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

[Savage26]

Someone(Wal-Mart and their fellow lawsuit junkies) is a little bit psycho about this whole thing.....as if people never talked to each other about upcoming sales before the invention of the internet. Wow, decaf is really becoming a necessity in these corporate enviroments. So rather than lowering prices and attracting more of us through knowledge of the lower prices they are gonna sue us all. Wow, man that sure is gonna solidify me as a customer. No place i like better to shop than places that sue my favorite hang-outs. What, if any, logical reasoning are they using???? Sometimes when i share my 2 cents other bits of change fall out....apologies to all for the ranting. Jon

 

[mccall]

In real estate classes I attended (far from legal training), I was taught you can sue for action. That is similar to what Walmart did according to the previous post.

Uhhh....No!

If by similar you mean not even remotely related, then you have a point.

People, sending a demand letter is not filing a lawsuit, not even close. Any moron, even those with no legal training, can send a demand letter. Even obtaining a subpoena for personal information is not close to filing a lawsuit. I'll repeat, no one, NO ONE, has been sued, and no one probably will be.

The retailers sent demand letters to FW to have the info removed. It was. They achieved their goal. The time for Tim to stand up and fight was when he received the letters, not after he removed the information. He made a decision based on economic necessity, he didn't have the resources to defend himself IF they followed through on their stated demand to file suit. As it stands now, Tim has obtained some legal representation and is demanding payment from said retailers, after having followed their wishes, and he might even get it, but no legal precedence will be set unless there's a suit that ends in a finding. Not a settlement, a finding. Then, there's the likelyhood of appeal to teh circuit court. Then, after their finding, there's the possibility of an appeal to a state supreme court. You get the idea. It's a long expensive drawn-out fight.

The retailers got what they desired, namely, the information removed. They have no interest in filing any kind of suit. Their legal teams most likely know what they did what baseless, but they did it anyway figuring that they have more resources than any web site operator and therefor the web sites would pull the info instead of ignoring the demand letter.

I don't know if Tim or Tim's legal representatives have the desire or resources to pursue this through a legal battle and then the various appeals processes, but I doubt it. And that's a shame, because I think he has a strong case.

 

[boggsie]

He made a decision based on economic necessity, he didn't have the resources to defend himself IF they followed through on their stated demand to file suit.

I didn't read the whole thread. Shame on me. So, this may have been discussed, but I'm a little surprised that the ACLU didn't jump all over the opportunity to 'beat down' a corporation and make some law in the process.

 

[ScrapSilicon]

Originally posted by: boggsie

He made a decision based on economic necessity, he didn't have the resources to defend himself IF they followed through on their stated demand to file suit.

I didn't read the whole thread. Shame on me. So, this may have been discussed, but I'm a little surprised that the ACLU didn't jump all over the opportunity to 'beat down' a corporation and make some law in the process.

 

[Distinguished]

I?m afraid writing polite letters to these offending corporations will have little effect. Some low-level customer service person or maybe an assistant manager most likely reads the letters. The letters will be dismissed.

Boycotting these offending corporations is also likely to have little effect. If we had millions of consumers organized to boycott, the collective voice would be heard. Alas, we do not.

Our puny voices do not reach the top management corporate decision makers, the ones who unleash the lawyers to bully the small Internet site operators.

However, we may have a chance to get our voices heard and to reach top management. It is not through polite letters, boycotts, or other low-level contact that will reach the decision makers. We need to use our very limited resources and make our voices heard where these top management types are listening; their stock price.

Corporate top management is focused on one thing and one thing only; their stock price. Anything that threatens their stock price gets their attention quickly. Stock prices fluctuate based on the perceptions of the shareholders (and potential shareholders). When the future looks good, people buy the stock, sending the price higher. When the future is cloudy, people sell the stock, sending the price lower. Negative sentiments voiced to the shareholder community may be very more effective in eliciting change than just posting in this forum.

If you believe these corporations are abusing their power, alienating their customers, and being poor corporate citizens, then you should let their shareholders know. Shareholders own these corporations and want to know what customers think. Search for forums, message boards, and other avenues where these shareholders might frequent, and let your voice be heard.

 

[Danzilla]

I have to disagree in part with that last statement. While a huge store like Wal-Mart might not notice the thousands of people that read these kinds of forums boycotting their store, it's no reason not to do so. Even with a relatively small number of people, a boycott is something that gets notice. That directly relates to the other point, about their concern for things that might negatively affect stock prices. Just because it's not going to make a direct difference to the store if we shop there or not isn't a good reason not to try. I'm currently no longer shopping at a certain huge retailer that has no respect for an individual's right to free speech and would use the DMCA as a means of intimidating both those individuals and websites promoting the free exchange of facts.

D.

 

[amdskip]

I sent an email to walmart. If I do not get a real response I will be contacting management higher than our store and voicing my opinion.

