Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
The Internet Your Rights Online

2600 v. Ford Motors 286

lizrd writes: "The New York Times is reporting in their cyber law section that Eric Corley is in trouble in the courts again. This time he's being sued by Ford Motor Company for pointing a domain name that the New York Times won't mention to Ford's website. It will be interesting to see how this comes out in the courts, both sides seem to have some fairly strong arguments."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

2600 v. Ford Motors

Comments Filter:
  • by Danse ( 1026 )

    I still think that a simple, polite email or phone call was warranted before unleashing the lawyers. It could very well have averted the whole situation.

  • by Danse ( 1026 )

    Of course he really didn't have any reason to think they'd care or even know about it. If you're visiting, you probably didn't get there by accident, and anyone can look up the domain owner if they want.

  • I can't remember how many times I tried to climb into my web browser to go to the store.

    Just the other day, I was clicking on my steering wheel to go to the /. site and get the latest anti-ms drivel.

    It's just so hard to tell the two apart, with one being a big, clunky, noisy, oversized piece of junk, and the other being a car.
  • This case is a hell of a lot simpler than the DCSS case. This is outright slander. More importantly it dose work the way Ford claims. Since "Fu*" became popular I have been using variations on that when I want to learn the bad side (or alleged bad side) of a corporation.

    2600 is going to louse this one, but it may not hurt the DCSS case. If read the article carefuly. You will realize that Ford is claiming that this hiperlink _IS_ speech. They just think it's one of a very few kinds of speech we have laws to ban. I.e. Slander, defamation of character etc...
  • I can see both sides.. but from Ford's point of view.. I think it's a bad idea to sue.. It is just causes the slander to linger, and be viewed by a larger audience..

    They are letting their buttons be pushed.

    Although, I forgot.. everything on the internet is true...

  • Because that's what all HTTP/1.1 compliant servers are supposed to do. See RFC2616, section 3.1:

    Applications that are at least conditionally compliant with this specification SHOULD use an HTTP-Version of "HTTP/1.1" in their messages

  • Hmm... you're right, my bad. This is case (2), in which case Ford has a technological solution available to them ("400 Bad Request" or similar all requests with "" in the Host field), but their own technology prevents it being a "persistent misrepresentation" since they doa redirect on requests for the "/" document.

    Curious... the plot thickens :-)

  • by artdodge ( 9053 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @08:13AM (#213589) Homepage
    As we all know, there are a number of types of "pointing" you can do with a domain, and I'm wondering how the eyes of the law would view the differences.
    1. A hyperlink. At issue in the DeCSS case. Not the case here. Strong free-speech arguments.
    2. Setting a DNS A or CNAME record to point to their server. The intent of this would be for people to be able to browse in its entirety with the name "" in their "Location" box. This could be dangerous legal ground (misrepresentation, impersonation), however it is technologically trivial (and is in fact the correct behavior, should be the default) for Ford to prevent this on its own servers (who should NOT recognize that Host: field). But again, this is not the case.
    3. A redirect. This is in fact the case here - a 302 Object Moved message (served by IIS/5.0). This falls in the squishy middle ground - a link can be explicitly connected with a comment and a speaker (which "substantiates" the speech), and DNS aliasing has the effect of providing for a persistent comment and misrepresentation while using another's resources, but redirection does neither.
    Like I said, I'll be curious to see if the courts have the savvy to differentiate, and what their interpretation of the differences is.

    Oh yeah, IANAL, UAYOR, IMHO, TINSTAAFL, etc.

  • by malkavian ( 9512 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @08:00AM (#213590)
    Weird lawyers.
    It's quoted in the article that pointing the domain at ford is like putting a billboard by a highway saying "Fuck General Motors" and saying it's sponsored by Ford.
    Last I checked, if you want to look who's 'sponsoring' the site, you use "whois".
    And doing:
    whois -h
    - 2600 Enterprises (template COCO-12817)
    PO Box 99
    Middle Island, NY 11953 US

    Domain Name:
    Status: production

    Admin Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
    Emmanuel Goldstein (COCO-12818)
    +1 516 751 2600 (FAX) +1 516 474 2677

    CORE Registrar: CORE-20

    Record created: 1999-09-26 23:21:21 UTC by CORE-20
    Record expires: 2001-09-25 00:00:00 UTC

    Domain servers in listed order:

    Database last updated on 2001-05-18 15:46:51 UTC
    That kinda tells me EXACTLY who sponsored that billboard.
    Poof, that's this excuse out the window.
    In effect, what's happend is that the sponsored by is in the style and colours of Ford ads, (can you remember the nice little 'Fuct' logo done in Ford colours and style that nobody's complaining about??).
    Urrr... Next case???


  • Ford's legal department is already funded. This sort of thing is just part of how they try to justify their funding. Gotta look busy, whether or not what you're doing really makes any sense.
  • I'm sorry, but that is just a bunch of bullcrap.
    I'm so tired of living in the United States of the Offended. Build a fucking bridge and get over it.

    In other words, this sort of thing offends you, and you feel very strongly that people should express themselves differently. Hmmm.

  • People aren't "trying to control what he says", any more than he's trying to control what they say.
  • by tregoweth ( 13591 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @07:35AM (#213595)
    I used to own the domain, and I always meant to point it at Microsoft's Web site. I suppose it's a good thing I never did.
  • If Ford doesn't want me to use their bandwidth, why don't they just not send me the page? It's silly for them to respond to my request for a web page, and then claim that it was an "unauthorized" access. How can it be unauthorized if it required specific action on their part before it could happen?

    The slander argument is more reasonable, and I could even see Ford winning out on that one. But right now Ford's essentially giving away their bandwidth; they can't complain if they've uncapped the fire hydrant and more kids showed up to play than they expected. If you're going to take the trouble to track someone down in your logs, why don't you just save yourself the trouble by blocking the accesses you don't like in the first place?

    Who wants to drink from the FIRE HOSE?

    Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

  • Yea, yea... I know that... But would any reasonable person actually believe that Ford was behind something like this? And wouldn't a large portion of Ford's employees feel the sentiment of f***ing their biggest competitor? Even the management?

    Of course, the whole thing might have been funnier if the f***GM domain had been pointed to that horribly offensive little image at or something... :-)

  • NT, W2k, what's the difference... :-)

    Its kinda like "Coca Cola" vs. "New Coke" vs. "Coca Cola Classic"...

