Slashdot Mirror
RadioAid.com vs. Clear Channel Communications, Inc
Rob Vining writes "On July 16th, 2004, a decision was handed down from the National Arbitration Forum that took away ownership of RadioAid.com's website "ClearChannelSucks.net" and gave the website to the complaintant, Clear Channel Communications, Inc.
The decision of the arbitration panel has left us (the founders of RadioAid.com) with only one choice. That choice is, to file suit vs. Clear Channel communications, Inc. to retain ownership of our outlet for free speech against this corporate monopoly.
Http://www.RadioAid.com/sucks.asp
We're raising legal funds in our suit vs. Clear Channel and would be so appreciative to have you spread the word to your readers and create awareness of yet another attempt for a billion dollar company to silence it's critics and squash free speech on the internet.
Please help us spread the word about this and any assistance you could provide in posting this to other media outlets would be extremely helpful!"
This is unbelievable you know. Not only does ClarChannel fill the airwaves with rubbish music 24/7, now we aren't even entitled to parody or saitirise them anymore. What would happen if someone instead started the site ClearChannelIsAMonopoly.net ? Do they get sued too? I'll bet the DMCA had something to do with this. And since it was a .net domain, were Verisign involved?
.net?
RadioAid was taken to arbitration instead of the US Judicial system
This part sickens me the most. Forget a jury of your peers. It would seem that important decisions are now left to private clubs. I wouldn't be surprised if some in the clear channel camp played golf/tennis/handball with some of the 'independant' arbitrators and chatted about the case 'off the record'. "Tsk,tsk. Those RadioAid Hippies. Communists, I tell you Bob. Sheer terrorist sympathisers. FORE!!"
The implications of this could be very far reaching. For instance, if Clear Channel can annex ChealChannelSucks.net, what else can they do? Can they SLAAP Google to stop referencing sites wich critisise them? Can they sue sites that critisise them because they used the ClearChannel name without consent? Will someone come after me for the above paragraph? Will they come after you for reading it? Linking to it? We NEED to be able to say out loud and in public CLEARCHANNELSUCKS!! THEY ARE AN EVIL MONOPOLY!! Without getting our asses sued off for unconformity. If we can't, then the slope just gets slipperier.
Fight the power RadioAid. I've never heard of you but I'm with you 100%.
Is clearchannelsucks.org still about? Or has it been blasted by too many censorware products picking up 'suck' in the url? How long until clearchannel get that one too, having been 'aided' by the decision in the favour on
May the Maths Be with you!
On July 16th, 2004, a decision was handed down from the National Arbitration Forum that took away ownership of RadioAid.com's website "ClearChannelSucks.net" and gave the website to the complaintant, Clear Channel Communications, Inc. The decision of the arbitration panel has left us (the founders of RadioAid.com) with only one choice. That choice is,
...of course, to register clearchannelreallysucks.org, clearchannelblows.net, and clearchannelcanbiteme.com
.ass TLD
Too bad there's not a
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
Hey dude. Just chill out.
Turn on any radio and just listen to the wide variety of Britney Spears albums 24x7 on the wide variety of local stations in your city that are all owned by us.
That's all you need.
Sincerely,
Clear Channel Communications Management.
SOME ONE KNOCKS THEM ON THEIR ARSE! But, that'll come with like, a lottery string of luck. get the right judge, get the right people in the whole string of things and then the decision MIGHT be right and go agiast CC
The various "cybersquatting" laws could affect this lawsuit. But I think that CC would loose in a legal fight.
Method of processing duck feet
Findlaw has an article on a judge overturning a decision by the NAF over freebies.com and the NAF is being sued for "...refusing to disclose information about how it handles cases when consumer rights are at stake." Google for National Arbitration Forum and you'll find what looks like many(read through the thread) sketchy things about this group.
I am going to flip out like a ninja and destroy clear channel. hard.
silence it's critics
"its".
This will probably get modded off topic or some such, but its important. Currently www.radioshacksucks.com is down from a temporary injuction filed in Texas by RadioShack Corporation. Another threat to first amendmant rights. I urge all of you who support RadioAid to take notice of our cause as well. Please read http://socaltom.blogspot.com/ and join our group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radioshacksucks/ to learn more. I also urge any sympathetic ear to submit a news story to Slashdot, several atempts made by myself and others have been rejected. I also encourage anyone from RadioAid to contact the person who runs the above mentioned Blog, maybe you can work together as these two situations could have impacts on the other. There is strength in numbers.
http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/stories.php?topic=0 2/05/16/8250143
seems liek cc's got lots of dung on their plate this summer, this one may not even ding'em
This was in the Austin American Statesman today... Company sues Clear Channel to keep domain name Radio giant contends RadioAid is using Web site to divert consumers By Jonathan Osborne AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Wednesday, July 28, 2004 A small Austin Internet company filed suit against Clear Channel Communications on Tuesday over a Web site domain name that criticizes the San Antonio-based radio giant. RadioAid.com, an online promoter of unsigned and independent musical artists, purchased ClearChannelSucks.net in January 2002 after learning that Clear Channel already owned ClearChannelSucks.com. RadioAid's founders used the domain, which redirects browsers to the company's home page, to promote RadioAid and to protest the established music industry, which they claim stifles creativity, promotes uniformity and treats musicians unfairly. Last December, a lawyer for Clear Channel sent RadioAid a letter asking the company to stop using the domain name. RadioAid refused. In May, Clear Channel filed a complaint with the National Arbitration Forum, the first stop in dealing with such disputes as required by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Clear Channel won the case earlier this month, theoretically gaining control of the domain. However, the lawsuit filed in federal court Tuesday prevents that transfer for the time being. Clear Channel did not immediately respond to inquiries about the suit Tuesday. However, in a letter to RadioAid founder Rob Vining and in its original complaint, Clear Channel argues that Clear ChannelSucks.net uses Clear Channel's name to divert consumers to its competition -- that is, a business that directly relates to broadcasting music. RadioAid's lawyer, Pete Kennedy, said that RadioAid's business philosophy and mission are, in part, to criticize what the company sees as an overly commercialized and overly consolidated music industry. "Whether they're right or wrong, they believe they have the right to make that criticism, and this domain name, they believe, is part of that critique," Kennedy said. "RadioAid.com believes it has First Amendment rights just like individuals." Kennedy said that in similar cases across the nation -- and there have been many -- the courts typically favor the critics. RadioAid's case is different because most of the past "sucks.com" or "sucks.net" cases involved domain names owned by individuals or advocacy groups -- not other corporations. Vining, who runs the company out of his South Austin home, said his site features about 500 artists worldwide who pay RadioAid for Web sites and music storage space. The company's officers decided to purchase the ClearChannelSucks.net site because, in Vining's words, "We've always been upset about how radio was just becoming bland and boring."