The Saga of Katie.com

digitalcaffeine writes "The gist of the story is that Katie Tarbox became a victim of an online sexual predator when she was 13. She wrote a book about it in 2000 and Penguin Putnam made the title of the book 'Katie.Com', which unfortunately was a domain name owned by Katie Jones since 1996. Now Tarbox's lawyer is demanding that Jones turn over the domain name. Penguin refuses to apologize, saying that it would be a violation of their free speech to re-title the book and that Jones never trademarked katie.com, so they can do what they want with the words."

Makes no sense

[xbrownx (459399)]

It's not also a violation of the domain owner's free speech rights to have to "re-title" her domain?

There's something ironic about her lawyers fighting to have the Katie.com domain so that she can promote her book about Internet predators.

Re:Makes no sense

[paullush (767354)]

Cool, time for me to release a hardcore gay movie called microsoft.com. I mean, what grounds would they have to object?

Re:Makes no sense

[thenerdgod (122843)]

" It's not also a violation of the domain owner's free speech rights to have to "re-title" her domain?"


Repeat after me: "CONGRESS shall make no law[...]" I can sue you to, as it were, "stfu" any time.

Come ON people, TORT LAW != CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. I'm really tired of this. "But Teh SCO is taking Lunix's Free Speach Away!!!1" Christ. Get a clue.

Re:Makes no sense

[jafiwam (310805)]

When the book was written, the domain "katie.com" was not registered. Therefore anybody was/is allowed to use the words "Katie.com" as the title of a book. (This is confirmed bt the fact that the owner of the domain never did anything against the publishers of the book.)

I think you mean was registered, no? It clearly was by comparison of by the dates, and it seems like the rest of your post goes by that assumption.

Re:Makes no sense

[Mantorp (142371)]

the poster meant not registered as a trademark

Re:Makes no sense

[finkployd (12902)]

When the book was written, the domain "katie.com" was not registered. Therefore anybody was/is allowed to use the words "Katie.com" as the title of a book. (This is confirmed bt the fact that the owner of the domain never did anything against the publishers of the book.)


WTF? katie.com WAS registered at the time the book was written. The it has been registered since 1996, the book came out in 2000. Grab a calculator and do the math.

How does a single women failing to embark on a lawsuit against a multinational publisher confirm that a domain name was not registered when the book came out?

Finkployd

Re:Makes no sense

[sludg-o (120354)]

katie.com was registered in the DNS system in 1996, not at the copyright office. Huge difference. Still, I'm pulling 100% for the original owner of the website.

uh, no

[No-op (19111)]

the domain was registered in 1996, well before the book was written and released. The book was originally to be titled "girl.com" but that turned out to be a porn site, so they changed it to "katie.com" instead.

All in all, it was a stupid move on the publisher's part, and they are just pulling the normal corporate move of not acknowledging any responsibility and hoping their legal threats can win it for them.

Personally, if I owned a domain like that, I'd use it as an opportunity to be a really big pain in the ass, but that's just me. I think the domain owner has all rights to be as much of a pest as she wants, and quite obviously she has all legal rights to the domain.

if you really wanted to get pedantic, you could argue that since the sex.com case (somewhat) established domains as "property", that the book title infringes upon her property. there has to be an ambulance chaser out there somewhere willing to pick that standard up and run with it...

So they name the book

[klmth (451037)]

without ever googling for the domain name they used? Unbelievably clueless.

Re:So they name the book

[mopslik (688435)]

without ever googling for the domain name they used?

Or typing it into the address bar, for that matter. Why the need to invoke Google?

Re:So they name the book

[Neophytus (642863)]

Oh, but they did. Had you RTFA then you would have realised then the original title for the book was to be girl.com, changed because the content of girl.com was at the time of the decision pornographic [archive.org].

Re:So they name the book

[Otter (3800)]

See, what Penguin should have done is buy out Girl Skateboards [girlskateboards.com], use that against girl.com (who, I'm guessing, didn't bother with a trademark either) and then everyone would be a winner! Err, except the porn guys.

Honestly, this whole thing sounds like this is a story the editors misqueued back in 1998. What does Penguin think -- that they're going to make a fortune off banner ads and the katie.com IPO?

