[I was apparently BCC'd on this message sent to EFF. I think the problem that David has -- and I recognize this sounds a tad heartless -- is that the media's appetite for .sucks stories is waning. Media outlets reflect an approximation of the news that their readership cares about. Outlets that don't satisfy their customers will suffer reduced circulation and advertising revenue, and, if the disconnect becomes extreme enough, perish. Many companies have threatened lawsuits over *sucks domains, almost all misguided and terroristic, and such a threat is not as novel now as it was, say, in 1995. It's hard to appreciate from David's perspective, perhaps, but threats are not as newsworthy as an actual lawsuit. David may want to try the entertainment trade press; they could cover it as a business story. Or he could hire a lawyer (Vivendi likely would not back down just because of news coverage). Or move the site to a Geocities/Tripod location (currently it seems to be offline) while keeping the content intact. --Declan] ******** From: "TEAL EMLYN" <TEALat_private> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:17:24 -0400 To: askat_private, infoat_private Subject: need advice i know it may seem like small potatos, however, i am really disappointed at the media's overall lack of concern for internet free speech issues. vivendi-universal has threatened me with the all-too- familiar corporate tactic of threatening legal action if i don't hand over my "viviendiuniversalsucks.com" domain. but despite my sending the homemade press release you see below to more than 50 reporters, columnists, and tech news outlets, no one gives a crap. if no public support is generated they are likely to just quietly steam-roll me. the apathy displayed in this small instance is going to come back to haunt us all; it's depressing. if you or anyone you know have any advice i'm all ears. thanks. jds &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Communications Giant Vivendi Universal Threatens Free Speech Advocate With Legal Action Brookline, Ma. August 10, 2001 - - Paris-based communications giant Vivendi Universal, itself already hoarding several hundred inactive Internet domains, many in the supposedly noncommercial .ORG category, has threatened legal action against the owner of the domain "VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM." He had planned to link the domain to a consumer forum site. In a letter to free speech advocate David Sallen, through the New York law firm of Brown Raysman, Vivendi Universal has demanded the domain VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM be "immediately transferred" to them or face "liability in this matter," including, "treble damages [which] include recovery of money, damages, and attorney fees," as well as "statutory damages ranging up to . . . 100,000 dollars." Vivendi Universal makes no claim that the site's owner has offered the site for sale or profited in any way from the site. Ironically, this has not stopped the global powerhouse from accusing the unemployed current owner of "unfair competition," as well as "trademark infringement." "They're multi-national thugs," says Sallen. "U.S. courts have ruled that the use of a trademark in an Internet site for purposes of consumer commentary and criticism did not infringe or dilute that trademark. Moreover, they've held that an owner of a sucks site was 'exercising his right to publish critical commentary,' and that he could not do so without making reference to the trademark in question. Although the trademark holder may consider consumer commentary distasteful or unsatisfactory this is speech protected by the First Amendment...As such; a publisher may use the mark to identify the source of the goods or services of which he is complaining. This use is necessary to maintain broad opportunities for expression. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp v. Faber, 29 F.Supp.2d 1165, 1167 (C.D. Cal. 1998) "The question people should be asking," says Sallen, "is what possible use does Vivendi have for the site? Obviously they aren't planning to foster free speech. This is one more example of a foreign company trying to extend its trademark protection to eclipse First Amendment rights. The courts have already rejected this tactic, holding that trade mark rights are limited by First Amendment concerns. Justice Brandeis, long ago, put it best: 'If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.'" (ss 31:148 at 31-216) For more information contact David Sallen @ 6177316939, or tealat_private ##################################################################### ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 10:51:40 PDT