Slashdot Mirror
DOW Threatens Verio, Verio silences activists
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."
Given what happened to FatWallet over the Black Tuesday adverts?
What the hell is DOW claiming under the DMCA? The name? Give me a break. I hope there's such a HUGE stink over this that it permanently tarnishes DOW and Verio's reputations. Fscking corporate slimeballs.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
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.
IANAL (God I hate it when people start posts like that), but Wouldn't this be a great case to challenge the DMCA with? If all the facts are straight here then DOW Chemicals has enfringed on the first amendment rights of the person who wrote the parody. Bill of rights should proove that this law at least in this case should not be applied, but at best could make the DMCA unconstitutional.
If that dosn't stir the pot, how about a lawsuit aganst Verio. The DMCA says that the ISP (in this case it should be Thing.Net must take down the material. DOW knew that Thing.Net would have complied only to allow the counter notice and reposting part of the DMCA to go into effect or just fired back with a "Liar, Liar, we have Lawyers too" letter since they specialize in activists sites. DOW chose wisely and picked the ISP's ISP and pretty much guaranteed that Thing.Net would have to bow to the pressure. And now Verio is cutting off Thing.Net in 60 days?!? The DMCA dosen't say anything about that! Get a lawyer and sue them to hell!
[End of diatribe. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...] - Larry Wall in Configure from the perl
From the Site http://www.dowethics.com/r/environment/freedom.htm l
Corporate Freedom of Speech is one of our most precious Freedoms
Now granted I didn't see the site (mirror anyone?) but what about Personal free speech? In this day and age of governemnt where there doesn't seem to be much for freedoms unless you invest a couple hundred thousand in your favorite politicians wallet. Why does DOW get free speech and they can threaten someone for exercising thiers?
Was the company on Thing.net causing them harm, cutting into thier billions of dollars of profits for the year?
Slashdot # 199661 the number that's the same upside down and right side up
Er... that's the PARODY site. :]
Before anyone stars foaming at the mouth about use of the Dow name (and even the look of their corporate page, which I didn't see the specific mention of) take a look at the following links:
, 00.html
S .html
http://www.business2.com/articles/web/0,1653,9452
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.Z
http://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/
http://overlawyered.com/topics/silicon.html
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Can anybody dig up independent confirmation that this has anything at all to do with the DMCA? The RTMark press release mentions it in the context, "Dow was not amused, and sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) complaint to Verio, which immediately cut Thing.net off the internet for fifteen hours." But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
More importantly, the New York Times article on the subject (here), makes no reference at all to the DMCA, instead saying that "Dow's lawyers contacted Verio to complain that the site infringed on its trademarks, among other sins." If the DMCA were involved, I'm reasonably sure that the NYT article would mention it.
If I had to take a wild-ass guess, I'd say that what probably happened is that Dow simply told Verio that they want the offending web site shut down, and possibly that the site was making unauthorized use of their trademarks or some such. Verio 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.
(Incidentally, the NYT article also says, "When [Staehle] called Verio to ask why his entire network had been unplugged instead of the sole offending site, he said, a Verio lawyer told him that the Thing had violated its policies repeatedly and that its contract would be terminated."
The article goes on: "Verio had shut down part of the Thing once before. In 1999 the online toy retailer eToys.com asked a California court to stop an online arts group from using its longtime Web address etoy.com. The Electronic Disturbance Theater, a Thing client, staged a virtual protest by overloading the retailer's site with traffic during the holiday season. Verio blocked access to one of the Thing's computers until the protest site's owners agreed to take it offline."
Sounds like Thing.net isn't merely the mild-mannered parody site it claims to be. Parody is one thing. Actual disruption is something else altogether. Though they're not commenting, maybe Verio had some really good reasons to do what they did.)
I write in my journal
As a few of you have already stated, I would like to know how they are using the DCMA on this. I mean yeah, I can see how DOW probably wouldn't like the parody, but if that's all it takes, the US Prison system is about to become the funniest place on earth with all the comedians that are about to be sent up. But as things are stated in this article, it sounds as if Things.net my have a case against Dow for the abuse of DCMA. The flip side of it is even if Dow is proven wrong, what are the odds that they will fix the situation, if history is any indication...
'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'
Not only did they shut down Dow-Chemical.com, but as a good corporate citizen, they agreed to shut down an entire network (Thing.net) of websites many of which, while unrelated to dow-chemical.com, appear to serve no commercial purpose, being dedicated to the unproductive analysis and critique of society and corporate behaviour. We applaud the courage of Verio in taking this act, as it sends a strong signal to the "artists, activists," and other blatantly non-commercial users of Thing.net. That message can be stated simply: Corporate America will defend its right to Free Speech on the internet rigorously.
So "anylsis of society" should not be protected under the 1st amendment according to Dow? And whats this about "non-commercial users". Apperently Dow chemical feels only those with billions of dollars should be allowed to speak their minds! Please tell me this PISSES YOU OFF!! of course this speech is blatantly non-commercial and unproductive analysis and critique of Dow FSCKED ideas of freedom, and therfore I should be shot and my corpse burned.
-- Insert wisdom here:
Losing copyright to the page would make defense of the page (as a parody) more difficult in several ways...
Even if I was a lawyer, you would be foolish to believe I'm licensed to practice law in whatever jurisdiction you currently reside.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
http://www.dowethics.com/r/Homepage/index.html
Did you know?