  • I guess you don't understand what a smiley :-) is... It was a joke son. A joke. I really don't care who Ford uses to create their web site.

  • Re-read my second last sentence for some answers to your questions/arguments.

    The cases where companies sue from different industries over trademarks are FILLED with IP law journals.

    You'd also have to read the clauses on 'future values and expansions' but I won't bother since you'd need a JD to understand my arguments. A simple example which Ford could argue is by saying: "We want to protect the trademark Explorer in the computer industry because we might release a game with the same name or a screensaver or a VR Explorer exhibit and we feel that MS is diluting our TM." That worked for a ton of companies and it would work for Ford.
  • by mTor ( 18585 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @07:34AM (#213613)
    They are basically saying that you do not have the right to link to their site through "indicent" phrases or words. The linking issue has been resolved already in the Ticketmaster case and I'm sure that it will be upheld yet again.

    Ford is just harassing small people. They have a huge team of lawyers and they need some 'exercise' by filing frivolous lawsuits against those who can't defend themselves properly. Why didn't Ford contact them and ask them not to point there or even rejected the headers from the domain name that they didn't like?
  • by The Toad ( 25382 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @08:51AM (#213615)
    It has been said that all PR, is good PR.

    I think Firestone would beg to differ.

  • by Valdrax ( 32670 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @08:12AM (#213622)
    [A]m I the only who relizes that general motors is not ford at all. GM makes chevy, pontiac, cadalliac, etc... Again GM is not Ford. DOH!

    No way! Really?!?

    Obviously, you haven't read the background on the story at all. Emmanuel Goldstein was protesting against GM with the website "" originally. He pointed it to a variety of critical websites to GM, including a place called "" When the webmaster of that small site complained that the extra traffic was hurting him in bandwidth costs, he moved it to point to "" as a joke. Without warning, and without asking nicely for him to move the URL, Ford decided to sue 2600 for everything they're worth.

    Ford is suing Emmanuel Goldstein for pointing the URL at them because it makes it look like they are the ones responsible for the somewhat immature prank. As the man himself says, they are trying to use the court system to create for themselves the right to demand that people ask before pointing URLs to their website. They are also seeking excessive damages in an attempt to financially ruin 2600. Basically, they're taking advantage of the system to tweak the legal system the way they want and to punish a known ally of hackers.
  • by Valdrax ( 32670 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @08:18AM (#213623)
    So the fucking euro-pee'ins won't do it first, while rubbing their glistening dick heads aginst the front screens of their fucking iMacs?

    Read my sig.
  • This same thing happened a while back with the term "nigger". It's very offensive, very hurtful (much more so than "fuck"), ...

    I'm sorry, but that is just a bunch of bullcrap. Nigger isn't an offensive word without context - and even then those offended tend to blow it out of proportion. If nigger was truly so damn offensive, then the entire black community would be up in arms about most of the gansta rap where nigger is used in almost every verse. And guess what? They aren't.

    The fact of the matter is this - nigger isn't an offensive word unless context is considered. This goes for all words.

    I'm so tired of living in the United States of the Offended. Build a fucking bridge and get over it.

    It's as if this country has forgotten a childhood rhyme - "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me."

    I'm sure the moderators will have a field day with this comment, but sometimes, you've gotta get up on your soapbox and slap some sense into people.

    HI Mom!
  • by tbo ( 35008 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @07:47AM (#213628) Journal
    First of all, this was posted a few days ago as part of a Slashback []. Why the hell don't the editors remember anything? I read Slashdot every day, and I can tell when I've seen a story before. One would assume that the editors read it, too (although there seems to be plenty of evidence to the contrary), and since they also wrote the goddamn stories, they have that much more reason to remember them. You don't see the New York Times doing this kind of crap. Of course, somebody's already mentioned all this...

    The point I really wanted to make is that yes, 2600 is probably legally in the right here, but that doesn't make their actions any less stupid. Last time around, somebody mentioned that Ford could just block all requests originating from True, but that wouldn't stop 2600 from buying new stupid domains and pointing them at Ford doesn't want to have to worry about this constantly, so they're just suing 2600 to stop them from doing it any more.

    Could Ford have asked first? Yes, but Corley is just being a jackass. I'm sure he knew Ford didn't want that domain pointed at their site, and he did it just to piss them off. It's like if I came up to you, smacked you in the back of the head, then complained to the judge that you never told me not to.

    Considering that, as a member of the EFF, I am paying for 2600's legal defence, I really wish they would act more responsibly. Fight for what's important, Corley, and stop making such an ass of yourself. DMCA, DeCSS, and UCITA are all worthy causes; is not. I sincerely hope the EFF does not pay Corley's bill this time. If they do, I'll find a more intelligent charity...
  • Right, and the lawsuits over those redirects are stupid, too. Porn site operators learned long ago how to stop that, and at this moment, the sleazemeisters are looking a whole lot smarter than Ford. They are looking smarter than the lawyers, too, which is bad for the lawyers, because people already hate the porn pushers less.

    You know what? It's not even that hard. Use mod_access_referer. Don't use Apache? It's free and has that capability. If your commercial web server can't handle it, you are getting ripped off.

    Ford's trademark argument is pathetic. They might have a slander case if the domain were "". But it isn't.

    Boss of nothin. Big deal.
    Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.

  • by Hobbex ( 41473 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @08:23AM (#213630)

    $ nc 80
    GET / HTTP/1.0

    HTTP/1.1 302 Object moved
    Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
    Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:23:04 GMT
    Set-Cookie: dialogue_id=3e42052c20010518411f690a; path=/; expires=Mon, 16-May-11 16:23:04 GMT;
    Connection: Keep-Alive
    Content-Length: 169
    Content-Type: text/html
    Cache-control: private

    <head><title>Object moved</title></head>
    <body><h1>Object Moved</h1>This object may be found <a HREF=" .jsp">here</a>.</body>
  • by Sogol ( 43574 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @07:34AM (#213632) Journal
    Eric Corley can publicly say "Fuck General Motors". That by itself is allowed in the US by the 1st amendmant.
    The fact that the phrase "does something" by way of pointing to ford is entirely too abstract for archaic law to moderate.
  • Well, Ford runs NT, so they are obviously idiots...

