katie.com

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by varmit, Aug 5, 2004.

  1. varmit macrumors 68000

    varmit

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    #1
    Fight for katie.com. Person that wrote a book about how she was a victim of the internet at age 13 is now trying to muscle the person that owns the domain name. But here is the catch, the person has owned the domain since 1996, and the person named the book in 2000, and is now trying to chuck some lawyers at the owner of the domain to get her to hand it over.

    http://www.theregister.com/2004/08/04/penguin_katie_hijack/

    http://www.katie.com/
     
  2. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #2
    AFAIK if you bought a domain before the name was copyrighted (or whatever) then you have every right to keep it.

    So if I was to have bought sony.com when .com first came about, it would have been well within sony's rights to force me to give it up. Since the Sony name was registered long before I would have bought the domain. But if Sony hadn't existed until after I had bought the domain, then it would have been tough sh*t sony, gimme a blank cheque!!!
     
  3. Kingsnapped macrumors 6502a

    Kingsnapped

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #3
    That's a bunch of crap. Why not print a book with somebody's phone number as the title? Or write a song?

    Stupid people.
     
  4. Vector macrumors 6502a

    Vector

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    #4
    Sony could still take the name from you unless you had a fairly good claim to it. It doesn't matter if they had the name sony copyrighted before or after you bought the domain name. As long as they were a company by the name of sony when you bought the name, they have a strong claim to the domain name, and unless your name happened to be sony or you also had a company by that name you would probably be forced to hand over the site. The courts ruled against cyber-squatters to keep people from being able to register domain names and then demand outrageous prices from the companies that had a real use for the domain. If both parties had real claims to the domain, a judge would likely decide whose claim was more legitimate, and the larger or more known of the two parties would almost certainly win.

    The MikeRoweSoft.com incident comes to mind. He settled with microsoft eventhough he had a legitimate claim to the domain.
     
  5. Makosuke macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Location:
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    #5
    Yeah, that's just insulting, and the Sony analogy isn't even a very good one. It'd be more akin to Sony naming their company "Sony.com", despite the fact that they knew Bob Sony already had a personal website with that name. And even then, consumer electronics and a book about an internet predator and child abuse aren't exactly the same category.

    Really, this book has a valuable message about paying proper attention to what your kids are doing. Would it have been so hard to have either make a juicy offer to buy the domain name in advance if they were so dead set on the rather lame "katie.com" title, or just used something else (KT.com, maybe, which is up for sale)?

    There's a reason phone numbers in movies always use "555", and a domain name is even worse than naming a book (and from the sound of it, establishing a whole brand on the public speaking circuit) with somebody's phone number; the domain name is harder to change and a whole lot more valuable to both parties.
     
  6. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #6
    No it's not like them being called Sony.com :mad: What I am saying is that I *thought* that if you bought a domain before the company or whatever that then wanted it existed, then they couldn't do anything about it. But if they did exist before you bought the domain, and then they wanted to buy it, you'd have to then hand it over because if they were called Sony, and they existed under that name before you bought the domain, they would have the "right" to sony.com over you. You with me?
     
  7. cheekyspanky macrumors 6502a

    cheekyspanky

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Location:
    South Bucks, UK
    #7
    Wasn't there a similar case between Nissan Cars and Nissan Computers (..who?!). If you go to www.nissan.com you get a message talking about a lawsuit which ended in the site not being available for either of the companies and is now for non commercial use.
     
  8. Makosuke macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Location:
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    #8
    I followed you from the begining, and you are correct. What I was saying is that this situation is a little different from domain-squatting on established businesses (buying sony.com when the Sony company already exists) vs. starting a company with a term that already exists as a domain name (naming your new company Sony, even though Bob Sony bought Sony.com two years before you ever thought of naming your company that).

    The important factor is that in this case there's obviously no particular rights to the name "Katie", since there are millions of Katies and many, many businesses called Katie-something. Moreover, either the publisher or someone else very mean decided on the specific title "Katie.com", which isn't just a business name, like "Ford", that would have the logical domain name "Ford.com", but references a SPECIFIC existing web address to which the publisher or Katie herself has no particular right.

