The Saga of Katie.com 1246
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."
Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
There's something ironic about her lawyers fighting to have the Katie.com domain so that she can promote her book about Internet predators.
Almost too weird to be true (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheers,
Erick
Complain (in ink on paper) to Penguin (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Law $uit (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So they name the book (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So they name the book (Score:5, Insightful)
No due diligence (Score:5, Insightful)
Make sure Katie's book sinks like a stone (Score:2, Insightful)
Katie might have a good story to tell but we need to make sure her book sinks like a stone. Is there a legal defense fund? How do we contribute?
Hello, Katie Tarbox? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me like the katie.com publisher and probably Tarbox screwed up in not checking domain registration before printing. They've gotta suck up their own mistake, and not hassle Jones about donating the name back.
Retitle (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stupid... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:2, Insightful)
You obviously haven't taken notice of the average intelligence quotient of people here in the US, have you?
Re:and in other news.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Name the book KatieT.com (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:0, Insightful)
hypocritical [wordsmyth.net], and cruel [wordsmyth.net]. Doing what's in their clients best interest, regardless of what other ramifications may result, is exactly what lawyers do. Katie T. is not doing something actually unexpected based on her backstory. She was abused sexually and then is fighting to get her message out, regardless of who she has to roll over to do it. It doesn't mean she cares about any other online rights. She may be an obnoxious [wordsmyth.net], bitch [wordsmyth.net], but she is still not acting in any manner that is unexpected.
Mod parent +5 funny, not insightful...
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you post your daughter's baby pictures on a site you knew was a target for p(a)edophiles?
Tough Noogies (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Katie.com (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see why they couldn't just name the book and propped up a website, independently. Then the book could reference the website as a resource.
I'm glad that Katie Jones took the high road. If I were her, there'd be some of the nastiest porno I could find sitting on katie.com right now.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:2, Insightful)
The domain was there first, so it can stay.
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.)
Today there is no reasen why the owner of the domain should give it up. Just as well, there is no reason to change the title of the book.
This is confirmed by the fact that the two have been co-existing for some time.
The owner of the domain is not cybersquatting since the domain was there (long) before the book.
The writer of the book did not violate a trademark.
Both are protected by the same free speech rights. (I guess)
Penguin and lawyers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And?? (Score:5, Insightful)
(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,
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:Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I'll take the unpopular position (Score:1, Insightful)
And you don't think that had this been the case for Katie J and her domain she would've given it up already?
The least the 'owner' could do would be to offer the domain for sale to the rightful owner.
Apart from the already mentioned 'they *knew* the domain was taken', if you had RTFA you would've noticed how Penguin doesn't want to buy the domain-name, they want Katie J to donate it to them/Katie T.
Nobody here is diminishing what happened to Katie T, but that doesn't mean what's been going on since the book was published is in any shape or form justified.
Re:Stupid... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Makes no sense (Score:3, Insightful)
re: katie.com (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Katie.com (Score:5, Insightful)
uh, no (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Katie.com (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A new shock site? (Score:5, Insightful)
What would the courts decision be if Penguin Publishing used her phone number for a title instead? Penguin would have been raked over the coals.
The only problem is getting a Judge to be able to see the comparison in a favorable light.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing worse than a pedant who's wrong. Except perhaps a pedant who's anonymous too
To explain in what should be needless detail: The book katie.com is about internet predators (the author was apparently a victim of one). You would therefore expect the author to act with great respect for other's online rights. However, instead her (and/or her publisher's) lawyers are being predators themselves by attempting to take over a domain name that existed long before the book was ever thought of. Thus there is an inconguity between the anticipated actions of the author and the actions in reality. This is a perfect example of irony.
Sheesh
Victim of an online predator? (Score:2, Insightful)
- Kevin
Re:And then there's... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlike a name or a phrase, a domain is a fixed, unique address for locating information and any given domain can be checked with trivial effort. It would be like titling a book (202) 625-0040 and not dialing the number to see if it was in operation. (My apoligies to the D.C. resident/business whose number that is).
The owner of Katie.com probably does have legal standing to sue in most 1st world courts, though the outcome would vary considerably, and be very costly for a private individual in any case.
