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."
Shouldn't Katie Jones get royalties from Penguin for using her domain name? After all, in the interview, she stated that Katie.com can't be used as Katie Jones bought it for. She had her resume and pictures of her family and now it might draw pedophiles; therefore, she had to remove the pictures and contact information. A lawsuit should be drawn against Penguin for damages against her domain name and royalties should be paid for that domain; after all Katie Jones freely and fairly bought the domain.
I think Mike Rowe and Katie should get together.
--
Are you a Chipotle Fan?
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
Do they have a patent on censoring the truth now?
What is Amazon doing now - monitoring the traffic it gets to certain books and then removing reviews that contribute to a less than average rating? How do we explain the reduction in reviews from 300+ to 81 and the boost in the rating?
SourceHosting.net, LLC
Ready. Set. Code.
http://www.sourcehosting.net/
I was with Amazon from 95-97 and helped build there buying dept and one of the things we fought against was marketing have direct control over reviews and stuff.
After I left, they started removing bad reviews of books all the time... especially when they were overstocked and wanted to sell more. Amazon is not the friendly business it used to be and I try to purchase everything I can through alternate sources.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
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."
Wait, it has FEWER reviews today than yesterday? What's the story there?
Moo.
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.
What exactly is a Cyberlawyer anyway?
Is that some kind of half-human, half-robot lawyer?
This Like That - fun with words!
I find it amusing that there's a post in Parry Aftab's blog about Identity Theft Insurance, yet she's helping with the theft of somebody's online identity.
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 ;-)}
Say I register Bill.com and someone writes a book about Bill Gates' secret life as a modern day Robin Hood, stealing from everyone and giving a portion back to the poor. Would I be allowed to tell them that they couldn't call it Bill.com? Fuck no I couldn't. Just because I own a domain name doesn't give me exclusive rights to tell other people what to do with the name.
At first she didn't tell them what to do with the name. Penguin had demanded she give up the address and all she wanted was to keep her existing domain. So to use your example: you register bill.com, Gate's book comes out, the publisher demands you give them bill.com
Still think this is fair?
Welll yes they were prior to 96 when they went corporate. Once they went corporate though, all common sense went out the window and the almighty dollar and stock holder concerns rule out any sense of fairness and responsibility. *shrug*
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Your wrong in the fact that Katie DOES have a right to tell them they cant use Katie.com... putting a .com site on anything (even as a title) is like advertising for that site..... its the EXACT same reason why people are not allowed to use phone numbers other than 555. What has to happen is the law has to be changed to giving you exclusive rights to a domain name, therfore problems like this (of which Katie isnt the only person who has been bossed around by big companies) wont happen. This isnt like squatting... they are blaintent trying to steal her domain by making her life as misserable as possible.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
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.
If I wrote a book with the same name as your website, LazyLightning.Org, and then advertized and promoted my book LazyLightning.Org, would you be upset?
What if I hired a promoter to get me on TV as much as possible, with instructions to make sure that every time I was on TV I was introduced by my name and with the name of my book, LazyLightning.Org. And, what if I made a point of promoting my book, LazyLightning.Org every time my paid promoter managed to get me in front of an audience?
Are you saying that you'd have no reason to be upset?
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.
Copyright Katie Jones (the real Katie.com owner) shares with GrepLaw some of the details of the dispute with Penguin's "branding" of its book, Katie.com.
Katie talks about her conversation with cyberlawyer Parry Aftab, how she believes Penguin's title change (from girl.com [then a porn site] to Katie.com) suggests that Penguin thought it could steamroll her without recourse, and the tremendous amount of support the geek community has shown her.
Katie, you're involved in an interesting dispute over your domain, Katie.com. Tell us more.
In a nutshell, in 2000 a book was published by the name of 'katie.com' - a story by a girl who was molested by a guy she met on the Internet. Katie.com the domain name belongs to me and the first I heard of the book was when I started to receive email from people thinking I was the author.
And when did you first register your domain?
My husband bought the domain for me as a gift in 1996. He registered one each for us (his is gareth.com) and we both felt we were extremely lucky to get our own names with a dot com extension at a time when they were being snapped up very quickly.
So they could have known that Katie.com was registered to you?
They must've known. Early publicity for the book stated that it was going to be called girl.com and at that time girl.com was a porn site. Suddenly it was changed. This is a clear indication that they knew the title of the book would be significant. I imagine that they thought I was a 'nobody' that they could steamroller me without recourse.
How has the Penguin's "branding" of Katie.com restricted the use of your domain?
I originally had links to my business, my resume, and also personal items such as photo's of my son and other family members. Seeing as my business is online chat / community development it was obviously not in my best interests to be linked to the subject matter of this book so I removed that. And of course, I didn't want people who were interested in the subject of pedophilia or molestation viewing pictures of my baby boy.
The Register covered your dispute a few years ago. Anything in particular that made the issue resurface?
I posted an update to my website http://www.katie.com after I had a phone call from Parry Aftab, a lawyer working with Katie Tarbox on a new project. The lawyer asked me to 'donate' my domain name to them, attempted to emotionally blackmail me into doing so, and when I refused then got quite nasty about it and told me things would 'only get worse' if I didn't. The update was picked up by the blog community and then the press.
Have you ever talked to Katie Tarbox? Might she be able to do something about it, if she so wanted?
Never. She's never approached me. I've read responses she's written to other people denying all responsibility and blaming Penguin. But she's continuing to work using the term 'katie.com' for publicity, and apparently about to launch materials for schools using the title too, so regardless of whether she had control over the title of the book (and I'm sure she must have to some extent) she could choose to put an end to this invasion of my privacy and use another marketing tactic, but she doesn't.
Have any lawyers tried to steamroll you? (On your website, you mention an "aggressive lawyer" [and then link to Parry Aftab, the executive director of KatiesPlace.org who is working with Katie Tarbox])
Yes, Parry Aftab called me ostensibly to write an article for 'Information Week'. It transpired during the conversation that she was working with Katie Tarbox on a new project, at which point I began to feel misled about the purpose of the call. She told me that I should donate the domain name to them, or redirect it to their new project/site. I politely refused and she continued to attempt to pe
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
"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."
