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."
If it weren't so stupid, it would be funny. These people need a severe beating with a clue stick.
Website gang-raped by thousands of Slashdotters. Film at 11...
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.
without ever googling for the domain name they used? Unbelievably clueless.
Why doesn't the real (slim?) Katie make katie.com a convienient mirror of, say, goatse. Then the people will complain to Penguin and they'll be forced to do something. Like change the title. It's her right to decide the content of her page, right? So I think she'd even be in the clear :-)
:)
Of course ligit visitors might think Katie is a weirdo, but hey. It's better than having Katie.tv_fm_info_dumbtld
My other car is first.
FSF should sue Penguin and get Tux's name back.
--
I thought trademark was a right guaranteed with or without going through the trademark process. After her first "sale" (visit from an outsider), she would have held a trademark on her site.
The Political Programmer
the fact that the sex.com ruling made web names property. I would think that with that precedent, and judges love those, that the owner of the site can not be forced to turn it over. She was there first.
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
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.
While a person's name may not be unique, katie.com is a unique identification. Penguin has (by ignorance) directly acted against the interests of the person who had katie.com. Freedom of speach does not mean there are not consequences for what you say. A lack of copy right does not change the uniqueness of the identification. This has law $uit writen in the biggest letters I have ever seen.
In a place beyond time and space, in a land far better than this, look for me there...
Maybe Penguin should have thought about that before releasing the book? Dumbasses. On the plus side, I've decided to becoming a budding author. My debut book is scheduled to be released on April 1 2005, and its name will be "cia.gov".
I notice that you currently own the name "slashdot.org". Our research shows you never trademarked this name. Last week, I applied for a trademark on the terms "slashdot", "slashdot.org" and "slashdot.com" and these have been granted. Therefore I require you to hand over your domain immediately, or face legal proceedings.
Yours Sincerely,
I.P. Freely
1. Write a book called Amazon.com about ancient warrior women that are stalked online.
2. Take control of said domain name then sell it back.
3. Profit
Unlike the plans of the underpants gnomes and SCO, this one may actually be crazy enough to work.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
867-5309
... how is Darl McBride involved? I mean come on, doesn't he *really* own the trademark to penguins?
Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.
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.
This could set a frightening precedent.
Anyone know why the lawyers are going after Katie Jones rather than the register or something? All Katie Jones did was send someone money to register a domain name. The idiotic publisher fogot to check and see if it was taken before naming the book? Huh?
Katie Jones hasn't broken any laws, so I would guess that the lawyers are just trying to bully her. All this publicity will certainly take the wind out of the corrupt sails.
My post doesn't make sense because this story makes no sense. This is just crazy!
[FromTheMorning]
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.
But Katie J is also being stupid with her whole "I can't use my domain blah blah blah" crap. How can she not mention her baby on her page because people are coming there? The whole point to the web is that it is PUBLIC and people will come and go. So people are reading, now she has to take everything down? Stupid.
LordBodak's journal.
RTFA. Penguin is a multinational corporation and Katie Jones is from the UK.
Penguin should retitle to Katie.org, Katie.net, Katie.golf.... whatever's free ;-)
1) Name book after existing, small time website
2) Create small copywrite-related controversy over said site
3) Get small site url posted on Slashdot.
4) Reduce small website to smouldering ruin
5) Offer to accept smouldering ruin as "donation."
As a UK citizen, she should just go to the police with the threatening legal letters, and raise a charge of harrassment against Penguin Publishing. Point out that Penguin Publishing published her e-mail address everywhere in order to get a lot of people to harrass her. I'm sure that there is a lot of stuff she can do under UK law to stop this illegal baiting.
... it would be nice to see a lawyer with a heart for a start ... I'm not holding my breath though.
Penguin are clearly in the wrong here. I will just choose to not buy any book published by Penguin, it is the least I can do.
I hope that a lawyer sees this and decides to help this person out
Please send your complaints to Katiet.com, which is the web site of the Penguin book that is causing all this fuss.
If the author gets flooded with mail about her predatory behavior, something might happen.
The autor's address is katie@katiet.com
Penguin couldn't care less.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
To answer some questions that I've received today, firstly as far as I know the rather aggressive lawyer who contacted me yesterday is not part of Penguin Puttnam but is working with Katie Tarbox on future projects and trying to gain control of my domain name for these projects. She informed me that things would 'only get worse' for me from here if I didn't do something about it - i.e. give it to them.
Finally, a point about this domain name. When this book launched I had no choice but to take down the content I previously had published on the front page because of the traffic coming to the site and having no choice but to remove it if I didn't want my professional and personal reputation damaged by it. I still use it, although I don't link from the front page of course, and one day I sincerely hope I'll be able to move my content back up where it belongs.
Cheers,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
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 obviously haven't taken notice of the average intelligence quotient of people here in the US, have you?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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?