Penguin has been ignoring the issue since 2000 (Score:5, Insightful)
Big corporation with millions of dollars, against a small businesswoman with limited resources. I say a legal defense fund is in order here, if it ever goes to trial (and of course, WHERE would it go to trial - the US, or the UK?)
Re:I'll take the unpopular position (Score:2, Insightful)
(on the other hand, I don't believe parent to be a troll, as parent has been modded)
I do think that this situation brings a question about the implications of registering a domain name on trademarks.
I'd say that a similar idea centers around Microsoft's ".net" framework. They've taken an existing top-level domain thingy that they were in no way associated with and colored it with their own shade of light blue. Now Microsoft didn't sue for ownership of all ".net" domains, but it's impossible now to call up a domain like "www.php.net" or "sourceforge.net" without thinking of Microsoft.
*begin old man voice* THERE OUGHTTA BE A LAW!!! *end old man voice*
Re:Makes no sense (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, but this is exactly where the subtlety lies. The book author, having been abused, is not necessarily expected to be interested in online rights, but rather online protection. The two are not the same, nor is the term "online predator" ubiquitous. Katie T's online predator had physical attacks in mind. Katie J's online predator is in the farm league by comparison. So, one may not necessarily assume that Katie T is interested at all in online rights, just online protection. Without that expectation, there is no incongruity. Without the incongruity there is no (dramatic) irony.
At best one could attribute linguistic irony to the double-use of the term online predator meaning two very different things...
probably not (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Usefull contacts (Score:1, Insightful)
Katie Tarbox has a lawyer who is harassing KJones. It should be to Tarbox and her lawyer that all complaints are directed. I'm not sure what Penguin's role might be at this point. I'm also unsure what influence we'll have on Tarbox the individual and her "katie.com" campaign to edumacate the masses about abuse involving the internet.
Frankly I think Jones should put lots of advertising up on the front page or otherwise take advantage of the traffic. Probably in addition to her protests.
If UK law really can help her get Tarbox off her back, she should employ it. I'd also really like to see an advocacy group help Jones and legally establish the domain as a piece of personal information like an address or phone number. You do essentially 'dial' in an 'address' to establish a connection, just like dialing a phone or going to an address.
I'm surprised to see a lack of jokes about Tarbox's name..
I'd sue the publisher and the author (Score:3, Insightful)
It just seems insane for the publisher and author to take a hard line on a case like this. They can't win. No matter how it turns out, even if they won in court...highly doubtful...they get dirty. They're already dirty and now it's public dirty laundry waving in the breeze. The abused figures out how to turn a horrible incident into big $$$$ fear mongering on Jerry Springer and in turn becomes the abuser. What a f'ing PR disaster and now the media's got ahold of it.
Even Blake Stowell from SCO couldn't spin that into anything positive. It's so heavy-handed and brazen, you'd think they were doing it deliberately.
Penguin's upper management is either on some serious medication or they need to be. Take away the crack pipe and get them into detox.
Re:Katie.com (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Name the book KatieT.com (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Katie.com (Score:4, Insightful)
My guess is she's probably sipping mint julips under the cottonwoods enjoying here $$$$ from the book and doesn't give a rats ass about being part of a legal predator's actions.
I guess she doesn't care because it's "not her" getting screwed this time.
Corporations + first amendment protection (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about this for a second - a huge media corporation with publishing facilities in cities all around the world and teams of lawyers - arguing that their free speech is being violated by one person's individual website. Do you really think it's in the spirit of the first amendment that these two entities should be perfectly equal in the eyes of the law?
Oh, sweet irony (Score:4, Insightful)
Now she and her lawyers are after this other Katie over a domain name.
Who's the internet predator now?
Re:Hello, Katie Tarbox? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:probably not (Score:5, Insightful)
bkr
No, it is not capitalism (Score:4, Insightful)
No, what this case involves is out-and-out extortion. It has nothing to do with Capitalism or they would have offered to buy the domain. Their lawyer is using threats in an attempt to steal it. Taking someone's property without paying for it is stealing.
This is on the order of someone building a house at 63045 North 63045 Street, and then Channel 63,045 starts up and decides they want the property you live on for the address to their studios, so they tell you to sign over the deed to them for free.
They had no right to this name, she had it first, and it is legitimately her name. This is a clear and obvious attempt at reverse cybersquatting, and nothing less. Don't smear Capitalism over something it is not.