I own plenty of company stock and I believe this is a waste of money. The scanned ads were never posted, just text so nothing was truely copied, bunch of BS!

 

[Distinguished]

I suspect corporations and government fear the Internet because it allows the populace to communicate instantly on a large scale. Our ability to share information and ideas at Internet speed and breadth is a very powerful thing. Sharing Black Friday information is the tiniest tip of the iceberg. The corporate world is nervous and starting to wake up to the fact that they need to nip this in the bud. We are just beginning to see, in my opinion, the coming wave of restrictions, controls, strong-arming, and other efforts to suppress our free flow of communication.

Our ability to communicate freely, instantly, and widely, is critical to protecting our freedoms and the ideals our country was founded on. The power of the government and corporations seems to be beginning to overwhelm us and smother our voices.

It appears the major mass media mediums of television, radio, and newspapers are all controlled and deliver the biased propaganda the powers want us to have. We can express our independent voices through email or snail-mail but these mediums do not have the breath to unite the people. The Internet provides the speed and breath of reach, but alas it too is starting to become controlled by the powers. This legal strong-arming disguised as DMCA protection is an example of this attempt to control.

The Internet can be controlled because it is a one-to-many model of communication. Thousands of people access one site to get information; such as you are accessing this site. By targeting a handful of Internet sites, lawyers can cut off information flow to thousands and thousands of people. These attacks are likely to continue and increase as corporations go after sites they believe may be harmful to their best interest.

I believe the one-to-many model of the Internet will eventually become controlled and monitored to the extent that it will not be the open, free, and widespread communication medium that we enjoy today. Will it will become another corporate/government propaganda channel?

I envision the dire need for an independent peer-to-peer network to provide the widespread instantaneous free flow of communication necessary to unite the people of this great country. This many-to-many model would look similar to the Internet of today but would remove the ability for any organization to exert their control and stop our voices. With information spread over and flowing freely through thousands of computers, lawyers will not have a handful of easily identified targets as they do now.

My vision is for completely autonomous peer-to-peer networks, not the peer-to-peer systems such as Napster and similar kind. There can be no single point of control as this gives the powers a place to attack. The physical layer may also have to be independent to eliminate the control that may be exerted through ISPs.

I?m not sure how such a system would work, but I envision the need for it. Perhaps some of you wiz-kid programmers and developers out there can figure out how to make it happen. The fact is that the government and corporations, and not the people own the Internet. We need our own independent channel to freely communicate information and ideas.

Information is power. We, the people, when we can freely exchange information and ideas, have tremendous power. This exchange is communication. Those that control communication, control thought and power. Don?t let anyone control communication.


There are helicopters overhead and lights shinning in through all the windows?.

?. Must sign off now.

 

[gwlam12]

Originally posted by: amdskip
I sent an email to walmart. If I do not get a real response I will be contacting management higher than our store and voicing my opinion.

I own plenty of company stock and I believe this is a waste of money. The scanned ads were never posted, just text so nothing was truely copied, bunch of BS!

Same thing. Discussing deals with someone else is one thing. But distributing it to the public is another.

 

[nebula]

gump47371
What they are upset about is that people that might buy the things that are going to be on sale will wait and get it for a cheaper price on Friday, which equals for them less profit.

Well, almost but not really. If I went in and bought something on Monday, not knowing at all that it would go on sale, then I saw it in Friday's ad, I'd go in and I get the difference. No different than any other week. I suppose you could argue that not everyone will look at the ad and go get the adjustment.

It gets a little more complex. Competitors may adjust their prices, people may intentionally buy it early and then go back, which decreases the on hand stock for Friday's shoppers which the company wouldn't then lose any money over, well maybe - alienate people, have to substitute, etc...

I could write a ton of possible senarios. But it's just not as simple as you stated, they all have PM policies.

 

[craftech]

I am happy to see this type of thread being allowed to continue without someone indicating that the discussion belongs in another forum. Too often, discussions which make "hot deals" not so hot are locked because they supposedly don't belong here. Examples would be:
1. Discussions of deals from vendors who have really bad resellerratings (www.resellerratings.com), ie: Why you should not buy from them.
2. Discussions of coupon codes when they are an essential part of a hot deal. Why is it OK at FW and not here? Their goals are the same as AT.
3. Discussions of rebates (within the thread)which will never be honored because of less than virtuous practices by either the sponsor or the rebate center. The "Rebate Tracking Thread" was a step in the right direction, however it belongs within the pertinent hot deal if it applies to a potentially bad purchase.

The bottom line is that if one is reading about a hot deal and is trying to quickly ascertain whether or not to jump on it, should they first have to:
1. Go to the rebate tracking thread to see if they may be risking not getting their rebate.
2. Go to the Off Topic forum or some other forum and do a search on the vendor or go to Resellerratings to investigate first, but not post their findings.
3. Go scouring around for coupon codes which were alluded to here, but not actually posted for fear of banishment.