    Actually, Netcraft says [] F*rd runs Win2K (with IIS 5, of course). FWIW, they also say [] the General runs Solaris (Nutscrape, though, not Apache).

    Looking at the uptime info, GM is getting about two months out of Solaris between reboots. F*rd, OTOH, gets less than a month out of Win2K, which gives a whole new meaning to "Found On Road Dead." :-)

    (In case I haven't made my vehicular preferences blatantly obvious, check out this link [] (no, it's not a link, and neither are the others in this post...that site is disgusting).)

  • by ncc74656 ( 45571 ) <> on Friday May 18, 2001 @08:21AM (#213634) Homepage Journal
    If Ford is so serious about 'protecting' their properties wtf don't they sue Microsoft over the Explorer trademark? MS is using Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer and Ford has trademarked long time ago Ford Explorer. Sure they are competing in different industris but Ford could bring it up under the trademark dilution clause.

    It's usually not dilution if they're in different industries. Locally, there's a company called "Best Buy Furniture" that is in the furniture retail business. They even have a yellow-tag logo that bears a certain amount of resemblance to the logo of a certain consumer-electronics retailer []. AFAIK, there's never been any litigation between the two companies...and there probably never will be any. If I'm in the market for a big-screen TV, I'm not likely to go looking in a furniture store for it.

  • by weave ( 48069 )
    If GM were the ones suing then speech aspects like this would certainly be involved; however its Ford suing, on the really quite reasonable grounds that to the average person the site would appear to be owned by them, and therefore imply that Ford had that opinion of their competitors.

    I think this is a valid concern. I'm wondering if Ford even tried to voice this concern to Corley and ask him to cease the redirect.

    Hmm, a quick check to gets the answer [].

    "Had Ford come to us and asked us not to point to them, in all likelihood we would have pointed it someplace else out of courtesy. But when demands and accusations are made without any attempt at communication, we have to object."

  • Explain to me why you believe Eric wants to get sued? Who wants to get sued? He has to go around the country defending his right to speek freely, asking for donations from other like-minded first amendment advocates, all just to exercise a constitutional right!

    Or are you suggesting we all just bend over and let the people with the money to shut us up and make us "consumers" run the country? Your argument is like saying the guy picketing scientology wanted to get killed in prison by scientologist mind-control drones, so he drew attention to himself.

    Just because you're in trouble doesn't mean you did something bad. Being arrested doesn't make you guilty. Just because you're sued doesn't mean you're wrong.

  • The motion picture industry picked 2600, not the other way around.

    2600 is for the right to publish. For the right to publish cryptography and security news, and for the right to publish jokes and link on the internet.

    You'll notice that fuckgeneralmotors isn't pointed at an anti-general motors site, it's just making a joke. 2600 owns several fuck*.com domain names, and, well, just read his declaration []

    I repeat, Eric's just doing what he has a right to do, and these companies are filing frivolous and abusive lawsuits against him. Tell me again that it's bull that big companies are evil.

  • by joq ( 63625 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @07:28AM (#213647) Homepage Journal

    We all know that in theory we should have the right to express ourselves as we feel, as it is amended, but one thing 2600 won't point out is that by creating the "" site and pointing it to's website, they are using Ford's resources via way of bandwidth which I'm sure is unauthorized. Why not just make a virtual directory with pictures, and or information of a competitor instead of trying to reverse engineer killing two birds with one packet.

    Well hopefully their AOL followers don't attempt to h4x0r me for writing this, but enough is enough, time to grow up guys. We do agree with any arguments anyone from there would care to give for the right to register the domain, however there is no one from 2600 that can realistically justify using Ford's bandwidth against Ford's will.

    2600 is run by Peter Pan []

    One of the guys from my site did a semi humorous article on the whole 2600 deal. Some people may find it informative, others will find it funny, others will call it name calling etc. Personally, I think anyone who runs around doing things to get sued for attention is a moron.

  • The example the Ford lawyer used in the hearing (for more on that, see my other post []) was that it was ok for someone to wear a t-shirt that says "F*ck the draft" but it isn't ok for you to put that shirt on an official with the draft board (undoubtedly an entertaining scene).
  • by outlier ( 64928 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @01:15PM (#213652)
    I just got back from watching the case unfold in the courtroom (and stopping off for a Slurpee on the way back). Here are some observations:

    About 20 of the 25 or so people in the gallery were obviously on the 2600 side of the debate (white male twentysomethings with a penchant for wearing t-shirts (one in a 2600 T-shirt) -- some with O'Reilly books (XML and Apache)).

    Ford had 4 lawyers, led by Thomas Lee. Corley had one lawyer, Eric Grimm.

    The Ford case seemed to be:
    - the web site (referred to as so as to save everyone the embarrassment) appears to the casual web surfer to be owned by Ford. Since it associates an obscene, caustic word referring to a close competitor of Ford with Ford's trademarked website, it was causing damage to Ford's intellectual property.

    - this confusion couldn't be remedied by most users.

    - If this is parody, then it isn't funny, and nobody gets it.

    - Free speech rights aren't relevant in this case because this is about commerce and the sullying of trademarks.

    - They made Corley re-sign his statement because it was originally signed with his pseudonym Emanual Goldstein - the judge thought that his re-signed signature was the same as the first, and Corley had to print his name next to the signature just to make it clear...

    They presented printouts from a web site that allows you to query a database of domain names and provide links and whois info to them. They showed that if you queried "generalmotors" you'd get a bunch of stuff including "" which would link to whois info and the ford site. The whois info that it linked to either didn't include contact info or, as the defense claimed, had the contact info whited out.

    The defense claimed that it was highly unlikely that someone would go to the web site without typing in, something that they would have heard via 2600 magazine or wired or something, and thus wouldn't be confused, and that the search engine the plaintiffs were referring to was designed specifically for searching for domain names, and would thus not be used by the consumers who would allegedly be confused. And that it wasn't Corley's responsibility to police other people's databases.

    More importantly, they claimed that what they were doing wasn't commercial in nature, and that it was a free speech issue.

    The judge tried to construct a few what-if scenarios involving situations where users could actually click on links rather than be forwarded to the site automatically.

