A statement from the FurryMUCK wizards on the domain issue
Steven Stadnicki
who don't know me, I'm one of the long-time wizards on FurryMUCK. Since
I've been one of the people driving the furrymuck.com domain issue from
the wizards' side, I've decided to be the one to respond to the various
issues that have been raised publically in the matter. While some
wizards' opinions may differ from mine -- we're a diverse group with a
fairly diverse range of viewpoints -- I've shared this letter with the
rest of the wizcorps and can safely say that my statements reflect the
consensus view of the FurryMUCK wizards. The tone is likely to get
unfortunately legalistic in spots, but I think it's important to express
our view of the facts as we see them, as objectively as possible.
A bit of background on the situation: while it's possible that there may
have been isolated contact between Dwight Dutton and one of the wizards
at some point, as a group we weren't aware of his ownership of the
furrymuck.* domains until they were put up auction. The auction caught
us
all off-guard; Dwight made no attempts to contact the wizards and never
offered us the domains, but instead simply put them up for sale. Once
we became aware of the auction we tried to get in touch with Mr. Dutton
to express our discomfort with the auction itself and request that the
domains be transferred to us; we were more than willing to pay all the
fees he'd incurred in registering them. He refused our offer, and after
making it clear that we considered the domains to be rightfully ours and
that we thought he had no right to sell them, we eventually decided that
we had no choice but to contact eBay and request that the auction be
pulled.
So why do we consider the domain to be ours? As others have noted, we
have no copyright on the name FurryMUCK (and indeed, the name isn't a
copyrightable entity). However, we consider ourselves to have a
common-law service mark (SM) on the name FurryMUCK. The following
quotes
are from the US Patent and Trademark Office webpage on basic facts about
trademarks,
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/basic_facts.html:
"A TRADEMARK is either a word, phrase, symbol or design, or combination
of words, phrases, symbols or designs, which identifies and
distinguishes
the source of the goods or services of one party from those of others.
A service mark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and
distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product.
"Trademark rights arise from either (1) actual use of the mark, or (2)
the filing of a proper application to register a mark [...] Federal
registration is not required to establish rights in a mark, nor is it
required to begin use of a mark."
And according to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
(UDRP), http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm, the
conditions
necessary for a complaint are that the domain name in question "is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the complainant has rights", that the current holder has "no rights or
legitimate interests in respect of the domain name", and that the domain
"has been registered and is being used in bad faith."
Mr. Exline's offer is certainly a good one on the surface, but it has
what we consider to be some troubling aspects to it. For one, while he
promises to promote FurryMUCK on the domain 'in a manner acceptable to
the wizards', the domain (specifically, furrymuck.com) would still be
his
and nothing would prevent him from deciding to do something else with it
in the future. More importantly, though... he, naturally, demands 'an
obligatory (yet discrete) banner link' to ConFurence. As he says,
"That's all I'm asking for hosting the website on my nickel' -- but
none of the FurryMUCK administrators have asked Mr. Exline to host the
site, and in fact we have ample resources to do it ourselves. To use a
somewhat less-than-objective analogy, if someone steals your car and
starts
housing it in their garage, then even if they offer to do all the
maintenance on it and let you drive it around as long as you let them
keep it in their garage -- they've still stolen your car.
So why are we going to all this trouble? As cliche as it may sound, we
really are doing this for the good of the muck as a whole. FurryMUCK
has more than 10 years of history behind it now; it's grown right along
with the fandom, and its name carries an undeniable recognition factor
within the fandom. I would be deeply troubled if the FurryMUCK wizards
were to try and use the muck's name to advertise someone else's products
(banner ads in the login screen?) and I'm equally troubled with the
concept of someone else attempting to profit from FurryMUCK's good name.
This is more a matter of principle than anything else; speaking
personally, as a longtime FurryMUCK user and contributor I feel like my
own hard work would be exploited for someone else's profit, and I just
find that mildly offensive. I have no problems personally with Mr.
Exline, and certainly no problems with Confurence itself (this year will
mark my 11th straight year of attendance), but at the same time I must
disagree with his handling of this situation. I hope this letter better
explains my position in the matter, and the position of the wizards as a
group; please don't hesitate to contact me personally at the address
below
if you have any questions.
Steven Stadnicki/Shaterri
scr...@halcyon.com
ilr
This is easily one of the most petty business squables I've ever
seen on this NG. Stealing your car? I think the actual value
disputed here would dictate that statement changed to "They
stole my bike". And the jury is still out on the stealing part
since Domain trademarks are still pretty fuzzy as legal entities.
If you wanna be pissy at someone who's selfishly promoting you
with material gains on their minds but no care for your welfare,
try every facet of the media that's ever said anything about the
MUCK. They all make it sound like nothing more than a sex-talker
for besti@lists. Seems to me that Exline's the only independant
outfit out there who might actually help it's image. Wise up.
-Ilr
Steven Stadnicki
folks who don't know me, I'm one of the long-time wizards on
FurryMUCK. Since I've been one of the people driving the
furrymuck.com domain issue from the wizards' side, I've decided to
be the one to respond to the various issues that have been raised
publically in the matter. While some wizards' opinions may differ
from mine -- we're a diverse group with a fairly diverse range of
viewpoints -- I've shared this letter with the rest of the wizcorps
and can safely say that my statements reflect the consensus view of
the FurryMUCK wizards. The tone is likely to get unfortunately
legalistic in spots, but I think it's important to express our view
of the facts as we see them, as objectively as possible.
A bit of background on the situation: while it's possible that
there may have been isolated contact between Dwight Dutton and one
of the wizards at some point, as a group we weren't aware of his
ownership of the furrymuck.* domains until they were put up for
David White
"Steven Stadnicki" <scr...@nwnexus.com> wrote in message
news:3AC575A5...@nwnexus.com...
As cliche as it may sound,
> we really are doing this for the good of the muck as a whole.
> FurryMUCK has more than 10 years of history behind it now
And in that ten years, how many times did you or the other wizards try to
acquire the domain names? Heck, ten years ago there weren't that many domains
and I'd guess one or two were available. Or has someone been cybersquatting for
10 years hoping to make a killing off of the FurryMUCK financial empire. Yeah,
right. You guys got caught with yer pants down and now you cry foul. That is
your right I suppose but do you realize how petty this sounds?
Todd Knarr
> since Domain trademarks are still pretty fuzzy as legal entities.
