Slashdot Mirror
FatWallet To Sue Best Buy Over DMCA Threat
jkeyes writes "Online deal site FatWallet announced today that they will be suing Best Buy and other companies that sent them DMCA takedown notices. They are seeking a declaration from the court stating that Best Buy and other companies' demands were an abuse of the DMCA, and also violate the 1st Amendment." We covered Best Buy's original DMCA invocation a few days back.
I wonder if they've got a good deal on a lawyer?
Its about time somebody didnt just roll over and play dead. Sic em.
Hopefully the first of a long line of lawsuits that will eventually see the Supreme Court finding the DMCA unconstitutional.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
This isn't the first time FatWallet.com has stood up to DCMA-pushers.
Now when I wear my fatwallet tshit in line at bestbuy at 2am on Friday I might be recieved with less than open arms, and miss out on my $11 Microwave.
Since when is posting an ad flyer online illegal? If it is, TechTV should get sued also for showing their "Real Deal" segment every Monday in which they compare Sunday ad flyers. My guess is that they are just going after the "little guys" hoping that they will just give in and not fight.
I think they like each other. You know how someone likes each other, and starts passing notes back and forth? Secretly liking each other? That is what is going on here.
They are crying in the back seat of a car, for their mommy to come forward and slap them around a bit. The solution, as it is in all families in these cases, is to make the two hand their stuff back to each other and shut up. If I was the father in this family, I would rename these crybabies: Best Buy wants the name FatWallet and FatWallet would be more appropriately named Best Buy.
There I fixed everything.
Cover your eyes and click this link!
This decision will be interesting as many people have lost faith in the "system" thinking that laws are made by and for those with money.
A good decision here could go a way to help restoring people's faith in the law.
Of course a bad decision will confirm everybody's worst fears.
First the courts allow us to get generic garage door openers. And now we might limit another abuse of the DMCA. Can this be the year that the consumer wins. :)
later,
"Im drowning here, and you're describing the water!"
Since when is posting an ad flyer online illegal?
Ad flyers are copyrighted. However, posting excerpts therefrom should count as news reporting, giving it a boost under the fair use criteria (17 USC 107). Heck, I'd guess that the prices themselves are facts or ideas and therefore subject to the exclusion of copyright on ideas (17 USC 102). You're right as far as I can tell.
Bump.
I really hate Dan Patrick.
YEAH! I DESIGNED THIS PRICE!
Nobody! I repeat NOBODY from now on dare to put $9.99 price tag on their merchandise or I'll call people from RIAA, MPAA, FBI, CIA, NSA and many more scary letters and sue, sue, sue! HAHAHAHAHAHA[evil laughter]
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
It seems like the DMCA is a card often played by large technology-oriented companies. Its time for Fat Wallet, and Slick Deals and the rest of them to fight for what they believe in. After all it is america and they need stick it to Best Buy and these other tools who insist on using the DMCA. I mean seriously this DMCA shit has got to stop, first kevin mitnick, then that kid from northern europe with his DVD stuff, that russian kid for his adobe font stuff, whats next, are the Creators of Linux going to jail for using code from the Windows TCP/IP stack!? Wheres the DMCA Sux tshirt when you need it. Think Geek, make that and also a bumper sticker, I'll wear it down in DC and show the Senator Hatches whats what!
click here to incinerate homeless people
I certainly hope they have a fat wall....er....nevermind.
This is a violation of the 1st Amendment!
It's the Constitution, it's Mabo...it's the vibe!
I didn't know about FatWallet until I read this story. This site seems like a useful way to find good deals. Sometimes, a lawsuit is better than advertising.
Think global, act loco
They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.
Why not just not license the fatwallet.com information to the litigants, surely if they can sue for prices fatwallet can sue for infringing on the copyright of its name, website, owners address, etc. I'm still waiting for someone to patent reducing prices online as a business method.
let's hope this is the first of many, so that our children don't have to deal with this nonsense.
01100111 01100101 01110100 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110010 01100101 00101110
YMMV on this lawsuit :)
If they really gave a shit about the privacy of others etal, they would oust their logfiles entirely. Like Cryptome does, and many others do. They're not obligated to keep log files under any binding law, and now they're bitching about being targeted for user id's etc.. Here's a noble idea for those who want to protect the privacy of others ln -s
MoFscker
Fatwallet is another cool website that I would never have heard of if it weren't for this. There's no such thing as bad publicity.