According to her, it's the publishers at fault here. Can anyone verify this?
2) I like the reference to the "hacker movement" supporting Katie Jones. Perhaps we should start spreading the news a-la Kevin Mitnick? Start plastering "FREE KATIE.COM" stickers everywhere!
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.
for her intended purposes, then by all means she should do as one slashdotter suggested in the previous thread about this, that is, post shock photos of goatse for example, although tubgirl might be more appropriate in this instance, should the book's success really take off.
http://www.aftab.com/..... I mean come on, a lawyer is bad enough... there are too many of those. But a lawyer who apparently has no clue that its not squatting when the person owned the domain YEARS before the book was even made and whos sole buisness is to screw people on the web because there ARE so many loopholes in Internet Law..... that just deserves a slashdotting in my book.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
I just checked; the negative reviews are still there.
Amazon has an odd sorting scheme, but if you click "view all reviews", you can then further sort by rating or by usefulness. Do the latter. Look for most useful... all are voted useful but one or two stars, mentioning the website bullying. Then click for least useful... those are the five-star ones focusing on the story BEFORE the bullying came out.
You just have to RTF screen.
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.
Subject: katie.com book and domain issue
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 12:30:14 -0600
To: david.shanks@us.penguingroup.com, john.makinson@us.penguingroup.com,
doug.whiteman@us.penguingroup.com, nigel.portwood@us.penguingroup.com,
anthony.laurino@us.penguingroup.com,
Gentlemen of the Penguin Group,
After reading today about the katie.com disparity between the book
and the internet domain, it appears that Penguin needs to admit an error
and correct course. As an individual involved in the internet with my
own "untrademarked" domains, I would be highly offended if the same
were to happen to me.
I expect that the internet community will rise to assist Katie Jones
with financial obligations encountered in dealing with this situation.
I for one would also help her if the opportunity arises. Losing
goodwill with the internet community isn't something Penquin
should desire. Please re-evaluate this.
Thank you
Mabe Jones should trademark katie.com, and then sue for infringement.
She's been using the mark for 9 years, and Penguin comes along and tries to co-opt it - I'd say that's grounds for a lawsuit.
Making the URL a link makes it much easier to /. a site.
Thus:
http://www.aftab.com/
I will now proceed to fire up Opera and set it to reload the page every 30 seconds.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
There are two ways this can end, Firstly Penguin give in and drop the whole shebang, they lost nothing and gain a whole heap of free publicity. This story is circulating the Internet as we speak and It's going to make people remember this book title, and I gurantee a good number of people will go out and buy this book now.
The other ending is that Penguin get the Domain, either legally which is highly doughtful or by buying it from the rightful owner. This means they still get all that juicy publicity and the domain name.
As my old media teacher always said, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Isee Stars Astro Image Hosting.
If Penguin was to sue the real katie, and win, then it would set a precedent that all you need to take over a domain name is write a book entitled with the particular domain name.
Shit, I hope it happens because I already started work on my new novel, slashdot.org. Its novel filled with greed, power, lust, set in the computer hacker underground.
Katie Jones should set up a Paypal account linked from her website, where people could donate money to help offset her bandwidth and legal fees. If she donates the excess money to a charity, it'd still be clear she's not using the website for profit. If she donated to a victim's charity of some type, it would be a good gesture to show she supports the point of the book, just not the tactics involved. I'd definitely be willing to donate a few bucks to help Katie Jones out.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
I exchanged a couple e-mails with Katie Tarbox yesterday, and she insists that Parry is not her lawyer. If that's the case, who is Parry working for?
Dinivin
Maybe Katie.com should become a page, where domain hijacking victims can find help. I know that Katie is really pissed off by now, but on the other side, now she has some experience with this kind of stuff.
Ni.
Well obviously, Katie Jones didn't pay for the insurance.
"That's a real nice URL, Ms. Jones. Would be a shame if something happened to it."
Just remember, if she can sue for damages done to her website, others may try to sue Slashdot for DoS.
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
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
from what i found at the USPTO search.. there is no trademark on katie.com. Katie needs to TM her domain (prior art back to 1996, remember), and then she will be the one with all the power. Of course, IANAL so what she really needs to do is consult a lawyer who knows about trademark law and this kind of stuff.
/.'ers to reply saying they will as well. Yesterday her friend replied here saying he would post a paypal "donate to" link on her site if there was enough interest.. even $2 or $5 from a small percentage of the /.'ers who seem to care about this issue would be enough to turn the tide for her, i'd imagine. A lawyer is a wonderful thing (you should see all the traffic citations that don't appear on my record ;)
I'm personally willing to donate money to help her (this kind of crap angers me soooo much) and I would encourage other
If I had a radio station that said that you could win a free lunch, fax a contest entry to your telephone number, then you are harmed.
But if send lots of traffic to a site, there is harm -- especially when you send people to the wrong site . If you send people to a site that is unrelated to what you are sending them for. If you go to a store for a car part, but the store is really a watch parts, wouldn't you be pissed?
Fight Spammers!
Katie J's lawyer's website says they just started this page: http://www.katiesplace.org
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.
Weird. This is the first instance I'm aware of where slashdotting actually decreases the response to the target!
For real justice, try writing penguin.com (as was mentioned in the interview with Katie). Or, for bonus points, try microsoft.com
Click here
and here
and here
and here!
"Say I register Bill.com and someone writes a book about Bill Gates' secret life as a modern day Robin Hood, stealing from everyone and giving a portion back to the poor. Would I be allowed to tell them that they couldn't call it Bill.com? Fuck no I couldn't. Just because I own a domain name doesn't give me exclusive rights to tell other people what to do with the name."
Bzzzzzz! Wrong, sorry, but thanks for playing, and here's a copy of our home game.
The sex.com ruling established that domain names were indeed property, with corresponding rights. The whole issue here is that the rightful owner doesn't have the resources (read: money) to mount a legal campaign against Penguin. Remember, Katie Jones is in the UK, and if I remember correctly, the UK has the "Loser Pays" system. If Katie didn't win her lawsuit, she'd owe Penguin big. Penguin knows this. I hope the proposal to set up a paypal account to start a legal fund for her goes through. Penguin and their cronies really need to have their asses handed to them over this. And Aftab's assertion that, if Jones doesn't hand over the website "things will only get worse" just disgusts me to no end. And laywers wonder why they're despised.
