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."

Comments

Makes no sense

[xbrownx]

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.

Re:Makes no sense

[paullush]

Cool, time for me to release a hardcore gay movie called microsoft.com. I mean, what grounds would they have to object?

Re:Makes no sense

[jafiwam]

When the book was written, the domain "katie.com" was not registered. Therefore anybody was/is allowed to use the words "Katie.com" as the title of a book. (This is confirmed bt the fact that the owner of the domain never did anything against the publishers of the book.)

I think you mean was registered, no? It clearly was by comparison of by the dates, and it seems like the rest of your post goes by that assumption.

Re:Makes no sense

[finkployd]

When the book was written, the domain "katie.com" was not registered. Therefore anybody was/is allowed to use the words "Katie.com" as the title of a book. (This is confirmed bt the fact that the owner of the domain never did anything against the publishers of the book.)


WTF? katie.com WAS registered at the time the book was written. The it has been registered since 1996, the book came out in 2000. Grab a calculator and do the math.

How does a single women failing to embark on a lawsuit against a multinational publisher confirm that a domain name was not registered when the book came out?

Finkployd

Re:Makes no sense

[whiteranger99x]

Well you can't call it microsoft.com unless you have a Steve Balmer look-a-like jumping around like a babboon, preferably on a gimpy looking guy with glasses. ;)

Of course, I'm putting too much thought into that, so I'll just stop now *cringes*

Re:Makes no sense

[paullush]

I'll write a book about a little fucktard shit called sco. IT will be all about his efforts to fuck everyone off. I'll call is sco.com

Re:Makes no sense

[Mantorp]

the poster meant not registered as a trademark

Re:Makes no sense

[thenerdgod]

" It's not also a violation of the domain owner's free speech rights to have to "re-title" her domain?"


Repeat after me: "CONGRESS shall make no law[...]" I can sue you to, as it were, "stfu" any time.

Come ON people, TORT LAW != CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. I'm really tired of this. "But Teh SCO is taking Lunix's Free Speach Away!!!1" Christ. Get a clue.

Re:Makes no sense

[sludg-o]

katie.com was registered in the DNS system in 1996, not at the copyright office. Huge difference. Still, I'm pulling 100% for the original owner of the website.

Re:Makes no sense

[shellbeach]

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 ....

Re:Makes no sense

[recursiv]

A lot of people seem to have trademarks, copyrights, and patents confused. You seem to be among them. I'm no expert, but I will attempt to explain away your confusion.

Copyright is for creative works.
Trademark is for recognizable "marks" (symbols or brand names or slogans)
Patent is for devices and inventions.

The one you are looking for is trademark.

Re:Makes no sense

[thehomeland]

You do have legal copyright on anything you create, without having to file it with the copyright office. If proof can be found that you published it beforehand (and webpublishing counts) then you own legal copyright to the name (not necessarily trademark, though). However, this still prevents me from writing a book called "slashdot.org" about a bottlecap collection (or whatever) and suing for millions.

Technically, although copyright may not protect names per se, the total website as a whole, which includes the name "katie.com" falls under a published/created body of work in text, and is copyrightable. If a book is copyrightten, regardless of trademarking the title, the title is copywritten along with the content therein. Katie Jones clearly has legal precendent to utterly smear Penguin Putnam into the ground for using her name, but mercifully she just wants the whole mess to go away. I'm (a) putting great hesitation before buying any Penguin Putnam book now because of their overboldness upon the innocent (an ironic charge indeed) and (b) glad I am not Putnam who should have otherwise backed off long before they lost so much business.

What next, are they going to sue Linux for having a penguin logo? Who came first, I wonder?

Re:Makes no sense

[Sylver Dragon]

There is a problem with this though. The law you quoted is US law. Katie Jones lives in the UK. Putnam seems to be a large international company, not sure where it is based. I would expect that this suit will have to be fought out in the UK, as that is where the property in question is currently held, and there is not agreement between Katie Jones and Katie Tarbox about venue in the case of disputes.
At best, a US judge will probably look at this case, and rule that he has no jurisdiction. At worst, we'll get another case of the US government over-reaching, and attempting to apply its laws to other countries.
If anything, Katie Jones, needs to send some sort of Cease and Desist letter to Putnam, and then file if they don't change the book's name. This is, of course, assuming that the UK allows someone to bring a civil suit over harrasment (inducing all of the emails) and destruction of property (unusability of the site, bandwidth costs).

