| |
Any links on your webpages that point to ANY page at *Fibblesnork* should please
be removed ASAP!!
The domain name has apparently changed hands.. from what was Todd Lehman's
personal website to one with **adult content** (at one click in).
This may include:
* sites using Fibblesnork LEGO Backgrounds (because you were asked
to include a credit and link back to Todd's site).
* sites featured as Cool LEGO Site of the Week who linked back via a button.
-Suz
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> Any links on your webpages that point to ANY page at *Fibblesnork* should please
> be removed ASAP!!
>
> The domain name has apparently changed hands.. from what was Todd Lehman's
> personal website to one with **adult content** (at one click in).
Uhm what the heck?? Doesn't Todd "own" the domain name? How
can it just change hands? And I checked the page for that domain
and there's even a link there to buy that domain name..., for no
less than $550.00!
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
Ugh, did Todd sell the domain??? or somebody happen to buy it as soon the
.com expired?
--
Mike Edwards
Lugnet Member #151
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kanohi-Power - The Best Bionicle Site on the web
http://www.kanohi-power.com
Brickbay shop - Edwards Parts
http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?u=Bionicle
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"LUGNET Admin" <suz@lugnet.com> wrote in message
news:GIp7As.JH0@lugnet.com...
> Any links on your webpages that point to ANY page at *Fibblesnork* should • please
> be removed ASAP!!
>
> The domain name has apparently changed hands.. from what was Todd Lehman's
> personal website to one with **adult content** (at one click in).
>
> This may include:
>
> * sites using Fibblesnork LEGO Backgrounds (because you were asked
> to include a credit and link back to Todd's site).
>
> * sites featured as Cool LEGO Site of the Week who linked back via a • button.
>
> -Suz
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Michael Edwards writes:
> Ugh, did Todd sell the domain??? or somebody happen to buy it as soon the
> .com expired?
I'm guessing that the registration expired, and the number of links to it
justified the expense of making it a front door to whatever adult advertiser
snapped it up.
:(
James
(whose website is 2+ years out of date, but chock full of fibblesnork refs.
I'll ax it ASAP, instead of "someday" like I was intending.)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> Any links on your webpages that point to ANY page at *Fibblesnork* should please
> be removed ASAP!!
>
> The domain name has apparently changed hands.. from what was Todd Lehman's
> personal website to one with **adult content** (at one click in).
You may want to fix the link on this page:
http://www.lugnet.com/fibblesnork/
-Rob.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> Any links on your webpages that point to ANY page at *Fibblesnork* should please
> be removed ASAP!!
>
> The domain name has apparently changed hands.. from what was Todd Lehman's
> personal website to one with **adult content** (at one click in).
>
> This may include:
>
> * sites using Fibblesnork LEGO Backgrounds (because you were asked
> to include a credit and link back to Todd's site).
>
> * sites featured as Cool LEGO Site of the Week who linked back via a button.
Um, I mentioned this a while back, at that time the site was just down.
I am more than happy to remove all the credit links but would like to hear
what credit Todd wants in its place. Does anyone know?
Also are the backgrounds themselves lost? Maybe we all need to round up the
ones we have if Todd lost them. I have a few but not all the colors.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> Any links on your webpages that point to ANY page at *Fibblesnork* should >please be removed ASAP!!
>
> The domain name has apparently changed hands.. from what was Todd Lehman's
> personal website to one with **adult content** (at one click in).
> -Suz
So are you sayin’ that I shouldn’t have signed up for a
‘Full-Lifetime-Membership’ into “The Adult Movie Network?!?
I had though this was the new and experimental venture Todd entered into,
and I simply wanted to support him in his new endeavors… ;)
When he said he’s moved on to other things I had never imagined…
LoL…Too funny!!!
.
..
...
....
.....
......
.......
........
Spydèr
........
......
.....
....
...
..
.
Fading back into the night…
|
|
| |
I had an idea that may help save the fibblesnork.com domain name, if it is
desired (or possible). The owner is asking $550.00 for the domain name, and
LUGNET now has over 1200 members:
Why not put a call out for everybody to chip in $0.50 in an effort to help
keep our links safe and the fibblesnork name smut free?
Maybe put up a PayPal donation button specifically for the cause, to make
things even easier. I'm all for putting up a few bucks to cover myself and
a few members that may not have checked the current news here on LUGNET.
Believe me, I almost didn't post this message because I figured it might be
a bit too silly... but heck... I'm 31 and still playing with LEGOs!
Humbly,
Ken Wright
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kenneth Wright writes:
> I had an idea that may help save the fibblesnork.com domain name, if it is
> desired (or possible). The owner is asking $550.00 for the domain name, and
> LUGNET now has over 1200 members:
>
> Why not put a call out for everybody to chip in $0.50 in an effort to help
> keep our links safe and the fibblesnork name smut free?