Perhaps, but this situation isn't. He picked a name identical to
the one used to identify the MUCK, without having anything of his
own using the name in a different field. If he'd done that with
anything other than a domain name, it'd be no contest: he'd be
found to be trying to profit from someone else's name.
NB: 'he' here refers to Mr. Dutton, not Mr. Exline.
> for besti@lists. Seems to me that Exline's the only independant
> outfit out there who might actually help it's image. Wise up.
I think the point is they don't want him helping their image, they've
the resources to do it themselves if they feel that their image in fact
needs improving. Which is their prerogative.
--
Collin was right. Never give a virus a missile launcher.
-- Erk, Reality Check #8
Bruce
"Steven Stadnicki" <scr...@nwnexus.com> wrote in message
news:3AC575A5...@nwnexus.com...
> Hello there. This is Steven Stadnicki, a.k.a. Shaterri; for those
> folks who don't know me, I'm one of the long-time wizards on
> FurryMUCK. Since I've been one of the people driving the
> furrymuck.com domain issue from the wizards' side, I've decided to
> be the one to respond to the various issues that have been raised
> publically in the matter.
I actually would have preferred not to hear from you at all on this matter,
if the truth be known. Don't care, and it all strikes me as highly petty.
>
> So why are we going to all this trouble? As cliche as it may sound,
> we really are doing this for the good of the muck as a whole.
> FurryMUCK has more than 10 years of history behind it now; it's
> grown right along with the fandom, and its name carries an
> undeniable recognition factor within the fandom. I would be deeply
> troubled if the FurryMUCK wizards were to try and use the muck's
> name to advertise someone else's products (banner ads in the login
> screen?) and I'm equally troubled with the concept of someone else
> attempting to profit from FurryMUCK's good name.
>
> Steven Stadnicki/Shaterri
> scr...@halcyon.com
>
Yup, certainly as positive a recognition factor and as good a name
throughout the fandom as alt.fan.furry has. Yup, yup. I do believe I can
agree with you on this last point.
So I think you can tell that I don't understand why you are going to any
trouble at all; you appear in fact to be attempting to stir trouble up on
something that was about to be resolved. But then, that has been the
reputation of FM over the years that I have heard of it. Same reputation
as A.F.F., truth be known. I suppose you could say they go hand-in-hand as
far as having corresponding reputations for being first-class operations.
While I don't mind you wizards visiting from FurryMuck (that is certainly
your prerogative) I hope you don't really expect to convince us the place
has a "good name".
Thank you for the early morning laugh.
"We're off to see the wizards, the crazed wizards stuck in their muck..."
--
Bruce
abc
xyc c o y o t e
abc a t
zxd r i c o c h e t d o t
efd n e t
kle
xyz xyzxyz xyz xyzxyz xyzxyzxyzxyz xyzxyzxyzx xyz
xyz xyzxyz xyz xyzxyz xyzxyzxyzxyz xyzxyzxyzx xyz
magnwa
With all due respect, why do you wait until three years after the
domains have been purchased? I mean, I remember a LONG time ago
going to www.furrymuck.com and getting forwarded to www.furry.com.
You cannot expect ALL of us to believe that no one had any idea
that these names were not taken. Under the law, you did not
adequately defend your service mark, and therefore you do not
have as strong a claim on the domain names. Wizards there have
been told regarding the domain name thing. They didn't respond then.
So why now, suddenly, do you go after the names?
Magnwa
Bruce
"magnwa" <mag...@magnwa.roarmail.net> wrote in message
news:slrn9cbv6o...@magnwa.roarmail.net...
Because it is a nothing issue. It wasn't then, and it still isn't now.
Except some anal-retentive wizzes apparently want to pretend that this is a
BFD.
It is a tiny little service with a rather odd "customer" base - folks stick
their heads into it and disappear from life for a bit. Fine, no problem
playing fantasy games out of one's free time. Folks do such all the time,
like by heading off into the movie theatre. The movie industrys can
sometimes make big bucks, FM does not and undoubtedly cannot.
I very seriously doubt that if FM went commercial and tried to pay for its
staff and hardware it would still be around in eighteen months. If it had
any real value someone would have made an effort years ago to UTILIZE the
name, but nobody cared even when it was reviewed and had some current press.
Just how much branding value dollar-wise do you think a Furrymuck
Hermaphrodite Action Figure would bring to Toys-R-Us? Or would bring to a
vendor at a convention? Would the vendor who made $500 off FM T-Shirts at
last year's conventions please raise his hand now?
FM only keeps going by the sweat of its volunteers, but it is not The Red
Cross or The Salvation Army. It is a fantasy realm and does not contribute
to the betterment of mankind. So a benefactor walks up and asks for a
courtesy in exchange for his kindness and the wizzes discuss it amongst
themselves and are opting to unzip and piss on him. Now we know why they
are called wizzes.
But I like the joke regarding FM's "good name". That's an amusing one.
For the past eight years whenever fans have mentioned FM to me it has
frequently been in the context of whom got into what kind of
argument/pissing-match with what other individual on FM over who-cares issue
XYZ. So I guess this latest incident is just another
same-old-thing-today-on-FM all dressed up in finery like it is a brand new
chapter in FM's life-cycle.
Strange folk to want to pretend they have a cultural jewel there. We make
no such claim of A.F.F. having a good name.
But Steven Stadnicki's post is useful for letting everyone have a brief
behind-the-FM-scenes look at the pettiness going on within that particular
realm. Apparently there is an amazing collection of egos online there.
A basketball was left rolling around the court and someone picked it up so
folks would not trip over it. Now the individual's who could not be
bothered before with getting up off their lazy asses to pick it up for
themselves are attempting to cry "foul" - even though no game was in
progress. This is the more accurate analogy - not that fake "stolen car"
one.
Kimba W. Lion
>we thought he had no right to sell them, we eventually
>decided that we had no choice but to contact eBay and request that
>the auction be pulled.
Yeah, I figured it was something like that.
You succeeded, you got someone who seems to be donating a lot to you, so
what are you going on about? You didn't do a thing to convince me you're
right, just added another reason I'm glad to have nothing to do with your
MUCK.