Dow is responsible for the birth of the modern environmental movement. In 1962, Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring about the side-effects of a Dow product, DDT, on North American bird populations. Her work created a groundswell of concern, sparking the birth of many of today's environmental action groups. Another example of Dow's commitment to Living. Improved daily.
This is a perfect example of a greedy corporation squashing free speech in the name of its lord and savior, the almighty dollar. The artists, called the Yes Men, hosted by thing.net were making a valid point with their biting satire, and adding a "this is a joke, duh!" disclaimer would detract from the icky feeling their satire was intended to evoke. If they can get a legal defense fund, this could be the test case to overturn the DMCA. It is more likely, unfortunately, that Thing.net will die, and this Slapp will be successful. That will be a tragedy. I would love to republish the materials in question, but I will use disclaimers if the Yes Men agree.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Fuck 'em. If they can't play by reasonable rules of good behavior, I have no sympathy when they end up being smacked down for (in this case) fraudulent misrepresentation of their opponents.
sulli
RTFJ.
Are there other providers who will not take action against a hosted site unless pushed by a court order?
I know newsguy.com is one such provider.
I have a site with Verio. If I know of another site with php3/4, perl and mysql, and which will not take any action without a court order, I'm there and Verio is out another customer.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
As of 12:30 pm EST the offending site http://Dow-Chemical.com now points to http://www.dow.com/homepage/index.html anyway. So apparently there is nothing to worry about. Satiric criticism is erased by domain hijacking and no-one has to be the wiser.
Nope, no sig
I feel sorry for anyone who fell for the parody site (after reading the whole thing), but I don't think it was out of line. If someone was misled by the parody site, then they're not careful readers. They have been trolled. They have lost. Have a nice day.
I thought it was very very funny. In a doubleunplusgood funny sorta way. I've got to give credit to the writer. S/he has pegged the corporate doubletalk that makes up so much corporate communication.
I do think the site should have a 'parody' tag down at the bottom.
My father is a blogger.
They used a program called Reamweaver which is designed to "instantly 'funhouse-mirror' anyone's website, copying the real-time "look and feel" but letting you change any words, images, etc. that you choose."
There was a story about it on NPR's "On the Media".
> DOW is now using the DMCA to threaten Verio,
No. Dow is using copyright law to threaten Verio. The DMCA is forcing them to give Verio an opportunity to remove the putatively infringing material and thereby avoid any penalties. In the absence of the DMCA Dow could sue and possibly collect damages even if Verio took the material down as soon as they were notified. This would mean, of course, that no ISP would ever let anyone put any parodies up at all.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
And if DDT had remained legal, 60,000,000 people would still have died of Malaria. It was no better or worse than other pesticides at controlling mosquitoes, but Bald Eagles, and many other species of birds would now be extinct.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
This one is quite artfully done. But comeon, there are a couple of bits that are obviously spoofs:
"because Bhopal is a recurrent problem that's clogging our value chain and ultimately keeping the share price from expressing its full potential."
"We are unable to set this precedent for ourselves and the industry, much as we would like to see the issue resolved in a humane and satisfying way."
"well-known products like Styrofoam, DDT, and Agent Orange"
"Although legal investigations have consistently pinpointed Union Carbide as culprit, both Union Carbide and Dow have had to publicly deny these findings."
I assert that a careful reader would know this was a parody. Granted, a junior production assistant at the BBC might not get it, and some slashdotters may have been trolled. But we all know we hardly read the comments (much less the articles).
Sadly, there are very few careful readers. I also concede that both of these articles should have the word parody on them. Since they did not, I think Dow has a case.
Interestingly enough, the stunt may have worked. I've been involved with the environment, hazardous chemicals, and public safety for my entire career, and I've learned more about Bhopal in the last day than I have in the last 10 years.
My father is a blogger.
How does the DMCA apply here? This is a parody site, no one's using anything computer-related to break into Dow's intellectual property. What a travesty of justice. I hope Thing.net will pursue this idiocy.
The DMCA is just pure corporate evil.
Verio's been hosting spammers and spamvertized web sites for so bloody long that it's going to take a miracle to un-tarnish their rep in the eyes of Lord only knows how many SysAdmins (myself included!)
This is just a small sample. No fewer than 43 known (and sometimes infamous) spammers hosted by Verio. Need I say more?
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Should probably read: DOW threatens Verio, Verio silences ISP of activists.
...
Instead of shutting down a single activist site (which would have been bad enough), they killed a whole network in some kind of a legal Denial of Service attack.
In this process, they disturbed the businesses of various clients of thing.net, destroyed some digital artworks and disabled for several hours my private email account (naughty, naughty; but should I sue DOW and Verio for my bounced love mails?).
Better be aware: your ISP could be the next target of some corporate DoS attack. So you better open up an AOL account, just in case
Why is it that some countries still use asbestos?
It's just common practice, and really has no bearing on it's effectiveness.
A good layman roundup of facts can be found here about DDT: http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/mom/ddt/ddt.html
It's alot like using gasoline to get rid of a wasp nest: Great for an immediate solution, but a *huge* mess later. (and an even bigger mess if you do it incorrectly)
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
However, your accident wasn't the result of about 4 or 5 entirely different things going wrong... for example, the two main emergency safeties were currently offline when the accident occured. The plant SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN OPERATION with even ONE of these safeties offline (imho), let alone both of them.
NASA paid a couple million for the death of the Challenger Seven because they were *neglegent*. That is the difference; you were not neglegant in your example. Union Carbide was neglegant.