Re:Makes no sense

[Shadow Wrought]

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.

Re:Makes no sense

[kst]

I don't feel sorry for this little whore! Not one bit! And neither should you.

That is entirely uncalled for.

Katie T, as far as we know, is not responsible for the "katie.com" brouhaha. As for what happened to her when she was 13 (or whatever age she was), I don't think either of knows enough about it to judge her. There might be some debate about whether she's a victim, but calling her a "little whore" is beyond the pale.

This kind of thing happens far too often on Slashdot. Someone is mentioned indirectly in a story, and people with no lives of their own feel free to start flinging misogynist abuse.

So they name the book

[klmth]

without ever googling for the domain name they used? Unbelievably clueless.

Re:So they name the book

[mopslik]

without ever googling for the domain name they used?

Or typing it into the address bar, for that matter. Why the need to invoke Google?

Re:So they name the book

[Neophytus]

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.

Re:So they name the book

[stromthurman]

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.

Re:So they name the book

[LabRat007]

No, the article clearly states they knew "katie,com" was owned by another women and they went ahead with it anyway. Which, IMHO makes it inexcusable. We don't post real phone numbers in media anymore why shouldn't this rule also apply to other contact information such as domain names and email addresses?

Re:So they name the book

[Otter]

See, what Penguin should have done is buy out Girl Skateboards, use that against girl.com (who, I'm guessing, didn't bother with a trademark either) and then everyone would be a winner! Err, except the porn guys.

Honestly, this whole thing sounds like this is a story the editors misqueued back in 1998. What does Penguin think -- that they're going to make a fortune off banner ads and the katie.com IPO?

A new shock site?

[jrockway]

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 :)

Re:A new shock site?

[Ianoo]

Best. Idea. Ever.

Re:A new shock site?

[Anonymous Coward]

goatse? What's that? Anyone have a link?

Re:A new shock site?

[SpooForBrains]

Why doesn't the real (slim?) Katie make katie.com a convienient mirror of, say, goatse.

because her best chance of winning this in court (bearing in mind that there has only been one previous legal precedent and the legality is still a little muddy) is to prove that she is not keeping ownership of the domain to "cash in on" or deliberately adversely affect the book or the publishers' reputation.

Re:A new shock site?

[mikael]

As Zahphod Beeblebrox would say:

"ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for good thinking".

The ISP would probably suspend her Internet account, giving Penquin the opportunity to seize the domain name.

Of course, she could take an interest in wildlife conservation in the Orkney's,
and tell the major book publisher what they can do.

Re:A new shock site?

[warpSpeed]

goatse? What's that? Anyone have a link?

Sure look Here

Re:A new shock site?

[dasmegabyte]

I'd gladly host her site for free, just for the controversy.

Because I have no doubt she'll win, and in the mean time you can't buy better ghetto publicity than a publisher of paperbacks trying to strong arm a young mother into giving up her domain name so they can give it to a victim of an online sexual predator. That's like a puppy fighting with a kitten -- two strong appeals to your sense of humanity, duking out over a friggin' email address?

Anyhow, you really want to cheese off Penguin? Don't Goatse the site Katie.com...instead, use it to post erudite and insightful critiques of the book, call into question the events inside and the validity of its conclusions. After all, they're marketing the book with YOUR website on it...might as well use your website to convince people not to buy their book. Shit, I'll volunteer for that, too...got to put this rhetoric degree to use for something besides mod 5 posts.

Incidentally, after a quick USPTO.GOV search, it appears Penguin didn't register katie.com, either. Since the owner of katie.com has prior art going back to 1996, I think she could still register her trademark...and sue the SHIT out of Penguin for misuse of her domain name. But IANAL...I'm a computer guy with a rhetoric degree and outrage that anybody could be so greedy to cash in on their own tragedy as to threaten a young mother.