Kimba
Michael Campbell
>Since I've been one of the people driving the
>furrymuck.com domain issue from the wizards' side, I've decided to
>be the one to respond to the various issues that have been raised
>publically in the matter. While some wizards' opinions may differ
>from mine -- we're a diverse group with a fairly diverse range of
>viewpoints -- I've shared this letter with the rest of the wizcorps
>and can safely say that my statements reflect the consensus view of
>the FurryMUCK wizards. The tone is likely to get unfortunately
>legalistic in spots, but I think it's important to express our view
>of the facts as we see them, as objectively as possible.
Objective? Please. The wizzes got caught with their collective pants down,
and now you're desperately trying to pull them up and hope no one notices.
>A bit of background on the situation: while it's possible that
>there may have been isolated contact between Dwight Dutton and one
>of the wizards at some point, as a group we weren't aware of his
>ownership of the furrymuck.* domains until they were put up for
>auction. The auction caught us all off-guard; Dwight made no
>attempts to contact the wizards and never offered us the domains,
>but instead simply put them up for sale.
And why should Mr. Dutton have 'offered you the domains'? They were his
property. He paid for them, and registered them fair and square. To my
understanding he originally registered the names so that no one (probably
one of Furrymuck's many enemies) would register them and use them to
distribute anti-FM propoganda.
Despite this, he owed FM and it's current management nothing. He was under
no obligation to give you people first dibs on anything.
> Once we became aware of
>the auction we tried to get in touch with Mr. Dutton to express our
>discomfort with the auction itself and request that the domains be
>transferred to us; we were more than willing to pay all the fees
>he'd incurred in registering them.
So he has a choice: Sell them for cost, or auction them off to the highest
bidder. Hmm, tough choice.
>He refused our offer, and after
>making it clear that we considered the domains to be rightfully
>ours and that we thought he had no right to sell them, we eventually
>decided that we had no choice but to contact eBay and request that
>the auction be pulled.
So could have bid on them and won them and saved us all this aggrivation,
but instead you whined to Ebay. Typical.
>So why do we consider the domain to be ours? As others have noted,
>we have no copyright on the name FurryMUCK (and indeed, the name
>isn't a copyrightable entity). However, we consider ourselves to
>have a common-law service mark (SM) on the name FurryMUCK. The
>following quotes are from the US Patent and Trademark Office webpage
>on basic facts about trademarks,
(Legalese snipped in the interests of space)
Even from the quotes, it's obvious, even to someone as unschooled in the
law such as myself, that your legal hold on the name "FurryMUCK" is tenuous
at the very best. One good legal shove by somone with appropriate legal and
financial rescources, and your whole house of cards would collapse.
>Mr. Exline's offer is certainly a good one on the surface, but it
>has what we consider to be some troubling aspects to it. For one,
>while he promises to promote FurryMUCK on the domain 'in a manner
>acceptable to the wizards', the domain (specifically, furrymuck.com)
>would still be his and nothing would prevent him from deciding to do
>something else with it in the future. More importantly, though...
>he, naturally, demands 'an obligatory (yet discrete) banner link' to
>ConFurence. As he says, "That's all I'm asking for hosting the
>website on my nickel' -- but none of the FurryMUCK administrators
>have asked Mr. Exline to host the site, and in fact we have ample
>resources to do it ourselves. To use a somewhat less-than-objective
>analogy, if someone steals your car and starts housing it in their
>garage, then even if they offer to do all the maintenance on it and
>let you drive it around as long as you let them keep it in their
>garage -- they've still stolen your car.
But you seem to be missing a point here. This point being? the 'car' that
you're accusing other people of stealing WAS NEVER YOURS TO BEGIN WITH. It
was bought by one person, and sold to another. The person it was sold to is
offering to let you use the car, and even store it in their garage. But no,
You're stamping your little furry feet, screaming "NO! YOU CAN'T DO IT!
BECAUSE IT'S OURS! BECAUSE WE SAY IT IS!" And you can quote 'common law'
all you want, if this got dragged into court you wouldn't have a legal leg
to stand on and you know it. If this was such an all-fired important issue
for you, as it damn well should have been before now, you would have
registered the domain names yourselves years ago, as opposed to waiting
until it came to this.
>So why are we going to all this trouble? As cliche as it may sound,
>we really are doing this for the good of the muck as a whole.
>FurryMUCK has more than 10 years of history behind it now; it's
>grown right along with the fandom, and its name carries an
>undeniable recognition factor within the fandom.
>I would be deeply
>troubled if the FurryMUCK wizards were to try and use the muck's
>name to advertise someone else's products (banner ads in the login
>screen?) and I'm equally troubled with the concept of someone else
>attempting to profit from FurryMUCK's good name.
So answer me something: Why haven't you gone after Jim Groat, who's been
selling his bound editions of 'West Corner of the Park' for years? His
repeated depictions of FurryMUCK users as desperate one-handed typists
hasn't been anything but defamitory and in 'bad faith', so why hasn't he
been asked to cease and decist?
> This is more a
>matter of principle than anything else; speaking personally, as a
>longtime FurryMUCK user and contributor I feel like my own hard work
>would be exploited for someone else's profit, and I just find that
>mildly offensive. I have no problems personally with Mr. Exline,
>and certainly no problems with Confurence itself (this year will
>mark my 11th straight year of attendance), but at the same time I
>must disagree with his handling of this situation.
You disagree with 'his handling of the situation' because he didn't knuckle
under and give you everything you wanted, exactly the way you wanted it.
The man paid $500 for those domains, and deserves a return on his
investment, even something as small as a banner ad.
But no. He offered them to you on a silver platter, and you slapped it away
because the platter wasn't gold.
>I hope this
>letter better explains my position in the matter,
All it explains is that FurryMUCK's management is not willing to play the
game the way the rest of the world plays it.
--
Michael Campbell (mecamp...@aol.com)
THE FURRY REFORM FOUNDATION: Daring to hold Furry fandom to the same
standards as the rest of the world
Cerulean
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( 77n>S-,,',u!+ea poo6 s! s+!qqoH,,
Michael Campbell
>Don't you hate it when there's no good guys?
Welcome to the real world, kid.
--
Michael Campbell (mecamp...@aol.com)
"We can evade reality, but we can't evade the consequences of evading
reality -Ayn Rand
Kimba W. Lion
>Don't you hate it when there's no good guys?
I see a couple.
But I don't hear either of them whining about some people's pettiness.
"Wizards"--sheeyeah, right.
Kimba
Baloo Ursidae
> Don't you hate it when there's no good guys?
Well, I think the Wizards are the good guys here. They don't want someone
else making a buck on thier servicemark.
