John Zuccarini gets 2.5 years in prison

[aww]

John Zuccarini was finally sentenced to 2.5 years in prison on Thursday after being arrested in late 2003 for registering thousands of domain names such as harrypottor.com, bobthebiulder.com, and dinseyland.com and redirecting them to pornography sites.

He is the first person to be prisioned under the new
"Truth in Domains Names Act" in the United States.

Reuter's orginal story or AP news wire
or pick any news source

Attorney General John Ashcroft:

Individuals who use trickery and deceit to lure children to X-rated websites must know that they will pay a price for their criminal conduct...As today's sentence demonstrates, those who violate that law and expose innocent children to pornography for their own financial gain will be prosecuted, and they will serve time in jail.

 

[Wilfredo]

Do you think he did it for money or just to be sick ?
Im not to updated in this case but if he only did it to make money of the people that had own CC and was going to pay for adultmatrial I dont think its right.

But If he did it just to offend kids I think he should get a punish but maybe not jail.

Im pretty glad that I dont live in the US ;D cause you have some scary laws. And its much easier to get sued and stuff.

 

[aww]

I can't possibly begin to understand why someone would route ANY undecidedly adult name directly to adult material. There is no excuse.

Greed and/or perversion like that is very ugly. Even if he gets out early after a year I doubt he will ever do that again. If he does, then I guess we know it's perversion. I wonder if they will be bright enough for his parole to keep him away from computers (and kids). Of course the system will not even try to analyze or treat him for mental illness, which is sad.

I am more curious what happens to his 5000+ domain names. Does he legally still own them? Will they be resold? Absorbed?

 

[Anthony]

WhiteHouse.com --> need I say more?

 

[nicholas]

the thing with this guy is that the target of those domains is obviously children (harrypotter, disney, etc.), and that's what makes it sick.

Still, while it would be nice to hang this guy, putting him in jail for it might still be a little too much. Then again, an example must be made.

 

[domdom]

interesting what they would have done if he was not a usa citizen.

if he was british, german or whatever they could not do anything.
usa has no power in other countries .also in some countries that kind of thing would good un noticed.

i imagine if you did it in one country example europe, and your traffic was from outside your country then , no one would be able to do anything.

 

[Wilfredo]

I think there should be some kind of internetlaw, and the domain should just be closed at once. The best and only way to do it.

 

[SearchHeap]

Re: John Zuccarini gets 2.5 years in prison

Originally posted by aww
John Zuccarini was finally sentenced to 2.5 years in prison on Thursday after being arrested in late 2003 for registering thousands of domain names such as harrypottor.com, bobthebiulder.com, and dinseyland.com and redirecting them to pornography sites.

Great news!! Glad to see him go because he a.) targetted children with pornography and b.) contributed to the bad name the domain biz has gotten.

 

[Wanda]

Appears www.HarryPotter.com is back in Warner hands.. that's good.


John Zuccarini
get's 2.5 yrs..

so.. how many years will the

"Dirty Clergy" of the Catholic Church rec'??

 

[AdoptableDomains]

Originally posted by domdom
interesting what they would have done if he was not a usa citizen.

if he was british, german or whatever they could not do anything.
usa has no power in other countries .also in some countries that kind of thing would good un noticed.

i imagine if you did it in one country example europe, and your traffic was from outside your country then , no one would be able to do anything.

No, they probably couldn't jail him. There have been some cases in the past where the fact that ALL .com domain names are in a root database in the USA (at Verisign) gave US jurisdiction. They probably couldn't get him to a trial, but they could get his domains.

 

[Jeanco]

Got what he deserves

 

[painperdu]

Yeah, it's just too obvious that he fully intended to get children to his porno sites. I guess he figured that these kids would just use mom and dads credit cards to see some interesting stuff.

It was a stupid move and now he has to pay.

 

[Rob]

Well I dont agree entirely.

No child has access to the Internet without adult permission, and it is their responsibility to protect that child from things.

A child that young to want to look at teletubbies should not be on the Internet alone anyway... should they?

And any child over 12 these days looks at porn - its just time moving on. I dont really agree with there being a kind of 'nanny' of the net protecting children. The Internet is for adults - who if they allow minors online should bare responsibility for them.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

Originally posted by RobSCM

A child that young to want to look at teletubbies should not be on the Internet alone anyway... should they?

It really doesn't matter if a parent is even the one typing in the name with the child sitting beside them. If porn immediately comes up on the typo, the kid is wondering what that was, before the parent can close the window or figure out what happened.

