Slashdot Mirror
Wal-Mart Parody Site Censored by DMCA
davidwr writes "Wal-Mart used the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to temporarily shut down a university student's parody of the Wal-Mart Foundation." The story's details are also available via BusinessWeek. From the article: "Papasian launched the Web site April 16 for an art class at Carnegie Mellon University called 'Parasitic Media.' The class teaches students about the political uses of satire in the media. He acknowledged using Wal-Mart's graphics on his Web site but said he believed he could use the images as part of a parody."
If you alter the content, they have no claim against DMCA. MalWart != WalMart.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Exceptions to copyright for parody, fair use, etc. only apply to those who have lawyers.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
This is getting way to much press. Lemmie put it to you this way:
Walmart Foundation: www.walmartfoundation.org
Parody Site: www.walmart-foundation.org
Walmart is NOT bitching about this.
He basically has a site where people probably stumble onto when they are trying to go to a legit site. Walmart's ONLY beef was that he was using their images.
I can't tell you how we ALL have known since the web was invented that you don't steal other peoples graphics. Sure, there may be some grey area with parodies, but its the same thing we knew when we were just getting into making HTML.
But, since this kid wants press, he starts using "CENSORED BY THE DMCA" so we'll all cry fowl.
He rolled the dice and lost... and all it was was over the stupid graphics.
I say, "its an art class, how about making PARODIES of the IMAGES too?"
No extra publicity in that, though...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Damn, for once the Internet Wayback Machine let me down -- no entries for http://www.walmart-foundation.org./
--
get a free laptop
"The goal was to make the site look like it could be a real site from a company like Wal-Mart, but have text that was so ridiculous that anyone who read it would realize that it was absurd," Papasian said in a statement on his revamped Web site. "If anyone believed it to be a real Wal-Mart site, that is only a testament to the degree of absurdity that exists within corporate America today."
Due to all the retarded behavior that our fellow citizens exhibit on a daily basis I am never surprised when I see people falling for direct parody.
I am also not surprised that corporations are allowed to shutdown *what was likely fair use*. Sadly, someday, we will all look back on this and say, "look how free we once were. It survived 400 hits before it was taken down. They didn't even have to approve the webpage before it was posted."
there are very clear precedents stating what is cool and what isn't.
Making a parody is cool. Using the original artwork to create your parody isn't.
Even when making a parody of a song, you must pay royalties on the original and you must obtain permission should you use any portion of the original mechanical.
If you're gonna create a parody site, you simply cannot snag artwork from the original, and you certainly can't use the company's actual logo!
Jory
Walmart, now the leader in using the DMCA....
Small businesses cannot keep up and use the DMCA on a much teenier basis....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
I thought the DMCA protected protection-schemes, not copyright law.. It's not like Walmart put copy-protection on the JPEGs. I didn't think the copyright would apply anyways, wouldn't this site be allowed fair use of the images? It's not like he's trying to compete with them.
I still hate the DMCA..
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
How to shoot yourself in the foot in three easy steps.
Simon.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/ hustler.html
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
If he hadn't leveraged any WalMart code or graphics he wouldn't have any problems. He could still do the site if he were to build a look alike from scratch. Some of the graphics he used were Wal-Mart property, and even in parody the use of their graphics would not be legally protected.
we're still all going to shop there for low low prices tho right?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
It looks like WalMart imports more than just cheap goods created by virtual slave labor from China.
Now they're further hurting our trade deficit by importing clamp-down tactics from the Chinese communist government!
I'm a big tall mofo.
Karma burning....I mean, I hate Wal-Mart more than any other company in the world and have not been in a store in almost a year, nor will I ever set foot in one again. That being said, it's not a huge deal, is it? After RTFA, it seems that all the kid had to do was take down some of the offending images, which are copyrighted anyway. Likewise, I can't use Slashdot's logo and crap without permission. Granted, they probably wouldn't care, but not caring != legal. I might be wrong, so I'm sure someone will correct me.
Apparantly, its not just Soviet Russia. It happens in the USA now too. Quite sad, actually, that the cold war was fought for 50 years against a totalitairan regime, only to win, and take on some of the elements of that regime ourselves.
Reality has a liberal bias
I think Walmart gives an example of why 100% pure capitalism is a bad thing. Walmart tends to lower the standrd of living in many of the communities it moves in, and increases the unemployment rates. Even when their practices are perfectly legal, they tend to hurt many of the small businesses in the community. Free market, you say? Well, if 'free market' lowers the standard of living for so many people, then the concept is flawed. A lot of free market supporters use the same fervor as the socialists/communitsts do when defending their idealogy and fail to realize there is no such thing as a perfect system. I am still a Libertarian, but some Wal-Mart fan-boy's need to calm down and analyze exactly what they are supporting.
Sure, one can use explosives in any context, so long as it's part of a political statement. It's free speech!
I suggest you read Slashdot
Of course the student would want to draw attention to this. One person's "overblown" is another person's "needed publicity."
I'm guessing that if this went to court, it would be thrown out as this site is fairly clearly a parody site. This allows considerable freedom in copying images, ideas, logos, and so on.
Much like the Gone with the Wind publisher battling The Wind Done Gone, it can be fairly counterproductive for large corporations to try and fight these parodies. They do nothing but draw unwanted attention to their rather nasty behavior.
WalMart can't nail him for being critical of their company (one of many who are it should be noted), so they use the DMCA to get him. All the really have done is increase his visiblity. I've sent his URL and the /. link to at least ten people since this was posted on /. and I am certian that others will forward my e-amil as well. I suspect others will do the same. Now he's got the attention a a much bigger audience.