It's like the Fox News Channel giving Al Franken's book sales a huge boost by suing the guy.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I thought FatWallet had taken down some of the content already in response to some of the notices ... I'd need further details to be sure (eg whether or not the take-down notices are expressed to have continuing effect), but wonder whether the controversy generated by those particular notices would be moot? (IAAL, but this is not legal advice)
What's in your wallet?
The linked press release includes a link to a copy of the lawsuit filing by fatwallet.com
fatwallet.com is not just going for a declaratory judgement that these DMCA complaints are bunk. fatwallet.com's complaint also directly challenges the constitutionality of the DMCA (see paragraphs 40 and 41).
If fatwallet.com gets lucky, there's a small chance that this lawsuit might, just might, result in the DMCA being declared unconstitutional!
It's about time that someone stands up and fights back against these blatant abuses of the DMCA. The fact is that this law can be so easily abused, and we should get the DMCA repealed. It should be made way more difficult to get a subpoena than just having some lawyer write a nastygram.
Best Buy Offers Day-after-Thanksgiving Specials
sorry best buy,
you have lost a customer from your actions.
I am...err... was a consistent shopper there.
i personally will not buy from best buy again till this case is resolved, and never again if BB wins it.
i'm utterly sick of large corperations trying ot sling their laywer might around onto undeserving people.
i guess BB's just one more tagged onto the list of places/corperations i will not buy from due to their actions.
RIAA **AA's---buy used! (or not at all)
MPAA
Wallyworld
M$
Lexmark
gamespy
and now.. Best buy!
funny too... because i was just going to head down to best buy next weekend for a large chunk of my christmas shopping... (i cant forget to buy myself a present or two now can i?!).... i'm in the market for a printer as well.. ha.. and sice i've been playing online games more, i WAS going to get a copy of gamespy too...
speaking with your wallet--the only language corperations understand.
Troll, Troll, go away and flame again some other day
Every little retard with their gay ass bump posts.
Remember, the other side has more money to buy a verdict with.. and if they do that, it will be even harder to overturn later if the DMCA is upheld this time..
free speech ( among other things ) will be lost for a LONG time...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
In other news, millions of 12 year olds have filed a class action suit to fight back against the RIAA for DMCA abuse and first amendment violations. Britney Spears is quoted as saying "Does this mean those idiots wont be buying my stuff?"
Jack Vigelenti, Chairman of the MPAA has fled the country in fear that he will be next in line for anti-DMCA law suits, however the 82 year old texan may not be safe as his previous rallying for similar DMCA laws accross the world means he might only find refuge in hell.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Looks like it's time to add another company to the list of companies to never, ever do business with again under any circumstances. It's a pity that more people don't use the boycott as a tool to force companies to change their practices.
I've often wondered what would happen if enough people from one political party refused to do business with companies affiliated with some other political party.
Let's hope we get a chance to find out.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
fuck best buy..
they screwed me on a price match over 3 years ago.. and i DO NOT shop there, for any reason..
i DO NOT recommend my friends and people that i know to shop there..
i will never buy a product from best buy.. ever..
if they have a product that is not available anywhere else, i do without..
investigate best buy's sales/return/price matching policies.. and how you are subject to those "policies"..
investigate any BBB filings against best buy in your local area..
i suggest to everyone to stop purchasing products at best buy..
i hate microsoft.
why is it dated 12/2/2003? what did I miss?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I think this case will get tossed out before ever being heard. Remember Professor Felton? His case was tossed because the DMCA was threatened, but never actually applied. Therefore, the court considered him without standing and dismissed his case. You can read about it here.
While it would be nice to have the case litigated, I think that without Best Buy actually bringing a case under the DMCA as opposed to threatening an action, Fat Wallet may also be declared to lack standing.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
Would they have any better standing arguing that releasing the circulars' info in advance is breaching a trade secret? Just a random thought. I suspect a lawyer can explain why no such coverage exists.
Bottom line: I certainly don't support the DCMA, but (unlike most posters here and on FatWallet) I do have some sympathy for their rights to protect the information!
Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
ROFL
They fall squarely and simply under the First Amendment and can be used for any sort of purpose (including commercial). News reporting or not. This is free speech, after all.
Unless--well, it is possible that they are trade secrets. But then why is Best Buy waving around the DMCA, a copyright law?
Maybe they're just stupid.
