Re: cybersquatting ?

From ZoeScanner <>
Date Tue, 14 Dec 1999 23:48:28 -0800 (PST)

[: hacktivism :]

Oh yeah..I don't begrudge anyone making money
here,after all,we all must work
somewhere...Depending on How they do it,and as
long as no one suffers because of it. It just
makes me see red when someone has to get greed
fever and ruin it for everybody. As in this
case/s..end result? The Net must be governed. By
who? ...take a guess..Why? bottom
line..Greed.unrestrained out of controll
greed.But who is having to loose out in the end?
us. This is an infringement on our rights...And
the whole fiasco was originally caused by some of
us!(sour taste indeed& figuratively speaking..of
course..) By this type of action/business this
"individual" created.This individual has found an
insideously ingenous(and disgusting) way to roll
in some fat bucks...fortunatley,lately the
corp.BB have decided to ignore these "middle
men"...and that is good...downside is they are
still loony over any..ANY name even remotely
familiar to theirs.Regardless if that name was
held on the net by the other party LONGER than
the business has been on the net.Rationalize
their own behavior? Rarely. One one hand we have
the "enterprising individual"(I am being VERY
generous here..),surfing and buying domain names
he thinks BB will want off the net,and trys to
sell them...for an exorbant price to the
BB.Obviously This cannot last long,so he wants to
make a windfall killing quick...nevermind whom he
hurts along the way.(Grrr!)(I think...meself..I
would just ignore him AND the names.) Then there
is BB and their claim to be legally declared a
person(?) This in it'self is obscene!And a clear
bloody abuse of the system!!Not an Intelligent
move,but an accepted one we see.. add to that
madness their paranoia tendencies especially
concering this "name game"...little show of any
intelect there... Both parties display something
more like instinctive business savy..which is
totally unrelated to intelligence.
Case example? take the eToy vs EToys.....
that is just one of how many? hundreds?
I am in sympathy with the guys whom are fighting
to keep their name...I am sympathectic to the
eToy side,and am spreading the word. Reaching the
public with these cases is the most sensible
tactic,not ruining a toy site at christmas.
Tempting though it may be as they are being greed
incarnate,but two wrongs do not make a right in
this case.And we the hactivists will be declared
in bold headlines "The New Self Appointed Law."
this is self defeating and will turn Everybody
egainst us.
Then we have the ordinary people sitting,smiling
& humming, surfing around,usually ignorant of
this termoil and the resulting censorship...they
loose rights they didnt even know they
had.Fortunately some surfers are stumbling into
areas rabidly discussing these issues,and the
word is spreading...Slowly...too slowly I
fear...We all know the GOV has been dying to get
their hands on the net and get it back under
their controll....Thru the ignorant actions of
this kind of individual,we are litterally handing
it over to them. ! I personally do not see Any
Good coming from GOV interference. None at all.If
left alone we can all work it out.Eventually. If
GOV is allowed to take over...there they are.
forever. Also consider this..GOV is far too
greedy and sleeps with BB. Perversly,GOV will
also turn right around and stick BB if it is in
GOVs best interest. As for Serving the
people...well...GOV has been 'sticking it' to us
for a couple hundred years. Why expect them to
change now? GOV serves GOV and no one
else...unless!! it benefits them to do so,and
often at a high cost,"usually hidden",that if
exposed, will outweigh the "good deed" GOV
did...Expect GOV for help? might as well bite off
yer nose to spite yer face. All in is a
dark day dawning for the net. Spreading the word
is the wisest thing at this point
methinks....people need to know....what is going
on. It really does involve us all. We need to get
enlightened and involved...and together.
Our GOV has stolen our freedom on our own
land...Let the Net Be Free!

--- Ian Lowry <> wrote:
> [: hacktivism :]
> >>From: ZoeScanner <>
> >>
> >>This was in my news and i felt it was
> >>relevant......I bet this is exactly what
> started
> >>the cybersquatting fuss in the first place.
> >>now,while i don't appreciate what Harvard and
> the
> >>others are doing...I especially would like to
> see
> >>guys like this Rys get stomped....They are
> the
> >>ones whom are ruining the net for
> everybody.Just
> >>to make a buck. sqish these weasles and it
> all
> >>just might clear up a little.
> >>peace
> >>ZoeScanner
> >>
> >>
> >>04:29 PM ET 12/09/99
> >>Harvard Sues Alleged Cybersquatter
> >
> >I do admire anyone who is willing to think far
> enough ahead to make a buck. 
> >However, when you see that all hell is
> breaking loose because of those means 
> >to make money, it's time to quit playing the
> game. When a person's means to 
> >make money is causing total distress for
> anyone else, they need to find 
> >something else better to do with their
> creativity. There are a thousand and 
> >one different ways to make money on the
> internet these days. I would advise 
> >this person to find one.
> on the international scene, academia is pushing
> for protection of just the kinds of investment
> that this individual did.  it seems that this
> is a case of double standards in which harvard
> deems whatever is in their own best financial
> interest to be necessarily the moral route,
> reinforcing my theory that the most intelligent
> among us ought to be ware of their own minds -
> a person with a massive, refined intellect is
> more likely to be able to quickly and
> thoroughly rationalize their own behavior,
> whatever that might be.
> [: hacktivism :]
> [: for unsubscribe instructions or list info
> consult the list FAQ :]
> [: :]


Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping:

[: hacktivism :]
[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
[: :]