Yours Sincerely,
IPFreely
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
if you would like to let penguin know what you think of their strongarm tactics, you might find the following information useful:
c o.ukn guin.co.uk
Penguin Books Ltd, Pearson Customer Operations
Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, Essex, CM20 2JE
Fax: 0870 850 1115
www.penguin.co.uk
customer.service@penguin.co.uk
orders@penguin.
export@penguin.co.uk
internationalsales@pe
Penguin Group (USA)
375 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014
www.penguinputnam.com
Penguin Group (Australia)
250 Camberwell Road, Camberwell, VIC 3124
Australia
Tel: 61-3-9871-2400
Fax: 61-3-9870-6086
www.penguin.com.au
Penguin Group (Canada)
10 Alcorn Ave., Suite 300, Toronto, Ontario, M4V 3B2 Canada
Tel: (416) 925-2249
Fax: (416) 925-0068
www.penguin.ca
Penguin India
11 Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi 110 017, India
Tel: 91-11-2649-4401
Fax: 91-11-2649-4402
www.penguinbooksindia.com
Penguin Ireland
25 St Stephen's Green, Dublin 2, Ireland
Tel: 00-353-1-661-7695
Fax: 00-353-1-661-7696
Email: info@penguin.ie
www.penguin.ie
Penguin Group (New Zealand)
Private Bag 102-902, North Shore Mail Centre, Auckland 1310
Albany, Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: 64-9-415-4700
Fax: 64-9-415-4703
www.penguin.co.nz
Penguin South Africa
24 Sturdee Avenue, Rosebank, 2169, South Africa
Tel: 27-11-327-3550
Fax: 27-11-327-6574
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
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
You didn't read the article.
They did look it up first, they just went ahead not caring that they were about to vaporize someone else's server.
no one's going to go to "katie.com"
As the article states, the woman who owns katie.com receives a LOT of traffic and email from people who think her site is affiliated with the book. She even gets e-mail from pedophiles.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
People with their own domain name are leeching potential profits off corporations, thereby destroying the economy!
One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do and always a clever thing to say. - Will Duran
You have too much faith in people not being idiots. People watched "Bruce Almighty" and immediately started trying to phone God when they used a legitimate telephone number on the pager rather than the traditional 555-xxxx format.
Couldn't Katie Jones sue Katie Tarbox for libeling her as a sexual assault victim?
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...
Generally one would name the book with a title that has something to do with the book itself. So, why Katie.com? Does the appending of .com make one think of sexual predators? I mean, at one time, dumbasses thought appending .com would make your business successful, but that's another story.
I don't see why they couldn't just name the book and propped up a website, independently. Then the book could reference the website as a resource.
I'm glad that Katie Jones took the high road. If I were her, there'd be some of the nastiest porno I could find sitting on katie.com right now.
Yet another example of what's wrong on the Internet. Someone should set up a fund for Katie Jones so that she can hire an attorney and have her attorney send the other Katie cease and desist letters...
First off, Katie the book writer should have checked it out and secured the website before being published. /.
Second, Katie the website owner should cash in and sell ad space, I'm sure she'll be getting a lot of hits now that the story is on
---
Those who can, do
Those who can't, teach
Those who don't know how, supervise
(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.
Anyone want to bet that if I wrote a story about sexual abuse and published it under a title that happened to include Penguin's lawyers phone numbers or e-mail addresses, I'd get instantly sued?
The bullshit about trademarks is just an attempt to confuse the issue.
Personally I feel this is simply corporate terrorism. I hope she doesn't hand over the domain to them. It's hers and she had it for years before the book was published. Apparently they knew it was in use since they have that disclaimer in the book stating that katie.com wasn't associated with them.
What makes it all especially ironic of course is that the book itself is about the abuse of the Internet to disrupt an innocent person's life. In the situation of Katie.com, however, it is increasingly the case that the abused has become the abuser.
I think this sums it up nicely. I wish her luck in fighting this!!
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
OK, everyone seems a little confused about this - like, why now when the book was published in 2000?
For those that don't RTFA:
- In 2000, this book came out, and Katie Jones asked Dutton (subsidiary of Penguin) to change the title, as she had the domain name and they were hijacking it; as a result of the book title, KJ was receiving emails both detailing peoples abuse at the hands of paedophiles, as well as abusive emails from paedophiles themselves. See here and here. KJ took loads of stuff (including pictures of herself and family) off the site as a result - and Penguin ignored the request. I can't find the original slashdot article, although I'm sure there must have been one.
- Now, four years later, Jones gets a nasty letter, and this slashdot story is posted. This is caused by KT doing some thing about teaching kids about online safety (whether for money or altruism I don't know) - and them calling it Katie.com. Source.
- It seems the lawyer, one Parry Aftab, has a website.
There's a good summary (almost as good as this one) here, and suprisingly, on CNN.
You contribute by going to amazon.com, and any other online bookseller you can, and then blast the book by describing the facts of the situation.
I'm happy to see that there are now dozens of reviews at amazon explaining this situation. Come on you slashdotters get off your lazy butts and get the number of negative reviews up to at least a thousand.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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.
If I were Katie Jones, I'd setup Google AdWords on my front page, and perhaps a sponsored link to the katie.com book on Amazon, and use the proceeds to power a legal fund.
www.katiethebook.com doesn't seem to resolve. Quick somebody grab it before her lawyer figures it out.
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
If you haven't read the Register article, you should still head over to the Amazon.com page for the book and make sure you vote up the comments telling this story and why not to buy the book & vote down the others. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452 282535/qid=1091544986/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-735100 1-1544757?v=glance&s=books
While being molested is a horrible horrible thing, using it for your own personal greed and to hurt others is horrible as well.
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.
Direct from Katie.com:
To answer some questions that I've received today, firstly as far as I know the rather aggressive lawyer who contacted me yesterday is not part of Penguin Puttnam but is working with Katie Tarbox on future projects and trying to gain control of my domain name for these projects. She informed me that things would 'only get worse' for me from here if I didn't do something about it - i.e. give it to them.
