Slashdot Mirror
Publisher Renames 'Katie.com'
twigstamc420 writes "In an update to stories posted the previous two days on Slashdot, Penguin Putnam publishing has issued a press release stating that they have re-named the title of Katie.com to 'A Girl's Life Online'. Press release (pdf) found on their press page."
Yes, they might be the ones that said "huh.... katie.com is already in use.... Fuck it, we'll use it anyway!"
But they aren't the ones sending the lawyers after Katie Jones. Katie Tarbox, the author, is sending the lawayers after the other Katie.
I can almost forgive using katie.com. It is inexcusable for the author to send the lawyers after someone who has the legal rights to the domain.
Hey, whether they fess up to their original sins or not, we won. But I bet the reason we won is all the negative reviews that suddenly landed on Amazon, not a bunch of geeks mouthing off on /. The reviews hit them where it hurts, in the pocketbook. A lesson to be learned, perhaps...
This trend only happens when the little people stand up to the corporations.
Fight Spammers!
"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."
:-)
Personally I would have thought that "every effort" would have included going to the effort of not calling the book that in the first place.
Still, a small victory. Behold, Geek Power!
Well.... what else was she supposed to say? "I'm sorry my bullying attempts got exposed to the light of day and yall called me on it"?
I guess I'm just cynical but I doubt Katie T's lawyer would have pursued the domain name without the ok of Ms Tarbox. That makes her complicit in the attorney's actions. At this point it's just damage control.
Slashdot was USED by the publisher. They know as well as anyone else "There is no such thing as bad publicity".
If this is true, I think the publisher was sadly mistaken. I don't think this will help book sales at all. People who read Slashdot won't be interested in this book.
On the other hand, slashdotters will long remember that Penguin acted in an unethical manner. Perhaps they might even avoid buying books from them.
I believe this is simply a case of a marketing department thinking that it can do what it wants, and getting caught by public opinion.
"Additionally, please also understand that while I have worked with Parry Aftab, she is not my lawyer, and I never asked anyone to speak with Ms. Jones about her website. I hope that the book's title change and my apologies to Ms. Jones will resolve this issue. For more information, please read the press release below." Well, then, who is Parry Aftab working for?
Which is presumably true. If you own a domain that's being targetted by netkooks and other Internet lowlife, you're not going to make anything better by holding on to it.
From what I have read, nothing Jones has said implied in any way that any legal threats were being made. But it's now being treated as fact on Slashdot that she has, I think the usual "If you hear something repeated enough times you begin to believe it's true" has been combined with a misunderstanding of what Jones wrote.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
No special formatting, fonts, graphics, images . . . sigh. Why pdf? Press release text and my comments below:
... In 2000, Dutton published a hardcover book
called Katie.com by Katie Tarbox, an eye-opening account of one teenager's descent into
the seductive world of the Internet.
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
Can't resist the plug ("eye opening" indeed.)
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.
Given that the original title "girl.com" was changed after they realized it was, at the time, a porn site I find it very hard to believe no one checked "katie.com" before release. I guess that sounds better than "We expected to bully katie.com away from Katie Jones, but all our efforts failed, including bringing out Jabba the Lawyer. Worse, the backlash was costing us ratings on Amazon.com. So we're backing down."
The fact that the book, Katie.com, and the website shared the same name was purely coincidental.
And very easy to check before release. Like they did with girl.com. Liars.
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.
Which means they knew this before release. Which means their previous statement that they didn't realize until after release is a lie.
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.
Yes, now they have finally made "every effort," which includes changing their book name.
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.
I didn't hear that they wanted to buy it. I heard they tried to intimidate her into giving it to them. Big difference.
"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.
Great. Good job. Late, and chock full of spin and damage control, but good call.
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.
More revenue opportunity! Everyone wins!
We have always taken this situation very seriously.
As evidenced by your ignoring it for 4 years?
And we hope that by making this title change, it will demonstrate just how dedicated Plume is to clarifying this matter."
Oh yearh. It's clear. You're afraid of slashbots! har har har
#### Penguin Group (USA) Inc. is the U.S. member of the internationally renowned Penguin Group. Penguin Group (USA) is one of the leading U.S. adult and children's trade book publishers, owning a wide range of imprints and trademarks, including Berkley Books, Dutton, Frederick Warne, G.P. Putnam's Sons, Grosset & Dunlap, New American Library, Penguin Boo
everything in moderation
On the other hand, slashdotters will long remember that Penguin acted in an unethical manner. Perhaps they might even avoid buying books from them.
But then they might also think "hey, penguin got the message, they're not so bad after all"
Whow, boy, slow down. Let's not imply the other Katie is the bad one. She was also, and to a much greater extent, a victim. Repeat after me. I am not my publisher.
If only SCO had the business sense that Penguin, Tarbox Inc., sleazy lawyers, etc. have, this whole "truckload of code" nonsense would have been over with a long time ago.
Obviously Penguin, Tarbox Inc. (see domain registration) ARE interested in making money, having a sucessful business even if people don't seem to like the book.
Katie T's lawyer CAN'T do ANYTHING without the ok of Ms Tarbox. Attorneys DO NOT act independently; they act ONLY in the interests of their clients. Failure to do so can get them disbarred.
As far as the legal system is concerned, an attorney IS you. EVERY ACTION taken by an attorney on your behalf is legally YOUR action. Since this is the reality that lawyers have created and understand, I don't think it's too farfetched to suggest that when Katie T retained a shyster as her attorney, she became legally, ethically, and morally liable for the actions of her attorney.
Regarding the publisher's guilt - I don't think inexperience and ignorance could be an excuse even in 2000. The internet was not a new thing in 2000. The antitrust case for Internet Explorer + Windows was three years old. The ".com thing" was big news and big business - it was the height of the internet bubble. Furthermore, ignorance ceased to be an excuse the instant they found out about Katie J, and they COULD have found out about Katie J by typing the address in any browser.
A pox on all of them, I say.
Being a victim of a sexual assult isn't a free pass to be a jerk later in life. It's a horrible experience, no question. However just because something bad happens to you doesn't make you automatically a good person or mean your actions are always justified.
The critical point that people are missing here is the lawyer that was doing the dirty work represents Katie Tarbox, not Penguin. Well guess what? When a lawyer represents you, they MUST do as you say. If they don't like it, they can leave, but they are not allowed to not listen to you. If you tell your lawyer to drop a lawsuit on your behalf, they must do so.
So Katie T. was laying when she claimed there was nothing she could do. On the contrary, she could tell her lawyer to back down. The book name is up to the publisher (though they always clear it with the author) but it was Katie's lawyer, not Penguin's, that was making the legal threats.
Basically from reading some stories about this, the post on katie.com, and Tarbox's responses, I get the feeling that Tarbox has become greedy and wants to milk her fame for all it's worth. Now there's nothing wrong with profiting from something like this. If oyu have a story people are willing to pay to hear, then good for you if you make money selling it. However I believe that for Tarbox, money is now the motivating factor, not protecting people, hence her agressive actions and deceptive information.
People really need to be careful about worshiping victims. When someone is a victim of something bad, a crime, natural disaster, disease, etc they need love and support. It does not, however, make them into a super hero. They still can be and can be come a bad person. As an example, take a drug dealer that gets a debilitating cancer. Well, that's a bad thing, and you certianly can feel sorry for them because of that, but it doesn't mean it's suddenly ok for them to be a drug dealer, one does not wash out or justify the other.