Also, many parents may make a lot of effort with netnanny type programs, but they are only as good as the last database update. If a typoporn name is put up today, it may take days for it to be reported and blacklisted. In the mean time, kids, schools, and parents with kids present could have visited.

Originally posted by RobSCM
The Internet is for adults - who if they allow minors online should bare responsibility for them.

Why should the internet be just for adults? It's one of the best educational tools ever developed. Should television or radio be just for adults as well?

We can and have ways to separate content levels of books in bookstores and libraries, programs and channels on television, movies in rental stores, records in record stores and just about every other kind of media. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to on this form of media as well.

What he did with typo-porn was really not much different than putting pornographic movies in Disney movie sleves at a video store, or putting kids comic book covers on hustler magazines in the bookstore.

 

[Bill1]

i think prison is a bit steep it would have been better if they slapped him with a big financial penalty dont you think?

 

[Wanda]

Originally posted by RobSCM
Well I dont agree entirely.

No child has access to the Internet without adult permission, and it is their responsibility to protect that child from things.

A child that young to want to look at teletubbies should not be on the Internet alone anyway... should they?

And any child over 12 these days looks at porn - its just time moving on. I dont really agree with there being a kind of 'nanny' of the net protecting children. The Internet is for adults - who if they allow minors online should bare responsibility for them.

Originally posted by RobSCM
Well I dont agree entirely.

No child has access to the Internet without adult permission, and it is their responsibility to protect that child from things.

A child that young to want to look at teletubbies should not be on the Internet alone anyway... should they?

And any child over 12 these days looks at porn - its just time moving on. I dont really agree with there being a kind of 'nanny' of the net protecting children. The Internet is for adults - who if they allow minors online should bare responsibility for them.

Originally posted by RobSCM
Well I dont agree entirely.

No child has access to the Internet without adult permission, and it is their responsibility to protect that child from things.

A child that young to want to look at teletubbies should not be on the Internet alone anyway... should they?

And any child over 12 these days looks at porn - its just time moving on. I dont really agree with there being a kind of 'nanny' of the net protecting children. The Internet is for adults - who if they allow minors online should bare responsibility for them.

Originally posted by RobSCM
Well I dont agree entirely.

And any child over 12 these days looks at porn - its just time moving on.



RobSCM..
Allow me to set you straight here.. your quote above.. in which you imply that ANY CHILD 12yrs and older looks at porn..
is a lie.

I am the mother of a 13yr old.. and the step mother of a 16yr old.. and the new mommy of a 4.5mth old..
my girls.. are involved in choir and tennis.. and yearbook staff.. and class representives.. and neither of my teen's seek porn, nor view porn while online. You stand corrected.

Your post basically backs the thug: John Zuccarini


Do you have any idea.. at all.. what the #1 cause of teen fatality is?

Well.. it's suicide.. yes.. that's right.. suicide..

And it's because our teens are "lost" in this time.. this day.. in this generation...
and it is a horrific fact.. and it's thugs like:
John Zuccarini which lead our youth astray.. regardless of the type of parent the child has..

 

[Elefekt]

me agree with wanda...im 16 and its hard to keep that crap off my screen..not cause im messed up but because idiots like that throw it on everything and i am constantly surfing the net for inspiration on new projects...

I think that idiot got what he deserved. rob some kids got brains and im one of em.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

Originally posted by Bill1
i think prison is a bit steep it would have been better if they slapped him with a big financial penalty dont you think?

If it were just a trademark violation, yes. However, it was not only trademark violations, but this was for the willful deception of pushing pornography on sites expected to be visited by young children. The legal penalty is a fine or two years in prison. He was a millionaire, so money would not be a good deterrent to him. He probably got off light based on the number of individual counts he could have gotten had they been able use cases before the law went info effect.

I think now we see why whitehouse.com went up for sale so suddenly with the stipulation it can't be used for adult content.

 

[Bill1]

you make a good point mark

 

[Wanda]

Originally posted by Elefekt
me agree with wanda...im 16 and its hard to keep that crap off my screen..not cause im messed up but because idiots like that throw it on everything and i am constantly surfing the net for inspiration on new projects...

I think that idiot got what he deserved. rob some kids got brains and im one of em.

I admire your strength in your faith.. at your young age Elefekt.. your on the right path..

 

[inflames]

i think there is nothing wrong with adult websites , however i believe what this man done was wrong and i think the sentance he got was a little lean he should have recieved at least 5 years .. he knew what he was doing i think hes a sicko and was trying to get kids involved in porn ..

 

[nirv]

Certainly got what he deserved here, as inflames said maybe it was a little lean. The fact he was a millionaire and still doing this surprised me, greed is a nasty thing and inevitably leads to a big fall.