--
Baloo
Move "SIG". For great justice!
ilr
"Baloo Ursidae" <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote in message news:ngp7a9...@ursine.dyndns.org...
> Cerulean <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote:
>
> > Don't you hate it when there's no good guys?
>
> Well, I think the Wizards are the good guys here. They don't want someone
> else making a buck on thier servicemark.
>
-Ilr
Baloo Ursidae
> Since when does that define "good-guys"?
Usually it doesn't. I don't see this much better than a draw.
Michael Campbell
>
>"Baloo Ursidae" <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote in message
>news:ngp7a9...@ursine.dyndns.org...
>> Cerulean <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote:
>>
>> > Don't you hate it when there's no good guys?
>>
>> Well, I think the Wizards are the good guys here. They don't want
>> someone else making a buck on thier servicemark.
If they were so eager to keep it from happening, they would have covered
all their legal bases years ago.
white-...@webtv.net
By the way, there are now about 50 top level domains. You going to go
out and register furrymuck.gs, furrymuck.it, etc. ?
By the way, furrymuck.tv is registered to someone other than you. Time
to write more letters.
magnwa
>Cerulean <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote:
>
>> Don't you hate it when there's no good guys?
>
>Well, I think the Wizards are the good guys here. They don't want someone
>else making a buck on thier servicemark.
As opposed to when they were offered the domain name YEARS ago and
declined it? This is an example of furrymuck wizards getting off on
power.
Hey, Wizzes, you don't HAVE your power out here. You didn't defend
your mark when he got it, and you didn't take it to ICANN arbitration.
There is no active court case, and there is no civil tort here. So
with due respect, either sue Darrell for the domain, pay the arbitration
fee and fight for it, or shut up.
Magnwa
Baloo Ursidae
> By the way, there are now about 50 top level domains. You going to go
> out and register furrymuck.gs, furrymuck.it, etc. ?
No, there's about 250 top level domains. Just because some other
countries decided to be DNS whores isn't my problem. Its not *my*
country's namespace being abused.
David Green
magnwa <mag...@magnwa.roarmail.net> wrote:
> Baloo Ursidae <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:
>>Cerulean <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't you hate it when there's no good guys?
>>
>>Well, I think the Wizards are the good guys here. They don't want someone
>>else making a buck on thier servicemark.
>
>As opposed to when they were offered the domain name YEARS ago and
>declined it? This is an example of furrymuck wizards getting off on
>power.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't seen anyone claiming that the
wizards "were offered the domain name YEARS ago and declined it" other
than you. Where are you getting your information?
--
Call the Physics Friends Helpline!
Find out about your special density!
magnwa
>Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't seen anyone claiming that the
>wizards "were offered the domain name YEARS ago and declined it" other
>than you. Where are you getting your information?
I remember a while ago typing in www.furrymuck.org, and reading that I must've
wanted www.furry.org, and that the furrymuck wizards were in the process of
taking over the domain. That they had been notified and offered it. Now, it
could be that the owner at the time was lying.. but.. why?
Magnwa
Bruce
"Baloo Ursidae" <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:ngp7a9...@ursine.dyndns.org...
> Cerulean <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote:
>
> > Don't you hate it when there's no good guys?
>
> Well, I think the Wizards are the good guys here. They don't want someone
> else making a buck on thier servicemark.
>
> --
> Baloo
Oh goody! Another A.F.F. poll.
I vote for Darrel being the good guy, and I vote for the wizzes as being the
jerks.
Mainly because I wanted to get onto FM only a year ago (never got around to
it) and quickly discovered that the Furrymuck domain did not get me there.
So if a total NEWBIE to mucking can figure this out in five minutes, only
twelve months ago, what the f*ck have the wizards been doing the previous
eight years?
So, since the wizards are apparently so d*mn righteous about domain names
all of a sudden, is WWW.FURRY.COM going to be given up in trade? I would
not have associated www.furry.com with the furrymuck mud, and in fact
initially failed to do so. Only after I performed a web search was the
association known.
Someone has been maintaining www.furry.com all this time. Surely that
person must have realized what was going on.
--
Bob Guthrie
"Bruce" <notnice...@spambegone.net> wrote:
> "Baloo Ursidae" <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote in message
> news:ngp7a9...@ursine.dyndns.org...
> > Cerulean <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote:
> > Well, I think the Wizards are the good guys here. They don't want someone
> > else making a buck on th(ei)r servicemark.
> > --
> > Baloo
> Oh goody! Another A.F.F. poll.
>
> I vote for Darrel being the good guy, and I vote for the wizzes as being the jerks.
>
> Bruce
Seconded,...
Bob "Mineminemine!!!" Guthrie
Alan Kennedy
You guys had 10 years, 10 years, and once again, 10 years to register the
domain. All I can say is that you guys called 'foul' when you were up on
your roost sitting pretty like there was no end to your reign. Whatever the
case, you guys got you legs taken out from under you, but your egos were too
inflated and wide to let you fall down.
Regardless, you all are just a bunch of whining toddlers that got your butts
whomped, plain and simple.
And as far as 'Furry's Good Name' *blinks* All I ever hear about FM
outiside of furry is thats is a cesspoll full of sexual perverts and
p3d0phil3$, then again I must just be reading the wrong places.
--
Alan Kennedy [TriGem Olandarinse]
EMAIL : trigem@_REMOVEGIBBERISH_portalofevil.com
YAHOO : goldanthrowolf & trigem_olandarinse
WWW : http://www.furnation.com/trigem
ICQ : 8781052
Vanity Fair: "the best and most expensive asswipe i ever used"
Glen Wooten
From Dwight Dutton - he made this statement some time ago, and it was
confirmed in the posting that Shatirri made (at the beginning of this
whole thread...)
--
Glen Wooten
_________________________________________________________
| primary: jag...@rexx.com | secondary: leo...@aol.com |
_________________________________________________________
| Terrie's web page: http://www.rexx.com/~jaguar |
_________________________________________________________
Steven Stadnicki
Glen Wooten wrote:
> David Green <nebu...@marmorata.vulpine.org> wrote:
> > Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't seen anyone claiming that the
> > wizards "were offered the domain name YEARS ago and declined it" other
> > than you. Where are you getting your information?
> From Dwight Dutton - he made this statement some time ago, and it was
> confirmed in the posting that Shatirri made (at the beginning of this
> whole thread...)