The "only get worse" part is enough to qualify it as a demand in my book.
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
Apparently the book got renamed at the last minute because girl.com (the original name) was a porn site. The solution for Katie Jones as owner (and sole publisher of content) of katie.com seems obvious to me!
If the problem remains unresolved (and the domain unusable for the original purpose) maybe selling katie.com to a porn company would be a good way to get both some remuneration for the trouble and some one-upmanship at Penguin and Katie Tarbox. I'm guessing that domain might be hot property by now. Dealing with a "niche" porn company (I'll leave that to y'alls imagination) might be even more profitable, and a lot better still at raising bloodpressure at PP. CT
At this point the best hope for justice is a publicity backlash. Penguin is already well on their way to getting more negative publicity than they can stomach over this screw-up.
We should all write (preferably in dead-tree form) to Penguin, and to their corporate masters, Pearson.
Be polite but be firm. Ask specific questions and ask specifically for a reply (this will keep the letter alive and consuming resources in the bureaucracy much longer). Make it clear that this arrogant action, if uncorrected, will negatively affect your purchases and recommendations in the future.
Penguin:
Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
375 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10014
Pearson:
Pearson Headquarters
3 Burlington Gardens
London W1X 1LE, United Kingdom
Phone: +44-20-7411-2000
Fax: +44-20-7411-2390
Or, if you're in the US and just feel like ranting, try Penguin Customer Service: (800) 631-8571
This Like That - fun with words!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It would have been more effective to link the site, as even slashdotters on a mission are too lazy to cut and paste. Nonetheless, I've done my slashdot duty and used your link. I can only hope the other million /. readers do the same.
http://parryaftab.blogspot.com/
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
--J
haha. redirect to girl.com for a few weeks. that'll get 'em to change quick enough.
and one stalking victim to another.
Nice to see that KatieT's bad experiences left her with so much empathy for others. Seems like she got what she deserved a priori. It is truly a mysterious universe.
Check out this link. This guy had to stop referring to an old software company he was involved with in order to not get sued. You might recognize the name of the old company.
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.
Did anyone here read the book? One thing that jumped out at me was the way she talked about living in a very wealthy area (New Canaan, CT). For example, her swim team didn't have to do fundraisers because they were just given the money for travel, etc. Now there's a domain name she happens to want, and she seems to expect that it should also just be given to her. It does seem like Katie T. has a strong sense of entitlement.
Anyone else go to the site and read the exerpts from the book? Sounds more like she's a victim of a snobby, shallow, superficial society.
- Kevin
The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
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 emailed the author, and got this reply: I appreciate your thoughts and understand them completely. It is not posted on my web site, but this issue is between Katie Jones and Penguin Putnam. They own the name Katie.com as a published book and decided to call it that. I can do nothing in my power to change it. I would suggest if you would like your voice to be heard and a chance that something is done about it, direct your sympathy to Penguin Putnam. For the record I have never harassed Katie Jones for her site. Best, Katie Tarbox Whether that is true or not, I have no idea, but in the interest of fairness, her reply should be noted, I think. I have to admit, my (limited) knowledge of publishing seems to indicate the actual author has very little juice here.
John Kenneth Fisher
Table of malContents
I don't guess you've heard the saga of 867-5309 then.
Six score characters.
Brevity being wit's soul
I have enough space.
C'mon now! That's a fake name! How about Katie gzipBox or Katie rarball?
Best Buy can have you arrested
Katie J should be compensated for her domain name, which she owned before the book had any idea to use that title. Regardless of the experiences of Katie T, sympathy for her doesn't make Penguin's actions fair.
(on the other hand, I don't believe parent to be a troll, as parent has been modded)
I do think that this situation brings a question about the implications of registering a domain name on trademarks.
I'd say that a similar idea centers around Microsoft's ".net" framework. They've taken an existing top-level domain thingy that they were in no way associated with and colored it with their own shade of light blue. Now Microsoft didn't sue for ownership of all ".net" domains, but it's impossible now to call up a domain like "www.php.net" or "sourceforge.net" without thinking of Microsoft.
*begin old man voice* THERE OUGHTTA BE A LAW!!! *end old man voice*
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...
My brand of revenge is a little different. To embarrass the HELL out of Penguin, I'd make Katie.com a porn site.
I appreciate your thoughts and understand them completely. It is not posted on my web site, but this issue is between Katie Jones and Penguin Putnam. They own the name Katie.com as a published book and decided to call it that. I can do nothing in my power to change it. I would suggest if you would like your voice to be heard and a chance that something is done about it, direct your sympathy to Penguin Putnam. For the record I have never harassed Katie Jones for her site.
Best, Katie Tarbox
I sure don't envy her. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but what she doesn't say makes it sound a lot like she isn't altogether pleased with the way Penguin Putnam has been dealing with things. Actually, it sounds to me like she didn't ask for this and is tired of it.
I keep forgetting my place. Jesus is for losers. Why do I still play to the crowd?
It just seems insane for the publisher and author to take a hard line on a case like this. They can't win. No matter how it turns out, even if they won in court...highly doubtful...they get dirty. They're already dirty and now it's public dirty laundry waving in the breeze. The abused figures out how to turn a horrible incident into big $$$$ fear mongering on Jerry Springer and in turn becomes the abuser. What a f'ing PR disaster and now the media's got ahold of it.
