Slashdot Mirror
The Saga of Katie.com
digitalcaffeine writes "The gist of the story is that Katie Tarbox became a victim of an online sexual predator when she was 13. She wrote a book about it in 2000 and Penguin Putnam made the title of the book 'Katie.Com', which unfortunately was a domain name owned by Katie Jones since 1996. Now Tarbox's lawyer is demanding that Jones turn over the domain name.
Penguin refuses to apologize, saying that it would be a violation of their free speech to re-title the book and that Jones never trademarked katie.com, so they can do what they want with the words."
It's not also a violation of the domain owner's free speech rights to have to "re-title" her domain?
There's something ironic about her lawyers fighting to have the Katie.com domain so that she can promote her book about Internet predators.
Cheers,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
I sent a letter to Penguin yesterday letting them know that I disapprove of their actions in this matter.
It's conceivable, but unlikely, that if enough people write or call they will change their tactics.
I assume that dealing with a large publisher is like dealing with government; I expect that they ignore email complaints but are more likely to respond to letters or phone calls.
Oh, but they did. Had you RTFA then you would have realised then the original title for the book was to be girl.com, changed because the content of girl.com was at the time of the decision pornographic.
Actually, they almost certainly did know the domain was taken. Originally, the book was to be titled "girl.com", but according to the Katie Jones' open letter, girl.com at the time was a hardcore porn site. Seems to be a search page of some sort now. Anyway, I would not be surprised to find out that this was a deliberate move by the company. They knew katie.com was taken by someone else, but it was a private individual who had not registered any trademark on the domain name, and it's apparently a more desireable name than katiet.com (Katie Tarbox's actual website), so they probably figured they could muscle it out of her.
I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this margin is too small to contain.
Katie Jones can assert her copyright of the works and the name at any time. Just because someone else doesn't do their due diligence and wraps their business up in a name does not mean the original owner has to cough it up. A little advice for Katie Tarbox's lawyer(s): even IF you get the name awarded, it will be tied up in court for a long time, probably longer than the value you have attached to it will last if not immediately established, and secondly, any decent judge will force you to pay through the nose to compensate the original owner. Good luck. You should make her a seven figure offer if it is so important to your business model.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Seems to me like the katie.com publisher and probably Tarbox screwed up in not checking domain registration before printing. They've gotta suck up their own mistake, and not hassle Jones about donating the name back.
no one's going to go to "katie.com"
And yet there's a reason why every phone number in the movies has to be prefixed with 555.
Or they could assume that the associated website would contain more information about the book, author, etc.
You have a rather broad definition of "random, uninteresting American." If you had bothered to do even a modicum of research, you would find that Katie Jones (owner of katie.com) lives in London, and Pearson Group (which seems to own the Penguin Putnam group) is based in London.
You clearly dislike it when Americans assume everything is about them, but is it fair to complain when you also assume everything is about Americans?
Right on the money. How stupid are the Penguin sales and marketing folks to release a book with a domain name as the title, when they did not even own it. The one they own katieT.com should have been the title. It is almost like they had a disconnect between marketing and the art department. (Someone in the art department said "KatieT? It has to be Katie.")
Even the creators of Friends were smart enough to register www.hahanotsomuch.com before it was used as a joke URL in the TV show two seasons ago.
Penguin is trying to make Katie pay for their stupidity.
Have you Meta Moderated t
Consider that a lot of p(a)edophiles were sending pictures and other stuff to the email address, so you know they were visiting katie.com, too.
Would you post your daughter's baby pictures on a site you knew was a target for p(a)edophiles?
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
1) OK, then... phone numbers are not trademarked. If I use my next door neighbor's phone number as the title of a book I should be OK, right? Probably up until I get sued for the cost of him changing his phone number and all associated costs. Imagine all the crank calls he'd receive at 3 am. This is why books and media started using 555 numbers.