Actually, all that my post said is that 'it's possible that there may have
been
isolated contact between Dwight Dutton and one of the wizards at some
point' -- I said that to cover my bases, because while I'd also heard
comments from other people claiming that Dwight had contacted wizards
offering the domain, I'd never seen any such offer and none of the other
wizards could recall any such offer. Nothing that I can see in any of
Dwight's
posts suggests this, either, and I'd personally like to put this particular
facet
of the issue to rest. Considering that the InterNIC record was created less
than a year ago, the odds that we were, quote, 'offered the domain name
YEARS ago and declined it' seem very slim.
Steven Stadnicki/Shaterri
scr...@halcyon.com
Kitty Cat
"Alan Kennedy" <tri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a8sgc$qco$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> Bah...
>
> You guys had 10 years, 10 years, and once again, 10 years to register the
> domain.
10 years ago, there was essentially no World Wide Web. This issue didn't
exist.
>
> Regardless, you all are just a bunch of whining toddlers that got your
butts
> whomped, plain and simple.
And your name-calling is somehow moral and interesting?
>
> And as far as 'Furry's Good Name' *blinks* All I ever hear about FM
> outiside of furry is thats is a cesspoll full of sexual perverts and
> p3d0phil3$, then again I must just be reading the wrong places.
So, if that's what you know about it, why do you hang out here?
If I've got to start the Old Guard for there to be one, then I will. I'm a
proud Dinosaur of FurryMUCK and I know where that 'good name' came from.
If we're going to get slammed by Vanity Fair, we don't need you doing it.
Katerina
Michael Campbell
<9a8r5c$q5a$1...@raccoon.fur.com>:
>Oh goody! Another A.F.F. poll.
>
>I vote for Darrel being the good guy, and I vote for the wizzes as being
>the jerks.
What truly irritates me about this whole situation is the wizzes bulk
quantities of attitude: First they're angry about how Mr. Dutton simply
didn't OFFER the domains to them gratis, then offered to pay him the
pittance of the registration fees, which he should have been overjoyed and
honored to accept.
And just exactly WHY should they be on the receiving end of such
preferential treatment? Because they're FurryMUCK, and what good for the
muck is good for furry fandom, right?
Bah.
Dr. Cat
: I actually would have preferred not to hear from you at all on this matter,
: if the truth be known. Don't care, and it all strikes me as highly petty.
Some people are interested in hearing, and some aren't. Just like if
someone posts about a furry comic that some but not all of the a.f.f.
readers are interested in. And it's a furry-themed MUCK, used by
many of the furry fans reading this group, so I think it's on-topic.
I think it makes more sense to ignore the topics that don't interest
you here, and leave them to the people that ARE interested to enjoy,
rather than complain about them actually being discussed.
: Yup, certainly as positive a recognition factor and as good a name
: throughout the fandom as alt.fan.furry has. Yup, yup. I do believe I can
: agree with you on this last point.
Whatever rights a person, group, or organization does or doesn't have,
I don't think they generally hinge on whether they have a good reputation
or not. Whether they manage to GET what they have coming to them might
depend on being well-liked in many cases, but that doesn't necessarily
mean it's always fair.
For the record, though, I would call FurryMUCK's reputation "mixed".
Some people think well of it, some people have a very low opinion of
it indeed, and others fall somewhere in-between.
It is hard to deny that it's been large and influential in the furry
fandom, and that quite a number of people have enjoyed it over the years.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Of course you CAN deny it. Anything can be denied, even
things that are easily proven. I hereby deny that gravity exists.
Nothing ever falls when you knock it off a table. I deny it. See how
easy that was? Ok so maybe it's not even "hard to deny" really.)
Martin Skunk
> > You guys had 10 years, 10 years, and once again, 10 years to register the
> > domain.
>
> 10 years ago, there was essentially no World Wide Web. This issue didn't
> exist.
Yes, 10 years ago, it didn't exist. But 5 years ago, it did, and 4
years ago, it did exist, too. and 3 years ago, and 2 years ago, and the
last year, the WWW was out there...
Anyway, I'm not sure if this issue DID NOT exist 10 years ago. I
suppose even since then, furrymuck could be accessed by telnetting to
furry.org, port 8888, no? I suspect the DNS system was introduced on
Internet back in November, 1987. Back in 1990, it was widely used on
Internet already.
> > And as far as 'Furry's Good Name' ...
> So, if that's what you know about it, why do you hang out here?
>
> If I've got to start the Old Guard for there to be one, then I will. I'm a
> proud Dinosaur of FurryMUCK and I know where that 'good name' came from.
>
> If we're going to get slammed by Vanity Fair, we don't need you doing it.
Rather than being "against" furrymuck, a service that has been running
totally for free for all the furries who wanted to join, a service that
runs for a record time by their wizzes, who did all of this just because
of their love to the genre, I would say most of the messages on this
thread are against the attitude of some of these wizzes (as we don't
know if there was a total agreement on the "board of wizzes" about this
issue), as they seemed not to care about the issue until it was too
late, and they used their position as holders of that name only in that
very moment, precisely when the legal owner of the domain names said he
was tired of holding it with no reason and that he would auction them
publically.
I would say the wizzes lacked any interest regarding self-promotion
and/or public relationships, apart of running the muck, for a lot of
time, until this moment. Their actual webpage, available at
www.furry.com, was last updated in 1997, and even although 32 months
have passed, the section called "directory" has been always inactive,
and they offer a link to "The Squeeky Clean Furry Art Archive" on their
links page. (!)
Therefore, for a lot of people on this forum, it seems that this
movement "in defense of furry muck" aimed too little and came too late,
and was rather misguided, as Darrell Exline, the actual owner of the
furrymuck.* domains, has offered the domains .org and .edu to the wizzes
for free (in exchange of a commercial ad, yes, but I suppose I would do
the same if I was on Darrell's position).
That's why I think the backlash against these wizzes (not all of them,
but those who seem to be in disagreement with this operation) is so
insulting for many of the posters on this thread. And please, let's not
get the terms confused. Furry Muck is a venerable institution that
deserves all our respect and admiration, and I would center the
discussion about this issue on these wizzes rather than in the
institution.
I would suggest Darrell to arrange with the wizzes in general a private
agreement to let them use his domain names, under certain conditions and
terms, assuming these conditions aren't either outraging or go against
FM's policies.
--- Martin Skunk
magnwa
>agreement to let them use his domain names, under certain conditions and
>terms, assuming these conditions aren't either outraging or go against
>FM's policies.