Even Blake Stowell from SCO couldn't spin that into anything positive. It's so heavy-handed and brazen, you'd think they were doing it deliberately.
Penguin's upper management is either on some serious medication or they need to be. Take away the crack pipe and get them into detox.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Hmm... Interesting little portrayal the author of the book offers there. Isn't it _her_ lawyer that's asking Katie Jones to offer the domain name for free to her?
I'm not a nerd. I'm a geek. Nerds make more money.
It's boilerplate. Anyone sending email to about this here get's the same response.
My guess is she's probably sipping mint julips under the cottonwoods enjoying here $$$$ 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.
I recently read a story about your book and the problems it has been causing with the legal owner of Katie.com, Katie Jones.
I was appalled to read about how your lawyers, or penquin's lawyers acting on your behalf, are trying to steamroll Mrs. Jones into "donating" her property. Instead of bullying her into giving up her rightfully owned domain name, might I suggest politely offering her a nice sum in exchange? Any reasonable person would see that as being the decent thing to do.
It disgusts me that you were the victim of an online predator, and now it also disgusts me that you have become a different type of online predator.
I strongly urge you and your publishing company to either deal with Mrs. Jones in a respectable manner, or leave her alone altogether. I also urge you to put pressure on your publisher to stop this despicable behavior.
Sincerely,
(my name here)
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
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.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
[ 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. --
Write a parody of this whole thing and use the title Penguin.com.
Katie T. claims to have no power over what Penguin Putnam does, but she certainly should. Penguin and her apparently predatory lawyer, by their actions, are damaging her reputation. That alone should give her some legal basis for getting Penguin to change the name of the book and stop harrassing Katie J. Katie T. needs a new lawyer.
Of course, it could be that as long as the checks keep rolling in she just doesn't care. In which case she deserves whatever damage her reputation incurs.
Yeah and at Krispy Kreme from the look of those pictures.
Not permanently, however, it would cause penguin some problems if people rang up and complained about not being able to get to the web site, and Katie Jones wouldn't have to pay for bandwidth.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
I feel as you do - the book is hers. She is responsible. Hence I sent her the following letter:
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If they can't sell books, they can't pay lawyers. Lets let them know how we feel, Dave Barry Style!
b out/contact.htm
Direct mail and orders to:
Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
405 Murray Hill Parkway
East Rutherford, NJ 07073
(800) 788-6262 (Individual Consumer Sales)
(800) 526-0275 (Reseller Sales)
(800) 631-8571 (Reseller Customer Service)
International numbers here: http://www.penguinputnam.com/static/packages/us/a
"I threw up my hands in disgust and wondered if it had been such a good idea to have eaten my hands in the first place."
This raises the question, why isn't penguin linked into the story as an important link? Nothing gets the point across like a good old-fashioned slashdotting. Someone ought really to find the most graphics-heavy page on the site, and we can all reload it several times.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
As a friend of Katie Jones and the guy who hosts the katie.com domain...... Wow, you Slashdotters are an amazing bunch. No other site that has carried the story has generated a response as big the one from Slashdot. I thought my server had died earlier today, the amount of traffic it recieved was so large, and all from Slashdot. Thank you for taking an interest in this issue.
Apparently the book got renamed at the last minute because girl.com (the original name) was a porn site. The solution for Katie Jones as owner (and sole publisher of content) of katie.com seems obvious to me!
I had about the same idea, turn katie.com into a porn site, one of those "Just 18" sites, or the like, and, of course, call all of the models on the sign up page, "Katie". Get some basic content, pics, movie clips etc. and then use the book's fame against it. Might even be worth it to have a bunch of fiction posted on the site as well. Hell, go for the spike, and have lolita type fiction, and advertise this fact on the front page. If nothing else, the amout of controversy this will create will draw a ton of people to the site, just to see what it is all about. Once the site gets really popular, sell it to one of the bigger porn companies, and get out in style.
But then, I am vindictive that way.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Besides, think about it for a minute: Micro? Soft? Not exactly a good name for pornography.
Good point. Do you think this might explain some of Microsoft's behaviors-- like maybe they are compensating for something?
I wonder if calling the porn movie "MacroHard" would work? It could be about a dweebish geek who just happened to be hung like a horse but was clueless about how to use this hardware. Maybe he needs to rely on telephone tech support... from India... hmmm. Could make for a good mainstream comedy.
According to Katie Jones, it is not Penguin but Katie T.'s lawyer who is bullying her to give up katie.com.
That's a good start, but it's got too much plot.
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Yes - but not pr0n. Put up some Google Adwords, or sponsored links to Amazon. That would help cover the costs of the commandeered bandwidth. She must get a nice bit of traffic looking for information about the other Katie, why not use it? The good things about Adwords is that Google would choose the links, so she would have a good defense if accused of using the domain to profit from "Penguin's" trademark.
Oh, and while we're at it, don't forget to rate the reviews on Amazon if you found them helpful....
Mr Nissan registered the site http://www.nissan.com/ for his computer business. Nissan Motors came along later, and put up enough of a legal struggle, that Mr. Nissan had to change his website, so that it cannot be used for commerical purposes, namely, Mr. Nissan's computer shop. The whole story is here --> http://www.ncchelp.org/The_Story/the_story.htm/
I found the "Any" key.
