> Damages, whatever. Terminology is really not worth fighting over. That's like saying "Cars, bicycles, whatever. Terminology is really not worth fighting over

> Damages, whatever. Terminology is really not worth fighting over. That's like saying "Cars, bicycles, whatever. Terminology is really not worth fighting over." There's a difference between the two. > There is no conceivable way this company did that much damage to Verizon. In fact, it's unlikely they damaged Verizon at all, especially when we know that most users find pages through Google and that Google would certainly return Verizon's real site first. If anyone was damaged, it was the people who thought they were at Verizon's site but weren't, and the number of those people is probably 3 at best. OnlineNIC claims that it made ~$1500 in profits from it. That's just their claim and already far more than 3 visitors. Some of those visitors may have gotten lost and never ended up on Verizon's website. They may have been able to make more from their visitors than OnlineNIC. Their brand is lessened by the experience. They had to find OnlineNIC. They had legal expenses. And there's probably more. > Look at the other story they link to about file-sharing. I have no interest in comparing anything to file sharing/piracy. That subject seems to cause some powerful emotions that make rational discussion impossible.