Slashdot Mirror
FatWallet Strikes Back Using DMCA
J. F. Miller writes "A recent Slashdot article reported how FatWallet had been the victim of a DMCA attack by several retail chains. After initially stating that they would not appeal, FatWallet was forced to take legal action when Wal-Mart further subpoenaed the name of a person who posted price information. They are accusing the stores frivolous copyright assertions and demanding payment under Section 512(f) of the DMCA"
What's interesting is that if you read the fax that walmart sent, they don't say that Fatwallet is violating their IP rights by publishing the prices, they instead say that he's publishing their circular. This is definitely splitting a very fine legal hair. It's probably defendable to say that the circular is copyrightable, but the prices contained therein is a serious stretch.
Well, here's hoping that fatwallet gets their wallet fattened by a nice check from walmart. I wasn't aware that there were provisions in the DMCA for getting damages and legal fees for abuse of the law. While I still think much of the DMCA is some of the worst legal authoring this country has seen, it does show that at least somebody was paying attention when it went through the legislature.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
And a list of prices is a collection of facts. Had the prices been printed on a nice ad with formatting and pretty designs, the whole can be copyrighted, but the mere facts presented on the page are free to redistribute.
Read the DMCA response letter by FatWallet's lawyers to get the appropriate Supreme Court rulings.
Pricewatch is a great example of how well comparing prcies can work. My only guess is 2 things. Wal-mart doesn't want people to know that they're really not "rolling back prices" as well as their competitors, or they just can't bear to stand anyone making any money on "their" hard work.
Who knows. Pricewatch is opt-in. Fatwallet was not.
Heheh, of course, Wal-mart selling my demographic information was NOT opt-in!
Why the heck does it still exist?
Because Hollywood/TV/Music industry gave $21,480,772 in soft money during 2002 to keep it there...
Lawyers aint cheap and when the court orders someone to pay for the damages/legal costs, it aint cheap.
Lawyers gave $12,074,762 in soft money during 2002 to make sure these disputes can't be settled without them...
This public service announcement was brought to you by Open Secrets
People who truely believe in free market economies would never let the government regulate technology like this, or sanction a virtual monopoly to the Baby Bells, or give the FCC the powers it has to stifle communications.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
I thought it was a well-known fact by now that the DMCA is not just a US law anymore. Europe is jumping on the bandwagon and this is because of WTO mandates. All WTO countries *will* have to follow suit. Please do get prove me wrong if you can.
I miss my rubber keyboard.(Homepage)
From : smallpond@juno.com
To : customercare@joann.com, sales@joann.com
Subject : DMCA abuse
Date : Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:04:47 GMT
This is to inform you that I will no longer be shopping at Jo-Ann
Stores due to your decision to apply the DMCA to prevent the
internet site FatWallet.com from posting your sale prices.
Abuse of the DMCA law by large corporations to stifle competition
is a good example of what is wrong with laws enacted to protect
special interests. It was a concern cited by opponents of the
law when it was proposed, whose worst fears you have now realized.
i am a member of FW, and the information that was posted was simply a long list of items + prices. there were no posted JPEGs or PDFs of the actual WalMart circular == just text.
E V E R Y T H I N G I W R I T E I S F A L S E
A collection of facts is copyrightable, but if you go through this collection and pick and choose data from it and post it in another form, you are not violating copyright. It would suck to be a dictionary company or someone looking up and posting a phone number out of the phone book if it were.
The only possible way I could see these companies having a case is if the price data was not yet public. If it's not announced, and the prices are not yet current, then it's not factual data yet. It's a statement of intent (and something similar to a trade secret) at that point, in the form of a price. I can see how someone might consider that to be copyrightable.