Re:A new shock site?

[swv3752]

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.

Tux name back

[1gor]

FSF should sue Penguin and get Tux's name back.

What are they smoking?

[rice_web]

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.

Re:What are they smoking?

[garcia]

That all ended with money backed litigation that basically forces someone to hand domains over before they run out of their own money.

Re:What are they smoking?

[PhuCknuT]

You're thinking of copyright. Trademarks need to be registered.

Re:What are they smoking?

[jbash]

Trademarks don't necessarily need to be registered. See http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/common.html for a brief summary of common law trademark rights, but also do a google search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q= common+law+trademark+and+internet&btnG=Search What you'll find is that trademark law is actually a lot more complex--and often contradictory--than you think.

And then there's...

[EFGearman]

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.

Re:And then there's...

[abb3w]

So, can the current owner of Katie.com sue Putnam for the damages done to her (EG, increased bandwidth costs, having to redesign her site around an irrelevant topic, etc.) as a result of their choice of title?

Re:And then there's...

[Overzeetop]

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.

Almost too weird to be true

[erick99]

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

Re:Almost too weird to be true

[imadork]

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.

No, you pretty much have it right. This story has been around for a while and very little has changed. You can google for older stories if you like.

Katie J. is in a no-win situation. If she offers to sell the domain or sue for damages, she'll be accused of trying to profit off of Penguin's book, and would likely lose the domain in a trademark dispute to WIPO.

But Penguin's use of katie.com is directly causing her harm, because she effectively can't use it for its intended purpose because of all the traffic it is getting. And even if she got Penguin to change future editions, the damage is already done -- katie.com is effectively useless for anything that is not associated with the book. The only way to remedy this is to sue for damaged caused by Penguin's behavior -- which, as we already discussed, she can't really do.

This is why I'm not a lawyer. It seems like they're all schmucks.

Re:Almost too weird to be true

[digitalcaffeine]

Other new sources for this story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4 048410,00.html http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/katie/ http://www.boingboing.net/2004/07/30/penguin_putna ms_rack.html

Re:Almost too weird to be true

[frostman]

I agree that the right thing to do would have been to make an offer on the name prior to publication.

But having read the notice on katie.com, it doesn't sound like she would've accepted (and I doubt Penguin would have offered some astronomical sum).

It gets even weirder when you factor in that the katie.com Katie actually makes her living in the chat business, meaning the association with the book is potentially harmful to her business as well.

I do hope that this generates enough of a publicity backlash that Penguin sees the light and changes the title.

It doesn't strike me as illegal per se to name a book after someone else's (owned but not trademarked) personal domain name, but it certainly is crass. To then try, after the fact, to intimidate the legitimate owner into "donating" (or selling or anything else) is just absurd.

Of course the most just of ironies would be for Penguin to change the name back to "girl.com," which is apparently what they originally wanted -- and I'm sure the owners of girl.com have a price in mind. At least at the moment that's not a porn site but rather one of those parked/pseudo-search sites.

Way to go Penguin! Dumbasses.

Re:Almost too weird to be true

[Tony Hoyle]

when was the last time you clicked on a link in a book you were reading

Just a few minutes ago, actually. I thing the book is broken though as nothing happened.

Re:Almost too weird to be true

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean when was the last time you clicked on a link in a book you were reading?

Not since the CueCat :-)

Complain (in ink on paper) to Penguin

[ericlj]

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.

Upcoming books galore

[ergonal]

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".

Imagine if...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wrote a book and called it

1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.
Washington DC 20500

Then tried to claim it as my property!

Dear OSDN,

[Ianoo]

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

Three step buisiness plan.

[donscarletti]

I have a brand new buisiness idea:

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.

