Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney

Untitled
This page is being revised over the next week as part of the IP WikiProject. Changes will include dividing into sections, using standard court template, adding discussion and defenses under Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, Davidyuzhu (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal (2010)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * merged into  in 2010.


 * MERGE into

I'm proposing the merger of People Eating Tasty Animals into this article because that page is little more than a stub after several years. When the other page was up for deletion, voters only cite the court case significance as reason to keep it. And judging from talkpage comments, there also seems to be an attempt to use Wikipedia in order to keep up the parody effect from a defunct site. PrBeacon (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. It makes no sense to have two articles on this. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 07:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable. Bob98133 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's hard to come up with a good reason to keep it (I've tried! :-) ). Although I guess a case can be made that the page's existence heads off a perennial source of vandalism. :-) . --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. I've commented regarding this before. The site is dead. The creation of the site was illegal. The intentions of the site were (borderline) criminal as well. While the case should remain separate, for the moment, this could easily be merged into the end of the PETA page with an internal link to the case.Lostinlodos (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if this subject could be discussed without it devolving into defamatory false accusations that one of the subjects did something "illegal" and "criminal," neither of which was part of the court's finding. That said, the merger is overdue. Mike Doughney (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It took me a moment to realize who the user just above is. I have struck through the comments in question, and, frankly, this is much the same thing as why we do not allow defamation in BLP articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read the case holdings then? Both courts held that the site's operation and use were illegal, and affirmed violations as trademark infringement, trademark dilution. In other words, they broke the law. One may not agree, but that's exactly what the courts stated. Lostinlodos (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll wait a few more days before proceeding, then. For the record I don't agree that the parody site was borderline criminal. Yes it was "illegal" in the sense of trademark infringement but the courts ruled that it was not malicious. As controversial as PETA is itself, keeping a sense of humor seems important too. PrBeacon (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.