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.
I call BULLSHIT! Society doesn't make fucking victims - stupidity does. I had a pretty shitty home life growing up, in the poorest of neighborhoods, broken home, all that shit - I didn't end up like the majority of my peers (in jail, broke, living off handouts from honest taxpayers) because I realized at an early age that I was responsible for my own actions, and the consequences thereof. I am sick and tired of people giving kids a green light to fuck up because they are young - were you that stupid as a teen?
No control or knowledge my ass - it's HER LAWYER not the publisher pursuing this.
While I agree that it is not right to wish further ills on the author over this, it is not right to support her and her publishers either. A brief look at katiet.com shows that her rough childhood has likely made her a quite well off adult, and the argument that she has no control over the decisions of her publisher are utter bullshit - they need her to be able to promote the damn book, so she has pull. Futher, just because something bad happened to you in the past, being a thief still makes you a thief and if her lawyer (working on her behalf, that she has the ability to hire and fire) succeeds, Katie Tarbow will be exactly that, a thief.
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
You can neither trademark nor copyright book titles. Books commonly come out with identical or nearly-identical titles. For example there is no legal conflict involved in Heinlein not being the only author to title a book Glory Road. And if you look at, for instance, the New York or London Review of Books you'll see books commonly coming out on current and historical subjects with titles completely or nearly identical - again, no legal action ensues. Some of these books come out on Penguin, so they know the law here.
To the extent that you can trademark anything, trademark is based in common law and derives from first use in commerce - and only applies to its use in commerce within the catagory of goods or services it's in (IANAL but I used to be the bureaucrat in charge of trademarks for a mid-sized state). So if you could trademark "katie.com" for the sale of books and publications (and you most certainly can't, unless it's the publisher's imprint rather than a book title), and you argue that the katie.com Web site is in that category, by common law right of first use kitie.com wins and you're up the creek without a paddle.
You also can't take a term already in use in an area and make it your trademark in that area - so you can't just start taking book titles or Web site addresses that aren't yours (and probably aren't trademarkable in themselves) and filing trademarks for books or publication services or whatever based on your appropriating them for your own publishers imprint - you can't call a publishing house "King James Bible" and then demand that all the bible publishers retitle their output.
What arses! The lawyer making these threats should be disbarred.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
... 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.
I have an idea. Why doesn't she write a book about her experience about corporate preditors screwing a young mother out of her domain name? I even have a good title for it.... Penguin.com
And Katie T's lawyer is Parry Aftab, Esq. Her site is aftab.com
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
This is nothing more than, "You have something we want, therefore you need to give it to us."
The trademark/domain issues only create confusion. It seems Katie T's lawyers are hoping to capitalize on that confusion.
Several people have made this point... and the reply posted by Katie T. (a form reply? it was posted several times) suggests the opposite.
In either case Penguin should bear the brunt of the negative publicity, in order to set a precedent: Don't blithely hijack people's domain names just because your lawyers think you can get away with it.
Penguin is clearly in the wrong. The lawyer in question is probably also in the wrong, and Katie T. may be as well, but we haven't seen enough information to make a strong judgement there.
Start by pressuring Penguin. The rest will follow their lead (as they have so far).
This Like That - fun with words!
She could check with the Faroe Islands to see if tarbox.fo is available then redirect to that. (Strangely there doesn't seem to be a .fu TLD.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Although I'll probably be lost in the torrent of comments on this one, I would just like to turn people's attention to a startlingly similar case; gateway.com.
For those that don't know, Alan Clegg once owned the domain "gateway.com"... since around 1994 or thereabouts. All of a sudden in 2000, Gateway 2000 decided that they liked this Internet thing after all and wanted to have the domain. So did they offer to buy said domain??? Hell no... they sued Alan for the domain. (a URL that details a bit of this is http://www.cybermad.com/culture/odd/odd.html)
Now, to this day I don't know exactly what happened to this lawsuit... I didn't keep up with it much, but of course gateway.com now goes to the large corporation.
Funnily enough, one of the really amusing (horrible) things that happened during the lawsuit was that Gateway 2000 removed the definition of "gateway" from their online dictionary, it being a piece of networking equipment which is where Alan got the name from.
If you're out there, Alan... I still wonder occasionally what happened. I even wrote an opinion piece of my own website about it... you can still search and find information about it on Google.
I feel for Katie Jones... and to be honest I hope she wins the lawsuit. Sounds to me like she's fighting the other Katie... not necessarily Penguin. I, for one however will not be buying this book under any circumstances. It would just fund the lawsuit.
parry@aftab.com ;)
there's the e-mail
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
If you can afford a lawyer, you can afford to at least offer to buy the domain name. What is up with this "i'll see you in court!" knee jerk reflex?
#!/usr/bin/english
Except for ethics and freedom, you're right.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
From the aftab website: The lawyer's Phone # is 201-463-8663. Not that anyone should leave harassing calls or anything.
http://persianews.on.nimp.org/?u=Tar_Baby
Hmmm, I think I'll write a song entitled "201-463-8663" and then sue her for the number. After all, it'd violate my first ammendment rights to not have the phone number of the song I wrote!
Dyolf Knip
If you read:n guin_ka tie_hijack/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/04/pe
they already mentioned that she would not be allowed to sell the domain name now since "it is now intricately linked with the book and media machine surrounding the other Katie".
