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"

Comments

Take a stand

[SteakJerky.com]

I'm a member of fatwallet, and I'm glad Tim is taking a stand. Copyrighting prices is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. These stores should have been glad for all of the free advertising, or at least accept that good information will not stay hidden long. I just feel bad that he is having to cough up so much dough to fight something so ridiculus.

Re:Take a stand

[Fastolfe]

revealing trade secrets is illegal or at least against contract

Illegal, no, but presumably those who have access to trade secrets are bound by countract/NDA not to reveal it, so against contract: yes.

But trade secrets can still be copyrighted. Look at the Church of Scientology.

They can't enforce their NDA until they know who released the information, and they're using copyright law to figure that out.

Note that I'm not trying to sit on the side of WalMart or any of the other companies here, I'm just pointing out how they might have a case. Slashdot frequently needs a devil's advocate.

whoohooo! go FatWallet

[digitalmuse]

I can only hope that this case gets enough media attention to make Wal-Mart lovin' Joe Sixpack stand up and take notice that this whole DMCA thing affects him as well. I would also like to think that this will be a good case to showcase how over-reaching and prone to abuse laws like this are.
If anyone finds any more links about how FatWallet.com is persuing this case/counter-suit please post 'em here!.
So far all I found was this http://www.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/spew4th.pl?ascribei d=20021202.112004&time=11%2043%20PST&year=2002&pub lic=1 at ascribe.org.

Corporate Fuzzy Logic

[mat catastrophe]

Unless I am missing something here, which is just about as likely as snow falling outside right now (oh, crap, it *is*), why would corporations be uptight about their sales info getting pushed out to a wider audience? Isn't this exactly what their advertisements are supposed to do?

I think maybe this shows that the people who run/are our economy here in the States are just deranged. Now, if the site took straight files from websites, that might constitute a violation (albeit a very minor and sketchy one at best). And, if they posted this information well before the company's in question had officially released the info, that might also be serious. But I can't tell from either FatWallet post when these ads were published or, to be honest, what all the whoo-ha is in this brouhaha.

Re:Corporate Fuzzy Logic

[UCRowerG]

I believe they wanted to keep a lid on their prices until Nov. 29th so that their competitors wouldn't be able to undercut their prices at the last minute, and so pull potential customers away.

Re:Corporate Fuzzy Logic

[Mr Guy]

Exactly, as discussed to death before when the original threats were made. They really weren't copywrited, they were trade secrets. Of course in the end you still have Wal*marts Lawyers against Fat Wallet, and despite the name I bet I can guess who has the most change to toss around.

The real goal is to make a big enough stink for newspapers to smell it and start reporting on this sort of crap. Then he'll win in settlement, they'll have to drop their stupid claims, and companies may think twice before their legal departments get too seperated from their public relations.

Re:Corporate Fuzzy Logic

[mat catastrophe]

OK, so now it makes a little more sense. But, here's the thing. I just don't buy that at all.

If you've ever looked at the ads in a Sunday paper, and maybe this is not the case everywhere - and maybe I'm just straining at gnats to come to this conclusion - then you will notice that a lot of companies who are supposedly in "competition" seem to be acting in a coordinated fashion.

It seems to be that Best Buy and Circuit City run the exact same sales on alternating weeks. One week, hard drives go down at BB while CC runs a sale on monitors. The next week, it's reversed. And the prices are almost always exactly the same. Of course, I don't have a whole lot of empirical data to back this up, just recollections of reading these ad circulars pretty religiously for several months.

The same is seemingly true of Wal-Marts/K-Marts/Targets of the world. They run pretty much the same deals at the same times (or within a week or two). That's not really competition, that's more like price fixing in my mind. Can we file a class-action suit against these companies or at least a complaint with one of the Federal agencies and force an investigation into sales practices? Or, would this idea also get lost in 21st Century America's more-or-less apathy and/or ignorance?

super sekret prices?

[geoff lane]

As someone already pointed out, the price information is actually a trade secret. Walmart's problem is that the secret has to be distributed to 1000's of stores, PR and advertising companies, newspapers and magazines before the start of the sales.

It's the responsibility of the owner of the trade secret to protect the information. By giving it to so many people outside Walmarts direct control, they have demonstrated that they are not protecting the trade secret.

Walmart loses!

I will become a user of fatwallet

[mshiltonj]

I will become a user of fatwallet. I will support thier advertisers. Any company that has the balls to do this deserves my support.