The real bottom line here: Katie Jones is the rightful owner of her domain name, and Penguin and company have tried to hijack it without any compensation. They should suffer and pay for what they've done.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Nah.
If she turned it over to a porn site at least then she could get some $$$ for all this frustration.
I don't want to think about the bandwidth bills she's facing as a result of all this.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Amazon does censor reviews - I've seen mine and others removed. In this case, the reviewers involved seemed to have read the book. It was about a "nonfiction" book and the reviews in question pointed out that one of the accounts mentioned in the book may not have been factually accurate. Amazon censored at least one and removed the others
copyright the word "windows"?
Especially if "LazyLightning.org" the book was about a webmaster who loved goats a little too much, and spent most of his day vomiting on orphans. Remember, the subject matter of the katie.com book is something very close to what katie.com the site is trying to erradicate.
According to whois:
Administrative Contact:
Aftab, Parry (PA286)
parry.aftab@COUNSEL.COM
Aftab & Savitt, P.C.
E. 80 Rt. 4, The Atrium, Suite 410
Paramus, NJ 07652
US
(201) 845-0100 fax: 999 999 9999
Somebody with some money needs to write a book about a teenage debutaunt who decides that it'd be fun to be a prostitute for spending money. And how she whores herself out to a bunch of rich child molesting good old boys. And then title it katiet.com.
Even if Katie J only wins the trademark for katie.com in the UK - where she lives and her business is probably based - it will still be a moral victory, and proof that IP laws don't just exist for the benefit of big companies.
If Katie J doesn't want any money to fight this, I'll respect that, but I'll give (more) money to the EFF if they can help...
To whom it may concern:
My clienthas recently begun publishing his address in the media as:
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
This letter is to serve as a cease and desist notification to you, henceforth to be referenced as "TWH" (The White House). Further attempts to use this address will be met with great legal effort. We will give you a chance to donate this property, and the reulting address, before any action is taken.
Regards,
I. Cheetam
Partner, Dewie, Cheetam & Howe
Or at least a law student. And, since this is anonymous, I'll give you my impression.
Katie J. can't trademark Katie.com without actually using it (or planning to use it) in a commercial sense. That's trademark law.
Katie J. can't register Katie.com for a website because it's in the form of [descriptive term].[top level domain]. That's from a CAFC case a few months ago (In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, Nos. 03-1525, 78/061,755, 2004 WL 1416361 (Fed.Cir. June 25, 2004)). The case affirmed the Trademark Board denying registration for patents.com.
Penguin has a shot at registering Katie.com for the book except I anticipate that Katie J. would oppose the registration. Plus, she used it first so Penguin can't really claim priority.
As far as Katie J. suing Penguin, tough. I can't think of an appropriate cause of action that might work. Who knows, you could probably try to bend something into place but my guess is that it won't bear up.
This is a case of first impression. You can phrase it in 2-4 different ways but it all boils down to this: There's no law directly on point to prevent this activity. Should there be? I think so. But I'm not a law maker. I'm (supposed to be) a law follower. And litigator. Maybe.
I have no idea what the rank was before this domain-thievery story got the attention is has now, but I really hope it doesn't increase because of "any news being good news."
--
Power to the Peaceful
Katie Jones (the real owner of the katie.com) should write a book entitled 'katie.com' about being bullied over the internet by business'. Who would be laughing then? I know I would. :)
I dont know, I know it is a tenn book, but some of the reviews on that site, they were pretty bizzare. My personal favorite:
"Thanks, September 18, 2002
Reviewer: "karen588" (Grand Rapids, michgian) - See all my reviews
Hi my name is karen and I am forteen years old, i like this book very very muchl, my freinds at school told me abowt this book and it taugt me how to rite into a chatroom on the interent and how to meet older man cuz all the boys in my school are boring and thye dont know how to treet a girl good. now I rite on a chatroom every day and i have meet many intresting and good looking men. and all because this book showed me how. I will be more careful then the riter of this book thogh when I meet this men in person, I will not make the same misstakes. I would like to meet an older man cuz then all the girls in my school will be jelous of me.
"
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
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.
Imagine that. She uses AOL for a while in 94, and all of a sudden she is a "cyber expert" competent enough to decide for all of us that "the Internet" needs to be safe and private and whatever. It is enough to make an engineer's stomach turn inside out. What a repulsive, arrogant, slimy person. The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if she were involved in creating "cyberlegislation." Ugh.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Oh my god... this woman is so fucking fat that I'll bet she's begging for some person to come off a chat room and do her. My god, everybody is allowed a few pounds with middle aged, but this broad has abused the privledge.
I'll bet the pork chops quiver when she enters a room.
I was having a conversation with a parent a while ago, and they were shocked/disgusted at what their child (~10) was getting into on the internet.
I suggested the analogy of a 'big city', and that they simply shouldn't be left to wander alone.
There are many places fun and appropriate for all ages. But despite the best efforts of some there are places you don't want to go.
I really hope these cases get promoted much more so parents msarten up and watch their kids.
This just in!
Parry Aftab just ATE the real Katie! The whole case is moot now!
I don't think I'd make a good lawyer, because there's no fight and no money in my solution...
End the FUD
People are actually allowed to use numbers other than 555-XXXX. They just don't out of habit/tradition and respect for people who have phones. There is no law (feel free to disprove me) that says you MUST use a 555-XXXX number if you are publishing something fictitious.
The main problem is that people aren't seeing domain names as a parallel to phone numbers, or anything else identifying.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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.
There are only 13 1-star reviews now. I can personally attest that yesterday I rated far, far more than 13 1-star reviews as 'useful'. Hopefully the meta moderation process will correct the parent's inaccurate 'informative' ratings.
from what i found at the USPTO search.. there is no trademark on katie.com. Katie needs to TM her domain (prior art back to 1996, remember), and then she will be the one with all the power.
