Slashdot Mirror
Retailers Swing DMCA To Stop "Black Friday" Sale Info
zoid.com writes "It looks like a few of the big retailers have sent out DMCA notices to a few of the consumer deal sites. So now they are claiming that sale prices are covered under the DMCA. I would like to know what part of the DMCA states that you can not share the price of merchandise. Also, why would they want to stop this free advertising?"
I can understand FatWallet not wanting to fight this, but I sure wish somebody would. Until there is enough momentum from the accused, we won't see any real progress on seeing the DMCA changed or overthrown.
Some men spend their entire lives trying to kill themselves for having been born. --Ross MacDonald
Also, why would they want to stop this free advertising?
Why? Because their prices are not competitive of course. In that case it's not advertisement on such a site.
I don't think lawyers needed to be educated, it is supposed to be broad. the broader the damn law the more they can say what is covered or not covered by a law. This is a growing trend in alot of new laws that are being passed in the US. A broad law allows a company to save their own asses when shit hits the fan or come down on people when the law does not really apply to them.
If the prices were published, then I have trouble seeing how it could constitute a violation
What do you know I wrote a novel
Whenever I check out the price comparison sites, I won't bother looking into a vendor that isn't listed or won't let itself be listed. Most people have a general idea of how much the item they are looking for will cost anyway. Based on that, you can usually find a great price from multiple people, so why bother looking up the prices of the few who won't be listed? It seems that they may lose sales from people like me who won't spend the extra time it would take to look them up individually.
As for how the DMCA relates to this, it's obviously just a way for the companies to make an excuse for delisting their prices. They think that not having the prices public will help them stay out of price wars or other competitive practices, but it's not like this would stop secret shoppers or anything.
Probably the copyright claim is bogus itself, but it is common practice for the big corporations to use the threat of legal action to make small fries do what they want, even if they know they would lose. And that isn't a DMCA issue either -- that's a problem with the way capitalism leverages the legal system.
I'm not sticking up for the DMCA, but this case is really, ultimately, about something else.
Till that day happens, of course, it will continue to suck.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
If the site were serving scanned images of advertizing flyers, they might be in violation of copyright law, but if they're just reporting pricing facts, how can it be a violation?
The advertising copy from some flyer containing a blurb-type phrase might be copyrightable, but the fact that some store at some address is selling some item for some price is not copyrightable.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Follow the link in the article. Fat Wallet says they are going to pull the price listings as demanded because they can't afford a legal battle.
"Rights", "fair use" or whatever don't really mean anything if wont be exercised out of fear of a costly legal battle.
-jhon
From the link:
While we believe that sale prices are facts and can not be copyrighted, We have made the business decision to comply with the dmca notifications.
Our reasoning for this is very simple - Our mission is to serve consumers - If we were to choose to fight this battle, It would require more resources than are available - and we would no longer be able to serve consumers.
This speaks more to the flaws in the legal system itself than it does to the DMCA. The legal system has esentially become a means of controling people with significantly less money than you. Time and time again, we hear some variant of "we believe we are right, but we don't have the resources to prove it."
The system no longer provides equal protection to all; "justice," as it were, can be purchased. Witness PanIP's attempts to bully web merchants, or the OJ Simpson case.
The DMCA is bad; nearly all of us believe so. In the end, however, it is simply one item from the overly-expensive toolchest that is the american legal system. The average American can afford a hammer, but the mega-companies all have power tools. The legal system is designed to see who has the better legal case, but the sad fact is that many cases never actually get to that point; the entry level is simply to high. Joe Blow running his web site from his basement may have the best legal argument in the world for why he should be allowed to print the sale prices of items, but he cannot afford the cadre of lawyers to ensure that that aregument gets heard. Joe Blow might be right, but that doesn't matter; the company that opposes him can simply drag out the legal preceedings long enough to bankrupt him.
Ideally, when something like this happens, the defendant would be able to go before a judge and say "All I'm doing is reporting the facts," and the judge would say "case dismissed." Instead, they go before the judge and say "All I'm doing is reporting the facts," and the claiment says "that's not what my stable of lawyers say..."
The really depressing thing is that, even though I can see the system is broken, I really have no idea what to do about it. The system needs to be reformed, but I'm not entierly sure where to start.
Thomas Galvin
Prices are facts and cannot be copyrighted because they are not original works of authorship. See the Feist case, where an alphabetical listing of phone numbers was unanimously ruled to not be copyrightable.
However, a price sheet may involve some originality in selection, layout, graphics, descriptions, etc... and thus an exact reproduction of this might be infringing.
The interesting DMCA question is whether an access TPM to a copyrighted price sheet could be circumvented if the only thing extracted was the price data. I actually think the DMCA as written says such access IS illegal but that Congress has no Constutitional authority to pass such a law.
