[New-imc] BeachcitiesIMC

[SuZQ]

> beachcities is not, never has applied to be, and can never, ever, become an
> IMC. They are not now, nor have they ever been involved with the new imc
> process. They are  criminals, frauds, and imposters.
>
> We need to deal with this situation, but under no circumstances can we deal
> with their activities internally. They are outside of us. We can sue, press
> charges, implore, or insist. We can and will act on this in our own time,
> and within the forums of our choosing. The courts. The streets. The world of
> the net.
>
> Let's not take up any more space on imc process or new imc on this now. Yes,
> imc-legal should look into this, and I for one await their response. The

I've seen no discussion of how to deal with Beach Cities IMC on the legal
listserve, so Im forwarding this bit in hopes that somebody picks up on
it.  IMHO, I don't think there's much we can do legally.  "IMC",
especially as a suffix to a larger word, is not really copyrightable as a
string of letters, and much more blatant examples of cybersquatting and
imposture (gatt.org and nato.org , for example) are common practice on the
net and have even established a certain legal right to do so.  We've
hardly enforced copyright of our code, either ... with new IMCs forming
all the time (with and without the consent of the global new-imc list) we
can hardly control who uses our format.

I say we just accept that "imitation ist the sincerest form of flattery,"
and that we've finally arrived in the world when we get a sincere and
honest attempt at satire made of us like BeachCitiesIMC.  (The ultimate
vindication of our status as a web superpower  will come when
"indymedia.com" redirects to a porn site...)  And show we can take a joke.

If that fails, spam their newswire.

Honestly, they're not worth our time.