>
> Maybe put up a PayPal donation button specifically for the cause, to make
> things even easier. I'm all for putting up a few bucks to cover myself and
> a few members that may not have checked the current news here on LUGNET.
>
> Believe me, I almost didn't post this message because I figured it might be
> a bit too silly... but heck... I'm 31 and still playing with LEGOs!
It's kind of extortion to pay the 550 though, isn't it? I mean, Todd let it
lapse for whatever reason, it is true. Would we be encouraging this sort of
thing by paying? (the person who snagged it was no doubt within their rights
but it's still not the sort of behaviour I care to reward)
But I don't think you were silly at all to post this. Rather it was quite
thoughtful and considerate of you to suggest it.
|
|
| |
Can this be done? I thought Todd owned the TM for "Fibblesnork"?
Scott A
In lugnet.general, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> Any links on your webpages that point to ANY page at *Fibblesnork* should please
> be removed ASAP!!
>
> The domain name has apparently changed hands.. from what was Todd Lehman's
> personal website to one with **adult content** (at one click in).
>
> This may include:
>
> * sites using Fibblesnork LEGO Backgrounds (because you were asked
> to include a credit and link back to Todd's site).
>
> * sites featured as Cool LEGO Site of the Week who linked back via a button.
>
> -Suz
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> Can this be done? I thought Todd owned the TM for "Fibblesnork"?
Good thought Scott...
I looked at the site for the person(s) offering fibblesnork.com for
sale...here is what they claim:
"Our Policy: It is the policy of NameRegister.com to respect the legal
rights of others. Unfortunately due to the
volume of domains available through NameRegister makes it impossible to find
out whether any particular
domain offered for sale resembles a registered trademark or service mark.
We advise buyers to conduct such investigations as maybe appropriate in
their circumstances.
NameRegsiter.com obeys all applicable laws regarding the registration and
use of domain names.
We also adhere to the policies established by ICANN for domain name
registrations."
Basically, they are spewing BS...they DO have some culpability here...though
none of the sites they have mapped the domain to are called "fibblesnork",
they ARE sullying the name by pointing the domain to those sites...but, as
usual, how do you enforce the nameless Internet?
Not surprisingly, there is no WHOIS information available for
www.nameregister.com...it's a blank front. No company called "NameRegister"
is on ICANN's list of accreditied domain registrars.
Unfortunately, many small registrars are offering co-branded, referral or
reseller programs, so the site is basically just a front for some porn sites
to make some more cash.
ICANN/INTERNIC offers no recourse or aid for problems. The info for working
within the system for "cybersquatting" type problems is here:
http://www.icann.org/udrp/
The final say here, though, is of course Todds'. Since we don't know why he
allowed the domain to lapse (and he MUST have gotten multiple warnings that
is was going to expire), it'll be his call if he wants to salvage the
domain, trademark or not. I'm sure he has lots of other things on his plate
right now...ya' know?
Matt
|
|
| |
Suzanne & All,
> Um, I mentioned this a while back, at that time the site was just down.
>
> I am more than happy to remove all the credit links but would like to hear
> what credit Todd wants in its place. Does anyone know?
Indeed. Since I have used that background extensively in my website, I
removed all links to the various pages, and had the links point to LUGNET
for now on my main index page. If there is something we can change it to,
that would be helpful, because I do't want to pull the credits for it.
> Also are the backgrounds themselves lost? Maybe we all need to round up the
> ones we have if Todd lost them. I have a few but not all the colors.
I also have some colors, but not them all. Maybe these backgrounds and
CLSOTW needs to be added into LUGNET?
Scott S.
--
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
Is Todd out there reading any of this still? I know he's passed the torch,
but has he completely passed on all things Lego? Is his presence gone
entirely here at Lugnet?
Sorry if this already got addressed; my own presence here has been sporadic
also.
--Dave (jot and jab)
P.S. It's funny that two Lovelaces are responding to a chain about adult
content.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > Any links on your webpages that point to ANY page at *Fibblesnork* should
> > please be removed ASAP!!
> >
> > The domain name has apparently changed hands.. from what was Todd Lehman's
> > personal website to one with **adult content** (at one click in).
> >
> > This may include:
> >
> > * sites using Fibblesnork LEGO Backgrounds (because you were asked
> > to include a credit and link back to Todd's site).
> >
> > * sites featured as Cool LEGO Site of the Week who linked back via a button.
>
> Um, I mentioned this a while back, at that time the site was just down.
>
> I am more than happy to remove all the credit links but would like to hear
> what credit Todd wants in its place. Does anyone know?
>
> Also are the backgrounds themselves lost? Maybe we all need to round up the
> ones we have if Todd lost them. I have a few but not all the colors.
I agree with Larry that we should try to round up all the colors. I have light
blue and white, and I think that is it. Bummer, I really liked using them. We
could probably put them up at Brickshelf for the time being. Also someone else
mentioned possibly buying it, as a community. I would be willing to put a
couple bucks in the pot if this was deemed necessary.
