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

[no0b]

Originally posted by: jcarson
Todays "Underground" was yesterdays normal people following normal laws.

sig worthy

 

[cyfan2001]

I don't get why Walmart et al would even care? Worse case is Target finds out and instead of 3 TV's at Best Buy for $148 there will be 6 TV's in town at $148. Instead of them selling out in 30 seconds at Walmart. They will sell out simultaneously in the same 30 seconds at both stores. Big friggin deal?!? Yes it is likely illegal for the publisher of the ads to leak the information, but once it's out, it's out! Do you think all the leaks out of the White House get the NY Times sued?

 

[tedinde1]

Man i hope nothing happens to websites, Where will we all get our coupons from, since we are so scared to post them here, without a mod crying.

Fat wallet should come after us. Most of the deals here are cut and paste from them anyway.

 

[Distinguished]

These sale items are loss leaders, targeted at the average consumer, and designed to get them into the store where they will make a number of additional purchases. The profit on the additional purchases more than makes up for the loss on these sale items.

The corporations may be going after the ?Deal Sites? because they believe the site members are likely to buy just the sale item and no other purchases. Hence, the store loses money on the ?deal? customer and their normal customers may go somewhere else when the sale items are not available.


It is easy for the corporate lawyers to come after theses web sites because of at least these two reasons:

1. There are only a handful of these sites and they are easily identifiable and targeted.
2. The web sites are likely to not challenge the threats because they are small and cannot match the resources of these large corporations. Many (if not most) legal cases are decided in favor of who has the most and best lawyers.

I am very concerned that corporations will continue to squash the voice of the people by employing these same heavy-handed tactics.



And now a technical question. I am only asking if this is technically possible and feasible, not suggesting it be done or promoting civil disobedience.

Could these deal lists be shared and propagated over many (thousands) of computers in some sort of peer-to-peer network? Information and ideas concentrated in a few sites is easily controlled and censored as we are now experiencing. Information and ideas dispersed across thousands (maybe millions) of computers cannot be controlled or censured.

Think about it.

 

[tommytran]

somebody live outside U.S. (such as CANADA, LIBIA ...), please scan and post them all hehehee

 

[wiin]

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

Got nothing to do with the republicans. the law passed under the Democrat administration. Why is it always the fault of the republicans? Because they expect you to go out and get a job?

 

[IgoByte]

Pure bull$hit...

Heard about it on the Screensavers last night. . .

 

[krackato]

I never thought of the DMCA as a Republican law. It was always the work of politicians who don't understand technology (all of them basically) who are influenced by big money from big corporations. It's a terrible law and needs some serious reworking. Remember, a felt tip permanent marker is now illegal to own since it can be used to circumvent audio cd copy protection.

 

[Dug]

I really really really want to start my own deal site, just to see if they would actually try and sue me personally. (Not the ISP)

That would be fun because you can't sqeeze blood from a turnip.


Oh, I like this quote-

from Paul Capelli, spokesman for Staples Inc., said his company considers its pricing information a trade secret.

Whatever. I suppose when people get their Sunday paper on Saturday night all the adds will have SECRET where the price should be.

These sale items are loss leaders, targeted at the average consumer, and designed to get them into the store where they will make a number of additional purchases. The profit on the additional purchases more than makes up for the loss on these sale items.

We are the average consumer.
If a store can't handle the loss for their advertisment, then they shouldn't advertise it at a low price to begin with.
People that go to a store to buy a particular item because they saw it in the paper is no different than if we go to a store to buy a particular item because we saw it on a website.

 

[junker37]

That is ridiculous. To think that company would create an Ad that they don't want people to see. What would they be thinking? The only reason they would bring up the DMCA, would to bring more attention to their Ad. The more people that see their Ad, the more people that will visit their store.

 

[SIPBuilder]

My email to NPR...

