Slashdot Mirror
Katie Jones Interviewed
scubacuda writes "Greplaw has interviewed Katie Jones (of the real Katie.com). In addition to the details of the dispute regarding Penguin's 'branding' of the book Katie.com (which many /.ers 'reviewed'), she shares the details of her conversation with cyberlawyer Parry Aftab, how she believes Penguin's title change suggests that it thought it could steamroll her without recourse, and the tremendous amount of support the geek community has shown her." Ms. Aftab has several blogs. Ms. Aftab, if you contact us with a response to these allegations, Slashdot will publish your response (we've also written to your email address). Another reader notes: "Yesterday /. ran an article about the book Katie.com. Out of curiosity I just visited the Amazon.com website to see how many more reviews were on the website. Yesterday when I first checked there were over 300 reviews, most of them negative and the book scored only 2 stars total. Today, the book has 81 reviews with an average rating of 3 1/2 stars."
While I am sure that Katie Jones really appreciated the outpouring of support for her cause, I think that voting the book down was the wrong way to show your support. The book does little damage to Penguin, but does an immense amount of damage to the author of the book. The author did not perpetrate this crime, Penguin did.
The author has been a victim once, let us not make her a victim again.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
A couple months ago some journalist made some disparaging remarks about Phish and Phish fans (phans). Those "phans" with internet connections found the journalist's book on Amazon (a cookbook I believe) and did the same thing they are doing to Katie T.'s book.
It's a shame people do this... becuase actions like these don't gain any ground, and just end up leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
actually, I wouldnt be surprised if amazon simply purged all 'reviews' entered yesterday during the several hours after slashdot posted the story. clearly, there's large probability the 'reviewers' didnt read the book beyond it's title, like most of the negative reviews to books by Al Franken or Anne Coulter.
So what? Most of those negative reviews were posted because of the brouhaha with Penguin and the Katie.com domain; they didn't weigh in on the quality of the book itself. Hell, most of the reviews were from people who had never read the book. If Amazon didn't police their reviews for this kind of abuse, any two-bit asshat with a bone to pick could tank a perfectly good book's reputation with a few hours' work.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
You could draw a parallel with the implied right to link to a web site. In effect, Penguin are just publishing a non-clickable link to Katie Jones' site. Of course, when lawyers start calling up and claiming that they now OWN your domain name because they published so many links to it, well, that's a whole other ball of wax...
#!/usr/bin/english
I don't think this is a matter of who owns katie.com but rather what right anyone has to publically display your web page, email address, home address, or phone number. IANAL but if Katie Jones' actual phone number had been used as the title of a book about sexual harassment, she would have every right to sue the publisher for any actual or potential harassment she herself might suffer. Same thing should apply to web sites.
You may find fault with what words Katie J. is able to find to state her case, but don't try to turn the whole issue around completely: she's not the one who's doing anything here, it's Katie T.+lawyer+Penguin who are attacking her continued use of her own website. How you can get from that to Katie J. being an attention hog is beyond me; no one would be interviewing her in the first place if this hadn't happened.
Just because she doesn't defend herself flawlessly doesn't make her wrong all of a sudden.
Maybe Katie Jones should redirect traffic to some raunchy porn sites ;-)}
I don't think this is about the name, is it? I expect the publisher can call the book whatever they like (including someone's domain name, if it's not trademarked). The issue here is that the publisher thinks they can force her to turn over the domain name, which is positively ludicrous.
Katie Jones is the rightful owner of the domain. Penguin knew she owned it (or should have known) before they even chose the title of the book. Corporations can't just go around making up product names that they know full well are already registered domain names, and expect to steal the domains right out from under the current owners.
The mistake we made was in giving negative reviews of the book that only talked about the domain name thing. What really needs to happen would be more one star reviews like the following I just spotted there:
This book royally sucks, August 5, 2004
A Kid's Review
It is poorly written, contradictive, boring in all passages, and written by someone with a sick pendant for the perverse. I have seen better pieces of the litterature in the weekly "Garfield"-strip... and comparing this book to said comic, is even a disservice to Jim Davis!
In other words, stay away from this book, it's hardly worth the paper it's printed on.