-Jason Spears
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Matthew Gerber writes:
> ICANN/INTERNIC offers no recourse or aid for problems. The info for working
> within the system for "cybersquatting" type problems is here:
> http://www.icann.org/udrp/
I followed that link and found that there are currently 4 organisations
offering name resolution dispute. Let us posit that this would be an open
and shut case... with no other expenses than the fee to the organization.
The cheapest fee offered, for the simplest dispute is.... 950 USD. (it
varies by organization) I did not see any provision for charging the fee
back to the cybersquatter, so you eat all of it. Therefore they basically
ARE offering you a discount... 550 extortion is less than 950 legal.
Nice. They no doubt are counting on most people doing the math and paying
them the lesser sum instead of paying more to deny them any funds at all.
That's why they said they will cheerfully ignore any offers for less than 550.
> The final say here, though, is of course Todds'. Since we don't know why he
> allowed the domain to lapse (and he MUST have gotten multiple warnings that
> is was going to expire), it'll be his call if he wants to salvage the
> domain, trademark or not. I'm sure he has lots of other things on his plate
> right now...ya' know?
I am just wondering why Todd didn't ask someone else to pay the fee if he
was strapped. I just don't get it, really. Todd of course is free to do
anything he wishes but this strikes me as weird. How is it good for the
community to have this happen? I know I would have paid the fee in an
instant without even a second thought. Even if it wasn't hosted, better to
have a broken URL than a pornsite link.
This just seems weird weird weird. Think back... Suzanne rescued a domain
that LEGO had let lapse! Now this. I don't get it. But I said that already.
To the community, are there any other domains with anywhere close to the
linkage potential that are at risk? If so we should take action before it's
too late.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dave Lovelace writes:
> In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
>
> Is Todd out there reading any of this still?
yes, but not as often as I am. I read a few times every day.
He has "computer-free" weekends also.
> I know he's passed the torch,
> but has he completely passed on all things Lego?
Nope. I know he wants to focus on his own building. And I know he's been pretty
busy. But he can probably answer you better than I.
> Is his presence gone entirely here at Lugnet?
No, no. He needed assistance with the workload here, and I happened to be
willing/eager to do as much as possible.
> Sorry if this already got addressed; my own presence here has been sporadic
> also.
No problem!
-Suz
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > The domain name has apparently changed hands.. from what was Todd Lehman's
> > personal website to one with **adult content** (at one click in).
Damn, there must have been a domain fee due that I missed. Odd thing, too...
I seem to remember having a dream a week or so ago that someone told me they
noticed it was up for grabs.
> I am more than happy to remove all the credit links but would like to hear
> what credit Todd wants in its place. Does anyone know?
>
> Also are the backgrounds themselves lost? Maybe we all need to round up the
> ones we have if Todd lost them. I have a few but not all the colors.
Sorry for the mess. You can delete the links, and keep the text if you want,
or delete that too. I've got copies of all the stuff on a local machine at
home. Maybe I should just upload it all to somewhere on lugnet.com and give
it a more safe, permanent home than a personal website.
--Todd
|
|
| |
> It's kind of extortion to pay the 550 though, isn't it? I mean, Todd let it
> lapse for whatever reason, it is true. Would we be encouraging this sort of
> thing by paying? (the person who snagged it was no doubt within their rights
> but it's still not the sort of behaviour I care to reward)
You make a very good and valid point. I certainly do not condone how this
was done, nor do I want to encourage it, but at the moment there are lots of
fibblesnork links on pages and sites across the internet (both forgotten and
not) that now have a link to a site with adult content (giving a whole new
meaning to a 1 x 8 stud). We all know that LEGO is enjoyed by both kids and
adults alike, and I am concerned that many people are going to have a very
rude awakening to the fact that their link is now fouled.
At this point, I look at a "community purchase" of the site as a form of
damage control. We have a chance to grab up what was a very useful site to
LEGO enthusiasts, and make it so once again. It may encourage and reinforce
this type of internet opportunist behavior at the moment, but if we take
this as a lesson learned to be more aggressive in protecting our domain
names, we can keep it from happening again.
Also, I am not one to deny anyone of their adult sites on the internet, but
as I stated above, many kids will be clicking on the fibblesnork links as
they may have done before, on sites that parents may have rightfully deemed
"safe," only this time the results will be different. That is a bit
disturbing, and I feel that taking the domain name back will prevent any
further problems.
Humbly,
Ken Wright
PS - I am glad to see that members of the Lovelace family have taken an
active interest in this topic. The fact that I understood that name
reference in another post on this thread is a sign of my age. Ugh... now
where did I put my brick separator? :P
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.general, Kenneth Wright writes:
> > I had an idea that may help save the fibblesnork.com domain name, if it is
> > desired (or possible). The owner is asking $550.00 for the domain name, and
> > LUGNET now has over 1200 members:
> >
> > Why not put a call out for everybody to chip in $0.50 in an effort to help
> > keep our links safe and the fibblesnork name smut free?