First off, Katie Jones is a resident of the United Kingdom, not the United States, so it's little surprise that your search came up empty. I am not a lawyer either, but does it make sense that one should be expected to register a trademark for one's own properly-registered domain just to prevent this kind of thing? I don't know the costs involved, but it seems to put an unnecessary burden on the little guys of the 'Net. I think the idea to donate to Katie Jones for legal fees is wonderful, but don't encourage the courts to favor the view that one must pay twice in order to safely harbor a domain.
Logic is a wonderful thing but doesn't always beat actual thought. -Terry Pratchett
Other people have the same problem with other .com want ot be. On exemple is "http://nissan.com/ the owner mister Nissan from the west coat if I remember have the site from the beginning of the internet, and use the site to promote his services. The big corporation Nissan make then close the site.
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
Their customer service phone number in the US is:
(800) 631-8571.
Caution: Contents under pressure
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
You are correct, there is no law. In fact, a year or so ago, a movie (Bruce Almighty) used a real phone number. Comedy insued for the owner of the phone number.
Linky here
Interesting phrasing in her canned reply - why would we be directing sympathy to Putnam, unless we thought they were in the right?
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.
Any book that gets so many review in such a short space of time must be worth a read, even for comedy value.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Kind of sad when harvard.edu's network won't take a little traffic. 404 page article.pl not found
Her name is an ANAGRAM of "A FAT B*"!
Take a look at her photo. This looks like someone who has never walked past a twinkie without stuffing it into her face. She called and harrassed Katie Jones a week after Jones gave birth. Atfab truly is a fat b*.
Oh, here's your answer. Mmmmm, informative.
Anyone see this : For the amount of time and personal sacrifice Parry has devoted to making sure that everyone, especially children, can learn to use the Internet safely, privately and responsibly, Parry is often called the "Angel of the Internet.". Talk about cheesy, self promoting websites. This one takes the cake!
That cyberlawyer is out there. It can't be bargained with! It can't be reasoned with! It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are destroyed!
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
Well, I'm actually a published author who has written for two major publishers (Osborne/McGraw-Hill and Simon & Schuster), so I think I can actually add something here.
Regarding number one - is her publisher at fault? Well, yes and no.
Truth be told, the publisher frequently reserves control over the title of a book. Both of my books had titles chosen by the publisher (I got to put in a bit of input, but the final decision was theirs). A good friend of mine in the industry, Ed Greenwood, has had numerous books published both with Wizards of the Coast and Tor, and he told me recently that of all of them, he's chosen the titles of about two of them.
So, did Ms. Tarbox actually have control of the title? Probably not.
That being said, it sounds to me like the title was changed at a critical juncture. This may sound odd to those who don't know much about the industry, but the "point of no return" where the title cannot be changed actually occurs long before the book goes to the press.
It's a bit like one of those old Looney Toons where somebody rolls a snowball downhill and it grows and flattens a cottage. Up until the book goes into typesetting, major changes can be made. However, around the typesetting phase (which can be anywhere from 4 months to 8 months before publication), two things happen. The first is the typesetting itself, which is very time-intensive and quite expensive. In fact, my editor at both houses warned me that if I tried to make any major changes after typesetting began, I would actually be penalized for it. A new title counts as a major change, particularly if it's going to be used as a header.
The second thing is that the publicity for the book kicks into high gear. The book is going to be published within the next year, and to change a major part of the book being used in the advertising (such as the title) at that point is tantamount to shooting the book out of the window and starting again from scratch. If the President of the United States asks them to do it, they'll do it, but that's what it would take - it really is that expensive. The proverbial snowball is now the size of a house and halfway down the hill.
Once you get to the book going to the printer, there is just no way the title can be changed. Quite literally, if it was going to be changed, everything, including the typesetting and advertising, would have to be redone. That alone could destroy the profitability of the book, if it isn't a bestseller.
If the book is a bestseller, changing the title between paperback and hardcover, just because of the time, effort, and money spent on the advertising, would involve essentially starting everything over from typesetting - again, incredibly expensive, and now the publisher would be having to fight its own advertising. It just isn't worth it for the publisher to turn itself into a pretzel like that unless there may be a lawsuit that can bring the entire publishing house down (for that matter, a lawsuit might even be cheaper to deal with).
So, is Penguin Putnam to blame - as I said, yes and no. If the book had its title changed just as it was entering typesetting, which could have been as much as eight months before publication, the difficulties involved in changing the title again would simply be too great to be reasonable, particularly when there is no guarantee that the book will be successful enough to make an impact at all. The name may be changed in a future reprint, but at this point, a name change would be like trying to move a mountain. On the other hand, somebody really should have checked katie.com first to see what it was and contact the owner, but not doing so could have been an honest mistake by somebody in a really big rush.
As far as what the lawyer has done, it is unconscionable. However, it is also very possible that the lawyer was acting on Ms. Tarbox's behalf without contacting her first, in which case news of this would have arrived to the author after the fact (and after the damage had been done).
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
This isn't hugely important to the topic at hand but Parry Aftab calls herself "Parry Aftab, Esq." What's up with that? Maybe once she learns what esquire means she can start to learn what "I was here first" means. Idiot.
Why is anything anything?
For those of you interested, I will be naming my next book:
+1 800 788-6262
It will be about a bunch of corporate whores who enjoy making life difficult for people who stand in their way. And we'll see how Penguin appreciates this.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
1. reverse-rated the existing reviews, as suggested -- ALL EIGHTY-ONE OF THEM.
;-)
2. added a bad review of my own.
actually not my own -- i just copied yours and fixed your spelling.
contradictive != contradictory
pendant != penchant
litterature != literature
Just because you are fair with your customers does not make it a charity. You are confusing the concept. If I allow my customers the ability to review products but then selectively delete the negative ones when I am trying to push a product, am I being fair to the consumer?
People tend to think that corporations HAVE no responsibilities to anyone but their shareholders but this is entirely irresponsible; this is how we get Enrons and corporate irresponsibility... by obeying that bottomline and not remembering that you are there to serve your customers as well as your stockholders.
A classic example of what I am talking about is represented by Google who actually put it into their companies 'bylaws': don't be evil.