Guys, we want the "DMCA test case" to be a case that's actually won by the good guys...
In this case, Best Buy has an argument... because we're not talking about offered prices, but future prices that haven't been announced yet. This isn't about walking into a store and writing down a number, this is about insider information that gets leaked, and Best Buy is trying to contain their trade secrets.
There's a chance that Best Buy might actually win this, and as a result strengthen the DMCA... we don't want that.
I, for one, welcome our new weight-challenged wallet overlords.
Excuse me Mr Fat Wallet, but did you purchase insurance for that item? If your attorney winds up dead, just bring him to the store and we'll replace him with a look-a-like at no charge. Just 25% of the cost of the item - a real value!
* You must have your reciept, otherwise we will laugh at you
Seriously, all these people boycotting Best Buy because of this? Get over it! In the end, someone leaked out inside information that should not have been leaked out and they used the law to get that information taken down. It was their right to do so. If you want to shop elsewhere and pay more for the same merchandise, that's great. Don't support one corporation, and go out and support another. That's the best way to stick it to the man, 21st century style!
Sorry, dude. I didn't write it. Just Googled for "cthulhu fuck" and it was at the top.
One of the arguments made that will impact RIAA and the MPAA is that the DCMA shifts the burden of proof of the copyright from the person claiming copyright to the person accused of violation. FatWallet claims that this violates the Due process clause gaurenteed in the Fifth Amendment -- in other words, you have to go to court to prove that you did not violate a copyright; whereas with Due Process, they would prove that you did violate the copyright Same concept as guilty until proven innocent. FatWallet is arguing for innocent until proven guilty. FatWallet also is arguing that they should be given adiquate time to notify the poster.
The implications would be chilling for the RIAA. Why? Because instead of firing off a couple hundred law suits, they would be forced to prove to the ISP that the subject of the supeonia had in fact violated copyrights. Then your ISP would have to notify the alleged offender of copyright infringment so that they can defend themselves.
The whole message of the legal brief is to take out the DCMA one leg at a time. First they attack the copyright that Best Buy, et al., has and then they go for Fifth Amendment issues. It is a great thing. It is just interesting that the people who used the DCMA in the wrong way to provoke a law suit is retailers trying to prevent Black-Friday prices from being let out.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
...is how many FatWallet users will put their money where their mouth is and stop shopping these retailers for deals?
No, you are incorrect. The decision in Feist says facts are not copyrightable (see the decision in section II A says "This case concerns the interaction of two well-established propositions. The first is that facts are not copyrightable; the other, that compilations of facts generally are."). This would mean we're not dealing with fair use, we're dealing with something outside of the US copyright regime. As Lawrence Lessig made quite clear in his "Free Culture" speech in 2002:
So if citing facts were fair use that would mean ordinarily citing facts is regulated activity but you're allowed to do it in certain circumstances. But since we're dealing with activity not regulated by copyright law, this means fair use is not the key to understanding why we can cite the price of Best Buy's goods any time we want without first getting permission from Best Buy. This is also a very potent rationale for FatWallet against Best Buy.
Digital Citizen
I don't understand why Best Buy et al doesn't like their deals being leaked. How else are you supposed to know what's going to be one sale? I know I, for one, wouldn't be going there on Friday if I didn't see the leaked deals. I'm not going to wait in line for an hour without knowing what I'm getting.
Or is this what they want? Last year out local store seemed thrilled to have broken last years sales record with over a half a million in one-day sales. McFly?
nt
-
One small step for a man. One giant leap for mankind.
Neil got it wrong.Ask him.
Oh, I guess I've heard of them now. Nice PR. Thanks to the Digital Marketing Courtroom Advertisement.
Yes, fatwallet did remove the Best Buy and Target postings after getting takedown notices. But the point of countersuing isn't to get the sale notices up again for this year, but rather so that a legal precedent is established for the future. I'm sure next year people will post more info, and Best Buy will sue again... unless a court has decided that they don't have a legal basis for suing because pricing info isn't considered copyright material under the DCMA. The fact is that it has never been tested in court, and FatWallet thinks that they will prevail if it is.
The other thing is that Best Buy also supeoned FatWallet for the names of the people who posted the info. FatWallet didn't give that up because they said there were technical errors with the notices, but I'm sure in the future they want to make sure that people can continue to post in their forums without being sued.
