CEO Says SOPA & CISPA Are Needed Because A Disgruntled Customer Once Set Up A Parody Site To Mock Him
from the seriously? dept
The Washington Post is running a rather bizarre op-ed piece from a guy who runs an "internet marketing"/SEO business in which he argues that we need SOPA and CISPA because someone once set up a parody page mocking his business -- something that this guy, Kenneth Wisnefski claims is "an attack":But after enduring two online attacks to my companies' reputation and databases, I've come to the conclusion that the protection businesses would get from the legislation is worth sacrificing privacy.First of all, a parody page is not "an attack." Second, setting up a parody page is not "stealing" your logo. It's just making a copy of it. Most importantly, it's hard to see how there's a trademark issue here, because no one would see that page and get confused. Many, many such "sucks sites" have been deemed perfectly legal when it comes to trademark infringement. Now, there may possibly have been a defamation issue -- depending on what was stated on the website -- but neither SOPA nor CISPA deal with defamation. So, no, the laws would not have helped at all.
About a year ago, my company WebiMax was attacked by a person who stole our logo, created a mock Web site and misappropriated our tagline — Experience, Integrity, Results. He changed it to: "No experience, lack of integrity, no results." He posted commentary about WebiMax that was false and painted a negative image of us.
We got a preliminary injunction and the hosting company pulled it down. Three months later it popped back up on a hosting company in Ireland that works beyond the boundaries of the law. We believe we would not be going through this if the SOPA measure were in effect.
From there, he goes on to talk about how in a different company, someone hacked into the company's database and retrieved credit card info. Because of that, he thinks CISPA makes perfect sense, even if it means that the government might get to read his email:
Opponents of the measures raise the privacy concerns stemming from the government’s proposed authority to monitor online activity and shut down Web sites that violate copyright laws.Except... having credit card info your company stored exposed has little to do with CISPA. At the very least, it sounds like someone should have followed much better payment database security techniques... such as encrypting the information. That kind of info is widely available to anyone and has absolutely nothing to do with CISPA. If CISPA was in effect when he had that same database setup, it would have done nothing to have prevented the hacking or to help anyone track down who did it.
I agree with that sentiment. I’d hate to have someone from the government reading my e-mails, too. But the reality is the protection the measures could offer businesses are worth the sacrifice in privacy to prevent another worst-case scenario.
I fail to see how "the protection measures" are "worth the sacrifice to privacy" when they wouldn't have actually helped in either of the cases he mentioned. And, of course, anyone who thinks privacy and security are "trade-offs" doesn't seem to know enough about either thing. As the slight paraphrase to the old Ben Franklin quote says, "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cispa, defamation, kenneth wisnefski, parody, privacy, sopa
Companies: webimax
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Let's just get this out of the way now...
- Ben Franklin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's just get this out of the way now...
You Politicians can shove your SOPA/PIPA/CISPA where the sun don't shine !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's just get this out of the way now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's just get this out of the way now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's just get this out of the way now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's just get this out of the way now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's just get this out of the way now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's just get this out of the way now...
Unfortunately, the real solution that I fear will not happen is that we just need to get money out of politics all together, which means that candidates would be banned from taking donations and would be banned from spending money on advertising. Imagine the self-righteous indignation of voters proclaiming, "I don't want my taxes going to pay for some liberal socialist fascist's fifteen minutes in front of the camera!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's just get this out of the way now...
And those ones that vote, will just keep getting their info from their usuall means, and no doubt for some of them, that'll be corporate media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's just get this out of the way now...
Fight for your right to directly decide what the law should be!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's just get this out of the way now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's just get this out of the way now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's just get this out of the way now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think of the letterhead!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA and CISPA are kids gloves compared to how used to punish people who said mean things about others!
We used to jail and even execute people in the dark ages for saying mean things about nobles and kings! And we used to fight to the death in duels when someone said something mean!
So people saying mean things should be grateful that we're only stealing all their rights and freedom and online property! You'll still have a long life of having no rights or online property!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So much for "the definition of copyright hasn't changed" and "things suck now because you derailed SOPA" and "SOPA wouldn't change existing laws".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just another bunch of SEO loons who cannot handle negative reviews based on truths about their company.
In reality what they want to stop is anyone stating how SEO doesn't really work for the service these companies supposedly provide and how its so much puffery and snake oil most of the time. Of course SOPA and CISPA are wanted by this guy (and his cohorts) they would then be able to close down anyone legally stating the bleeding obvious and hosting consumer reports that might have negative connotations.
For example: http://uniquemethod.com/review-of-webimax-seo-practices-and-rankings
would be removed, as would other major consumer reporting places that dare to show negative reviews of customer experiences.
Maybe someone should just create a parody site now of what this dimwit is now stating.. Full of hyperbole, parody and de minimus stupidity that no reasonable person would mistake as truth would be perfect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not all that difficult to do what they promise to do for you, except where some will promise to get a backlink from your hated competitor down the drive. It's slow and time consuming and a bit frustrating but not all that hard.
Incidentally, having had a quick look at their site and what they promise, along with what they charge, I'm not surprised someone put up a parody site. It just begs to be made fun of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's easy to not care when you think it doesn't involve you.