> >
> > Maybe put up a PayPal donation button specifically for the cause, to make
> > things even easier. I'm all for putting up a few bucks to cover myself and
> > a few members that may not have checked the current news here on LUGNET.
> >
> > Believe me, I almost didn't post this message because I figured it might be
> > a bit too silly... but heck... I'm 31 and still playing with LEGOs!
>
> It's kind of extortion to pay the 550 though, isn't it? I mean, Todd let it
> lapse for whatever reason, it is true. Would we be encouraging this sort of
> thing by paying? (the person who snagged it was no doubt within their rights
> but it's still not the sort of behaviour I care to reward)
>
> But I don't think you were silly at all to post this. Rather it was quite
> thoughtful and considerate of you to suggest it.
That Is a great Idea but I do have to agree with Larry. $550 for a domain
name? I also think that is alittle too much, dont you? $0.50 cents is really
nothing and will indeed add up if everyone from LUGNET donates, but if Todd
let it go for his reason, why dont we all let it go. Ken-That was very
thoughtful and considerate, and only a handfull of people in this world
today are thoughtful and considerate-nice to see we at LUGNET are a big
fraction of the handfull. Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.general, Kenneth Wright writes:
> > I had an idea that may help save the fibblesnork.com domain name, if it is
> > desired (or possible). The owner is asking $550.00 for the domain name, and
> > LUGNET now has over 1200 members:
> >
> > Why not put a call out for everybody to chip in $0.50 in an effort to help
> > keep our links safe and the fibblesnork name smut free?
> >
> > Maybe put up a PayPal donation button specifically for the cause, to make
> > things even easier. I'm all for putting up a few bucks to cover myself and
> > a few members that may not have checked the current news here on LUGNET.
> >
> > Believe me, I almost didn't post this message because I figured it might be
> > a bit too silly... but heck... I'm 31 and still playing with LEGOs!
>
> It's kind of extortion to pay the 550 though, isn't it? I mean, Todd let it
> lapse for whatever reason, it is true. Would we be encouraging this sort of
> thing by paying? (the person who snagged it was no doubt within their rights
> but it's still not the sort of behaviour I care to reward)
Going a bit OT ... What happened here can be compared to what happens if you
don't pay your property taxes (at least in FL). Someone with money to invest
comes along, buys the tax certificate and then waits for the property owner to
cough up the larger amount required to redeem the certificate (these days, its
usually principle +5-10% accumulated interest). Not that internet domains are
the same as real property, but there does seem to be a rough likeness.
Ray
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kenneth Wright writes:
>
> At this point, I look at a "community purchase" of the site as a form of
> damage control. We have a chance to grab up what was a very useful site to
> LEGO enthusiasts, and make it so once again. It may encourage and reinforce
> this type of internet opportunist behavior at the moment, but if we take
> this as a lesson learned to be more aggressive in protecting our domain
> names, we can keep it from happening again.
I probably shouldn't say this but I will.
I think the idea of donating money to buy back the domain name,
while certainly very thoughtful, would be foolish to execute.
If this were LUGNET itself, to which I have paid a membership
fee and am more than happy to make donations to, the case would
be different. But in this case it is a personal site that was
"owned" by Todd, for his own personal use. If it expired, for
whatever reason, then so be it. That's his business. I've no
real inclination to help fund buying it back for whatever reason.
On top of that I feel that paying $550.00 to buy back a personal
domain name is not smart. It's just a name. There are plenty
of others available for gobs less. While someone may develop
an affection for a particular domain name, in this case I feel
it's just best to let it go, and go start a new one.
If we had to buy back the LUGNET domain for that, only then would
I consider it. But even then, I would question how wise it
is to spend that much money on a name, when a new domain could
be started and that money could be put to better use. Links
can be updated. I'm sure people wouldn't have too much
trouble finding the new home.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jason Spears writes:
> I agree with Larry that we should try to round up all the colors. I have
> light blue and white, and I think that is it.
Jason,
I've moved them to a new home on www.lugnet.com in a sub-area parallel to the
Fibblesnork LEGO Guide and the (long obsolete) catalog guide...
http://www.lugnet.com/fibblesnork/lego/backgrounds/
http://www.lugnet.com/fibblesnork/lego/guide/
http://www.lugnet.com/fibblesnork/lego/catalog/
> Bummer, I really liked using them. We
> could probably put them up at Brickshelf for the time being. Also someone
> else mentioned possibly buying it, as a community. I would be willing to
> put a couple bucks in the pot if this was deemed necessary.
Well, I certainly appreciate the thought, but all the content is still alive
and well, and it's just the DNS that went sour when I neglected to renew the
domain of my personal site.
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kenneth Wright writes:
> At this point, I look at a "community purchase" of the site as a form of
> damage control. We have a chance to grab up what was a very useful site to
> LEGO enthusiasts, and make it so once again.