Re:So they name the book

[stromthurman (588355)]

Actually, they almost certainly did know the domain was taken. Originally, the book was to be titled "girl.com", but according to the Katie Jones' open letter, girl.com at the time was a hardcore porn site. Seems to be a search page of some sort now. Anyway, I would not be surprised to find out that this was a deliberate move by the company. They knew katie.com was taken by someone else, but it was a private individual who had not registered any trademark on the domain name, and it's apparently a more desireable name than katiet.com (Katie Tarbox's actual website), so they probably figured they could muscle it out of her.

Name the book KatieT.com

[eltoyoboyo (750015)]

Right on the money. How stupid are the Penguin sales and marketing folks to release a book with a domain name as the title, when they did not even own it. The one they own katieT.com should have been the title. It is almost like they had a disconnect between marketing and the art department. (Someone in the art department said "KatieT? It has to be Katie.")

Even the creators of Friends were smart enough to register www.hahanotsomuch.com [hahanotsomuch.com] before it was used as a joke URL in the TV show two seasons ago.

Penguin is trying to make Katie pay for their stupidity.

A new shock site?

[jrockway (229604)]

Why doesn't the real (slim?) Katie make katie.com a convienient mirror of, say, goatse. Then the people will complain to Penguin and they'll be forced to do something. Like change the title. It's her right to decide the content of her page, right? So I think she'd even be in the clear :-)

Of course ligit visitors might think Katie is a weirdo, but hey. It's better than having Katie.tv_fm_info_dumbtld :)

Re:A new shock site?

[Ianoo (711633)]

Best. Idea. Ever.

Re:A new shock site?

[by Anonymous Coward]

goatse? What's that? Anyone have a link?

Re:A new shock site?

[warpSpeed (67927)]

goatse? What's that? Anyone have a link?

Sure look Here [golem.de]

Re:A new shock site?

[SpooForBrains (771537)]

Why doesn't the real (slim?) Katie make katie.com a convienient mirror of, say, goatse.

because her best chance of winning this in court (bearing in mind that there has only been one previous legal precedent and the legality is still a little muddy) is to prove that she is not keeping ownership of the domain to "cash in on" or deliberately adversely affect the book or the publishers' reputation.

Re:A new shock site?

[mikael (484)]

As Zahphod Beeblebrox would say:

"ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for good thinking".

The ISP would probably suspend her Internet account, giving Penquin the opportunity to seize the domain name.

Of course, she could take an interest in wildlife conservation in the Orkney's [pluton.co.uk],
and tell the major book publisher what they can do.

Tux name back

[1gor (314505)]

FSF should sue Penguin and get Tux's name back.

What are they smoking?

[rice_web (604109)]

I thought trademark was a right guaranteed with or without going through the trademark process. After her first "sale" (visit from an outsider), she would have held a trademark on her site.

Re:What are they smoking?

[jbash (784046)]

Trademarks don't necessarily need to be registered. See http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/common.html [bitlaw.com] for a brief summary of common law trademark rights, but also do a google search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q= common+law+trademark+and+internet&btnG=Search [google.com] What you'll find is that trademark law is actually a lot more complex--and often contradictory--than you think.

And then there's...

[EFGearman (245715)]

the fact that the sex.com ruling made web names property. I would think that with that precedent, and judges love those, that the owner of the site can not be forced to turn it over. She was there first.

Re:And then there's...

[abb3w (696381)]

So, can the current owner of Katie.com sue Putnam for the damages done to her (EG, increased bandwidth costs, having to redesign her site around an irrelevant topic, etc.) as a result of their choice of title?

Almost too weird to be true

[erick99 (743982)]

Why do I feel like something might be missing from this story? We have the makings of a tv movie here. A girl is victimized, horribly, as a result of her online activities. A book is made, a lucrative speaking engagement tour is arranged, and the victim makes a lot of money. That in itself is not necessarily bad (though it can be rather odd). However, with all of this money seemingly floating about, Katie T. and Penguin could have done the most gracious thing and made a generous offer to Katie J. for the domain name katie.com. Instead, they suggest that the domain name should be given to them as a "donation." I generally donate money to causes that are essentially "poor." I don't see any poor people on Kate T.'s side of the fence. So, this looks really, really greedy on the part of Katie T. and Penguin. As a matter of fact, it looks so overwhelmingly crass and greedy that it seems almost unreal. The Register article seemed informative but can this really be all there is to this? Is Penguin really so dumb as to steamroller over someone's domain name and not offer even a token sum to fix it? I wonder. If Katie T. and Penguin really are this mean-spirited and greedy then I do hope that someone steps forward and helps Katie J. fund a legal challenge.