I listened with great interest to your news report regarding Retailers, Web Sites Spar over Advance Sale Alerts
I particularly enjoyed the Wal-Mart response, which stated that advance notice of sale prices would be confusing to all of us stupid consumers... LOL(Laughed out Loud) Wal-Mart and most retailers have always preferred having ignorant and confused customers! Why do people walk right past a 50 cent item, yet flock to the store when it is "on sale" for 2 for $1? Website's such as FatWallet.com DO NOT confuse consumers, they empower consumers. The suggestion that websites that empower consumers to make intelligent decisions regarding their purchasing power simply frightens these retailers.
In no way do they want any source for empowering information to exist, by their own admission they do not want you to delay your purchase until the item is on sale. They want you to pay a premium price for their products. Then if you return to the store to receive a price adjustment based upon their "low price guarantee" they will have numerous reason's why they cannot possibly honor their own policy. Why not a news report about their unfair denial of their own posted policies?
They would prefer to never have to sell a single item at a fair price, they would love a world in which they alone were the only source of products, a world where consumers had no freedom of speech, or freedom to select their purchases from a wide array of retailers. All of these retailers guarantee that they alone have the lowest prices, yet take legal action to squash the efforts of individuals who clearly demonstrate that they do not...

 

[SIPBuilder]

Can you tell I am angry about this fiasco? Additional rants follow:

Please hear me out and post other examples if you are aware of them.

One of the recent Hot Deals circulated was a WD Hard drive for sale at Best Buy for $109? ?less a $30 MIR= $89 MicroCenter advertised the exact same HD for sale at $89
The hot deal was to price match the MC price at BB and receive this HD after MIR for $59? Anyone attempting to price match at Best Buy was informed that MC was ?out of stock? so no price match could be attained. This info was provided with no phone call to MC to actually check their stock.

A cynical person would notice that MC had plenty of these drives one hand the day before the Best Buy ad was made public, and ask the question ?what happened to all of MC?s stock?? The cynical person would question whether any sort of collusion occurred.
The cynical person would wonder if some kind of illegal price fixing was involved.

Now it seems that all these major retailers, who claim to be competitors, have joined forces to combat or suppress the activities of consumers who share information about their sale items. Perhaps we should all join forces to demonstrate their blatant disregard of their own posted policies and document any incidences where price fixing is suspected.

 

[Krazi]

It just boggles my mind that these heavy handed threats from WM, Staples, et al are stifling the public's right to spread RUMORS!! I mean really, how many people who post those lists have actually seen the flyer? Most likely, they've gotten it from another site, who in turn got it from yet another site. Eventually it all comes back to a "few" individuals who have access to the circular leaking the prices. Sure, punish these people since I'm fairly certain they are violating some kind of non-disclosure agreement they signed. But intimidating websites passing on second-hand rumors is a gross violation of civil liberties.

 

[alkemyst]

Perhaps anyone with a legitimate return can simply put "Returned due to company using DCMA to intimidate consumers" or something.

I am not suggesting buying up very expensive items and returning them to confuse sales numbers, but simply if you have a legitimate return.

 

[TekDemon]

Originally posted by: Zambonni
This is utter crap. It makes me embarressed to be an American.

Welcome to the new police state of Corporate America.

Well, next election day you can tell the damn politicians how you feel by actually going and voting...we can ALL do that. If all the people on the internet who disliked the DMCA went and voted, they'd hear us.

 

[Distinguished]

Ever think about where your money goes after you hand it over to the cashier?

In the case of a large discount mass merchandiser, your money immediately leaves your community and goes to the corporate headquarters. Since many of the products in these stores are foreign made, most of your money then continues on to a foreign country where the product was made. The mass merchandiser keeps a small portion as part of their high volume low margin operation. So, when you shop in these stores, your money is not only drained from your local economy but from our great nation as well.

I try to avoid shopping at these stores and instead seek locally owned business where my money will stay in the local economy. I pay a little more but help ensure that my family, friends, neighbors, and community will have jobs and a decent living. I also try to buy American made goods for the same reason. Keep the money in OUR country, working to support OUR citizens and OUR quality of life.

