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."

Comments

Next Headline:

[j0keralpha]

Major Book Publishers use DMCA to quash blurbs and book reviews!

This law is getting just a shade ridiculous.

Re:Next Headline:

[TedCheshireAcad]

I wonder if it can be used to keep my grades from being released to my parents, I mean yes; they pay the tuition, but isnt the semi-unique sequence of D's and F's my copyright?

...Can I sue my university for even printing them? ;)

Re:Next Headline:

[Aadain2001]

By law, Universities can not release grades to anyone but the person they belong to, not even the parents of the student unless the student give's his/her permission first. Want to keep your parents from seeing the grades? Don't send them to them.

Re:Next Headline:

[DAldredge]

Right, and what how fast Mom and Dad stop paying for your school.

Re:Next Headline:

[anthony_dipierro]

This law is getting just a shade ridiculous.

I wasn't aware that the law had changed at all.

Re:Next Headline:

[quonsar]

Right, and what how fast Mom and Dad stop paying for your school.

they may as well cut their losses as stand around and what it being wasted on you.

Re:Next Headline:

[jetmarc]

> I wonder if it can be used to keep my grades from being released to my parents,
> I mean yes; they pay the tuition, but isnt the semi-unique sequence of D's and
> F's my copyright?

Certainly you can sue the university for circumventing your resistance to reveal
your copyrighted and well-covered skill profile. Printing and releasing it to
third parties qualifies the university as professional class attacker, probably
driven by monetary or political incentives. This should be enough to arrest them
under DMCA for at least 6 months and then sending them to Russia.

Re:Next Headline:

[rnbc]

I don't know about the USA, but here in Portugal student's grades are public domain, by law.

As soon as they are official they are available to anyone who cares to request them.

Re:Next Headline:

[Stephen Samuel]

Right, and what how fast Mom and Dad stop paying for your school.

That might affect whether or not you want to let them see your marks. :-)

Re:Next Headline:

[Artifakt]

Announced today on Wired News - A lawsuit by a garage door manufacturer that tried to use the DMCA to stop another company from making replacement universal remote controls was dismissed, with the court noting that the entire area was well outside the boundaries of those issues the DMCA was intended to address. This law started off a shade rediculous, but is getting reined in. We can hope (and work) for more such decisions.

Re:Next Headline:

[JonTurner]

>>isnt the semi-unique sequence of D's and F's my copyright?

No. Unfortunately for me, I can claim prior art.

Re:Next Headline:

[The_K4]

Easy, after your parents get the grades (assuming that you didn't expressly authorize it) get a lawyer....the school has just broken FEDERAL law. The same law that's currently being used by school to try and prevent the RIAA from getting student's names. I can not for the life of me remember the name of the law, but it give student's a great deal of control over the informationt he school has about them, including grades.

national buy nothing day

[Anonymous Coward]

ill be saving lots of money by sticking with ad-busters "National Buy Nothing Day" on "black friday" and sticking up for our culture.

or whats left of it.

have fun at wal-mart suckers

Re:national buy nothing day

[Vann_v2]

Don't worry, I'll buy twice as much to make up for it!

Re:national buy nothing day

[Saeger]

I just want to know what the hullabaloo about buy nothing day really is.

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?

--

Re:national buy nothing day

[Safety Cap]

Why would you bother keeping a credit card with a zero balance on it?

Any number of reasons:

• You don't want to pay rent (interest) on the card, but you still want the convenience.
• You want to use a card for the protections it offers (getting your money back in the event the product is defective or in the event that a mail-order product doesn't even exist).
• You wish to make a large purchase and you don't wish to carry that much cash on your person
• You want to avoid writing a check that can be later used to drain your bank account.

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.

Re:national buy nothing day

[penguinboy]

Are you charging it to a credit card that you've never had a zero balance on?

Why would you bother keeping a credit card with a zero balance on it? If you can afford to buy stuff without credit, you don't need one.

Why use a credit card, even if you don't need one?

1. Easier than carrying around a stack of cash, or checks

2. Accepted more than checks

3. Buying online or by phone. Sure. a *few* vendors might let you mail cash, checks, or money orders, but mailing takes several days and CCs are instant.

4. Protection. Can't charge-back with cash

5. Records. You get a monthly itemized list of all transactions. With cash you have to keep track by hand

6. Float. You don't have to pay until the end of your billing cycle.

7. Building credit. You can use a credit card (without carrying a balance) to establish a good credit history for when you want larger loans (car, house) later.

Plenty of benefits, and what would you use instead?

Re:national buy nothing day

[penguinboy]

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.

Re:national buy nothing day

[LostCluster]

8. Rebates. If you have good credit, you will qualify for special offer cards that either give "reward points" or even cold hard cash for making purchases. The bank is basically giving you a share of the merchant fees they collect from the store for being such a low-risk credit customer. Getting 1% cash for every card purchase you make during the year can add up to real money quickly, and cost you nothing assuming you pay all the balances on time and make sure that the card doesn't hit you with a membership fee. Even if it's not a lot of money, it's still more money than you'd have if you had spent cash.

Re:national buy nothing day

[willfe]

Debit cards can be exceedingly dangerous, namely in that you are not offered the same protections against fraud that you are automatically provided by a credit card.

Suppose your card is stolen and someone makes dozens of little purchases so as not to raise suspicion, or gets a fake I.D. with your name on it so he can charge up a storm. If it's a credit card, once you report it stolen, you're not liable for any of the charges made on it. If it's a debit card, real, actual money has been sucked out of your bank account, never to be seen again. Good luck getting that back. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm suggesting it's far more difficult.