That's because anything important he says is done in a secure room, not e-mail that can later be used against him. He forgot how he should have to have a wire on him 24/7 to be monitored by the government, for the children..oops.. I mean for his protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colon Pain
Sounds like this guy needs less ego and more self realization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Colon Pain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Colon Pain
He could have entire posts that consist of: "but...but...piracy!" or "...for the children!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Colon Pain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Colon Pain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Colon Pain
we steal from techdirt because we suck.
...and we're kinda lazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think any of us signed up for "A government of the People, by the People and for Gigantic Faceless Corporations".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"
First, Mr. Wisnefski, it is not "misappropriation" (your word) of your tagline to change it from "experience, integrity, results" to “no experience, lack of integrity, no results.” That is called legitimate criticism of your business.
Second, this commentary by Kenneth Wisnefski is a great example of why SOPA should NOT have been passed. WebiMax used the court system to stifle online criticism of its business. It sounds like the Defendant (who created the fake WebiMak site) had a reasonably strong defense: because the defendant changed the WebiMax tagline, he could have argued that there was no trademark infringement. That is, an ordinary consumer would not actually believe that the fake website was WebiMax. Rather, a consumer would understand that the fake website was a spoof intended to criticize WebiMax *because* of the fake tagline. Thus, no trademark infringement (not every use of a trademark is infringement). Any material copied from WebiMax would clearly be fair use, used for criticism of WebiMax, and not copyright infringement. It sounds like the defendant (the creator of the fake website) did not bother showing up to court, which is probably why the court ordered the Preliminary Injunction. (Mr. Wisnefski, did the defendant show up?) The defendant likely did not show up because (1) he knew he could change to a foreign web host; (2) it would be expensive; and (3) it may have eliminated his anonymous status (if he had any).
Certainly the creator of the web site has a first amendment right to create a fake web site, criticize WebiMax, and even use the WebiMax logo and content - in some circumstances (e.g., parody, criticism, etc.).
The supporters of SOPA argued that SOPA would only be used in the "worst of the worst" cases where American intellectual property was being ripped off, resulting in lost american jobs. Protecting the reputation of WebiMax is not one of those "worst of the worst" cases. Instead, from the evidence that Wisnefski provided in this article, SOPA would have allowed WebiMax to stifle free speech. And the owners of "foreign web sites" (that SOPA targeted) are very likely not to show up in US court because of the added expense (which would have resulted in unnecessarily blocked websites). Thus, SOPA would give businesses a big tool to stifle criticism - exactly what Mr. Wisnefski apparently wanted to use it for.
Regarding CISPA, it seems that VendorSeek.com was able to stop the attack on its systems with minimal loss. Way to go VensorSeek! Way to implement good security! So, why is this a reason to destroy our privacy and permit government intrusion on a scale never seen before? "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In that case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like some of Eric Dezenhall's work
He advised PRISM to focus on messages such as "Public access equals government censorship", and hinted that publishers should try to to equate traditional publishing models with peer review, and "paint a picture of what the world would look like without peer-reviewed articles".
Truth, schmooth, we're talking perception here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, what?
So is he just mad they mocked him poorly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait, what?
They have now!
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm reminded of the Goon Show, "Shifting sands", 1957:
Grytpype-Thynne: Lieutenant Seagoon, we have it on good authority from our milkman that the besieged garrison at Fort Thud on the frontier of Waziristan has lost its union jack.
Seagoon: You mean... our troops don't know what side they're on?
C.O: They know which side they're on... but they can't prove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm glad he cleared that point up for all his customers. It looks like he's doing a decent enough job of showing people why they shouldn't use his company. Who needs a parody?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We'll why didnt you say so /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get some nerds in Congress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ireland still beyond the pale as far as laws go?
So, they just got a preliminary injunction? I know these things are often used as cheap alternatives to trials, but that doesn't mean he would have won his case (certainly it wouldn't under English law, where such an injunction just requires a serious question for trial, not something vexatious - and yes, I had an exam on equitable remedies this morning...).
But the main thing that gets me about this is the final part - the suggestion that Ireland is beyond the law - because, obviously, everyone knows that Ireland is a lawless place, with no respect for foreigners, with no rights protecting reputation, copyright, trade marks or whatever other part of law he's complaining about.
Oh wait, Ireland does have laws, and is subject to three sets of them (national, EU, ECHR), with fundamental rights specifically covering reputation, copyright and trade marks... To my knowledge Ireland doesn't even have an equivalent of that pesky first amendment to get around. Or was it simply that he couldn't be bothered to pay an Irish lawyer to file a claim in Ireland?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ireland still beyond the pale as far as laws go?
In an equitable world there would be an ample remedy of making him clean the vats of Guinness whilst quoting Erin poetry in the original Gaelic
PS: Hope you did well in your equity test, and all the rest to the tests you will do this semester (and next)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the parody site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's the parody site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, and for reputation management. Someone just managed to wreck his own!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it is not his privacy to trade with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it is not his privacy to trade with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wait a minute..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CwF RtB - SEO
Connect with your fans! Give them a Reason to Browse
A lot of your SEO work will be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Retaliation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
0 tolerance for the 1 percent
we're not buying your garbage. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DIAF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
webimax past developer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol still true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]