Should Websites Charge A Fee To Process Copyright Takedowns? - Page 6 - GoFuckYourself.com

newB · 06-05-2012, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniquemkt

So what you're saying is, you don't have a problem with anything I've said, you just have a problem because it was problem day? In another thread I've asked for an example of him messing with someone's ability to make a living (opinions on a message board don't count), I'm guessing you aren't reading that one but I extend that request to you as well. From what I've read (granted I started reading roughly a year ago and only registered a few months back), he holds unpopular opinions and is vocal with them, but hasn't actually stolen anyone's content or otherwise hurt someone's ability to make a living. I'm an open minded person and I am open to being corrected if that happened, but I haven't seen it yet. Sorry if that means you won't like me either, but I still don't feel like your F-U is deserved.

As far as I know he never stole anything, but he ADVOCATED the theft of content. Can't you imagine how that made those who made their livings off said content feel? As others have mentioned, he didn't do any business or other socializing here but seemed to show up for the sole purpose of spouting his drivel. Additionally he clings to his misguided interpretation of 'fair use' fervently despite being told how wrong he is on numerous occasions. All in all, he brought whatever happens upon himself.

For the record, I don't think you and him are the same person. His ramblings made my head hurt, and you obviously have some command of cognitively linking one sentence to the next.

uniquemkt · 06-05-2012, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Let me guess, you got your freetard membership card in the mail today.

.

Not sure why you would make that association, honestly. I haven't defended anyone's right to anything that aren't given to them by law, I'm just saying you might want to read up on the fair use exemption because it can affect your content.

L-Pink · 06-05-2012, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniquemkt

Not sure why you would make that association, honestly. I haven't defended anyone's right to anything that aren't given to them by law, I'm just saying you might want to read up on the fair use exemption because it can affect your content.

I think your sole purpose posting here is to deflect attention from the real issue. Now fuck off!

.

uniquemkt · 06-05-2012, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newB

As far as I know he never stole anything, but he ADVOCATED the theft of content. Can't you imagine how that made those who made their livings off said content feel? As others have mentioned, he didn't do any business or other socializing here but seemed to show up for the sole purpose of spouting his drivel. Additionally he clings to his misguided interpretation of 'fair use' fervently despite being told how wrong he is on numerous occasions. All in all, he brought whatever happens upon himself.

For the record, I don't think you and him are the same person. His ramblings made my head hurt, and you obviously have some command of cognitively linking one sentence to the next.

This is more or less what I've seen. His opinions aren't popular and go against what most people believe in. I've said a few times, I don't agree that his version of "fair use" is compatible with US law, but it might actually be compatible with Canadian law in certain circumstances (II doubt those circumstances apply to anyone posting on GFY). Also, a LOT of people who are posting (including GG) don't appear to understand what copyright and fair use legislation actually provides, and its frustrating trying to make a point based in legislation with someone who is only reacting to their emotional response to what they think the law should be. Some of the things GG said really are legit based on US law; others, not so much.

I also agree that he seemed mostly like a one-topic kind of poster, although there were some exceptions.

What I don't agree with is that his opinions or advocacy was a tangible detriment to anyone's ability to make a living, and I don't agree that people going after his job is a fair response to an unpopular opinion. We can disagree on that, and I won't tattle on you.

uniquemkt · 06-05-2012, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

I think your sole purpose posting here is to deflect attention from the real issue. Now fuck off!

.

No, the real issue is that people don't understand copyright laws in different countries (and most don't understand them in the US either) and are making uneducated statements about them anyway.

PS - It might be easier to add "fuck off" to your sig so you don't have to keep typing it. I'd much rather you brought some substance to the discussion instead though.

L-Pink · 06-05-2012, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniquemkt

No, the real issue is that people don't understand copyright laws in different countries (and most don't understand them in the US either) and are making uneducated statements about them anyway.

PS - It might be easier to add "fuck off" to your sig so you don't have to keep typing it. I'd much rather you brought some substance to the discussion instead though.

