Anybody conversant in cybersquatting precedents?
Here's the WhoIs scoop:
Registrant Name: Jeffrey ReberryI also found LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter accounts, as well as a home address and phone number that appear relevant but have not been confirmed.
Registrant Organization: THIS - DOMAIN - IS - FOR - SALE
Registrant Street: 2635 Walnut Street
Registrant City: Denver
Registrant State/Province: Colorado
Registrant Postal Code: 80205
Registrant Country: United States
Registrant Phone: +1.3034785206
Registrant Email: sales@hugedomains.com
In the mean time, you can contact them here and inquire about their "Service You Can Trust" claim. I'm hoping someone with the ability to record phone calls can place one to their 1-303-893-0552 number and ask about the morality of this, and then post it on YouTube. Be great if they reached ol' Jeffrey himself. It looks like CO is a one-party consent state...
UPDATE: I'll let you know if they reply.
5 comments:
there goes waronguns.com, unless you tie it up first!
waronguns.com redirects to this site.
Forgive me, but I don't understand the gripe. Legally it's probably about trademarks anyway, but that's not my question.
My question is, "So what?" Libel or fraud is one thing, but are you suggesting that resources be expended in physically stopping someone from registering whatever they wish? If so, why and who should pay for it? More worrisome, who should do it?
I'm saying, legalities aside, this is immoral, and the parasite behind it ought to be judged as such. There would be no "Sipsey Street Irregulars" if not for Mike V inventing the term, and for this guy to try to make a buck off it is cheesy and wrong. If legalities, which I linked to and inquired about, enter into it, they are not my creation and I limited my recommendation to contacting the parasite and putting him on record as admitting he's the type of character who would steal someone else's ideas and use them --and then use the state to enforce his "claim."
"I'm saying, legalities aside, this is immoral, and the parasite behind it ought to be judged as such."
Thanks for the clarification. Makes perfect sense to me. I figure it's important that jerks remain free, since that's the only way non-jerks can be free too.
Post a Comment