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?"
is that Fat Wallet is complying with the demands.
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
But then again, you have to realize that the first newspapers in this country were nothing more than prices of goods and services each day - they were called "price currents".
With that in mind, it's clearly not copyrightable.
I'm a 2000 man.
Are they doing this to prevent massive sales of loss-leaders? Is that what FatWallet does...find all the loss-leaders?
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
Three cheers for the retailers involved in this legal action. This is exactly the kind of absurd example we need to get that crappy old DMCA repealed once and for all.
Seriously, anyone else as jazzed about this as I am?
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
We have been given DMCA notices regarding the posting of "Black Friday" sale prices from the following companies:
:)
Wal*Mart
Target
Best Buy
Staples
SCRRAATCH!! off the shopping list. Looks like everyone is getting a thinkgeek tshirt for Xmas this year.
Grandma would look pretty cool look with </geek> on the back
then what can't they copyright? They are basically claiming that thye haven't copyrighted what they wrote, but have the copyright to fundamental facts.
Does this mean Reuters could sue every news station that says "Reuters has reported that..."?
Can a movie producer sue a critic who gave away the ending?
Obviously this is yet another example of big businesses using their weight to crush those in the right with lawsuits they can't afford to fight (called a SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation).
Good thing we have so many republicans in office now who want to take away even more consumer rights including the right to sue big businesses.
Is it me or is anyone else noticing how we, the country and society I mean, are regressing into a aristocracy where the top 1-2% of society is making rules for the rest of us? I think I should start learning russian. The Gov'ment wants us to spy on each other, want cameras everywhere, want to know my spending habits and locations. Isn't this is what the Soviet communists had/wanted, complete authority.
Da, commrad, ya Sovietsky!
P.S. What's with the USA wanting to get rid of a dictator in Iraq, but are growing one right here in the country!
P.S.S. I think they are watching me right now, with the DCMA, Patriot Act, and Security Bill in their back pocket, they can take me down any moment!
Welcome to the New America, with new and redefined freedoms.
How do these sites GET their news? I figured that the companies themselves 'leaked' a lot of this information..
Individual things here and there are typically reported by the individual.. but where do they get the BIG news from companies like Dell, or Best Buy?
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
A few of the items that come from the manufacturers marked with prices end with .99... as I recall , there's certain numbers that unless it's a special case, Walmart doesn't want their prices to end with... 9, 5 and 0 are the ones that I recall the best....
Yes, but wouldn't the freedom of press take precedent, it's clearly not a National Security issue (though the bloated egos in Corporate HQ would like to inflate their own importance).
I don't see what this has to do with the DMCA, prices can't be copyrighted, nor is it circumventing anything. It's the companies' fault that they can't keep this information private.
It's just sad to see these laws keep on chipping away at our original bill of rights consistently (though they don't follow the proper precedure to amend the constitution), so only those with the $$$$$$$$$ can protect their own freedom in this country.
Ya know there seems to be alot of this going on on /. lately "what is black friday?" "what is GBA" "what the hell does slashdot mean?"
I hate to break this to you guys, but justbecauseyou arent clued into the collective community consciousness donest mean you should rant on like a fool.
I suspect that MAP (minimum advertised price) is involved in this somewhere. If so, it's gonna get ugly.
Most big retailers advertise. A log. Direct mailers - junk mail - and TV ads are very effective. They bring in business. But ads are expensive, so retailers go to manufacturers and say, "Hey, how about you pay for part of this ad, and we promise to include your products." Manufacturers, not being stupid, say "Sure!"
But manufacturers have to take care of all of their customers, not just some, so they set rules. One of which is MAP. They only contribute to the cost of an ad campaign if the retailer promises to not advertise below a certain price (which would undercut other retailers). If they do advertise below that price, they lose the ad dollars.
Since retailers - also not stupid - know they can approach multiple manufacturers, they can often get their advertising nearly for free, by getting a little bit of the cost from many manufacturers. So there's a lot of money involved, and much of it is subjected to MAP rules.