So start a fucking new thread.

.

bhutocracy · 06-05-2012, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniquemkt

What I don't agree with is that his opinions or advocacy was a tangible detriment to anyone's ability to make a living, and I don't agree that people going after his job is a fair response to an unpopular opinion. We can disagree on that, and I won't tattle on you.

Memo to you: No one gives the smallest ratfuck what you think.

Just FYI, hope that helps you understand.

uniquemkt · 06-05-2012, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

Memo to you: No one gives the smallest ratfuck what you think.

Just FYI, hope that helps you understand.

That's fine, I extend that courtesy to you as well.

uniquemkt · 06-05-2012, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

So start a fucking new thread.

.

No, this is actually the topic of this thread.

L-Pink · 06-05-2012, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniquemkt

No, this is actually the topic of this thread.

Get a clue.

.

bhutocracy · 06-05-2012, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniquemkt

That's fine, I extend that courtesy to you as well.

The difference being that I already know that, you seem to be laboring under the delusion that this isn't the case or trolling on a 2 month old account. I suppose you're bumping the thread with his personal information in it and compounding the harm to him so either way it's not all useless

uniquemkt · 06-05-2012, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Get a clue.

.

Ok, this is my chance to get some insight into tthe mind of L-Pink: What do you think this thread is about?

L-Pink · 06-05-2012, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniquemkt

Ok, this is my chance to get some insight into tthe mind of L-Pink: What do you think this thread is about?

This thread is about taunting content/property owners just like the last 5 years of GG's posts. Everyone knows that but you.

.

uniquemkt · 06-05-2012, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

The difference being that I already know that, you seem to be laboring under the delusion that this isn't the case or trolling on a 2 month old account. I suppose you're bumping the thread with his personal information in it and compounding the harm to him so either way it's not all useless

Nah I'm just not an advocate for spreading misinformation, or for getting people fired for bullshit reasons... And my account is 4 months old for the calendar-impaired. For what its worth, it does seem like the posting of that information and the related firestorm is a ban-able offense (gfy rules #9 and #10, link at the bottom of the page), but GFY mods don't seem to mind.

uniquemkt · 06-05-2012, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

This thread is about taunting content/property owners just like the last 5 years of GG's posts. Everyone knows that but you.

.

Kind of like my ex-wife, projecting your personal reality doesn't change the real world. This thread was about a foreign website asking for recuperation of costs associated with an invalid copyright takedown request, and wrongly presenting that as the only means of having content removed.

kane · 06-05-2012, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniquemkt

Nah I'm just not an advocate for spreading misinformation, or for getting people fired for bullshit reasons... And my account is 4 months old for the calendar-impaired. For what its worth, it does seem like the posting of that information and the related firestorm is a ban-able offense (gfy rules #9 and #10, link at the bottom of the page), but GFY mods don't seem to mind.

I'm pretty confident Gideon has not been fired. I would guess if people really did contact his employer they told him to get off this board and try to get the links to their site pulled and he can stay. He scrambled, got the links pulled and now is gone.

L-Pink · 06-05-2012, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniquemkt

Kind of like my ex-wife, projecting your personal reality doesn't change the real world. This thread was about a foreign website asking for recuperation of costs associated with an invalid copyright takedown request, and wrongly presenting that as the only means of having content removed.

That's not WHY it was posted. You remain clueless. G'night.

.

uniquemkt · 06-05-2012, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I'm pretty confident Gideon has not been fired. I would guess if people really did content them they told him to get off this board and try to get the links to their site pulled and he can stay. He scrambled, got the links pulled and now is gone.

I hope this is the case, For the record, I wouldn't have much of an issue with running him off the board, deleting his posts, or whatever. Its a privately owned web site with commercial purposes, and commercial speech is not protected by the first amendment. It would show a level of intolerance that seems to be expected on GFY, but such is the internet.

uniquemkt · 06-05-2012, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

That's not WHY it was posted. You remain clueless. G'night.