Saying "chargeback is handled by the shop if you have the receipt" isn't the issue; suppose the shop rips you off. Suppose you pay in advance for something with a debit card but never receive the product? What does your bank do then?

Regarding point 7 -- credit lending is a fickle mistress, but does adhere to at least some principles:

• When you have no credit history whatsoever, you normally cannot obtain a substantial amount of credit. A car loan (even on a new car) is about the best you can get (because it's a secured loan -- they can take real property if you default). A mortgage is usually impossible to obtain without previous credit unless you have a significant (30% or more) down payment ready to go. Generally credit is established by obtaining a fairly high-interest rate credit card with a low credit limit (say about $2,500 if you have good, verifiable income, lower if you your wages are single-digit figures per hour).
• Your credit history is established as you charge to it and make payments every month. A common misconception is that paying off your credit card in full is noted on your credit report somehow and automatically/instantly improves your credit. This isn't quite correct, but the real effect this has is similar. See below.
• Any decision to lend you money is taken based on your previously-established payment habits. Length of credit history is actually more important than your payment history -- your "score" goes up the longer you've had credit established. All sorts of events and ideas change your credit score:
  • A short credit history, of less than five, even ten years, lowers your score.
  • A missed payment (reported on your credit history; note most lenders are willing to forgive one missed payment, in the sense that if you pay it back and pay their fees, they won't report it) lowers your score.
  • Accounts in collection, valid or not, lower your score.
  • "Maxed out" revolving credit lines (carrying a $4,900 average balance on a $5,000 credit card line) hurts your score significantly (it is viewed as very poor money management skills since you keep the card charged up and pay only (or close to) its minimums every month).
  • Always-zero balances lower your score slightly. Here's where normal common sense goes out the window; it's generally a "good" thing to have credit available that hasn't been used, but lenders view it as potential debt you can run up after they've lent you money. It's a risk to lend you money and require a certain payment, knowing that later you could run up another debt with an already-established credit line that could make you unable to pay for this line of credit. This is reflected as a decrease of your score.
  • Having a long credit history but no "old" accounts (as in "card hopping" -- you get a new card every year at a lower interest rate or to take advantage of zero-fee/zero-interest transfers, and close your old cards) lowers your score. Personally I think they do this because it pisses 'em off that you're screwing them out of interest, but the official reason claimed is that you haven't established a long term reliable history with a single lender when you do this.
  • Unsecured cash loans reduce your score. You had to borrow money, one time, from somebody, and you owe it back. The payments rarely c

Re:national buy nothing day

[SEE]

Ah, that old myth.

In fact, the 1773 Tea Act, which provoked the Boston Tea Party, remitted a significant English tea tax. The result was that Americans could buy British East India Company tea after the Tea Act for significantly less than they previously were being charged for either legal British tea or smuggled Dutch tea. And this cheaper tea was of generally higher quality than the Dutch tea, too.

So what was the issue? The extent of Parliamentary authority.

The small three-penny Townsend duty was left on the tea by Prime Minister Lord North as a statement of the principle that Parliament could tax the colonies, and the Tea Act granted a monopoly on the tea trade to the British East India Company.

Even though the result was higher quality and lower prices, the American colonies denied that Parliament had the right to do either. Indignation was high enough that the ships to New York and Philadelphia were ordered back to England by the local authorities, lest the ships be attacked. In Boston, the ship was brought in under guard, and got attacked. Americans continued to drink more expensive, smuggled Dutch tea (and increasingly coffee instead) rather than concede Parliamentary authority.

Americans did not revolt against Britain because of high tax rates; Parliament never imposed taxes in America even approaching those it imposed in Britain itself. They revolted because they did not accept the King-in-Parliament as the soverign authority in the colonies. While they were subjects of the King, they did not consider themselves subject to the authority of a Parliament in which they lacked representation any more than Britain was subject to the colonial legislatures in which Britain's people did not have representation.

Re:national buy nothing day

[CySurflex]

Why would you bother keeping a credit card with a zero balance on it? If you can afford to buy stuff without credit, you don't need one.

there is one more reason that I think is very important:

8. Credit card companies charge vendors between 3% and 5% of your purchase. This means that this price is already reflected into your purchase price. If you're buying with cash, the price is still the same (in most cases) and the vendor pockets the difference. If you're buying with a credit card and you're smart about it, you can either get some of that cash back, or get get some of it back in the form of "rewards" or frequent flyer miles.

Same reason I never use a debit card.

Re:national buy nothing day

[LostCluster]

Yes. Using a credit card account and not having any late payments associated with it establish a track record of being able to send ontime payments, and also the ability to know one's own limits and not make purchases that they can't afford to pay back.

Lenders are now relying on a score called FICO from the Fair Issac corperation as the benchmark of a consumer's credit quality. The exact formula is kept secret, but it is known that indicators of past payment history contribute 30% of the overall score. If a consumer doesn't have any account that is reporting on-time payments to the credit reporting services, then they will score poorly in that section. Not as poorly as somebody who has a history of skipping payments, but still not as good as somebody who has held on to the same credit card for several years with no missed payments.

Using a debit card in place of a credit card doesn't create a credit history. The decuction from your account happens instantly, and is rejected if the account can't support the decution... there's no loan involved, so no chance for you to screw up on paying back the loan. Basically, their trust in a new consumer is built up by giving them the chance to screw up, and then giving them more trust for having not screwed up.

Income and current debt load are also components in the formula, but to get a near-perfect score and therefore the best rates you score well in all of the sections.

Re:national buy nothing day

[rhuntley12]

8. You drink alot and use the internet to check where you maxed your credit card out last night. Now you know where you were drinking at, how much that hotel room was, and can piece some of the night togather. Or is that just me?