I have little regard for the large chain stores that drain the economic lifeblood from our local economies and our nation in their quest to make their slim profits. These corporations drive out the small independent business owners, but only because we let them. We fail to understand the damage these corporations are causing while they seduce us with their low prices.

I don?t care about 99.99% of the products these stores carry. I may be interested in a great deal on some memory modules or a DVD drive. Many of you may also be interested in the same things. Go to your locally owned and run computer store and let them know what you want a great deal on. Develop a relationship with your local stores and support them. Get together with your friends and local forum members and pool your buying power. Help your local computer store make a volume buy of the products you are most interested in.

Perhaps a forum section could be dedicated to geographic areas to facilitate the communication, cooperation, and coordination of members buying to get great deals and support the locally owned establishments. Maybe something like local buying clubs?

Independent computer-store owners ? help us help you. Help us organize and develop relationships with you. Offer some loss leaders to get us in your stores. You will benefit from the same additional sales (and probably much more), as do the chain stores. Get us in for a memory deal and we?re likely to pick up a new game or other product.

Please think about where your money goes after you hand it over to make a purchase. I cannot state too strongly how important it is to keep your money working in your local economy and in your country.

 

[wizz0bang]

Err, um? Free speech violation? Yep.... I smell another supreme court case. When someone smart gets prosecuted over this travesty, it will get appealed up. I'm sure the SC will hear it, as this case pertains to a new law (they love their powers of clarification). With luck, the whole DCMA will be deemed unconstitutional and struck down. One can only hope....

 

[clarkmo]

Holy cannoli, much ado about nothing. If the retailers wanna shoot themselves in the foot, let 'em. Special sale info has always been considered very private. Retailers use this in conjunction with other marketing plans to maximize sales. Letting the cat out of the bag early can hurt them, in theory anyway.
A savvy retailer would take advantage of the free publicity and maybe add some secret specials, late in the game. Perhaps even leak a little misinfo, heh, heh. A rational retailer would realize the info would always be leaked anyway and just use it to their advantage, which is happeneing anyway. How many more people have been made aware and reminded of black friday sales as a result of these news articles. So stop getting frantic folks. The retailers have a right to try tp keep their info private. I, for one, woukd be hoarding slighlty out dated technology, ata100 hd's, 32x + 40 x burners, etc. and capitalize on near giveaway prices on black friday. But I don't have a store.

 

[Need4Speed]

*cough* *cough* this is bullshnitz *cough*

 

[PaulDriver]

Originally posted by: BurntCpu
Like I always said we live in an oligarchy (government run by the rich) not a truly democratic one. Insider trading is one thing but insider Dealing?. These companies obviously forgot how they got rich in the first place, maybe we should remind them.

You have a bad definition. Try this from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: ol·i·gar·chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

Paul

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: PaulDriver

Originally posted by: BurntCpu
Like I always said we live in an oligarchy (government run by the rich) not a truly democratic one. Insider trading is one thing but insider Dealing?. These companies obviously forgot how they got rich in the first place, maybe we should remind them.

You have a bad definition. Try this from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: ol·i·gar·chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

Paul

He probably meant a plutocracy.

Rob

 

[PaulDriver]

Plutocracy works well, and an ogliarchy does define the current American system, he just defined ogliarchy wrong.

Paul.

 

[flocinocinihilipilification]

Originally posted by: Entity

Originally posted by: PaulDriver

Originally posted by: BurntCpu
Like I always said we live in an oligarchy (government run by the rich) not a truly democratic one. Insider trading is one thing but insider Dealing?. These companies obviously forgot how they got rich in the first place, maybe we should remind them.

You have a bad definition. Try this from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: ol·i·gar·chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

Paul

He probably meant a plutocracy.

Rob

Oligarchy or Plutocracy or Prostitution .. it's all bad

 

[Chuck2]

Each week I get the Staples newspaper add on Thursday when it comes out on Saturday (We don't have a Sunday paper). Staples sends this to me in advance with links to the complete circular color pages and all. It is a service that is offered to anyone that would like to read it in advance. There is no need to post the entire pages only the links.

 

[hnsn82]

nm .