Pretty simple eh? Why don't all companies put this into their business plans and charters? Well because for some reason, people think that making money IS evil and that to make money you have to BE evil.
This is not true.
You can make money and be fair to your customers. You can please your stockholders and please your clients. It's a bit harder but you have a more solid base in the longrun (and fewer lawsuits).
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
I just noticed that Penguin had issued a press release stating that they have changed the title of the book to "A girls life online"
b out/press.htm
Press release here http://www.penguinputnam.com/static/packages/us/a
Plume Re-titles Book by Katie Tarbox A Girl's Life Online ... In 2000, Dutton published a hardcover book
In an effort to avoid an association between the book originally titled Katie.com and
the website Katie.com, Plume and the author decide to make this title change.
New York, New York, August 6, 2004
called Katie.com by Katie Tarbox, an eye-opening account of one teenager's descent into
the seductive world of the Internet. After the book was released into the market, it was
brought to Dutton's attention that a website of the same name existed on the Internet.
The fact that the book, Katie.com, and the website shared the same name was purely
coincidental. In an effort to avoid any association between the book and the site, when
Plume issued the book in trade paperback in 2001, it printed on the copyright page that
the author of Katie.com and events described in the book have no connection whatsoever
with the website domain owner Katie Jones or her e-mail address.
Trena Keating, Editor-in-chief of Plume, said, "We have made every effort to clarify the
fact that Plume's book, Katie.com, and the website, Katie.com, are not in any way
associated with one another. In addition, it was erroneously reported recently that Plume
had asked its attorney to attempt to buy the web site Katie.com from domain owner Katie
Jones. This is absolutely not true. Ms. Jones confirms this point in a message currently
posted on her web site.
"We are not working in association with author Katie Tarbox or any other individual in
an attempt to assume ownership of the domain name address www.katie.com. Of course,
the personal views of the author are hers and do not represent Plume in any way.
"Going forward, Plume and the author have decided to re-title this book A Girl's Life
Online. This is an important book about predatory pedophiles on the Internet and how
we can protect our children. We changed the title to keep focus on this issue. The newly
titled book will be released next month. We have always taken this situation very
seriously. And we hope that by making this title change, it will demonstrate just how
dedicated Plume is to clarifying this matter."
Mine? Gah! Thank goodness I don't write like that, I just copy and pasted someone else's...:-)
Hey, the domain and book aren't related, right? So why would this be bad? Surefire way to reclaim your domain, take revenge on Penguin books, and give countless children nightmares for years! This plan is flawless! I seem to recall this happening to a video game. Some posters were on the walls with unused domains, which quickly became porn domains. I'm sure this was on games.slashdot a while back, but I've sunk eenough time into this post already.
SAILING MISHAP
exactly the kind of person that "Katie.com" warns against
I meant exactly the kind of person that "Katie.com" (the book) warns against.
Being lawyers, our home page would not be complete without a legal disclaimer. Accepting the terms of the disclaimer is a condition to visiting our site. To our friends on the Net, we are sorry to condition our site on disclaimers. In a perfect world we wouldn't need this disclaimer, but in a perfect world, you wouldn't need lawyers either.
:-) We give all webbers the permission to copy our legal disclaimers, however, since limiting legal liability on the net is something we all want. Just don't blame us if it doesn't work. Also feel free to link to us.
Actually, in a perfect world we would have morally responsible lawyers. At least, they would know that a buried agreement without even a front page click is unlikely to be enforceable.
Our website and the materials contained in the site are copyrighted. That means terrible things can happen to you, including being drawn and quartered, if you copy or alter anything we publish at the site.
Where'd she get her law degree - an online college? Who uses emoticons in a disclaimer? Who threatens being drawn and quartered in this day and age?
We intend for this page to provide interesting information to our visitors and function as the equivalent of a seminar attended by lawyers and lay people. No information posted here or materials provided is intended to constitute legal advice. We cannot guarantee that all queries will get a response, and we cannot guarantee the accuracy of posted information, especially as to each individual situation. All responses to queries in our chat area or by e-mail are only educating the recipient as to the types of issues typically relevant to their inquiry, and are not legal advice and should not be relied upon by any recipient.
Fairly straightforward and surprisingly reasonable.
We are lawyers licensed to practice law in the states of New York and New Jersey only. The availability of this site to residents of any other state or country is not intended as a solicitation of clients in those states or other countries.
Now I'm confused. How does someone only licensed in New York and New Jersey have anything useful to offer in a web domain case?
Neither the receipt nor the distribution of materials, including the use of private electronic mail, constitutes the formation of an attorney-client relationship. An attorney-client relationship will be formed with Parry Aftab only upon the execution and delivery of a retainer agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions contained therein. Materials distributed shall not in any event be deemed confidential or privileged.
Translation: no privacy of what you send us is intended until you send us money.
No one shall be entitled to claim detrimental reliance on any views or forms or models provided or expressed, or to claim that there is a duty to update answers or materials provided or to use care to protect the interests of the recipient. You should not rely on our statements (or those of any other website) for legal advice, and should always confirm such information with your lawyers, who should be responsible for taking whatever steps are necessary to check all information and personally assuring that the advice they provide is based on accurate and complete information and research from any available sources. Links are provided for your enjoyment and no endorsement should be inferred therefrom. Now with this said, enjoy the site....
Translation: No matter how we set up this site to look like it offers useful information, we make no guarantee we were qualified to present any of it.
I've always wanted to write a book. I think "aftab.com" will be a great title.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Plume Re-titles Book by Katie Tarbox A Girl's Life Online (PDF)
... In 2000, Dutton published a hardcover book
(text reproduced below)
In an effort to avoid an association between the book originally titled Katie.com and
the website Katie.com, Plume and the author decide to make this title change.
New York, New York, August 6, 2004
called Katie.com by Katie Tarbox, an eye-opening account of one teenager's descent into
the seductive world of the Internet. After the book was released into the market, it was
brought to Dutton's attention that a website of the same name existed on the Internet.