I can tell you one thing any money I was ever going to spend on a book published by Penguin would now go to support the owner of katie.com
....except to WB and Paramount and whatever else big corporation wants to kill off their fan base for some reason.
Both companies above have waged war against their fans regarding websites.
In the case of WB, hundreds of fans had their fansites before Harry Potter was a galleon gleam in their coffers. That still didn't stop WB from sending cease and desist letters to teenie boppers the second they bought the rights for the films.
Just one more example of how corporations have more rights these days than citizens.
They are trying to compensate this by releasing Long Horn.
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
Turns out that the administrative contact information for KATIET.COM is bogus, at least the email portion.
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
TARBOX, KATIE (KT6079) agidore26@aol.com
745 CARTER ST
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840-5024
US
203 966 1828
I tried to send an email to that address to ask if she would post her side of the story on her site somewhere and had it bounce back. Now I don't know how nsi deals with this sort of thing, but in the past, i've had registrars breath fire down my neck b/c I had old, outdated information in my whois records.
I'm currently submitting a service request with nsi but I'm not sure if this is the right channel to for this. Anyone else have any other contact information for submitting bogus whois information to nsi?
we're your 51st state, now, aren't we?
Somebody should write a book and name it "aftab.com" and then sue the lawyer to give up her domain name.
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
Do what you will.
Would it be legal for Katie Jones to turn her site into a parody site? She could pretend to be the Katie from the book and "confess" that the whole story is just a hoax, or maybe place a false advertisement describing the book as a "How-To" story written by a 41-year-old man who lured a 13-year-old girl to his hotel room using an online chat site.... Given that Penguin has retained a top-rated constitutional lawyer to defend their misuse of the domain name and have millions of dollars to spend on questionable tactics to get Katie Jones to abandon the domain, I don't think there's any point in keeping the moral high ground in this case.
A better example would be Air Canada's failed attempt to force the owners of zip.com to give up their domain name when Air Canada introduced the Zip brand of economy airfare as a spin-off of the main-line airline business. It was yet another case of a company choosing a name and advertising it without checking first to see if the web address was available. Air Canada eventually gave up and stopped advertising zip.com (good thing, as the web site was redirecting people to the competition at WestJet) and registered 4321zip.com instead.
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.
*********
Rob, we never tried to take katie.com, Katie Jones is doing all of this for publicity. We were always using katiesplace.org. I am also not Katie's lawyer or anyone's lawyer and Jone's knows that.
I donate 90% of my time to running a charity that protects people online. But replying only feeds Jone's hidden agenda here.
For that reason, I request that you not share this without my advance permission.
-----Original Message----- From: Rob Miles [mailto:rmiles@theskepticalreview.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 2:42 PM To: parry@aftab.com Subject: Katie Jones and katie.com
Please stop your campaign to force Katie Jones to give up HER domain, katie.com. Even since the book by the came out, she has dealt with unwanted and unwarranted attention. Maybe this all started as a mistake or an oversight, but to plan to release additional material under that same name (as reported by Ms. Jones on 7/30/04) is certainly mean-spirited at this point.
As of 7/27/04 your site lists a new venture with Katie Tarbox named katiesplace.org. If this means that you have in fact given up on trying to force Ms. Jones to give up her rightful domain, then I apologize for the above and offer you my deepest appreciation.
***********
For the record, I consider any email sent to me to be my own property, regardless of any request or disclaimer saying otherwise.
All joking aside, the publisher should put aside their money for legal fees in this case, and just pay the domain owner whatever she wants. Yeah, she may have turned down several "high offers," but I assure you that none of them had the deep pockets of Penguin. Give the girl a nice advance, as well as a few points of the royalties if you want this domain THAT bad.
Hell, I totally agree with you.
;)
If these people are going to be asses and demand you turn over your domain beause they aren't creative enough to come up with a new name, you're going to get free advertising. With this comes value, and if you look, you'll find that SOMEONE will be interested in that traffic. I do like your idea, though
-matt
God I'm tired of this.. Katie T is nothing but a greedy selfimportant bitch.
She was NOT raped. She did go and meet a sleezy guy who turned out to be a lot older than she expected... But she did this when she was 17.. not 13 as all the press material implies. Additionally, she wasn't raped at all... Her mom and coach walked in on them while they were kissing and feeling each other up.
He was eventually charged with crossing state lines with the intention of having sex with a minor.. he was also charged with some bogus CDA seducing a minor over the internet charge. The CDA was overturned later that year.
The only victim here is katie.com
Although all her PR crap makes it sound like she was 13.. She wasn't.. they started talking when she was 13.. Met to shack up when she was 17.. But never got as far as the consentual sex (which would have been legal in Texas and her home state), because people walked in on them... Since then she's produced this victim story to save her image.
The weirdo DID get convicted.. for crossing state lines to have sex with a minor. The conviction was only possible because the age of consent in his home state (california) is 18. Had he lived in Florida no crime would have been comitted.
Book titles can't be coyprighted and are pretty hard to trademark.
.com names that goes against her. However, I don't know how it applies in the USA.
It's pretty hard to get a trademark on a common name like "Katie" and the USPTO made a specific ruling several years ago that adding ".com" to a generic term did not turn it into a unique coined term that could be made into a broad trademark.
Trademarks have to be specific. You can trademark your name, but only in a specific field of business that you are acting in. Two people can own the same trademark in two different fields. Delta Airlines and Delta Hotels, for
example. Penguin books and Penguin computing.