    So it's not quite the same thing as the Sony fracas; Katie certainly had her name before the domain was purchased in 1996, but she has no particular right to the name "Katie" as a unique tradmark, and there was certainly no thoughts about naming any product "Katie.com" untill years later, well after a site with that exact address was already established. That's why it's far more insulting than simple domain-squatting--it's outright malicious.
     
  9. Hemingray macrumors 68030

    Hemingray

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Ha ha haaa!
    #9
    Man, that ticks me off. These people have NO RIGHT to hijack this poor lady's domain name. These strongarm tactics are absolutely disgusting and I hope they end up paying through the nose for all the trouble they've given her. :mad:
     
  10. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #10
    Hmmm, using the internet as a weapon against an innocent person?

    If she goes out and uses the internet as a weapon and disrupts someone's life, then I'm glad all those bad things happened to Katie Tarbox when she was 13. She's doing the same thing to another person, although not nearly as severe. The intent of her actions and promotion tactics is noted. I'm sorry, but if she can't see the wrong in what she's doing, then she's just as bad. She can write another sob story book all she wants, but I don't feel bad about it at all. I'm glad it happened to such a dumb person if she didn't even learn from it.
     
  11. Apple Hobo macrumors 6502a

    Apple Hobo

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Location:
    A series of tubes
    #11
    [Problem resolved, nasty picture removed by Apple Hobo]

    :D
     
  12. Littleodie914 macrumors 68000

    Littleodie914

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    #12
    woooah

    *cough* BURN *cough*

    Now I know it's not right to make fun of someone because of their weight, as it's no representation of their personality. But considering this is the woman that's trying to hijack somebody elses site and who has caused a large amount of trouble for this woman, seems just enough! :D
     
  13. barkmonster macrumors 68020

    barkmonster

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Location:
    Lancashire
    #13
    I don't think the size of 1 party over another can change the law (no pun intended)

    There was a story a few years ago (done a google search, can't find a link I'm affraid) about Microsoft suing a UK textile company over their name.

    It turns out the company registered the name Microsoft before bill & pals did so they lost the case and the company was allowed to go on using their name!

    I remember when a company that used to do peripherals for the Atari ST, Gasteiner Technolgies in the UK were sued by Sega for branding their external hard drives as "Megadrives". Even though Gasteiner's argument was that they were completely different products, Sega won the case. Gasteiner then ran a competiton in one of the Atari mags at the time to find a new name for the drives!

    (I can remember some absolutely useless facts at times)

    :D
     
  14. monkeydo_jb macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2002
    Location:
    Columbia, MO
  15. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #15
    From the PDF:
    It's great that they finally settled the matter. Hopefully Katie (the owner of katie.com) can continue with her normal life.
     
  16. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #16
    So, fully believing in reasonable fair use, and thinking Katie Jones has every right to her domain name since, beyond her first presence, being named Katie and running a site about herself, she has a reasonable right to the name, I am kind of wondering...

    Since 1996 has she ever done anything but squat on the DN? It seems like right now the site doesn't serve any purpose except to argue that this other Katie shouldn't take the DN away from this Katie.

    Anyway, I do sometimes feel like there should be use 'em or lose 'em rights associated with top level DN's. There aren't that many simple words out there, right, and common names, right, and they're all getting used up. It doesn't really help the internet grow to let people sit on names for years without doing anything to them.

    That being said, if all the *other* Katie wants is to sit on the name to protect the book, that's even worse. And, well, it is getting slashdotted, which means it does contribute to that *ross perot voice* giant sucking sound of internet bandwidth going down the drain. :p
     
  17. frescies macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #17
    Hey!...

    I have a cousin, also named Katie, who was a BIG victim of the internet at 13. When she was on the internet one night at 13, the internet made her grow 18 testicles behind her ear, AGAINST HER WILL!!!. She deserves the katie.com domain because she is planning to write a book about it and since the current owner doesn't have 18 testicles behind his/her ear, I think my cousin deserves to take the site from him/her.

    -David

    P.S. the internet is a scarry damn place. My Aunt Sedna was just sitting in a chat room minding her own business, and then all of the sudden her gall bladder flipped outside of her body, and a meteor crashed into it!... True story.
     
  18. NusuniAdmin macrumors 6502a

    NusuniAdmin

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    #18
    Even if she owned the domain then legally (i have actually asked my parents lawyer as well as a few people at the USPTO about this) you are allowed to keep it no matter wut. The people who may trademark the name still cannot force the person to hand over the domain.

    If some punk trademarked my name i would DEMAND they pay me AT LEAST 10 thousand dollars for it.

    this seems like a case similer to mikerowesoft.com vs microsoft
     
  19. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #19
    She actually states very clearly that she was using the site for personal and work use, but had to take it down because the publicity surrounding the book was damaging her privately and professionally.
    IMO, she should retain her domain AND be compensated for the abuse suffered from the editors. And the book writer should be prevented to use her domain name for more initiatives.


    i respectfully disagree.
    Imagine if you owned a piece of land with a fantastic view that has suddenly become very valuable.
    You only built a small house on it and you go there only for brief vacations.
    Now a big developer comes, sees the place, decides that much more could be done with it and suddenly starts a grand advertisement campaign pointing to the location.
    After that they move in, tell you to get out and start building a billion-dollars resort.
    All this is legal under the 2004 Mkrishnan Act, and at zero compensation for you.
    Wouldn't you find it slightly annoying?
     
  20. Edge100 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Where am I???
    #20

    867-5309
    :D
     
  21. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #21
    Hmmm...compensation is a good point, and I don't think I've gone and sponsored any legislation, just quite yet. :p But DN squatting and owning a small house on a large primo parcel of land aren't quite exactly the same. If you squat, in the sense that you hold a memorable DN but you don't put much of anything on it, no one visits it, etc (which admittedly might not be Katie's case after all), then what tangible harm do you suffer, if you are bounced to a slightly less memorable DN, on which you don't put much of anything, which no one visits, etc? It isn't like a house at all. There's no hardware to move, etc. The substantiable harm is very slight if at all.

    In a case where person (A) would provide much more compelling value to the internet community than person (B), in the sense of more traffic, more content, and not only would do so immediately, but there was no evidence person (B) ever intended to do more than squat, then it doesn't seem like such an unfair shake to me if some governing body were to make such a call, and trade the domain name to person (A) for some nominal compensation to person (B), for costs of updating code, etc, and a replacement domain name....

    But I do see your point. I just think, in the balance, this is not a pure issue of free speech or maritime-esque property rights. Governing bodies for the net, whether national or international, should have some sort of economic duty to maximise benefit, in the same sorts of senses that they do, when they buy out houses for highways and other public development.
     
  22. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #22
    I agree that the situation can be more complex than the house analogy, but at the end it's a question of property and the right to "invest". As long as the rules of our society (in most places) allow buying land (be it real or virtual) with the purpose of deriving a profit, than you can't force someone out of a property without the appropriate compensation.
    This should hold especially true for the various katies joneses out there, who got their domain as a present and just like "having it" (whether they do something or nothing with it).
    I would be more sympathetic in cases where hundreds of domains are swept up by a single entity purely for resale purposes, but again, how is this diffferent by any other investment?
    It's true that governments expropriate private property for "the public good" but in most cases the compensation is at or above market value (at least in market-driven societies).

    With cyberspace is a bit mor difficult, because "nobody owned it" in the first place, so I'm not sure anybody other than the "community" has the right to occupy it and sell parts of it, but I would also find hard to endorse any organization in defining what's of "more compelling value".

    Is my personal blog visited by me and my family and friends better or worse than a porn site with thousands of hits? I guess it depends whom you ask (i'm sure most of my friends would vote the second... ;) )
     
  23. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    that dude sold out for an xbox and a few games :rolleyes:.
     

Share This Page