Perhaps they should have left him alone. Then this wouldn't be an issue to them.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
"Literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor." ~ William Orville Douglas (1898-1980) US Supreme Court associate justice, 1935-75, professor of law at Yale
"Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody can read." ~ George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) British playwright & novelist
"The Internet treats censorship as a malfunction and routes around it." ~ John Perry Barlow (1947-) Wyoming cattle rancher, a lyricist for the Grateful Dead
"I believe in censorship. After all, I made a fortune out of it." ~ Mae West (1892-1980) American comedienne from "My Little Chickadee," 1940.
"Censorship is almost systematically the weapon of first resort for governments in uncertain political situations. So not only are the famous writers and bold journalists in danger; at every level of public and private life, the freedoms to think, read or write are denied. In the absence of a free press, other human rights abuses flourish unabated. Nothing is reported, criticized, questioned. The example of imprisonment, torture or execution imposes a further silence. A blindly obedient mob mentality is encouraged, driven by extremist religious or ethnic loyalties. The citizens do not know what is happening. Fear and ignorance permeate discussion." ~ Marian Botsford Fraser
"Censor: A self-appointed snoophound who sticks his nose in other people's business." ~ Bennett Cerf
[quotes from zaadz.com]
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
This guy lost all credibility with this one statement. What does the ability of someone to mistake this site for a real one have anything to do with absurdity within corporate America? This guy is just spouting off rhetoric. Plain and simple.
Using the law in unintended ways is nothing new. Although nothing has been done about this yet, I suspect that anti-phishing legislation could also be used by a corporation to shut down parody sites. Depending on how the law is worded (misworded), it could become a crime to make a site the "looks like another site."
Although the courts may, eventually, rule in favor of the parody site, the legal costs to defend the site mean victory for those who would resort to barritry.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
No... if you want to commercially MARKET a parody of a song, you must pay royalties and obtain permission. If you want to simply make a parody, and give it away - there's nothing to stop that (unless you find financial gain from that parody).
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
From the article: "An interesting aspect of the cease and desist is that it was signed by a lawyer who wrote that she was acting on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. This statement unintentionally emphasizes one of the main points that my parody was trying to prove all along: The Wal-Mart "Foundation" is nothing more than a front group for Wal-Mart Stores Incorporated, and should not be confused for a real charitable non-profit."
... always makes me feel cheap and sleazy. Like it's something I shouldn't be doing. One of the many reasons I like shopping at Wal Mart.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Wal-Mart does not care about this kind of bad PR. The people who would find this type of action detestable are not Wal-Mart's target demographic. Wal-Mart has continually eaten bags of poop in the mainstream media over their staunch opposition to unions and the way they've destroyed most mom-and-pop type stores, but this hasn't translated to lost sales for them, because the people who shop at Wal-Mart care about one thing, and one thing only: low prices. As long as this suit doesn't lead to higher prices, Wal-Mart will come out of it financially unscathed.
rooooar
Well, it's not a particularly good parody perhaps. If I were doing it, I'd subtly change the images for amusement value.
My latest favorite parody is Boring Boring, a parody of Boing Boing.
How about we just give him a C+ for his school assignment and keep the lawyers out of it?
"Microsoft Internet Explorer"
This should be enough to discredit the Walmart.
'Scuse me? You want professors to offer a reward - presumably, higher marks - for producing specifically right-wing propaganda?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
CHOOSING to shop at wal-mart, eat at McDonalds or believe in a mythical superbeing?
Sometimes there is no choice, the town has one WalMart and the rest of the small businesses go under leaving you no choice in where to buy -or- you must travel far away to go to a small independent shop.
Greed is the driving factor among everything these days, the competition is brutal and the labor is cheap....is this a lefty view? or just a rational one?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Here's the google cache: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:hSMZiuSnGJEJ: www.walmartfoundation.org/+walmart-foundation&hl=e n
...that they haven't tried to take down other sites yet.
Take this one: http://walmartwatch.com/
They have way more publicity and even had an ad in the New York Times.
You seem to believe that there is either left-wing or right-wing propaganda, that you must choose one or the other. I don't think professors should be rewarding any particular agenda. They should be rewarding reason, rationality, and thoughtfulness in their arguments. Instead professors seem to reward groupthink, which in this country, seems to be shoehorned into either progressive or conservative. There is no room for the individual view. You must choose one of the two camps.
I don't understand why the biggest criticism of wal-mart isn't the fact that everytime you shop there you are supporting the world's largest communist dictatorship. Which is truly Ironic considering that their biggest criticism happens to be their "business practices" to which the "right-wing" conservative answer is always find a better business model and compete better "thats how capitalism works." To underscore what should be obvious its not capitalism bringing you those low low prices instead is a repressive (ultra-left-wing communist style) dictatorship.
Walmart is only objecting to the use of their logos, not the parody itself. This is a farily reasonable request. No one has actually been sued, WalMart simply had their lawyers send out a Cease and Desist letter. They probably send out several of them every day. WalMart is well within their rights to demand this. While the parody site was intending to make this look as much like an official WalMart site as possible, the can run afoul of trademark law. The right thing to do is to parody the WalMart graphics as well. Not a lawyer, but WalMart is probably in the right on this one.
bance.net
As opposed to left-wing propaganda? Give me a break. Most professors are unionized or have tenure or both. These are both left-wing institutions that the professors are very interested in upholding, hence the indoctrination of their students with similar ideas.
The use of the DMCA in ANY expression of free speech is so bogus that attempting to use the courts for such purposes should result in the automatic suspension of the laywer's licence.
:-)
The DMCA was NOT designed for the purpose of stifling free speech. (We have libel laws and slander laws for that.
