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."
Isn't this is a four year old issue in which very little has happened recently? (Most articles I found about it were dated from 2000).
Did Slashdot force this sudden 180?
We didn't do anything wrong, we don't know of anyone who did anything wrong, we didn't even think about doing anything wrong. And now we'll correct this wrong right away like we could have done years ago. Thank you very much. Love us, we are the good guys. _-Right.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
...if that lawyer will still be demanding the domain from the other Katie though.
Now, if Katie Tarbox can be dissuaded from using the name 'Katie.com' for her upcoming school lecture series as well, Katie Jones may finally get her weblife back.
I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this margin is too small to contain.
There is a quote here in the press release that set off my BS detector:
...it was erroneously reported that Plume had asked its attorney to attempt to buy the website Katie.com...
There were no rumors of offers to buy the website. What kind of shameless PR technique is this to cover up the fact that they asked for its donation? I think asking for (demanding) its donation is worse than offering to buy, and this strikes me as a particularly unscrupulous statement by their PR department.
Such astroturfing is top-notch, the likes of which has not been seen since the Phantom Video Game Console. Penguin Putnam thanks all the gullible editors and saps who provided their free advertising.
Has anyone else noticed that Sting.com, once a website for a computer game fanatic is now the official web-page of Sting, the artist? A quick look, shows typical rock-ego, with quotes from the artist himself, a ton of flash, etc. Any idea how this was finally handed over? Did the guy at least get paid?
They did what was the ONLY thing that could go right for THEM. Don't worry, they did nothing else than work toward their own interest.
Obviously, they've tried to force an issue. The lawyer was badly wrong trying to intimidate somebody while knowing there was no way a court would rule in their favor. She had no idea of how an Internet community can be powerful in those matter because it's not their primary business.
Seeing all the harm that was done by people like slashdotters (including comments in Amazon.com), they backed up right away in order to appear as good as they could given the damage already done to their reputation.
So do not think this title change was done to help Katie.com. It's all in the sake of keeping their business healthy.
So was it mis-reported that Katie Tarbox's personal lawyer was trying to get Katie Jones to give up the domain?
-Peter
I always wonder why it is, when I see things like this, that the two parties can't work it out in a more straight-forward and mutually beneficial fashion. In this case, all it would probably have taken was for the publisher to have offered to pay for katie.com's hosting and registry for as long as they wished to put a small presence along the top or to one side of her page, referring people to info on the book. In the case of the two WWF's a few years back, I emailed them both outlining a mutually beneficial way to SHARE the domain name and promote both the Wildlife Fund AND the Superstars of Wrestling. Probably would have netted the World Wildlife Fund a nice new source of revenue from wrestling fans who like Jake the Snake and ACTUAL snakes, Gorilla Monsoon and REAL gorillas, and Sable and um, things with fur, but NO, we can't have that, can we?
Too many damned lawyers in the world, not enough "gentlemen's agreements".
:::The Spear in the heart of the Other is the Spear in the heart of You; You are He - Surak of Vulcan:::
I took part in the negative Amazon ratings bomb yesterday, and there were hundreds of slashdotters giving the book a negative rating. However, when I checked today, all of those ratings were removed, i.e. censored!
Renaming the book may not be all that bad of an idea. Sales for Katie.com (the book) have died off in the last four years. A press release and a name change are publicity, and the name change might appeal to a different crowd of readers.
Ok, yes they changed the name, but how many copies are in circulation?
Plus they only changed the name because of negative press, not because they wanted to 'Do The Right Thing'. They are still on my personal 'banned' list. And I refuse to believe that Ms. Tarbox is as innocent as she claims.
THIS WENT ON FOR 4 YEARS!
I guess it's true; people have short memories, which is why stupid politicians get second terms.
How long will Katie Tarbox continue to milk her experience for cash? There is no doubt in my mind that what happened to her was horrible, but there are moments when I find myself questioning if it is even about protecting others anymore.
She could just be an unfortunate woman who had a terrible childhood experience only to grow up and have publishers manipulate her recovery in the persuit of money, or she could just be someone who is desperately clinging to her celebrity as - by her own accounts - it is the only recognition and purpose she has ever known.
If the former is true, then she needs to be a bit more upfront about it, but if the latter is true, then she needs to make use of her family's wealth and do something with her life that will provide her with a sense of accomplishment.
Surprised to see Amazon influencing the content of their reviews pages.
Using Occam's Razor, the following scenario seems likely.
1) Penguin's legal team researches proposed names and replies that they wouldn't want to be associated with girl.com, but katie.com's content is inoffensive enough.
2) The author is told that 867-5309 set enough precedent that she could use the name as a separate entity.
3) As publicity builds up before a proposed tour using the name katie.com, the author attempts to engage legal counsel to acquire the domain.
4) A cyber-ambulance chaser gets in touch with her and is engaged. (Come on. Just look at this site.)
5) The geek world, while sympathetic to the author's original experience and book, cries 'Shenanigans!' to her lawyer's actions towards the current domain owner.
6) Penguin's legal staff decides that that negative fallout was becoming larger than their original risk estimates, and recommends a name change to settle things without admitting anything.