Well, long ago, it may have been, but everything that was LEGO-related (except
for the backgrounds) eventually migrated to lugnet.com. And now that the
backgrounds reside at a new home
http://www.lugnet.com/fibblesnork/lego/backgrounds/
there isn't much point in resurrecting anything at the old place except to
oust the squatter and put up some redirects or something. I haven't decided
yet how aggressively I'll pursue the squatter issue.
> It may encourage and reinforce
> this type of internet opportunist behavior at the moment, but if we take
> this as a lesson learned to be more aggressive in protecting our domain
> names, we can keep it from happening again.
Whoa, "our" domain names? Hey man, the domain fibblesnork.com, since 1996,
has always been the place of a _personal_ website. It happened to have,
among other things including pictures of my cats and pickle recipes, a mix
of LEGO-related stuff on it (the bulk of which moved off the site long ago).
I don't mean to sound brusque, and I apologize for everyone's links that are
no longer good, but this sort of thing is bound to happen in the community
from time to time, and it happened once before with legopolis.com, when its
content was migrated to baseplate.com and legopolis.com was turned over to
LEGO, and when LEGO failed to pursue it actively, an opportunistic cyber-
squatter jumped in just like here.
--Todd
[followups to .publish]
|
|
| |
Plus, it does not say this is for sale for $550 - - it says any bids UNDER
$550 will be ignored. So do not assume it is for sale for $550.
How did this happen anyway? Did Todd just forget to pay to renew?? And if he
DOES own the TM on it (and paid all the fees) then he has some leverage, but
I would be surprised if he did do all that.
Tom
In lugnet.general, Joe Franco writes:
> In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Kenneth Wright writes:
> > > I had an idea that may help save the fibblesnork.com domain name, if it is
> > > desired (or possible). The owner is asking $550.00 for the domain name, and
> > > LUGNET now has over 1200 members:
> > >
> > > Why not put a call out for everybody to chip in $0.50 in an effort to help
> > > keep our links safe and the fibblesnork name smut free?
> > >
> > > Maybe put up a PayPal donation button specifically for the cause, to make
> > > things even easier. I'm all for putting up a few bucks to cover myself and
> > > a few members that may not have checked the current news here on LUGNET.
> > >
> > > Believe me, I almost didn't post this message because I figured it might be
> > > a bit too silly... but heck... I'm 31 and still playing with LEGOs!
> >
> > It's kind of extortion to pay the 550 though, isn't it? I mean, Todd let it
> > lapse for whatever reason, it is true. Would we be encouraging this sort of
> > thing by paying? (the person who snagged it was no doubt within their rights
> > but it's still not the sort of behaviour I care to reward)
> >
> > But I don't think you were silly at all to post this. Rather it was quite
> > thoughtful and considerate of you to suggest it.
>
>
>
>
> That Is a great Idea but I do have to agree with Larry. $550 for a domain
> name? I also think that is alittle too much, dont you? $0.50 cents is really
> nothing and will indeed add up if everyone from LUGNET donates, but if Todd
> let it go for his reason, why dont we all let it go. Ken-That was very
> thoughtful and considerate, and only a handfull of people in this world
> today are thoughtful and considerate-nice to see we at LUGNET are a big
> fraction of the handfull. Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I am just wondering why Todd didn't ask someone else to pay the fee if he
> was strapped. I just don't get it, really. Todd of course is free to do
> anything he wishes but this strikes me as weird. [...]
Lapse of brain functioning...didn't realize the domain was up for renewal.
The notices were probably sent to the old email address and old snail-mail
address from 1996 from when I signed up. Things were forwarding for a long
time but I don't think I ever updated my contact info. d'Oh.
--Todd
[followups to .publish]
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Tom Inosanto writes:
> Plus, it does not say this is for sale for $550 - - it says any bids UNDER
> $550 will be ignored. So do not assume it is for sale for $550.
>
> How did this happen anyway? Did Todd just forget to pay to renew?? And if he
> DOES own the TM on it (and paid all the fees) then he has some leverage, but
> I would be surprised if he did do all that.
Remember when people were saying the domain wouldn't resolve? I checked
whois at the time, and it said the record expired 5-31.
|
|
| |
> there isn't much point in resurrecting anything at the old place except to
> oust the squatter and put up some redirects or something. I haven't decided
> yet how aggressively I'll pursue the squatter issue.
This was basically what I had intended with my suggestion. I would not for
a moment consider paying $550 for someone else's domain name, but at
approximately .50 per member to save the headaches and "oust the squatter"
didn't seem like a totally unreasonable idea.
> > It may encourage and reinforce
> > this type of internet opportunist behavior at the moment, but if we take
> > this as a lesson learned to be more aggressive in protecting our domain
> > names, we can keep it from happening again.