Some humourless lawyer would argue that his client is afforded every protection of the law. I would argue that the DMCA is NOT a protection under the law.
The case is like arguing that you can ONLY have ONE of anything. Reproduction of anything at anytime for any purpose would be outlawed.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"If Microsoft made toilet paper it would be called Butt Wiper." Brian Briggs
If Microsoft made toilet paper it would be called Microsoft Wipe. Microsoft would then consider that other uses of the word wipe were possibly infringing on their trademark.
IIRC a parody has to be clearly different than the original to be considered a parody.
Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
Is a rework of Stevie Wonder's Pastime Paradise. Who is taking from whom here? Of course, I'm sure Stevie was duly compensated.
Well, the dumbass was using their graphics! He shot himself in the foot! If you're going to setup a pardoy site, use your own damned work. It looks like what pissed Walmart off was his use of their images. Go buy a camera, shoot the pics, use Photoshop and put your own work on the site. *cough, cough, rip-off* It's just that easy.
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
If I didn't know better, and I do know that /. doesn't necessarily have the most well read readership, I'd swear that the huge number of people claiming that you can't use images in a parody were evidence of infiltration by someone trying to cloud the issue....
Or maybe I'm just paranoid, we can always hope that's the case I guess.
Al Franken's book , 'Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them' got him sued by Fox for copyright violation. Fox got laughed out of court. I believe that it's actually copyright violation if people could believe that it's the WalMart Foundation web site, but I'm not a lawyer.
The kid may have the letter of the law on his side, but I think he is morally wrong. I think the very goal he stated is just plain wrong. He set out to find a domain name that looked like it might belong to Wal-mart, then fill it with images which he took from their website (which is wrong in the internet community) and then made the text look absurd. If you want to make a site against Wal-mart, get one similar to walmartsucks.org. If you just want to do a classroom project, then don't publish it on the web. Do it on an internal server.
I wonder if he would mind if walmart found his personal website, ripped off all his images and spouted a bunch of crap on a similarly named website?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Yes, people shop at Wal-Mart because of low prices but the reason they have to shop low prices is that their wages have gone down (in real terms) over the past 30 years.
As an example, my wife graduated from HS in 1974 and her first job was at paper plant. The job was union and paid $7 per hour and worked 40 hours a week. This, mind you, for a HS grad with no college and no special skills in a small city north of Seattle. By the time she left that job (in 1980) she was making over $10 per hour and getting full medical.
Then wages went into the toilet. Now kids are lucky to get a $7 job (at Wal-Mart) and work 20-hours a week.
In 1974 you could buy a house ($35,000 for a 3br/2ba home in the Seattle area) with a $7/hour job. In 2005 houses there average $250,000. Try buying one of those right out of HS.
So ya... people shop for cheap prices but only because we don't have much of a choice any more.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
Does Wal-Mart(tm) really want to offend their primary customer base, college students? What are they going to do with all that ramen and easy mac if people start boycotting them?
hack a day
IIRC a parody has to be clearly different than the original to be considered a parody.
Well then, since he was using images directly coppied off the Walmart Foundation site it was clearly not a parody then.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
The text was flamingly obvious. I said things like (paraphrasing) "we're just undoing a very small portion of the damage we do to communities, because it promotes our image and is a great write-off."
-bugg
- And rightly so. His First Amendment rights are being violated.
Didn't you hear? The US government has officially declared that the first amendment must have been a "typo". They argue that it would have been easily edited out if they had used a program like Microsoft Word, but it wasn't so easy to edit once they had it down using ink and paper...
It's been mentioned all through this thread that section 107 of the Copyright Act allows for fair use of copyrighted works for criticism or comment. What I don't think people are getting is how is the web site supposed to achieve parody without expressing the elements of the WalMart charity web site such as logos, design, etc. The very nature of parody REQUIRES copyright infringement to meet its aims.
Libel applies whereever you attribute something in writing to someone who does not hold that belief. It is always legally actionable.
Check out the Flynt case, before the Supreme Court. Said libel also has to be *believable.* Hence, when Flynt published things about Falwell's mother's, ah, *taste*, it was found to be parody because no one in their right mind would believe it.
That's kinda what parody is.
"slanderous speach"
No. First of all, the site was a parody, not a news site. Slander/libel doesn't apply to parody. Second, written materials would fall under libel, not slander.
Deere & Co v MTD Products, Inc was a competitor modifying Deere's mark in a 'humorous' way in order to both mock and identify the competitor for commercial purposes. It was a commercial message rather than the social commentary that one generally envisions when one thinks of satirized protected marks.
... The Constitution does not, however, permit the range of the antidilution statute to encompass the unauthorized use of a trademark in a noncommercial setting such as an editorial or artistic context".
The Dallas Cowboys, Inc v Pussycat Cinema is, *again* a commercial case where "Debbie does Dallas" producers were enjoined from referring to the sports team in promotion of the film. Even trying to call that satire is a thin defense to begin with.
There are 3 tests commonly used to test the use of a trademark, however, see L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Pubs., Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 31, 33 (1st Cir. 1987), where the First Circuit court protects the use of a trademark against an antidilution claim almost solely on the basis of the use being noncommercial. To quote: "The Constitution is not offended when the [Maine] antidilution statute is applied to prevent a defendant from using a trademark without permission in order to merchandise dissimilar products or services.
See also:
Yankee Pub. Inc. v. News America Pub. Inc., 809 F. Supp. 267, 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)
Simon & Schuster Inc. v. Dove Audio Inc. 936 F. Supp. 156, 164 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
I don't see how the comments on libel are even relevant. The site was a parody and received a C&D only because of their use of trademarks. They did not allege libel, at least according to that story, and such a claim might also have to be evaluated in the context of political or social parody.