Then again, I think the 2nd Circuit's opinion upholding the DMCA was deeply flawed.
Yet another reason why the DMCA is WAY TOO broad in its scope. And another reason lawyers need to educated themselves on technology.
I don't think so; the DMCA is overly broad, but I don't think the DMCA actually applies in this case. The problem with this is the fact that, even though the operators of bigfatwallet.com may be right, they cannot afford to prove it in a court of law. The real problem in this case is not the scope of the DMCA, but the fact that "justice" has a cover charge; if you can't afford the lwayers, you don't get in the door.
Thomas Galvin
Black Friday is a field day for stores... they essentially thrive on making people make rush purchases - this is why so many sales end at noon or early afternoon. The trick is, while everybody is slashing prices - sometimes to below cost, make your store the priority store to go to... now when you give people maybe one or two days to figure out all the deals, they're less likely to systematically plan and take advantage of the best deals, after all - the best deals aren't why they want you at their store - they want you to make periheral purchases, which are worse deals - ones which make them profit. However, if you can plan your shopping much in advance knowing all the prices, you are more likely to buy the cheapest stuff from store A, the cheapest stuff from store B, etc, without bothering to even look around very much at the other deals, since you already know all the prices.
It isn't that these stores aren't competetively priced, as some have suggested, it's simply that the competetive pricing is only a lure - giving all the prices for hot items makes that lure nearly worthless.
However, their store is private property. They can ask you to leave any time they want, for any reason.
Really? So if I own a store that's generally open to the public (glass windows and doors, sign on the door announcing hours, store name, etc) I can walk up and say "Whites only -- leave now" and actually get away with it?
"Jammers"? "Resistance"? "Just one day"? Doesn't that all seem a bit pompous and self-congratulatory for bravely not buying stuff you don't need for a single freaking day?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." - Ayn Rand
You've got it exactly backwards. If the loser had to pay the winner's legal expenses people would be afraid to sue big companies because of the risk of being required to pay the big companies $100,000 legal bill. The big companies, on the other hand, would see the risk of having to pay the "little guy's" $10,000 bill as a minor cost of doing business.
BTW you can collect legal expenses from a losing plaintiff if you can show that his suit was frivolious and malicious.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Buy Nothing Day is an outright failure. Friday-after-Thanksgiving remains the largest shopping day of the year despite their efforts. Furthermore, the sales that are offered on that day are often the lowest prices of the year on the targetted blow-out items. Therefore, not shopping on that day causes the people to buy things on a day when the price is higher, putting more money in the store's wallets. It'd be more effective if AdBusters advocated not buying things on any day in the holiday season, but who'd go along with that?
So, if the DMCA is the worst thing to happen ever, why don't you folks get off your asses and do something! Seriously, a lot of the people here seem to spend time decrying the DMCA, while still living under its rule... "WAAAAH, but I can't do anything" is what I hear. That's bull. The DMCA is currently under review! Why not post your comments?
. html Want to change the law? Want to get your voice heard? Do it! Just remember to be polite, your leters will be taken much more seriously.
It's a lot easier to say that a law should be abolished than to actually get up and try to abolish it. Hell, even the most recent slashdot poll shows how little you people are really willing to comit to ending this law: 51% of people chose a form of the "No" option, and 31% chose the CowboyNeal option. A relavent state motto comes to mind: "Live free or DIE!" In other words, either do what needs to be done, or suffer the consequences... I have no sympathy for those who don't vote, only to bitch about the current administration, and I don't have any sympathy for those who bitch about laws, yet never take any action to end those laws.
Oh, so this comment won't be *entirely* a -1 Troll, check this link out sometime: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/comment_forms/index
-jokerghost
Live free or DIE!
But that's not a DMCA violation. That's breech of contract, or potentially a violation of trade secret laws, not a copyright violation which is what the DMCA covers.
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Did you miss the C in DMCA. That's digital millenium COPYRIGHT act. If you have a technological protection on something that is NOT COPYRIGHTABLE, circumventing it does NOT fall under the DM*C*A. It may fall under some other law, but the DMCA is all about content protection... copyrighted content protection. As the OP stated, facts cannot be copyrighted. Only original, creative expressions of the facts contained within.
It is perfectly legal for me to copy an equation out of my favorite physics textbook when writing another book/paper/etc. However, I cannot freely exceprt descriptions/discussions of that equation, as those are an original expression.
To wit, quoting various parts of the DMCA:
Section 103 of the DMCA adds a new chapter 12 to Title 17 of the U.S. Code. New section 1201 implements the obligation to provide adequate and effective protection against circumvention of technological measures used by copyright owners to protect their works.
Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work.
Notice how 'copyright' keeps showing up here?
