Dow vs. Parody

tres3 writes "I stumbled across this item on Wired about Verio cutting off The Thing's Internet access after seven years of service. It seems that The Yes Men have upset DOW Chemical with their parody press release concerning a poison gas leak at the Union Carbide plant (now owned by Dow) in Bhopal, India, in 1984, that killed thousands. It was posted by RTMark.com, one of hundreds of customers (mostly artists and political activists) of The Thing, but has gone missing following the DMCA claims by DOW. Some European sites are now hosting the site here and here (slightly different). What really sent me into orbit was Dow's response to all of this. While writing this submission I noticed that I have become a victim of The Yes Men and "Dow's" response is actually one of their parodies! :-) The story is still valid but the only thing I could find that really came from DOW was the DMCA complaint (pdf) to Verio. To add insult to injury (and death (pun intended)) Dow has committed a reprehensible act, even for corporate America, by suing the survivors for ten years of income ($10,000) for protesting Dow's failure to clean up the mess. Greenpeace has set up a site for you to protest this action." We did an earlier story on this.

Comments

They keep going on about

[Anonymous Coward]

"Corporate Free Speech". Shouldn't it work both ways? Shouldn't parodies be allowed? Not allowing parodies is a violation of invidual Free Speech, surely?

Its been Said before, but

[DjMd]

The website was an affront to our right to Free Speech, and we immediately contacted the upstream provider for this false website, gently requesting that our rights be protected.

The provider, Verio, graciously complied with our letter citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). 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,

The web site was an "affront to our right to Free Speech".

So something someone else said was an affront to their right to free speech? How the hell is that possible? You can talk about slander and liable, but saying something on a web site is affecting their right to free speech?

"Not only did they shut down Dow-Chemical.com, but as a good corporate citizen", I don't have much to say here but good corporate citizen? God that just sends chills down my spine. Thank god for those corporate citizens who kowtow to their corporate betters.

"appear to serve no commercial purpose, being dedicated to the unproductive analysis and critique of society and corporate behaviour. "

How dare they! Serve no commercial purpose!

But the worst is the statement of what they do instead of serving a commercial purpose. Analysis and critique of society and corporate behavior?

All I can say is Thank God people do that! What the hell is wrong with Dow for saying any of that?

I used to think that freedom of speech was one of those protections for the little guy (individual), to keep the big guy(corps, and gov) from squelching his point of view.

America is truely becoming a corporate state, and this is just sad.

Sorry if its a tad over the top, up at 4 am will do that.