I have blog like everyone else
I can assure you that the legal fees are being paid 100% out of pocket. There is no pro bono representation this year, although we did use pro bono counsel last year.
Many folks on FatWallet have offered financial assistance, but we are not accepting any of it. If the time were to come where additional funds would be required, we would first look to other businesses that would be benefited by the suit, and as a last resort to consumers themselves.
See, that makes more sense. How is "man" (as used without the article) different from "mankind"? It isn't, which always confused me about that quote. But "a man" is definitely different from "mankind".
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
they run a forum with something like 160k registered users. There are certainly legitimate business reasons why they would want to keep logs on people - for example, to block users who have multiple usernames, who spam the forums, who are abusive to other members, ect. They should be able to keep this information for business purposes if they choose - and not doing so could result in a much less pleasant/effective/popular website
As far as being obligated to remove material, according to the DMCA they ARE required to remove content that infringes once they are made aware of the infringing content. The debate, of course, is if prices for a sale are infringing content.
In case you haven't guessed, I read/post on FW pretty regularly.
I have blog like everyone else
Dude, that is sick and wrong!
Best Buy would have made FatWallet a laughing stock and Best Buy would have ended up looking good. Litigation was the wrong maneuver.
Finally... someone using the DMCA against the DMCA
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
Last year I remember hearing about this story, and sorta had a "good for them" feelgood moment.
A year later I'm a little wiser and felt that someone should say this.
Thank you.
Since I don't know a whole lot about your business, I plan on checking it out and trying to become a paying customer solely because I believe you are a "good" company. I'll make sure to spread the word to my family so they can know what's going on.
there aren't many out there with the balls to do what you do, so again, Thank you.
-Morgajel
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
Don't you just love waking up to that fresh "I'll sue your ass" smell? So much more satisfying when the little guys take a stand.
For those about to rebel, We salute you!
cheers
nothing.can.stop.me.now
-1, redundant?
How the fuck can this be redundant? I don't remember seeing any other Cthulu sex posts recently. Have you?
No, they shouldn't be doing it under the DMCA.. they should be doing it under more conventional laws that would prohibit people from doing this shit. This is fucking ridiculous.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
I think many of you don't understand what's happened here and I feel that Fatwallet has no chance of success. Basically, the Post-Thanksgiving Day sales prices are NOT advertised until the newspapers send out flyers that morning... So posters to FatWallet have broken laws by posting copyrighted and possibly trade-secret information to the website. This could be more then a simple copyright issue... it could introduce federal criminal charges against those posters if the larger companies choose that route.
Take for instance, a powerful company like Coca-Cola... and suppose they decide to drop their prices by 50cents on the busiest softdrink-sales day of the year... (for whatever hypothetical reason). They want to advertise the drop only on that particular day. The advertisements must be prepped ahead of that day to be printed on time. Now if someone along the chain... the page-layout people, the print company, the newspaper inserters... a janitor who saw a memo in the trash... if anyone leaks that info, then it's possibly a violation of a contract or non-disclosure clause.... and illegal.
There is no freedom of speech issue here. It's simple.. Best Buy created a sales strategy and someone along the chain required to implement that strategy stole the secret strategy and made it available for all the world to see.
If a football player were to give his team's playbook, strategy, or info to interpret coach-QB sign language to the opposing team, I'm sure the 1-2% of you who are sports fans would be upset... and the violated team would have every right to bring legal charges against the thief.
how was that redundant? There was only one post when i posted...
The year the consumer inches ahead perhaps... we'll win when
a) The DCMA is gone for good
b) No further sneaky incarnations are drafted up
or
c) Some of these companies get nailed enough that they're leery of filing frivolous charges, or they just go out of business
I thought this DMCA thingy outruled the 1st Amendment?
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
The DVD case is different, because the only thing even remotely illegal done by the DVD guy was reading documentation which once upon a time might have been a trade secret.
The DMCA is better likened to the British forbidding the Indians to gather salt from the seas, something Gandhi protest-marched against.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
The point that some people seem to be missing is that the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act only refers to copyrighted material. As such it cannot be applied to the pricing information in this case, because that information is not the subject of any copyright: only the creative content of the advertising flier {artwork, presentation style &c.} are copyrightable. The prices themselves are automatically in the public domain.