*Anything* is always legally actionable; that doesn't mean the cause of action is likely to prevail, and Wal-Mart was certainly unlikely to prevail in this instance.
This post is not meant to constitute legal advice; if you need advice for a specific legal situation, consult an attorney.
But what I enjoy even most is when this leads to the conclusion that it's because of the powerful corporations that these sorts of evil things happen.
This is the progressive circle of life. Progressives decide the establishment has a problem. Progressives pitch legislation that sucks to solve the problem. The legislation is enacted and then (shocker) it starts to suck. Progressives then use legislation sucking as proof that the establishment has a problem. Progressive pitch new legislation that sucks even more. Elton John starts singing ...
If Microsoft made toilet paper, it wouldn't actually remove anything but merely spread it around until everything is covered with a uniform layer of feces. Just like Internet Explorer...
Blank until
"because the people who shop at Wal-Mart care about one thing, and one thing only: low prices. As long as this suit doesn't lead to higher prices, Wal-Mart will come out of it financially unscathed."
well, I think they care about the perception of low prices more than actual low prices. The low prices that they care about most are those of it suppliers.
Yes Wall Mart is a charitable non-profit. All of their profit goes to helping little old ladies retire better.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
but it seems that freedoms in the USA are no longer a priority. I've read many works of the last two centuries written by europeans that envied the freedoms of the USA, now it seems the American Way is the way of the dollar, not the way of Freedom and True Democracy.
DON'T PANIC
i like the header on the actual walmart foundation website, written in appropriately troglodytic language. "walmart good. works. man make fire."
Unless you're suggesting you just looked at the pretty pictures, and didn't bother to read it.
The text was flamingly obvious.
Well, to me the issue here is the pictures themselves, not the text. So yes, I am "looking at the pretty pictures". If you copied them directly off the foundation website and didn't modify them in any way, it looks like you would (for starters) be violating WalMarts trademark (such as the Wal*Mart and Sams Club Icons). They legally have to defend any violations of said trademark or they can lose it. If you had changed those, that would be a start. For example, The "Giving, Helping, Doing" Could have been replaced with "Taking, Hurting, (something else here)". "Wal*Mart, Good, Works" replaced with "Wal*Mart, (Bad/Evil/Something),Hurts. Next time, actually change what the images are. Same for the rest of the images.
To me, to be parody it can over all look similar, but everything in it still has to be different and created by you. Copying the images off and only changing the text doesn't meet parody to me.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Let's keep these lawsuits coming. The more this happens the faster this crap will get to the Supreme Court and shot down.
Cheers.
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/dpapasia/
\. got played; You can't buy this sort of publicity. At least not as an undergrad @ CMU.
He might have lost the election worse than his battle w/ wall-mart... but there's always next year.
"then fill it with images which he took from their website (which is wrong in the internet community)"
And where exactly did slashdot get the image of Bill Gates in the Borg shot? Or any one of the other images? Copying an image, etc and using it on your site is fair use in news, parody and commentary.
Even in "the internet community"
That doesn't really make sense, though- because they could've saved money on legal bills by not bothering with this guy (keeping prices low), AND avoided the bad publicity.
Your post hits the primary problem our nation has, inflation.
It is so sad that people in this country do not realize they are being ripped off. Under our current economic system, inflation screws the poor and middle classes. It is essentially a RECURRING tax on savings.
For example : try putting in the 7.00 per hour wage from 1974, then compare it to today.
$7.00 per hour in 1974 would be roughly equivalent to making $27.00 per hour today.
But it gets worse. Any money you try to save, is also worth less over time. The interest you earn on a bank account needs to make at least the level of inflation just to stay the same in terms of purchasing power.
It seems people are just plain clueless about how they are being royally screwed by the governments economic policies.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
What are you talking about? Progressives fought against the DMCA. It was the moneyed interests controlling the conservatives who wanted the DMCA.
steampunk web design
It's an insight. It's funny. It poignant.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
http://www.penny-arcade.com/news.php3?date=2003-04 -21
A little more than half way down the page.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
That's BS, Walmart over the last two years has done nothing BUT try to improve their image, but they keep shooting themselves in the foot, with asinine actions like this one. Seriously 400 hits a day, and you slam the website down the toilet. This guy is on a COLLEGE CAMPUS it doesn't get swept under the rug. He has a giant student body inherintly behind and supporting him to make as much noise as he can. and if you don't believe about Walmart's PR push here's some source: http://www.prwatch.org/node/2911 These guys will never see another dime from me, and with the number of people who agree with Walmart's creed of "How can good deals be bad for America"(the parenthetical being, of course: *no matter what the cost*) makes me wonder if the country doesn't deserve the economical quagmire it's digging itself into.
The cache got updated very quickly
I guess Walmart got a little help...
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Exectly the same case as in "People vs. Larry Flint" movie... Except this guy will hardly have money to bring his case to the highest court.
839*929
Won't many of them move on to providing layout and graphics for evil corporations?
OK, check out the trademark at this site.
Some artist decided to stick it to the man, however the man is so dense he hasn't noticed he was being mocked for, what, seventy years now?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Due to all the retarded behavior that our fellow citizens exhibit on a daily basis I am never surprised when I see people falling for direct parody.
I've met a few of the Execs who work for Wal-Mart, some of whom are not much brighter than the people they exploi^H^H^H^H^H^H employ. My guess is that they're genuinely concerned that a great many folks who go looking for Wal-Mart on the web would completely miss the joke of this guy's site and take it as legit.
Just as Aurthur C. Clarke said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." The same principle applies to literature and art...Any sufficiently advanced form of comedy is indistinguishable from the nightly news.