Wasn't always the case. Even if it is now. (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as the ill-concieved and inconsiderately titled book has been a significant burden on Mrs. Katie Jones (Who runs a web-based small business with a chatroom no less) it's about Katie Tarbox demanding someone else's property be donated to her new commercial venture.
There's a reason she didn't call the book girl.com. And it's the obvious one. She didn't call it KatieT.com, which is the domain she now uses. But Katie.com. The property she neither owned nor could afford. So she greatly diminished the value and utility to the owner. Her lack of empathy for others, particularly after what she's been through is telling. I've no doubt that rather than lie, a person such as herself would just re-imagine the truth to be whatever is most convienent for the moment they are in.
In the interest of fairness Ms. Tarbox should, in the following printings of her book, retitle them, and include an apology to Mrs. Katie Jones. She wants people to learn from and have empathy for her. It's only reasonable that she learn from her own mistakes, and be considerate of others.
Domain acquisition = rape (Score:1, Insightful)
Real fucking noble of you.
Do this to Penguin (Score:4, Insightful)
"Penguin refuses to apologize, saying that it would be a violation of their free speech to re-title the book..."
Treat others as you would want them to treat you.
What if Katie Jones (katie.com [katie.com]) did this (with some help...)
1. Write a book about Linux. Title it, um... 'penguin.com'
2. Launch a campaign to persuade Penguin publishing to donate control of their penguin.com [penguin.com] domain. Of course... in aid of millions of citizens abused for several years by a convicted monopoly. Many of these citizens are finding comfort in the things described in 'penguin.com'
3. Keep praising our right to free speech.
4. Work hard promoting 'penguin.com': a CD jacket, translations to various languages, lecture tours, bookstore appearances...
5. Oh, I almost forgot... by all means, register 'penguin.com' as a trademark.
What if?
Share your thoughts with Penguin (Score:4, Insightful)
From: Chris Knight <merlin@ghostwheel.com>
To: online@penguinputnam.com
Subject: In response to katie.com
To whom it may concern,
I make this promise today: As long as Penguin Group is engaged in their
disgraceful attempt to strong-arm katie.com from its rightful owner I will
refuse to purchase any book published by them, or any of their subsidiaries.
Should Penguin Group succeed in stealing katie.com from Katie Jones I will
continue to avoid your books, I will teach my children to do so as well, and I
will spread the story to all my friends.
We live in a capitalistic society, and profit seems to be the only thing
people understand anymore. Therefore, I am casting my vote with the dollars
you will not receive while engaged in such actions.
-Chris
Re:You're all missing the boat (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Katie.com (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, it could be that as long as the checks keep rolling in she just doesn't care. In which case she deserves whatever damage her reputation incurs.
Re:Katiet.com is the real site for the book (Score:1, Insightful)
And some Slashdotters don't understand why they can't get dates.
Revenge, Dave Barry Style (Score:2, Insightful)
Direct mail and orders to:
Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
405 Murray Hill Parkway
East Rutherford, NJ 07073
(800) 788-6262 (Individual Consumer Sales)
(800) 526-0275 (Reseller Sales)
(800) 631-8571 (Reseller Customer Service)
International numbers here: http://www.penguinputnam.com/static/packages/us/a
Jesus Christ, let's be civil. (Score:2, Insightful)
But let's not stoop to insinuating that a thirteen year old being raped was somehow her fault. And what sort of retardity possessed that mods that made this funny ?!? Goddamnit guys, let's at least try to be somewhat respectful here.
--LordPixie
Re:probably not (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, Penguin's got a history... (Score:5, Insightful)
I may even still have a floppy or two around. Between the current Katie.com issue and this one, I do know one thing: In an average year I spend a good thousand dollars or better on books. Yes, I read quite a bit. Hence forward, I will be reviewing the publisher information on the spine and if it says Penguin, it goes right back on the shelf. I trust the publisher enjoys the company of their lawyers because they just lost the a customer forever.
Re:Domain acquisition = rape (Score:0, Insightful)
A FUCKING LAWYER EMAILED SOMEONE AND ASKED THEM FOR THEIR DOMAIN NAME.
Blaming a thirteen year old for being lured by a pedophile on the Internet is supremely stupid. She didn't *make* her upbringing, surrounded by loveless parents. She didn't *make* a pedophile seduce her with promises of love and care when she couldn't understand his ulterior motives.