Cheers,

Erick

Re:Almost too weird to be true

[imadork (226897)]

The Register article seemed informative but can this really be all there is to this? Is Penguin really so dumb as to steamroller over someone's domain name and not offer even a token sum to fix it? I wonder. If Katie T. and Penguin really are this mean-spirited and greedy then I do hope that someone steps forward and helps Katie J. fund a legal challenge.

No, you pretty much have it right. This story has been around for a while and very little has changed. You can google for older stories if you like.

Katie J. is in a no-win situation. If she offers to sell the domain or sue for damages, she'll be accused of trying to profit off of Penguin's book, and would likely lose the domain in a trademark dispute to WIPO.

But Penguin's use of katie.com is directly causing her harm, because she effectively can't use it for its intended purpose because of all the traffic it is getting. And even if she got Penguin to change future editions, the damage is already done -- katie.com is effectively useless for anything that is not associated with the book. The only way to remedy this is to sue for damaged caused by Penguin's behavior -- which, as we already discussed, she can't really do.

This is why I'm not a lawyer. It seems like they're all schmucks.

Complain (in ink on paper) to Penguin

[ericlj (81729)]

I sent a letter to Penguin yesterday letting them know that I disapprove of their actions in this matter.

It's conceivable, but unlikely, that if enough people write or call they will change their tactics.

I assume that dealing with a large publisher is like dealing with government; I expect that they ignore email complaints but are more likely to respond to letters or phone calls.

Katiet.com is the real site for the book

[doublem (118724)]

Please send your complaints to Katiet.com [katiet.com], which is the web site of the Penguin book that is causing all this fuss.

If the author gets flooded with mail about her predatory behavior, something might happen.

The autor's address is [e-mail] [mailto]

Penguin couldn't care less.

Re:Katiet.com is the real site for the book

[gorbachev (512743)]

She (Katie Tarbox) is, btw, answering to Emails sent to that address.

Just got a reply from her.

She seems to be in the opinion that she has no control over this, and it's Penguin Putnam who is at fault. Kinda of a cop out, if you ask me, and sidestepping the issue discussed in the article about her lawyer trying to intimidate Katie Jones to hand over katie.com for free.

Proletariat of the world, unite to kill Big MultiNational Corporations

Upcoming books galore

[ergonal (609484)]

Maybe Penguin should have thought about that before releasing the book? Dumbasses. On the plus side, I've decided to becoming a budding author. My debut book is scheduled to be released on April 1 2005, and its name will be "cia.gov".

Dear OSDN,

[Ianoo (711633)]

I notice that you currently own the name "slashdot.org". Our research shows you never trademarked this name. Last week, I applied for a trademark on the terms "slashdot", "slashdot.org" and "slashdot.com" and these have been granted. Therefore I require you to hand over your domain immediately, or face legal proceedings.


Yours Sincerely,
I.P. Freely

Dear Ianoo,

[IPFreely (47576)]

I notice that you currently use the name "I.P. Freely". Our research shows you never registered this name. Several years ago, I applied for a registration on the terms "I.P. Freely", "IPFreely" and "IP Freely" and these have been granted. Therefore I require you to hand over your title immediately, or face legal proceedings.

Yours Sincerely,
IPFreely [slashdot.org]

Three step buisiness plan.

[donscarletti (569232)]

I have a brand new buisiness idea:

1. Write a book called Amazon.com about ancient warrior women that are stalked online.
2. Take control of said domain name then sell it back.
3. Profit

Unlike the plans of the underpants gnomes and SCO, this one may actually be crazy enough to work.

No due diligence

[charnov (183495)]

Katie Jones can assert her copyright of the works and the name at any time. Just because someone else doesn't do their due diligence and wraps their business up in a name does not mean the original owner has to cough it up. A little advice for Katie Tarbox's lawyer(s): even IF you get the name awarded, it will be tied up in court for a long time, probably longer than the value you have attached to it will last if not immediately established, and secondly, any decent judge will force you to pay through the nose to compensate the original owner. Good luck. You should make her a seven figure offer if it is so important to your business model.

Penguin's REAL strategy

[Alzheimers (467217)]

1) Name book after existing, small time website
2) Create small copywrite-related controversy over said site
3) Get small site url posted on Slashdot.
4) Reduce small website to smouldering ruin
5) Offer to accept smouldering ruin as "donation."