Great letter.. however.. I thought Darrell made it clear that he did offer
it to the wizards. From what has been said and done in the past, I am
lead to believe that Dwight Dutton did.
Sadly.. it just isn't right.. the whole situation isn't right. But this
wasn't a case of someone cyber-squatting. This was a well known event.
www.furry.org hasn't been altered in forever, and to be a furry does
not require one to be on furry muck. Furry Muck is better suited with
furrymuck.org, and so I offer this as a resolution to this matter.
1. Furry Muck tenders the billing, admin, and technical contacts of
furry.org to Darrel.
2. Darrel tenders the billing, admin, and technical contacts of
furrymuck.org to FurryMuck. .com and .net can CNAME to .org.
If this goes to ICANN or to court, it will only seek to hurt Furry
Muck's image. CF and the CF group will not be seen as the wrong
doers here. FurryMuck MAY win the arbitration, or they may lose
it , as well as the service mark for failure to defend. Since
the mark is not registered as a trademark in the US, they could only
seek actual damages from Darrel. Since FM is a free entity, there
are no actual damages. The end result will be that FM takes someone
to court over an issue that would have been amicably resolved had they
paid attention.
You tell me who looks good or bad.
Magnwa
Alan Kennedy
news:65Zx6.426$al2....@news2.atl...
> 10 years ago, there was essentially no World Wide Web. This issue didn't
exist.
Deary, I was on thet 9 years ago, I was connecting to a Lynx browser in BW
with a dialup and had to access the net with a Telnet connection. Though,
the net has been around since the 70's.
> And your name-calling is somehow moral and interesting?
I figured rather then the things I WANT to say about a few of the wizzes, I
figured some petty insults would do better. Shaterri is a good guy, but
several of them, including S'A'Lis or whatever his name is I got a problem
with.
> So, if that's what you know about it, why do you hang out here?
Becaues I've been there, oh, 5 damn years? Perhaps I stick around to watch
the rest of the newbies figure it out, help, and kepe in contact with
people. I dunno, perhaps I have no life?
> If I've got to start the Old Guard for there to be one, then I will. I'm a
proud Dinosaur of FurryMUCK and I know where that 'good name' came from.
So? I've been there 5 years like I said. I won't say that I'm a dinosaur,
more like a senior citizen and I've seen my fair share of the stupidity that
can be dished out there.
> If we're going to get slammed by Vanity Fair, we don't need you doing it.
>
> Katerina
Bullshit. Most furs need a does of reality added to the soup. Granted, I
know its a very assenine thing to do, but I'd rather kicks some furry ass a
few times, rather then see the furry fandom as a whole drop to it's knees
and begin to start slobbering the knobs of some corporate twink, or some
zealot with a mission to burn every living furry off the face of the planet.
Its common sense, and most furs that I've met have a SERIOUS lack of it.
Dr. Cat
: Objective? Please. The wizzes got caught with their collective pants down,
Granted, the people running FurryMUCK *could* have registered the domain
before anyone else did. Had they done so at the time, people probably
would have nodded their heads and not said anything, figuring that the
only people using that name for anything should probably be the ones to
get the internet domains for them.
But if they're sloppy or careless, does that change the question of
what's the most sensible and reasonable place for ownership of the
domain to reside? If there were both a MUCK and an un-related comic
book using that made-up word for a title, there'd be clear grounds
for dispute. If they used a common name like "Cloud" for the name
of their muck, there'd be definite reasons for dispute with other
people having other reasons for wanting cloud.com. But in this case,
even the people disputing ownership seem to agree that there's only
one sensible purpose for the domain furrymuck.com, and that's to hook
people up to FurryMUCK and to information about FurryMUCK. They only
disagree on who should own the actual domain name and use it to do
so. Clearly everyone mostly agrees on what the domain name should be
used FOR.
: And why should Mr. Dutton have 'offered you the domains'? They were his
: property. He paid for them, and registered them fair and square.
To be nice. If they screwed up and failed to grab it themself before
anyone else does, does that make them so reprehensible in and of itself
that we must tell anyone who has the opportunity to do them a favor "No,
DON'T do them that favor, people who fail to take care of their own
interests are inherently unworthy of favors and having someone else make
up for their mistakes that way"? Nonsense. If somebody isn't legally
required to do someone a particular favor, does that mean they shouldn't
do it? Nonsense again. The domain is only good for one thing, connecting
people to the MUCK and its info, and the people who run the MUCK are the
sensible choice for people to handle things related to it. If one has
that domain for whatever reason, doing them a favor is a very plausible
thing to do with it, although one certainly never HAS to do other people
a favor. "Because it's nice to do people favors" is one half of why he
perhaps should have given it to them, and "the absence of any strong
reason to do otherwise, apart from attempting to profit financially" is
the other half. Profiteering is certainly legal in many cases, and it's
not on moral ground nearly as shaky as the comitting of crimes or such.
But I don't think it's something our society looks very highly on, even
if it's "allowable". The doing of favors for someone that dropped the
ball and didn't look after their own self-interest, though, society
tends to smile upon.
: And you can quote 'common law' all you want, if this got dragged into
: court you wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on and you know it.
I'm curious, on what grounds to you think the court would reject the
notion that they have a common law Service Mark on the name? I think
it sounds pretty plausible to me.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Or we could all just agree to give furrymuck.com to that
wacky website that shows cats on people's flatbed scanners. That way
a few more people in the world would get to enjoy the humor of seeing
cats on flatbed scanners, and isn't that a good thing?)
Bruce
"Dr. Cat" <c...@sullivan.realtime.net> wrote in message
news:3ac8f...@feed1.realtime.net...
>
> But if they're sloppy or careless, does that change the question of
> what's the most sensible and reasonable place for ownership of the
> domain to reside?
>
> Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions
>
Historically? Apparently the answer is "yes", according to the courts.
And arbitration/courts often decide these kinds of things.
A "you snooze you lose" default appears to be active.
-Bruce
Bruce
"Dr. Cat" <c...@sullivan.realtime.net> wrote in message
news:3ac8d...@feed1.realtime.net...
>
> I think it makes more sense to ignore the topics that don't interest
> you here, and leave them to the people that ARE interested to enjoy,
> rather than complain about them actually being discussed.
>
> Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions
I was more upset at the "we are the good guys in the white hats" nonsense
that was pouring forth from his post, actually. I will try to make this
more clear in the future.