(See The Daily Show with Jon Stewart)
"Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
D-M-C-A... just watch out for the D-M-C-A
Young man, young man, are you listening to me?
Young man, young man, even this parody is illegal.
"we're just undoing a very small portion of the damage we do to communities, because it promotes our image and is a great write-off."
That is not parody, it the truth. The parody was on the wallmart site.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
If our judges all had a personal relationship to Jesus wouldn't that help? A judiciary that understands blasphemy when they see it, will be able to understand that personal property in the "intellectual" sphere means you can critisize us when you can afford it. Excuse me? I said shut up.
More seriously, a free country is worth protecting. Think of what your fathers and mothers gave up during WWII. What they they willing to sacrifice to protect democracy for you, their children, and your children too. But what are you doing?
Left wing? Considering that most of the traditions and norms of university life, including tenure date at least back to the enlightenment (when conservatism was invented [though back then it was called 'liberalism' because it was liberal compared to the philosophy of the time] and our type of liberalism had not yet been invented) there is a strong argument that tenure is a right wing program. In fact, it exists partially to protect professors from those who would seek to silence their views (by firing them).
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Did you actually look at the exhibits in Walmart's complaint PDF (http://atdt.nu/walmart.pdf)?
This has nothing to do with injustice. If you're going to make a parody, it has to be clear that it's a parody. I don't think the phony articles he had on his page were nearly obvious enough.
Let me put it this way: his parody didn't read like the Onion, it read like someone copying a site trying to slight and entice the original owner. Consider it before you start going on the EFF warpath about Walmart in this case.
He, I used to believe that taking everything into court happened just on TV series ... guess I was WRONG.
Wasn't it in ancient rome where lawyers couldnt receive payment for their services ?
Jorge Canelhas
Are you a Retro Computing Fan ?
http://example.com/
Wal-Mart, so far, hasn't said anything at all about trademarks. The cease and desist sent to my ISP was a DMCA takedown notice, and was about copyrights. Haven't heard anything about trademarks yet. Use of copyrighted material- what they went after me for- is protected as 'fair use' for parody site, in my opinion (and also the opinions of some of the lawyers I have been in contact with).
-bugg
So I will not shop there. Target also sucks so I will not shop there either. It's amazing how I can find what I want off the internet or from a grocery store or smaller shops around town. It is easy not to shop at WalMart so why bitch and scream. Just don't go there.
He wasn't forced to take down his website or change anything in it, as near as I can tell from the article. He was frightened into doing it. From my experience, lawyers for corporations first draft a scary letter telling you what they're going to do if you don't cease and desist. They send this letter regardless of whether they have any legal right to follow through on those threats for the simple reason that people who don't know their rights as well as a lawyer does will often back down. They assume that a lawyer knows the law and won't make threats they can't back up. But why litigate when you can mug some people through the mail?
Back in the day, I put up a website called "The Saint Peterbilt Steel Erection Church of Christ". For reasons that are lost in obscurity. I received a C&D from lawyers representing Paccar, the company that owns Peterbilt Trucks. They claimed images on the page (which I had made myself) were similar to the Peterbilt logo, and they would take legal action to protect their trademark. Well, I panicked. Then I researched and found out what my rights are. Then I took a look at the images, and decided I could make them look nicer and at the same time a little less like the Peterbilt logo. That served both our purposes, so I went ahead and did it. Then I sent them a letter stating that the site was parody and therefore protected, that I'd made a concession in altering the images to make them less similar to the protected trademark, and that was pretty much all they were going to get. I offered to include a verbal disclaimer on the site if they felt there was a possibility people would get confused and think that Paccar Inc. was a sponsor or somehow affiliated with The Saint Peterbilt Steel Erection Church of Christ. Their response was, "No, that's fine." My site was down for all of... not at all.
When a huge corporation promotes itself as having a 'cleaner-than-thou' image, and then muscles down on someone who mocks this image in a tiny inperceptable forum, they often will generate a backlash in the media; the alternative media if not the major outlets.
Then the parody gets recognized far wider than it would have from its initial presentation. This brings recognition to the parodist and simulates discussion on the practices of the corporation and the contrasts between its business practices and its manufactured image. Smart business execs usually know this and will work to avoid publicity amplification. Walmart execs tend to be more mean than savvy.
Perhaps the clearest example of this publicity effect is the Disneyland Orgy which would have disappeared as an urban legend if clueless Disney execs had not have gone batshit when it appeared and mounted a huge effort to destroy it. As you can see, it lives now on the web forever. It still is pretty funny.
I thought these people were fighting for better things.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I would like to point out something that seems to have been glazed over. Whether or not Wal-Mart has a legal standing to shutdown this site is debatable. I would like to think that the site, regardless of what graphics he used, was a true parody. But I'm not a lawyer and I won't speak or debate on the matter. Regardless of the law, it still isn't right. When a corporation is allowed to bully someone into a situation without any hearing on the matter, legality makes no difference. Just my 2 cents but this is not a question of law, rather a question on how we allow the government to be run through the creation of those laws. If we feel that this is wrong, then it is our task as citizens to make it wrong. Those politicians and judges work for us, not Wal-Mart! We need to remind them of that fact. Through parady, votes, news, or anything else we can get our hands on.
And in the spirit of SlashDot's new "big obnoxious ad " ....
Death to DMCA. Time to start using Adblock.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
He probably should have thought about putting ads on his site beforehand... at least enough to pay for the courses he's taking.
Help a poor college student. Send a couple cents via paypal to chucks86@gmail.com
I'm so sick of corporate propagandist distracto-babble. If the "facts" dispute the "myth" that 70% of Wal-Mart's products don't come from China, why not say it? Why sidestep the issue, yet still call it a myth and talk about how much money you pay suppliers? Stupid, intelligence-insulting corporations.