Re:national buy nothing day

[mattOzan]

Why would you bother keeping a credit card with a zero balance on it

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.

Re:national buy nothing day

[Mike Hawk]

HAHA, I just walked into Best Buy and got approved for 2500 in instant credit to buy a refridgerator.

I think having a tech job and a high Best Buy card limit should automatically set your credit score to negative, it doesnt get more risky than that.

Re:national buy nothing day

[Safety Cap]

That's a good one. Also, you sometimes get better warrantee protection with some cards.

Re:national buy nothing day

[Lumpy]

A mortgage is usually impossible to obtain without previous credit unless you have a significant (30% or more) down payment ready to go.

Bullshit. I am sick of people spreading this lie.

Credit companies and banks love to spread this lie and is it 100% untrue.

if you get a FHA loan, and if you live in the United states and never bought a home before you qualify, you can get one without any credit at all and only 2% down.

in fact you can get one with a NEGATIVE credit rating and less than 10% down.

and YES kiddies that is at the low interest rates.

the only thing that will kick your arse is outstanding debts. pay them off (and the write off's, plus be sure that you paid any judgements against you) and you can get your FHA loan right away.. My credit was royally Fubard by a second divorce and a vindictive bitch. I got a loan 2 years ago at the low 7% rate (at that time that was the low rate) and I had a NEGATIVE credit rating. My stepson (who hates his mother BTW) has NO credit and qualified for the same kind of loan with ZERO DOWN at 6.25% more recently.

anyone that tells you that a mortgage is hard to get without good credit is a bold faced liar.

Re:national buy nothing day

[gfxguy]

I imagine in a lot of cases things can be cleared up quickly. If the perpetrator doesn't have your pin, they can't just get cash. And if they use your card like a credit card, then the store obviously didn't do a good job verifying identity. That's why I like when places ask for a picture ID.

I've been the victem of credit card fraud. I had it cleared up, and I was really annoyed, but it wasn't just a phone call and everything was OK. I don't carry credit debt, so it wasn't a big problem, but it did take some time before everything was straightened out.

Now, if you have a marginal bank account (living paycheck to paycheck, like far too many people), then debit card fraud could cause you a LOT of problems. Even if you have several thousand in your account, it only takes a criminal a few minutes at a place like Best Buy to clean you out. Then, at most banks, there's this period of time where your money is in limbo while they verify the fraud.

To put it another way, let's say you have $3000 in your account. Your rent/mortgage is $1100, your car payment is $350. You write and send your checks, then someone steals your debit card and charges $2000. Now my bank, bastards they are, first process debits to your account in order of highest first, then they process credits. So let's say both checks arrive the same day - first the process $1100, and you go $100 in the red (overdraft protection). They pay it, then charge me $30 fee. Then they process $350. They refuse it, and charge me another $30 fee. Now the car payment is late ($50) and they have a returned check fee ($50).

So the bank freezes my account because of the fraud investigation. Now I can't buy food or pay my other bills until they resolve the problem (or you put more money into it). When all is said and done, they credit my account $2000. After enough bitching, they credit my account another $60 for the overdraft charges, but since the fraud is not *their* fault, they won't reimburse me the extra $100 I had to pay the car company. Not only that, but now I get a late payment on my credit report.

The difference with a credit card, if you wanted to pay bills with a credit card, the companies don't get hit with big bank fees if the card is denied - it's just denied, and that's it. So if you had the same situation with credit, and tried paying your car payment, they would say "it's been denied", and you could say "Ok, I'll get a check in the mail." That is, unless you were doing some sort of automatic billing, in which you might get hit with a late fee, but not a returned check fee.

Re:national buy nothing day

[KirkH]

the destruction witnessed during the American Civil War wouldn't have happened

had the American colonies remained a part of the Empire, Britain would've been so strong that the Germans wouldn't have dared fight them (and us) in the 20th Century and World War I and II would've never happened

Wow. It's cool how you can see into these alternate universes and know the outcomes. I wish I had that power. Revisionist history works both ways.

Pretty braindead

[mousse-man]

Using the DMCA to block competitors off selling products you're not even the sole distributor seems be a braindead concept. But then, there are lawyers as well....wasn't there an important sentence in King Lear about that profession?

At least the Germans have some laws governing sales, so they have some logic in there.

Re:Pretty braindead

[valdis]

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.

Is it just me...

[joseph schmo]

...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...

Re:Is it just me...

[Champaign]

That's usually how I deal with businesses that I feel have behaved irresponsibly or treated me badly as a customer, I stop shopping there.

The unfortunate side-effect of this is I have to move every few years as I run out of places to buy food, clothes and other necessities of life...

*BUT* at least I live a principled life! ;-)

Not really fair to disclose this information.

[Sheetrock]

Much of a store's profits are made on strategy. When this kind of data is released, it cuts into the ability of a business to price things appropriately to the demand.

I'm not saying the DMCA oughta cover this, but this is definitely something that can hurt business.

Re:Not really fair to disclose this information.

[Trepalium]

Just because something hurts business (or profits, rather), doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Re:Not really fair to disclose this information.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it also unfair to get several quotes, or search pricewatch to compare prices ?

Or to wait til you can get a good deal on a used one on ebay ?

How about having an above average IQ ? That cuts into your usefulness as a consumer also.

Just because a business thought of a way to make money, doesn't mean actions that make that way look stupid are somehow "unfair". It's just as "unfair" to not let me read all the ads before I go shopping.

Re:Not really fair to disclose this information.

[GreyWolf3000]

Linux hurts a lot of businesses.

Re:Not really fair to disclose this information.

[t0rnt0pieces]

Much of a store's profits are made on strategy. When this kind of data is released, it cuts into the ability of a business to price things appropriately to the demand.