That plus the entire post could have been re-written in a couple of
sentences, and the world would have continued on its merry way. Here, let
me make an attempt at the post that "Steven Stadnicki" *should* have written
IF he was a mature and reasonable fellow:
Dear Darrell,
Thank you for your kind generousity. Myself and the FM wizards will be
happy to work with you in setting this up so that future fans may quickly
discover the material needed to become active in Furrymuck.
Yours truly,
Steven Stadnicki
Instead "Steven Stadnicki" opted to play bull in a china shop. Not a very
wise choice considering the alternate path he could have taken.
As I have posted, someone planted FM material out on top of www.furry.com
and www.furry.org, in place of the www.furrymuck which I hunted down a year
ago. So obviously somebody was working at being clueless at least twelve
months prior to this incident. This may not be important to you, but I
consider a good reflection that nobody cared.
But if you think the eventual return on the wizard's investment will prove
to be worth all the bad PR they have stirred up, well that is your right.
> and leave them to the people that ARE interested to enjoy,
By the way - tell me who on this board is enjoying Steven Stadnicki's post,
Dr. Cat. Is it you?
Stormfront T. Dragon
> But in this case,
> even the people disputing ownership seem to agree that there's only
> one sensible purpose for the domain furrymuck.com, and that's to hook
> people up to FurryMUCK and to information about FurryMUCK.
It could be used as a site for furry fans into the wet-and-messy scene. ;>
--
/\ \\ /\ ____________________________________________
/| \ (''-.\ _| Stormfront Thundra Dragon |_
/ | \//""| \/| > | The Over-yiffed Hermaphrodite Storm Dragon | <
/ | / | | // >_\""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""/_<
/ |/"(_)) |// \
"""\|\\(_))\//""" She waits for me at night, she waits for me in silence
/W / ()) She gives me all her tenderness and takes away my pain
/ \ \\ " And so far she hasn't run, though I swear she's had
__/ // // her moments
"---" "WWW She still believes in miracles while others cry in vain
--- Billy Joel, "All About Soul"
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<notnice...@spambegone.net> wrote:
> "Baloo Ursidae" <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote in message
> news:ngp7a9...@ursine.dyndns.org...
>> Cerulean <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote:
>>
>> > Don't you hate it when there's no good guys?
>>
>> Well, I think the Wizards are the good guys here. They don't want someone
>> else making a buck on thier servicemark.
>>
>> --
>> Baloo
>
>
> Oh goody! Another A.F.F. poll.
>
> I vote for Darrel being the good guy, and I vote for the wizzes as being the
> jerks.
Sorry I'm confused. If an artist puts his hard work into creating an
artwork and then it gets copyied, then all these furries are telling
me that the copyiest is bad and the artist good.
But if the wizzes work to create a name for themselves and someone
tries to make money off that name then the wizzes are bad.
Can someone decide if your IP fans or not.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
Historically the complainer seems to
Allen Kitchen
Still, there is a simple and honorable way to make everybody happy.
My suggestion is for Exline to offer to the wizcorp of FM, one time and
one time only, in a very polite and formal manner, the domains purchased
for 550$ (a mere 10% added on, which no doubt will then go to Dwight himself
as the auction was unfairly terminated.) The wizzes will then have 5 business
days to either accept or reject the offer. This will be publically done
and open to scrutiny by all furs acting as witnesses.
If they accept, the transfer takes place, and they do what they like with
the domains. Otherwise, the domains stay in Darrel's hands and HE does
what he wants with the domains.
That will be the end of it. Period. Fine'. No more arguments.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
http://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/
Brian O'connell
which involves a domain name... It's more akin to someone taking a name and
claiming it as their own irregardless of who else has it, who makes sure
that (a) it's known that the name is not theirs (such as a stage name in
acting, or a pseudonym for writing/drawing), and (b) is making it clear that
the name is up for grabs...
In the case of FurryMuck, it's a matter of a bunch of wizzes who are too
cheap to pay for an auction bid (or even offer to buy it outright for
anything more than the registration fees, because they're too cheap to pay
someone for performing an act they were too lazy to perform themselves)...
This is ironic considering how many of them are involved in high paying jobs
in their secret identities, when any of them could have (a) filed for a
registered trademark or (b) claimed said domain name when such became a
common practice... To avoid the embarrassment of their shortsightedness
(remember that these are the same folks who condoned and gleefully coddled
R@andom [munged name since he pretty much neurotically searches the
newsgroup for his name in postings] when he was up to his shit on FurryMuck,
and outright ignored anyone who pointed him out as a troublemaker), they
chose the underhanded way out, getting the auction shut down, hoping to
strong arm Darrel into selling it to them at a considerable loss...
IMO, he should post the domain to a furry auction site (either furbid or
furbuy), and let mayhem ensue...;)
Altogether, this is more akin to "John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmitt?!? How
dare you have the same name as me! I'll sue!!!"
--
Reverse the e-mail's spelling to reply...
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
news:slrn9cifup....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
Ben_Raccoon
"Stormfront T. Dragon" <storm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>
> It could be used as a site for furry fans into the wet-and-messy scene. ;>
Soap, anyone? ;)
--
For a brief time I was here; and for a brief time I mattered. - Harlan
Ellison.
Shameless website plug. :) http://www.furnation.com/ben_raccoon/
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> "Dr. Cat" <c...@sullivan.realtime.net> wrote in message
> news:3ac8f...@feed1.realtime.net...
>>
>> But if they're sloppy or careless, does that change the question of
>> what's the most sensible and reasonable place for ownership of the
>> domain to reside?
>
> Historically? Apparently the answer is "yes", according to the courts.
> And arbitration/courts often decide these kinds of things.
>
> A "you snooze you lose" default appears to be active.
But with URL it has been mostly in the other direction.
Michael Campbell
<2880FFD4CEE07774.53D4B1BE...@lp.airnews.net>:
It seems like a sensible option to me, but then I like to think that I'm a
sensible person.
The FurryMUCK wizcorps has repeatedly demonstrated that they are not.
So it won't happen.
--
Michael Campbell (mecamp...@aol.com)
"We can evade reality, but we can't evade the consequences of evading
reality -Ayn Rand
Dr. Cat
: Therefore, for a lot of people on this forum, it seems that this
: movement "in defense of furry muck" aimed too little and came too late,
: and was rather misguided, as Darrell Exline, the actual owner of the
: furrymuck.* domains, has offered the domains .org and .edu to the wizzes
: for free (in exchange of a commercial ad, yes, but I suppose I would do
: the same if I was on Darrell's position).