.

Not sure I'm going to get into a metaphysical read-between-the-lines i-know-what-you're-thinking type of discussion, I loaned my divining crystals at a friend's house so I can only see the actual content.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 06-05-2012, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by camtata

looks like our fair use aficionado is or was a child porn spammer:

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=140529

(envelope-sender <[email protected]>)
for <my email address>; 6 jun 2003 19:14:32 -0000
date: Sat, 07 jun 2003 09:35:34 gmt
from: Gomes fasikop <[email protected]>
to: My email address
message-id: <[email protected]>
subject: New lolitas sites !

Hi, dear drochers...
I found most hot and semi-legal site in world!

There are many lolitas photos never seen before
more than 30 nude childrens...

WTF? I'm amazed that anyone is defending him if that is indeed from GG's website.

ADG

uniquemkt · 06-05-2012, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

WTF? I'm amazed that anyone is defending him if that is indeed from GG's website.

ADG

Was this actually confirmed as coming from GG? I looked for any sort of confirmation and didn't find anything. I will say that its kind of odd that people would say he isn't in porn and at the same time that he runs kiddie porn sites. Numerous times in this thread it has been pointed out that GG is not in the industry. Can we get a consensus on this?

bhutocracy · 06-05-2012, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniquemkt

GFY mods don't seem to mind.

Take the hint.

bean-aid · 06-05-2012, 07:55 PM

I also enjoy talking in third person... carry on.

uniquemkt · 06-05-2012, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

Take the hint.

Wouldn't hurt my feelings too much to get kicked off, I wasted too much time on here today as it is. Thanks for the support though!

papill0n · 06-05-2012, 07:59 PM

well done uniquemkt i thought we were down a fucking idiot but apparently not

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 06-05-2012, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beaner

I also enjoy talking in third person... carry on.

I believe that you meant to say, "Beaner enjoys talking in the third person... carry on."

ADG

uniquemkt · 06-05-2012, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papill0n

well done uniquemkt i thought we were down a fucking idiot but apparently not

Are you going to point out something I said that was incorrect, or are you just on your period and need to lash out?

uniquemkt · 06-05-2012, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

I believe that you meant to say, "Beaner enjoys talking in the third person... carry on."

ADG

Good catch.

sarettah · 06-05-2012, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniquemkt

that he runs ****** p**n sites. Numerous times in this thread it has been pointed out that GG is not in the industry.

1. Those are two differnt things. Those that do that are not part of this industry as far as at least I am concerned.

2. Watch the fucking terms you use in your posts. You will see the ban hammer come down quick.

.

uniquemkt · 06-05-2012, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

1. Those are two differnt things. Those that do that are not part of this industry as far as at least I am concerned.

2. Watch the fucking terms you use in your posts. You will see the ban hammer come down quick.

.

The rules are pretty clear on #2 there, and I believe I was well within the rules. People claiming he was involved in that material, however, are in clear violation of rule #7, link at the bottom of the page.

And #1 might be a technicality, but I'll accept it. Still wondering if there was any confirmation on that, as it would have been grounds for immediate banning per that rule #7, and a much more efficient method of getting rid of him.

candyflip · 06-05-2012, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

This is really where you're going to go because you don't like the things Gideon writes on the Internet? Never mind that he hasn't stolen anything from you, done your business any harm or even tried to and here you are acting like a 12 year old. Grow up.

Robbie is a grown man still acting like a child. His old bald ass plays rock star any chance he gets.

Notice he's ALWAYS in these GG threads even though he has him on ignore. Makes no sense to me.

6 pages of the same people calling him a content thief when the guy has said ANYTHING about stealing content. EVER.

I'd like to see someone prove it.

uniquemkt · 06-05-2012, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by candyflip

Robbie is a grown man still acting like a child. His old bald ass plays rock star any chance he gets.

Notice he's ALWAYS in these GG threads even though he has him on ignore. Makes no sense to me.