I have one thing to say

[MrKahuna]

867-5309

Re:I have one thing to say

[Zak3056]

With appologies to Tommy Tutone:

Katie, Katie who can I turn to
We want you to give us something you want to hold on to
I know you think we're like the others before
Who saw your info in the WHOIS database

Kaaatie, I got your domain!
I'm gonna make it mine!
Kaatie please change your domain!
K-A-T-I-E-dot-COMiomiom
K-A-T-I-E-dot-CO Mioniom

Katie, Katie it's the site for me
Donate your domain, it'll make me so happy
Our lawyers called you before
Yeah they've got some nerve
We aren't sorry that
Your life was disturbed

Kaaatie, I got your domain!
I'm gonna make it mine!
Kaatie please change your domain!
K-A-T-I-E-dot-COMiomiom
K-A-T-I-E-dot-CO Mioniom

K-A-T-I-E-dot-COMiomiom
K-A-T-I-E-dot-COMioniom

The real question is...

[Oxy the moron]

... how is Darl McBride involved? I mean come on, doesn't he *really* own the trademark to penguins?

No due diligence

[charnov]

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.

Hello, Katie Tarbox?

[abkaiser]

Katie Jones is very open and informative about this situation on the katie.com website. Interesting that Katie Tarbox herself doesn't have any response to this problem. (Unless her lawyer is keeping her quiet.)

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.

Re:and in other news....

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA. Penguin is a multinational corporation and Katie Jones is from the UK.

Penguin's REAL strategy

[Alzheimers]

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."

Clear cut case of harrassment

[hattig]

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.

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 ... it would be nice to see a lawyer with a heart for a start ... I'm not holding my breath though.

Katiet.com is the real site for the book

[doublem]

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.

Re:Katiet.com is the real site for the book

[gorbachev]

She (Katie Tarbox) is, btw, answering to Emails sent to that address.

Just got a reply from her.

She seems to be in the opinion that she has no control over this, and it's Penguin Putnam who is at fault. Kinda of a cop out, if you ask me, and sidestepping the issue discussed in the article about her lawyer trying to intimidate Katie Jones to hand over katie.com for free.

Proletariat of the world, unite to kill Big MultiNational Corporations

Re:Katiet.com is the real site for the book

[doublem]

So, we learn that she's a cowardly little brat, incapable of standing up for herself. Gee, if she always lets people walk all over her and always bends to whatever authority figure presents itself, she could end up being taken advantage of by some manipulative jerk.

Katie.com

[erick99]

From her website;

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

Re:Stupid...

[mopslik]

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.

Re:and in other news....

[Entrope]

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?

Dear Ianoo,

[IPFreely]

I notice that you currently use the name "I.P. Freely". Our research shows you never registered this name. Several years ago, I applied for a registration on the terms "I.P. Freely", "IPFreely" and "IP Freely" and these have been granted. Therefore I require you to hand over your title immediately, or face legal proceedings.

Yours Sincerely,
IPFreely

Usefull contacts

[Andy_R]

if you would like to let penguin know what you think of their strongarm tactics, you might find the following information useful:

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.c o.uk
export@penguin.co.uk
internationalsales@pen guin.co.uk

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

Name the book KatieT.com

[eltoyoboyo]

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.

Re:Name the book KatieT.com

[Hobbex]

How about Katie13.com, which is still untaken, fits with the nomenclature of teen chatrooms, and gives a better idea of what the book is about...

Re:Stupid...

[doublem]

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.

Re:Stupid

[admiralh]

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?

Libel?

[michaelmalak]

Couldn't Katie Jones sue Katie Tarbox for libeling her as a sexual assault victim?

Tough Noogies

[Esion Modnar]

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.

Re:And??

[abb3w]

Obviously I didn`t RTFA, but have they made a cash offer for the domain or are they just being threatening?

(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,

"OK so not only do I get walked all over, my life invaded by this book, treated badly by the publisher/author who refuse to acknowledge that they've done the wrong thing, but then I get to hand it over to them on a silver plate and I not only have suffered all this aggravation but ultimately have lost the thing that I care about. Exactly HOW does this resolve anything other than give them the thing they want which they have done everything to hijack without any care and consideration for what is right and just?

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. =|

Full history

[potcrackpot]

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.

Re:Stupid...

[erroneus]

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.

Lawsuit powered by Google

[Digital_Quartz]

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.

Re:Katie.com

[Entrope]

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.

Re:RTFA, naturally the /. story is not quite corre

[nukem1999]

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.

uh, no

[No-op]

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...