The fact that the book, Katie.com, and the website shared the same name was purely
coincidental. In an effort to avoid any association between the book and the site, when
Plume issued the book in trade paperback in 2001, it printed on the copyright page that
the author of Katie.com and events described in the book have no connection whatsoever
with the website domain owner Katie Jones or her e-mail address.
Trena Keating, Editor-in-chief of Plume, said, "We have made every effort to clarify the
fact that Plume's book, Katie.com, and the website, Katie.com, are not in any way
associated with one another. In addition, it was erroneously reported recently that Plume
had asked its attorney to attempt to buy the web site Katie.com from domain owner Katie
Jones. This is absolutely not true. Ms. Jones confirms this point in a message currently
posted on her web site.
"We are not working in association with author Katie Tarbox or any other individual in
an attempt to assume ownership of the domain name address www.katie.com. Of course,
the personal views of the author are hers and do not represent Plume in any way.
"Going forward, Plume and the author have decided to re-title this book A Girl's Life
Online. This is an important book about predatory pedophiles on the Internet and how
we can protect our children. We changed the title to keep focus on this issue. The newly
titled book will be released next month. We have always taken this situation very
seriously. And we hope that by making this title change, it will demonstrate just how
dedicated Plume is to clarifying this matter."
Someone please get some evidence. If the lawyer is sending you letters, evidence. Right there. If the lawyer is only calling you, record it. Interstate phone calls need only one person of the conversation to know it is being recorded. Ditto in Texas. In-state, you'll actually have to check, but saying "I'm going to record this phone call?" When the lawyer calls is a good way, either they say yes, or they say no and you say "Then I can't talk." Either they'll call again and eventually give up, or they'll send a letter or fax(evidence).
So someone, please get some evidence or I can't really believe anyone without a grain o' salt.
Anyways, my two cents. There is no court action going on right now, there is a severe lack of letters, e-mails, faxes, or anything? Seems odd, but it could just be ignorance of what you can do.
I hope it all works out with katie.com getting to keep her own domain though, looking at her site now I don't see any benefit she could be gaining.
It must be nice having your parents pimp you online to make money off pedophiles. I don't know if any of these kids ended up like the protagonist of "Katie.com", but I suspect it'll happen eventually. It's a beautiful world, huh?
Well then, I guess no moolah for katie.com! She can go back to building an obscure blog. Problem solved! In other news, there was never a story here!
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Wait... so this means that if I write a book called microsoft.com, Bill Gates will handle me his domain name in a platter? Will that make me the worlds richest geek? I think I will do that and then hire this chick Parry Aftab, Esq. to bully them into doing so. Sheesh...
.
Been off-line a week now, waiting for an IP address, getting softer. Every minute I stay in this room, I get weaker, and every minute Parry squats on the net, she gets stronger.
.
Charging Katie Jones with "having an agenda" in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500. I took the mission. What the hell else was I gonna do?
.
You know, one time we had a site DoSed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I ssh'd in. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' DNS record. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, from the TSU. Smelled like... victory.
Yeah, right.
There are other pressure points to use.
rod.granger@pearsoned.com. edu
I'm sending the following to:
twoodman@us.ibm.com euffer@us.ibm.com jennie.allen.01@bbc.co.uk
mary.renouf@bbc.co.uk
liebmant@wharton.upenn
joanna.prior@penguin.co.uk
It would be nice if someone else can research the contacts and major business partners of the following:
www.ftinteractivedata.com www.comstock-interactivedata.com www.esignal.com
The Economist Group
====
To All Addressees:
All of you work for the plexus of firms which includes Pearson Education (Penguin Books, Financial Times, FT-Comstock, eSignal, The Economist), or work for a firm which maintains a significant relationship with them (IBM Press, Wharton Books, BBC Children's Books).
Effective immediately, I'm refraining from doing business with (or otherwise patronizing) any of the named firms, because of the manner in which Penguin Books is attempting to steal the domain name of Katie.com from its rightful owner.
For instance, I won't be buying any of Penguin/Pearson's 75+ computer titles, or buying the Financial Times or Economist, or books from Wharton or IBM Press, or the services of eSignal.
I'm also publishing this letter to all the internet mailing-lists and discussion groups in which I participate, such as SlashDot and Yahoo Groups, and encouraging my peers their to do the same.
Yours Truly...
I am still going to write this book microsoft.com because If I hire that Parry chick she will get Bill Gates to bow before me and give me his domain.
And what about all the damage and stress this has caused to the owner of the domain (not the book sorry typo no coffee)... how about some money here, a nice paid vacation to somewhere nice... I am still going to write this book microsoft.com because If I hire that Parry chick she will get Bill Gates to bow before me and give me his domain.
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.
they're renaming the book "A Girl's Life Online"
From Aftab's own site:
http://www.aftab.com/selling_management_on_prevent ion.htm
"How do you get anyone to buy your ideas or you products for that matter? You sell it...plain and simple, you build a pitch and keep working on it until you breakdown their resistance to the sale...."
"So how to you convince them...?"
"1. Fear. Two things always work when you're trying to sell something, fear, and greed. (We'll deal with greed next...) Research some good stories about how large companies (hopefully your competitors) have been hit with large penalties, law suits, public relations disasters, crippling systems failures or government investigations and shutdowns.
(We'll help by giving you some great examples...)"
"2. Greed..."
"3. Protect Your Butt."
"4. Protect Your Reputation. Your children and spouse are being interviewed by The National Enquirer, your parents have moved away and changed their names, your babysitter is selling an unauthorized biography of you...all because a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad litigation/investigation/incident occurred that could have been avoided."
"5. Keeping Up with the Jones's. All your competitors are using similar preventive measures to make sure that you are the competitor hit with the seven plagues."
Her tagline reads:
"managing cybercrime, privacy and cyber-abuse risks"
dictionary.com defines "managing" as:
To direct or control the use of;
So,
"Controlling the use of...cyber-abuse..."
Yeah, that's basically a fair assertion.
Considering the whole point is she was a kid who got abused by a pedophile, I think the longest thing she probably ever wrote was a social studies term paper.
Can you say ghostwriter?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
She should just replace the index page with a short block in large type saying something to the effect of:
"Penguin books is a horrible company, who unjustfully used my domain name as a book title, and are now using extortion to try to get me to give up the domain name I bought in 1996. Click here to continue to my page, which is completely unrelated to the katie of the book, whose address is katieT.com."
