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

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

[hearingaid]

The World Trade Organization is not an ordinary corporation; it's an international UN organization.

Imagine if the Red Cross wanted people to take down websites complaining about people who were infected by HIV via blood transfusions. Get it?

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

[Alan Cox]

Well let me see
1. Its not trademarked
2. Its satire which has a special place in copyright law
3. Its political speech. The WTO are trying to censor legitimate protest at their attempts to screw the planet.

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

[Mike Schiraldi]

That's ridiculous. First, as others have pointed out, they are using the WTO's trademarked logo. Second, it's not clearly satire. Look at the site -- it looks just like the real thing.

If i post a bunch of messages, claiming to be you, and then say, "Well, it's satire -- people should have been able to understand that the real Alan Cox wouldn't have said such crazy stuff," that's no defense, and it's fraud.

If the site was obviously a parody, i'd support them. But it's not, and i don't.

Re:this is very scary....

[haruharaharu]

if people that are opposing it are already rich

It isn't that the people who oppose this are rich. It's just that only those who are rich can afford to protest regularly all over the world. I'm sure alot of the people who oppose this would love to make hemselves heard, but they have to work at a job most of the time so they can eat.

I especially like the part you quoted where someone on gatt said that, basically, you can't defend people in third world nations because you're richer than they are.

Re:Support the DDA!

[aka-ed]

Have you viewed the site? Were you confused? For how long? If over a minute, where's your reading comprehension?

It was established some time ago that registering a trademark in order to place a site criticizing the trademark's owner is not "bad faith."

The WTO accused these folks of "harvesting" email addresses, but doesn't say what method they used...according to the site, the only method they used to "harvest" addresses was some "mailto:" links. WTO is annoyed by the mockery and is interpreting the facts to suit themselves.

Computerworld ran an article on this following WTO's party line on this issue so slavishly as to stretch anyone's definition of journalistic ethics. Most interesting is this passage:

The fake WTO site changed its look this afternoon so that it no longer exactly resembles the real WTO Web site.

Even so, the phony site contains so many references to the WTO that some search engines are directing people to it instead of to the official site. A search of AltaVista using the keyword WTO returns www.gatt.org in fifth place.

So, according to the WTO and to an incompetent journalist at Computerworld, establishing an anti-WTO site that shows up fifth in search engines is tantamount to site-jacking!!

Is this the type of reasoning that you wish to defend?

Re:this is very scary....

[Spy Hunter]

now I realize that 10,000s of people can't all be wrong...

One word - *NSync.

Re:Or maybe it is more serious....

[The Cookie Monster]

So what you're saying is that because a few hooligans turned up to start a riot and have some fun, none of the other protesters were there for any legitimate reason?

I hadn't heard of people comming pre-dressed for battle before (but then I don't pay much attentiont to the protests). I'm open to the possibility that there might be a group of protesters who actually think that violence will promote their cause rather than contaminate it, but anyone who isn't the police and actually turns up to a protest in ballistic protective gear, a gas mask, and a balaclava, strikes me as being there (paid even) specifically to discredit the entire protest movement as 'just a bunch of hooligans'.

here's the mike - you tell your story in your words." They wouldn't.

And neither would I, the problems with gobalisation are complex and we live in a sound bite generation. The reporter will choose the most sensational sentence - or even fraction of a sentence and air that (normally completely out of context). You know this is true. If you have no editorial control, you cannot tell your story in your own words.

I hear protesters have cottened onto how poor a job the media do and have started bring their own video cameras to protests. Good on them.

However, as much as I like the angle this parody site is presenting the WTO views from, I do have to agree with you that the WTO probably has a legitimate complaint here.

Re:This is not a question of free speech

[metis]

It is not clearly a parody, and is effectively putting words into the mouth of the body it's targetting.

Putting offensive words in people's mouth is a good definition of parody. Have you watched late night shows lately?

Besides, if the words are so offensive that you know they couldn't have been said by the WTO, then it is a clear parody. Alternatively, if you are not sure that it is the parody then either

• the words are not really so offensive
• You believe that the WTO can make such offensive comment in earnest.

In the second case this isn't just parody but world class top of-the-line fscking Jonathan Swift kind of parody.

Re:"The WTO are trying to censor"

[nagora]

You are confusing "government" with "people". Governments are small (in this case very small) numbers of people who's only contact with democracy, if any, is every four to five years in their own home country. These people know that most of their electorate have no knowledge or even interest in what they do at WTO meetings. They do know, on the other hand, that they're going to have to work with the others at the meeting, in some cases on a daily basis, between now and the next election.

Under those circumstances it is much more likely that everyone will agree rather than rock the boat.

Protesting about things which, after all, rarely affect the politicians' lives, for no gain in their own elections while causing a lot of irritation in their working lives is just not something humans of the sort that enter politics do.

Also remember how much the various protests have affected the lives of those at the meetings: not at all. With layers of armed guards around them, why should the WTO people care about the protesters? That leaves the WTO to only sort out the publication aspects of protest (the web, newspapers, books etc.) in order for everyone involved to have a quiet life, which is mainly what venal people like politicians really want.

TWW