Now normally, KJ has one big leg up. The normal test for trademark infringement is "is the public being confused?" And they clearly are. But there was that very specific ruling from the US trademark office about
Book titles are a special case. Two people can use the very same book title! My father wrote a novel "Act of God" and there are several novels by that name, all legit.
Unfortunately, the push on Penguin to "do the right thing" doesn't seem to be working.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
I've gotten the impression that selling, attempting to sell, or even expressing anything other than "The domain is not for sale" in response to an offer would have the potential to seriously hurt any legal case or WIPO case she might be involved in.
On the other hand, if she wanted to she *might* be able to get away with running her own porn site at that address - as long as she owned it, she'd probably be fine. Of course her lawyer might have a different take on it, she might have no interest in or be opposed to running a porn site, and the fact that she's in the UK might have an effect (what are UK porn laws like?).
fencepost
just a little off
Well, no, Microsoft.com (the hardcore gay porn movie) could be the touching, heart-rending tale of a young closeted male with great looks but a small member and erectile dysfunction who, through friends on the internet, discovers the joy of playing for the other team as a catcher.
1) It is the name of the book and can be used to promote the book.
2) It is the URL easiest to type in a webbrowser.
Nothing else matters to Penguin
My advice to the original owner of katie.com is to have registrar lock enabled and make sure their domain fees are paid up for the next few years or so so 'dirty tricks' aren't used to steal the domain away from her like what happened in the (in)famous sex.com case....
My confidence in Amazon.com reader reviews has evaporated!
I clicked on the link to see what had happened with the reviews, and average * rating had gone to nearly 2 stars, with nearly 300 reviews.
This was due to the slashdot effect on amazon.
(Not that I am sure the slashdot effect is fair either)
However, as I was clicking for the next pages on reviews of this book, I noticed the number of reviews were steadily decreasing.
It went from 287 to 100+ to 87 to 85 to 80 just right now.
The average star rating is now nearly 4 stars.
Someone is removing the reviews.
Who is doing this? Amazon? the author? possibly the publisher?
While the link in the parent post is getting a lot of moderation done, there are pleny more at Amazon.com that people need to write reviews for, and mod up:
US: Amazon.com, Amazon.com
CA: Amazon.ca, Amazon.ca, Amazon.ca, Amazon.ca
UK: Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.co.uk
Hi all,
3 .html)
I've read the article and I think I can add a couple of things that haven't been added yet.
Knowing the publishing world as I do (I've got two books out, and plenty of friends who are authors), it seems to me that what may have happened on Penguin Putnam's side was that just before publication it was discovered that the original title linked to a XXX site. Books usually have to go into production a couple of months before release, and if it was close enough to the publication date, somebody in a rush may have figured that "katie.com" was innocuous enough and may not even have been in use. In that case, it is an honest mistake. As far as intellectual property goes, there actually isn't a violation on either side - unless the book directly mirrors the website or vice versa, neither can really complain on that end.
(It's rather like naming a character "Elric" in a story. Anybody can do it, but if the character is an albino from an island named Melnibone, that's when you get sued by Michael Moorcock. To cut a long story short, you can't copyright a name.)
As far as what Ms. Tarbox's lawyer is asking, it's intimidation, plain and simple. I very much doubt that Penguin is involved, though (partly because if they really wanted the domain name, they would go after it directly - they aren't a monopoly, and they don't need to use proxies).
The reason it's intimidation being used is that there really isn't anything Ms. Tarbox's lawyer can actually do to take the domain name away from Katie Jones. In order to dispute the name, the lawyer would have to take the dispute to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and than she would have to prove that Kate Jones registered the domain in bad faith (essentially, that she specifically registered the name so that she could sell it to Penguin after the book was published). However, since the domain name was registered before the book was retitled (and years before, in fact) the case would be extremely difficult to prove.
(I'm not a lawyer, but I covered this in an article I wrote back in 2001 that is located at http://www.tophosts.com/articles/print.shtml?1000
I really do sympathize with Ms. Jones, and I hope that public opinion will effect a change that will get Ms. Tarbox's lawyer off her case. It really is sad when intimidation like this is used.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
And here is a link to Pary's mug shot.
Yikes.
You can't handle the truth.
He was charged with the federal crime of crossing state lines for get it on with a minor.. and the CDA (which was overturned as all slashdotters know)..
... cept he was from California where the age of consent is 18. (that law is setup so if it's legal source and dest state then it's okay)
He went to jail for 18months and has been barred from continuing his job selling securities.
The federal crossing-state-lines-to-get-it-on-with-a-minor charge wouldn't have even held
If you'd take 10 seconds to read ANYTHING, you'd realize the site is not typically a blog, but the main content was replaced with an MT blog because it is lower bandwidth.
I think this story is relevant to the book because it concerns the actual title of the book. It's not just the author or publisher that is being attacked; it's the book itself and its horrible choice of title. Amazon certainly has every right to delete postings on their own website, but I think it's a little misleading to say that they are being impartial or fair if they only delete posts that might negatively impact book sales.
In this case, though, a lot of the negative reviews seemed to clearly violate the guidelines and the volume of new reviews coming probably just prompted them to stop spending the time reading them and do a blanket delete. I would wait a while for things to calm down and then post an intelligent critique of the book that doesn't violate their guidelines if you want people to be able to read about this side of the story. You'd also probably get a lot more credibility if you read the book or at least commented on the content of it. I'm sure you can find it at a local library if you don't want to give money to the author and publisher.