    My biggest concern stems from the apparent inept skills of Ford's programmers. The Ford lawyer repeatedly stated that Corley could remedy this situation with "a few computer keystrokes," while Ford's programmers would have to write complex software and test it on their hundreds of web sites in order to block traffic from Ford cars have tons of computers in them, I hope those were programmed by people who are at least capable of doing some simple referrerd checking!

    Corely's lawyer appeared a bit more nervous than Ford's lawyer, and he kept forgetting that you are supposed to stand up when addressing the court. He obviously knows his technology, but didn't appear as strong on the legal aspects as Ford's lawyers (who didn't bowl me over with their tech knowledge). The judge commented that he was a little flustered by receiving CD-ROMs from Corley's lawyer.

    My prediction is that they'll get the injunction, and the ultimate outcome of the case will swing on Corley's lawyer dealing with Ford's reference to trademark law, and not relying strictly on the first amendment arguments.
  • Lawsuits are typically written as plantiff v. defendant. I read the title, and came to the impression that 2600 was suing Ford Motors- something I found out was false upon reading the article.

    Slashdot editors, try making your headlines accurate; don't put "2600" at the front to just attract all of the 2600-roadies.

  • > Since when do companies enjoy the rights of individuals?

    In 1886, the US Supreme Court ruled a railbed dispute titled Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad. The ruling held that a private corporation was a "natural person" entitled to all the rights and privileges of a human being.

    You can read how the history of how corporations acquired their ill-gotten rights here: .html []

    NOW you know why certain "informed" (rich) people become a "Corporate Sole" (A Corporate Sole exists for perpuitity. Read Black's Law dictionary for more goodies. i.e. The Queen is one.)

  • Gee, you don't suppose that Ford OUTSOURCES the development, hosting and implementation of their website, do you? I mean, what to you suppose the odds are that Ford contracts an Ad Agency to develop and maintain their website...

    Let's see:

    $ host has address

    and's whois says: is owned by:

    Business Internet, Inc. (NET-ICIX-MD-BLK1)

    3625 Queen Palm Drive

    Tampa, FL 33619


    "There are thing in the universe that aren't the same as in your little corner of it..."

  • There's two IP addresses in there... which is the typo?

  • Redirect it where?

    If Ford feels that it's wrong to redirect it in the first place, where should they redirect it to?

    2600? That's hypocrytical.
    To their own webpage? That makes it look like it IS theirs....
  • by iceT ( 68610 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @08:17AM (#213660)
    But they didn't 'link' to it. There is no page on their web-server that has a link to Ford's site.

    What they did do was define a DNS entry that points directly to Fords site. There is no linking. It is a DNS ENTRY. To assume it is a 'link' is to assume that the only protocol on the internet is HTTP.
  • I'll apologise here. I probably should have done a quick search for before I submitted the story. Regardless, I think that it is significant that the story got a writeup in today's New York Times and got some coverage that didn't come in the form of press releases from 2600. Somehow it just means more when someone not involved in the case writes about it.

  • Sheesh. Just look at the HTTP headers, and put up a page that tells you what happened (ie this is not an official GM page, obviously) and gives you the choice of clicking-through to the real page. It'll give you a chance to make the pranker seem juvenile, and it wil increase hits to your web site. What more do you want?
  • Ha Ha. I think the funniest part of the NYTimes article, however, is that the author won't dare to utter "fuck" in his column, but instead directs people to view the website at its IP address,, which is of course Bet THAT clarifies things for the average reader.


  • I knew someone was going to say this, and be called "insightful" over it. Thing is, there were new developments (I think an article in a major media source, the NYTimes, counts), and so they were keeping track of the story. What a horrible editorial technique it is to be persistent.

    Advance warning: there might even be Another story when this goes to trial. Beware.


  • by BlueUnderwear ( 73957 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @12:45PM (#213667)
    > Does anybody still have an HTTP 1.0 browser? I suppose there might be some green-screen luddite using an ancient copy of Lynx, but...

    > I don't think that would be a problem.

    So, in your eyes, any blind person is a "green-screen luddite"? Blind people often surf the web using lynx (or other text browsers) connected to a text-to-speech engine or to a braille line. Any content browseable only through Internet Explorer 5 is thus inaccessible to them...

    Well, you may have a point though: as blind people don't drive, they'd probably not be interested anyways by the petty quibbles between Ford, GM and 2600...

  • No, he's not saying people should express themselves differently, he's saying people shouldn't try to control what he says. Big difference; you reached too far with that. The people are free to say they wish he wouldn't use those words, but not to go to any length to try to FORCE him not to. Next time, engage brain, THEN use it.


  • by geomon ( 78680 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @07:47AM (#213670) Homepage Journal
    I just called Ford's customer service line (an 800 number) and told the representative that I was extremely disturbed that they would go after 2600 this way. I told them that I started buying Ford products because I was so sick of the constant quality problems I had with GM products. I also told them that my wife and I just purchased a 2000 Taurus, we've owned our '96 Escort Wagon since 1997, and that we are buying my wife a 2002 Mustang this fall. In short, I informed them that I am perfectly happy with Ford's products.

    But I expressed my dismay at the legal tack they have chosen to take. I told them that if I had typed "fuckgeneralmotors" into a search engine, or directed my browser to go to, it wouldn't have bothered me a bit. I would have been laughing at the joke, and would have appreciated being directed to a company who produce a product that I have been happy with for 5 years running.

    I told the customer rep to send a note to legal that they shouldn't have been so heavy handed in dealing with Corley and 2600. They could have expressed their displeasure with being associated with the domain name without having to resort to lawsuits.

    Gee, maybe they could have even talked to Corely and explained their position. What a novel concept that would have been.

    In short, shame on Ford for being so odious. Call their customer reps and let them know that you got the joke, that you would buy Ford products based on your impression of their quality (not on a domain name), and that by basing 2600 they have shown themselves to be nothing but corporate bullies.

    They did take my comments seriously.

  • This time he's being sued by Ford Motor Company for pointing a domain name that the New York Times won't mention to Ford's website.

    When did journalists turn into a bunch of pansies? So the domain name has the word "fuck" in it. It's a dirty word in our culture. But it's relevant to the story. The author of the piece wouldn't be including it to be funny, it's news, and should therefore be included. It's not as if readers won't have heard it anywhere before.

