A Distorted Mirror: Automatic, Real-Time Web Parodies

Citing the DMCA, the World Trade Organization complained to Verio, the upstream provider of parody site gatt.org, a site we've mentioned before which jabs at the aims and methods of GATT and the WTO. Verio notified domain holder Jonathan Prince of the complaint, and asked Prince to remove any copyrighted materials from the site. The site appears intact for now, but read on to learn about the interesting software the complaint has spawned -- perhaps this isn't what the WTO had in mind.

As Andrew Bichlbaum writes: "The WTO could well have stepped on a hornets' nest. To counter the attack, Gatt.org managers The Yes Men have released a piece of open-source 'parodyware' that will 'forever make this kind of censorship obsolete. ... Using this software, it takes five minutes to set up a convincing, personalized, evolving parody of the WTO.org website, or any other website of your choice ... All you need is a place to put it -- say, WTOO.org, WorldTradeOrg.com, whatever.'"

Comments

Support the DDA!

[Styx]

The Domain Defense Advocate is a grass-roots organisation trying to combat unwarranted domain confiscations. IMHO, a very worthwhile thing to support.

MIRROR

[JediTrainer]

I've managed to grab copies of the software just as their site got /.d.

Please be nice, because I'm only on cable. Grab the files here.

Here are mirrors:

[Saint Aardvark]

http://yesiwill.plagiarist.org

http://detritus/projects/yesiwill

Let's see how well they survive a slashdotting.

...

[Popocatepetl]

Time to get web stripper out and download the whole thing before it goes poof.

Re:What does this have to do with My Rights??

[banuaba]

that's actually incorrect. Remember Larry Flynt? He said that Jerry Falwell had fucked his mother. His (Flynt's) defense was "would a reasonable person believe that Jerry Falwell had actually fucked his mother" and, of course, the answer was no, therefore it was protected speech, not libel or slander or whichever one.

Web page translator

[EMIce]

I remember a couple of years ago \. posted an article on how a company filed a lawsuit against the creator of an ebonics translator page and won. It took existing pages and "ebonified" them. The plantiff claimed copyright infringement when the tool was used on their particular page. Anyone remember this? It seems relevant to this new case.

What gets me is this.

[mindstrm]

He was asked to remove it in a letter, in accordance with the DMCA.

THe DMCA lets a copyright holder do this, to protect their work. They can write a letter, and have material taken down.

However... the counter to this is that the person with the site merely has to send a letter back declaring that the information does NOT infringe on their copyrights. They then have a certain number of days to file suit or drop it.

Re:incredibly hyperbolic, but not entirely off bas

[Kwil]

First, they have no alternative. The entire movement is defined by what it is against, not by what it is for.

.. or at least, that's what being spoon-fed your information by the mainstream media would make you believe.

Is the movement coherent in what it wants? No. But some of the things that have been demanded include: Fair Trade as opposed to Free Trade, environmental protection clauses built into the agreements, social welfare concerns such as decent labor laws being recognized as valid points for discussion and inclusion, debt relief for developing nations, transparency of the negotiations, democratic input, enforcement of human rights, etc.

The anti-globalization movement is composed of many different groups, each with its own agenda and methods. Some of them agree, some of them don't. As with any populist movement, it is one made up of diverse people, opinions, and ideas that have coalesced around a common thread: Globalization as it's happening now is not working.

Second, large sections of the movement have no qualms with using false arguments and violence to advance their agenda.

Again, this is an unfortunate misconception based on relying entirely on the mainstream media for information on the subject.

The truth is actually the reverse. However peaceful protests make for boring video and the truthful arguments are complex and don't condense neatly into a fifteen second sound-byte for the evening news.

If anything, it could be easily argued that those who use the most violence and false arguments to advance their agenda are those that favor the unfettered globalization process we see happening today. Fortunately for them, the violence often takes place in the developing nations affected by the agreements -- places where reporters are not hanging around looking for a story.

Members of the anti-globalization movement at the BARE MINIMUM must confront why their message and method is so attractive to violent thugs.

I'm not one to argue that there are idiots who like to use protests as cover for simply being assholes and wrecking things. But it's not just this movement's message and method that attracts these people, you get the same morons at soccer games, outdoor music festivals and other public gatherings. When it happens during these other events though it's generally somewhat separated from the centre of a city where major damage can be caused, and the news tends not to lump them in with the rest of the people who are present. At the protests, it's typically the opposite on both counts.

Check out www.indymedia.org for a different take on your nightly news. You may not agree with their viewpoint, but at least you'll be exposed to a different one than normal.