I sent a mail asking that she clarify the boiler-plate response slightly, since it left some things ambiguous. I've just got this reply (fast response!):
==
Paul,
Thank you for your letter. Parry Aftab is not my lawyer and that is something that is not vague. Penguin and I have also worked very hard and I think this will come to end by the morning. I will say that much.
Best, Katie Tarbox
==
KatieT's lawyer, Parry Aftab, is certainly not lacking in ego - there is a section on her website where she revels in the title "Angel of the Internet":
For the amount of time and personal sacrifice Parry has devoted to making sure that everyone, especially children, can learn to use the Internet safely, privately and responsibly, Parry is often called the "Angel of the Internet." (emphasis added)
She is obviously aware of the problems they are causing, as referenced in her blog entry titled Katie Tarbox and Katie.com (the book, not the site) - Monday, July 26, 2004.
One can only gues that KatieT is making as much of this opportunity as she can - after all, she is unlikely to publish any other books of significance making basic editing mistakes on the front page of her website:
As an advocate and expert in this field, I realize that the dangers that lye on the Internet will continue to exist unless we as a collective make the effort to prevent those dangers. (emphasis added)
Shame on KatieT for harrassing the rightful domain owner - I hope she realises that it will undermine what she hopes to achieve in the long term.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
201-463-8663 (her U.S. cell phone
I wonder if she has text messaging?
In alt.activism.children the only person whose taste buds are dead enough
to permit him to perform oral sex on Mike Echols, alexplore, writes:
> When the conversation was with 13-year-old Katherine Tarbox of
> New Canaan, Conn., the subject was piano playing, one of young
> Katie's passions.
You know, we all heard this touching tale when Parry Aftab was flogging
the book to death. It's 100% Sex Abuse Agenda embellished tripe.
> Katie, who was staying with her mother, Andrea, and her teammates
> in the same hotel as Kufrovich, went to his room at about 9:30
> p.m. Her worried mother squeezed the details from one of Katie's
> friend, and rushed to Kufrovich's room with police - but not
> before the pedophile had a chance to kiss and fondle her.
In reality, when the police entered the room, both Katie and her network
acquaintance said "nothing had happened." The guy was allowed to leave
with no charges being filed.
Later, after being programmed to think of herself as a victim, she filed a
complaint, and decided to become a media darling, write a book, meet Parry
Aftab, and function as the poster child for Internet luring.
Hey, why turn down a lucrative career opportunity, right?
They also managed to get the FBI involved, and charge her "predator" with
a couple of those vague new "intending to" and "traveling for the purpose
of" laws. He got 18 months.
To make matters worse, Katie titled her sob story "Katie.com." Well, the
20 year old owner of www.katie.com, who lives in London, was less than
amused when she started getting millions of hits from the Child Sex
Hysterics.
And so it goes.
What's wrong with using http://members.webs.net/pages/k/a/t/katy/index.htm for a book title? :-)
Okay, then. To start with:h tml?id=0452282535 or better yet, use the Search function on that site http://us.penguingroup.com/Search/QuickSearchFrame ?id=katie%21com
Penguin UK (returns a "Sorry...")
http://us.penguingroup.com/Book/BookFrame/0,,,00.
Penguin Putnam (USA) search...
http://www.aftab.com
http://ParryAftab.blogspot.com/;
http://www.KatieT.com noting the various translations of the book that have all used the same (incorrect) URL/name;
http://www.KatiesPlace.org/pages/1/index.htm;
http://www.wiredsafety.org/
Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.
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.
A better example: Nissan.com
As the website says now, it was forced to remove all commercial contents. It was owned by Uzi Nissan in relation to his local computer business since the early days of the internet.
Nissan Motors didn't get it, but the guy lost use of his domain. It's a pity that the detail of the case were removed from the site. The guy even showed a copy of a receipt fro the 70's he issued using the Nissan name to Datsun (former name of Nissan).
The katie.com case is not exactly the same. The name was chosen deliberately to refer to a domain name without assessing the damage it would do to the domain name owner (such as having to pay for dealing with the traffic and pay for the bandwidth). It's not that they happen to have the same trademark (which is allowed for different businesses). In this case the author of the book deliberately chose this title without checking about the domain name, and without considering the impact of chosing to use the existing domain name' or perhaps worse: choosing to ignore the consequences. I think in this case they should pay katie.com to compensate for the trouble.
The publisher response about Katie Jones not registering katie.com as a trademark only claims that this means she cannot force them to stop using the name. Not that they can stop her using that name.
But even if they are legally allowed to use the name as the title of a book, it doesn't mean that they are not liable for the damages caused by this, even if it wasn't used maliciously. IMO heir neglegance in failing to predict and avoid the consequenes of mass producing books with references to an existing personal domain is enough to make them liable. It's not that they discovered that the name they used happened to also be someone's domain name. It was published AS A DOMAIN NAME, thus they had the responsibility to check in advance if they can use it and to consider the impact of using the name.
The press release is at http://www.penguinputnam.com/static/packages/us/ab out/press/press76.pdf.
Not sure if this whois link will work or not, but agirlslifeonline.com was just registered yesterday to Katie Tarbox. Probably a smart idea.