Doesn't FatWallet have a right to make money too? Best Buy should have guarded their pricing info better. Besides, you don't think Best Buy sends people to other stores to check prices?

Re:Not really fair to disclose this information.

[JayBlalock]

The entire basis of a (more or less) free market economy and its success is the ability of consumers to make learned, rational market decisions which are in their own interest. Advertising today, however, relies far more on trickery, psychological games, and "invisible" price hikes and drops than actually producing a quality product at a competitive price. If it is harmful to Best Buy for just their *prices* to be made public, then it means Best Buy is doing business in such a way that basically undermines the functioning of our economy.

Much of the reason the system seems so out of wack right now is that it's the company who has the most clever advertising that wins, NOT the one actually producing the best product. And that's very destructive in the long run.

Re:Not really fair to disclose this information.

[k12linux]

Much of a store's profits are made on strategy. When this kind of data is released, it cuts into the ability of a business to price things appropriately to the demand.

Actually it would cause a business to more accurately price things appropriately to demand. But that's not what they want is it? They want to be able to price things above what demand would dictate so they can have higher profits. In this case they don't even want to do that.. they want to force people into the stores to find loss-leader items so they can sell them the high-profit items along with or instead of the low priced items.

From what I remember in civics (history/government) class long ago there were no items in the Constitution or Bill of Rights which guarantee businesses high margins at the expense of other citizens. Funny how things which hurt margins (not destroy sales.. but hurt margins) in favor of the rest of society are suddenly becomming illegal in the U.S.

I own a small business. Current US policies (even legitimate use of DMCA) don't appear to do one bit of good for small business. They only seem to help big business... which already has tons of tax breaks and other benefits none of the rest of us get.

Re:Not really fair to disclose this information.

[Scrameustache]

Advertising today, however, relies far more on trickery, psychological games, and "invisible" price hikes and drops than actually producing a quality product at a competitive price.
[...]
Much of the reason the system seems so out of wack right now is that it's the company who has the most clever advertising that wins, NOT the one actually producing the best product.

Not that I disagree with you on principle, but:

What about the advertising companies? Their product is advertisement, you seem to not include them in your view of "the economy/the system".

You know, lots and lots of people have jobs that are directly related to advertisement: Printers that produce them, artists that make them, set painters that work on the TV shows that get us to watch TV so we'll see ads, etc.

I do not enjoy pop-ups and spam, but I don't mind that my TV talks about cars and deodorant while I'm in the bathroom, nor do I mind that there are pictures of beutifull people enjoying their cars and deodorant on the side of buses or on the wall over the urinals. In fact, once in a while, there is an ad I actually enjoy. Some bank and/or credit card had an ad about baby-carrying birds recently that was genuinly hilarious, and there's this ad for beer these days with a super hot chick in a bikini, that's allways fun.

P.S. I'm not a consumming whore. I make efforts to avoid being influenced by advertisements: I change channel whenever an ad is clearly stupid, and even when I do watch them (when they aren't painfully dumb), I avoid paying attention to the product being advertised (that is why I'm not sure what the bird+baby ad was selling). I never mention the brand when discussing an ad, unless its to diss the product and company because their ad was stupid and annoying (make 'em suffer financially for making me suffer intellectually).

Re:Not really fair to disclose this information.

[JayBlalock]

Hmm, that's a good point, but it sort of depends on your point of view. They produce a product which, in the end, really contributes very little to society besides, admittedly, keeping a lot of people employed.

But anyway, my point wasn't that advertisers need to be gotten rid of - but that the Corporations have no business whatsoever trying to keep accurate and information information out of the media. Widespread proliferation of this sort of stuff (the FatWallet prices) can provide an effective counterbalance to the excesses of tricky advertising, and thus, hopefully bring the system back to a slightly more stable state.

However, should they ever succeed in quashing people who post information\opinions on their products that they don't approve of, then we're in SERIOUS trouble, because suddenly, the propaganda becomes the only truth that people know.

It's a matter of maintaining balance more than anything, which is why nothing even remotely like what Best Buy's pulling should be allowed, or even seriously considered.

Re:Not really fair to disclose this information.

[valdis]

(IANAL, and I don't play one on TV)

Actually, the OP is correct - facts are not copyrightable. Copyright is however held on the *compilation* and upon the *embodiment* thereof.

17 USC 102 (b) says:
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work

So finding out Mario cart 64 will be on sale and then publicizing it isn't a violation of copyright as long as they don't infringe the artwork/etc of the original. This dog won't hunt.

Best Buy would be *much* better served by wandering over to 18 USC 1832 and arguing it's a trade secret:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1832.html

18 USC 1832 (a)(2) seems a slam dunk:

without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;

This dog probably *can* hunt, and I admit no clue why Best Buy didn't pursue this unless they know of some reason why it would fall through in court. Best guess I can make is that there's some reason they can't make 1832(a) stick:

Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly -

FatWallet could probably make the case that since Best Buy is willing to sell the gear on sale, that no injury is incurred because people wait till the sale starts to buy it. If Best Buy is injured because people buy the box at $149, they shouldn't be lowering the price from $179.

Re:Not really fair to disclose this information.

[Herkum01]

Customer Notice! EULA!

To all customers entering this store you have access to private corporate information regarding prices for items that available for sale in this store. Any attempt to use this information for you own benefit, by comparision shopping or purchasing of items from a competitor, or to the detriment of this store, can be used against you in court of law as a violation of "corporate trade secrets" via DMCA!

Thank you and have a nice visit.

No scans?

[saikou]

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 :)

Re:Not really fair to disclose this information?

[Feynt]

Is it the primary purpose of society/government/law to protect business?