I can see not allowing illegal practices to be discussed here because I don't believe that is what the "hot" in "hot deal" implies, but anything else which will prevent forum readers from getting screwed when we purchase absolutely belongs within the thread or as a separate thread where everyone can see it. Why should a thread discussing a previous "hot deal" which turned out to be a screwing not belong here as an independent thread? Isn't consumer education a part of what getting a "hot deal" is all about?

 

[allisolm]

Wal-mart backed down and withdrew their request by supboena for the identity of the posters of the Walmart info.

 

[labgeek]

Originally posted by: Distinguished
I?m afraid writing polite letters to these offending corporations will have little effect. Some low-level customer service person or maybe an assistant manager most likely reads the letters. The letters will be dismissed.

If properly done that's not true in my experience. Recently I wrote to a major gasoline company about treatment I received in one of thier stores. I wrote a polite direct email to thier Director of Public Relations. I received replies with apologies from her, her secretary, the divisional and regional mangers for the store about which I wrote. The regional manager sent me a $20 gift card, even after I expressed it wasn't necessary. And both the regional and divisional managers called the store. The divisional manager gave me his phone number and asked that I call or email him should I see "any indication" the situation has not changed.

Key things to remember when writing:
> spelling and grammar are important - thier only impression of you is what you've written
> don't be antagonistic (no threats) - the natural reaction to a threat is defiance
> facts only - don't embellish, don't be emotional
> state the problem, and suggest a correction

 

[Miramonti]

We should start an online petition, boycotting Walmart until they drop legal action and agree to not pursue this type of action again.

Thoughts?

/edit... I didn't see allisom's post that they already dropped it...cool!!!

On the other hand tho, it would have been nice to see this thing go thru the courts to set a legal precedence for the future.

 

[JameyF]

Originally posted by: mccall


Uhhh....No!

If by similar you mean not even remotely related, then you have a point.

People, sending a demand letter is not filing a lawsuit, not even close. Any moron, even those with no legal training, can send a demand letter. Even obtaining a subpoena for personal information is not close to filing a lawsuit. I'll repeat, no one, NO ONE, has been sued, and no one probably will be.

Of course you are correct when saying an official suit hasn't been filed (according to what I have read so far), but there has been legal action taken to force an action. The action wanted is to turn over information. I agree again this is in no way a suit. The similarity I was alluding to was the fact that Walmart accomplished their goal (removal of information) through demanding an action AND serving legal papers. The demand was the request for action. The papers were a subpoena for information. Although there wasn't a suit filed, you have to agree if FW wouldn't have removed the posts, that was a very possible next step. Either way, Walmart sucks for doing it. I'm not going to "split hairs" (as used previously) over whether the title of the thread from an individual, without legal training, is right or wrong . You legal experts, if you want to try to educate us legal illiterates, go ahead and try. Your points are valid. I prefer to put the heat on those who would deny freedom of information.

 

[nikko]

could someone PLEASE tell me what Black Friday is? I've seen several posts referencing it but still don't know what it is. Is it the Friday after Thanksgiving? Something else? Do tell.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: nikko
could someone PLEASE tell me what Black Friday is? I've seen several posts referencing it but still don't know what it is. Is it the Friday after Thanksgiving? Something else? Do tell.

the day after thanksgiving, when everyone has their sales and the revenues are supposed to go in the "black" for the year.

 

[Wildcats]

It's going to be hard to do what we should do:
Boycott Wal*Mart, Target, Best Buy and Staples. We've sold our souls to "big business".

John Ashcroft, you win.....
I am now officially a Republican.
I will blindly follow the leader.
I will give my vote to the politician that has the support and $$$$ of big business.
I will keep my mouth shut and obey.

 

[skywhr]

I just saw this story on TECHLIVE on TECH TV. They showed screen shots of Anand!
Only mentioned F@t-wallet though

 

[Engineer]

Anyone noticed (as posted at FW)....that WalMart backed down?

(Notice: I had to edit the quote to change to "FW" because AT forums won't allow the full word)

:Q

FW Victorious in Challenge to Wal-Mart?s Frivolous DMCA Subpoena

ROSCOE, IL ? In response to FW?s letter demanding that Wal-Mart withdraw its subpoena for identifying information about a poster or face sanctions, Wal-Mart backed down. Wal-Mart had sought the identity of the individual who posted Wal-Mart Day After Thanksgiving sales information on the FW site.

Megan E. Gray, co-counsel for FW, was not surprised by Wal-Mart?s decision. ?You have to call their bluff. Too often people will assert copyright protection when it is clear none exists, just to fall under the broad reach of the DMCA. It is why abuses of the DMCA are so common.?