Re:uh, no

[carlos_benj]

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.

Re:uh, no

[fritz1968]

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

Question: If the publishers knew that katie.com was taken, why didn't they just call the book katietarbox.com or katherine.com instead? (Assuming that neither of those domains have been taken).

They could have thier own website up and running, posting whatever they wanted. Instead, they currently have the stubborn owner of katie.com with the website and mounting legal fees. Plus if they owned their own domain (like katietarbox.com), they would (possibly) be making more $$ from their domain.

oh, and for the record, I am on the side of the original owner of the katie.com domain. I just don't understand why people are so stupid sometimes.

Re:Katie.com

[xarium]

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!

Re:Katie.com

[buvic2]

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

Write to Penguin. Write to Pearson. Or call.

[frostman]

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

Re:Wow

[3terrabyte]

WANT TO HELP?

1) Go to Amazon.com and vote YES on all the negatives reviews where it askes "Did you find this review helpful".

2) Write your own negative review.

3) Write katie@katiet.com and tell her she should quit victimizing someone else on the internet. The cycle of abuse must stop!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The Lawyer has a Blog!

[Overzeetop]

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/

KatieT reply

[illumnat]

I sent of the following email to KatieT

Katie-

I am sorry to hear about your situation and what happened to you, however, I am also very sorry to hear about the unfortunate situation with your lawyer attempting to hijack the website of Katie Jones.

You and your publisher have no right too simply appropriate a domain name that has been in use since 1996. Using the deep pockets of a publishing company to abuse the rights of an individual who lacks the wealth to fight off the corporate lawyers is nearly as bad as sexual abuse... Both situations are about taking something away from someone who is powerless to fight back.

Please do the right thing and call off your lawyers' strong arm tactics and let Katie Jones have her life and website back.

and got the following response:

I appreciate your thoughts and understand them completley. 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. Best, Katie Tarbox

Here's the customer service number for Putnam USA: (800) 631-8571

--J

Re:Katie.com

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Retitle

[iphayd]

Actually, the only domain name left is www.clownpenis.fart.

Really, there is no other name left.

From the internet with love...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Oh, Penguin's got a history...

[bobthecow]

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.

Re:Oh, Penguin's got a history...

[pilgrim23]

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.

Sense of Entitlement

[wayward]

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.

Re:Sense of Entitlement

[wayward]

This is an excerpt from her book. http://www.katiet.com/exerpts.htm. Here's a description of her town:

I was in the eighth grade, and for the first time I was really obsessed with my appearance, my status, with fitting in. This is understandable, if you consider that I was growing up in America, and in New Canaan, Connecticut. New Canaan is the richest town in the richest state in the country. The moms all drive Suburbans and the dads all take the train to the city. And by the time they are ten years old, the kids in New Canaan know that the highest-grade BMW is not as nice as the best Mercedes. They know that you should never be seen cutting your own lawn, and that embossed stationery is far superior to lithographed.

Penguin has been ignoring the issue since 2000

[silentbozo]

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?)

Re:Katie.com

[JohnKFisher]

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.

probably not

[RMH101]

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...

Re:probably not

[bkr1_2k]

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

Re:probably not

[jinxidoru]

She lives in the UK though. Litigation across national borders is not an easy thing.

Email from Katherine Tarbox

[bannerman]

I emailed Katie Tarbox this morning, and received a reply in a matter of minutes:

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.

Re:Email from Katherine Tarbox

[pyrrhonist]

For the record I have never harassed Katie Jones for her site.

Reply and ask her why her lawyer is harassing Katie Jones then.

Re:Katie.com

[Tharian]

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?

Re:Katie.com

[Rootman]

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.

Re:Wow

[Walterk]

Katie.com at amazon.com.

My letter to Katie T.

[WD_40]

Dear Katie,

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)

Corporations + first amendment protection

[double_h]

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?

Oh, sweet irony

[Samurai Cat!]

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?