In general, a large corporate licenses its pictures for use from professional photographers. Thus, walmart would normally not own the photographs being used in the parody site.
Because Walmart or any company that licenses photographs normally does so based on the number of impressions expected, the abuse by the photographs by a parody site could cost them real money.
I don't agree with the DMCA but it's not fair to cost any business money by using unlicensed images.
In the end, the photographer that does own the license could most likely have filed for a felony copyright infringement case without using the DMCA. In my opinion, the person using the images without a license got off easy.
WH
I don't see a dump of this on TFE -- anyone have a copy they can insert?
I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
RTFA:
- Site was not shut down, it was "modified" because he stole pictures off MalMarts web site.
- He might have even gotten away with it if he'd just deep-linked to their pictures, instead he whines "oooh mommy I've been censored by the DMCA, waaaah!"
- He's a media student, he shoudl know how to take his own damn pictures. Grade - "D".
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Perhaps he or she could write a letter to the ISP to get the case dropped or changed, but I suggest changing to a different website name.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Are you saying most everyone is basically a whore to Walmart?
I feel... I feel so dirty.
Wrong. Not ALL people shop there for the pricing. Some people shop there because there is NO alternatives. We used to have other department store chains. Caldor, Lechmere, Bradlees, Zayer, and Ames. They are all out of business. Right now ALL that is left is Target, Wal-Mart, and K-Mart . They do NOT carry the same things. K-Mart doesn't carry 1/2 the items that the other stores did. So now where do I go ? If I need a product, what choice do I have ?
UPS Sucks
somewhere on the net.
Post the URL when you find it.
If I can get spam from offshore ISPs, why can't the site be hosted in these places?
Spam Tricks
"The Wal-Mart "Donated Water" label and program is one of the latest efforts to support our military."
That's their idea of a donation? That's advertising, not a charitable donation.
I'm all anti-walmart and pro-reform for copyright/patent/trademark.
(And you really need to check this saga out, which contains a lot of evidence about law and precedents.
I seem to remember one criteria being whether averageconsumers would mistake the site for the legitimate walmart site. The screenshots on the PDF certainly give the impression that a person who is not looking too closely might easily make the mistake. The problem was that the parody was too subtle.
That doesn't get walmart off the hook though.
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
Vandalism! [url]http://www.walmartfoundation.org/url%5D Not that I think a large influx of people on a humble site is vandalism though. :)
Support Liberty, Support Ron Paul
This is yet another example of the DMCA being abused to silence legitimate free speech. If any more evidence was needed concerning the unintended consequences of this legislation then surely this most recent incident fits the bill. The DMCA has utterly failed in its intended effects, prevention of wholesale copyright infringement in the digital age, and it has manifested many negative side effects. The copyright infringement which is currently taking place on the file sharing networks is nothing that could not be prosecuted under pre-DMCA copyright law and any notion that hackers in Russia, China, and elsewhere give a damn about what US laws say about circumvention devices, or anything else for that matter, is living in la-la-land. Meanwhile the DMCA has been used to muzzle free expression, stifle innovation, intimidate researchers, negate fair use, impede competition, and browbeat technology companies. The DMCA has done nothing to advance the progress of useful arts and sciences in this country while causing tremendous collateral damage to free speech. The other problem with laws such as the DMCA, which is rarely mentioned, is that unjust, poorly written, and unfair laws breed contempt, even among otherwise law abiding citizens, for all laws and that is dangerous because it strikes against the barrier that separates civilized society from utter chaos and anarchy. One can only hope that the DMCA will eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court, but until that day most people will continue to ignore the unjust provisions of this legislation in the same way that they ignored prohibition and every other law which makes criminals out of honest and hard-working everyday Americans.
It's the occasional comment like this that keeps me coming back to Slashdot and posting my little rants... :)
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
If I need a product, what choice do I have ?
Ahh, the hymn of the church of consumerism. Such a sweet sound. Addicted to "product" we all are, and our addiction makes companies like Walmart, Kmart, etc. rich indeed.
communities have banded together to prevent wal-mart stored from being built.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
according to Wierd Al, Coolio did not give permission, but they released it anyways. Coolio had a fit, but the law was quite clear.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
American Greetinf said it wasn't a parody. For financial reason, Penny Arcade choose not to fight it.
To be clear:
That was never tested in court.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Does anyone remember gwbush.com and whitehouse.org? Similar action was taken by our current administration afraid they would confuse voters.
"Wal-Mart ain't the only saving place." Best part of my trip--to hell.
If you're telekinetic raise my hand.
No, you're missing the point.
Fair use re: parody has nothing to do with being funny. In fact, "parody" is not explicitly defined as fair use (nowhere in US law does it say that "parody", i.e. something a reasonable person would call "parody", is inherently fair use just because it could be called "parody"). Parody is (historically, usually) considered fair use because it involves "commentary" and "criticism", which are explicitly defined as "fair use" in US copy right law (sect. 107 is posted several places in this thread).
Adding a cymbal crash to a song probably wouldn't be considered "commentary" or "criticism" by any judge or jury. Using a previous work's style and changing it's content in order to comment on/criticize the original work or the original work's author, as is (IMHO) clearly the case here, probably would be considered "commentary" and "criticism".
You know, I've taken many business classes and they have nothing but great things to say about Wal-mart and its successes. Not that this guys should be censored, by no means, it is people like this that keep businesses in check.