That's really interesting. There were a number of reviews that suggested that something in a book might not be factually accurate, and Amazon made all those reviews disappear. It was sort of Orwellian and made me have less confidence in Amazon.
Hey, it's her damn domain. She can do what she wants with it.
Something tells me if the site suddenly wen to a hard core "Barely Legal Teens" site, Penguin's interest would perk up REAL soon.
Any self respecting porn web master should be chomping at the bit for all the guaranteed traffic that such a domain would ensure.
And the owner's argument when Penguin sues her? "I could not longer use the domain and had to finance the process of moving all of my personal and business activity to another domain."
Penguin would either have to spend a lot of cash on a lawsuit or changing the name of the book.
Penguin really is being arrogant and irresponsible.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
First of all it isn't penguin suing - it is Katie Tarbox's lawyer. Second you do not need to have a trademark to protect your domain name. Since katie.com the website existed long before katie.com the book there is no case here. No cybersquatting, no trademark violation, no copyright infringement, nothing.
If anything - the real katie can trademark the name now if she was doing some sort of business and then just say she first used the name in business in 1996. There is no case here. It is 100% bullying.
You know the funny thing is is that penguin's, the fat cow of an attorney parry aftab's, and katie tarbox's behavior is classic squatting. Traditionally a squatter is someone who moves into a preexisting property and co-opts it for their own use. This is exactly what has happened to the domain name katie.com. The fuckhole's actions basically have been that they think the domain katie.com should be coerced into fitting their agenda of therapy, advocacy, self promotion and profiteering, rather than Mrs. Jone's, the rightful domain holder, choices of usage of that domain.
What's more, it reeks of extortion. "Things will only get worse"? That sounds like a threat to me, anyway.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Because those reviews are obviously from people who haven't read the book. I mean, the reviews are supposed to be feedback about the book, not about something else. They're also bound to be blatantly unobjective and biassed, which skews the rating of the book. /. fucked with amazon's data, and they unfucked it. What's wrong with that?
Hello, Im not a lawyer, much less a "cyber lawyer".
But I understand that you can claim a domain name if you own a trade mark for it, right ?
Well, I own alejandro.net, and I own a birth cetificate for that since 1972.
If i were a freelance consultant like she is, then
my name would be my trade mark.
If katie can prove that the term "Katie" has been registered as a trade mark for herself, she should have the right to own it, and, IMHO, she has
more right to claim the name for her life's work, than a publisher and a book.
-Alex
It's Katie T's lawyer that is harassing Katie J, not Penguin's.
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Click here
and here
and here
and here!
copyright the word "windows"?
An amusing idea, but i wouldn't do it unless she isn't going to try and sue/take some form of legal action or has already failed her case. Otherwise it may harm her defence if she fought-back like that. I mean, if she forwards to goatse or something and then claims that she had to remove pictures of her baby (like she says she had to) she's kinda ruining her defence.
Katie Jones has a good case. It's not legal for someone to come along and associate your business and contact information with their agenda. Mrs. Jones has suffered actual monetary damages. Additionally she has been subjected to emails detailing experiences she has no wish to become involved with.
How would you like it if somebody listed your business number as a rape or suicide counselling service?
And I guess Amazon.com isn't trademarked or copyrighted, huh?
Give me a break. Katie.com is unique (there IS only one). No one else has Katie.com... how can it be common. Short, maybe but uncommon? IBM is short, but uncommon. K-a-t-i-e may be common as a surname, but katie.com as a unique brand presense is definitely trademarkable.
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
Thankfully it looks like the ruse has failed and the true domain owner is not being scared off. A decent attorny would probably love the chance to tear into Penguin on this one.
I would conjecture that Ms. Aftab has plans for the website to further her own career. I mean, she's a lawyer (bad enough) that specializes in internet stalkings, etc. Set up "katie.com" in conjunction with a book on the subject, with, of course, links and information to the lawyer's site in case any of the people reading the site want to take action against their wrongdoers. It's all quite simple, actually. She wishes to profit from the situation.
I suppose that depends on your definition of "used in business." Mrs. Jones felt that having herself associated with the book could cause damage to both her personal and professional life. Sounds to me like it would affect her "business".
And it's harrassment. Since penguin publishes all over the world, including the UK, I'd get an injunction that they not publish their book using that title.