What about the rest of us, who are 'merely' people, and not incorporated profit-driven organisations?

Interesting...

[Tarivus]

At first read I thought to myself "What the hell?!" but now that I sit back, chug my daily dose of caffeine, and think about it, I wonder if maybe Best Buy is in the right and has an interest in keeping their items and prices under their hat.

As said above, releasing such data would cripple Best Buy's ability to price and stock their items strategically. But on the other side of the coin, I believe BB would benefit much more by having the data released to a limited degree and allowing people to at least see WHAT will be on sale. If I wanted a new notebook all year (I do... Christmas gifts anyone? =P) and saw that BB had the model I wanted on sale, I would be inclined to stop in and see just how much cheaper it would be.

In the end, BB has a vested interest in keeping the exact prices secret, but can benefit from the releasing of rough item descriptions and price deductions. Also, the negative publicity they would get from this would just be shooting themselves in the foot and making them seem like they have something valuable to hide.

I wonder... if they want to keep the sale information secret, will BB have big men in suits standing at the door searching for camera and writing utensils as individuals walk in and out? ;)

Re:Interesting...

[crayz]

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

Re:Interesting...

[Unregistered]

And if our government's sole function was to ensure the highest possible profits for Best Buy, you'd have a point.

Ecactly. Since it's sole function is to ensure the highest profits for the Record Labels, the law doesn't apply here.

Same thing as last year?

[cK-Gunslinger]

I still have my response emails from Target, Wal-Mart, and Best Buy from last November/December when the same thing went down. They basically said, "Our prices are designed to help our customers save money and these 'hackers' are violating your rights as a consumer as well as ours. We shall defend ourselves by any means neccesary"

What a joke.

Re:Same thing as last year?

[LostCluster]

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.

Re:Not really fair to disclose this information?

[TedCheshireAcad]

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.

Re:Not really fair to disclose this information?

[GreyWolf3000]

The parent says that what FatWallet does hurts businesses...and you extrapolate that by his argument, the government exists to protect business interests.

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?

Re:Not really fair to disclose this information?

[stubear]

"Is it the primary purpose of society/government/law to protect business?"

Not exactly but it is their responsibility to foster a healthy economy and promote jobs for its citizens. If a company is not doing well then the economy will be affected and jobs will be lost so in a way it is the primary purpose of the government and laws to protect businesses.

Tough for Best Buy.

[Maul]

Seriously. I don't see how their "secrets" of what items are going to be on sale at what time should be priveledged information. They should do a better job of keeping their secrets if they don't like it.

On the other hand, maybe if I find out (hypothetically) that the printer I was going to buy tomorrow at Fry's will be 20% less at Best Buy, I'll wait to shop at a Best Buy.

Best Buy =best scammer

[bratgrrl]

Never, in the history of the company, has Best Buy had an advertised sale item on the shelf. So it's a moot issue anyway.

Friends don't let friends shop there, they are a terrible store.

Somebody had better sue back this time

[Quila]

Sec. 512 F of the DMCA:

`(f) MISREPRESENTATIONS- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section--

`(1) that material or activity is infringing, or

`(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,

shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

Christmas is Dead - OT rant by teamhasnoi

[teamhasnoi]

Long live Consumeras!

I won't be buying anything that day. Why go to the store at all? It will be crowded, people will push and shove to get their hands on the lastest, bestest, cheapest item, forgetting *why* they're there in the first place.

This 'holiday' has gotten so far away from the original meaning that it shouldn't be called 'Christmas' anymore.

Society, marketing and more marketing shames everyone to buy, buy, buy. Makes me ill to see 'Christmas' decor up *the day after Halloween*.

Spend time with your family and friends. Let them know you love them. Give them a gift, even. Just don't get sucked into the 'holiday spirit' of finding the best deal on Takgagamoochi cards or whatever.

Your time is the best gift. Or old Playboy mags.

You mean fighting our culture, right?

[fredmosby]

America has been based on consumerism for the last 50 years. Doesn't that make it part of American culture?

Re:You mean fighting our culture, right?

[adamfranco]

America has been based on consumerism for the last 50 years. Doesn't that make it part of American culture?

Yes, it does. It is sad that our [American] culture is defined by consumerism as opposed to food, literature, art, music, fairy tales, and social events.

When someone says "American Culture", what is the first thing that pops into your head? I think Coke, or something along those lines. Say "Russian Culture" and I think ballet, itsy-bitsy figure skaters, and vodka. "Italian?" Pasta mama mia! And opera. Ferrari is there, but somewhere down the list.

Granted, cultural history here starts about 300 years ago, versus 2,000-4,000 years in much of the rest of the world. I'm not including Native Americans because we, for all intents and purposes, exterminated them. Lack of an ancient heritage doesn't have to mean that all we think about is obtaining "stuff". We can do better than this.

On that "black friday" day, buy nothing. In fact, buy nothing (or little) whenever you can. Instead of working extra hours for money to buy christmas presents, take that time and spend it with your kids/family. Heck, make them something with your hands. They'll remember it for a heck of a lot longer than an expensive piece of anything from a store.

</rant>

Re:You mean fighting our culture, right?

[Ryan Amos]

You act like consumerism is a bad thing. Consumerism is what drives economies. A steady increase in consumer spending almost inevitably leads to a boom period for the economy. When people stop consuming at a high rate, the economy heads down. It's also really, really stupid to have "buy nothing day" on the biggest shopping day of the year. The amount of money flying around on the day after Thanksgiving are so high that companies are not going to notice if a few broke hippies don't shop that day. If you want anyone to notice your stand against The Man, you should do it on a slow shopping day when more people might be willing to comply with you.

