*Update* for DMCA Black Friday : Walmart officially sue FW, F@tWallet Strikes Back Using DMCA..

[Lars]

Maybe somebody can answer this ... if I change the address (where I live) that is related to my domain/site from my current address here in the U.S. to my main address in Germany, will I then be safer in regard to legal threads like these ones in the future?

 

[WebDude]

Originally posted by: kombatmud

Originally posted by: mechsiah
My personal understanding is as follows:

- There would be no copyright violation to post a message that said "I heard that Best Buy is going to sell X for $xx.xxx". This information would be considered "common".

- Posting a scan or large portions of a scan or LINKS (by DMCA) to such scans would be a violation of copyright law.

- I believe the stores would argue that the information contained in their ads are proprietary until the point of publication, and the disemination of that information negatively impacts their business in the form of financial losses. The argument is weak, and may not make it past summary judgement, BUT, it is not frivilous.q]

I agree that that's what the companies are claiming, however under the DMCA 17 USC 107 Fair use clause, it seems that it would only be considered infringement if it had an effect on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Since the market, and the value of a sales circular is zero, then this can't be considered infringement under the DMCA.

I would like to see someone fight this, and take them to court if need be. I don't believe the corporations would win this.

Especially if the scans of the flyers themselves were not posted, which I believe is the case.

What the man said. Right on!

WebDude

 

[crazyb0y]

So...


What are the Black Friday deals???

List em out.

 

[Oakenfold]

Originally posted by: Lars
Maybe somebody can answer this ... if I change the address (where I live) that is related to my domain/site from my current address here in the U.S. to my main address in Germany, will I then be safer in regard to legal threads like these ones in the future?

There is some discussion over @ FW about hosting through Canada for the scans.
Maybe you should take a look there.

 

[wolf papa]

I won't be shopping on Black Friday, and I think I'll try to do more business with companies that are a little less repressive

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: skrill
If you don't straight up copy the ads -- and instead just relay the relevant information. Then I do not see how they can claim a copyright claim. Names of products + prices does not equate to copyrightable information. They are just trying to scare you all. I say keep talking about Black Friday ads and screw em.

Just don't post the actual ads.

Bingo. I think skrill is on the right track. Copyright protects a specific expression of an idea or information. It usually does not protect the idea or information itself.

I can think of at least a couple of gothcha's in this, however. First, it is possible to copyright a collection of information, for example, a database of customers, a collection of formulas, etc. Even if the individual pieces of information cannot be copyrighted, the collection can be. Under this theory, stores might claim that the collection of item and sale price information is copyrighted. If this is valid, then posting a list of sale items may be a copyright violation, even without actual scans.

More important is the effect of claiming DMCA violation, whether there's a solid foundation or not. It's terribly expensive to defend oneself in court. Most companies, especially small Internet companies that live on a shoestring like Fat Wallet, just can't afford the legal expenses.

Re. the DMCA itself, some people are confusing two different sections of the act. There is one section that prohibits circumventing any mechanism that protects copyrighted digital data. I don't think the companies are claiming this. The DMCA also lays out a process for copyright holders to notify ISPs and web publishers of copyright violations. This applies to all copyrighted material, not just copy-protected digital content. As long as the Internet provider follows the response requirements of this DMCA process, they are off the hook. Failing to follow the process can lead to an expensive court battle. This is the section the stores are using in their letters.

(But I am not a lawyer, so this may be gibberish.)

If you're tired of companies abusing the DMCA, vote with your wallet. Then follow up with a polite letter to the company explaining why you won't spend your hard-earned money there.

 

[allofushere]

Love the deals as much as the next guy, but these companies are not out there for no reason, they want to make money. Probably an image of the ad will generate more people buying in advance then priceadjusting than the "rumor" of a sale...

it's the rules of the game, no more no less than the rules of this forum.

 

[DealMonkey]

I'll do the devil's advocate thing here for just a second:

The reps for the various stores are basically saying that the information being disclosed across the various "deal sites" is considered "trade secrets." It's similar to the argument the Church of Scientology (Co$) was making when they forced Google to take down links.

Basically, the stores are saying that because their Black Friday sales are so competitive between the major retailers, that this proprietary information, should it get out to their competition in advance, it could cause monetary harm/damage.

