The Petra Zone

How do we start the battle?

Funny you should bring this up... just the other day I went looking to see when this domain is up for renewal... and it's quite a ways away.

I'd just LOVE to see johnschlitt.com revert back to its REAL owner, instead of being used improperly to promote Ebay sales.

John could have gotten his domain back a long time ago, but he didn't fight for it. Obviously fighting a domain case can get expensive, but still, there's no reason he couldn't have fought this case and won when all the domain trouble first started.

But there's also no reason he can't get the domain immediately. All he has to do is ante up a few hundred bucks to KenyaTech.

--Josh

Didn't John copyright protect his name/likeness? If he did, a company/individual cannot legally use the name, especially if it is a personal name. Sounds like somebody was asleep on this one. Of course, who would think that somebody would be a dork and do such a thing?

They probably know he won't fight it or doesn't have the money or time to fight it. Remember the internet and copyrights are a very gray area when you put the two together and than try and bring the law into it.

They probably know he won't fight it or doesn't have the money or time to fight it

That's about it.

The guy who took it is (or was) a member of his church, for Pete's sake. Who would have thought someone would do something so dirty as to steal his name and use it for his own purposes?

Go head - type in http://www.johnschlitt.com and see what you get.

sue d. wrote:Go head - type in http://www.johnschlitt.com and see what you get.

Interstingly enough, I get a page cannot be displayed error. I was hoping to get a page with some kind of contact link so we could email this turkey.

sue d. wrote:How do we start the battle?

There is a lawyer who does a guest spot on the radio here every Wednesday. People call in with their issues, and he gives them free advice (as far as he can on the radio; some things can't be handled that way, of course). One of his favorite phrases: "strongly worded letter." I think if John pays a lawyer fifty or a hundred bucks to write a letter to his squatter, the guy will cave to him and give it back. The threat of legal action is often as good as the legal action itself for getting people moving.

Yeah that is something that alot of law firms try first, just to see if the person will cave. John might be able to get the his name back for that little of money.

My two cents:

First of all, this is not a matter that concerns any of us. It is solely John's concern. His lack of interest in the internet likely factors in his inaction in the matter. However, it is possible that he is among those who take the scriptures more literally than apparently some Christians do when admonished in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 6. Some of the translations include:

1 Cor 6:1 (NIV) "If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?"

1 Cor 6:7-8 (AMP) "Why, the very fact of your having lawsuits with one another at all is a defect (a defeat, an evidence of positive moral loss for you). Why not rather let yourselves suffer wrong and be deprived of what is your due? Why not rather be cheated (defrauded and robbed)? "

It would be walking a fine line to try to live humbly and lead a quiet life (1 Thes 4:11-12) while filing lawsuits and threatening legal action against your fellow man.

I think the world is way too lawsuit/litigation happy as it is. If we follow the principles laid out in scripture to deal with disputes and still fail, we have to trust that God will mete out the appropriate judgment. These principles are a lot more difficult to follow than to follow the lead of the world, but the rewards for believers and the glory for God will be much greater.

That was a good one Bridget. John is a big boy and he'd go that route if he wanted to. Besides, the Schlittmeister barely knows how to switch a computer on and off. He's not into the Internet, which is probably wise on his part when you stop to think about it.

There reaches a point that you should just let stuff go, for your own sake if nothing else. It doesn't change anything and you don't hurt anyone but yourself in the long run by holding grudges. Letting go doesn't mean the other person has won or gotten away with anything, it means you're trusting God's laws of reaping and sowing. If people don't want to do what's right there will be consequences, even if they don't reap those consequences right away or you're not around to see it.

johnschlitt.net is cool anyway, we don't need the old one.

Michael wrote:

sue d. wrote:How do we start the battle?

I think if John pays a lawyer fifty or a hundred bucks to write a letter to his squatter, the guy will cave to him and give it back. The threat of legal action is often as good as the legal action itself for getting people moving.

This probably had a chance of success when the domain was still held by an individual guy. John should have acted at the beginning of this ordeal. Now that the domain is owned by a company called KenyaTech, which specializes in buying old domains and holding them until someone buys them, this tactic will not work. Companies like this are on the receiving end of lawsuits all the time, so they won't be frightened.

The reality is that to win a domain back, you have to fight a complex legal battle. It would cost at miminum $1,500. KenyaTech, on the other hand, would probably part with the domain for $300-500. It's easier to just buy the domain off the company than fight the legal battle. The company knows this, and that's why they buy these domains in the first place. There are lots of companies like this. What they do is despicable, but legal.

--Josh

We all know John doesn't really care to use a computer and also he has a great web site now, so he is probably thinking that it is not worth it, let it go and don't look back.

calicowriter wrote:My two cents:

First of all, this is not a matter that concerns any of us. It is solely John's concern. His lack of interest in the internet likely factors in his inaction in the matter. However, it is possible that he is among those who take the scriptures more literally than apparently some Christians do when admonished in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 6. Some of the translations include:

1 Cor 6:1 (NIV) "If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?"

1 Cor 6:7-8 (AMP) "Why, the very fact of your having lawsuits with one another at all is a defect (a defeat, an evidence of positive moral loss for you). Why not rather let yourselves suffer wrong and be deprived of what is your due? Why not rather be cheated (defrauded and robbed)? "

It would be walking a fine line to try to live humbly and lead a quiet life (1 Thes 4:11-12) while filing lawsuits and threatening legal action against your fellow man.

I think the world is way too lawsuit/litigation happy as it is. If we follow the principles laid out in scripture to deal with disputes and still fail, we have to trust that God will mete out the appropriate judgment. These principles are a lot more difficult to follow than to follow the lead of the world, but the rewards for believers and the glory for God will be much greater.

First of all, the context of those scriptures that you quoted were not even close to this situation. People within the church body should be able to reconcile differences, no doubt. But we are in the world, occupying unti He comes, and must operate under the local laws and customs of our respective governments and systems, which sit on the shoulders of the most High. So we are not at an impass. If you read ALL of those scriptures that remotely apply, before and after, court is not the first, but the last resort. I can show you more verses that talk about God loving the "balance" of the law, as in the perfect justice. So, for a measure to be weighed, it must be on the scale. For it to be in the scale, it most be in the court.

Now, John would not be dealing with a believer per se, but a company. So, unless he can get the company before the elders or council of his church (or any church), and they are willing to settle with the majority vote (which they won't), then all bets are off.

Brent, I agree with you to an extent. However, the world watches believers to see how we are different from the rest of the world. If we behave no differently, if we are not willing to turn over our cloaks as well as our tunics (Matt 5:40), we do nothing to glorify God.

Yes, I know this (like the Beattitudes) is the ideal, and that there will be instances when we will feel justified in taking legal action against others. But my point is that this is such a minor issue, and perhaps the examples/perceptions of turning the other cheek, loving those who persecute you, and serving God instead of money are more important to some Christians than asserting their legal rights.