Also, the cool thing about America is that there is no single culture. There are urban cultures, rural cultures, religious cultures, and so on. Each one draws from a different set of influences. America has no defining culture because our population is so diverse. Each culture has its own different food, literature, art, music, etc. Mexican-American culture is significantly different from Mexican culture.

You also seem to be mixing up the iconography of a culture with the true values of a culture. I think most Italians would probably be offended if all you could think about Italy was pasta. All the Coke analogy proves is that Coke has been successful at selling their image. Everyone knows Coke is from America, whether it's an important part of our culture or not, so you just kind of make the relation.

Re:You mean fighting our culture, right?

[shostiru]

Actually, I think staying home on the biggest shopping day of the year sounds like a brilliant idea, I'd rather shop when there are fewer people around.

Obviously, consumerism drives the US economy, I don't think many would dispute that. Suggesting that people buy less stuff they don't need is about opting out of that and (if enough people do so) changing the economy itself. And if our current economy is so fragile that it will fall apart if people stop buying crap they don't need, maybe a transition to something more resilient would be a good idea.

Keep in mind that even if the idea does catch on beyond "a few broke hippies" (incorrect and insulting, and I'd point out that a lot of mainstream cultural elements started out with a few dedicated weirdos), it won't happen overnight. There will be plenty of time for people to leave their jobs at the trinket factory and find something else. Last time I checked, the world didn't go to hell in a wheelbarrow when the horse-drawn carriage market evaporated either. I have faith that a suitably unfettered market will adapt to changes in consumer behaviour.

The choice between working twenty extra hours per week at a job I dislike so I can buy stuff I don't need, versus running my own business, spending that extra time with family and friends, and actually *saving* money for the future, isn't exactly difficult for me. Your mileage may vary. If you don't agree, it's a free country and you can vote with your wallet (as long as you don't buy any universal garage door openers).

No major disagreement re iconography and values, although I happen to think that consumerism dominates both in the US.

Re:You mean fighting our culture, right?

[ojQj]

As an American living in Germany, I'm sick of seeing American culture belittled based on false premises. You at least don't try "Americans have no culture", but your statement is still blatantly false that our cultural history is only 300 years old.

Our history on this continent is only 300 years or so old. But our culture, just like that of the Europeans is thousands of years old. Just because our ancestors moved to a new continent doesn't mean they gave their culture up. We got our culture from our ancestors; the Europeans got their culture from their ancestors. We've changed that culture since then, the Europeans have changed that culture since then. Why should the Europeans somehow have more of a right to that culture just because they live on the same continent that our shared ancestors lived on?

Legitimate criticism (like criticisms of American consumerism) are justified as long as clear arguments are presented to show that those are indeed features of American culture and that they are indeed harmful. The yogurt joke* is just bigotry in one of its variety of forms.

Oh and by the way: my father spent 2 years with the Navajos and I have Cherokee indian ancestry. Native American culture has had a direct effect on the way I view the world. Stating that Native American culture has no effect on our culture today is just as inaccurate as stating that European culture isn't a part of our cultural heritage. Just as one example: did you know that the turkey, the potato, tobacco, the tomato, the pumpkin, the cranberry, corn, kidney beans, bell peppers, pecans, squash, and many other crops are American? Many dishes which are made from these foods still cannot be found in Germany today (cornbread, pumpkin pie, candy corn, sweet potato casserole, cranberry relish, pecan anything, etc.)

*(what's the difference between a cup of yoghurt and America? -- yoghurt will eventually develop a culture)

(end rant -- sorry. As you can imagine its an issue of some sensitivity for me.)

Re:You mean fighting our culture, right?

[Slime-dogg]

That's true. All nations still dwell within the U.S., even if they are not still within their sovreign states. The American Culture is much more than a propensity to eat sweet and fatty things, and to buy the biggest thing with the most pizzaz. The culture of the U.S. is a conglomeration of family values, community support, acceptance of differences, in addition to the food, all blended together with a "don't tread on me" attitude.

This became most apparent after 9/11, where each U.S. citizen felt that much closer to their fellow citizen. I'm sure the Red Cross hadn't seen so much blood donated as in those following weeks, nor has New York been offered so much voluntary assistance. The Stars and Stripes became an emblem that shone on automobiles, and though the flag was treated without respect in these instances, the motivation, attitude, and intentions were sincere and honorable.

The culture gets buried beneath things that are clearly against it's members, those things being the superior attitudes of super-commerce, the inherant human want for everything, and the supreme availability of everything to those humans. No culture goes without these problems, though. The U.S. has enemies within that treat the people like cattle being steered towards the butcher. These enemies have arisen from within the culture, but they are not of the culture itself.

The culture of the U.S. is quite possibly the most flexible one, which is why such things can occur. Coca-Cola is not an emblem of the U.S. culture, rather it is a battle-flag of it's children. The culture supports the U.S., it thrives within each of its citizens without them knowing about it.

The culture of the U.S. is not shallow, like many think it is. The culture is possibly more complex than any other on this Earth, precisely because of the number of lives, races, and creeds that went into building it. It has its flaws, yet it is the object of jealousy the whole world over. People look at America and thing Coke, yet people also look at America and think "freedom," "spirit," "steadfastness," and "cohesion."

The right to profit

[Aceticon]

Much of a store's profits are made on strategy. When this kind of data is released, it cuts into the ability of a business to price things appropriately to the demand.

I'm not saying the DMCA oughta cover this, but this is definitely something that can hurt business.

There is no such thing as a right to profit.

Businesses will try to get as much money as they can from their customers, while customers will try to get what they need/want for the cheapest price.