So, how does that argument play to the DMCA? Hasn't the "trade secrets" argument been used in these cases before?

(Yes, personally, I think this whole thing is crap... I've said it before...)

 

[babylon5]

Our government has pretty much been bought by corporations to attach a bunch of laws to DMCA to do whatever they want to us. The law can be passed because corporate lobbiest paid our senators and representatives to do their bidding. Some even argue we have already lost our government already now that any law can be justified with threat of terrorism with soon to be one government agency taking over all branches of authority.

Looks like our shopping habbit is first thing to go!

 

[Pliablemoose]

So if someone were to say post a list of Black Friday deals that are hosted on a server in Canada, it'd be exempt from DMCA?

Like a link maybe available on obese wallet?

 

[chiuyan]

in response to those people who want to do a boycott of those "black-listed" companies, a one day sit-out just won't work. remember those people who wanted to do the same for the gas stations? just because you skip one day, doesn't mean that you won't just turn around and buy it the next day. if we really are to make a statement we need to realisitically not patronize those companies for a good long time. say maybe a few months...

mmwwwwaaahhhhahah...what do you want to do tonight?...the same thing we do every night, pinky. try to take over the world!

 

[lungster]

A few thoughts ...

-1- If retailers were smart, they'd embrace technology and put it use themselves. In a way, Staples does that by emailing weekend sales ahead of time.

-2- The claim that one should not disclose copyrighted information (sales circular) has merit. However, enforcement is not the role of the ISP or forum. If a retailer wants to find who's leaking the information, they should take up the issue with their newspaper publishers (or whoever else has early access to sales info).

-3- Spread the word. If you operate a Forum and get one of these letters, contact your local TV station or newspaper. To a lot of people, the DMCA is still about music theft. The masses need to know that Corporate America is using DMCA as a club on free speech.

-4- BE PROACTIVE - BE HEARD. Do something about it ! See THIS ARTICLE about how the US Copyright Office is reviewing the DMCA. SENT IN YOUR COMMENTS HERE

 

[bazookatone]

This is sad.

I was just wondering something..and see what others think as well.


What if another retailer saw this and decided to be bold and do the exact opposite..maybe not the exact...but maybe put out there ads earlier online than in print..or just didnt care if their ads were printed early...would they in turn get MORE business from folks like us that wont want to shop at the stores enforcing the DMCgAy? How can having the ad early hurt?

 

[SSSS]

Way to go guys, thanks to all of you who made Republicans (friends of corporate america) in control of entire political system.

 

[Rab]

The reps for the various stores are basically saying that the information being disclosed across the various "deal sites" is considered "trade secrets."

Encrypt it.

The DMCA provides for certain protections for encrypted information or works, specifically prohibiting decryption by any parties other than those authorized by the entities providing the information or works.

Should the retailers or their representatives care to make it a legal issue, with the substance of their complaint having been illegally obtained and thus being inadmissible, their case would likely be thrown out.

 

[johto]

Originally posted by: SSSS
Way to go guys, thanks to all of you who made Republicans (friends of corporate america) in control of entire political system.

true that

 

[dbLA]

Way to go guys, thanks to all of you who made Republicans (friends of corporate america) in control of

I am not a fan of Republicans, but as I recall, the DMCA was passed by a bipartisan vote and signed by a Democrat President (Bill Clinton). It was the brainchild of those wacky leftist Hollywood studios, aka big-time contributors to Clinton and the Democrats.

Both major political parties are to blame, but the perps in this case are mainly the Democrats.

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: SSSS
Way to go guys, thanks to all of you who made Republicans (friends of corporate america) in control of entire political system.

That is the most ignorant statement I have read all day. Help, Help !!!!!!! I'm being repressed by the evil right wing conspiracy.

Go make some cheese and live in a redwood or something. Would you like a list of Democratic friends of corporate America to read while you sit naked in your woodland repose ????

 

[SitePromoter]

yea a few sites from dealzconnection.com got blocked i saw some post on postdeals.net, jumpondeal.com etc.. the DCMA must be stoped.