2) I hate victim mentality that equates their suffering with entitlement. If you were a victim of something (esp. as a child), suddenly people are supposed to donate stuff to you, like domain names?!? ("Think of the Children!" the cynical demand heard everywhere...) Sure, it's a stretch to attribute the publishers' and lawyer's desires and expectations to their client, but she has the power to tell them "No! Not in my name, Asshole!"
katie.com was there long before the book was even a gleam in a publisher's eye, so Penguin Putnam can go suck it. I hope they get their ass sued off.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
(Sigh.) Obviously not, indeed. It's rather worse: the lawyer for KatieT contacted the owner of Katie.com, and suggested that Ms. Jones simply donate the name to them to solve her problems. Quoth Ms. Jones,
She also mentions that she has turned down substantial offers for the domain in the past, which makes the suggestion of the donation mindbogglingly obtuse. Methinks she needs to hire an aggressive pirhana of a lawyer... oh, and that you should RTFineA before burbling in the future. =|//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Given the fact that they originally entitled the book "girl.com" and the changed it because girl.com is a porn site, it is reasnable to assume they also checked out katie.com.
Basically, they made the decision NOT out of ignorance, but calculating the fact that they knew they could bully her out of what they perceive as a good choice of names for the book. Penguin is big and Katie is small. It would be unreasonable to assume Penguin has done any of this out of ignorance given their reason for changing the original name of the book.
Penguin should be sued in every nation they exist for two or three times damages. I believe they are doing this believing they will simply be able to out-lawyer her. Penguin should be punished in a way that is severe and public enough that a message to all abusive and litigeous corporations out there that immoral behavior should not be allowed.
"Right" is not defined as that which you can get away with. It is not right what they have done and continue doing. And it is not their right to do so... even if they manage to get away with it.
That makes it look like the ever-popular "My book got published and I can afford a lawyer, give me the domain name I want" approach. I hope Katie Jones finds good counsel to put Ms. Tarbox in her place.
the domain was registered in 1996, well before the book was written and released. The book was originally to be titled "girl.com" but that turned out to be a porn site, so they changed it to "katie.com" instead.
All in all, it was a stupid move on the publisher's part, and they are just pulling the normal corporate move of not acknowledging any responsibility and hoping their legal threats can win it for them.
Personally, if I owned a domain like that, I'd use it as an opportunity to be a really big pain in the ass, but that's just me. I think the domain owner has all rights to be as much of a pest as she wants, and quite obviously she has all legal rights to the domain.
if you really wanted to get pedantic, you could argue that since the sex.com case (somewhat) established domains as "property", that the book title infringes upon her property. there has to be an ambulance chaser out there somewhere willing to pick that standard up and run with it...
EOM
haha. redirect to girl.com for a few weeks. that'll get 'em to change quick enough.
Actually, would not even need that. If Katie of katie.com was smart, she should have filed a defamation suit immediately.
What would the courts decision be if Penguin Publishing used her phone number for a title instead? Penguin would have been raked over the coals.
The only problem is getting a Judge to be able to see the comparison in a favorable light.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Of course, IANAL, but through the actions of the publisher, katie.com has suffered real losses which could (should) have been avoided by a search to see if the term existed. They clearly did a search on other titles, and a reasonable person would expect the same be done for all titles.
Unlike a name or a phrase, a domain is a fixed, unique address for locating information and any given domain can be checked with trivial effort. It would be like titling a book (202) 625-0040 and not dialing the number to see if it was in operation. (My apoligies to the D.C. resident/business whose number that is).
The owner of Katie.com probably does have legal standing to sue in most 1st world courts, though the outcome would vary considerably, and be very costly for a private individual in any case.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
What's really been disgusting is that Penguin has refused to acknowledge Katie Jones since 2000, when the book was first published, and the massive traffic began swamping Katie.com. They created a massive slashdot effect on purpose, against someone who had no connection with the book, and now have clearly decided to complete what they started, and take over the domain for themselves. Pretty ugly preceedent if they succeed - misappropriate someone's trademark, slashdot somebody for a few years, then file suit to take over the domain.
Big corporation with millions of dollars, against a small businesswoman with limited resources. I say a legal defense fund is in order here, if it ever goes to trial (and of course, WHERE would it go to trial - the US, or the UK?)
i'd be really tempted, but it might show an attempt to damage the reputation of penguin. you and i know this is wrong, bad and Just Plain Dumb, but you can never predict which way a court will see it...