A mind is a terrible thing to waste..., or what a waste it is to lose ones mind, or something like that.
Keep passing the open windows...
The goal of a protest is to 1) get people to listen to your message 2) get them to understand your message. After that they will make up their own minds.
...If you do a funny puppet show on the DMCA in the parking lot people will be curious, come up to you, and ask "What's the DMCA?". Just be there with some short and easy to understand fliers with ways to get more information. Be prepared to answer questions and explain your position. Don't be combative and don't exaggerate. Let them make up their own minds, your goal is just to inform.
Stunts get attention. The point of a stunt isn't to 'punish' the stores, but to do something out of the ordinary that will get noticed by the audiences that you want to get your message to.
It's a lot like marketing and guerilla advertising like IBM did with the sidewalk chalking and Microsoft and the butterflies.
The stunts get attention of the 1) customers 2) the media 3) the management. If the media understands the issues they might report it. If the customers understand the issues they might complain. If the management understands they might change the policy.... any pressure from customers and the media might also help management to decide to make a change.
Picket lines of just five people are pathetic. If you hand out fliers, most people will be annoyed and ignore you.
Also, protests can be a lot of work... they should be fun to get people to show up and help you out. Handing out fliers while holding some home-made 'DMCA Sucks' sign isn't fun. Puppet shows are fun. Fake non-disclosure agreements (that are clearly parodies) are fun.
Be creative, not destructive. Educate and inform.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
The largest problem with this, however, is that by "buying nothing!" you're not helping the weak economy in our country. We need to stimulate the economy so people have more confidence in buying items, and helping to climb out of recession. Everyone sitting on their cash isn't helping, contrary to what you may think. I'm not advocating blowing your entire check, but by all means, do your Christmas/holiday shopping. We all cry about how we can't find jobs, and how pitiful the economy is, but these little protests aren't helping the situation any.
The comments about 'maddened consumerism' and 'rampant consumption' are strongly worded and designed to elicit an emotional response - and yet you claim the *retailers* play dirty? Wow.
Seriously. Our economy is dependent on the buying and selling of goods. Or, as a wiser man once said, "You've got to spend money to make money."
"If there's hope, it lies in the proles..."
No, it's not. Copyright protection technology and circumvention is only one part of the DMCA -- the one that gets the most coverage on Slashdot, naturally. There are other provisions of the DMCA, such as those dealing with the liability of online service providers for the dissemination of infringing material.
- - - -
The real Tetsujin 28 is a giant robot.
Because the DMCA is about circumventing copyright protection technology, which usually means encryption. Please explain what copyright protection technology the retailers employed on their copyrighted sales prices, and how exactly these web site circumvented it.
The DMCA had two main provisions, a circumvention ban and a takedown notice procedure, with numerous riders. This case invokes section 512(c) about takedown notices. If an ISP doesn't respond to a takedown notice, it becomes liable for everything sent over its network.
Will I retire or break 10K?
To avoid the inevitable /. effect (swamped, plus the inevitable trolls and fringes), how about a reverse /. interview? Let Ron pose the questions, then send him the highest moderated responses. Or just a general thread, then email him the +5 comments.
I think that'd be a better representation of the /. community in that we would be self-selecting our representatives. We don't want to come off as anti-capitalist, pro-communist, p0rn lovers, 3l33t h4k3r5, warez pirates...or, god forbid, goatse.cx fans. (Even if you are one (or more) of those things, it won't help in garnering support agains the DMCA to reveal it to the readership of the WSJ).
So let me see if I have this business decision down, then:
a) Plan a massive sale on Black Friday in order to get customers to spend money at a specific retailer.
b) Spend major $$ advertising the sale.
c) Spend more major $$ on lawyers' fees and litigation costs when online consumer deals sites attempt to advertise the sale AT NO COST TO THE RETAILER. Cite the DMCA as your legal basis, because it's so broad that it must cover *any* type of content litigation, including actions against anyone who gives companies free advertising.
d) Either PROFIT after the Christmas season is over and give everyone a pat on the back, or NO PROFIT and blame 9/11 and those "evil" consumer websites who ruined your sales by giving you free advertising.
A bit of sarcasm in there, but point c) is what worries me. The *only* reason I can possible see for these retail companies wanting to NOT have their sales mentioned on these sites (for free) is that they fear a sales slowdown in the few weeks prior to the Black Monday sales kick-off, due to the large discounts offered then. But a sales slowdown prior to any advertised sales period is the norm in any retail industry, and is always accounted for well ahead of time. So this reason makes no sense.
This tactic sounds like it would benefit the mentioned retailer's *competitors* more than the retailers who are threatening the "offending" websites with legal action. Well, and benefits the lawyers on all sides as well. That said, just *who's* lawyers sent the threats to the consumer websites in order to stop the free advertising?
Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.