RTFA. She's not an adult. There is no legal, ethical, or moral code that makes her liable for this. She didn't accidentally wound someone; she she accidentally let a savvy, experienced adult take advantage of her. Kind of ironic.
This is what I think is happening:
Penguin is very happy about all this fuss. The book is getting free publicity, and the longer this goes on, the more sales of this book will be helped, while doing no real damage to the rest of the company.
They may buy the domain down the road, but they're more likely to file a lawsuit to take it, counting on this poor woman not having the cash to stand up to them in court.
As fun as it is to joke about it, I assume Penguin would sue her into oblivion if she were to sell the domain to a porn company, and would tear her to shreds and demonize her in the courtroom.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Your webpage was on the Internet. You had your resume and pictures of your family there. You chose to allow this information to be accessible. They didn't invade any privacy by naming their book that.
... so, if I put up a popular web page telling people to mail stuff to 2100 East Cliff Road, Apt. 118A, Burnsville, MN 55337, you would not have a problem with that? I mean, you put information about yourself up on your webpage, link to it from a slashdot posting.
Sure
What if, on that same web page, I tell people to call 952-707-1982? Obviously, you chose to allow this information to be accessible.
Some questions I'd like to see him ask are along the lines of :
Katie Tarbox claims you do not represent her, but Katie Jones feels that you did claim to represent K.T. Who do you really represent in the matter of the katie.com book title/domain name issue?
Isn't it hypocritical to present yourself as a defender of rights online while trying to get a valuable domain name for free through threats and intimidation?
I'm sure others of you will have insightful questions as well. And at least making O'Reilly aware of this conflict could also make the show more interesting.
The review was up for a while, and then they dropped it!
As they should have. The mistakes that an author makes in his or her personal life have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the content of the book. Even if the book had been about raising kids, the advice in the book still might have been valid. Judge a book by its content, and nothing more.
I am saddened and shocked that a point this obvious should even have to be discussed.
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
While criminal law might not get you far, I'm fairly certain a civil suit has some legs to stand on.
#1. Increase in traffic = monetary damages. It's not free advertising, it's misleading people into believing katie.com is something it isn't.
#2. Type of traffic = damage to character. Katie.com is now associated with child abuse, which means that the owner of katie.com has that burden to bear.
#3. Emotional damages, due to the above traffic and the sicko tendencies of the visitors. These people wouldn't have ever visited katie.com without Penguin publishing the book.
Penguin can be blamed for all of these things by publishing the book under the title Katie.com. Prove damages and a civil suit just might go through, and damages seem fairly provable here.
Which was first? The creation of the Nissan corporation, or the registration of the nissan.com domain?
Well, if you know anything about O'Reilly, you'll know that he doesn't care about what's right or fair, he cares about pleasing idiots who make judgments off their gut instincts. So who will he side with more? The teennage victim of a pedophile or the geeky girl getting in her way?
Had I worked for Amazon and was in charge of filtering reviews, I would have removed your review as well. Your statement in the review had nothing to do with the merits of the book as pertaining to Java programming, and is thus tantamount to using a smear campaign against the author instead of debating the merits of the work itself.
I suggest you all go to Amazon and rate all the "one star" reviews helpful, and all the others "not helpful" for Katie.comVindictiveness generally does not get you very far.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Given the subject matter, "katie.com" is the frigging stupidest name possible for the book.
The book is about Katie Tarbox being exploited by an "Internet predator" (really, a predator who chose to use the Internet -- it's necessary to make this distinction because there are feebs like Parry Aftab out there). The last impression that Katie T. and Penguin and self-proclaimed protector of children Parry Aftab should want to give is that Katie T. in any way, shape or form encouraged or prompted the exploitation.
Yet, what is the meaning, the implication, of adding the ".com" extension (I mean, besides when it's being used for actual accuracy, which apparently Aftab and Penguin don't give two craps about)? Thanks to the whole dot-com hysteria, "dot-com" has come to mean in the public mind "something's for sale." pencils.com? Pencils for sale! hubcaps.com? Hubcaps for sale! girl.com? Girls for sale!
So basically Penguin and Parry Aftab are fighting hard, and fighting dirty, for the right to use a title that implies Katie Tarbox put herself up for sale on the Internet. Great going, guys!
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.