However, the flier was almost certainly subject to an embargo. If someone has disclosed information before it came due for release, then they probably have breached a contract. But that is a simple issue of contract law, and has nothing to do with copyright. {Another oft-forgotten point: Copyright law only applies to material which is intended eventually to enter the public domain: copyright provides a temporary monopoly on your work in exchange for you making it available to everyone. A trade secret is not intended to enter the public domain and therefore would not be covered by copyright law.}
Suppose you live in a place with heavy-handed building control laws that allow for the demolition of unapproved buildings on summary judgement. Now your neighbour parks his car, perfectly legally, but in such a place that you have to have to walk a few metres further to get to your front door. Would it be fair for you to claim that the car was in fact a building that had been improperly erected without due authorisation, and order it removed? That is exactly what this case smacks of to me.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
As I have posted and read about the subject of the DMCA lawsuit, I have noticed that a lot of people are posting and speculating about the FatWallet suit based solely on the article -- but the article did provide a link for the FatWallet complaint. If you read the FatWallet complaint then the implication and what it means will make sense. The real discussion should be about the legal brief and what it says. The article is so condensed and does not contain any analsys, and thus we are left to comment and guess. It reminds me so much of the telephone game we all played in kindergarden.
I will get off my soup box now.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
Sure they do - they tried to sell me their insurance on a Gamecube. Which is about as likely to die as my Linksys, which I've had since 2000. It's not returning items I have a problem with - it's the whole idea that I should trust BustBuy to honor a reciept that's 2 years old (or 5-9 in the case of a Gamecube).
Look, rebates are a scam. I spend more time and effort than they're worth because of the principle of the thing (following instructions to the letter, keeping photocopies of everything, writing down expected dates when I'm supposed to get them, following up when I don't, etc).
But Best Buy is no worse than anyone else. Within the past year I've bought a Mitsubisih monitor, an Epson printer, and a spindle of CD-R's from Best Buy, all with rebates, and had no trouble with any of them. The rebate forms were actually printed on the cash register tape, along with a second copy of the receipt. In one case, (the CD-R's), it was actually possible to file for the rebate online without mailing anything in.
I don't think your comment is fair. At least, it doesn't jibe with my own experience at a particular Best Buy (in Dedham, MA).
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
inventory is purchased statically. retailers mark it up and sell it.
that's how it works at the moment.
inflating a price due to market conditions, like a computer memory plant getting destroyed by a asteroid, could either be price gouging or "seizing a market opportunity" even though the real cost of the commodity would be covered by people buying options on commodity exchanges. at the very most, these things should affect the market a couple of quarters out when the lack of supply would actually be impacted.
Not the next day.
When the war with Iraq started and gas prices went shy high, was this an accurate reflection of supply prices or was it retailers cashing in on hype?
it takes 6-9 months for raw crude from the Arab states to make it to a gas pump in refined form.
the answers are left as an exercise to the reader.
I just purchased a laptop at Best Buy and had a different bad experience. When checking out, the guy asked me if I wanted some free software. I said OK, and he proceeded to add MSN internet, Netflix and Rhaposody to my order. The worst part of this was, he activated all three of these with my credit card. I never asked him to activate these, but since he had my credit card to charge for the laptop, he just did it. Now, these all had a 14 day or longer trial that was "free", but if I didn't call and cancel each one, I would have had my card charged. Live and learn, don't let them push the free software on you.
You didn't read my link, that's why you think my comment is unfair.
The entire "problem" I had was caused by Best Buy's intentionally inept system of ordering between their website and their stores. I picked up the item in the store after ordering it online and, lo and behold - they gave me rebate slips and reciepts in the store. Best Buy then promptly refused to honor the rebate on one point:
You must use an online rebate form with an online reciept even though there is no difference between the online and in-store reciepts except the formatting. The information included on each is exactly the same.
They then proceeded to refuse any return on the item because they had been bouncing me from department to department, store to web, manager to manager for more than a month.
Now, even at this point, you could say that the issue was my own fault for not paying attention, but they gave me rebate forms in the store and told me to use them. They tried to screw me out of a rebate because 2 clerks, an asst. manager, and the store manager couldn't figure out the policy for rebates? Uh uh. That stinks of crooked practice. The whole purpose of the system is obviously to try and rip people off on technicalities, and I've NEVER had this kind of problem with anyone else. The most amazing part, however, is that no single part of the Best Buy system could tell me what any other part of the system was doing, and they all had the same answer: go talk to someone else. Whether they're the single most inept group on the planet, or they're are flat out evil is irrelvant.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!