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
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
We don't want....them. Us vs. them. If 'they' trusted 'us', we might trust them. In the mean time...give 'em hell.
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.
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
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.
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'm inclined to answer yes to that question too, but that isn't the question in this case. The question is, once BestBuy has failed to keep the information private, do they have a right to force someone else to take on the duty of non-disclosure even though they haven't signed a non-disclosure agreement? That, I'm inclined to answer a big loud "No!" to. If BestBuy wants to keep their prices private, the onus is on them to keep them private, not the rest of us.
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.