    This same thing happened a while back with the term "nigger". It's very offensive, very hurtful (much more so than "fuck"), and it has a cultural history that most Americans aren't proud of. But at the same time, when it's relevant to a news story, you say it/print it. No one is going to accuse the journalist of being a racist because he mentions what someone else says. It's time for people to grow up and realize reporting the news means reporting it all, offensive letter combinations included.

    The Good Reverend
    I'm different, just like everybody else. []
  • by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @07:44AM (#213674) Journal
    That argument makes no sense, when you realize that Ford made their site public. That's the whole point of running most advertising-type web sites. You want a public presence on the Internet.

    Claiming that linking to them from a site they don't approve of is equal to unauthorized use of their bandwidth makes as little sense as trying to control who can and can't view billboards on the side of the highway.

    In my opinion, if Ford can't handle the heat from people slandering their web site, they should reconsider running one at all. There's no legal battle to be fought here, though.
  • by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @08:30AM (#213675) Homepage Journal
    What, you mean like...

    Penis []
    Ass Raped Monkey []
    Rhenquest []

    Uh oh. They're going to sue me now! Oh no! Well I guess they'll just have to blow me! []

    By the way, they're getting off lightly with a simple taunting given how atrocious their web page is.

  • Sounds like a cop-out to me (2600's cop out, not yours). Some people just seem to be out to pick a fight, and while I stand behind 2600 for their work against the RIAA, this seems ridiculous.

    Ford has every right to just throw the book at them. I sure would. If you don't show a smattering of common sense and respect for others then you deserve to be dragged through the mud.

  • I think Ford did do their research on 2600. They know these guys won't give in just because they receive a strongly lettered word to change the link.

    They decided to cut to the real issue and just drag 2600 into court.

    I hope 2600 looses. There are better things to do with the net than piss in Ford's coffee pot.

  • I agree. I think a simple, polite email or phone call was warranted before Corley pointed that domain name to Ford's website. It could very well have averted the whole situation.

    Did Corley call Ford motors and ask if they would mind terribly if he pointed at them? No. I see no reason why Ford shouldn't return the favor.

    You go ahead and act like a dumbass and you get treated like one.
  • Are they really worried about loosing the customers who type in "" to ford ?

    Or could it be that the company dosen't want to be critisized ... which I do believe is a constitutionally protected form of speach!

  • ... perhaps to

    Linus has,in fact,grown,and explosively-JonKatz
  • by isfry ( 101853 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @08:28AM (#213686)
    Or Ford have a going to GM and then have GM have a goto 2600
  • But that's not what's happening here. He sut registered a domain name and made it point to the website. Using your example lets say there is already a website that says you torture puppies. is there anyhting wrong with me going out and registering a domain name and making it point to that web site?
    =\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\= \=\=\=\
  • by Domini ( 103836 ) <> on Friday May 18, 2001 @07:25AM (#213688) Journal
    GM should have pointing to
  • Corporations have the same rights of people, essentially. A corporation pays taxes, can sue and be sued, can enter into contracts, etc - just like a person. That's really the whole point of having a corporation in the first place.
  • Linking to their site violates no copyrights, as far as I am aware. The bandwidth excuse is bullshit though.

    IANAL, and I'm not saying I agree with Ford, or not, but I don't know that any legal precendent has been set for linking copywritten images, potentially out of context, into your page without permission is legal. If infact a precedent has been set, I would bet that it is not legal.

    The bandwidth thing is surely a statement to attempt to quantify the cost (i.e. damages) associated with mis-appropriating the images. Establishing some claim of cost incurred, would stand to increase any damages they might be awarded and could increase other penalties if this sort of thing was ever determined to be criminal.

    Personally, I think Ford should just accept the extra traffic and call it a day. They could have gotten plenty of publicity simply by denouncing the site (driving up it's traffic) and then making it break after they've maximized the number of pass through clicks.

    If the site is obviously intended to be some kind of parody or otherwise humorous, they (2600) may have some precedence, thanks to Falwell v. Hustler, to get away with using the copywritten images without Ford's permission.

  • ; > DiG 8.3 > ANY
    ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
    ;; got answer:
    ;; ->>HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 4
    ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2
    ;;, type = ANY, class = IN

    ;; ANSWER SECTION: 23h58m44s IN CNAME

    ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 1d23h58m44s IN NS NS2.ICSNET.NET. 1d23h58m44s IN NS

    NS2.ICSNET.NET. 1d23h58m44s IN A 1d23h58m44s IN A

    ;; Total query time: 1 msec
    ;; FROM: machine.domain.tld to SERVER: default --
    ;; WHEN: Fri May 18 16:02:11 2001
    ;; MSG SIZE sent: 43 rcvd: 152

  • IANAL but its Libel not Slander, and in Libel there is a strong fair comment defence. Basically you can slag off anyone or any company to your hearts content as long as you don't lie and say something that is demonstratably false.

    For instance if I wrote, Madonna is old and ugly and her music sucks, and she sues me I have a defence of fair comment, as looks and music are matters of taste.

    But if I was to wrote that Madonna had sex with a monkey, she can sue me for libel, and if the jury believes that she has never had sex with a monkey, I will lose.

    So, writing fuckford or linking to fuckford may be offensive or obscene, but is in no way libel.

  • by AMuse ( 121806 ) <slashdot-amuse.foofus@com> on Friday May 18, 2001 @08:05AM (#213705) Homepage
    Because creating a virtual directory with images from Fords' website, or cut n' pastes, could actually get you for Copyright violation.

    Linking to their site violates no copyrights, as far as I am aware. The bandwidth excuse is bullshit though.

    If that's a valid excuse, then companies can start suing slashdot for being linked to by us.
    --------------------------------------------- -----
  • Actually, it's not an HTML redirect. "" and "" both resolve in DNS to "".
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @09:03AM (#213707) Homepage
    There's already [], which is pointed to by [] (They also have [], [], and a number of others, all of which point to Nobody seems overly excited about that.

    The wierd thing here is that Ford is sueing, not GM. GM may have a case, because something using their trademark is being redirected to a competitor. It's hard to see how Ford can show injury. What's the legal theory?

  • It could be argued that 2600 is really amplifying the advertisement power of the Ford site, by increasing its viewership. If the Ford site is well designed, there is a good chance that some of those visitors will end buying a Ford vehicle. After all, the idea behind advertisement is to be seen by as many people as possible.