I've always wondered why MAP doesn't violate the anti-trust laws, but I am no lawyer.
In case you're curious, Techbargains.com has some Black Friday deals posted, and as of now they still seem to be up.
The deals are:
Upcoming Black Friday Deals, Nov 20
The day after Thanksgiving, 11/29, rewards those who wake up early to shop! Retailers hope to get in the 'Black' during the holiday season.
Best Buy 6AM-Noon - 150 Precision 40x CDRs Free AR, DVD Player $39.99AR, WD 75GB Drive & Kbyte 256MB PC133 $49.99AR, Avorcent 48x12x48 CDRW $9.99AR
Officemax - 16x DVDROM Free AR, DVD-R drive $169.99 AR, Kingston 128MB PC133 Free AR, Hival or KHypermedia 100 pack CDR Free AR.
Staples 7AM to 10AM - Scanner $16.98AR, 30GB 7200 RPM HD $29.98AR, Cendyne 40x12x48 $9.98AR, Palm m500 $129.99 w/acc kit Free AR, PNY 512MB PC133 $29.98AR, Envision 15" LCD $199.94 AR.
Walmart 6AM - 11AM - Apex DVD Player $48.76, Kodak CX4300 Digital Camera $154
I want to see the damn takedown letters!
I want to read the greasy, obscene ooze penned by those lawyers under command of these retail Nazis!
I want that legalese filth to stain my nostrils with a stench so powerful that it will be constant reminder to me during my xmas shopping.
Do you read me, Wal-Mart, Target, Staples and (Not)Best-Buy?
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Okay. Mod me down to old and stupid, but while this article may be true, so far I haven't seen anything (other than the URL referenced in the summary ) confirming this. Sure, there's a link in this ( the Slashdot ) thread to a DVD discussion group, but has anyone researched this? It seems to be a mighty thin basis on which to be posting an article?
Xibalba: My hell. Your hell. Our hell!
The DMCA is rapidly becoming a blanket law used any time corporations don't like the way new technology is being used towards their products in any other way than they specificly want. They have a vested interest in the consumer not having instant access to sale prices from different stores, as it allows them to use a sale to gain your buisness but still retain the higher profit margins on other items. Historicly the way the model works involves a lot of research into consumer psychology and buying patterns. Which of course is threatend when technology will instantly tell you "Best towel price: XXX, Best shoe price: XXX) DMCA just gives them a weapon against change due to technology.. Tell it to the scribes guild a few hundred years ago as far as I'm concerned. Adapt, deal, or go out of buisness.
The DMCA can apply. Why does everyone think the DMCA is only about encryption? It applies anywhere there are copyrights. The question is "can unreleased pricing information be copyrighted?".
While the answer _should_ be no, the way things are going a court might just say yes. Companies have been able to copyright collections of facts like phone numbers so why not?
This way *everyone* can enforce his/her/its right if the charges are ridiculous and big corporations can't overpower anyone who can't afford to sue up to the supreme court
jm2
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
I have recently left the retail business, so this story just causes me to sit here in front of my machine and chuckle about how absurd the DMCA has become, and how this law has been abused.
I can tell you that the store where I used to work has a competitive price policy-- we would match the price for the same item if another store had the item currently at a lower price. Of course, to verify this, we would have to call the other store. I can now envision how such a conversation might take place now:
"Hello, I'm calling to find out the price of a Ralph Lauren polo, blue in color?"
"I'm sorry sir, I can't reveal that information without you having a Price Licence-- it's copyrighted, ya know."
Note that this might well be a regular customer, not an employee from a competitor. I assume that this site was posting prices of items from the different stores, and the stores put the whammy on them to discourage shoppers from being able to compare for themselves who had the lowest price. I consider this to be an anticompetitve action which could be prosecuted by the FTC or the Justice Dept.-- but they probably won't be.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
People /want/ to fight it, they just can't. Try going up against Wal Mart, Best Buy, Target...you can't. You don't have the money. They can tie you up in court until your financing runs out, then your lawyer says "buh-bye" and you effectively lose.