Hmm... Interesting little portrayal the author of the book offers there. Isn't it _her_ lawyer that's asking Katie Jones to offer the domain name for free to her?
I'm not a nerd. I'm a geek. Nerds make more money.
It's boilerplate. Anyone sending email to about this here get's the same response.
My guess is she's probably sipping mint julips under the cottonwoods enjoying here $$$$ from the book and doesn't give a rats ass about being part of a legal predator's actions.
I guess she doesn't care because it's "not her" getting screwed this time.
This is a perfect example of the dangers resulting from corporations now being treated as entities which enjoy first amendment protections (I believe it was during Reagan's presidency that this change happened).
Think about this for a second - a huge media corporation with publishing facilities in cities all around the world and teams of lawyers - arguing that their free speech is being violated by one person's individual website. Do you really think it's in the spirit of the first amendment that these two entities should be perfectly equal in the eyes of the law?
Tarbox is described in her bio as having dealt with an "internet predator".
Now she and her lawyers are after this other Katie over a domain name.
Who's the internet predator now?
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
No, what this case involves is out-and-out extortion. It has nothing to do with Capitalism or they would have offered to buy the domain. Their lawyer is using threats in an attempt to steal it. Taking someone's property without paying for it is stealing.
This is on the order of someone building a house at 63045 North 63045 Street, and then Channel 63,045 starts up and decides they want the property you live on for the address to their studios, so they tell you to sign over the deed to them for free.
They had no right to this name, she had it first, and it is legitimately her name. This is a clear and obvious attempt at reverse cybersquatting, and nothing less. Don't smear Capitalism over something it is not.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
There was a point where she was going to name her on-line (fear based I'm sure) education program katie.com. The publisher of her book wasn't involved with this. However the lawyer she is/was working with was. He has his own lame blog, like every other self-important ass in the universe. Now her program has been renamed something in the .org space.
As much as the ill-concieved and inconsiderately titled book has been a significant burden on Mrs. Katie Jones (Who runs a web-based small business with a chatroom no less) it's about Katie Tarbox demanding someone else's property be donated to her new commercial venture.
There's a reason she didn't call the book girl.com. And it's the obvious one. She didn't call it KatieT.com, which is the domain she now uses. But Katie.com. The property she neither owned nor could afford. So she greatly diminished the value and utility to the owner. Her lack of empathy for others, particularly after what she's been through is telling. I've no doubt that rather than lie, a person such as herself would just re-imagine the truth to be whatever is most convienent for the moment they are in.
In the interest of fairness Ms. Tarbox should, in the following printings of her book, retitle them, and include an apology to Mrs. Katie Jones. She wants people to learn from and have empathy for her. It's only reasonable that she learn from her own mistakes, and be considerate of others.
[ Inspired by this brilliant post ]
"Penguin refuses to apologize, saying that it would be a violation of their free speech to re-title the book..."
Treat others as you would want them to treat you.
What if Katie Jones (katie.com) did this (with some help...)
1. Write a book about Linux. Title it, um... 'penguin.com'
2. Launch a campaign to persuade Penguin publishing to donate control of their penguin.com domain. Of course... in aid of millions of citizens abused for several years by a convicted monopoly. Many of these citizens are finding comfort in the things described in 'penguin.com'
3. Keep praising our right to free speech.
4. Work hard promoting 'penguin.com': a CD jacket, translations to various languages, lecture tours, bookstore appearances...
5. Oh, I almost forgot... by all means, register 'penguin.com' as a trademark.
What if?
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:23:50 -0400
From: Chris Knight <merlin@ghostwheel.com>
To: online@penguinputnam.com
Subject: In response to katie.com
To whom it may concern,
I make this promise today: As long as Penguin Group is engaged in their
disgraceful attempt to strong-arm katie.com from its rightful owner I will
refuse to purchase any book published by them, or any of their subsidiaries.