I can't believe you support harassing this lady and making extremely sadistic jokes when you seem to care so much for the "pain" of someone who was asked for their domain name. If all the pain you understand is unwanted e-mail, you have a blissful, ignorant life.
And now she's surrounded by comments on her book, e-mails, and websites calling her worse than her rapist for a trivial act that she probably had no control, or even knowledge, of.
For shame, Slashdot. This may be your lowest moment.
Re:Katie.com (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, and while we're at it, don't forget to rate the reviews on Amazon if you found them helpful....
Re:uh, no (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. So the publisher knows that girl.com won't work for them before they publish the book. Whether they were checking that out ahead of time or just stumbled on the information they likely would have said, "Hey, let's check out katie.com so we don't run into the same problem." That means the publisher used katie.com fully aware that it was in use by someone prior to publication. Now that "someone" is being pressured to relinquish their long-held domain name. I'm not a litigious individual (never been involved in a suit on either side and I'm nearing 50) but I'd be filing a countersuit in a heartbeat.
Re:Domain acquisition = rape (Score:3, Insightful)
She was an active participant in what happened to her. She met with a man she didn't know and created and implimented a plan to subvert her parents will to do so. Did she have the greatest parents? Nope. They raised a moron, and gave it way too much responsibility. And though those failings certainly played a part in her spectacularly dangerous behavior, they don't belong to the woman who owns Katie.com.
She didn't just ask for a domain name. That'd just be stupid. She willfully added hardship to the life of another for her own personal gain. That's not considerate behavior. I try to live my life by simple rules. Such as, do unto individuals as they do unto others. If you find my application of her own morality on her less than generous or even cruel, well once again she brings it on herself.
As for control. All she had to do to save herself all the grief is nothing. Just not show up. She still wouldn't have had the idilic childhood she laments not having. She had all the power she needed. Instead she looked foreward to a fantasy she knew was both wrong, and couldn't exist. Now she looks back whistfully at a fantasy childhood that could never have existed. Because she's unhappy the feelings and property of others don't matter. She was molested, and Judith Light will play her mother in the movie adaptation!
Seriously, fuck her. She a waste of space. Wah wah her parents didn't love her. Well, since this is who she is, can't say I blame them.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
At best, a US judge will probably look at this case, and rule that he has no jurisdiction. At worst, we'll get another case of the US government over-reaching, and attempting to apply its laws to other countries.
If anything, Katie Jones, needs to send some sort of Cease and Desist letter to Putnam, and then file if they don't change the book's name. This is, of course, assuming that the UK allows someone to bring a civil suit over harrasment (inducing all of the emails) and destruction of property (unusability of the site, bandwidth costs).
Re:A new shock site? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's something ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Combine that with her attitude toward this lawyer led barnstoming over the domain that the publisher used for a book title (which has nothing to do with the events portrayed in the book) and the general lack of care for what is being done on her behalf... I don't envision this young lady a victim of anything at all except her own actions and superficial views of the world.
WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
The trademark/domain issues only create confusion. It seems Katie T's lawyers are hoping to capitalize on that confusion.
Re:Email from Katherine Tarbox (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply and ask her why her lawyer is harassing Katie Jones then.
Re:Almost too weird to be true (Score:2, Insightful)
> causing her harm, because she effectively can't
> use it for its intended purpose because of all
> the traffic it is getting.
Huh?
Hello. Katie.com has been my personal site since 1996. It has NOTHING to do with the book titled katie.com.[P]
If you came here because of the book please click [A HREF="http://www.katiet.com"]here, http://www.katiet.com[/A] to visit Katie Tarball's site.
[P]
Otherwise click [A HREF="http://www.katie.com/index2.html"]here[/A] to enter my site.[P]
Thank you!
Oh yeah, IANAWD so please pardon the heinous html.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are oversimplifying things here. This is not about Katie T's rape. This is about Katie T making gobs of money (from the book, lectures, school program, even a TV show!) using the katie.com moniker. Which she does not own! It would be far more appropriate for them to have called it KatieT.com from the get go.