>
> Whoa, "our" domain names? Hey man, the domain fibblesnork.com, since 1996,
> has always been the place of a _personal_ website.
Todd, I was not suggesting that your domain name was anybody else's but
yours. I appologize for having not further clarified the statement by
saying: "in protecting our" *own* "domain names..." The statement you are
referring to was a general one to apply to all domain name "owners" to be
aggresive in protecting their own individual domain names.
My legal department happened to be too busy playing with LEGOs to review my
previous statement before I posted it. ;P
Ken Wright
PS - Thank you for putting up the backgrounds through LUGNET. I am sure
many other members appreciate it as well.
|
|
| |
> I probably shouldn't say this but I will.
>
> I think the idea of donating money to buy back the domain name,
> while certainly very thoughtful, would be foolish to execute.
> If this were LUGNET itself, to which I have paid a membership
> fee and am more than happy to make donations to, the case would
> be different. But in this case it is a personal site that was
> "owned" by Todd, for his own personal use. If it expired, for
> whatever reason, then so be it. That's his business. I've no
> real inclination to help fund buying it back for whatever reason.
I am very glad you said this, and appreciate that you did so in a reasonable
and thought-out manner. My original idea was just that... an idea. One
that sought a resolution to the problem, and was in no way a perfect
solution... and in many ways quite flawed. Feedback on such an idea is
important, with both good and bad points brought to light.
> On top of that I feel that paying $550.00 to buy back a personal
> domain name is not smart. It's just a name. There are plenty
> of others available for gobs less. While someone may develop
> an affection for a particular domain name, in this case I feel
> it's just best to let it go, and go start a new one.
I agree here absolutely. I would not, for a second, shell out $550 dollars
to obtain a personal website domain name. But, at approximately .50 a pop,
it didn't seem like such a bad price to avoid any further headaches and
confusion.
I would also like to clarify this: I do not have any kids to worry about
wandering into an adult oriented site, nor do I have any sites with a
fibblesnork link, nor did I have any affection for the fibblesnork domain
name as it was a personal site belonging to Todd Lehman. My suggestion was
strictly one of concern for the LEGO community as a whole, with the cheapest
possible resolution to the matter.
Humbly,
Ken Wright
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> there isn't much point in resurrecting anything at the old place except to
> oust the squatter and put up some redirects or something. I haven't decided
> yet how aggressively I'll pursue the squatter issue.
Hey Todd,
Here's some info I ran across while researching another topic. It is
relevant and timely if you choose to persue anything regarding fibblesnork.com.
For anyone who doesn't know the story: the domain www.sting.com was
registered by a Quake gamer who used the name Sting as his handle. He didn't
do anything with the domain for years, until contacted by rock star Sting
about selling the domain. The resolution to the initial argument is here:
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0596.html
Relevant quotes from the arbitration agreement (and the complaints could be
used almost verbatim for fibblesnork.com):
"The Complaint
5.1 The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in
paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Policy are applicable to the domain name the
subject of this dispute.
5.2 In relation to element (i) of paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Policy, the
Complainant contends that the domain name is identical in its substantive
part to the Complainant’s unregistered trademark and service mark STING.
5.3 In relation to element (ii) of paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Policy, the
Complaint contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
in respect of the domain name in issue.
5.4 In relation to element (iii) of paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Policy,
the Complainant contends that evidence of bad faith registration and use is
established by the following circumstances. First, the Respondent offered to
sell the domain name to the Complainant for $25,000, an activity which
corresponds to that listed in paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy as evidence of
bad faith registration and use of a domain name. Secondly, the Respondent
has used the domain name mark to link to the "GunBrokers.com" web site, and
as such is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain,
Internet users to an on-line location by creating a likelihood of confusion
with the STING mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement,
being an activity which corresponds to that listed in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of
the Policy as evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name.
In addition, that site is personally offensive to the Complainant and
contrary to his established reputation, and tarnishes the STING mark in
violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). Thirdly, because the Complainant’s STING
mark has a strong reputation and is world famous, the Respondent can make no
good faith use of the domain name, and "it is not possible to conceive of
any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the [D]omain [N]ame by
the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing
off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement
of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law".
Now, in this instance, Sting didn't convince the WIPO that the gamer was
intentionally trying to tarnish his name. With fibblesnork.com pointing to
pornography, that argument could be much stronger. But get from it what you
will.
(BTW, I was trying to find a news article about the fact that Sting now owns
and finally operates sting.com as a fan site...still haven't found
anything...anyone have any idea what happened, and when?)
Matt
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jason Spears writes:
> In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Jason Spears writes:
> > > I agree with Larry that we should try to round up all the colors. I have
> > > light blue and white, and I think that is it.
> >
> > Jason,
> >
> > I've moved them to a new home on www.lugnet.com in a sub-area parallel to the
> > Fibblesnork LEGO Guide and the (long obsolete) catalog guide...
