[HAL9000]

That doesn't mean that BH is not in violation of their contract.

In order to accept that, you'd have to believe that "1234 Blah St., NoWhere WI" is a valid address.

As noted earlier, the website could have been registered with another firm in an "owner by proxy" arrangement that would have concealed their identities (unless a judge ordered the proxy to turn over the information).

Instead, the boycott-hollywood.us owners chose to violate the registration agreement by entering a bogus address. Their assertion that they were being threatened is not a legally valid excuse to breach the contract. William Morris complained to dotster.com, and dotster had no choice but to find that boycott-hollywood.us was in violation of the contract. Dotster probably sent the 15-day notice to the owners by USPS mail, but it was undeliverable due to the phony registration info.

The point is - complaining to dotster.com will do no good. boycott-hollywood.us simply needs to find a legitimate way to register their domain name.

[lonewacko_dot_com]

You missed a negative. I did not say "That doesn't mean that BH is in violation of their contract," I said "That *doesn't* mean that BH is *not* in violation of their contract."

In other words, BH might be in violation of their contract.

And, so what? William Morris Agency got them on a technicality. Who the hell appointed WMA as the WHOIS Polizei?

Why would WMA complain about someone's WHOIS? Because they're interested in keeping Internet records straight?

Or, did they complain because they thought that it would be a cheap and easy way to muscle this site off the web?

If BH has broken libel or harrassment laws, let WMA sue or get a court order. They will definitely be able to get accurate WHOIS information that way.

Did they do that? So, how is this different from a SLAPP suit then?