Using the DMCA to deny a customer's right to find a beter bargain is just another sympthom of how much the system is skewed in favor of business.

best buy black friday items

[Anonymous Coward]

Maxtor 120GB 7200RPM Internal HD w/8MB Buffer - $50 A/R
SanDisk 256MB CF Card - $40 A/R
SanDisk 256MB SD Card - $50 A/R
DVD XCopy: Gold - $20 A/R
Norton SystemWorks/AntiSpam/Firewall 3-in-1 package - $0 A/R
Lite-On 4x Multi-Format DVD Burner - $80 A/R
Samsung 17" LCD Monitor - $280 A/R
ATI Radeon 9600 128MB - $70 A/R
Sony P-10 5MP Digital Camera w/free 64MB MS - $400 A/R
Canon Powershot A70 3.2MP w/free 64MB CF - $300 A/R

Your grades are already safe

[David Eppstein]

At the Univ. of California, at least, we are not allowed to release student information such as grades to anyone, including parents, without the student's permission. See e.g. Section IV(B) of http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/policies/bfb/rmp11.ht ml.

MAYBE this DMCA thing was a bad idea...

[erroneus]

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.

Not Good Enough

[CarlDenny]

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

Re:My psychic girlfriend's vision

[quonsar]

She just called me about having seen a cataclysmic taking place next week

it's rare to see cataclysmics out and about this late in the year. usually they hibernate.

WHAT????

[mark-t]

Okay, the DMCA is designed to make illegal to circumvent the copy control technology on a copyrighted work. So how, exactly, does the DMCA apply here?

Mod up

[bogie]

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.

Best Buy got sued for something similar

[rabbit994]

Best Buy got sued a while back because a guy in the Washington D.C. Metro Area was shopping for a new laptop and went store to store with his old laptop writing down prices and features because he wanted the best value. Best Buy didn't allow this and even when so far as ripping off price tags. This guy took them to court for false advertising saying their attitude didn't reflect their name "Best Buy". Judge ruled in favor and said if Best Buy wanted to practice that type of behavior, they would have to post a sign in the front that said "We do not allow competive shopping". Needless to say, Best Buy changed a few things and I think the guy got a free laptop out of them to boot.

Take Christmas Back

[forii]

This 'holiday' has gotten so far away from the original meaning that it shouldn't be called 'Christmas' anymore.

No kidding! "Christmas" used to be a fun celebration of the winter solstice, something especially important for those people living in Northern Europe, where the winter nights are especially long and dark. A good reason to get together with friends and family, exchange gifts, and cheer up the season.

And then those stupid mystical religious people had to come along and appropriate it for themselves by connecting it with the supposed birthday of their "prophet". Bleah.

Direct Snail-Mail to...

[acousticiris]

General/Corporate Inquiries
For general comments and questions about Best Buy Co., Inc., contact:

Best Buy Co., Inc.
Corporate Headquarters
P.O. Box 9312
Minneapolis, MN 55440-9312

This story hasn't gotten a lot of attention outside of FatWallet's forums and Slashdot. If this activity bothers you, take a few minutes, write a letter, lick a stamp, and let them know you're paying attention. They are very unlikely to win if this goes to court, so they don't need a whole lot of motivation to stop the idiotic activity. I, for one, won't be patronizing their store again. I mean really, if you need your "retail" electronics fix, they have plenty of competitors who offer the same junk at the same high prices.
Kick them a letter and thank them for making the choice of where to shop a little easier.

DMCA is crap, but....

[atheken]

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.

Squelch is on high

[djupedal]

'they' don't want:

• Movie premier instant reviews
• Book reviews/blurbs/comments
• Black Friday pre-sale prices devulged
• Speed trap location tip-offs
• Arrest warrant sweeps announced
• Car computers modified to prohibit insurance snooping
• Stop-light camera locations mapped

We don't want....them. Us vs. them. If 'they' trusted 'us', we might trust them. In the mean time...give 'em hell.

FULL Black Friday List

[Anonymous Coward]

The Simpsons Season 1, The Italian Job, Anger Mangement, Chicago, 28 Days Later, Charlie's Angels 2, The Lion King SE: $11.99 each (DVD)
Madden 2004 (PC) - $14.99
RCA 52" Rear Projection HDTV - $1000
Daewoo 42" Plasma TV - $2300 A/R
Panasonic 5.1 700-Watt Home Theatre w/progressive scan DVD player (speakers are built into stands) - $500 w/$50 free gift card
600-Watt version of above w/o speaker stands - $350 w/free $50 gift card
Bose 3-2-1 Home Theatre System - $900
Pinnacle Studio 8 - $0 A/R
MS Digital Image Suite 9.0 - $20 A/R
Canon ZR60 MiniDV Camcorder - $300 A/R
MAG 19" LCD Monitor - $430 A/R
SanDisk 256MB USB Memory Key - $40 A/R
Sony Clie SJ-22 - $100 A/R
Casio 2.3" Handheld TV - $40 A/R
APC 350VA UPS - $5 A/R
FujiFilm FinePix A303 3.2MP - $150
Maxtor 120GB 7200RPM Internal HD w/8MB Buffer - $50 A/R
SanDisk 256MB CF Card - $40 A/R
SanDisk 256MB SD Card - $50 A/R
DVD XCopy: Gold - $20 A/R
Norton SystemWorks/AntiSpam/Firewall 3-in-1 package - $0 A/R
Lite-On 4x Multi-Format DVD Burner - $80 A/R
Samsung 17" LCD Monitor - $280 A/R
ATI Radeon 9600 128MB - $70 A/R
Sony P-10 5MP Digital Camera w/free 64MB MS - $400 A/R
Canon Powershot A70 3.2MP w/free 64MB CF - $300 A/R

Re:FULL Black Friday List

[Buran]

This is all "after rebate", almost (and the items that aren't are too expensive for me right now, so I'll pass.)