It would save on bandwith too
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
I have to wonder what on earth she was thinking when she chose that photo. She has better ones on her webpage... why choose that unless you want to be associated with Jabba?
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117023&cid =9901135
see the post at http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117023&cid =9901135
It may be of interest for those who want to offer constructive comments on the situation with katie.com that Penguin USA has listed the following toll-free number for "all other concerns": (800) 631-8571. See: http://us.penguingroup.com/static/packages/us/abou t/contact.htm#CONTACT
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117023&cid =9901135
give some useful addresses
Hrm... I think if you read a bit more carefully, as you'd see that she is located in the UK... I don't think that USPTO searches will help in that case.
It doesn't matter that she's in the UK because 1) Penguin's the one claiming rights (and they'd register everywhere if necessary, being an international company), 2) these things are generally protected by international treaty and 3), I couldn't find it in the UK either.
Seems like Penguin doesn't have the rights they think they do. And I don't believe book titles are automatically trademarked - I've seem some that were, making me believe the rest likely aren't by default.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
"You are about to review any Amazon book, or comment on a review. Please indicate which of the following is most accurate about yourself:
(x) Gandhi took lessons from me.
( ) George Washington was a lightweight.
( ) I could pass a polygraph with a tack in my shoe.
( ) Waffle maker at the IHOP.
( ) Misson accomplished.
( ) I am not a crook.
( ) I'm an editor for Amazon book reviews.
Your input is very valuable to us,
Sincerely. The editorial staff at Amazon.
see the more comprehensive email at3 &cid =9901135
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11702
So is Amazon able to withstand the force of angry /.ers posting lots and lots of negitave reviews of the book? Hit them where it hurts, can't very well sell books if the web site is down.
Was coming in here to post the same thing I saw on the katie.com site:
:-)
Penguin FINALLY do the right thing!
According to a press release on their site today, Penguin Puttnam have finally decided to do the right thing and rename the book. I cannot tell you how pleased I am!. Of course they should have done this 4 years ago and saved us all a load of grief, but I am thrilled that they've finally realised the consequences of their actions and admitted fault by retitling the book.
All that remains is to hope that Katie Tarbox does not continue to promote herself or her services as 'katie.com' as previously threatened and maybe then my life can return to normal
I am sure that this sudden change of heart by the publisher is largely to do with the support this issue has received from the online community and once again I'd like to thank everyone very much indeed.
Yours very happily
Katie Jones
867-5309 Jenny
Those who trade freedom for security will lose both, and deserve neither" -- Ben Franklin
...she lost my support. Her husband is the bastard who nabbed my beloved gareth.com domain.
Now, if I were to write a book about it for Penguin, what should I call it?
Find funky gifts
Rushes to book http://www.agirlslifeonline.com/
Maybe a free copy of the book? ;)
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
I found the following Announcement from the "un"real Katie. Here's an excerpt:
.. according to katie.com: According to a press release on their site today, Penguin Puttnam have finally decided to do the right thing and rename the book. I cannot tell you how pleased I am!. Of course they should have done this 4 years ago and saved us all a load of grief, but I am thrilled that they've finally realised the consequences of their actions and admitted fault by retitling the book.
First of all I haven't had a chance to scan all the comments so sorry if this is redundant. Apparently from what I have pieced together from the variou articles over the last 2 days, Katie T. is doing something with Wired, some sort of joint venture type thingie or whatever (I quite frankly don't give a fuck what it is if she's involved). However, I think we should all write http://www.wired.com/news/feedback/Wired: and let them know how we feel. I mean of all publishers/magazines in the world you would think Wired would give a fuck about this. Hit 'em where it hurts.. the pocketbook.
The only good thing you can say about this is that they pulled the trigger quickly before the bad publicity got even worse. After all- when you are caught red handed being a big bully you write a press release just like this one. We didn't do anything wrong, if anything was done wrong it wasn't us and we'll correct it right away now. Humm.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
Congrats! Both on Penguin renaming the book and on the baby!
:)
Hope your life is a quiet and uneventful one from here on out
Just to follow up with details, in case anyone's interested. There's a book called "Pledged" by Alexandra Robbins that purports to be an inside view of sorority life. It follows the lives of four sorority women in unnamed sororities at unnamed schools. Although there is a need to protect the subjects, this arrangement also gives Robbins a lot of opportunity for fabrication. There were some things in the book that seemed really dubious. For example, Robbins referred to interviewing "Laney," an Alpha Sig in Nevada. A reviewer on Amazon pointed out that there weren't any Alpha Sig chapters anywhere in Nevada. Amazon apparently removed the review.
... there were a lot of improbable things in the woman's story, and a grand jury didn't buy it either. (The woman's site http://www.chiomegasecrets.com was taken down, but you can see a copy of it courtesy of The Wayback Machine http://web.archive.org/. Note the numerous "conspiracy" accusations.) When reviews pointed out that her account might not be true, Amazon deleted their comments too.
Robbins also included a claim by a former Chi Omega that her sisters had drugged her and arranged for her to be raped, since they were apparently tired of hearing her talk about being a virgin and wanted to "convert her to their ways." Problem was
Those reviews should not have been removed. I don't care if they were not really reviews. The whole thing is reprehensible. The parents never paid attention to Katie and that's the only way I feel sorry for her is that her workaholic parents did not pay enough attention to her. I ain't saying that the sicko was right, but she should have thought to herself that hey I am too young to be hanging out with a 27 year old.
Gorkman
867-5309?
Damn, now the frickin' song is stuck in my head!
All the copies titled katie.com in print still need to filter through, and as stated in Katie J's response, Kattie T. hasn't said she'll stop trying to market her speaking tours and other materials as katie.com.
/.
And there are untold copied of katie.com in circulation, which will be generating hits to Katie J's web site for a few decades to come.
Don't let up
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Just to make it clear, I'm posting a quote. I suppose I could have made that more clear :).
