law and the Prophets" were over. If anything, He underscored that, because of the amount of grace under which would we would be living after His death, we would be held to an even higher standard than before. For instance, witness His comment to the effect that just looking upon a woman to lust after her is equivalent to committing adultery. Many people seem to have the opinion that God doesn't care about the things He used to care about because of Christ's sacrifice. This is not true at all. Rather, He has declared a "new deal." The Jewish theocracy-by-birthright has given way so that each of us could enter the "Holy of Holies" ourselves in the form of being filled with the Holy Ghost and being able to speak with God directly. Along with this "new testament" comes a more direct responsibility to hold yourself to the ideals of holiness. So, no more stonings at the edge of town, but God expects each of us to live His teachings on our own, enjoying the benefits thereof (c.f. the "fruit of the Spirit), and giving us a "space of grace" in case we blow it.
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
Thank you.
You are correct, and I wish more people would see this for what it is. Unfotunately such a stance does nothing to make a preacher more popular, since the logical extension is that you must be even more careful about your actions than before. In this age of self-indulgence, that won't make you money.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)