Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DOW Threatens Verio, Verio silences activists

Posted by Hemos on from the silencing-the-critics dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A parody site hosted on Thing.net upset DOW Chemical. DOW is now using the DMCA to threaten Verio, Thing.net's provider, into silencing the activists. Read press release for more details."

4 of 92 comments (clear)

  1. I don't know about these guys. by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.dowethics.com/r/environment/freedom.htm l

    They have that linked as "Dow's response" to the incident, apparently yet another parody site, but I was sure confused at first. I could see how someone could be misled to believe it was a real Dow site.

    These guys are pushing the line a little too far I think. The site looks a whole lot like an official site.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    1. Re:I don't know about these guys. by mcgroarty · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you look at the WHOIS, dowethics.com is allegedly owned by somebody in Bhopal, India, the very same location where Dow's Union Carbide subsidiary was responsible for killing thousands in an escelation of multiple chemical plant disasters through the 70s and 80s.

  2. Re:Are you kidding me!?! by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read before posting. What you quoted is a "parody" site.

    See the problem?

    --

    I write in my journal
  3. Re:DMCA? HUH? by Zapman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Verio [probably] said to themselves, "On the one hand we have a bunch of activists who pay their bills, but who aren't a significant source of revenue for us. On the other hand we have Dow Chemical, a gigantic multinational corporation that could throw us a lot of money if we have a good relationship with them." And they made a business decision.

    If that's what happened, I really don't see a reason to get all up-in-arms. Yes, this is an inconvenience for the activists. But, if it happened the way I'm guessing, nobody did anything illegal, or even unethical.

    I won't go into the rest of your post, which I thought was well and good. However, while I see the logic of your 'wild assed guess', I disagree with your statement that it's 'not unethical'.

    Say you have a mindspring.com account. On your personal web page, you post that 'bill gates of borg' icon that he's reputed to hate so much. He causes a letter to be sent to mindspring, and your account is revoked, using the same logic you just called 'a business decision'.

    This is precisely the kind of thing that power leads to, if it's not curbed. Look at the nobles of the middle ages. Not held accountable, they could kill anyone they wished without repurcussions. This is just a modern day version of that.

    We must protect fredom of speech (obviously keeping in mind the limits WRT slander and libel). We must we must protect those liberties.

    Now, if thing.net violated libel and slander laws, they get what is coming to them. If they didn't, then what happened is unethical, and should be illegal.

    --
    Zapman