6 pages of the same people calling him a content thief when the guy has said ANYTHING about stealing content. EVER.

I'd like to see someone prove it.

I have asked in this thread as well as the previous one for an example of him doing more than advocating his opinion, so far nobody has come up with anything. I really think he's just made people mad with his opinions (and some of his information is incorrect with respect to US copyright laws, a lot of it was spot on though).

candyflip · 06-05-2012, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniquemkt

I have asked in this thread as well as the previous one for an example of him doing more than advocating his opinion, so far nobody has come up with anything. I really think he's just made people mad with his opinions (and some of his information is incorrect with respect to US copyright laws, a lot of it was spot on though).

They can't because he hasn't. He's said all along...your content is being stolen, you can't stop it...I have the means to help you monetize that. But people hear torrents and only think one thing...content being stolen. And with that they jump all over him, simply because they don't like what he has to say. They'll even dispute all facts when presented with them, just because they come from GG.

But yeah...like I said. The same few people ALWAYS in the threads posting a ton of shit wasting their time for no reason.

Paul Markham · 06-05-2012, 09:45 PM

He upset the wrong pack of dogs, now GG complaining he got bit.

DWB · 06-05-2012, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniquemkt

I appreciate what you're trying to say, but you're missing the point. You sent the wrong form. How about instead of trying to bend the laws of other countries, or expecting some super special treatment, you just send the right form? The point is, the DMCA request is the wrong form. There is a right form and no administrative fee associated with it. And in my experience, most hosting companies ToS includes for recovery of costs in a violation case, but you still have to send the proper request.

I'm not talking about forms, I'm talking about a host anywhere in the world asking $50 or any amount to remove content after receiving a DMCA. That was the question in the title of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Yo Theo, why is Akira Systems a banned term/URL?

Are they affiliated with uploading.com (AVN's content locker parent company)?

ADG

Makes you wonder. All the shit that gets posted on this board and hardly anything every gets hahahahahahaha, other than a few racial slurs and things like the names of Manwin's previous owners and GGs company.

Maybe there was a reason GG was permitted to post here all this time. One thing is for sure, the admins jumped fast and high to ban the name once the company was listed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by candyflip

6 pages of the same people calling him a content thief when the guy has said ANYTHING about stealing content. EVER.

I'd like to see someone prove it.

Nothing to prove. If you advocate it, it's the same thing as doing it yourself. And you can bet your ass that someone who is in such support of piracy is an avid pirate.

Just change the topic to something else and it makes more sense. Say... rape. If you support the rape of women, talk about it non stop, and post every news story where someone doesn't go to jail due to a legal snafu after raping someone, you are cut from the same cloth as the rapist.

DWB · 06-06-2012, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniquemkt

I really think he's just made people mad with his opinions

Someone who is so blatantly pro-piracy has no place in any industry, or within any group of people, who own intellectual property. Period.

Why not head over to the die hard Catholic message boards and make your case every 30 minutes for why abortion should not only be legal, but is not actually abortion at all if you get one while hanging upside down with your eyes closed. They would chew his ass up there too, and rightfully so.

GG doesn't belong HERE. He can go stroke his opinions on whatever pirate boards there are. Posting here with his nonsense insults everyone honest businessman who owns content.

And to be frank, you sound a lot like him and suddenly are posting out of the blue, post after post, just like him, after he stopped. Probably just a coincidence.

Half man, Half Amazing · 06-06-2012, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

I'm not talking about forms, I'm talking about a host anywhere in the world asking $50 or any amount to remove content after receiving a DMCA. That was the question in the title of this thread.

It is important to note that the site in question was not asking for $50 to process a single DMCA notice. The site was requiring $50 PER URL removed.

So according to this:
http://www.google.com/transparencyre...ains/h33t.com/

The site in question would require nearly $600,000 from copyright holders to simply operate their site legally.

Anyone who can't see through the scumbag stance of that piracy site is fucking retarded.

papill0n · 06-06-2012, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

It is important to note that the site in question was not asking for $50 to process a single DMCA notice. The site was requiring $50 PER URL removed.

