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."

20 of 1,246 comments (clear)

  1. Makes no sense by xbrownx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Makes no sense by shellbeach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No it isn't ironic.

      There's nothing worse than a pedant who's wrong. Except perhaps a pedant who's anonymous too ...

      To explain in what should be needless detail: The book katie.com is about internet predators (the author was apparently a victim of one). You would therefore expect the author to act with great respect for other's online rights. However, instead her (and/or her publisher's) lawyers are being predators themselves by attempting to take over a domain name that existed long before the book was ever thought of. Thus there is an inconguity between the anticipated actions of the author and the actions in reality. This is a perfect example of irony.

      Sheesh ....

    2. Re:Makes no sense by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Insightful
      So let's see, rape vs. making someone move from katie.com to katiejones.com.

      I think you are oversimplifying things here. This is not about Katie T's rape. This is about Katie T making gobs of money (from the book, lectures, school program, even a TV show!) using the katie.com moniker. Which she does not own! It would be far more appropriate for them to have called it KatieT.com from the get go.

      I am sorry that Katie T had to go through what she did at the ahnds of a 40 year old pedophile. But just because she suffered in her past does not give her carte blanche to use another person's domain to help her make money. Katie Jones, the true owner of katie.com, is being harassed and pushed around simply because she doesn't want to give away what she owns and values. In that respect then there is a certain amount of irony involved.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  2. Almost too weird to be true by erick99 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why do I feel like something might be missing from this story? We have the makings of a tv movie here. A girl is victimized, horribly, as a result of her online activities. A book is made, a lucrative speaking engagement tour is arranged, and the victim makes a lot of money. That in itself is not necessarily bad (though it can be rather odd). However, with all of this money seemingly floating about, Katie T. and Penguin could have done the most gracious thing and made a generous offer to Katie J. for the domain name katie.com. Instead, they suggest that the domain name should be given to them as a "donation." I generally donate money to causes that are essentially "poor." I don't see any poor people on Kate T.'s side of the fence. So, this looks really, really greedy on the part of Katie T. and Penguin. As a matter of fact, it looks so overwhelmingly crass and greedy that it seems almost unreal. The Register article seemed informative but can this really be all there is to this? Is Penguin really so dumb as to steamroller over someone's domain name and not offer even a token sum to fix it? I wonder. If Katie T. and Penguin really are this mean-spirited and greedy then I do hope that someone steps forward and helps Katie J. fund a legal challenge.

    Cheers,

    Erick

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
  3. Complain (in ink on paper) to Penguin by ericlj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:So they name the book by stromthurman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:and in other news.... by Entrope · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  6. Name the book KatieT.com by eltoyoboyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:Stupid by admiralh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. Tough Noogies by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I didn't RTFA, but it seems the publisher is making 2 claims: 1) They can use katie.com as a book title since it's not trademarked, and it's their 1st amendment right, and 2) For some vague "think of the children" reason, the current owner of katie.com should give it up.

    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...
  9. Re:Stupid... by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Katie.com by Entrope · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Katie.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    haha. redirect to girl.com for a few weeks. that'll get 'em to change quick enough.

  12. Re:A new shock site? by swv3752 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  13. Penguin has been ignoring the issue since 2000 by silentbozo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?)

  14. probably not by RMH101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:probably not by bkr1_2k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As said somewhere else, though, these people have effectively made Katie.com's business and reputation impossible to maintain as it was intended. The web site can't actively host chats now or allow her to put up her own information. If I were Katie Jones, I'd look into the possibility of sueing Penguin and Katie T for harassment and any kind of business expenses she incurred for having to change her practices. Go to well respected papers (lots of them) with the story, not just online. Tell them what's happening and try to get some grassroots support. (That will help motivate some lawyers to jump on the side of legal defense without incurring huge costs directly to Katie Jones.)

      bkr

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  15. Wasn't always the case. Even if it is now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  16. Re:uh, no by carlos_benj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    Right. So the publisher knows that girl.com won't work for them before they publish the book. Whether they were checking that out ahead of time or just stumbled on the information they likely would have said, "Hey, let's check out katie.com so we don't run into the same problem." That means the publisher used katie.com fully aware that it was in use by someone prior to publication. Now that "someone" is being pressured to relinquish their long-held domain name. I'm not a litigious individual (never been involved in a suit on either side and I'm nearing 50) but I'd be filing a countersuit in a heartbeat.

    --

    --

    As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

  17. Re:Hoax? Parody? by mr_mischief · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.