Wal-Mart obtained a subpoena from federal court under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act after submitting a declaration under penalty of perjury that its sales prices were protected by copyright law. FW objected to the subpoena on the grounds that the Supreme Court has ruled that facts cannot be copyrighted.

In one of the first times in the history of the DMCA, FW also demanded that Wal-Mart pay damages for its knowingly false assertion of copyright, as provided under Section 512(f) of the DMCA.

Tim Storm, President and Founder of FW, said, ?We?re pleased Wal-Mart dropped its request for the poster?s identity, but an injustice still occurred here. The use of the DMCA to remove factual information about prices that retailers charge consumers is just wrong. We stand by our belief that consumers have the right to share the factual shopping information required to be a smart consumer. That is what FW is all about. We are thankful for the support of consumers everywhere who voiced their support for our position.?

FW co-counsel Deirdre K. Mulligan, director of UC Berkeley School of Law?s Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic, said, ?When the DMCA passed, many were concerned that the takedown provisions were heavily tilted against speakers--by merely claiming copyright, any individual or business can silence speech. While this case caught the public?s attention, there are certainly other instances of speakers being wrongfully silenced under the DMCA.?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Megan E. Gray is a principal in the law firm Gray Matters in Washington, DC. She represents many clients in connection with intellectual property matters, internet issues, online privacy, anonymous speech, and related issues. More information about Gray Matters can be found at http://www.megangray.com.

The Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Boalt Hall), represents individuals and non-profits on privacy, copyright, and First Amendment issues relating to the Internet and other advanced technology. More information about the Samuelson Clinic can be found at http://samuelsonclinic.org.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Distinguished
I suspect corporations and government fear the Internet because it allows the populace to communicate instantly on a large scale. Our ability to share information and ideas at Internet speed and breadth is a very powerful thing. Sharing Black Friday information is the tiniest tip of the iceberg. The corporate world is nervous and starting to wake up to the fact that they need to nip this in the bud. We are just beginning to see, in my opinion, the coming wave of restrictions, controls, strong-arming, and other efforts to suppress our free flow of communication.

Our ability to communicate freely, instantly, and widely, is critical to protecting our freedoms and the ideals our country was founded on. The power of the government and corporations seems to be beginning to overwhelm us and smother our voices.

It appears the major mass media mediums of television, radio, and newspapers are all controlled and deliver the biased propaganda the powers want us to have. We can express our independent voices through email or snail-mail but these mediums do not have the breath to unite the people. The Internet provides the speed and breath of reach, but alas it too is starting to become controlled by the powers. This legal strong-arming disguised as DMCA protection is an example of this attempt to control.

The Internet can be controlled because it is a one-to-many model of communication. Thousands of people access one site to get information; such as you are accessing this site. By targeting a handful of Internet sites, lawyers can cut off information flow to thousands and thousands of people. These attacks are likely to continue and increase as corporations go after sites they believe may be harmful to their best interest.

I believe the one-to-many model of the Internet will eventually become controlled and monitored to the extent that it will not be the open, free, and widespread communication medium that we enjoy today. Will it will become another corporate/government propaganda channel?

I envision the dire need for an independent peer-to-peer network to provide the widespread instantaneous free flow of communication necessary to unite the people of this great country. This many-to-many model would look similar to the Internet of today but would remove the ability for any organization to exert their control and stop our voices. With information spread over and flowing freely through thousands of computers, lawyers will not have a handful of easily identified targets as they do now.

My vision is for completely autonomous peer-to-peer networks, not the peer-to-peer systems such as Napster and similar kind. There can be no single point of control as this gives the powers a place to attack. The physical layer may also have to be independent to eliminate the control that may be exerted through ISPs.

I?m not sure how such a system would work, but I envision the need for it. Perhaps some of you wiz-kid programmers and developers out there can figure out how to make it happen. The fact is that the government and corporations, and not the people own the Internet. We need our own independent channel to freely communicate information and ideas.

Information is power. We, the people, when we can freely exchange information and ideas, have tremendous power. This exchange is communication. Those that control communication, control thought and power. Don?t let anyone control communication.


There are helicopters overhead and lights shinning in through all the windows?.

?. Must sign off now.

>There are helicopters overhead and lights shinning in through all the windows?.

You worry about that too.... I have become more vocal and watch every step these Corporate thugs and the Govt they own have been doing since the attack on me by a State Govt. I never used to pay any attention to Politics at all, boy has that changed.

>Those that control communication, control thought and power. Don?t let anyone control communication.

Amen

 

[amdskip]

Even though Walmart backed down, I am still pissed. What a waste of money and time.

 

[Distinguished]

Want to help?

Check out www.DigitalConsumer.org

Add your voice to over 46,000 others working to protect our consumer rights.

Thanks to Kyle at HardOCP.com