    The "resource use via bandwidth" argument would be valid only if the fuckGM site pointed to an internal Ford site, meant for the exclusive use of their workers, for instance.

  • by Pflipp ( 130638 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @07:35AM (#213713)
    Wait... lemme try to get it. This is the same guy claiming that 2600 isn't an illegal cracker's hangout, and that linking to DeCSS is legal due to first amendment thingies and stuff? Then I really have to say that this was a stupid action from him, regardless what ANY amendment has to say about it.

    It's... It's...
  • Slightly offtopic from the main thread, but worth saying:

    Odd. I frequently see it being referred to as the "n-word", which is rather perplexing in it's own right. And this is in prominent and respected newpapers. Yes, the word nigger does have a lot of negative history associated with it, and I can understand how upsetting it can be.

    Which is why it is important to quote people completely. Something is just lost in the translation.

    There is also the question why is the "n-word" only associated this priviledged status? When someone calls a Jew a kyke, you don't see it being referred to as the "k-word"? Or when someone calls an Asian a slope, the "s-word"? Or a homosexual a faggot, the "f-word"? // Add recursive code here

    I would rather that they use what was said and let the audience interpret it for themselves. Otherwise, in the Politcal Correct-only dictionary, we will have to correectly parse the "[a-z]-word" for what it really means. Talk about codification of language! But, that is only my opinion.
  • by iainl ( 136759 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @07:46AM (#213718)
    If GM were the ones suing then speech aspects like this would certainly be involved; however its Ford suing, on the really quite reasonable grounds that to the average person the site would appear to be owned by them, and therefore imply that Ford had that opinion of their competitors.

    If I were to post news that made people believe that you claimed torturing cute puppies was fun then you'd have grounds for claiming I was defaming you; speech isn't completely free of limitations.
  • Cool! I feel like I was actually there. Thanks for the report--somebody should mod this up.
  • by locutus074 ( 137331 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @07:27AM (#213720)
    Didn't we already see this in a recent Slashback []?


  • How can anyone argue for 2600 on this issue?

    To 99% of people accessing the WWW site, this would look like Ford had registered

    I disagree with the vast majority of domain protection lawsuits. But, I do agree with them in the case that someone is trying to pass themselves off as the company in question. If they have logos of the company & confuse consumers, they have stepped over the line.

    This standard has been upheld in many other cases. That is why you always see a disclaimer if there any confusion.. "This is not an official BobCo site". The 2600 DNS thing clearly gives no indication of being non-Ford. In 2600's info, they say "anyone confused can easily do a whois lookup", ya, let me explain this to my Mom.. If you ever are unsure about a domain name, telnet into my Linux box & run whois.

  • Is it because the fuck is in the name? What about sucks or reallysucks or justplainstinks?

    If it does make a difference, you lose. On regulating speech, to get around the prohobitions, one of the test is, if the restriction is content neutral.

  • I don't see the problem:

    At the end of the day, its about perception. Let me try to explain.

    It is possible that I might be able to explain the merits of the DeCSS case to a disinterested party such as my mother. However, if she discovered that the person behind DeCSS was also creating web sites with expletives in their names then she would conclude that Corley was a foul mouthed yob who doesn't deserve her support. I agree that this conclusion has no legal validity, but it is how very many ordinary people think. Also remember that although judges are supposed to consider cases purely of objective legal grounds, anyone who believes that they are not influenced by their personal feelings towards the plaintifs needs a reality check.

    Why do you think that of all the sites containing DeCSS the MPAA went after 2600? Just go to [] and have a look at it. Can you conceive of a site better designed to offend the average judge. The MPAA know that once they have won against 2600, it will be much easier to move on to more difficult targets like university professors [].

    Now, I am sure that DeCSS and F***GeneralMotors are both cases of great merit (although the latter does strike me as being remarkably juvenile). But I can't help feeling that the former would be better off if they were being fought by different people.

  • In effect, I think that Ford probably feels that they are getting a bad name (or could get a bad name) for something they didn't do. Sooner or later some idiot will start forwarding an emails that say "HEY, LOOK AT THIS. FORD POINTS FUCKGENERALMOTORS.COM TO THEIR WEBSITE". Then Ford would have to spend money on a PR campain to correct that misconception.
    Interesting argument there. Some idiots might take it the wrong way, so therefore it should be banned?

    Besides which, you are missing two important points here. In the first place, Ford has two easy solutions to the "problem" the first is a technological fix, they can simply refuse connections requesting "", and the second is that they could have asked 2600 to point the domain name somewhere else. The domain name once pointed to a lemon car site until the owner of the site sent them an email asking them not to point to him any more, they complied promptly and politely.

    This isn't about Ford not wanting to be associated with a certain domain name, this is about Ford seeking control of the net. If they win this one they will have set a new and deadly precident. What next, people being forbidden to link to certain websites? People being *charged* for the "privilage" of linking to certain websites?

    If Ford just wanted to avoid people thinking that they're registered the domain name (which is a totally silly argument, I doubt that anyone would think they had), they could have solved the problem quickly and easily, and without a lawsuit. It is amusing (in a sick sort of way) to note that Ford is part of many "Tort Reform" groups, and theoretically is opposed to frivilous lawsuits....

  • But they didn't 'link' to it. There is no page on their web-server that has a link to Ford's site. What they did do was define a DNS entry that points directly to Fords site. There is no linking. It is a DNS ENTRY. To assume it is a 'link' is to assume that the only protocol on the internet is HTTP.

    Feh, a text-based domain name, which points to a given server is a link. Not in the HTTP sense perhaps, but it is a link in the exact same sense that a symbolic link is in *nix.

    A domain name can point to any IP address that the owner of the domain name wants it to. If the owner of that IP address doesn't like it he has two possible solutions a) tell his server to reject requests from that domain name, or b) ask the person who owns the domain name to stop pointing it at his IP address. Ford rejected both of those solutions (the domain name is still pointing to their address), which sort of nullifies their argument that they are afraid that people will think they registered the domain name (if they were genuinely afraid of loosing their reputation they'd have taken measures to make it stop already). Instead they're engaging in militant nastyness and asking for buckets of money in an effort to put 2600 out of business.

    But neverminding all that, the point of your post is dead wrong, a domain name is *by*definition* a link.

