Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Lawsuit against FAIR

Sampson

By Sampson
in Miscellaneous

Recommended Posts

LDS4EVER Proficient

LDS4EVER

Posted
Posted
That's not correct. Cybersquatting is against the law, and Allen Wyatt is wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tanners get these domains handed to them.

This statement would be correct if Wyatt had taken the domain names before the Tanners had a chance to do so. If the names were available and the Tanners choose not the register them, then they would be public property and freely avaialble to anyone else.

Monetary damages? Ouch. That could get expensive quick.

I'd be curious how the Tanner's could prove monitary damages.

smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
Posted

Is there any content on these sites? I tried to visit the domains noted in the article and didn't see anything.

Also, I am curious as to Allan's rationale for buying these sites. But as the matter is not in litigation, I doubt he'll say anything (and rightly so).

-Smac

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

will2believe:

No they're really no threat. More like a pain in the patoot. :P

I haven't read the suit, so I can't say much about it. But it sounds to me like the Tanner's are just getting bored AGAIN, and wanting a little attention.

USU78 Grand Master

USU78

Posted
Posted
That's not correct. Cybersquatting is against the law, and Allen Wyatt is wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tanners get these domains handed to them.

This statement would be correct if Wyatt had taken the domain names before the Tanners had a chance to do so. If the names were available and the Tanners choose not the register them, then they would be public property and freely avaialble to anyone else.

Monetary damages? Ouch. That could get expensive quick.

I'd be curious how the Tanner's could prove monitary damages.

The Tanners probably own the names and could probably prevail on the issue of unreasonable interference with their intellectual property rights, but establishing damages is quite a tricky business.

I doubt they'd see a penny, but they'll probably get the domain names compelled to be transferred to them.

mnn727 Grand Master

mnn727

Posted
Posted

That's not correct. Cybersquatting is against the law, and Allen Wyatt is wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tanners get these domains handed to them.

Cybersquatting has a very well defined legal defination. I wish the article would have printed the domain names. If they were (for example) their names (ie SandraTanner.com), then I agree, the courts will probably make them be turned over. However the fact that Utah Lighthouse Ministries has a very well known website of their own that has been in existance for a number of years will probably preclude anything happining that would involve any similiar domain names.

Whether Mr Wyatt is wrong to have these domains point to FAIR articles or not is a decision each person needs to make, however if you think its wrong, then I would suggest you also complain about lds-mormon.com a notorious Anti-LDS rag - site

Confidential Informant Veteran

Confidential Informant

Posted
Posted
hat's not correct. Cybersquatting is against the law, and Allen Wyatt is wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tanners get these domains handed to them.

Everybody chill. Cybersquatting is indeed against the law, but what Wyatt has done does not equate to cybersquatting. Why don't some of you actually look up the law? You'll note that the law inquestion makes exception for "fair use" for critiques and parodies, etc.

There is some really good case law in the area.

As to "monetary damages." What "damages" do you pretend the Tanners would prove?

C.I.

Jaybear Mentor

Jaybear

Posted
Posted

I doubt that monetary damages are the driving force in the case. Nominal damages are all that are needed to secure injunctive relief.

As for damages, never underestimate the ability of a creative attorney to create a damage claim. One was would to measure traffic volume. Every click to a websight can be assigned a monetary value.

Any real damages would come, by combining a cybersquating claim with a tortious interfernce claim. A state law tort claim could lead to punitive damages, if the Tanners could show that Wyatt acted with malice.

In any event, the merits of the case have nothing to do with faith, or belief of the parties, or more importantly the content of their respective messages.

Personally, I find the tactic of Mr. Wyatt offensive, and while I don't know if it fits, I hope it falls within the defintion of cybersquating. I believe the same to be true if someone were trying to hijack web users looking to find this site, because they did not like the message by those in charge of this domain.

PD1 Enthusiast

PD1

Posted
Posted
This statement would be correct if Wyatt had taken the domain names before the Tanners had a chance to do so.  If the names were available and the Tanners choose not the register them, then they would be public property and freely avaialble to anyone else.

Again, available to do what? You know, as well as I do, that FAIR, FARMS, and the rest of the so-called "apologists" of Mormondom cannot stand the Tanners. So, what better way to undermine their ministry on the Internet, than to set up bogus websites to steer people awry when whomever would like to access their site? Personally, if FAIR gets nailed for this pathetic act, they deserve it. Maybe it will teach them a lesson in what is fair for a change.

I'd be curious how the Tanner's could prove monitary damages.

