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."

18 of 596 comments (clear)

  1. Crapflood reviewers... by heyitsme · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. Re:Ex Amazon Employee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Voting her book down is the wrong tactic by pyrrhonist · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The author did not perpetrate this crime, Penguin did.

    Then why is the author's lawyer harassing the owner of the domain?

    --
    Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  4. Not that surprising by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "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."

    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

  5. what a nitpick by LeninZhiv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Voting her book down is the wrong tactic by GoRK · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the author doesn't even have the final say about the TITLE OF HER OWN BOOK, then something else is seriously wrong.

  7. Katie.com as a porn site by doublem · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  8. Re:Katie Jones should get paid by RazzleFrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Nothing for us to see here, move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Amazon is censoring its reviews? by dave420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  11. Re:2 issues here... by pyrrhonist · · Score: 3, Insightful
    According to her, it's the publishers at fault here. Can anyone verify this?

    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.
  12. Re:if her katie.com website is no longer usable by aslate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Katie Jones should get paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  14. Re:Is Parry Aftab Katie Tarbox's lawyer? by be951 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Parry Aftab's website claims that she will be on "O'Reilly Factor" this month (although she misspelled O'Reilly on her site). Perhaps Bill will hit her with some tough questions about being an internet abuser? Bill's fan email is oreilly@foxnews.com

    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.

  15. Re:Amazon is censoring its reviews? by Chasuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  16. Re:Katie Jones should get paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:so you cant... by Zordak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Tell that to Lindows

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  18. Re:Amazon is censoring its reviews? by stwrtpj · · Score: 4, Insightful
    They removed a review that I wrote about a book on Java because I pointed out (in the context of a factual review) that the author had been arrested (and plead guilty on related charges) for crossing state lines to have sex with a 13 year old girl he met on the Internet!

    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.com

    Vindictiveness generally does not get you very far.

    --
    Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)