Usefull contacts

[Andy_R (114137)]

if you would like to let penguin know what you think of their strongarm tactics, you might find the following information useful:

Penguin Books Ltd, Pearson Customer Operations
Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, Essex, CM20 2JE
Fax: [phone]
www.penguin.co.uk

[e-mail]
orders@penguin.c o.uk
[e-mail]
internationalsales@pen guin.co.uk

Penguin Group (USA)
375 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014
www.penguinputnam.com

Penguin Group (Australia)
250 Camberwell Road, Camberwell, VIC 3124
Australia
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.penguin.com.au

Penguin Group (Canada)
10 Alcorn Ave., Suite 300, Toronto, Ontario, M4V 3B2 Canada
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.penguin.ca

Penguin India
11 Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi 110 017, India
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.penguinbooksindia.com

Penguin Ireland
25 St Stephen's Green, Dublin 2, Ireland
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
www.penguin.ie

Penguin Group (New Zealand)
Private Bag 102-902, North Shore Mail Centre, Auckland 1310
Albany, Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.penguin.co.nz

Penguin South Africa
24 Sturdee Avenue, Rosebank, 2169, South Africa
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Libel?

[michaelmalak (91262)]

Couldn't Katie Jones sue Katie Tarbox for libeling her as a sexual assault victim?

Tough Noogies

[Esion Modnar (632431)]

I didn't RTFA, but it seems the publisher is making 2 claims: 1) They can use katie.com as a book title since it's not trademarked, and it's their 1st amendment right, and 2) For some vague "think of the children" reason, the current owner of katie.com should give it up.

1) OK, then... phone numbers are not trademarked. If I use my next door neighbor's phone number as the title of a book I should be OK, right? Probably up until I get sued for the cost of him changing his phone number and all associated costs. Imagine all the crank calls he'd receive at 3 am. This is why books and media started using 555 numbers.

2) I hate victim mentality that equates their suffering with entitlement. If you were a victim of something (esp. as a child), suddenly people are supposed to donate stuff to you, like domain names?!? ("Think of the Children!" the cynical demand heard everywhere...) Sure, it's a stretch to attribute the publishers' and lawyer's desires and expectations to their client, but she has the power to tell them "No! Not in my name, Asshole!"

katie.com was there long before the book was even a gleam in a publisher's eye, so Penguin Putnam can go suck it. I hope they get their ass sued off.

Full history

[potcrackpot (245556)]

OK, everyone seems a little confused about this - like, why now when the book was published in 2000?

For those that don't RTFA:

- In 2000, this book came out, and Katie Jones asked Dutton (subsidiary of Penguin) to change the title, as she had the domain name and they were hijacking it; as a result of the book title, KJ was receiving emails both detailing peoples abuse at the hands of paedophiles, as well as abusive emails from paedophiles themselves. See here [theregister.com] and here [bbc.co.uk]. KJ took loads of stuff (including pictures of herself and family) off the site as a result - and Penguin ignored the request. I can't find the original slashdot article, although I'm sure there must have been one.
- Now, four years later, Jones gets a nasty letter, and this slashdot story is posted. This is caused by KT doing some thing about teaching kids about online safety (whether for money or altruism I don't know) - and them calling it Katie.com. Source [boingboing.net].
- It seems the lawyer, one Parry Aftab, has a website [aftab.com].

There's a good summary (almost as good as this one) here [professorbainbridge.com], and suprisingly, on CNN [cnn.com].

Lawsuit powered by Google

[Digital_Quartz (75366)]

If I were Katie Jones, I'd setup Google AdWords on my front page, and perhaps a sponsored link to the katie.com book on Amazon, and use the proceeds to power a legal fund.

Katie.com

[erick99 (743982)]

From her website;

To answer some questions that I've received today, firstly as far as I know the rather aggressive lawyer who contacted me yesterday is not part of Penguin Puttnam but is working with Katie Tarbox on future projects and trying to gain control of my domain name for these projects. She informed me that things would 'only get worse' for me from here if I didn't do something about it - i.e. give it to them.

Finally, a point about this domain name. When this book launched I had no choice but to take down the content I previously had published on the front page because of the traffic coming to the site and having no choice but to remove it if I didn't want my professional and personal reputation damaged by it. I still use it, although I don't link from the front page of course, and one day I sincerely hope I'll be able to move my content back up where it belongs.