> >
> > http://www.lugnet.com/fibblesnork/lego/backgrounds/
> > http://www.lugnet.com/fibblesnork/lego/guide/
> > http://www.lugnet.com/fibblesnork/lego/catalog/
>
> <clip>
> > --Todd
>
> Thanks for moving those. I will update my links to there, for credit.
Indeed, thanks! Good to see they are not lost.
Laziness has its own reward, I updated Bricksmiths last nite to the linkless
version of the credit but hadn't yet got to my other sites. That means I
only have to redo Bricksmiths (to add the credit version of the link)
instead of all of them!
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.general, Jason Spears writes:
> > I agree with Larry that we should try to round up all the colors. I have
> > light blue and white, and I think that is it.
>
> Jason,
>
> I've moved them to a new home on www.lugnet.com in a sub-area parallel to the
> Fibblesnork LEGO Guide and the (long obsolete) catalog guide...
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/fibblesnork/lego/backgrounds/
> http://www.lugnet.com/fibblesnork/lego/guide/
> http://www.lugnet.com/fibblesnork/lego/catalog/
<snip>
I've updated the links on my page (http://brickenplate.topcities.com/) to the
new location. I have a problem, though. The LUGNET links page
(http://www.lugnet.com/links/) still points to my old xoom.com/nbci.com site
where the references to the fibblesnork domain remain. I e-mailed Linc Smith
(is that a real person or a pseudonym...what a name for someone who maintains a
links page) about this some time ago, but the page still points to the old
nbci.com site (which is still up despite motices to the contrary from
nbci.com). If someone with authority to change my link on the links page would
do so, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks.
--
Thomas Main
main@appstate.edu
|
|
| |
Suzanne,
There appears to be another link on Lugnet at:
http://news.lugnet.com/fun/ which points to fibblesnork.com for
the random set name generator.
I noticed (and posted) a couple of weeks ago that the link to the
name generator wasn't working, which might have been a sign of the
change before the new "owner" posted content.
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> Any links on your webpages that point to ANY page at *Fibblesnork* should • please
> be removed ASAP!!
>
> The domain name has apparently changed hands.. from what was Todd Lehman's
> personal website to one with **adult content** (at one click in).
>
> This may include:
>
> * sites using Fibblesnork LEGO Backgrounds (because you were asked
> to include a credit and link back to Todd's site).
>
> * sites featured as Cool LEGO Site of the Week who linked back via a button.
>
> -Suz
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> Any links on your webpages that point to ANY page at *Fibblesnork* should please
> be removed ASAP!!
>
> The domain name has apparently changed hands.. from what was Todd Lehman's
> personal website to one with **adult content** (at one click in).
>
> This may include:
>
> * sites using Fibblesnork LEGO Backgrounds (because you were asked
> to include a credit and link back to Todd's site).
>
> * sites featured as Cool LEGO Site of the Week who linked back via a button.
>
> -Suz After I saw this warning I connected to fibblesnork twice once by a link, and once by a search. Both times I was connected to a lego site. Maybe it's just on her computer.
|
|
| |
no it isn't just her, I get a 'warning: adult material ahead' page.
Gary
dragonlordno1 <dragonlordno1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GIv2H0.6sC@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > Any links on your webpages that point to ANY page at *Fibblesnork* should • please
> > be removed ASAP!!
> >
> > The domain name has apparently changed hands.. from what was Todd • Lehman's
> > personal website to one with **adult content** (at one click in).
> >
> > This may include:
> >
> > * sites using Fibblesnork LEGO Backgrounds (because you were asked
> > to include a credit and link back to Todd's site).
> >
> > * sites featured as Cool LEGO Site of the Week who linked back via a • button.
> >
> > -Suz After I saw this warning I connected to fibblesnork twice once by
a link, and once by a search. Both times I was connected to a lego site.
Maybe it's just on her computer.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> The cheapest fee offered, for the simplest dispute is.... 950 USD. (it
> varies by organization) I did not see any provision for charging the fee
> back to the cybersquatter, so you eat all of it. Therefore they basically
> ARE offering you a discount... 550 extortion is less than 950 legal.
>
> Nice. They no doubt are counting on most people doing the math and paying
> them the lesser sum instead of paying more to deny them any funds at all.
> That's why they said they will cheerfully ignore any offers for less than 550.
Todd stated in another note that he wasn't sure how vigorously he was going to
pursue this. And he noted that he considers this nothing but a personal site.
Todd, if you opt to pursue reaquisition of _your_ site, I would be happy to
donate toward the $400 difference between the $550 and $950. In exchange for
this donation, I would expect nothing except that you would pursue the recovery
in a fairly expedient way, and that you wouldn't just buy it back from them.
Let me/us know if you're interested in passing the hat.
I have no links to fibblesnork. I have no problem with adult content. But I
do have a problem with the kind of piratical business practice that has
resulted in this (even if it is really your own fault).