A publisher has great control over a book's title especially for unpublished authors (even Asimov had his titles changed early in his career), so I don't hold the author overly to blame for the original use. I also don't hold her to blame for wanting to acquire the name. She obviously could have chosen a better lawyer, but who knows how she made that choice.
The only thing I think the publisher is guilty of is underestimating the degree of problems usurping an existing domain name would cause. While it's obvious to us now, the book did come out in 2000 and the title may have been decided in 1999. At that time domain name legality was still all over the place, and it's more likely a combination of inexperience and ignorance then malevolence.
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.
There are three possible cases:
1. The lawyer is representing Katie T
2. The lawyer is representing Penguin
3. The lawyer is representing herself, doing all this out of the goodness of her heart in her free time on her own dime.
I think #3 is right out. #2 may be the case, but I suspect that Penguin has their own attorneys and doesn't need to hire shysters (you have seen her web site, right?). That leaves #1.
If you can point me to a source (other than Katie T) that indicates the attorney doesn't belong to Katie T, I'll agree with you.
#3 is right out.
Or the cyber-ambulance chaser contacts gets in touch with her and says 'I have lots of online safety experience and I'm a lawyer; lets do a safety website together to help warn children and parents about the dangers of the internet.'
KatieT thinks this is a fab idea, but cac promptly goes overboard and tries to intimidate katieJ into giving up katie.com - heck, cac may have thought she had the legal stuff to fluff her way through a courtroom to legally gain possession of katie.com.
And then Slashdot happens.
And a CEO of Penguin, after the 80th email with 'katie.com' as the subject asks Peon X, Y, or Z, 'what the heck is katie.com?' And after email 800, he tells the legal department to rename the &^%$ing book.
KatieT finally gets asked 'What was the title you originally wanted?'
And two Katies win!
jbltk: I'm sorry to bother you so randomly, but I'd like to know when you found out that someone else owned Katie.com, and why you didn't insist the title of your book be changed at that time and wait to say it was a good thing until the publisher finally ceded?
ktarbox261: As I said before this issue was between Katie Jones and Penguin, I could do nothing to change it. They bought the right to publish it and I sold it under a different name.
jbltk: Than why did the press release state that the publisher as well as the author made the decision to change the name, seeing as you have no input?
ktarbox261: This time was a very unique situation.
jbltk: But why didn't you, even without any control, publicly state you felt Penguin's stance was unfair to Katie Jones, and why did you continue to plan to call your workshop by the same name?
ktarbox261: I never had any plans to do that and that is reported incorrectly.
jbltk: so Parry Aftab happens to be a lawyer who doesn't represent you and is only a victim's rights advocate?
jbltk: it just seems to me like you've played both sides, awaiting the outcome so you would be able to do what was most profitable for you, in regards to your future projects
ktarbox261: Parry Aftab is not my lawyer and never has been. My lawyer works out of Connecticut.
ktarbox261: I never asked anyone to call Katie Jones.
ktarbox261: I have always wanted Penguin to do the right thing . What you read is not the whole story.
jbltk: Then why did she call Katie Jones? What was the purpose of that call? Lawyers charge large amounts of money to do things like that. I find it hard to believe she'd make an international call like that without instruction from a client
jbltk: ok i'm listening
jbltk: please inform me of all the misinformation
ktarbox261: Parry is not my lawyer we have no written agreement, I have never paid her a single dime.
jbltk: FYI, I've yet to see an article that quotes you as being in favor of changing the title
ktarbox261: Look at my website
jbltk: I looked. I don't see anything said by you that indicates you favor a title change or sympathize with Ms. Jones. The only thing I've seen so far is your statement regarding the press release. Up until then, I'd never seen any news article that had you saying you felt sympathy or wanted a title change
jbltk: I know you may have signed your creative control over when you sold your book, but that didn't prevent you from speaking out publicly
jbltk: You see, it's easy to say all those things you say @ (Link: http://katiet.com/message1.htm)http://katiet.com/m essage1.htm after the fact, but you never said them until today
ktarbox261: I do sympathesize with Ms. Jones and the fact that I said I am excited to change the name of the book, that would show I am in favor of it.
ktarbox261: Unfortunately I couldn't speak about this issue until today.
jbltk: why is that?
ktarbox261: Because this issue was between Penguin and Ms. Jones.
jbltk: that hasn't prevented me or my peers from giving Penguin a hard time publicly or directly. Did you have some sort of confidentiality agreement or something?
ktarbox261: That is all I can say.
jbltk: OK, is it fair to say that you would have faced financial hardships had you made any statements on the issue?
ktarbox261: No it is not fair to say.
jbltk: It just seems to me that if you really thought what Penguin was doing was wrong, you should have piped up way back when this all started, unless you were under a contractual obligation to not speak about it.
jbltk: I'm not trying to be a jerk, there are just a bunch of inconsistencies that I see in this whole thing, and I really like to know the whole story
ktarbox261: I could not speak about it.
jbltk: Because of an agreement between yourself and the publisher?
ktarbox261: I could not speak ab
I wonder how many books will be sold to people (or libraries, schools, etc) who don't realize it's the same book.