I'm still curious why FAIR personnel thought it necessary to commit this act of fraud in the first place. Was it because those who might have visited FAIR, and maybe read some of its articles, along with some of the arguments taking place on its boards, found that its site was anything but fair, much less accurate when it comes to portraying Mormon beliefs? So, instead of shoring up its supposed apologetic, it decided to engage in underhanded, mean-spirited deception, thinking that if they could defeat the "antis" using that method, then everything would come up smelling just wonderful. Well, hopefully, FAIR and the boys will find out just how smelly their efforts were.

PD1 Enthusiast

PD1

Posted
Posted
This is embarrassing. Are the Tanners such a threat that we need to resort to such cheap tactics?

Apparently they must be. But, then again, I'm not surprised.

PD1 Enthusiast

PD1

Posted
Posted
will2believe:

No they're really no threat. More like a pain in the patoot. <_<

Yeah, the truth can be a pain at times, can't it? :P

I haven't read the suit, so I can't say much about it. But it sounds to me like the Tanner's are just getting bored AGAIN, and wanting a little attention.

And another cheap shot. Well, maybe you'll be given the opportunity to pitch-in a fews bucks to help salvage un-FAIR, if things pan out as they should. Yet, whatever happens, the "attention" FAIR is going to get from this is going to be everything but "boring." Revealing? Humiliating? Discrediting?

PD1 Enthusiast

PD1

Posted
Posted
Cybersquatting has a very well defined legal defination. I wish the article would have printed the domain names. If they were (for example) their names (ie SandraTanner.com), then I agree, the courts will probably make them be turned over. However the fact that Utah Lighthouse Ministries has a very well known website of their own that has been in existance for a number of years will probably preclude anything happining that would involve any similiar domain names.

The article did print the names of some of the sites. utahlighthouseministry.com, utahlighthouseminstry.org, sandratanner.com, jeraldtanner.com. Nothing obvious about what's going on with those names, is there? :P

Whether Mr Wyatt is wrong to have these domains point to FAIR articles or not is a decision each person needs to make, however if you think its wrong, then I would suggest you also complain about lds-mormon.com  a notorious Anti-LDS rag - site

And lds-mormon.com was set up with the same intent that Wyatt and FAIR set these bogus sites, right?

smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
Posted
hat's not correct. Cybersquatting is against the law, and Allen Wyatt is wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tanners get these domains handed to them.

Everybody chill. Cybersquatting is indeed against the law, but what Wyatt has done does not equate to cybersquatting. Why don't some of you actually look up the law? You'll note that the law inquestion makes exception for "fair use" for critiques and parodies, etc.

There is some really good case law in the area.

As to "monetary damages." What "damages" do you pretend the Tanners would prove?

C.I.

I think CI makes a good point. Allan may very well be on safe legal ground. We'll just need to wait and see.

However, I have heard (see, e.g., here) that Mormon.org was, at one point, a porn site. I would have been very opposed to that sort of thing, even if the purveyors of such filth were on safe legal ground.

The law seldom works as a decent proxy for one's conscience. It is quite easy to do something that is "legal" (or not illegal) and yet still be "wrong" in a moral sense. In the instance of taking domain names like Allan has done, I can't help but apply the Golden Rule. I conclude that this is not how I would like to be treated, so I would not treat the Tanners that way.

As I said previously, "I agree that what Allen did was a prank, even a funny one. However, I also think Allen should sell 'em the domain name if they want it. The Golden Rule and all that."

-Smac

PD1 Enthusiast

PD1

Posted
Posted
There's no grounds for a lawsuit! The purpose of the law is to protect the "goodwill" of an established brand.

Where's the "goodwill" in the Tanner's efforts? :P

The good will with the Tanner's is that at least they tell the truth.

Where's the good will in setting up bogus sites to lead people astray?

PD1 Enthusiast

PD1

Posted
Posted
And another cheap shot.

Another pot calling the kettle black comment... seems to be an epidemic on this site

Sorry, but I have not set up a series of bogus websites to lead people astray. :P

cinepro Grand Master

cinepro

Posted
Posted

This might be a stretch, but imagine this scenario with any other two competative entities. If you found out that Best Buy had registered every variation of "circuitcity.com", or that Burger King had registered every variation of "McDonalds.com", what would you think?

I think the Tanners should have the use of the domain names related to their organization, just as I think FAIR should have the use of any domain names related to their organization (with the exception of pre-registration by other organizations legitimately using the name "FAIR").

Laban's Heparin Collaborator

Laban's Heparin

Posted
Posted

Allen Wyatt's comment "I just grabbed the names because they were available" gives a new depth to the term "lame."

Somebody needs to tell Wyatt that www.satanswastebasket.com and www.brighamyoungsbeard.com are available, too.

To me, this smacks of desperation on the part of Wyatt, FAIR, et al.

It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...