I am sorry that Katie T had to go through what she did at the ahnds of a 40 year old pedophile. But just because she suffered in her past does not give her carte blanche to use another person's domain to help her make money. Katie Jones, the true owner of katie.com, is being harassed and pushed around simply because she doesn't want to give away what she owns and values. In that respect then there is a certain amount of irony involved.
Re:Katie.com (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Katie.com (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought we were against bullies on the internet.
whore (Score:4, Insightful)
Libel (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Katie.com (Score:3, Insightful)
If these people are going to be asses and demand you turn over your domain beause they aren't creative enough to come up with a new name, you're going to get free advertising. With this comes value, and if you look, you'll find that SOMEONE will be interested in that traffic. I do like your idea, though
-matt
Re:Hoax? Parody? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of morals is that they are morals.
Switching morals on and off based on the actions of others makes them cease to be morals.
The bad news on the trademark front (Score:3, Insightful)
It's pretty hard to get a trademark on a common name like "Katie" and the USPTO made a specific ruling several years ago that adding ".com" to a generic term did not turn it into a unique coined term that could be made into a broad trademark.
Trademarks have to be specific. You can trademark your name, but only in a specific field of business that you are acting in. Two people can own the same trademark in two different fields. Delta Airlines and Delta Hotels, for
example. Penguin books and Penguin computing.
Now normally, KJ has one big leg up. The normal test for trademark infringement is "is the public being confused?" And they clearly are. But there was that very specific ruling from the US trademark office about
Book titles are a special case. Two people can use the very same book title! My father wrote a novel "Act of God" and there are several novels by that name, all legit.
Unfortunately, the push on Penguin to "do the right thing" doesn't seem to be working.
Re:I wouldn't gamble with Katie.com (Score:2, Insightful)
Penguin wants katie.com because... (Score:2, Insightful)
2) It is the URL easiest to type in a webbrowser.
Nothing else matters to Penguin
My advice to the original owner of katie.com is to have registrar lock enabled and make sure their domain fees are paid up for the next few years or so so 'dirty tricks' aren't used to steal the domain away from her like what happened in the (in)famous sex.com case....
Re:Makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
That is entirely uncalled for.
Katie T, as far as we know, is not responsible for the "katie.com" brouhaha. As for what happened to her when she was 13 (or whatever age she was), I don't think either of knows enough about it to judge her. There might be some debate about whether she's a victim, but calling her a "little whore" is beyond the pale.
This kind of thing happens far too often on Slashdot. Someone is mentioned indirectly in a story, and people with no lives of their own feel free to start flinging misogynist abuse.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Angel of the Internet? (Score:2, Insightful)
KatieT's lawyer, Parry Aftab, is certainly not lacking in ego - there is a section [aftab.com] on her website where she revels in the title "Angel of the Internet":
For the amount of time and personal sacrifice Parry has devoted to making sure that everyone, especially children, can learn to use the Internet safely, privately and responsibly, Parry is often called the "Angel of the Internet." (emphasis added)
She is obviously aware of the problems they are causing, as referenced in her blog entry titled Katie Tarbox and Katie.com (the book, not the site) - Monday, July 26, 2004 [blogspot.com].
One can only gues that KatieT is making as much of this opportunity as she can - after all, she is unlikely to publish any other books of significance making basic editing mistakes on the front page of her website [katiet.com]:
As an advocate and expert in this field, I realize that the dangers that lye on the Internet will continue to exist unless we as a collective make the effort to prevent those dangers. (emphasis added)
Shame on KatieT for harrassing the rightful domain owner - I hope she realises that it will undermine what she hopes to achieve in the long term.
Re:uh, no (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm Suing Penguin Books (Score:4, Insightful)
I think Katie Jones should author and publish a book about Linux and the Internet and call it Penguin.com and then let Penguin spout off about freedom of speech.
Re:A new shock site? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people would avoid courtrooms unless they think something is very important, and can't see other ways around it.
It's not about copyright to the title (Score:2, Insightful)
But even if they are legally allowed to use the name as the title of a book, it doesn't mean that they are not liable for the damages caused by this, even if it wasn't used maliciously. IMO heir neglegance in failing to predict and avoid the consequenes of mass producing books with references to an existing personal domain is enough to make them liable. It's not that they discovered that the name they used happened to also be someone's domain name. It was published AS A DOMAIN NAME, thus they had the responsibility to check in advance if they can use it and to consider the impact of using the name.