:) You'd be suprised at how effective small groups of people can be once they get noticed by the higher managment of these places. If your stunt has entertainment value, local papers and tv stations will probably cover it if you tell them ahead of time... there's not much news on a holiday weekend anyway.
There's a fun and easy way to fight it...
Here are the stores that sent the DMCA threats: Wal*Mart, Target, Best Buy, Staples
Some of you may be screaming boycott... but that won't work. There aren't enough people who even know what the DMCA is to make a dent in the sales of these companies... besides, they would just chalk it up to the bad economy and ask for a government bail-out.
I think guerrilla protests are the best way... especially since most of us have the friday after thanksgiving off... Just get a few friends together and have fun...
a few ideas:
1. Go to a store and cover up their prices with red tape. This would be especially effective at stores where the prices are on the shelves and not on the items.
2. Go to a store and have customers sign a non-disclosure agreement before they look at the prices. Explain that the prices are copyrighted and they can't tell anyone else what they paid for what they buy. After the store kicks you out go outside in the parking lot. After the cops ask you to leave go to another store.
3. Guerrilla theater. Perform mini DMCA plays in the offending stores... this one can be a lot of fun.
Be sure to have fliers explaining the DMCA and what these stores did and hand them out to the curious. Be creative.
Don't worry about getting arrested... just leave when they ask you to leave and go on to another store. It doesn't matter if your mini-protest lasts only five minutes before they kick you out... the store manager will still tell his district manager about your stunt, and maybe the store might change its policy.
Too bad there isn't a geeky activist group to organize such a thing. If this were organized to be across several cities, small groups of five or six people in each city would be very effective.
I did a few protests back in college
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
For all practical purposes the "Safe Harbor" provision forces the presumption guilt upon act of the filing the complaint. That means that prior to any court cases, etc., the remedy the company filing the complaint desires already has taken place. The material is squelched.
Couple that with the deep-pockets vs small-operators problem of fighting a court case and the DMCA stiffles just about anything a company wants to stiffle, regardless of the merit of their complaint.
At the very least the "Safe Harbor" mechanism should be reworked. The company/person filing the complaint should have to go to court to get an injuction to get the offending material removed. If they couldn't even get an injunction, it is unlikely they would pursue the matter much farther. I think that would stop a lot of these thugish tactics.
Obligatory - IANAL.
deserve's got nothing to do with it...
My wife used to work at Sams's Club, and once explained the system to me (quite a while ago, so this may not be entirely accurate).
Products ending in 9 are as they were originally priced when Walmart began offerring the product.
Products ending in 6 have been marked down.
Products ending in something else (I forget the digit) have been reduced as far as they are going to go, and are essentially clearance items.
How this is useful is best left an excercise to the reader, but I guess someone could put it to use. (Probably not though.)
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
A valuable addendum to the DMCA would be a provision to punish for false accusations. Essentially the way it would work is that if you sent somebody a DMCA nastygram, and then decided to take them to court, if you lost, you would owe their legal fees and other associated costs.
This would allow for small players to take on the big corporations with some comfort that if they win, they'll get their money back.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
news story about public comment period for dmca
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
The DMCA relevance is as follows.
When a user of an internet service provider posts copyright-infringing data, the ISP is obligated to take down the postings once it is notified of a claim by the copyright holder. This is part of the DMCA. Then there is a mechanism for the user to challenge the removal, saying that the removed material was not copyrighted. This is discussed under section 512(c) of the DMCA link above.
It's a different part of the DMCA than what we often discuss, like breaking copyright protection measures, which is section 1201.
Now, I agree that price information, especially if reformatted, cannot be copyrighted. Copyright covers a particular expression of the data, and not the raw data itself. So IMO the sites could safely ignore these warnings. But as someone who was recently sued for several billion dollars, I can certainly understand the reluctance to enter the legal system.
