Zuccarini Arrested in Florida

[jberryhill]

I hereby move that the dnforum conference be moved from Las Vegas to the Hollywood, Florida Holiday Inn, Room 448.

I am surprised that the complaint has all of that pre-act activity described in it.

Nevertheless, the complaint clearly sets forth that after passage of the act, all of the domain names went to a warning page, which the postal inspector had to click through in order to get to porn.

So, here you have it... someone doing something legal which is suddenly made illegal, and so he directs all domains (whether they are appealing to minors or not, and without regard to what the domain names are) point at a warning page before going to any porn. That starts to sound a little better on the intent issue.

But it is not as if they left the thing about the warning page out of the complaint - so the issue is definitely on the table.

 

[LewR]

The Complaint... does just that, complains, but does not specify what actual laws are broken or if any laws were broken? I mean, get a traffic ticket and it spells out what law you broke. Or does all of that come later?

***********************************************

{I am a Postal Inspector with the United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”)}

They cannot deliver my freaking mail - now they are the experts at computer based crimes ... I shudder.

{Based on my experience using the Internet, I am aware that a Web Site’s domain name will often be the name (or an abbreviation of the name) of the entity maintaining the Web Site preceded by “www.” and followed by a suffix indicating the type of entity maintaining the Web site –- for example, “.com” for businesses, “.org” for organizations, or “.gov” for governmental entities.}

This guy needs some more - and more important - modern training. Most sites ARE NOT preceded by www. and .org/.com no longer represent the original intended audiences. Must be from a 1973 manual.
***********************************************

The complaint rambles on, everything ("from what I read, from what I have heard, from my experience...")

************************************************

Okay - the complaint talks about "mousetrapping, but never specifies that such is an illegal act. Just because people complain - even a lot - about something does not make it illegal. I bitch along with millions about paying taxes...

This whole thing raises more questions then it answers (well, to us with out a legal based background).

 

[pam]

"Whoever knowingly uses a MISLEADING DOMAIN NAME on the Internet with the INTENT TO DECEIVE a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both."

If his intent was not to deceive, what was his intent?

Just to earn money from sending clicks/hits to his sponsor? Is that worse than browser hijacking, sending malicious code that directs your browser settings to put you on a homepage you don't want to be on and is almost impossible to get off of?

Also, how do you 'prove' that 2 adults having sex, or a photo of a naked woman, 'harms' minors on the Internet?

I'm hearing two sides to this -- one, he directed it to a porn site that has tons of warnings and no popups, and the other saying it went to multiple sexual popup windows with mousetrapping.

 

[jberryhill]

"Also, how do you 'prove' that 2 adults having sex, or a photo of a naked woman, 'harms' minors on the Internet?"

The "harmful to minors" thing is just a term defined later on in the Act. It is not a question of whether it actually harms minors. You can substitute the phrase "stuff defined below" for that phrase.

"I'm hearing two sides to this -- one, he directed it to a porn site that has tons of warnings and no popups, and the other saying it went to multiple sexual popup windows with mousetrapping."

Read the complaint carefully. This law was, I believe, specifically designed for Zuccarini. The problem that they have is precisely the one that Ari has keyed in on here.

Notice that the Complaint says a lot about stuff Zuccarini did *before* the law took effect. The bottom line on that stuff is that it is completely irrelevant. Yes, he used to throw out a lot of pop-ups and mousetraps. But then notice how, after May, the complaint refers to the postal inspector being steered to a warning page. Only *after* clicking through the warning does he enter Mr. Z's trademark brand of browser hell.

"If his intent was not to deceive, what was his intent? "

The law talks about an intent to deceive minors into viewing porn. The facts of the complaint itself suggest that, after the law took effect, there may have been an intent to steer people, any people, toward a warning page at which point those people were given a choice of continuing to click through to porn or not click through to porn. But at the point of decision, at the warning, the argument is that nobody was deceived by a page that says, "Hey, if you keep going, you're going to enroll for a degree at Hanky Panky College, and it is nasty stuff". If you've been "misled" to the warning page, you haven't yet been deceived into viewing porn.

But you are hearing two stories because there are two stories, or rather three stories. The first story is the irrelevant story about what was going on before the law. The second story is about what was going on after the law, but how the story proceeds depends on whether someone clicked through the warning page or not.

I just skimmed the complaint, but does it look that way to anyone else?

 

[pam]

You've made it a bit more clear, thanks

I really am interested in how this will play out with the intent issue, especially with a warning page in place

 

[PCplay]

Nice post jberryhill.

 

[HOWARD]

"CONDEMN ZUCCARINI FOR BEING A TYPOSQUATTER. THAT'S FAIR"
________________________________________________

Is it? Where in the Anticybersquatting Consumer's Protection Act of 1999, does it say anything about "typosquatting"? I unsuccessfully defended John Z in the Shields case and believe that the U. S. District Court misapplied the law because they didn't like Zuccarini, and that led to other courts simlarly misapplying the law.

The Web is very exact. If you don't correctly spell the domain that you are typing in, you are not going to get that domain. If your misspelling is not registered, you'll come up empty. John Z simply took advantage of the fact that people all over the world do not spell correctly (not just kids) and that he could make money from this knowledge of the English language.