So according to this:
http://www.google.com/transparencyre...ains/h33t.com/

The site in question would require nearly $600,000 from copyright holders to simply operate their site legally.

Anyone who can't see through the scumbag stance of that piracy site is fucking retarded.

gideongallery · 06-06-2012, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniquemkt

Was this actually confirmed as coming from GG? I looked for any sort of confirmation and didn't find anything. I will say that its kind of odd that people would say he isn't in porn and at the same time that he runs kiddie porn sites. Numerous times in this thread it has been pointed out that GG is not in the industry. Can we get a consensus on this?

it didn't

X-UIDL: 1054926873.5378_0.mx03.roc.ny.frontiernet.net,S=14 22
Received: (qmail 5267 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2003 19:14:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO 66.186.79.107) ([66.186.79.107])

as i have already pointed out and proven

https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=18983994&postcount=106

Please stop spreading this deliberate misrepresentation.

Accusing someone of distributing kiddie porn is very serious.

DWB · 06-06-2012, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

It is important to note that the site in question was not asking for $50 to process a single DMCA notice. The site was requiring $50 PER URL removed.

So according to this:
http://www.google.com/transparencyre...ains/h33t.com/

The site in question would require nearly $600,000 from copyright holders to simply operate their site legally.

Anyone who can't see through the scumbag stance of that piracy site is fucking retarded.

Yikes.

Yet there is no recourse for the person who loaded the infringed content. That is indeed a scum bag stance. I'm sure they have their hands in a lot of pirate sites.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 06-06-2012, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

it didn't

X-UIDL: 1054926873.5378_0.mx03.roc.ny.frontiernet.net,S=14 22
Received: (qmail 5267 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2003 19:14:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO 66.186.79.107) ([66.186.79.107])

as i have already pointed out and proven

Please stop spreading this deliberate misrepresentation.

Accusing someone of distributing kiddie porn is very serious.

So jacquesweb.com (the part you omitted) is not your website?

Quote:

(envelope-sender <various@jacquesweb.com>)
for <my email address>; 6 jun 2003 19:14:32 -0000
date: Sat, 07 jun 2003 09:35:34 gmt
from: Gomes fasikop <various@jacquesweb.com>
to: My email address
message-id: <1043514532.31460048080344@jacquesweb.com>
subject: New lolitas sites !

Hi, dear drochers...
I found most hot and semi-legal site in world!

There are many lolitas photos never seen before
more than 30 nude childrens...

Baad me milte hain,

ADG

CamTata · 06-06-2012, 02:41 AM

It was a post on gfy from 06-06-2003 - jacquesweb.com IS gg's site. For those who cant or dont wish to click and view the original post from 2003 here it as it appeared in its entirety:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
06-06-2003, 01:25 PM
Tala
Fucked if I know
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Do you have a flag?
Posts: 23,380

Anybody else get the newest cp spam??
Status: U
X-UIDL: 1054926873.5378_0.mx03.roc.ny.frontiernet.net,S=14 22
Received: (qmail 5267 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2003 19:14:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO 66.186.79.107) ([66.186.79.107])
(envelope-sender <[email protected]>)
by mx03.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (FrontierMTA 2.3.5) with SMTP
for <MY EMAIL ADDRESS>; 6 Jun 2003 19:14:32 -0000
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 09:35:34 GMT
From: Gomes Fasikop <[email protected]>
To: MY EMAIL ADDRESS
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Subject: NEW LOLITAS SITES !
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0
tests=none
version=2.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)

From: Gomes Fasikop
Date: Friday, June 06, 2003 2:14:32 PM
To: MY EMAIL ADDRESS
Subject: NEW LOLITAS SITES !

Hi, dear drochers...
I found most HOT and semi-legal site in world!

Enter Here

There are many lolitas photos never seen before
More than 30 nude childrens...