  • Yes, he has the right. He has the right to tell fart jokes. He has the right to register silly domain names. He has the right to publish anything he wants. He has the right to undermine his own credibility. He has the right to alienate the people he hopes to reach and influence - the American consumer. He has the right to set back multimedia for Linux. He has the right to lose the right to link to websites. He has the right to jeopardize reverse engineering. We can talk all day about his rights.

    But it doesn't mean he's doing the right thing. Yeah, the MPAA took the fight to him. He has a responsibility the represent the issue now. Failing to do so means damages for himself, for Linux, and for the freedom to publish on the web.

    I used to giggle when I said the word fuck. I was eight. I grew up.

    He's engaged in a fight that's important on so many levels we don't even see them all yet. fuckgeneralmotors might sell a magazine or two, but if it loses a court case, it costs me.
  • Fuck General Motors, because General Motors fucks its workers. It's that simple. By closing US plants and sending them overseas to exploit foreign workers for below a living wage and meanwhile lay waste to US cities.

    You hate the company but want a job from them? I don't like it when companies find it easier to relocate than put up with government regulation and high taxes. Mexico has been quite pleased to lure American companies south and enjoy the benefits to thier economy. You can bet the companies that move out of the US put up with a lot less shit.

    I'm sorry you just want to play DVDs under Linux, but it's a damn good thing 2600 got sued and not you. Anyone facing what we're up against with such selfish motivations, would have surely settled by now.

    It's too bad that you see it that way. It's not shallow "selfish motivations" that move me. I have a DVD player and could give a rat's ass --except-- I see it as a piece of a bigger picture. You say DeCSS is out there so move along. But as we switch from traditional means of content storage (paper) to digital (like DVD) the open nature of our society is at risk when people start to micro-manage your ability to use information. The cliche of a digital divide could become real if we allow fair use to get choked to death by near-sighted copyright holders.

    Imagine the difficulty of future historians attempting to learn about life in our time, only to find we stored it all on encypted disks that only play on cripled players (players that only work when you have permision to use from the copyright holder.) But oh, the copyright holder is dead, and didn't release the material into the public domain before death

    Imagine computer monitors that only display information when you have permision from the copyright holder. Hard disks that only RWX when you have -you guessed it- permission from the copyright holder. Same for your TV set, your video recorders, and even your printers.

    It's about more that watching "Gladiator" in Xfree86. It's about your rights as a consumer. It about freedom of information.

    Perhaps you think SUVs are the bigger threat. To each his own. I find the bigger threat from those who would control information.

    Try to have a little perspective. Emmanuel Goldstein is putting his entire livelyhood on the line with each of these lawsuits. And he "needs to put bread on the table" too.

    I honestly hope he wins. I have no ill will towards 2600. I find it juvenile but mostly harmless. I mean it when I say that they could be an important (perhaps even mainstream) voice if they would learn how to control thier impulses. If Goldstein gets his ass sued into oblivion the other side gets to write his obituary. Is that what he wants?

  • Why should it matter who is fighting the battle? It is an important battle and anybody fortunate enough to be called to the field should be honored for the opportunity they are presented with.

    Nicely put. Cue the dramatic music.

    What you say would be true if the court system in our country had more common sense. Right and legal are two different things. 2600 has never been found guilty of a crime. Yes. 2600 is right about DeCSS and even the thing. But when they have the appearance of being lawless and then depend on the law to clear them, they are on thin ice.

    The problem is that if the law is going to protect anybody it _MUST_ protect 2600.

    I hope they win. There's a little matter of freedom of information at risk.

    PS - it sucks that your post got moderated down.

  • Too bad you did the AC thing. You'll probably never know I responded. If I sounded sanctimonious I didn't mean to be. Just as I'm sure you don't mean to sounds like a crass, cynical loudmouth.

    Put up your own DeCCS site and challenge the MPAA yourself.

    You're assuming I haven't. You haven't seen my website.

    Perhaps your ego is a little bit overblown ?

    I believe in what I say enough that I'll take credit, Mr.Anonymous Coward.

  • by Picass0 ( 147474 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @08:17AM (#213736) Homepage Journal

    2600 has been an outspoken anti-capitalist voice, and I wonder if we might not be screwed in the DeCSS fight because of their outlaw image. I'm a Linux user first and foremost, and I see these guys irresponsible behavior hurting something I believe in. I should be able to watch a DVD anywhere I please if I paid for the DVD. 2600's fight with the MPAA is important and impacts us as a community. I wish someone other than 2600 were fighting that battle instead.

    2600 could be a very important voice if they would learn to pick their fights. You can't be anti-everything. I wish they would think about what they are FOR, and how they jeopardize those things when they act like children.

    So just why are we supposed to be angry with GM? Is someone pissed because my Camaro is faster than their Honda CRX? Or is it the same reason we're supposed to be mad at Verison? They're a big company. And all big companies are evil. All of them. Bull.

    If someone is abusing their customers or workforce (ala Nike []) shine a light on them. But if someone is just trying to make a buck, hey, so am I. We all have to put bread on the table.

  • by Lizard_King ( 149713 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @08:46AM (#213737) Journal
    They did take my comments seriously.

    you sure about that? i've learned from my experience dealing with customer representatives is that these underpaid, under-appreciated employees usually don't give much of a hoot about the company. They have no stake in the company, therefore they feel no ownership, therefore they really don't care that much. They get paid to man the front line, and part of their job is absorbing the occasional bullet.

    hopefully i'm wrong, but i'm skeptical with your approach.
  • by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @08:16AM (#213738) Homepage
    I remember being IRIX about two years ago. too... I can just see the auctions on eBay: "SGI Challenge L, former FORD webserver!!"
  • Since when do companies enjoy the rights of individuals? Seems to me we're talking about a company being offended. I thought only people have a right to be offended. Corporations are in it only to make money, and if a consumer has a gripe, his airing of it should be protected. Let the company fix it any way it can, but certainly not in the courts.

    So, the company is not offended, it's 'good name' isn't being tarnished, because it isn't a citizen in the community! The only interest it cares about is its profitability. I hate when court time is spent protecting the marginal return of corps...