He did not register exact spellings of trademarked names in order to confuse the user or to hold the domains for sale to the trademark owner ( which is what the ACPA is all about). Unfortunately, the Courts don't see it that way and we couldn't get the U. S. Supreme Court to review the ruling of the Third U. S. Court of Appeals.

Again they're going after John Z because they don't like him or his methods. I don't either, but that doesn't make him a criminal.

 

[LewR]

In this business, they make up the rules as they go. It seems to depend on who's brother-in-law you hurt....

It was my contention the day I got involved in the internet that if you do not hire smart enough people in your company to register your domain name, then shame on you, you will pay one way or the other. GE had their name in '85 or so, why did everyone else wait untill '99? Today, you should name your company by what domain you can get and use a unique name (as is common now i.e. Verizon, Avaya, Microsoft, etc.) so as to avoid all this crap.

Misspells will always be around as long as people like myself exist. My spelling and typing skills suck, so be it. When I get a wrong page - I retype the URL and try again - what's the biggie?

This warning page of MrZ should prove to be tough to beat.

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by HOWARD
John Z simply took advantage of the fact that people all over the world do not spell correctly (not just kids) and that he could make money from this knowledge of the English language.

He did not register exact spellings of trademarked names in order to confuse the user or to hold the domains for sale to the trademark owner ( which is what the ACPA is all about).

You don't have to have an exact spelling to infringe upon the trademarks of another. I mean, come on, if a company calling itself "Disnee" tried to sell "Mickee Mouce" videos, they are obviously infringing.

There's absolutely no way in hell you can tell me that John Z was perfectly fine registering typo domains or that those should be exempt from anti-cybersquatting laws or decisions.

I know it's your job to try to come up with rationale to defend people, but this one just doesn't make sense on any level.

And, hey, since this is a thread about John Z, how come we haven't had some long posts in German by members of his fan club yet?

 

[jberryhill]

"how come we haven't had some long posts in German by members of his fan club yet?"

They only give you one phone call.

 

[Ari Goldberger]

Pam said:
>I'm hearing two sides to this -- one, he directed it to a porn site >that has tons of warnings and no popups, and the other saying >it went to multiple sexual popup windows with mousetrapping.

Do an archive.org search on HankyPankycollege.com prior to passage of the law. You will see that you ONLY get a warning page which closes when you exit with no mousetraps. The so-called mousetraps were for the other other non-porn page that popped-up, and they weren't even mousetraps -- just a series of 3 pop-ups that go away. The complaint and, unfortunately, the press have mixed the non-porn pop-ups with the warning page to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

After reading the complaint, based on the facts as I see them, it is my opinion that John Zuccarini -- whether you like him or not -- is not guilty of violating the Truth in Domain Law.

However, that conclusion only convinces me that domainers should be extremely careful in using any domain name, that does not sound explicitly and unambiguously sexual in nature, in connection with a porn site -- even with a warning page -- at least for the time being.

 

[DomainGoon]

While the media complains about smalltime "typosquatters", Verisign wants to become the king typosquatter:

http://www.cbronline.com/latestnews/d04afc52ae9da2ee80256d9c0018be8b

 

[LewR]

Originally posted by DomainGoon
While the media complains about smalltime "typosquatters", Verisign wants to become the king typosquatter:

http://www.cbronline.com/latestnews/d04afc52ae9da2ee80256d9c0018be8b

But these guys are even worse, as they will not need to register any of these typos, just take all the traffic. No investment, all gravy. I wonder if the Microsofts of the world will bash them on this one!!

 

[Ari Goldberger]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DomainGoon
While the media complains about smalltime "typosquatters", Verisign wants to become the king typosquatter:

http://www.cbronline.com/latestnews...0256d9c0018be8b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This sounds like an Anti-trust issue. Verisign will have a monopoly on controlling all domains that are not registered.

 

[GeorgeK]

My thoughts exactly, Ari. I already forwarded that to the New Case email of the DoJ. See my post at:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg00295.html

See: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm

for anyone wanting to add to the complaint.

You don't see the phone companies playing jingles for your competitors when you misdial a telephone number.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Let's hope the Truth In Domain Name/ Amber Alert law gets invalidated for its encroachment on free speech and its other fundamental flaws.

Webmasters shouldn't be required to babysit irresponsible parents' kids as they roam around the internet looking for trouble.

Small entity domain owners need to get Amicus briefs filed in this case!!

 

[LewR]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy

......Webmasters shouldn't be required to babysit irresponsible parents' kids as they roam around the internet looking for trouble.....

Well, on this point DCC, I could not agree more!!!

 

[smoothlime]

How does TYPOSQUATTING BY VERISIGN affect this lawsuit?

If Verisign can do this (earn money from mistyped domain names, by linking to gambling sites and such) and it is lawful,

then,

how can anybody complain about what Zuccarini does?

He is doing exactly the same thing as Verisign, except he's linking to Porn sites. Porn sites are legal in USA.

.....unconstitutional is the word that comes to my mind.

 

[LewR]

Any recent information regarding MrZ ?

 

[tigga]

Originally posted by Momentum

...What kind of sociopath would you have to be in order to redirect a cartoon network typo or disney typo to a pornography site?

I have been approached in the past to convert a site that I own (that I clearly explained had kids visiting it as it was a site for a game) into a porn site by a well known member of this forum. I have a standing offer from that person to revisit the deal.