Should Penguin Group succeed in stealing katie.com from Katie Jones I will
continue to avoid your books, I will teach my children to do so as well, and I
will spread the story to all my friends.
We live in a capitalistic society, and profit seems to be the only thing
people understand anymore. Therefore, I am casting my vote with the dollars
you will not receive while engaged in such actions.
-Chris
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
I ran into Mark and his crew at Applefest 1982 in Anahiem. Fun show that...
I may even still have a floppy or two around. Between the current Katie.com issue and this one, I do know one thing: In an average year I spend a good thousand dollars or better on books. Yes, I read quite a bit. Hence forward, I will be reviewing the publisher information on the spine and if it says Penguin, it goes right back on the shelf. I trust the publisher enjoys the company of their lawyers because they just lost the a customer forever.
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
At thirteen she's too old to be helping 40 year old guys look for lost puppies in dark alleys, or go with someone because they promise to give her candy.
She was an active participant in what happened to her. She met with a man she didn't know and created and implimented a plan to subvert her parents will to do so. Did she have the greatest parents? Nope. They raised a moron, and gave it way too much responsibility. And though those failings certainly played a part in her spectacularly dangerous behavior, they don't belong to the woman who owns Katie.com.
She didn't just ask for a domain name. That'd just be stupid. She willfully added hardship to the life of another for her own personal gain. That's not considerate behavior. I try to live my life by simple rules. Such as, do unto individuals as they do unto others. If you find my application of her own morality on her less than generous or even cruel, well once again she brings it on herself.
As for control. All she had to do to save herself all the grief is nothing. Just not show up. She still wouldn't have had the idilic childhood she laments not having. She had all the power she needed. Instead she looked foreward to a fantasy she knew was both wrong, and couldn't exist. Now she looks back whistfully at a fantasy childhood that could never have existed. Because she's unhappy the feelings and property of others don't matter. She was molested, and Judith Light will play her mother in the movie adaptation!
Seriously, fuck her. She a waste of space. Wah wah her parents didn't love her. Well, since this is who she is, can't say I blame them.
... calculated about this, so burn karma, burn!After reading the provided excerpt from the book titled "Katie.com", it reveals something about this young woman that doesn't portray her in a good light. As a matter of fact, she seems to be hilighting the fact that the chat with a pedophile began when she was 13 but seems to de-emphasize the fact that the actual 'molestation' occurred when she was 17. Still a minor but she was not a kid and it wasn't molestation and perhaps not even rape - Had the jerk met her somewhat superficial standards at the time (had been in his 20's, had been generally kind and paced things a bit slower) she likely wouldn't have accused him of molestation.
Combine that with her attitude toward this lawyer led barnstoming over the domain that the publisher used for a book title (which has nothing to do with the events portrayed in the book) and the general lack of care for what is being done on her behalf... I don't envision this young lady a victim of anything at all except her own actions and superficial views of the world.
Mod me troll, if you must, I can't help it.
Reply and ask her why her lawyer is harassing Katie Jones then.
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Except for ethics and freedom, you're right.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
I thought we were against bullies on the internet.
It's sad that Tarbox's early exploitation defined her career so early. She might be exploiting herself with books and websites about her violation, but it's more likely that she's now become a completely willing victim of lawyers and publishers who pimp her out as a tiny cottage industry. At least the centrality of Penguin Putnam, and their arborcide products, in this sleazy story shows that the Internet is at worst an innocent bystander in this travesty.
--
make install -not war
Umm, money (or the lack thereof in this case)? How would Katie Jones defend herself when the other Katie desides to sue her for libel? Even if KJ had tons of money she would still lose since it would, in fact, be libel. And it is MUCH easier to win a case of libel in the UK than in the US AFAIK.
The point of keeping the the moral high ground is that it's the moral high ground.
The point of morals is that they are morals.
Switching morals on and off based on the actions of others makes them cease to be morals.
What I bet is that Penguin will contact Amazon and "get this all sorted out" in short order.
I think Katie Jones should author and publish a book about Linux and the Internet and call it Penguin.com and then let Penguin spout off about freedom of speech.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.