Enter Here

It's one site from 1000's which
we'll send you in next monthes!

NO REMOVAL LINK!
OUR SITE IS NOT SPAM!!! .
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Do with it what you will. Perhaps someone might find out who the host for this sombitch is?
__________________

ICQ: 11120676 | Google: mindcrime | Skype: suitemindcrime|E-Mail: mindcrime AT gmail.com|PR girl with great writing skills for hire!!!! Contact me to work for YOU!|TECHIEMEDIA? 24/7 support from some of the best techs in the biz. Tell Jim that I sent you.

Paul Markham · 06-06-2012, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

Someone who is so blatantly pro-piracy has no place in any industry, or within any group of people, who own intellectual property. Period.

That says it all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Please stop spreading this deliberate misrepresentation

So can you tell us why someone who works for a software company is so pro piracy? And please your whole stance has been pro.

Were you posting from work?

If so did the boss know or were you doing it when you should of been working?

I employed people and found two of them, a programmer and our make up girl and assistant shooter. Were constantly texting each other, while they sat in the same office. And the programmer was downloading and uploading pirated material on my computers.

I fired them on the spot. They were stealing money from me.

Paul Markham · 06-06-2012, 02:45 AM

This is why we must fight piracy.

http://www.google.com/transparencyre...ains/h33t.com/

By any means we can. Just make it so hard for sites to operate because they have to spend so much taking the pirated content down.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 06-06-2012, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamTata

It was a post on gfy from 06-06-2003 - jacquesweb.com IS gg's site.

Interesting, because a site owned by the same Aaron Jacques (whom owned and registered jacquesweb.com) was ordered forfeited by an Arbitration Panel in 2007, since Mr Jacques was using the Barbie children's toy trademark to redirect people to porn sites:

Quote:

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

Mattel, Inc. v. Aaron Jacques
Claim Number: FA0706001024381

PARTIES
Complainant is Mattel, Inc. (?Complainant?), represented by Megan L. Martin, of Dunnegan LLC, 350 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10118. Respondent is Aaron Jacques (?Respondent?), 1477 Glengarry Ave, London, ON N5X 1R2, Canada.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lennybarbie.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.

PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

David A. Einhorn appointed as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 28, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 29, 2007.

On June 29, 2007, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <lennybarbie.com> domain name is registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.

On July 2, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the ?Commencement Notification?), setting a deadline of July 23, 2007 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent?s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to [email protected] by e-mail.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 23, 2007.

On July 30, 2007, pursuant to Complainant?s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David A. Einhorn as Panelist.

RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES? CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Complainant, Mattel, Inc., owns federal trademark registrations for BARBIE. Complainant further contends that Respondent?s <lennybarbie.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant?s Mark.

2. Complainant contends that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <lennybarbie.com> domain name.

3. Complainant contends that Respondent registered and used the <lennybarbie.com> domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent
Respondent contends that Complainant?s United States trademark registrations are irrelevant because Respondent is a Canadian resident. Respondent further argues that the BARBIE mark is generic.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the ?Rules?) instructs this Panel to ?decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.?

Respondent asserts, in additional correspondence to the National Arbitration Forum, that Complainant may not rely on its United States trademark registrations because Respondent is not a resident of the United States.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant alleges rights in the BARBIE mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO. The Panel finds that Complainant?s timely registration and extensive use of the BARBIE mark over many years establishes its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a). See Torey Indus., Inc. v. Yassievich, FA 998100 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2007) (?The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the Trademark, by reason of its U.S. trademark registrations, which are valid and subsisting. The U.S. Trademark Act is clear that the Certificate of Registration, as here, is prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark and the registrant?s exclusive right to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods specified in the registration.?)

The disputed domain name fully incorporates the BARBIE mark and adds the term ?lenny? before it. Whether the resulting domain is confusingly similar to the BARBIE mark is a close call because the added word ?lenny? does not have any apparent descriptive meaning in this context. Nevertheless, Respondent does not argue that this domain is not confusingly similar to the BARBIE mark and merely (and unconvincingly) argues that the BARBIE mark is generic.