 

[ir0nw0lf]

Originally posted by: SSSS
Way to go guys, thanks to all of you who made Republicans (friends of corporate america) in control of entire political system.

So it's now the fault of the Republican's?

Gimme a break, please take the political low-blows elsewhere. I'm saddened to say I am an American. I was VERY proud to say that after Sept. 11, 2001. Not anymore. The DMCA has been nothing but a bad rap to the US, I hope that someone with some GD power sees that it is a steaming festering pile of poopoo. I find it truly hard to believe that these corp's can pull out their DMCA card for nearly anything and make a site/person/company get on their knees and beg for forgiveness.

I guess the DMCA nahtzee's will be shooting anyone who talks trash about how bad the DMCA is.

/me puts on his full body armor in preparation.

We need a parody song of YMCA, called "DMCA!"

 

[Boomer2]

Before typing some whiney post about how unfair you think it is for Wal-Mart et al to do this, instead write a letter to the retailers involved informing them how such threats/actions as theirs actually kill sales. I, for one, definitely won't bother going to Black Friday sales now.

If you really believe in your high-and-mighty principles that Wal-Mart and friends should be allowing advanced info, put your money where your mouth is and stop buying from them. Otherwise quit the whine and cheese fest. People here sound like a bunch of 3-year-olds whose bottle was taken away.

Better yet, get together and foot the bill to fight this in court if it means so much to you. Oh wait...that would involve actually DOING something besides crying about it.

 

[SitePromoter]

I for sure will not be shopping at crap-mart until they change their strategy.


here is a letter posted on one of the sites that was targeted.


Statutory Notice from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Under the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act Infringement of Copyright in Thanksgiving Circular

Gentlemen:

We represent Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart"). Wal-Mart owns numerous copyrighted works, including its advertising circulars.
Your company is the Internet Service Provider for the following website, http://www.sitename.com. It has come to our attention that the Member of this website, "XXXX," posted copies of Wal-Mart's Thanksgiving Circular on its website. On the afternoon of November 19, 2002, we sent a letter to SITENAME informing them that these postings infringe upon Wal-Mart's intellectual property rights. A copy of that letter is attached. These postings continue to remain on the website. Prompt compliance is required, since Wal-Mart will publish its Circular on Wednesday, November 20, 2002.

These postings also violate ISP's name Network's Acceptable Use Policy, which states, in part:

Services provided to the customer by ISP'S Name Networks may only be used for lawful purposes. Transmission or publication of any information, data or material in violation of any U.S. Federal or state regulation or law is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, material protected by copyright, trade secret or any other statute, threatening material or obscene material. ISP's Name Networks reserves the right to remove any and all materials which infringe on copyright work. Such materials will be removed at any time upon receiving a complaint and or notice of copyright infringement.


The infringing postings may be found at the following addresses:

links.

Assuming without admitting that your company qualifies for the safe harbor provided by the Digit.


i hope this letter isn't in violation of DMCA rules :disgust:

 

[AnyMal]

First off, any of you who say you are no longer proud to call yourself Americans - move out! We do not need whining panzies like you here! You want freedoms? Then you'll have to fight for them, just like our forefathers did. Just because something was giving to you for free, does not mean there are no long-term costs associated with it.

I can certainly see why companies like FW and AT may ban such posts in the future; the potential for litigation is often enough of a deterrent; even if you're able to successfuly defend yourself in the end, the mere cost of legal proceedings will be enough to justify banning such posts. My $0.02

 

[poppagene]

WHat this country needs is stiff penalties for frivolous lawsuits. Then when anyone sues to remove Black Friday lists they will receive a taste of their own medicine. What part of digital copyright has tp do with this (no part IMO)

 

[clarkmo]

Dumb retailers. Using these leaks to their advantage by adding late sales, false info, monitoring feedback or whatever marketing stratgem comes to mind seems to be the proper course for them. Instead they enter a pissing contest that makes them look venal and mean spirited. But that's corporate america. Oh' I gotta chance to do something today and make myself look good to my fellow peons
and all the other self concsious mgrs in my org. God forbid that any of them use their minds and ingenuity and show some original thinking and use the leaks to their advantage. they could drum up so much drama and suspense for their sales but they'd rather shoot themselves in the foot. Boo! Hiss!