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Joseph A. Zdzinnicki writes:
> After I saw this warning I connected to fibblesnork twice once by a link, and >once by a search. Both times I was connected to a lego site. Maybe it's just >on her computer.
It's technically possible for someone to see cached material instead of the
current material. So an explanation for events that fits is that you're
seeing cached material (the old site) because your cache hasn't expired,
while Suz is(and a boatload of other people including myself all are) seeing
the new pornlink site.
There is no possible explanation for Suz seeing something that isn't there,
though. So "maybe it's just her computer" isn't possible unless you are
saying that she has constructed a pornlink site herself, (highly doubtful
(1)) or unless (it was there briefly), we're all seeing it from cache, but
the old Fibblesnork(tn) has returned. That's also highly doubtful since Todd
would have said something, presumably.
1 - Suz, we NEVER KNEW!!!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Joseph A. Zdzinnicki writes:
> [..] After I saw this warning I connected to fibblesnork twice once by a link,
> and once by a search. Both times I was connected to a lego site.
Perhaps you clicked on a link called "Fibblesnork" of which the URL was actually
to LUGNET. For a while now, there's been a copy of the Fibblesnork LEGO Guide
and Cool LEGO Site of the Week here. In that time, some people have made links
to this copy.
As example, I just searched for "Fibblesnork LEGO Guide" and was returned a link
with an address of:
www.lugnet.com/fibblesnork/lego/guide/
If I hadn't read carefully, and just clicked it, I may have assumed I was headed
to the old location.
only saying this as a possibility..
-Suz
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > The cheapest fee offered, for the simplest dispute is.... 950 USD. (it
> > varies by organization) I did not see any provision for charging the fee
> > back to the cybersquatter, so you eat all of it. Therefore they basically
> > ARE offering you a discount... 550 extortion is less than 950 legal.
> >
> > Nice. They no doubt are counting on most people doing the math and paying
> > them the lesser sum instead of paying more to deny them any funds at all.
> > That's why they said they will cheerfully ignore any offers for less than 550.
>
> Todd stated in another note that he wasn't sure how vigorously he was going to
> pursue this. And he noted that he considers this nothing but a personal site.
Yes, he indicated this in very clear language.
> Todd, if you opt to pursue reaquisition of _your_ site, I would be happy to
> donate toward the $400 difference between the $550 and $950. In exchange for
> this donation, I would expect nothing except that you would pursue the recovery
> in a fairly expedient way, and that you wouldn't just buy it back from them.
> Let me/us know if you're interested in passing the hat.
Why then, if you know the story as far as Todd tells it, would you want to
make such an offer?
> I have no links to fibblesnork. I have no problem with adult content. But I
> do have a problem with the kind of piratical business practice that has
> resulted in this (even if it is really your own fault).
Again, your own words don't really jive with your offer of money. Why help
Todd rescue a 'personal' domain when he makes it plain that it really has
little to do with LUGNET anymore.
I don't mean to criticize your kind offer Christopher, but if you've got
that kind of cash burning a hole in your pocket, why not donate it to a
charity that provides toys to kids in need? Seems it would be money better
spent.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > I am just wondering why Todd didn't ask someone else to pay the fee if he
> > was strapped. I just don't get it, really. Todd of course is free to do
> > anything he wishes but this strikes me as weird. [...]
>
> Lapse of brain functioning...didn't realize the domain was up for renewal.
> The notices were probably sent to the old email address and old snail-mail
> address from 1996 from when I signed up. Things were forwarding for a long
> time but I don't think I ever updated my contact info. d'Oh.
Might be worth checking they've got the right contact info for the lugnet
domain name.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> Why then, if you know the story as far as Todd tells it, would you want to
> make such an offer?
A) Because I do believe that it impacts the community, whether you (or Todd)
likes it or not. B) Because, as I stated, I don't like the business practice
-- and I am aware in this instance of something that might possibly be done
about it.
What's it to you?
> > I have no links to fibblesnork. I have no problem with adult content. But I
> > do have a problem with the kind of piratical business practice that has
> > resulted in this (even if it is really your own fault).
>
> Again, your own words don't really jive with your offer of money.
Yes they do.
> Why help
> Todd rescue a 'personal' domain when he makes it plain that it really has
> little to do with LUGNET anymore.
See above. And remember that not everything is LUGNET. There is a whole
online LEGO fan community and fibblesnork is a known piece of it.
> I don't mean to criticize your kind offer Christopher, but if you've got
It seems that you do.
> that kind of cash burning a hole in your pocket, why not donate it to a
> charity that provides toys to kids in need? Seems it would be money better
> spent.
I'll tell you what...you spend your money the way you want to, and I'll spend
my money how I want. Deal?
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> Any links on your webpages that point to ANY page at *Fibblesnork* should please
> be removed ASAP!!
You might check the link to HIS personal website as well ;)
http://www.lugnet.com/people/members/?m=1
Grüße vom dö
|
|
|