The best tort reform

[browser_war_pow]

Make filing frivolous lawsuits a criminal offense for the attorney and plaintiff.

Re:The whole point of Black Friday...

[ewanrg]

I disagree about your argument - mainly because you are leaping to an assumption that there was Digital Media involved in any form. There's no reason to believe the information wasn't posted by someone at WalMart who read a report - or in your example that someone saw a printed flyer before it was actually distributed.

As such, the only way that WalMart could prove the DMCA had been violated is to assert that it was to get the source revealed so that they could show it had been. But if it wasn't violated then the source shouldn't be revealed under standard First Amendment protection of sources.

I am not a lawyer, YMMV, etc.

Disappointment

[fobbman]

I'm a semi-regular visitor of FatWallet and the thing that disappoints me the most is that people continued to post published deals for those retailers who sent DMCA letters to Fat Wallet. It is a sad commentary to how whoreish people will be just to get "a good deal", no matter how morally-corrupt the retailer (or their attorney team).

If these retailers are crap and you don't approve of their actions, then quit shopping there and stick to it. Merely saying that you think it sucks and then when the ad comes out talking about all the "kewl goods" you picked up at the sale shows that you approve of their actions.

FatWallet is making killing too...

[nortcele]

All this publicity has given FatWallet more exposure than would be possible otherwise. I had never heard of it before this... went and checked out the site... and found it to quite useful and informative. Mr. Tim could come out of this smelling nicely indeed.

I almost forgot to include the obligatory DMCA comment. The DMCA bites.

Re:The whole point of Black Friday...

[stilwebm]

2) Prices are NOT protected under the DMCA. This is not what they are mad about. What they are mad about is the DIGITAL MEDIA that the prices were listed using were stolen and posted. To make this clear - Best Buy sends the sale prices on digital media to, say, the Washington Post for advertisement on Friday (the same day of the sale).

I work for a publishing company that does the same type of work for clients.

While this would be true if BestBuy had an ad on the inside of the the actual paper, say page three of the front section, this is not true for inserts. Inserts are the type of ad all of the companies who used the DMCA against fat wallet exclusivly used - multipage full color stand-alone sections.

These are not ever sent in digital format to the paper. They are sent in digital format to a printer like Quad Graphics, who in turn prints the insert and then distributes it to many markets. This process starts well before the paper is distributed to newstands and homes - as much as two or three weeks in advance. With a full page or smaller (or a spread, two facing pages) ad, the digital media is sent to the paper or magazine around 24 hours before the publication goes to press.

Large printing companies like Quad and Brown have very strict confidentiality agreements for their workers. They are compensated well, screened well, and have never been openly accused of sharing this type of information with outside workers - their reputations ride heavily on this Instead, it is highly probable that the theft originated with someone inside each of the companies who had access to the pricing as the inserts were being created.

I confirmed this with our production manager who once worked for a national retailer that did Black Friday inserts - she also suspected people inside the companies were responsible for the initial leaks. She knows from firsthand experience that people rushing to prepare holiday ads are often disgruntled and/or overworked and more likely to make mistakes or blatent confidentiality breaches.

That's Wal-Mart's business.

[Rimbo]

From what I understand, the reason Wal-Mart is able to beat people on prices and still make scads of money is that their business model is based on doing lots of research to pick up things at the cheapest (wholesale) prices in town, and then sell them for less than other retailers can.

So Wal-Mart has put a lot of time and effort into how they price things (you notice that Wal-Mart has a lot of things selling for $4.67 and $3.12 rather than the standard $xyz.99 prices everyone else uses?) to get the most money out of the lowest possible price.

FatWallet interferes with their ability to do that, by giving people instant access to information that takes Wal-Mart lots of time to gather. What used to be something only Wal-Mart did, is now something anyone with an internet connection can do.

So basically Wal-Mart's just defending their turf; they know that if more people used FatWallet, it would be harder for Wal-Mart to make so much money from such low prices.

The hubbub is going to hurt Wal-Mart in the end more than help, however. People, like me, who've never even heard of FatWallet.com are going to hit the site to see if they (or rather, I) can save money through the site as well... rather than just heading out to Wal-Mart for a price that may not be the lowest in town, but will beat most retailers.

It's ironic, no? Wal-Mart feels a website is hurting its business -- and in attacking it, ensure that said website will hurt their business even more by drawing people's attention to it. Funny how heavy-handed legal action can have that effect!