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.
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
Read before posting. What you quoted is a "parody" site.
See the problem?
I write in my journal
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.
oops.... luser award right here
No, no! That's exactly the point. You're an otherwise entirely reasonable and sensible person, and yet at first glance you were fooled into believing that this page belonged to Dow, and served as an official corporate communication from them. There's no shame in being fooled here; the people who put up that page went to great lengths to make it look completely authentic, even going so far as to put a copyright notice on it.
This is precisely the point. Given that the parody nature of this page isn't remotely obvious, it seems that Dow has a very strong case against these guys. For defamation, at the very least, and possibly even for fraudulent representation.
I write in my journal
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.
> 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.
Cool! Thanks for the info.
Now to jack with a couple of friends' webpages....
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
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
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.