Rebates are a sham. I never factor in post-rebate prices -- I once got a check back from a rebate and my bank refused it, claiming it wasn't a real check. What a joke.

This isn't anything to write home about.

stand their ground?

[ender's_shadow]

so much for that - the editors have already pruned out dmca-able material.

Because...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Stop arguing for laziness with false dichotomies.

[jbn-o]

If you think you can avoid them [companies that hurt you] totally, good luck living off your home farm, and walking everywhere.. its not practical.

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.

Time for mirrors

[DiveX]

I've already mirrored the information on my meager ISP webspace: http://web.tampabay.rr.com/mblitch/bf2003/

Other mirrors are up. Use the example of bittorrent and help spread the load and information. I have not seen nor read any complaints from Best Buy, so I do not know what their issue may be.

http://www.andy-akb.com/bf/

http://www.uswebstreet.com/~cmptrdude1/default.a sp ?id=home

http://cpanel19.gzo.com/~every/blackfriday/

http://www.quepons.com/blackfriday.html

Re:Advertising

[BZ]

> 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.

If you see a Best Buy sale coming, you get a bonus

[LostCluster]

One thing to know...

If you have advanced knowledge of what Best Buy will put on sale 2 weeks from now, you can buy that item today from them at the higher price, and then claim the 110% price protection offer they make to get an additional 10% of the discount. In fact, you can do the same to Circuit City using Best Buy's sale, or vice-versa because Circuit City has the same "price protection" policy.

Therefore, they don't want you to be able to see their price drops coming... and that's why sale info is top secret until the day the sale goes into effect, at which point it's public info.

Re:Not really fair to disclose this information?

[phiwum]

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.

Rebate-Schmebait

[mabu]

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.

We do not plan on releasing information

[Chief Mucky Muck]

Wanted to make a couple points perfectly clear. When we rec'd the dmca notification and electronic delivery of a copy of a subpoena, it was late on Friday night. To be on the safe side, we acted to remove the specified information to remove any potential liability. (as legal counsel was not immediately available for guidance) Saturday was spent putting together the legal team, the real work starts tonight and tomorrow. Last year, Wal-Mart backed down before we filed our Motion to Quash - it remains to be seen what Best Buy's attitude will be in the battle of intellectual property counsel. We certainly do not believe that there is a legitimate copyright issue at hand, but as I had stated to Best Buy before information was even posted on our site, the potential for "trade secret" does exist here, but it is their responsibility to protect their intellectual property. Once a trade secret is made public, trade secret protection is no longer available. I am not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night - But this is where the current thought pattern is - stay tuned for more details early this week. Tim Storm President FatWallet, inc.

Debit card protections

[way2trivial]

Visa mandates banks offer the same protection with visa debit cards as credit

Mastercard explicitly denies the same, but mentions on their website many banks choose to do so voluntarily.

actually a good use for once

[synonymous w coward]

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.

"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. :p

Re:actually a good use for once

[Todd Knarr]

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.

Re:Suing you for sources!

[Chief Mucky Muck]

Thanks for your comments, however off base they may be.

The issue at hand is that Best Buy filed a DMCA notice - not a c&d. This means that they are claiming copyrihght on the information.

A DMCA notification allows the notifier to subpoena the information regardless of the merit of the copyright claim, that is the issue we are dealing with here.

If this were another type of Intellectual property issue, such as trade secret, Best Buy would have to file a lawsuit against the John Doe, and then subpoena the information based upon the lawsuit.

However, in this case, it appears as though the information was available elsewhere before it was posted on FatWallet, which it could be argued that the information was already "in the public", so the trade secret claims would be tough to prove.

Any intellectual property claim would be against the person making the post on our site, as we would have immunity thanks to the commudications decency act.

Thanks again for your comments

Tim Storm FatWallet, inc.

Nope-OP was correct

[TuballoyThunder]

The original poster was correct, assuming that you are not carrying a balance. Most credit card providers will not charge you any interest on purchases if you pay 100% of your balance when it is due. Thus, your money remains in your checking account until you pay the credit card bill earning a whopping 1.5% - 2.2% APY interest on a money market account or 0.5% - 1.5% APY interest on a interest-bearing checking account.

Re:Parent Post ...

[WNight]

That's all we ever hear these days...

"While this isn't technically a violation, maybe it should be because it could cost [Big Business X] some money."

That's a pretty fucking lame excuse. How about they get the same protection under the law as everyone else and if they want to keep a secret, they just don't fucking tell anyone?

poisoned tree, privacy

[pruss]

1. While facts are not copyrightable as far as I know (IANAL), still isn't there a "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine? One shouldn't profit from illegal activity. If someone violated BestBuy's copyright, e.g., by photocopying a flyer before release, then there would be a legal (and certainly moral!) problem with FatWallet profiting from the information derived from the illegally made copy.

2. Normally /. is all for privacy. But isn't this really a privacy issue? Someone has taken BestBuy's private information and published it. That BestBuy is a corporation doesn't mean that their privacy doesn't matter: after all, a corporation is just constituted by a bunch of individuals (shareholders or owners and their employees). I am myself rather minimalistic on alleged rights to privacy, but anybody who thinks I have a right not to have the contents of my private documents published on the web by hackers should surely accord that right to BestBuy.

consumerism means bankrupt values

[JimmytheGeek]

the endless pursuit of stuff is killing us and what's worse, it's making us shallower.

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. /end rant gotta get some sleep

Re:If you see a Best Buy sale coming, you get a bo

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, sorry. The price protection does not apply to the black friday sale, and the ads that go out will say so.