But Walmart and its "evil" practices are by no means worse than any other major retailers. By all the ways Wal-mart does in order to increase its bottom line, couldn't you say the same about K-mart, Meijer, and espesially Sears. Go ahead and throw Amazon.com in on the mix. All this guys arguements agaisnt Wal-mart hold true for many of em.
My professors have discussed advertising budgets, and the truth is, if you compare marketing dollars to marketing dollars, Walmart uses a third less on their budget than K-mart. And you thought all those commercials were a waste?
I think it really boils down to Unions. Every complaint I've ever heard against Wal-Mart has something underlying the fact that these unionized retailers can't. Now wether or not, they should unionize, I'll stay out of that, thank you very much. But come on, just come out with it, you hate Wal-mart cause they won't unionize!
When looking at parody as a defense against copyright infringement, there is no hard-and-fast rule. Each judge goes by their own individual imperitives (sense of humor or the absurd, headaches, whatever) in evaluating a parody "fair use" defense for copyright infringement. However, each case that I examined emphasized that the differences between the original and the parody had to be such that no actual confusion would exist. Additionally, most parody cases are ones where the parody looks similar, but does not contain actual copies of copyrighted material, unedited and unaltered.
This is not the case here.
Take a look at the PDF of thw parody, compared to the original (as part of the DMCA complaint, linked from the user's site). You will see that, unlike valid parodies, he copied directly, unaltered, the top graphic, bottom graphic, and side newsbar from the WalMart Foundation site. Only the two stories in the center of the page were different.
A direct copy is, indeed, de jure and de facto copyright infringement. If he had created parodies of these major page elements as well, Wal-Mart would (IMO) have no valid legal reason to complain. However, with the direct copy of more than 50% of the visible page? Personally, I think that's too much.
This is supported by this article at Publaw on parody and fair use. Specifically, part three of the Fair Use analysis, states:
The third factor analyzes the amount and substantiality of the copying in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. The crucial determination is whether the quality and value of the material copied from the original copyrighted work is "reasonable" in relation to the purpose of copying. Regretfully, there is no black and white rule that sets forth an absolute ratio or quantity of words that may be used of the original work that would ensure a finding of fair use. Instead there have been circumstances where a court has found that the use of an entire work was fair use while under different circumstances the use of a small fraction of a work failed to qualify as a fair use. This factor not only evaluates the quantity that has been copied but also the quality and importance of the copied material. The courts when analyzing this factor evaluate whether the user of the original copyrighted material has taken any more of the original work than was necessary to achieve the purpose for which the material was copied from the original work.
I think that this student just made a mistake, but that mistake caused the creation of copyright infringement, rather than a valid parody. But that's just My Humble Opinion, and what do I know?
We are the Music Makers, and We are the Dreamers of Dreams...
Are you saying the average person will spend $10 on something they could spend $7 on once they're making some arbitrary income?
I don't think thats even remotely the case. In fact, the whole idea is rediculous.
People want to pay less because you can buy more with the money you have, people don't want to pay less because they're making less.
Next time you get a 10% raise, be nice to all the stores you shop at and offer to pay them 10% over their stickered price... after all you're making more money, you should be happy paying more.
Toys-R-Us's issues are an excellent example of Walmart's predatory practices. Walmart told major toy manufacturers that if they wanted their products on Walmart shelves, they'd have to make it very hard for Toys-R-Us to get product from them.
I find it shocking that the author of the site didn't even edit his home address out of the cease and desist order. Anyone up for a road trip?
Exactly. Walmart's prices are not lower than competing stores in an ever-increasing number of cases. Walmart really can't get any additional market share (everyone shops there) so one of their few options for revenue growth is to increase prices.
Nope. Prior to the DMCA was the Netcom case, which protected sites as well as the DMCA, but without the horrendous takedown requirements.
Even before Netcom, hosting providers didn't pre-screen their customer's content, so it would have been put up anyway.
No.
Looks good for your age..
Another factor is the amount of the work used:
3 - The amount and importance of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
Fair use does not allow one to completely copy a Web site images and HTML, nor does non-profit or parody use completely exempt one from infringement liabilty.
Man, you open-source fanatics really think people don't have any rights in their IP. Fortunately, the US Constitution and US Copyright law disagree.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The CPI formula has been "recalculated" a number of times. Usually to make the figures reflect a rosier picture for those in power.
1 21500pv.html
I only put the basic idea in the post. I figured it was just a starting point.
Regarding the current price of housing, we are talking a difference of 31 years, so even a modest underestimation in inflation each year over the past 31 years, compounded, would lead to a great difference in price. I would say that some of the difference is due to appreciation, however I think much more is due to the understated inflation rate.
Finally, even assuming the CPI is correct, I think it is reprehensible that we take a 4% loss of value per year for granted. It pretty much assures that you lose money if you attempt to save.
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_00/blanchard
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Soviet? No, They're just incredibly EVIL.
"Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
Homer and Grandpa worked at "SPRAWL-MART" in an episode and the sign looked pretty close to "WAL-MART" so I guess FOX is next to be sued.
Hey maybe we can mash up the Longhorn screens and then we can legally put them up as a paroday.
Let's start by cutting off the "Shut down.." label on the start menu....oh wait...
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
That dude was about as censored as this posting is.
WAL-FART SUXORS.
Ok, now, when I get a nasty letter from a Wal-Smart lawyer saying I Suxors.. that's not censorship.
There are only two agents capable of censoring him: his government and himself. But not his retailer.
The lawyer is merely spewing vitriol.. suprise, surprise, that's what lawyers make a living at.
But this art student.. he actually managed to censor himself here.
He should have just posted the threat, and left a big message like:
"Wal-Wart is sooo stoopid they threatened legal action. But they know they've got a chance in hell... hence this message."
