 | | | | | |
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.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> 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, 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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> 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, 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]
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> 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.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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, 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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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, 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.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | |
