Slashdot Mirror
Best Buy Uses DMCA To Quash Black Friday Prices
Sethb writes "It looks like Best Buy didn't learn from Wal-Mart last year, and has now invoked the DMCA in order to prevent FatWallet from posting information about what items they will have on sale the day after Thanksgiving. Hopefully FatWallet will stand up for themselves again, and Best Buy will be laughed out of court."
Major Book Publishers use DMCA to quash blurbs and book reviews!
This law is getting just a shade ridiculous.
...or does everyone else have a HUGE list of businesses they refuse to do business with?
And Best Buy DOES seem to have some pretty good prices, too, at least on new-release DVD's...
I'm not saying the DMCA oughta cover this, but this is definitely something that can hurt business.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
I always thought that prices per se can't be copyrighted. Now situation when people post scan of upcoming ads (which was not the case with BestBuy and FatWallet) can probably fall under copyright violation, as only author of that page can lawfully distribute it (short of posting it with design/layout critique and "never use this font in publication" kind of thing :) )
:)
In this particular case it's not worth it anyways, as most of the deals were easily available from other retailers for about the same price. It would be good though, to finally get those lawyers into the court and get a precedent of them being slapped with "No can't do" decision. That way any upcoming price-related DMCA cases would be still-born
Hyperom.com
Is it the primary purpose of society/government/law to protect business?
The primary purpose of government/law is to further the advancement of society; but unfortunately sometimes we lose sight of that.
I'm sorry, but you really jumped the gun there. He didn't say that using the DMCA in such a fashion was right (in fact, quite the opposite). He just said that businesses do have a legitimate concern in this case.
Most corporations really aren't evil. The government does protect them (read: not the primary purpose), but that's because most businesses do a huge public service. The rest of us work for those businesses. Who else would we work for?
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
And if our government's sole function was to ensure the highest possible profits for Best Buy, you'd have a point.
Instead, as a poster pointed out earlier in this topic, our economy is more or less based on free market principles. The foundation of the free market is the ability of the members of that market to be able to make informed decisions about their economic choices(e.g. buying something). By saying that Best Buy has the right to prevent people from sharing information about its prices, you are implicitly tossing out a free market in favor of a "lets make the rich richer" market.
Wonderful
America has been based on consumerism for the last 50 years. Doesn't that make it part of American culture?
Okay let's assume for a moment that these (let's call them) "lawyers" are professionals of the legal profession. This assumption would lead one to understand that these "lawyers" are reasonably intelligent, educated and keep current with the practice and application of law.
Given that there has been prior failure of the exact same application of the law we fondly refer to as the "DMCA" and assuming they are aware of this, then it is clear that these "lawyers" are not interested in using the "DMCA" as it was intended and are instead using it as a refridgerator. (As a means to apply a "chilling effect" to anything that might seem like competition or might otherwise endanger their profitability.)
I know I am really out on a limb here suggesting that these "lawyers" would even dream of using law for purposes it was never intended. But I'm just presenting a possible explanation for their behavior without suggesting they are morons.
Hopefully FatWallet will stand up for themselves again, and Best Buy will be laughed out of court.
No, no, NO.
If Best Buy gets laughed out of court in the middle of December, they've already won. Fat Wallet took down their ads, had to hire a lawyer, free speech was stifled.
I am sad to see that FatWallet blinked this time, after staring down Walmart and getting them to back down. The argument that facts cannot be copyrighted seems solid, and the DMCA shouldn't change that (except for removign due proes, of course.) We need this case to go to court, and the countersuit to be pursued even after Best Buy drops it two weks after the fact.
Fuckers.
The only possible good outcome here is if Fat Wallet stood up, kept up the ads, and countersued.
The DMCA doesn't change whether something is copyrightable, and facts
This is so true. Best Buy is King of never having items in stock you want to buy. They are also the best at screwing people out of rebates. On two occasions even though I included the receipt, the actual UPC seal etc, they have flat out lied and said something was wrong and they couldn't issue the rebate. What am I going to do? Sue them over a $20 rebate? Bunch of mother fuckers they are. I think its bestbuysucks.com that's a great place to go to read about how shitty a company they are. So many people have been screwed by them its just not funny. Amazingly the employees feel the exact same way. If you've ever wondered why the 4 guys in blue shirts run away when ever you walk up to ask a simple questionn its because they hate their job, their manager, and especially customers. Bad Karma at that place.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
The average lawyer has a *highly* developed sense of *ethics*. It's *morals* they're lacking. The average lawyer has absolutely no trouble doing something completely slimy and nasty - but will be offended if you even *hint* that he do so in a manner that doesn't follow all the proper procedures and forms.
Think about it - if there are lawyers involved in an adversarial encounter (as opposed to, for instance, a real estate sale where everybody WANTS the deal to happen), you are almost guaranteed that somebody is going to have something sleazy done to them. On the other hand, if a lawyer at the other end of your state breaks the rules (breaks attourney-client privelege, etc), it makes the news at YOUR end of the state.
It's to get you thinking about what the fuck you're doing with your life and the world around you.
Why are you filling your life up with useless shit (made by slave-labor in China)? What's the point? Are you charging it to a credit card that you've never had a zero balance on? Does it make you feel happier than no-money fun with friends/family? Why is that?
--
Power to the Peaceful
DMCA is not the best approach for Best Buy, or anybody else, but there is a serious problem with people posting prices ahead of time...
1) it's private information, probablyy under some kind of NDA.
2) the "leaked" ads can cause people to go and buy the stuff ahead of time, which counters the intended effect of the ad. Furthermore, it screws customers that weren't privy to the extra info.
3) it screws the company on the "best price" strategy, since other companies can market the same price.
this really screws up some of the economics of "draw" products, I think ethically, people should be bound to protect it.
We don't want....them. Us vs. them. If 'they' trusted 'us', we might trust them. In the mean time...give 'em hell.
so much for that - the editors have already pruned out dmca-able material.
Note that a debit card offers some of these protections, but the fact that your money can be tied up during an investigation makes the debit card a dangerous and unsuitable substitute for a credit card.
Yeah, right.
...in the U.S., the laws are no longer created to protect the interests of the citizens. Laws are written to the specifications of large corporations and their lobbyists, and "justice" goes to the highest bidder. If you want free speech, what you say had better not offend anyone who can afford more expensive lawyers than you.
A common argument tactic is to push the debate into a false dichotomy--all or nothing--is a commonly used one. We see this with the MPAA/RIAA in copyright extension and copy prevention techniques (which attempt to keep you from making even non-infringing copies). In this instance, since you can't avoid doing business with all the companies that hurt you, you are somehow ethically justified in avoiding none of them. With this logic it's okay to throw up your hands in disgruntlement then pay to see the next Star Wars movie, buy proprietary software, or the next flashy tech trinket you want.
Don't fall for this trap. Nobody is asking you to avoid all companies that harm you. You can choose to avoid some of them and still lead a perfectly productive and entertained life. Start with the easy ones like major movie and record publishers. You might even save a few bucks in the process (which you might choose to spend on organizations and artists that aren't trying to restrict your freedom to share). With other goods and services, you can find alternatives. You can tell businesses that don't hurt you why you're willing to buy stuff from them instead of their competitor. Don't let the best be the enemy of the good.
Digital Citizen
> Well, I'd say that's a pretty big contribution.
> Proportional to the number of people employed,
> in fact.
Not necessarily. Paying people is just a way of keeping score. In the end, economic development depends on producing goods and services that consumers actually want. That is, you could "employ" everyone at digging holes and filling them in, and "pay" them, but if that results in less goods and services then the pay they get does not matter -- quality of life will suffer.
So in fact, advertising has worth only insofar as it enables consumers to get the goods and services they want.
The primary purpose of government/law is to further the advancement of society; but unfortunately sometimes we lose sight of that.
Maybe we lose sight of that because damned few of us agreed that was the purpose to begin with.
Some of us might even wonder whether the "advancement of society" was a meaningful phrase at all.
Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
I don't quite understand your point 7. When you apply for a major credit card like Visa or MasterCard they want to know your income and any debt you might already have. Does using credit card somehow enhance one's credit rating?
While probably not much use to someone with established credit, they're good for starting out. It's better to get a credit card and use it responsibly to prove you're worthy of other kinds of credit, than to have no history at all.
The connection is this. The "doorbuster" specials you see on the morning of Black Friday are loss leader selections designed to get you in their store first that day, in the hope that you'll make other purchases where all things are equal between all stores with them since you're already there.
If other stores get wind of the loss leader selections with time to react, and duplicate them, suddenly all of the punch of the loss leader is lost. If everybody knew everybody's loss leaders ahead, there'd be no point in having them so they'd go away and return back to regular market pricing.
Remember, the definition of a loss leader is a product that the store is intentionally losing money on as one of the ultimate motivators to get people to come to the store. This is one of the few times in your life you'll ever be able to buy at retail something for less than it costs at wholesale. Be nice to the stores when they're doing this... having laws protect the secrecy around Black Friday is needed if you want to have another one next year.
Keep in mind most of the deals are via large rebates, and those rebates are probably only valid for dates X through Y, and I bet X is on the day after turkey day. So while you may get a lower price, you probably wouldn't get the rebate.
Nice thinking, though.
What annoys me are all these mail-in rebate promotions these companies use. When you factor in all the added wasted time and the fact that the company holds onto your money so long and it's like pulling teeth getting it back, it's not worth it.
Rebates are taxes on laziness, or more appropriately a false-advertising campaign designed to target people who aren't inclined to jump through the hoops necessary to get the rebates. If the company does an "instant rebate" at the time of purchase, that's another matter, but my policy is I do NOT buy any product that promises a certain price "after rebate" - that's BS. What I pay at the POS is the price of the product and I'm not giving the manufacturer additional information or worrying about documentation, mailing crap and keeping track of that malarky. I encourage everyone else to avoid any product promotions involving rebates so we can send a message to these retailers that we're not going to play their stupid false advertising game.
Hmm, let's see. This is supposed to be private information at the moment. Should a person (or a company) have the right to keep sensitive information private if it poses no harm to anyone? I'm inclined to answer yes. I understand that these are prices that people willbe paying in a few weeks, but these are just estimates right now, technically. You can't go to the store and buy it for that price now, so the public has no reason to know these prices.
:p
"But I won't buy it now if I can get it cheaper in 2 weeks!" Argument: invalid. Try watching Trading Places starring Eddie Murphy. Maybe it will teach you something about how markets work, and it is a very humorous movie.
Are bait and switch tactics wrong? Yes. Has Best Buy ever used this tactic in my experience with them? No.
Turkey Friday sales are intended to get customers to choose to spend ther valuable time at the store that you are operating over another store. The more things that have awesome sales at your store, the more customers your store will have lined up waiting before the doors open. Limited item sales are solely meant to encourage people to come to your store first (where they will probably spend the most money AND buy everything that you offer that they were planning on buying that day in an attempt to limit the number of stores they have to go to).
Last year I went to BB's opening on Turkey Friday, and they told me how manyof the item I wanted that was on sale they had, and they even were making a waiting list for people to get on for items that had al been claimed in case people decided against buying them.
Yes, I believe the DMCA is a fairly absurd law. However, it is actually being put to a good use in this case. This is sensitive, private information. The non-release of it isn't harming anyone or truly impinging on their freedoms - i.e. nobody's child is going to be kidnapped as a direct result of this information being withheld.
As for the argument that the information should have been protected better, what the hell do you think they are doing now? Geez. This lawsuit is obviously just for show. Get a clue. This is protection (although arguably not the best).
Boycotting Turkey Friday sales? If you are going to buy a product, why would you avoid shopping for it when you will probably get the best deal on it?
Oh, by the way... companies without profit margins?!? Some of you are so completely brilliant that it astounds me. It has been tried, and it failed (/is failing) miserably in every instance. The general name for this type of economy is Communism. I believe you've heard of it.
I didn't want to end with the Communism comment, but I'm lazy.
Spiritworld?
Rawr, rawr, rawr. Neurobiology and neuropsychology would say otherwise. Stimulation of the brain through both electrical and magnetic (ie. like NMR, only focused) means has shown that artifacts such as "astral projection," spiritual sight and deity or spirtual presence (ie. Zeus is in the room with you) are easily elicited. The specific presence you feel is largely determined by what spirituality you subscribe to at the moment. Most Christian subjects felt Jesus's presence in the room.
Are you two some of those Wijins or Wiffits or whatever you call them? Runnin' around all naked and stuff, holding ceremonies to the moon. Heh.
If you think I'm some unejumicated Redneck, I suggest you think again. I've run around in quite a few pagan circles. Spirit world. Har. What I'm convenced of is that it's a bunch of foo. Like any spiritual beliefs, they're emotional, so I'll have absolutely no effect on yours, no matter what I say. That being the case, please continue running around skyclad with your handfastings and spirit world stuff. Your "marriage is an institution based on patriarchal blah blah" is just as much foo as spirits.
If you have an open relationship between two equal adults, than as two equal adults you will realize that the institution of marriage has legal meanings that protect both parties, too. Marriage isn't a basket full of goodies and dogma that is handed to you, but an empty basket that both people fill with their own stuff. The idea of "Marriage is only an institution based on the customs of ancient patriarchal societies in which a wife was man's property" is only because *you* believe it to be that way. On the other hand, *my* marriage is a relationship based on equality and a sense of partnership between me and my wife. There's no ownership implied.
Well...except when I've been a bad boy and she gets out the whips. I'll leave that subject for another area of science to explain: Psychology & Human Sexuality.
Also for credit card rebates and rewards. Small potatoes, but they add up. My visa gives me 1% cash back at the end of each year. My other visa accrues mileage points for free Southwest Airlines tickets (which are transferrable in an eBay type way...) It's probably a few hundred dollars back each year, which beats paying with cash.
the endless pursuit of stuff is killing us and what's worse, it's making us shallower.
/end rant gotta get some sleep
I'm afraid that Coke is a pretty good shorthand reference for American culture. American cities are hidious, with maybe two exceptions (San Fran, New Orleans). The sole urban design goal seems to be the breakdown of community and conversion of citizens to consumers. We've lost a tremendous amount of personal time to work. Is that a good trade-off? What about pro-family values? Can you raise your kids from work? Once they are fed, housed, and clothed, is the delta income worth the -delta face time? Did you get a choice re: -delta face time?
GDP is not a sound measure of societal health. I don't think it's even a good measure of economic health. Where externalities aren't monetized (you aren't charged for pollution), but cancer treatments are, you have a skewed measurement and eventually warped values.
That's a good one. Also, you sometimes get better warrantee protection with some cards.
Yeah, right.