Cheers,

Erick

Re:Katie.com

[Entrope (68843)]

That makes it look like the ever-popular "My book got published and I can afford a lawyer, give me the domain name I want" approach. I hope Katie Jones finds good counsel to put Ms. Tarbox in her place.

Re:Stupid...

[mopslik (688435)]

no one's going to go to "katie.com"

And yet there's a reason [straightdope.com] why every phone number in the movies has to be prefixed with 555.

Or they could assume that the associated website would contain more information about the book, author, etc.

Re:Stupid...

[erroneus (253617)]

Given the fact that they originally entitled the book "girl.com" and the changed it because girl.com is a porn site, it is reasnable to assume they also checked out katie.com.

Basically, they made the decision NOT out of ignorance, but calculating the fact that they knew they could bully her out of what they perceive as a good choice of names for the book. Penguin is big and Katie is small. It would be unreasonable to assume Penguin has done any of this out of ignorance given their reason for changing the original name of the book.

Penguin should be sued in every nation they exist for two or three times damages. I believe they are doing this believing they will simply be able to out-lawyer her. Penguin should be punished in a way that is severe and public enough that a message to all abusive and litigeous corporations out there that immoral behavior should not be allowed.

"Right" is not defined as that which you can get away with. It is not right what they have done and continue doing. And it is not their right to do so... even if they manage to get away with it.

Re:and in other news....

[Entrope (68843)]

You have a rather broad definition of "random, uninteresting American." If you had bothered to do even a modicum of research, you would find that Katie Jones (owner of katie.com) lives in London, and Pearson Group (which seems to own the Penguin Putnam group) is based in London.

You clearly dislike it when Americans assume everything is about them, but is it fair to complain when you also assume everything is about Americans?

Re:Stupid

[admiralh (21771)]

Consider that a lot of p(a)edophiles were sending pictures and other stuff to the email address, so you know they were visiting katie.com, too.

Would you post your daughter's baby pictures on a site you knew was a target for p(a)edophiles?

Re:And??

[abb3w (696381)]

Obviously I didn`t RTFA, but have they made a cash offer for the domain or are they just being threatening?

(Sigh.) Obviously not, indeed. It's rather worse: the lawyer for KatieT contacted the owner of Katie.com, and suggested that Ms. Jones simply donate the name to them to solve her problems. Quoth Ms. Jones,

"OK so not only do I get walked all over, my life invaded by this book, treated badly by the publisher/author who refuse to acknowledge that they've done the wrong thing, but then I get to hand it over to them on a silver plate and I not only have suffered all this aggravation but ultimately have lost the thing that I care about. Exactly HOW does this resolve anything other than give them the thing they want which they have done everything to hijack without any care and consideration for what is right and just?

She also mentions that she has turned down substantial offers for the domain in the past, which makes the suggestion of the donation mindbogglingly obtuse. Methinks she needs to hire an aggressive pirhana of a lawyer... oh, and that you should RTFineA before burbling in the future. =|

Re:I have one thing to say

[Zak3056 (69287)]

With appologies to Tommy Tutone:

Katie, Katie who can I turn to
We want you to give us something you want to hold on to
I know you think we're like the others before
Who saw your info in the WHOIS database

Kaaatie, I got your domain!
I'm gonna make it mine!
Kaatie please change your domain!
K-A-T-I-E-dot-COMiomiom
K-A-T-I-E-dot-CO Mioniom

Katie, Katie it's the site for me
Donate your domain, it'll make me so happy
Our lawyers called you before
Yeah they've got some nerve
We aren't sorry that
Your life was disturbed

Kaaatie, I got your domain!
I'm gonna make it mine!
Kaatie please change your domain!
K-A-T-I-E-dot-COMiomiom
K-A-T-I-E-dot-CO Mioniom

K-A-T-I-E-dot-COMiomiom
K-A-T-I-E-dot-COMioniom

Re:RTFA, naturally the /. story is not quite corre

[nukem1999 (142700)]

Direct from Katie.com:
To answer some questions that I've received today, firstly as far as I know the rather aggressive lawyer who contacted me yesterday is not part of Penguin Puttnam but is working with Katie Tarbox on future projects and trying to gain control of my domain name for these projects. She informed me that things would 'only get worse' for me from here if I didn't do something about it - i.e. give it to them.

The "only get worse" part is enough to qualify it as a demand in my book.