    Yes, I know this rant has nothing to do with what you wrote... thanks for being my parent post. :)
  • Thanks for that reducto ad absurdium. That is exactly my point, thereabouts. Funny how money bends and warps everything it touches to serve its own desires...
  • by gerddie ( 173963 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @07:28AM (#213748)
    read here [].
  • by nivedita ( 179357 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @11:43AM (#213751)
    That's actually a reply from Ford's web server. Try this instead:

    $ nslookup

    Non-authoritative answer:

    It's a DNS alias, not an HTTP redirect.
  • by Erasmus Darwin ( 183180 ) on Friday May 18, 2001 @08:34AM (#213753)
    Does anybody still have an HTTP 1.0 browser?

    Doing an fgrep on the webserver logs (going back to July 2000) at work (not an especially high traffic site by Internet standards, nothing geek related) turns up:
    841920 HTTP/1.0 requests
    1076070 HTTP/1.1 requests

    For just the past few months, the numbers are 254055 (1.0) versus 369703 (1.1).

  • Buut linking is the _foundation_ of the Internet :)

    And that somehow makes it immune to regulation? Words and pictures are the foundation of printed communication, but that doesn't mean I can string together "General Motors sucks. Sincerely, Ford Motors.", print up a bunch of flyers, and start handing them out.

    Similarly, if I were to take a random phone number from the phone book (for the sake of argument, let's say "Jenny 867-5309") and start publishing this already publically available information ("Hey, everyone, I saw this in the phone book -- Jenny 867-5309"), it's still a form of harassment.

  • I think history would show that the New York Times would not take kindly too it. After all, back in the day they made Infocom stop publishing (in hardcopy) The New Zork Times.
  • So, basically the argument of Ford/General Motors is that people visiting will think that this link is actually sponsored by Ford themselves?

    That's Ford's argument; GM isn't involved in this.

    And, yes, some people will really believe that Ford set up a anti-GM link with a swear-word in it, and they'll refuse to buy Ford products on the basis of that.

    (Basically, those are the same people who were boycotting Proctor & Gamble, because of the rumors that the CEO was a member of the Church of Satan.)

  • No, not Ford. You guys. All you indignant self-righteous paranoid delusionalists need to lighten up.

    It's a yuk. It's a funny. This case will have no impact whatsoever on your Constitutional right to download pr0n through the company firewall. The second it starts to get serious publicity, Ford will probably drop it. If they don't, it's just because they want to make it clear they had no involvement in setting the site up. Like the Democratic Party, Ford has to make it clear they are not responsible for the actions of their more ...ahem... zealous supporters.

    If I bought and redirected it to, I would expect Red Hat to distance from me. Of course they wouldn't, but that says more about the immature juvenile name-calling Linux culture than anything else.

    It's funny. Laugh. It has nothing to do with Your Rights Online.
  • 2600 should be able to register this domain name and General Motors should not be able to do any thing about it.

    Ford should not be able to control who links to their site.

    All that being said, why does 2600 have to be so stupid in this case.

    I like freedom of speech and think that I should be able to say most anything I like. However I don't think people should make harmful speech just to see how far they can go.

    Free speech is a good thing, but pick your battles with care.

    Ford is also being stupid in that they did not even send a letter to 2600 to ask them to break the link. IIRC

  • by HongPong ( 226840 ) <hongpong@hongpon g . com> on Friday May 18, 2001 @07:25AM (#213774) Homepage
    Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but it seems to me that "fuckgeneralmotors" is a statement of opinion, and someone at would not confuse it with the real GM. Routing it to Ford I'd say is a bastard thing to do, but this is free speech, IMHO.

    Companies are on a kick of saying that "Hey! That domain has our company name in it, so it's OURS!" Well, no. No it isn't. It's speech about your company.


  • The domain name system is All Fucked Up (tm).
    Where is it written that "all of .com is one
    giant space in protection of a Trade"? The
    domain name system is as much an expression of
    ideas as it is labels of trade; The ability to
    register a website called "Fuck Ford" isn't a
    abuse of Ford's trade mark, it is an expression
    of free speech reflecting the right of citizens
    everywhere to express their dislike of the Ford

    Companies these days attempt to acquire all known
    permutations of their name, including ones which
    are negative derivations of their name in order
    to protect themselves from things like this.
    However, I believe that this should _not_ be
    allowed. A company should _not_ be able to buy
    up the right to free itself from criticism; this
    is tantamount to allowing those with the most
    money to buy away the rights of others.

    The internet domain system is screwed up, as are
    its current policies.

  • No offense, but the amount it costs to fund a corporate legal department for a battle like this far outweighs any advertisement gained with their charge. Ford just wanted to stop this so that they wouldn't get sued by General Motors which would be a much, much more expensive battle. They didn't do their research on 2600 though.
  • That'd probably only work for HTTP/1.1 where you have a HOST: header.

    You have to wonder though, is ford looking for a solution or just trying to set legal prescident? there are plenty of technical solution to this problem, that would have kept it miles away from the courts.

    Maybe they thought the PR benefit of a highly publicized court battle would be greater than the PR benefit of added trafic to their website, and you'd have to admit, on that count they'd probably be right.


    In a related story, General Motors Corp. said they would be launching a second independant lawsuite against 2600 for their publishing of DeGMC source code.

    This software potentially allows users to break the digital encryption on General Motors cars and trucks. A spokesman for the car manufacturer said: "This clearly infringes upon our intellectual property rights, and can seriously damage our business. What would happen if instead of paying us for the millions it costs us to manufacture and develop new cars, people were just downloading "cracked" versions from the internet?"

    Emmanuel Goldstein, of the 2600 "hacker" magazine, defended the software on the grounds of fair-use laws: "This software is purely for the private use of individuals wishing to make full use of their GMC vehicles under existing fair use laws. It is simply impractical for most individuals to pirate whole automobiles, especially given the extensive cost of the bandwidth necessary to download a working GMC car or truck."

    He also pointed out that the auto manufacturing giant is unable to show any real cases of this software being used to create stolen cars.

    GMC lawyers said that the arguments of 2600 would be unlikely to stand up in court, and in a press release yesterday described the software as a "digital coat-hanger", and as a tool to aid car thieves.

  • They know by making a big stink out of this they end up in a series of headlines and articles. They also get a ton of people who feel compelled to try out the page and... surprise... they end up on Ford's website.

    Ever wonder why why Marilyn Manson gets so excited about church groups fighting to stop his concerts? There is no such thing as bad publicity... it still helps for name recognition.

All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin