Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

katie.com

varmit

varmit

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Aug 5, 2003
1,830
0
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/
 
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!!!
 
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.
 
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.
 
Makosuke said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
edesignuk said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
From the PDF:
Plume Re-titles Book by Katie Tarbox A Girl’s Life Online

In an effort to avoid an association between the book originally titled Katie.com andthe website Katie.com, Plume and the author decide to make this title change.

New York, New York, August 6, 2004 ... In 2000, Dutton published a hardcover bookcalled 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 wasbrought 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 purelycoincidental. 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 thatthe 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 thefact 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 Plumehad 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 currentlyposted on her web site. “We are not working in association with author Katie Tarbox or any other individual inan 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 LifeOnline. 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 newlytitled 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 howdedicated Plume is to clarifying this matter.”
Click to expand...
It's great that they finally settled the matter. Hopefully Katie (the owner of katie.com) can continue with her normal life.
 
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
 
varmit said:
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/
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
mkrishnan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


mkrishnan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Don't panic said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
mkrishnan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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... ;) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back