In places (like most of Europe) that have a "loser-pays" system, it does not work like this -- you don't end up with a "loser" paying the entirety of the other side's bills. The amount that either side has to pay of the other's bills is based on who brought the suit, how valid each side's claims were, how much each side was held responsible for the issue at hand, etc. I don't know how well it works, in practice, but I don't think it does any good to spread false information about how loser-pays systems work. Check out this article for information on how loser-pays systems really work.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I observe Buy Nothing Day. Not only do I despise traffic, crowds and malls, but I like to send whatever tiny message to the retail world that I actively resist marketing.
That said, I still think that the DMCA, as well as illegitimate uses of it such as this one, reek worse than the proverbial warthog's bunghole.
In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
How this is useful is best left an excercise to the reader, but I guess someone could put it to use
If it ends with '9' don't buy it unless it's the current craze.
If it ends with '6' and there is quite a few left, wait a bit before buying.
If it ends with anything else, and you still want it, buy it. It's not getting any cheaper.
A lot of people seem to think the big retailers should be happy about "free advertising". The problem (from their perspective) is loss leaders.
A loss leader is something you advertise at a steep discount, with words to the effect of "while supplies last". The idea is to lose money on 50 units and bring 2,000 people into the store.
The problem is that the newspaper ads often need to be typeset days in advance. So if I find out they're going to be selling Model W-1005 Widgets for $59.97 on Black Friday, I can go buy one for $89.97 on Wednesday. Then I just go back a few days later for a price adjustment. Obviously the retailers don't like this sort of thing.
It's always been something that a few store employees (and their friends) would take advantage of, but like so many things, the web has amplified it to the n'th degree. I say screw 'em; it's bascially a deceptive sales practice anyway, so it's hard to conjure up much sympathy.
It's sad to see cases like this where the company or individuals can't fight back because they can't afford the legal fees. Perhaps the way to remedy that is to add two things to the dmca:
1. All complaints must be investigated by the government before ISP's are required to comply with takedown notices.
2. Complaints that are found invalid will be subject to a large 'processing fee' by the government office, in the order of $1 million or so, which will be used to help fund future investigations.
This way everybody wins. The 'big players' in copyright infringement will still be sought out. But companies will not be able to fish for wins by sending out letter after letter with no fear of reprisal.
Now you'll be charged with violating the DMCA for releasing the details of their super-secret pricing code.
A lawyer is the only kind of hired gun with the ability to legalise murder.
Bad laws cause a lot of legal friction. Legal friction is good for lawyers' business. Who spends the most on elections? Even better- who spent the most on the 2000 election? Lawyers are paying for the best government money can buy. For themselves.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
PARTS of the DMCA are bout copy protection technology.
OTHER PARTS of the DMCA are about electronic publishing of copywritten information without permission.
Also.. something does NOT require a copyright notice to be protected by copyright.
I agree, to imply copyright over sales prices is rediculous.. however...
if the prices were taken from a flyer at a print house or somewhere, and had not yet been released by the company, there very well MAY be a copyright violation.
You have a fine point, however I would like to point out two things that negate almost all of your comment:
1: This is not Mom & Pop shop or any sort of a small company, it's the Wall Street Journal and as such they make and spend more money in one day than you will in your entire life (most likely, that is assuming you're not extrememly successful) So the cost of a few hundred 1-800 calls are virtually nothing to them. In addition to this, I'm sure if they were billing him for the calls it would put a fair dent in his pocket, however I would assume (due to the tangle of routing that I had to go through to get to him on the 800 number) that they are most likely not able to trace the call as being from their 800 number and bill him... At least I hope so, because he is a really nice fellow and I would hate to cost him any sum of money...
2: The 1-800 number I posted is listed on the Wall Street Journal homepage, so I would care to differ with you on the point of it not being heavily advertised already... It is highly accessible and heavily advertised.
Although I know you didn't have a clue about where I found that 800 number.....
On another point, your observation of slashdotting someone into bankruptcy, that actually made me laugh out loud... However I would like make sure that everyone knows bandwidth is not free either, and everytime the slashdot effect occurs it does cost someone, somewhere, something...