As Respondent has not provided any substantive arguments pertaining to the rights or legitimate interests prong of this analysis, Respondent has essentially defaulted on this issue. In view of this ?default,? the Panel accepts all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint regarding the confusing similarity issue as true.

The Panel therefore finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the <lennybarbie.com> domain name. The WHOIS registration information lists the registrant as ?Aaron Jacques,? and Complainant asserts that Respondent has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights to the domain name in question. In light of the lack of countervailing evidence, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jul. 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

Complainant asserts, and Respondent does not dispute, that Respondent?s <lennybarbie.com> domain name resolves to an adult-oriented website called ?Super Site Pass,? also accessible via the <supersitepass.com> domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent?s use of Complainant?s BARBIE mark to divert Internet users to an adult-oriented website does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Paws, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 125368 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 15, 2002) (holding that the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to an established mark to divert Internet users to an adult-oriented website ?tarnishes Complainant?s mark and does not evidence noncommercial or fair use of the domain name by a respondent?); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Bates, FA 192595 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 7, 2003) (?Attempts to commercially benefit from a domain name that is confusingly similar to another's mark by linking the domain name to an adult-oriented website [is] evidence that the registrant lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.?).

The Panel therefore finds that ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent is using a domain name similar to Complainant?s BARBIE mark to direct Internet users to its adult-oriented web site and is therefore profiting from the goodwill associated with the BARBIE mark. Such use demonstrates registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Microsoft Corp. v. Horner, D2002-0029 (WIPO Feb. 27, 2002) (holding that the respondent?s use of complainant?s mark to post pornographic photographs and to publicize hyperlinks to additional pornographic web sites evidenced bad faith use and registration of the domain name).

The Panel therefore finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lennybarbie.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Complete text here: http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1024381.htm

To summarize, Gideon...er, Mr Jacques' defense (the owner of jacquesweb.com) was that "(Mattel?s) United States trademark registrations are irrelevant because Respondent is a Canadian resident. Respondent further argues that the BARBIE mark is generic."

Typical Gallbladder style to believe he can pick and choose which laws to follow, and the attitude that he can decide that other people's trademarks and intellectual property are generic and use them to profit from however he wishes.

The arbitration panel ruled against Aaron Jacques and stripped him of his domain since they felt that he acted in bad faith and abused the popular children's toy brand trademark to drive traffic to porn sites.

Great corporate citizen.

I can see why companies like Akira Systems would want to be disassociated with such a lowlife, if it turns out to indeed be the same person.

Gideon still hasn't quite given us a straight answer about that either...well, at least he is finally getting the attention from the industry that he has so desperately craved for years.

ADG

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 06-06-2012, 03:59 AM

If I were a GFY Mod, and GG = Aaron Jaques, I would pin this to Mr. Fair Use's (GideonGallery's) sig:

Quote:

The (National Arbitration Forum) Panel finds that Respondent?s (Aaron Jacque's) use of Complainant?s BARBIE mark to divert Internet users to an adult-oriented website does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

Yup, Gideon sure is a real expert on Fair Use.

I hope he didn't get a patent/trademark/copyright for posting in bold and in CAPS to emphasize his points.

ADG

CamTata · 06-06-2012, 04:13 AM

nice find ADG

CamTata · 06-06-2012, 04:15 AM

We have an address match - it is the infamous gg

Paul Markham · 06-06-2012, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Interesting, because a site owned by the same Aaron Jacques (whom owned and registered jacquesweb.com) was ordered forfeited by an Arbitration Panel in 2007, since Mr Jacques was using the Barbie children's toy trademark to redirect people to porn sites:

Complete text here: http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1024381.htm

To summarize, Gideon...er, Mr Jacques' defense (the owner of jacquesweb.com) was that "(Mattel?s) United States trademark registrations are irrelevant because Respondent is a Canadian resident. Respondent further argues that the BARBIE mark is generic."