Parry Aftab is a columnist for Information Week magazine (http://www.aftab.com/) ...wonder what would happen if thousands of Slashdotters cancelled their subscriptions and named her as the reason....hmmmmmm
Now, Penguin and Katie Tarbox and Katie Jones come out looking good after all this! Great job!
The only person who's still sucking her thumb is Parry Aftab, who, after all these press releases still has a couple of questions to answer:
IANAL, (thank goodness), but Aftab shouldn't' be able to claim she is representing someone when she isn't. For that, she is in the wrong. Obviously, Jones account of things has a bias slant to it, but from what I gather, Aftab was trying to extort the domain from Jones. Why isn't this illegal!
Frankly, lawyers like Parry Aftab, give a bad name for all lawyers everywhere.
Trademark law doesn't appear to apply even if there were a trademark granted: a book about online preditors is not likely to be confused with a run-of-the-mill online business presense.
So, it appears that the issue here is not one of copyrights, trademarks, or patents. It isn't an intellectual property issue of any kind. That said, there may be a case for malice or at least negligence: would not a reasonable person assume that an internet-related book titled with a legitimate domain name drive traffic to that domain? And that the attention might be unwelcome given the kind of person likely to be encouraged to browse it? While NAL, as a layperson, I do think a case can be made for negligence. Dumb move.
Trying to hijack a domain, of course, raises the bar to malice and harassment. Dumber move.
But, let's for the moment consider the unintentional (which does not appear to be the case here) titling of a book as that of a valid domain name, driving some traffic there, that is not likely to come from a population of "undesirable browsers" (i.e. pedophiles). Say, for example, a book entied "JohnDoe.com" about a newbie's attempt to establish an anonymous, but visible presence on the 'net. Could the holder of the JohnDoe.com domain do anything if they could not demonstrate damages (assuming that they're not trying to be anonymous but visible and thus have their schtick usurped by the book)?
I doubt it.
That said, I do think that even if it were inadvertent (which I do not belive), it's a pretty dumb and unoriginal move on Penguin's part. Dumb, because of the potential legal liability, and unoriginal, because they could have picked so many other domain-like titles.
For example, what about "Katie...Com"? (Perhaps that's a bit too close and obscure at the same time). Or, "Katie, dotCommed"? You get the idea. Of course, for good measure, a disclaimer to the effect that "...except where noted, internet domains, email addresses, etc. are fictional and any resemblence to legitimate ones are unintentional" should probably be present for good measure. In such a case, Ms. Jones could chose to note on her site that it is not to be confused with the book. An inconvenience, perhaps, but the other alternative would be to have to show some kind on intent on the publisher's part to make the connection.
I do hope Ms. Jones gets compensation for the harassment and apparent extortion she appears to be enduring, in this particular case. Penguin has, so far, lost major karma in my book, though ultimately, the courts will have to pass judgement.
You could've hired me.
You've used a portion of my name as your own. I've clearly been using it longer than anyone else on slashdot, and I demand that you cease and desist as I have reason to believe that your use of my name has caused me great harm.
This includes, but is not limited to: not being able to get a certain song out of my head for several minutes now; for that reason and also due to my being forced to type this message, not being able to give my work the attention I'm assured it deserves; and on a related topic, damage to my reputation due to what my colleagues are referring to as a case of extreme flatulence.
Heh. Hippy dippy? Caring about your customer is hippy dippy? Is this Dick Cheney? How's Halliburton these days Dick?
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
This is the most insightful post using the word "fuckhole" in months.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
"Parry Aftab. Esq.,
The Privacy Lawyer(TM)"
Hahahahaha....
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Is it just me, or is the grammar on katie.com horrific?
- Kevin
The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
I must have missed the part where anyone was intentionally sent to Katie Jones's site, other than the links that have appeared regarding this story.
Did you actually try to call Jenny?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Well the 300+ angry comments on Amazon (that mysteriously got deleted) couldn't have hurt...
Be careful! Bears shouldn't consume large furry dogs.
How dare they unfuck their data! What gall, to put right what we made wrong! The nerve of those people ...
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
Wow. That single brain cell is cranking overtime. I'll bet it gets lonely in the grand canyon of a skull you've managed to excavate.
:)
:)
I like the way you think balance is an extreme. I'll try not to use big words so you don't get confused, ok? If you have any problems, ask your mommy to help
You see there is charity where you give away things for free and there is business where you sell things. In business, you make money by supplying people with stuff (whether it be goods or services). In charity, you give it away for free... like your mother on the corner.
But for a business to really succeed it has to have happy customers. Happy customers are listened to and not ignored. Ignoring your customer makes them unhappy. Are you still with me? I know this is confusing but try to stay with me. I'm almost finished.
Does this mean you give the customer everything they want? No. Does this mean you supply them with a good consumer experience making them want to come back and making them want to tell others about their good experience? YES! See? That's wasn't so hard to understand now was it?
Amazon used to do this. In order to build a solid customer base, they offered to replace books for free that were damaged. They offered free shipping. You used to be able to call their customer support. They offered alot of things for free. Now THAT was a charity.:)
Then they went to the other extreme and cut almost all of that. Finding their customer support line is impossible. They take down negative reviews to sell more books and even encourage fabrication of reviews to sell books they have overstocked.
Now I know that this is going to be hard for your mind to wrap around (especially since it's so one dimensional) but do you see how both of those are extremes? Shouldn't someone at least be able to phone your customer support easily? I doubt that you'd understand but maybe one day you will evolve and get it. By the way, put some bandaids on those knuckles... they're bleeding.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Give some thought to it also, or use the internet archive (wayback) - its not quite so up to date, but the pictures are cached too - http://web.archive.org/web/20030621113550/http://w ww.katie.com/
Hmmm ... all silent on the moron front. The zookeeper must have locked up the monkeys for the night. :)
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
for the record, the "non-assigned phone number prefix" was narrowed to 555-0XXX about [i believe] five years ago, and now stands at 555-01XX.
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
Yeah, I was immediately reminded of the (not very good) movie Pacific Heights, where Michael Keaton moves into the basement apartment of a couple's big Victorian house in San Francisco and then proceeds to drive them out of their own house. Except his behavior seemed more conscionable than the people who are bullying Katie Jones.