I'd think "current owner" would be a better choice of terms than "actual
owner", since he only just recently acquired them from Dwight Dutton.
But minor quibbling aside - whatever people think of the motivations,
defensibility of actions, and general annoyingness of the actions of
the MUCK wizards... I've seen little discussion or analysis on whether
Darrell Exline did anything that was, perhaps, too "pushy".
Did he approach the wizards with an attitude of "This is a suggestion for a
deal we might make, but feel free to make a counter-offer and enter into
negotiations"? Or is his offer more of the form "Now that I have this,
here are the terms of the ONLY deal I will offer you, take it or leave it!"
Or was it something in-between?
I'm not in a position to say, not having heard any of the private
communications between the parties involved. But the assumption
that the offer was made in a spirit of 100% pure lily-white altruism
shouldn't be made until more information is available. It MIGHT have
been made in that spirit. Or there might have been a selfish desire
to cling pit-bull-like to the idea of having the ad banner in there
even if the wizards found that very distressing and wished to make
different arrangements with Mr. Exline. I don't think you should go
reading too much into the few details you have about the situation
without going and finding out more of the facts first. I must say
I'm curious to know myself, I don't really know Mr. Exline well enough
to feel *I* have a good guess. I would tend to think his motives were
at least partially altruistic, maybe even mostly so. But I really can't
say how I think he might have responded if the wizards said "Please can
we make a different deal instead with no ad banner involved". Nor do I
know if the wizards even bothered to ask him, or if they just started
pursuing other remedies without talking it out thoroughly with him first.
Again, I would guess they probably talked to him some, but we're all just
speculating here.
One thing I would say, I don't think you can be labelled as 100% pure and
just trying to do someone a favor when you choose the form YOU think the
favor should take for them, they say they don't want the favor to be done
in that specific way, and you stick to YOUR preferences over their anyway.
A generous person is certainly free to choose their own terms, and it's
somewhat nicer to offer charity under less-than-ideal terms than to not
offer any at all. But it's nicer still to offer help, gifts, charity, or
whatever in exactly the way the recipient has made clear they would like
best.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: I started trying to construct an analogy to illustrate the
above, but it's too easy to break down badly on questions like where does
the gift fall on the necessity vs. luxury spectrum for the recipient, where
does the expense for the giver fall on the spectrum from free to cheap to
a major portion of their income, how convenient is them to switch from the
intended form of gift to another form preferred by the recipient, etc. And
ultimately ANY analogy would express a strong personal bias on the part of
the analogy-crafter regarding where they think this FurryMUCK incident falls
on those axes, so screw it. If any of you are curious, I was starting to
think of a guy giving some poor person a free shirt, but not giving him the
color he's said he likes. But then I started thinking is it a color that's
not as nice, or one he hates like an ugly pink, does he have a ragged shirt
already or none at all, do we set it up north in the winter so the guy really
needs the shirt or not, is the guy giving it a millionaire or an average guy,
do we say he has a stack of shirts of different colors with him and still
insists on giving the poor guy a color he doesn't like, when it would be easy
to switch for another one, or do we not say that, etc. etc. So like I said,
screw it. My analogy is a guy having control over some domain names and
offering to let some people that want them the use of them, but only with
his ad banner on there that they might not want, and his ability to change
terms at any point in the future since he retains ownership, that they also
don't want. THAT'S my analogy since any other one would tend to be a bit
off in one way or another.)
(Last minute thought: If he really wanted to be generous and helpful in
good faith, why not offer to give the OWNERSHIP of the domains over to
the wizards in exchange for a verbal agreement to put that ad banner there
and keep it there, rather than forcing it on them and not trusting them
by keeping ownership himself? Wouldn't it be more altruistic and nicey-
nicey if he offered to hand over ownership to get those ad banners rather
than just handing over the ability to use them?)
Timothy Fay
>
> By the way - tell me who on this board is enjoying Steven Stadnicki's
> post, Dr. Cat. Is it you?
Likewise, it seems to me that the only people who have a "problem"
with Stadnicki's letter are those who hold a grudge against FurryMuck,
for whatever reason(s).
It's pretty clear from the letter that the "wizzes" made a good
faith effort to contact Dutton and they even offered to cover his
expenses. Apparently, those offers were rebuffed.
Whether or not the wizzes are legally entitiled to the name
"FurryMuck," it doesn't alter the fact that Dutton was trying to
profit from something he didn't own or create. I find this
particularly ironic, given the stink he and Roz made last year
over the auctioning artwork from the Cawleys' sketchbooks.
--
http://www.umn.edu/~fayxx001
"Hey, ho -- let's go!" -Ramones
Sarenthalanos
Steven Stadnicki <scr...@nwnexus.com> wrote in message
news:3AC575A5...@nwnexus.com...
chase.co.uk vs. Chase-Manhatten, anyone?
Skipai Da Otter
Hash: SHA1
"Timothy Fay" <fayxx001@delete..this..tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:3ACB4B...@tc.umn.edu...
> Whether or not the wizzes are legally entitiled to the name
> "FurryMuck,"
<unlurking>
*Snipped*
The only people that could resolve such a dispute as to who owns a
domain name/s is WIPO. Who may end up saying that those who run
Furrymuck should own them and move the ownership across or to the one
that has bought them. Either way the issue would be resolved.
</unlurking>
- --
Skipai Da Otter
Take out mudslide to reply to me
FZp4m A+ C- D++++ H+++ M++ P+ R+ T++++ W- Z Sp+ RLU a24 cadlnw++++ d+
e+++
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOuxPqZxl8H7mp9nsEQL8twCg9V3ZyJw1oWxB3UqsAug6CgJGUD4Anj8H
XSLvsCDrj6Gv5v3uyz5Akp17
=eFKN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dwight J. Dutton
> > "FurryMuck,"
> <unlurking>
>
> *Snipped*
>
> The only people that could resolve such a dispute as to who owns a
> domain name/s is WIPO. Who may end up saying that those who run
> Furrymuck should own them and move the ownership across or to the one
> that has bought them. Either way the issue would be resolved.
It has been resolved. The new owner and the muck wizzes came to an
agreement before CF12 that both were happy with. For the specific details
ask them.