No, it is not capitalism

[rfc1394]

the free world and all; you know that. Dog eat dog is what it's all about, the right of the strongest and all that. If you find something and like it, you take it, and if nobody is able to resist you, you get to keep it and call it 'your right'

What you just described is not Capitalism, but lawless anarchy or (if it uses the government to do so) is legalized theft and has no relation to Capitalism whatsoever.

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.

Wasn't always the case. Even if it is now.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Do this to Penguin

[sonamchauhan]

[ 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?

Share your thoughts with Penguin

[ChrisKnight]

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

Re:Lawyer's Phone number

[Necromancyr]

Yeah and at Krispy Kreme from the look of those pictures.

Better. "katie.com A 127.0.0.1"

[anti-NAT]

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.

Re:Wow

[AhabTheArab]

Never underestimate the power of geeks in large numbers.

My Letter

[drinkypoo]

I feel as you do - the book is hers. She is responsible. Hence I sent her the following letter:

As a reader of slashdot.org, I have become aware of your publisher's attempt to railroad the domain katie.com away from its rightful owner. As the author of the book in question, I feel that you are near the top of the chain of culpability.

Penguin's attempts to take the katie.com domain away from its rightful owner are horrible, and your choice of titles is worse than unfortunate. The commoditization of the phrase "dot com" is no excuse for naming your book after someone else's domain. Whether you intended to do so or not is further no excuse for not doing your homework. It is inconsiderate to say the least, and dilutes the value of her property at the worst.

Suggesting that she hand over the domain without compensation because you want to use it for a site to help prevent child abuse is nothing short of jingoistic and is utterly and shamelessly manipulative. Whether you do this, or it is done in the name of your book is irrelevant, because it IS your book.

Perhaps the next time you want to end the title of a book with ".com", it would be a good idea to either buy the domain FIRST, or give the book a name which would be an invalid domain name. Your failure to do one of these things, followed up by the fact that the business of the woman whose domain name you have railroaded is an online chat site, almost gives the impression that it was a deliberate attack on her business. Your irresponsibility (and that of others like you) is a significant part of what is harming the internet today.

I pray that you will reach enlightenment as to your culpability in the compromise of something Katie loves, her website; and something that I and millions of others love, the internet. I beg you to approach your legal counsel and inform them that you will not support this harassment of Katie Jones, and to make as public a statement as possible that clearly lets the world know that you do not approve.

Thank You

[nsedley]

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.

Re:Thank You

[AC5398]

Next question: how do we donate to KatieJ's legal defense fund?

Can't let rabid left-winger legal sharks and their clients pull this kind of garbage ...

Re:Thank You

[nsedley]

If people would seriously like to do this, we could set up a Paypal account. Are there a significant number of people who would want to do that?

Re:Thank You

[Anonymous Coward]

If people would seriously like to do this [set up a legal defense fund], we could set up a Paypal account. Are there a significant number of people who would want to do that?

I would guess that some folks here (such as myself) would help. It's a big issue being fought in a small way. I would suggest, however, that it not be a legal defense fund. Rather a legal offense fund.

Re:Katie.com

[Sylver Dragon]

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.

Re:Different field

[mysticgoat]

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.

Re:Do NOT do this

[rduke15]

According to Katie Jones, it is not Penguin but Katie T.'s lawyer who is bullying her to give up katie.com.

Similar to the problems of Uzi Nissan

[tpconcannon]

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/

Re:Domain acquisition = rape

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Domain acquisition = rape

[bonkedproducer]

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.

Can you trademark book titles now?

[wytcld]

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.

There's something ...

[mratitude]

... 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.

Re:There's something ...

[gershbaz]

Oy! This all took place when she was 14. She *wrote the book* when she was 17, and it was published when she was 18. Just to clear that up.

Re:Do NOT do this

[chimpo13]

And Katie T's lawyer is Parry Aftab, Esq. Her site is aftab.com

Re:Do NOT do this

[frostman]

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).

Re:Katie.com

[Slider451]

Except for ethics and freedom, you're right.

Re:Different field

[Molina the Bofh]

They are trying to compensate this by releasing Long Horn.

Re:Wow

[quisph]

1) Go to Amazon.com and vote YES on all the negatives reviews where it askes "Did you find this review helpful".