See, now that would have been classy. But instead, he's just a poster-child for the weak and self-defeating. Which is still cooler than being a poster-child for an aggressive faceless monopoly like the loser lawyer who got off on writing that letter up. But still.
Incorrect on almost every point - you were right that no one has actually been sued (at least not yet).
The site has a link to the letter WalMart sent. It was not a Cease and Decist letter, it was a DMCA takedown notice. It was sent to the ISP to yank the site off the net. There was absolutely no mention of Trademark that I saw, and even if there were it still would not be trademark infringment to use a trademark in a parody. WalMart will be lucky if they don't get smacked down with a countersuit, this was a flagrant abuse of DMCA takedown proceedures.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Well, to me the issue here is the pictures themselves, not the text.
The legal issue is the work, which would be the website as a whole.
violating WalMarts trademark
Using a trademark in a parody is not trademark infringment. Heck, you used WalMart's trademark (WalMart) in your own post. That was not trademark infringment. Perhaps an over simplification, but trademark infringment is when decieve people that you *are* the trademark holder. If the site is copyright fair use on parody grounds then almost by definition you'll pass any trademark test, trademark infringment primarily rests on likelyhood of confusion in the public which parody already addressed.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
That is not parody, it the truth. The parody was on the wallmart site.
That's the very nature of the best parody: To state the truth and make the original parody itself.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I see all this arguing going back and forth about whether what Wal-Mart is doing is legal or not. As if the legality of this issue means anything to you as an individual. People have taken action in the past regardless of whether what they were protesting was currently legal (remember segregation?). If you do not like what Wal-Mart is doing, stop shopping there. Use the golden rule.Stop giving them YOUR money to enable Wal-Mart to do things that you do not like. And stop finding excuses to go there and buy more crap than you really do not need in the name of convenience for you. Take a week away from Wal-Mart and encourage others to do the same, thats your strongest power as an individual.
Not to mention that if artists showed even a moderate opposition to the bill it would probably fail. Nobody has much reason to like the record and film industries.
"Fair is foul, and foul is fair: / Hover through the fog and filthy air" (Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 1, By William Shakespeare.)
(I'm quite convinced I may quote that here. AFAIK as of now it is in the public domain. Slashdot operators: if copyrights are retroactively lengthened to say 500 years after the authors death, please temporarily remove this post until such time as it is once more in the public domain... However, even if it is in the public domain, I might still not be allowed to post it here, because I have used a functionality built into my (actually M$'s) OS specifically to infringe on copyrights, by simultaneously pressing both the ctrl key and the c key, and then simultaneously pressing both the ctrl key and the v key. I guess it is the same copyright infringing technology that was used by the guy who made the Walmart parody. It might be fair use to use the stuff for parody, but the DMCA specifically states that you cannot do it by using technology that might also be used to infringe on copyright! BTW, have you ever realized that you can do the public a favor by shortening the lives of authors? It would also shorten the term of the copyright on their works!)
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Or does the religion of open source not believe that the U.S. Constitution is an authority on U.S. law?
And for those multinationals out there, the U.N. and most countries have passed IP laws and resolutions.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Fair use is a defense to copyright. A defense is a condition precedent, meaning the burden is on the alleged infringer to prove he is entitled to the defense. The defense requires that all the 4 factors be used. Almost never will a 100% use be deemed fair use.
The law to which you reffer really only says one single thing with binding legal effect, and that is: the fair use of a copyrighted work [] is not an infringement of copyright.
No, the law I refer to is extensive, well-settled case law. The U.S. legal system relies on interpretations of statutes by courts, which are just as binding as statutes are, and SCOTUS cases are clear. All four factors must be used (shall means must, BTW).
That law, secotion 107, really doesn't impose any other restrictions or limitations.
Again, court interpretations are clear. The U.S. Code is not the only authority in U.S. law.
The part I clipped out of the middle was a nonbinding list of examples of Fair Use. The part at the end, the four listed factors, those are also actually nonbinding.
Nonsense. Bullshit. SCOTUS has ruled that they are, in fact binding. Did you not see the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music case in your cut-and-paste lawyering? The four factors test is well-settled law. Read the links you cite please.
They are merely a list of four factors which shall be considered. The courts are free to consider other factors as well, and routinely do so. For example they often also consider whether a use is "transformative".
And the essence of transformative is whether there is artistic change, or literal reproduction of the material. By cutting and pasting copyrighted images, that is not transformative. Add something to the images with Photoshop, maybe. But using all of Wal Mart's images with no change other than smart assed comments on other parts of the Web page is not transformative.
I suggest you study the constitution and copyright law, and most specifically the important Supreme Court cases on the subject. I can provide you with links to Supreme Court cases if you actually intend to read them. Cases where the Supreme Court explains there there is no inherent right to have a copyright, that the copyright holder only has the rights explicitly granted to him,
IAAL and I don't need your suggestions on legal education (perhaps you might want to extend your legal education beyond Wikipedia and wishful thinking).
Regardless of whether copyright is an inherent or a granted right is irrelevant. Copyright is a protected right under the law, and the Constitution requires the Congress to create such rights in Article 1, Section 8.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Um, no, it does not have to do with waste but with individual interest (short term) being in conflict with the common good (long term). Most often in the abuse of resources. The tragedy of the commons tells us that "when individuals use a public good, they do not bear the entire cost of their actions. If each seeks to maximize individual utility, he ignores the costs borne by others." The economy in general (your small-town's local economy) is public property. Essentially what I was saying is that we shop at WalMart because we do not weigh the entire cost to us and others in the long term when we do so. We do not take care of the economy (public property) because it belongs to everyone so it is someone else's problem.
Full-Featured GPL Web Hosting Control Panel