Typical Gallbladder style to believe he can pick and choose which laws to follow, and the attitude that he can decide that other people's trademarks and intellectual property are generic and use them to profit from however he wishes.

The arbitration panel ruled against Aaron Jacques and stripped him of his domain since they felt that he acted in bad faith and abused the popular children's toy brand trademark to drive traffic to porn sites.

Great corporate citizen.

I can see why companies like Akira Systems would want to be disassociated with such a lowlife, if it turns out to indeed be the same person.

Gideon still hasn't quite given us a straight answer about that either...well, at least he is finally getting the attention from the industry that he has so desperately craved for years.

ADG

That post proves what we always suspected. The guy has no qualms stealing other people's property.

IMO his employers are well shot of him.

Paul Markham · 06-06-2012, 04:24 AM

The more we dig the shittier it gets. This guy is a douche bag.

06-05-2012, 09:45 PM	#284
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	He upset the wrong pack of dogs, now GG complaining he got bit. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

06-06-2012, 02:45 AM	#294
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	This is why we must fight piracy. http://www.google.com/transparencyre...ains/h33t.com/ By any means we can. Just make it so hard for sites to operate because they have to spend so much taking the pirated content down. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

06-06-2012, 04:24 AM	#300
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	The more we dig the shittier it gets. This guy is a douche bag. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

06-05-2012, 07:55 PM	#273
bean-aid So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: the land of woke sleuths Posts: 16,493	I also enjoy talking in third person... carry on.

06-05-2012, 07:59 PM	#275
papill0n Unregistered Abuser Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 15,547	well done uniquemkt i thought we were down a fucking idiot but apparently not

06-06-2012, 02:41 AM	#292
CamTata So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Rio Claro de Pavones Posts: 75	It was a post on gfy from 06-06-2003 - jacquesweb.com IS gg's site. For those who cant or dont wish to click and view the original post from 2003 here it as it appeared in its entirety: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 06-06-2003, 01:25 PM Tala Fucked if I know Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Do you have a flag? Posts: 23,380 Anybody else get the newest cp spam?? Status: U X-UIDL: 1054926873.5378_0.mx03.roc.ny.frontiernet.net,S=14 22 Received: (qmail 5267 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2003 19:14:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 66.186.79.107) ([66.186.79.107]) (envelope-sender <[email protected]>) by mx03.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (FrontierMTA 2.3.5) with SMTP for <MY EMAIL ADDRESS>; 6 Jun 2003 19:14:32 -0000 Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 09:35:34 GMT From: Gomes Fasikop <[email protected]> To: MY EMAIL ADDRESS Message-ID: <[email protected]> Subject: NEW LOLITAS SITES ! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Accept-Language: en-us, en X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=none version=2.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) From: Gomes Fasikop Date: Friday, June 06, 2003 2:14:32 PM To: MY EMAIL ADDRESS Subject: NEW LOLITAS SITES ! Hi, dear drochers... I found most HOT and semi-legal site in world! Enter Here There are many lolitas photos never seen before More than 30 nude childrens... Enter Here It's one site from 1000's which we'll send you in next monthes! NO REMOVAL LINK! OUR SITE IS NOT SPAM!!! . --------------------------------------------------------------------- Do with it what you will. Perhaps someone might find out who the host for this sombitch is? __________________ ICQ: 11120676 \| Google: mindcrime \| Skype: suitemindcrime\|E-Mail: mindcrime AT gmail.com\|PR girl with great writing skills for hire!!!! Contact me to work for YOU!\|TECHIEMEDIA? 24/7 support from some of the best techs in the biz. Tell Jim that I sent you.

06-06-2012, 04:13 AM	#297
CamTata So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Rio Claro de Pavones Posts: 75	nice find ADG

06-06-2012, 04:15 AM	#298
CamTata So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Rio Claro de Pavones Posts: 75	We have an address match - it is the infamous gg