2) Write your own negative review.

I.e., be a shill. Subvert amazon.com's honest efforts to provide meaningful user ratings and reviews. Punish the users who wrote the positive reviews, even though they were acting in good faith and have no connection with the author, the publisher, or their lawyers.

I thought we were against bullies on the internet.

oh, i don't know

[RMH101]

we're your 51st state, now, aren't we?

Re:Do NOT do this

[SCHecklerX]

Somebody should write a book and name it "aftab.com" and then sue the lawyer to give up her domain name.

whore

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Hoax? Parody?

[Jetson]

So far Katie Jones has been playing fair, referring to the dispute but not disparaging the book. In fact, she actually praises Katie Tarbox for writing it. Given the escalating nature of the attacks by Penguin books, however, it may be time for more drastic action.

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.

Re:Hoax? Parody?

[mr_mischief]

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.

Libel

[joggle]

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.

I haven't read all 800+ messages here, but..

[wantobe]

Has anyone else written an email to the supposed lawyer? I did, and this is the answer I received (including the text of my message below it):

*********

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.

.and if you look at parryaftab.blogspot.com you'll see the whole post about our intentions on this all-volunteer organization website, katiesplace.org. I have always taught children not to believe whatever they read online, too bad adults don't follow that rule. :-(

-----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.

Re:I haven't read all 800+ messages here, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that having made a denial via email that you are asked not to make that response public isn't it - wonder why that could be?

OK lets just assume for a second that Parry is not a lying, fame seeking ambulance chaser and also ignore the fact that as yet Parry has not seen fit to respond to my email (a simple matter of courtesy) regarding her deletion of any blog comment that does not agree with her own.

What I find more interesting is that for somebody that is so strongly denying any attempt to take the katie.com domain name that they felt the need to step in during an online chat on court TV and redirect the questions when asked about said domain name..

Excerpt from courttv.com chat transcript..

"Question from rick: If your website is katiet.com why did you use someone else's website name as the title of your book and ruin their life?

Katie Tarbox: I wish I could say more about this issue. When you sell a book to a publisher, they buy everything including the rights to the book and the title They named it Katie.com and they are the ones that this anger should be directed to. I have no control, and I wish people would understand this. So if you are angry and upset write to Penguin Putnam. They alone have the power to change this.

Question from ParryAftab: Katie, what's next?"

Also of interest is Parry's blatent ignorance of the sensitivity regarding the domain issue as is evident on her own blog page (http://katiecom.blogspot.com) where she uses the domain name as the main page heading.

I'd also be interested to see if Parry is going to deny ever contacting Katie Jones as im sure phone records would prove otherwise.

KATIE T WAS NOT RAPED!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Wow

[shiftless]

"5 of 622 people found the following review helpful:

***** (5 stars)

Katie.com by Katherine Tarbox was a great book to read. I would recommend it to ages 12 and up. I liked Katie.com because ..." ...

"203 of 203 people found the following review helpful:

* (1 star)

The writer of the book and the publishers should be ashamed of themselves. ..

DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK, and certainly think again about buying from this publisher."

"Wow" is right. At present there is over 200 negative reviews of the book, "modded up" by at least 80-90 people each, and the few 5 star reviews have been "modded down" to nothing, giving this book a final rating of two stars.

Do y'all have any idea how many people are buying their books on Amazon these days, and how many people will see thiss? This *will* have an impact on book sales, I guarantee it. I bet Penguin will stop harassing Katie Jones and they will probably issue an official apology within a couple weeks.

Selling would be a problem, but running her own?

[Fencepost]

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?).

Don't forget to "review" the other copies, too!!!

[The Rizz]

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

Wasn't stat rape

[Anonymous Coward]

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)..

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 ... 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)

Re:Wow

[timeOday]

What I bet is that Penguin will contact Amazon and "get this all sorted out" in short order.

Old Google Groups posting about this

[EvilStein]

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.

Re:I'm Suing Penguin Books

[unitron]

"I'm Suing Penguin Books...For infringing on my rights as author and publisher of the book "165.193.128.72"."

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.

A better example: Nissan.com

[hadaso]

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.